Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Necrosis on August 04, 2014, 09:12:46 AM
-
Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324
Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.
it may have to due with ideology.
-
lol
-
(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/rss.jpg)
http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/rss.jpg
Why do red states do worse on almost all measures?
-
Lmfao again the argument that correlation equals causation.
-
Why not do one in terms of which party controls congress, the Senate, divided govt, etc?
-
Lmfao again the argument that correlation equals causation.
You don't know what stats are do you. How is somethign a correlation if they did a regression analysis and thus checked each ind variable with an alpha level of .05.
listen even causal statistics are not true causations. causation is a correlation that has met an arbitrary alpha level, thus chance is so unlikely it is accepted as causal. However, if we take your argument to it's absurd conclusion, no such thing as causation exists. Also, you seem to think correlations don\'t have merit, they do, huge in fact. The statement correlation does not equal causation is being mis used here by you. Correlations vary in strength and when you control for nusance variables you can get a pretty accurate depiction of things.
-
Why not do one in terms of which party controls congress, the Senate, divided govt, etc?
Not sure how intense the stats would be, hence why they simplified it, however, the data is there, how you interpret it is up to you.
-
Lmfao again the argument that correlation equals causation.
but it sure does seem to apply the other way when convenient.
-
but it sure does seem to apply the other way when convenient.
How about the fact that EVERY toilet screams bloody murder when MOBACCA comes near?
In that cause it directly applies no? :D
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/homeownership-rate-americans-under-35-peaked-2004
;)
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/homeownership-rate-americans-under-35-peaked-2004
;)
Again this doesn't discount the above.
It's a fact, the red states are in worse economic positions then the blue states on avg. Why is this? I am unsure, however, I think the high concentration of hicks in the south is probably the main reason. I would also argue that religiouness is another correlate that adds to the picture.
-
;D
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
.Home » News
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
August 4, 2014 - 4:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Terry Jeffrey
Subscribe to Terry Jeffrey RSSShare on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing Services1.3KShare on printShare on email
(CNSNews.com) - The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.
That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.
The total federal debt first passed the $7-trillion mark on Jan. 15, 2004, after President George W. Bush had been in office almost three years.
(http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large/images/federal-debt_0.jpg)
-
Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324
Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.
it may have to due with ideology.
LOL...coming from the party that can't even balance a checkbook or can't figure out that if you spend more than you take in it leads to debt......and believes global warming is real..lol.
-
LOL...coming from the party that can't even balance a checkbook or can't figure out that if you spend more than you take in it leads to debt......and believes global warming is real..lol.
Says the opposing party that believes the birth certificate is fake and scientific evidence exists of prayer working.
-
Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324
Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.
it may have to due with ideology.
Did you read the rest of the article? I clicked the link and it says you have to pay?
-
Friendly constructive criticism for the OP:
You really, really suck at understanding money, economics, investing, markets, etc & should stick to medicine.
How's that debt to GDP doing these days?
-
Says the opposing party that believes the birth certificate is fake and scientific evidence exists of prayer working.
Another brilliant retort by our resident clown.
-
Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324
Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.
The paper attributes the correlation to factors that can be considered good luck rather than sound economic policy on the part of Democratic presidents: it isn't attributable to the fiscal or monetary policies that prevail in their administrations, and it is attributable to things like how benign oil shocks happened to be at the time, something presidents clearly have no control over. So I don't see how ideology is relevant to this data.
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
.Home » News
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
August 4, 2014 - 4:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Terry Jeffrey
Subscribe to Terry Jeffrey RSSShare on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing Services1.3KShare on printShare on email
(CNSNews.com) - The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.
That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.
The total federal debt first passed the $7-trillion mark on Jan. 15, 2004, after President George W. Bush had been in office almost three years.
(http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large/images/federal-debt_0.jpg)
this chart would have looked even worse if McCain or Romney had won because they would have cut taxes and probably increased military spending (shit - McCain would have started WW3 by now)
-
this chart would have looked even worse if McCain or Romney had won because they would have cut taxes and probably increased military spending (shit - McCain would have started WW3 by now)
You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.
As for increasing military budget....first role of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.
-
You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.
As for increasing military budget....first roll of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.
That's enough from you.
All that spending has caused the US to be super secure right?
-
You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.
As for increasing military budget....first roll of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.
Ronnie saved the lives of Marines in Lebanon, Clinton got a BJ, and Yes, Bush did real well protecting us from Planes and OB failed to get Osama.
Meanwhile 70-year olds can now hide bombs from the TSA in their shoes. Has any Arab got TSA Precheck on their ticket yet?
-
Ronnie saved the lives of Marines in Lebanon, Clinton got a BJ, and Yes, Bush did real well protecting us from Planes and OB failed to get Osama.
Meanwhile 70-year olds can now hide bombs from the TSA in their shoes. Has any Arab got TSA Precheck on their ticket yet?
Absolutely love this. Has saved me a ton of time.
-
LOL...coming from the party that can't even balance a checkbook or can't figure out that if you spend more than you take in it leads to debt......and believes global warming is real..lol.
Are you saying historically, Dem presidents have borrowed like crazy, and Repubs have balanced the budget?
-
Another brilliant retort by our resident clown.
Another failing deflection by our resident idiot.
-
Absolutely love this. Has saved me a ton of time.
Yeah me too. But when you factor in the 70 year old rule it supports the "illusion of safety" argument.
-
Are you saying historically, Dem presidents have borrowed like crazy, and Repubs have balanced the budget?
Republicans always spend less. Look at what Bush did at the end of his term vs what OB did at the beginning of his.
-
TSA precheck was best $200 I ever spent.
-
You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.
As for increasing military budget....first roll of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.
I'm just going to copy your posts rather than pretending that you're anything other than a borderline retard
Lmao..okay ::)
Hahaha. Ok
Jesus you're an idiot
plenty more where those came from
-
Republicans always spend less. Look at what Bush did at the end of his term vs what OB did at the beginning of his.
this is sarcasm.....right?
next you're going to tell me that the size of government always shrinks under a Republican administration and grows under a Democratic Administration
-
Yeah me too. But when you factor in the 70 year old rule it supports the "illusion of safety" argument.
I thought searching grandma and grandpa was silly until a TSA employee talked to me about how they can be used as innocent couriers. There is a name for it. I forget what it is.
I agree we're not safe. There are so many ways people can cause harm.
-
....first roll of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.
Speaking of things that are hard to grasp, maybe you could pick up a 4th grade spelling and vocab book and study the difference between "roll" and "role".
Fer fuck's sake there is something so freakin' pitiful about a grown-ass man whose 1st language is English calling folks stupid while making writing mistakes a bright 2nd grader wouldn't make.
Shit, Coach, if your English language proficiency doesn't improve, I think you're in danger of being deported.
-
You don't know what stats are do you. How is somethign a correlation if they did a regression analysis and thus checked each ind variable with an alpha level of .05.
listen even causal statistics are not true causations. causation is a correlation that has met an arbitrary alpha level, thus chance is so unlikely it is accepted as causal. However, if we take your argument to it's absurd conclusion, no such thing as causation exists. Also, you seem to think correlations don\'t have merit, they do, huge in fact. The statement correlation does not equal causation is being mis used here by you. Correlations vary in strength and when you control for nusance variables you can get a pretty accurate depiction of things.
are you The Luke?
hahah "it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future."
so it has nothing to do with dems or reps themselves....so no causation.....
-
I'm just going to copy your posts rather than pretending that you're anything other than a borderline retard
plenty more where those came from
Feel free to explain how raising taxes benefits the economy especially when small businesses are hit with tax increases. Also feel free to explain that how one of the first priorities of a president isn't to protect the country.
-
Speaking of things that are hard to grasp, maybe you could pick up a 4th grade spelling and vocab book and study the difference between "roll" and "role".
Fer fuck's sake there is something so freakin' pitiful about a grown-ass man whose 1st language is English calling folks stupid while making writing mistakes a bright 2nd grader wouldn't make.
Shit, Coach, if your English language proficiency doesn't improve, I think you're in danger of being deported.
If you can't answer the question just say so.
-
this is sarcasm.....right?
next you're going to tell me that the size of government always shrinks under a Republican administration and grows under a Democratic Administration
Always ;D
-
Feel free to explain how raising taxes benefits the economy especially when small businesses are hit with tax increases. Also feel free to explain that how one of the first priorities of a president isn't to protect the country.
Here are two actual examples
Don't respond back until you actually read the article (or have someone read it to you)
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24788-focus-how-kansas-and-california-debunked-the-gops-tax-cuts-argument
Then you can go back to the "Liberal Liar" thread and try to refute my statements about Fluke
That's if you want me to actually take you seriously and not just base my opinion of you on the roughly 7 years of reading your blithering nonsense. If that's the case then just carry on and stop asking me questions when you don't really want to know the answer and just prefer to live in your right wing bubble
Lmao..okay ::)
Can you refute Strawman's statement?
-
Feel free to explain how raising taxes benefits the economy especially when small businesses are hit with tax increases. Also feel free to explain that how one of the first priorities of a president isn't to protect the country.
Also, watch for obama's OTHER way of raising taxes on small businesses - cutting tax shelters, deductions, and other breaks. It's not a tax "hike" on small businesses, but it does result in 'de facto' higher taxes. it's the old Reagan trick - he can brag "I lowered taxes on small businesses!" by 5% but raised what they're paying by 10% by taking away shelters.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
-
Here are two actual examples
Don't respond back until you actually read the article (or have someone read it to you)
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24788-focus-how-kansas-and-california-debunked-the-gops-tax-cuts-argument
Then you can go back to the "Liberal Liar" thread and try to refute my statements about Fluke
That's if you want me to actually take you seriously and not just base my opinion of you on the roughly 7 years of reading your blithering nonsense. If that's the case then just carry on and stop asking me questions when you don't really want to know the answer and just prefer to live in your right wing bubble
I suppose we can all find articles to fit our cause. I could probably find 20 more similar to this. So, in your words tell me how raising taxes in this country, again, especially to small businesses. As for California, NY and most other liberal ran states, corporations are either looking to get out or flat out leaving because they're getting killed.
http://m1.marketwatch.com/articles/BL-235B-1476?mobile=y&mobile=y
-
Also, watch for obama's OTHER way of raising taxes on small businesses - cutting tax shelters, deductions, and other breaks. It's not a tax "hike" on small businesses, but it does result in 'de facto' higher taxes. it's the old Reagan trick - he can brag "I lowered taxes on small businesses!" by 5% but raised what they're paying by 10% by taking away shelters.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
I like how you throw in your barbs against the right while pretending to hate on Obama.
-
I like how you throw in your barbs against the right while pretending to hate on Obama.
it's important that we realize it's not a "Dem vs GOP" when it comes to economics.
NEITHER of their policies help most Americans economically. It's good we see that for all the bragging there is on "Reagan's policies are the answer", he did things pretty similar to obama.
Get a Ted Cruz in office - Watch that change.
-
it's important that we realize it's not a "Dem vs GOP" when it comes to economics.
NEITHER of their policies help most Americans economically. It's good we see that for all the bragging there is on "Reagan's policies are the answer", he did things pretty similar to obama.
Get a Ted Cruz in office - Watch that change.
Cruz, Romney, Dr. Carson or Allen West would all be fine candidates. So far the left have Clinton who is one of Obama's contributor to his problems.
-
Cruz, Romney, Dr. Carson or Allen West would all be fine candidates. So far the left have Clinton who is one of Obama's contributor to his problems.
Romney? He radically changed his position on taxes DURING the year he ran from president. First, he said no change was needed. Then, when polls changed, suddenly he supported tax breaks. You don't have to believe me - The Economist broke down all the positions Romney took, the way he dodged, his liberal economic policies as governor.
http://www.economist.com/node/21560864
Cruz, West, Carson, YES. Romney, come on... he changed positions too many time. He'd be Obama Lite as president.
-
Romney? He radically changed his position on taxes DURING the year he ran from president. First, he said no change was needed. Then, when polls changed, suddenly he supported tax breaks. You don't have to believe me - The Economist broke down all the positions Romney took, the way he dodged, his liberal economic policies as governor.
http://www.economist.com/node/21560864
Cruz, West, Carson, YES. Romney, come on... he changed positions too many time. He'd be Obama Lite as president.
Everything he stated about Obama and the outcome of his positions were DEAD on.
-
Everything he stated about Obama and the outcome of his positions were DEAD on.
youre changing the subject. we agree on that. But Romney stated a lot of other things that were lib too.
do we also agree romney's economic positions were all over the map, in the same year, thus we can't trust him on cutting insane spending and taxing?
The other 3, yes, they haven't shown inconsistency.
-
are you The Luke?
hahah "it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future."
so it has nothing to do with dems or reps themselves....so no causation.....
Your first conclusion is correct, your second you went off the rails. The independent variable can be any measure, like ideology and economic climate while in office. Soul Crusher basically rebutted the article. To really see if the differences exist you would have to dissect each power structure in politics and measure it's effect, if possible.
-
Republicans always spend less. Look at what Bush did at the end of his term vs what OB did at the beginning of his.
I guess wars are free? Who would have thought.
-
I'm just going to copy your posts rather than pretending that you're anything other than a borderline retard
plenty more where those came from
Coach owns himself.
Im surprised he keeps going.
-
Coach owns himself.
Im surprised he keeps going.
Feel free to answer the question.
-
I suppose we can all find articles to fit our cause. I could probably find 20 more similar to this. So, in your words tell me how raising taxes in this country, again, especially to small businesses. As for California, NY and most other liberal ran states, corporations are either looking to get out or flat out leaving because they're getting killed.
http://m1.marketwatch.com/articles/BL-235B-1476?mobile=y&mobile=y
Hey Dopey,
I told you to first read the article I posted which gave 2 specific examples at the state level which was a direct response to your question "how raising taxes benefits the economy" which showed the negative effects on tax cuts in Kansas and the positive effects of tax increases in CA. You clearly didn't bother to read the article or you would have addressed it or at least provided a valid counter argument.
you respond with an article about Prop 13 and how the expansion of pension and other benefits are unsustainable for municipalities (something I happen to agree with).
Since you didn't bother to read the article you posted you obviously missed this line in your article:
"More recently, California has seen some short-term success in stabilizing its finances through spending restraint and a voter-approved tax increase"
I also told you to actually try to refute my statement about Fluke rather than one of your usual responses such as
Lmao..okay ::)
Hahaha. Ok
Jesus you're an idiot
Joe, I do understand that those responses are all you can do when confronted with facts which force you to consider that your current beliefs are not only false but also moronic.
How about this as a compromise. I will go back to treating you like the moron which we all know you to be and you go back to listening to Rush 4 hours a day and pretending to be a "legitimate coach"
-
Feel free to answer the question.
here are 3 answers for you
I'm sure you will find them to be more than adequate
Lmao..okay ::)
Hahaha. Ok
Jesus you're an idiot
-
here are 3 answers for you
I'm sure you will find them to be more than adequate
Don't forget... "You just don't get it do you?"
-
Don't forget... "You just don't get it do you?"
Yep, that's one of the classics, especially for the unintended irony
-
Hey Dopey,
I told you to first read the article I posted which gave 2 specific examples at the state level which was a direct response to your question "how raising taxes benefits the economy" which showed the negative effects on tax cuts in Kansas and the positive effects of tax increases in CA. You clearly didn't bother to read the article or you would have addressed it or at least provided a valid counter argument.
you respond with an article about Prop 13 and how the expansion of pension and other benefits are unsustainable for municipalities (something I happen to agree with).
Since you didn't bother to read the article you posted you obviously missed this line in your article:
"More recently, California has seen some short-term success in stabilizing its finances through spending restraint and a voter-approved tax increase"
I also told you to actually try to refute my statement about Fluke rather than one of your usual responses such as
Joe, I do understand that those responses are all you can do when confronted with facts which force you to consider that your current beliefs are not only false but also moronic.
How about this as a compromise. I will go back to treating you like the moron which we all know you to be and you go back to listening to Rush 4 hours a day and pretending to be a "legitimate coach"
Oh, I absolutely read then I retorted with an article showing why it's somewhat of a fallacy to think that California is doing great. Now, Mr. finance major with a degree, either answer my fucking question or I'll just assume you can't and let you decide whether you want to sue the institution where you go that degree from. This is retarded.
-
here are 3 answers for you
I'm sure you will find them to be more than adequate
We'll just leave it at you can't answer the question.
-
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/taxmageddon-massive-tax-increase-coming-in-2013
-
Oh, I absolutely read then I retorted with an article showing why it's somewhat of a fallacy to think that California is doing great. Now, Mr. finance major with a degree, either answer my fucking question or I'll just assume you can't and let you decide whether you want to sue the institution where you go that degree from. This is retarded.
Again Dopey, your question was "how raising taxes benefits the economy"
I showed you proof of how raising taxes helped California (something the article you posted also stated) and conversely how lowering taxes harmed the economy of Kansas
I never said California is "doing great" though it's definitely doing a lot better than it was a few years ago (ignoring the drought of course)
Why is it you can't even pay attention long enough to remember the very question that you asked.
Now Mr Pretend "Coach" go try to refute the simple facts in my statement about Fluke
-
We'll just leave it at you can't answer the question.
what's wrong with these asnwers
are you saying this is what you do when you can't answer a question or refute a point?
Lmao..okay ::)
Hahaha. Ok
Jesus you're an idiot
-
Again Dopey, your question was "how raising taxes benefits the economy"
I showed you proof of how raising taxes helped California (something the article you posted also stated) and conversely how lowering taxes harmed the economy of Kansas
I never said California is "doing great" though it's definitely doing a lot better than it was a few years ago (ignoring the drought of course)
Why is it you can't even pay attention long enough to remember the very question that you asked.
Now Mr Pretend "Coach" go try to refute the simple facts in my statement about Fluke
Yes, California is doing better. But YOU didn't answer the question. It's a fact that small business is the biggest contributor to an economy. When you hit small business with tax increases and cuts into profit that usually means the cost of goods and services will increase which eventually leads to a decrease consumer buying. If consumer buying decreases how does that business not stay open? If you know anything about business you know the repercussions of that, or do you???
-
Yes, California is doing better. But YOU didn't answer the question. It's a fact that small business is the biggest contributor to an economy. When you hit small business with tax increases and cuts into profit that usually means the cost of goods and services will increase which eventually leads to a decrease consumer buying. If consumer buying decreases how does that business not stay open? If you know anything about business you know the repercussions of that, or do you???
so why did the economy of CA improve after having a tax increase while the economy of Kansas tanked when they cut taxes
do you think CA small business were harmed while the rest of the economy improved
did small business in Kansas thrive while the rest of the economy tanked?
again, back to my original response to your question
-
Let me just add. Raising taxes is ALWAYS a temporary fix, a band aid. In the long run it takes it's toll. You CANNOT create long term economic growth by gouging small businesses and consumers (yes, they get hit hard as well).
BTW, as for the prop 18. It all ties in. One other prop I want to bring up is prop 13 (1978 look it up, I'm in no mood to explain it) but there has been rumors about Brown repealing it to create more revenue. If this clown does this, it's going to displace people on fixed incomes (mostly elderly) who cannot afford to pay those kind of property taxes and eventually losing their property. It's bullshit.
-
Yes, California is doing better. But YOU didn't answer the question. It's a fact that small business is the biggest contributor to an economy. When you hit small business with tax increases and cuts into profit that usually means the cost of goods and services will increase which eventually leads to a decrease consumer buying. If consumer buying decreases how does that business not stay open? If you know anything about business you know the repercussions of that, or do you???
Correct. Business always passes along increased costs of doing business to consumers.
-
Correct. Business always passes along increased costs of doing business to consumers.
No they don't
But you always say they do
That never changes
-
Let me just add. Raising taxes is ALWAYS a temporary fix, a band aid. In the long run it takes it's toll. You CANNOT create long term economic growth by gouging small businesses and consumers (yes, they get hit hard as well).
BTW, as for the prop 18. It all ties in. One other prop I want to bring up is prop 13 (1978 look it up, I'm in no mood to explain it) but there has been rumors about Brown repealing it to create more revenue. If this clown does this, it's going to displace people on fixed incomes (mostly elderly) who cannot afford to pay those kind of property taxes and eventually losing their property. It's bullshit.
Good points. And what inevitably happens is pork barrel spending, mismanagement, debt, deficits, etc.
-
Good points. And what inevitably happens is pork barrel spending, mismanagement, debt, deficits, etc.
yeah, too bad that reality doesn't support anything that Joe wrote
-
yeah, too bad that reality doesn't support anything that Joe wrote
HAHAHA. You lost me at "reality". As if it penetrates the fog that surrounds the Isle of Lala Land.
-
HAHAHA. You lost me at "reality". As if it penetrates the fog that surrounds the Isle of Lala Land.
Look mother fu#$ker, if you can't some how constructively contribute to this thread then get the fuck out. You've proven you can't defend any issue in any thread. How about you making an attempt to answer the questions.
-
Look mother fu#$ker, if you can't some how constructively contribute to this thread then get the fuck out. You've proven you can't defend any issue in any thread. How about you making an attempt to answer the questions.
Yes Lurker. Take a lesson from our illegitimate Coach on how to constructively contribute to a thread
Lmao..okay ::)
Hahaha. Ok
Jesus you're an idiot
-
Look mother fu#$ker, if you can't some how constructively contribute to this thread then get the fuck out. You've proven you can't defend any issue in any thread. How about you making an attempt to answer the questions.
Good luck with that. I don't think he's interested in anything other than calling you and Soul Crusher names.
-
Politics
Have You Taken Your Obama Loyalty Oath?
Or do you hate America?
David Harsanyi
By David Harsanyi
August 5, 2014
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
Follow Us on Twitter
Like Us on Facebook
Hangout with us
Jonathan Alter at the Daily Beast has an idea that will infuse the president’s “economic patriotism” rhetoric with some bite: Compel companies to take “loyalty oaths” to prove their patriotism.
You may find this suggestion a little creepy, maybe even a little fascistic; but Alter says that “it’s time for red-blooded Americans to take matters into our own hands.”
And by taking the matter into “our” hands, Alter means that President Obama would unilaterally bar any company that practices “inversion” – corporate merging with foreign firms to save on U.S. tax bills – from doing business with the federal government. Companies that follow the administration requirements will earn a government seal of approval. If you act “un-American” and fail to recognize your “real interests” and those of the United States – which are, naturally, indistinguishable from the president’s agenda – you will be shunned and your business punished.
You will be powerless to stop it.
That’s because efforts to stop desertion aren’t populist or socialist but nationalist, a much more powerful force in American politics. Unbridled nationalism is a menace; it leads to trade wars and, all too often, real wars. But properly channeled, nationalism and patriotism are matters of the heart that cut to our deepest ideas of who we are.
Ah, properly channeled nationalism. You see, when you do it it’s just a bunch of dangerous jingoist rubbish. When we do it … America! And after five years of conflating patriotism and left-wing economic policy, you are expected to treat a completely legal tax designation as an attack on the homeland. Unless, of course, you’re a seditious weasel who’s betting against America.
Now, I suppose, a conservative might ask: Can we really trust politicians who offered legislation to limit free expression and religious freedom (as defined by the Supreme Court, which still decides these issues) to be arbiters of American patriotism? Or is it only the president who’s tasked with deciding who deserves special status? A liberal might ask, what happens when the next administration, one with different views on “nationalism,” begins divvying out golden stars? When the future GOP president punishes companies that aren’t helping fight the war on Iran, for instance, will that be cool, as well?
Now, we could lower corporate tax rates to be more competitive with the nations that are enticing companies to move elsewhere and avoid this sort of ugliness. There is some unanimity on the issue. But as Alter notes, this probably won’t work considering how many countries continue to cut corporate taxes or eliminated them altogether.
Clearly I’m not the rock-ribbed patriot Alter is, because I hope corporations continue to use inversion to avoid taxation until DC is forced to pass reform that completely eliminates corporate taxes that unnecessarily burden consumers. Multinational corporations do not exist to be tax collectors. Now, if a person was going to get into the economic patriotism game, he might point out that rent-seeking companies that subsist on government subsidies and use their political connections in Washington as a cudgel against competition, are engaged in something far more un-American. And you can imagine the unholy cronyism that’s likely to erupt once the executive branch begins deciding which companies deserved to be rewarded for their patriotism.
It’s worth remember that when Alter proposes that Obama discipline companies that have done nothing illegal or illegitimate, he’s simply taking Obama’s “economic patriotism” to its next logical step. He wants the administration to threaten the close “easy access to American markets” companies enjoy. And really, haven’t we all suffered enough with all this unhindered access to affordable goods, exotic merchandise and cool gadgets? Samsung. Honda. Toyota. Nestle. GlaxoSmithKline. Do you believe shoppers concern themselves with the fact that Food Lion is subsidiary of a Belgium company? I suspect that most Americans, in their everyday lives, don’t care where their favorite companies are situated, because intuitively they understand the benefits of trade.
In politics, we have a different story. Voters are susceptible to crass nationalistic – in this case, isolationist – economic appeals. So here we are. In a world where so-called centrists demand loyalty oaths.
This week, Brookings Institution released a study that found American entrepreneurship was slowing – dying out, is probably a more accurate way to describe it. Considering what’s gone on, it’s not surprising that companies are looking for relief from convoluted regulatory schemes and high taxes. But this obsession over inversion – what The Joint Commission on Taxation estimates “costs” the IRS around $20 billion over a decade – is only a reflection of how frivolous and small the Democrats’ economic agenda has become.
As far as patriotism, it’s typically defined as a devotion to one’s country and a concern for its welfare. While people are free to argue that Tea Party types misunderstand or misappropriate the Constitution, at the very least they’ve hitched themselves to a patriotism that is tangentially related to some form of recognizable American idealism. If Alter is right, and our “deepest sense of who we are” really entails whining about tax receipts of multinational companies, then we’re probably in bigger trouble than I think.
Follow David Harsanyi on Twitter.
-
No they don't
But you always say they do
That never changes
Wait, what?????
-
Look mother fu#$ker, if you can't some how constructively contribute to this thread then get the fuck out. You've proven you can't defend any issue in any thread. How about you making an attempt to answer the questions.
I can't dumb the truth down low enough so that it can be spoon fed to an idiot like you.
But that is your problem, not mine.
-
Good luck with that. I don't think he's interested in anything other than calling you and Soul Crusher names.
It isn't an insult if it is the truth. ::)
-
I can't dumb the truth down low enough so that it can be spoon fed to an idiot like you.
But that is your problem, not mine.
You can't Answer the question you irritating little fuck. Admit it.
-
(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/rss.jpg)
http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/rss.jpg
Why do red states do worse on almost all measures?
Because they're dumber.
-
Because they're dumber.
I see you can't answer either.
-
No they don't
But you always say they do
That never changes
He is unaware of competition. We are robots who will pay whatever.
-
You can't Answer the question you irritating little fuck. Admit it.
I did.
I can't dumb the truth down low enough so that it can be spoon fed to an idiot like you.
But that is your problem, not mine.
x 2
"You just don't get it do you?"
-
I did.
x 2
"You just don't get it do you?"
Can't answer the question, can't balance a check book. Live on borrowed money.
-
Lurker, please take a lesson from our illegitimate Coach on how to properly respond to a post and how to constructively contribute to a thread
Jesus f'ng Christ - why are you so fucking stupid
she graduated from law school in 2012, passed the California bar in July 2012 and was admitted to the California bar in December 2012.
You can easily look all this stuff up.
You should try doing that sometime instead of regurgitating something you heard on Rush or read on some right wing site (or more likely had someone read it to you)
Also, she wasn't begging for public assistance for contraception. She was advocating for contraception to be included in a student health plan that I'm pretty sure was paid 100% by the students in the plan.
Lmao..okay ::)
Can you refute Strawman's statement?
Or rather, allow me Coach,
Hi Strawman, you just don't get it do you?
I hope that makes it more clear for you now
If you just follow our illegitimate Coach's example you'll be fine
-
He is unaware of competition. We are robots who will pay whatever.
Says the man living in a country full of socialism. What do you know about competition? Your government takes at least half of what you earn.
Any reasonably intelligent person who works in business--in the U.S.--understands what happens when government increases the cost of doing business. By and large, they don't shrink their profit margins. They simply increase the price of goods and services, reduce salaries and bonuses (or decrease salary increases), layoff employees, etc.
One example is our state general excise tax. It's a tax on all goods and services. Every business collects GET from consumers. When GET increases, the consumer pays the increase.
Another example is employers cutting work hours and laying off employees to compensate for Obamacare increasing the costs of healthcare for employers.
Coach is absolutely right about this.
-
Says the man living in a country full of socialism. What do you know about competition? Your government takes at least half of what you earn.
Any reasonably intelligent person who works in business--in the U.S.--understands what happens when government increases the cost of doing business. By and large, they don't shrink their profit margins. They simply increase the price of goods and services, reduce salaries and bonuses (or decrease salary increases), layoff employees, etc.
One example is our state general excise tax. It's a tax on all goods and services. Every business collects GET from consumers. When GET increases, the consumer pays the increase.
Another example is employers cutting work hours and laying off employees to compensate for Obamacare increasing the costs of healthcare for employers.
Coach is absolutely right about this.
yes everyone knows that businesses in socialist countries don't have to deal with competitors or even with the fact that raising prices may reduces the number of sales or overall sales volume
par for the course on GB.com
-
yes everyone knows that businesses in socialist countries don't have to deal with competitors or even with the fact that raising prices may reduces the number of sales or overall sales volume
par for the course on GB.com
Funny, you all but denied that in a previous post now you're being sarcastic about it which really sound like you're admitting I was right. Make up your mind, Barry.
-
Funny, you all but denied that in a previous post now you're being sarcastic about it which really sound like you're admitting I was right. Make up your mind, Barry.
it means they CAN'T always pass along the cost increase (tax increase or whatever other cost) to the consumer because they will have to deal with a competitor who won't pass it along or they will have to deal with a consumer who will refuse to pay the higher price
do you understand it now Coach?
-
It isn't an insult if it is the truth. ::)
Absurd. I doubt you talk to people like this in real life. You should try and engage people instead of spending 99 percent of your time on the board calling people names.
-
Absurd. I doubt you talk to people like this in real life. You should try and engage people instead of spending 99 percent of your time on the board calling people names.
I'm a realist. If they are idiots, they should at least be aware of it.
-
I'm a realist. If they are idiots, they should at least be aware of it.
If you can't coherently defend your positions with any grain of competence then you're not a realist, you're a tool.
-
I'm a realist. If they are idiots, they should at least be aware of it.
Actually you're a troll for the most part. As I've said before, I've seen you make good, smart posts, but you come on here every day (that I'm on here) and spend the bulk of your time calling people names.
You're not accomplishing anything. In one breath, you say they are too stupid to understand, in the next you say they need to hear it.
And what about the very personal comments about people's height and whatnot? What kind of intelligent adult does that every friggin day?? Just knock it off already.
-
If you can't coherently defend your positions with any grain of competence then you're not a realist, you're a tool.
says the illegitimate Coach who thinks these are example of a coherent defense of a position or even a constructive contribution to a thread
Lmao..okay ::)
Hahaha. Ok
Jesus you're an idiot
-
says the illegitimate Coach who thinks these are example of a coherent defense of a position or even a constructive contribution to a thread
Quiet dummy, you sound like a broken record not far from Lurker in your postings. Please tell me where I'm an "illegitimate" Coach or can't you answer that either?
-
I see you can't answer either.
I did answer. Red states have less education, more faith in sky fairies and nonsense that renders them incapable of rational thought.
I invite you to post about Texas' debt burden under Perry.
-
Quiet dummy, you sound like a broken record not far from Lurker in your postings. Please tell me where I'm an "illegitimate" Coach or can't you answer that either?
What's wrong Coach
You've yet to explain how your pathetic responses are deemed acceptable (by you) yet when others do the exact same thing you suddenly have a problem with them?
You're an illegitimate coach in the same way that you have many many times proclaimed Obama is an illegitimate president
-
Actually you're a troll for the most part. As I've said before, I've seen you make good, smart posts, but you come on here every day (that I'm on here) and spend the bulk of your time calling people names.
You're not accomplishing anything. In one breath, you say they are too stupid to understand, in the next you say they need to hear it.
And what about the very personal comments about people's height and whatnot? What kind of intelligent adult does that every friggin day?? Just knock it off already.
Not a troll, but that would be more appealing than a hypocrite like yourself.
Yes, they (you included) are quite stupid. Yes, they (you included) need to hear that they are stupid. Positive enforcement through a dose of reality can go a long way.
Instead of pointing out facts like midget stats, maybe I could do something else like, ummm... say talk about chooms or an imaginary divorce that is looming? Oh wait... I can't, that's just you being a hypocrite again suggesting that. ::)
-
Not a troll, but that would be more appealing than a hypocrite like yourself.
Yes, they (you included) are quite stupid. Yes, they (you included) need to hear that they are stupid. Positive enforcement through a dose of reality can go a long way.
Instead of pointing out facts like midget stats, maybe I could do something else like, ummm... say talk about chooms or an imaginary divorce that is looming? Oh wait... I can't, that's just you being a hypocrite again suggesting that. ::)
Dude I'm just going to start deleting your troll posts (again). If you have something positive to contribute, fine. But the constant name-calling is going to stop.
-
Dude I'm just going to start deleting your troll posts (again). If you have something positive to contribute, fine. But the constant name-calling is going to stop.
I don't give a shit what you start doing. I expect as a hypocrite you don't see the rest of the posts doing the exact same thing and just leave them. ::)
Jesus Christ can you be any dumber? Or at least more obvious with it?
-
I don't give a shit what you start doing. I expect as a hypocrite you don't see the rest of the posts doing the exact same thing and just leave them. ::)
Jesus Christ can you be any dumber? Or at least more obvious with it?
That's fine. But let me tell you how this is going to work. You're either going to stop acting like a petulant, classless adolescent calling people names every single day and make positive contributions, or you will not be posting here.
If you repost stuff I've deleted, I'll ask Ron to put you in timeout. If he doesn't want to, or is too busy, I'll just ban you myself.
Now, I understand you don't care, but that's how it's going to work. Have a nice day. :)
-
says the illegitimate Coach who thinks these are example of a coherent defense of a position or even a constructive contribution to a thread
Oh I promise you junior that I'm not even a more legit coach than Obama is a president. I'm also a more successful coach by 10fold compared to his career in government. He's failed in every position in government he's been including what he does now (whatever the fuck that is). Even when I get hired for coaching jobs I get vetted and finger printed. He'd a supposed "president" and he's never been vetted. Gee, I wonder why??
-
Oh I promise you junior that I'm not even a more legit coach than Obama is a president. I'm also a more successful coach by 10fold compared to his career in government. He's failed in every position in government he's been including what he does now (whatever the fuck that is). Even when I get hired for coaching jobs I get vetted and finger printed. He'd a supposed "president" and he's never been vetted. Gee, I wonder why??
settle down old man or you're going to blow out a blood vessel in that tiny tiny brain of yours
I do agree with you that you're not even a more legit coach that Obama is POTUS
that's what I've been saying all along
LOL @ Obama having never been vetted and being a two term POTUS (elected twice in LANDSLIDES) is nothing compared to be a semi-literate dwarf who teaches people how to flip over tires behind a storage shed.
The stuff you right wing loons tell yourself is truly hilarious
-
Semi-literate dwarf. That is some of your best work ever :D
-
Oh I promise you junior that I'm not even a more legit coach than Obama is a president. I'm also a more successful coach by 10fold compared to his career in government. He's failed in every position in government he's been including what he does now (whatever the fuck that is). Even when I get hired for coaching jobs I get vetted and finger printed. He'd a supposed "president" and he's never been vetted. Gee, I wonder why??
seriously...im convinced youre a Troll now...This was quite possibly the dumbest shit ive seen on the World wide web.
-
That's fine. But let me tell you how this is going to work. You're either going to stop acting like a petulant, classless adolescent calling people names every single day and make positive contributions, or you will not be posting here.
If you repost stuff I've deleted, I'll ask Ron to put you in timeout. If he doesn't want to, or is too busy, I'll just ban you myself.
Now, I understand you don't care, but that's how it's going to work. Have a nice day. :)
MELTDOWN.
Next you will be promising to throw me in the briar batch as well.
::)
Let me guess your next reply will be one showcasing your hypocrisy or your stupidity. Most likely both.
-
settle down old man or you're going to blow out a blood vessel in that tiny tiny brain of yours
I do agree with you that you're not even a more legit coach that Obama is POTUS
that's what I've been saying all along
LOL @ Obama having never been vetted and being a two term POTUS (elected twice in LANDSLIDES) is nothing compared to be a semi-literate dwarf who teaches people how to flip over tires behind a storage shed.
The stuff you right wing loons tell yourself is truly hilarious
Yeah , I caught the mistake but what you of all people know what I'm talking about. No, he was never properly vetted. You know, I know, he knows it the world knows it. And yes, my accomplishments as a coach surpasses his as a public servant. It's not even something to be argued but I'm sure someone will.
-
seriously...im convinced youre a Troll now...This was quite possibly the dumbest shit ive seen on the World wide web.
Don't be. He's failed as a community organizer, failed as a senator and failed as a president. When he left Chicago his district was destroyed as even more oppressed. Pretty well documented.
-
seriously...im convinced youre a Troll now...This was quite possibly the dumbest shit ive seen on the World wide web.
So tell me, what meaningful successes has he had? (God don't say Obamacare, even your boss thinks it's a disaster). Assuming you're still there. Let me also ask as a coach yourself, how many CIF and League championships have you won or been apart of? How many of your high school or College players have gone on to D1 and the pros? If so, in how many sports? We can start there .
-
MELTDOWN.
Next you will be promising to throw me in the briar batch as well.
::)
Let me guess your next reply will be one showcasing your hypocrisy or your stupidity. Most likely both.
Nah. I'm just going to impose something on you that you apparently cannot do yourself: a little self-control. :)
-
Yeah , I caught the mistake but what you of all people know what I'm talking about. No, he was never properly vetted. You know, I know, he knows it the world knows it. And yes, my accomplishments as a coach surpasses his as a public servant. It's not even something to be argued but I'm sure someone will.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that "not properly vetted" fantasy if it makes you feel better.
I mean Fox News did their best to warn us but no one wanted to listen in either 2008 or 2012
If you think having a tiny weight room in storage locker is comparable to being elected the leader of the free world twice then you need to find your Obamacare care and head to your closest hospital and have them check you out for a brain injury.
-
Yeah, keep telling yourself that "not properly vetted" fantasy if it makes you feel better.
I mean Fox News did their best to warn us but no one wanted to listen in either 2008 or 2012
If you think having a tiny weight room in storage locker is comparable to being elected the leader of the free world twice then you need to find your Obamacare care and head to your closest hospital and have them check you out for a brain injury.
Here's a compliment to most on this board. You are more than likely more of a success at your job than Obama ever was in his government life. You called me out for being an "illegitimate" coach and yes, I compared my success to his. You can probably say the same thing. As for my little storage closet, those that I've listed were aside from that.
-
Just because he was "elected" certainly doesn't mean he can do the job....clearly.
-
Here's a compliment to most on this board. You are more than likely more of a success at your job than Obama ever was in his government life. You called me out for being an "illegitimate" coach and yes, I compared my success to his. You can probably say the same thing. As for my little storage closet, those that I've listed were aside from that.
please stop posting and head to the nearest emergency room
I think you're having stroke
When you get to the emergency room explain to them that you truly believe that having a tiny weight room in a storage locker makes you more successful than the twice elected leader of the free world.
They will surely give you priority attention
-
Nah. I'm just going to impose something on you that you apparently cannot do yourself: a little self-control. :)
Poor baby. The only thing that isn't controlled is your hypocrisy.
Does that come from being a Repub or a Christian? From the level you are at, maybe both?
-
Semi-literate dwarf. That is some of your best work ever :D
Thanks
I try to add some levity now and then
-
Thanks
I try to add some levity now and then
Keeping it real!
-
please stop posting and head to the nearest emergency room
I think you're having stroke
When you get to the emergency room explain to them that you truly believe that having a tiny weight room in a storage locker makes you more successful than the twice elected leader of the free world.
They will surely give you priority attention
So you really think he's doing a good job and if you were an employer this performance would be acceptable?
-
please stop posting and head to the nearest emergency room
I think you're having stroke
When you get to the emergency room explain to them that you truly believe that having a tiny weight room in a storage locker makes you more successful than the twice elected leader of the free world.
They will surely give you priority attention
Again (this is the part where I should draw you a picture in crayon so you can understand) just because he got elected does not mean he is successful at DOING HIS JOB. If you speak another language let me know, maybe I get a bing translator or something.
Ok, I'll give you one thing. He's a successful liar. How's that?
-
So you really think he's doing a good job and if you were an employer this performance would be acceptable?
some good, some bad, some adequate however considering yourself a success in comparison to him is truly ludicrous to the point of really having some mental health issues
BTW - I am his employer along with the other 66 million people who gave him the job.
You on the other hand I would not trust to walk my dog or cut my lawn
-
Again (this is the part where I should draw you a picture in crayon so you can understand) just because he got elected does not mean he is successful at DOING HIS JOB. If you speak another language let me know, maybe I get a bing translator or something.
Ok, I'll give you one thing. He's a successful liar. How's that?
Yes Dopey, getting elected to the POTUS twice is a success by it's very definition.
That's why winning an election is also known as a victory.
Whether you personally like him or not is completely irrelevant.
Now, you when you try to claim that you're more successful than Obama (or any POTUS or any of millions of other people) because you have a tiny gym in a storage locker.....well now we're in crazy town
-
So tell me, what meaningful successes has he had? (God don't say Obamacare, even your boss thinks it's a disaster). Assuming you're still there. Let me also ask as a coach yourself, how many CIF and League championships have you won or been apart of? How many of your high school or College players have gone on to D1 and the pros? If so, in how many sports? We can start there .
im not comparing you to myself as a coach. But i can say that coaching in the inner city as a volunteer coach (defensive coordinator)
At Washington, Locke, Roosevelt and Hollywood, ive gotten the absolte most out of my kids. At hollywood i had the number 1 defense in the city giving up 12 points a game. Ive sent a kid to Westpoint (Nelworth, Tykie), 2 to UGA (TJ Stripling and Ken Malcome) 1 to South Carolina (Sharrod Golightly) San Diego State (Tony Bell) Texas A&M ( Jeremy Ross)
A few D2 as well. All of my kids Graduate. So if youre trying to discredit me as a coach, just ask around the City Section about Coach Pigford and they will tell you
about me. Ive never taken a dime from coaching and I only coach the inner city because those are the kids that need me. Ive definatley been offered Jobs at Serra, Narbonne and schools down in OC.. But those arent the kids that need me..
-
coach, you saying you are more successful at your job than Obama is at his job is retarded.
He is a professional Politician and he was elected to the highest office in the land twice
The equivalent to you would be you Coaching and winning the superbowl twice...
you arent as successful in your job as he is in his job.
You know him, He doesnt know you
He wins
-
im not comparing you to myself as a coach. But i can say that coaching in the inner city as a volunteer coach (defensive coordinator)
At Washington, Locke, Roosevelt and Hollywood, ive gotten the absolte most out of my kids. At hollywood i had the number 1 defense in the city giving up 12 points a game. Ive sent a kid to Westpoint (Nelworth, Tykie), 2 to UGA (TJ Stripling and Ken Malcome) 1 to South Carolina (Sharrod Golightly) San Diego State (Tony Bell) Texas A&M ( Jeremy Ross)
A few D2 as well. All of my kids Graduate. So if youre trying to discredit me as a coach, just ask around the City Section about Coach Pigford and they will tell you
about me. Ive never taken a dime from coaching and I only coach the inner city because those are the kids that need me. Ive definatley been offered Jobs at Serra, Narbonne and schools down in OC.. But those arent the kids that need me..
So now, comparing those (very commendable) accomplishments to Obama's failures. Would not consider that a more successful than what Obama has done with this country and when was a community organizer in Chicago? I know you're a good coach. There is no questioning that.
-
coach, you saying you are more successful at your job than Obama is at his job is retarded.
He is a professional Politician and he was elected to the highest office in the land twice
The equivalent to you would be you Coaching and winning the superbowl twice...
you arent as successful in your job as he is in his job.
You know him, He doesnt know you
He wins
I don't consider getting elected a success be it a democrat or a republican. I determine how well that person do his/her job once elected. Again, looking at it from a business prospective, if you were to look back on his history, would you want that person running a company? If so, based on what?
-
coach, you saying you are more successful at your job than Obama is at his job is retarded.
He is a professional Politician and he was elected to the highest office in the land twice
The equivalent to you would be you Coaching and winning the superbowl twice...
you arent as successful in your job as he is in his job.
You know him, He doesnt know you
He wins
Damn. Brutal/Epic/HeWontRecover truth here.
Don't forget that Obama won the election in face of all the praying the right wingers did for him to lose. Since there is "scientific proof" that prayer actually works, it makes sense to assume that even God is on Obama's side and laughing in the face of people like Coach.
-
I don't consider getting elected a success be it a democrat or a republican. I determine how well that person do his/her job once elected. Again, looking at it from a business prospective, if you were to look back on his history, would you want that person running a company? If so, based on what?
Jesus Christ you're not only incomprehensibly dense but profoundly arrogant, almost beyond comprehension.
You've done nothing of note in your own chosen field and yet you think you're more successful than the POTUS. Even being a 2 time super bowl winning coach wouldn't put you in the same league as Obama
And given that his employer (the voters) chose to renew his contract for another 4 years you can't even argue that he hasn't been successful in spite of the fact that you personally are not happy with his job performance.
-
Jesus Christ you're not only incomprehensibly dense but profoundly arrogant, almost beyond comprehension.
You've done nothing of note in your own chosen field and yet you think you're more successful than the POTUS. Even being a 2 time super bowl winning coach wouldn't put you in the same league as Obama
And given that his employer (the voters) chose to renew his contract for another 4 years you can't even argue that he hasn't been successful in spite of the fact that you personally are not happy with his job performance.
You're fucking delusional if you think that clown is successful. He's rarely seen a 6 hour day. His legacy will be of disaster.
-
You're fucking delusional if you think that clown is successful. He's rarely seen a 6 hour day. His legacy will be of disaster.
you think you're more successful than a two term POTUS and you think I'm delusional
OK Joe Loco
whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day
-
you think you're more successful than a two term POTUS and you think I'm delusional
OK Joe Loco
whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day
The fucker doesn't know how to do his job. This is a FACT you cannot accept.
-
So you really think he's doing a good job and if you were an employer this performance would be acceptable?
For liberals, yes, obama is doing a good job and they would consider him acceptable.
For conservatives, absolutely not.
If you look out your window or talk to people at any store or movie or whatever... I think you'll realize... at least 51% of the nation is LIBERAL. Sure, they self-identify as conservative, kickass independent heroes that would save old ladies from burning buildings while sporting 11-inch penises and 155 IQs. "self" identify ;)
But the polls are undeniable - the MAJORITY of americans have LIBERAL positions on most issues. Coach, we live in a liberal nation. It's a fact. So for the majority of Americans, Obama IS doing a good job. Sucks, but this is the case. The majority of the nation can be WRONG, of course. But it's important to realize so many people around you think obama is doing an okay job. I mean, 11% of the nation thinkks congress is doing a good job... but Gallup has Obama at 41% today. He's almost FOUR TIMES MORE POPULAR than congress... unreal, but it's the case.
-
Personally, I think he's doing a really shitty job as far as the future of america, our standing in the world, our long term mfng and economic viability.
But I'm in the minority on this :(
many people don't care about the us debt clock.. they care about how much their food stamp card will go down if a republican is in office.
-
For liberals, yes, obama is doing a good job and they would consider him acceptable.
For conservatives, absolutely not.
If you look out your window or talk to people at any store or movie or whatever... I think you'll realize... at least 51% of the nation is LIBERAL. Sure, they self-identify as conservative, kickass independent heroes that would save old ladies from burning buildings while sporting 11-inch penises and 155 IQs. "self" identify ;)
But the polls are undeniable - the MAJORITY of americans have LIBERAL positions on most issues. Coach, we live in a liberal nation. It's a fact. So for the majority of Americans, Obama IS doing a good job. Sucks, but this is the case. The majority of the nation can be WRONG, of course. But it's important to realize so many people around you think obama is doing an okay job. I mean, 11% of the nation thinkks congress is doing a good job... but Gallup has Obama at 41% today. He's almost FOUR TIMES MORE POPULAR than congress... unreal, but it's the case.
What poll are you looking at???? No one give a shit about congress. We all know they're useless. Weren't you one of people who said the president is just a talking head? Take a good hard look and feel free to revise that thought.
-
Personally, I think he's doing a really shitty job as far as the future of america, our standing in the world, our long term mfng and economic viability.
But I'm in the minority on this :(
many people don't care about the us debt clock.. they care about how much their food stamp card will go down if a republican is in office.
Really shitty is the understatement of the year.
-
What poll are you looking at???? No one give a shit about congress. We all know they're useless. Weren't you one of people who said the president is just a talking head? Take a good hard look and feel free to revise that thought.
???
Obama is at 41% today. www.gallup.com
Congress bounces between 11 and 15% - www.gallup.com
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
-
???
Obama is at 41% today. www.gallup.com
Congress bounces between 11 and 15% - www.gallup.com
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
dude, you're clearly having some kind of mental/emotional breakdown so tell yourself whatever you need to make it through the day
just don't expect the rest of us to join you in your delusion
Oh wait... pointing out the truth will cause him to make you get thrown off of here. ::)
You can't argue with a stupid person or show them any facts or logic that contradicts their foolish beliefs. It's a mental sickness. Or perhaps it's just God "testing" them with delusions. Who cares.
-
IMO, Obama/liberals will not be defeated. Impossible. The hispanic vote has moved from 44% bush to 27% romney. Poor people vote dem, and obama's made a whole lotta poor people.
Do you know how repubs can regain the white house? NOT by defeating obama - but by defeating LIBERALISM. You don't do this by screaming "libs suck!" because it just makes them lock down no matter what. The repubs/FOX have tried this since 2008 and they just keep losing elections, and the white house gap keeps getting wider.
The key to regaining the white house is to make americans stop wanting to be liberals, and start wanting to be conservatives.
You don't get people on your side by calling them names, wishing you could assault/beat them, calling them stupid, etc. You convince them why conservative policy will help make the lives of them - and their offspring - better.
-
or just mental illness
Same thing really.
-
Joe is far beyond stupid at this point
Something must be going on with him because he truly seems to have lost touch with reality
Well, considering I have a proven record of being right about Obama and the left since about '09. Seems your reality is a bit more skewed than mine. For fucks sake, you a supposed finance major with a degree still can't understand basic business practice.
-
Well, considering I have a proven record of being right about Obama and the left since about '09. Seems your reality is a bit more skewed than mine. For fucks sake, you a supposed finance major with a degree still can't understand basic business practice.
yes you have a proven record of being right
I'm all for whatever you need to tell yourself to remain calm
-
Well, considering I have a proven record of being right about Obama and the left since about '09. Seems your reality is a bit more skewed than mine. For fucks sake, you a supposed finance major with a degree still can't understand basic business practice.
the thing about this day and age... the thing about obama... everybody KNEW what he would do.
Rush, Beck, they ALL called it. Obama TOLD US what he'd do. He was the #1 most liberal voting senator.
Here's an article from march 2008... obama TOLD US, very clearly, about his liberal policies. It's all laid out.
http://prospect.org/article/obama-doctrine
He PROMISED to take over healthcare. He warned us about rising energy costs. He said he'd go after the border. He said he wouldn't enact any exec orders on guns (and he hasn't). He said he'd go into pakistan (mccain didnt' like that!) and he did, killing OBL.
For any good he's done (giving order to enter PAK for OBL), for all the bad he's done (there's plenty). We all KNEW what was coming. Coach, sadly, this is what 51% of americans WANT. They want someone to hold their hand and manage their lives and give them food stamps and enforce moral bankruptcy and all that.
Bush claimed he was a moderate republican. Obama promised to be different. HE IS! Sucks all around, but the problem IS NOT obama. Another liberal woudl just take his spot if he resigned tomorrow. No, the problem is the inability to convince people "It is better to be a republican!"
-
yes you have a proven record of being right
I'm all for whatever you need to tell yourself to remain calm
Yeah, that birther crap really turned out to be correct. ::)
-
The current economy is so great that 70% feel that their children won't have a better future than their own.
-
So now, comparing those (very commendable) accomplishments to Obama's failures. Would not consider that a more successful than what Obama has done with this country and when was a community organizer in Chicago? I know you're a good coach. There is no questioning that.
He successful because he reached the absolute top of his chosen profession.
Now what hes done, i see a shit ton of failures. Failures upon failures in my eyes. BUT thats my opinion of his policies.
I cant call him a failure because i dont like the Drone shit. It was a success to him because he wanted to use drones and he did.
Its like, I dont like Les Miles as a coach, but hes extremely successful because he coaches a top school in the top football conference (says espn).
-
He successful because he reached the absolute top of his chosen profession.
Now what hes done, i see a shit ton of failures. Failures upon failures in my eyes. BUT thats my opinion of his policies.
I cant call him a failure because i dont like the Drone shit. It was a success to him because he wanted to use drones and he did.
Its like, I dont like Les Miles as a coach, but hes extremely successful because he coaches a top school in the top football conference (says espn).
I give the man credit for getting elected to the U.S. Senate and president. No small feat, especially when you look at his resume. The thinnest resume I've ever seen for a president. Luckiest politician of my lifetime. How someone like that became the most powerful man in the world is downright scary. But definitely impressive.
That said, his remarkable achievement doesn't mask the fact he is a horrible leader. A painful lesson for the country that someone with no experience leading should not be learning while on the job.
-
I give the man credit for getting elected to the U.S. Senate and president. No small feat, especially when you look at his resume. The thinnest resume I've ever seen for a president. Luckiest politician of my lifetime. How someone like that became the most powerful man in the world is downright scary. But definitely impressive.
That said, his remarkable achievement doesn't mask the fact he is a horrible leader. A painful lesson for the country that someone with no experience leading should not be learning while on the job.
the second paragraph, 100% opinion.
-
The thinnest resume I've ever seen for a president.
Chester A. Arthur's main experience was collector for the Port of NY (and a few months as VP before Garfield was assassinated). And Grover Cleveland was mayor of Buffalo and governor of NY briefly.
yahoo
-
the second paragraph, 100% opinion.
Actually my entire post is opinion, but there are a whole of facts supporting my opinion.
-
He successful because he reached the absolute top of his chosen profession.
Now what hes done, i see a shit ton of failures. Failures upon failures in my eyes. BUT thats my opinion of his policies.
I cant call him a failure because i dont like the Drone shit. It was a success to him because he wanted to use drones and he did.
Its like, I dont like Les Miles as a coach, but hes extremely successful because he coaches a top school in the top football conference (says espn).
OD you just don't get it
If Obama really wants to be successful then after his second terms as POTUS is over instead of writing books, earning millions in speaking fees, consulting with future POTUS's and other world leaders etc... he needs to find a small storage facility that he can load up with rusty weights and old tractor tires and work for a very modest hourly wage as a glorified gym teacher. Then he will finally have a taste of the sweet success that Joe Loco is talking about.
-
Chester A. Arthur's main experience was collector for the Port of NY (and a few months as VP before Garfield was assassinated). And Grover Cleveland was mayor of Buffalo and governor of NY briefly.
yahoo
If you're going to lie, like you do on this board daily, at least put a little more effort into it.
Here is Arthur's background, which includes experience as a lawyer and Soldier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur#Early_career
Here is Cleveland's background, which includes experience as a sheriff, mayor, and governor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
-
Actually my entire post is opinion, but there are a whole of facts supporting my opinion.
You accidentally a word, mang.
-
He failed and is not a successful (what ever he's supposed to be doing) and not successful at doing his job. If it was a success his approval numbers would be turned around and would the support of the American people. He doesn't. Just about what ever policy that he has tried to implement has failed miserably. From cash to klunkers to Obamacare to having the slowest economic turn around ever. Don't even bring up his foreign policies, between him, Kerry and Clinton (Killary) I don't know who's worse. He and the left in Washington literally have ZERO integrity and offer one lie to cover another lie.
-
The dumb in this thread man.
-
The dumb in this thread man.
Where's the success? Don't pull a lurker. Elaborate.
-
You accidentally a word, mang.
Thank you _______ Simon. You are quite the Grammar ____.
-
The dumb in this thread man.
You mean like posting an excerpt of an article that you didn't read and that doesn't support the point you were trying to make?
-
He failed and is not a successful (what ever he's supposed to be doing) and not successful at doing his job. If it was a success his approval numbers would be turned around and would the support of the American people. He doesn't. Just about what ever policy that he has tried to implement has failed miserably. From cash to klunkers to Obamacare to having the slowest economic turn around ever. Don't even bring up his foreign policies, between him, Kerry and Clinton (Killary) I don't know who's worse. He and the left in Washington literally have ZERO integrity and offer one lie to cover another lie.
yes Joe Loco - Obama is a failure and conversely you are a winner
Everyone can see that
Whatever you need to tell yourself just keep on doing it
-
He failed and is not a successful (what ever he's supposed to be doing) and not successful at doing his job. If it was a success his approval numbers would be turned around and would the support of the American people. He doesn't. Just about what ever policy that he has tried to implement has failed miserably. From cash to klunkers to Obamacare to having the slowest economic turn around ever. Don't even bring up his foreign policies, between him, Kerry and Clinton (Killary) I don't know who's worse. He and the left in Washington literally have ZERO integrity and offer one lie to cover another lie.
A racist Chooming radical commie Jihadist sleeper born in Kenya and hell-bent on destroying the US and the world, somehow manages to become a 2 time elected president.
And you call him unsuccesful ???
-
A racist Chooming radical commie Jihadist sleeper born in Kenya and hell-bent on destroying the US and the world, somehow manages to become a 2 time elected president.
And you call him unsuccesful ???
Like
-
Thank you _______ Simon. You are quite the Grammar ____.
Why so defensive, Beach Bummer?
Clearly, you mistakenly left out a word which I then brought to your attention in a friendly way. (Maybe you aren't familiar with the "accidentally a word" thang that's popular on bigger forums like Reddit?)
To be fair, it occurs to me that if, seemingly due to your advanced age, you've been finding yourself making small errors like that more and more often then I understand how your resulting frustration might cause you to want to call names instead of just use the board's edit function. (Hmmm, didn't some other poster recently say that the quality of your posts seems to have gone down in recent times compared to your writing of a few years ago?)
If that's the case, then no harm done and I extend you my honest sympathy.
-
A racist Chooming radical commie Jihadist sleeper born in Kenya and hell-bent on destroying the US and the world, somehow manages to become a 2 time elected president.
And you call him unsuccesful ???
Was never vetted. Again, you're confusing pulling off an "election" with actual job performance. HE IS NOT A COMPETENT LEADER.
-
Why so defensive, Beach Bummer?
Clearly, you mistakenly left out a word which I then brought to your attention in a friendly way. (Maybe you aren't familiar with the "accidentally a word" thang that's popular on bigger forums like Reddit?)
To be fair, it occurs to me that if, seemingly due to your advanced age, you've been finding yourself making small errors like that more and more often then I understand how your resulting frustration might cause you to want to call names instead of just use the board's edit function. (Hmmm, didn't some other poster recently say that the quality of your posts seems to have gone down in recent times compared to your writing of a few years ago?)
If that's the case, then no harm done and I extend you my honest sympathy.
Thank ____ much for ______ concern _______ Simon.
-
Was never vetted. Again, you're confusing pulling off an "election" with actual job performance. HE IS NOT A COMPETENT LEADER.
please show your proof that he wasn't vetted
also, who vetted you as a "coach" ?
-
Thank ____ much for ______ concern _______ Simon.
Not bad. It'd be a little funnier without the blanks, imo, though.
-
please show your proof that he wasn't vetted
also, who vetted you as a "coach" ?
I have as much access to confidential documents as you do. So telling me to "prove it" is hysterical. But I do know people (family) who does have access but I will never know. But let's start here...
http://www.newsmax.com/US/barack-obama-president-2008/2011/03/28/id/390952/
-
As for my "vetting" every school district I or my other coaches work in must go through a background check whether as a stipend coach, a volunteer or as an outside contractor. Even as an AAU sponsored gym I can't nor can my employees, interns or coaches be in the AAU until they go through a background check as with the school districts, both are through a live scan process. I personally don't hire without a live scan process.
-
Was never vetted. Again, you're confusing pulling off an "election" with actual job performance. HE IS NOT A COMPETENT LEADER.
and you're confusing your goals with the goals of unemployed, lazy, pothead liberals.
if you're an unemployed, lazy, pothead liberal, you love obama. he's done a bang-up job. cash your stamps, enjoy medically covered pot and scarce law enforcement, and a bunch of otherwise shitty things that lazy libs like.
coach, you are none of these things, so you hate obama.
it's all about PERSPECTIVE. Obama can't win again, but another obama, whether it's hilary or cuomo or warren or whoever, is just going to win next time... UNTIL the repubs can convince 5% of the population that conservatism is better than liberalism.
I hear "obama sucks", I hear "Obama is dumb".... but it appears 53% of the nation is okay with that. So maybe Repubs should stop trying to demonize liberalism (cause hey, it doens't work... people hate the word liberal but the majority of americans have liberal POSITIONS, and there's lots of data to prove this). Stop demonizing liberalism, and instead, tell us why conservatism is the way to go.
Coach, why should the unemployed, lazy stoner pothead slacker vote republican in 2016? Give him 3 good reasons. THAT is how you win the White House back.
-
I'll give you 1 good reason. Because the majority of the people who voted for Obama, regret it.
-
I'll give you 1 good reason. Because the majority of the people who voted for Obama, regret it.
They'd good. 53% of Americans chose Obama. Link? That's a good one.
-
They'd good. 53% of Americans chose Obama. Link? That's a good one.
Post your poll. If it's CNN you can bet that poll was done like in the Castro district in SF or a pot party in Denver or an oppressed neighborhood in LA.
-
Um, 52.9% of people chose obama at the election booth last time. That's what I was talking about, sorry I wasn't clear.
Now, as far as your statement about "Because the majority of the people who voted for Obama, regret it. "
Link to that? Are you referring to that 71% poll which was in error, and the actual number of obama voters that said they regret it is actually much much lower? I tried finding a poll to support you, cause that is a REALLY good point, but could not find one. That poll with 71% somehow included Romney voters lol... so yeah, it was a little weird there. If you can show a LEGIT link showing a poll where the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR OBAMA now regret it, that'd be excellent!
-
I have as much access to confidential documents as you do. So telling me to "prove it" is hysterical. But I do know people (family) who does have access but I will never know. But let's start here...
http://www.newsmax.com/US/barack-obama-president-2008/2011/03/28/id/390952/
If I wanted to be like you I would simply say that newsmax is not credible and then I would not address anything in the article.
Here's an example of how you do that when you want can't dispute something:
Because Maddow is as credible as Obama and will spin anything he can to make him look good. Neither have one redeeming good quality about them.
I won't bother to do that with you though I could and you of course would have no problem with it since you do that yourself.
The author of the article just rehashes the same old tired nonsense that right wing morons tell each other. Note by the way that he says that the 2008 candidates were vetted by the press and since Obama was a candidate in 2008 he was therefore vetted in the exact same way as all other candidates. Of course in Obama's case the press took the extra step of making up lies, slandering him, attacking him and his family, etc... So yes, Obama was vetted in the same way as any other candidate and more than most.
Since you've brought up the concept that Obama "was never vetted" why don't you explain to all of us what the official and proper vetting process is for a candidate for POTUS. Most people of normal intelligence will tell you that his/her party will vet the candidate to make sure he has no skeletons and then the opposition and the press further vet the candidate through the media over the course of an election. That is what most people of normal intelligence will tell you the process is in the country. Now, if you think there is some other process please tell us what that is.
Now let's move on to your vetting as a legitimate coach
As for my "vetting" every school district I or my other coaches work in must go through a background check whether as a stipend coach, a volunteer or as an outside contractor. Even as an AAU sponsored gym I can't nor can my employees, interns or coaches be in the AAU until they go through a background check as with the school districts, both are through a live scan process. I personally don't hire without a live scan process.
Wow - you had a background check.
How does that prove you are a legitimate coach
BTW - aren't you the one who is constantly reminding us how fucked up in every way the state of California is due to liberal politicians. Do you really think they can even conduct an adequate background check? Would you like me to list all of your fellow coaches and teachers in CA who in recent years have been arrested on various charges related to molesting children, child porn, drugs, etc... Seriously, I'll be glad to start listing them if you'd like. It's a pretty simple google search.
Clearly those background checks are basically worthless and they certainly don't prove you are a legitimate coach so thanks for actually providing the proof that you are in fact not a legitimate coach
-
If I wanted to be like you I would simply say that newsmax is not credible and then I would not address anything in the article.
Here's an example of how you do that when you want can't dispute something:
I won't bother to do that with you though I could and you of course would have no problem with it since you do that yourself.
The author of the article just rehashes the same old tired nonsense that right wing morons tell each other. Note by the way that he says that the 2008 candidates were vetted by the press and since Obama was a candidate in 2008 he was therefore vetted in the exact same way as all other candidates. Of course in Obama's case the press took the extra step of making up lies, slandering him, attacking him and his family, etc... So yes, Obama was vetted in the same way as any other candidate and more than most.
Since you've brought up the concept that Obama "was never vetted" why don't you explain to all of us what the official and proper vetting process is for a candidate for POTUS. Most people of normal intelligence will tell you that his/her party will vet the candidate to make sure he has no skeletons and then the opposition and the press further vet the candidate through the media over the course of an election. That is what most people of normal intelligence will tell you the process is in the country. Now, if you think there is some other process please tell us what that is.
Now let's move on to your vetting as a legitimate coach
Wow - you had a background check.
How does that prove you are a legitimate coach
BTW - aren't you the one who is constantly reminding us how fucked up in every way the state of California is due to liberal politicians. Do you really think they can even conduct an adequate background check? Would you like me to list all of your fellow coaches and teachers in CA who in recent years have been arrested on various charges related to molesting children, child porn, drugs, etc... Seriously, I'll be glad to start listing them if you'd like. It's a pretty simple google search.
Clearly those background checks are basically worthless and they certainly don't prove you are a legitimate coach so thanks for actually providing the proof that you are in fact not a legitimate coach
Dude, in all honesty, you're so much in denial it could be labeled as clinical delusion disorder. No matter what happens you'll deem this loser as your massiah at all costs. No matter what polls say, no matter if bows and kisses the asses of dictators, no matter how much of a traitor he is. This asshole could behead his own kid and you'd still defend him....you, have been brainwashed. You would be considered an enemy of this country if there were a real president in place.
-
Dude, in all honesty, you're so much in denial it could be labeled as clinical delusion disorder. No matter what happens you'll deem this loser as your massiah at all costs. No matter what polls say, no matter if bows and kisses the asses of dictators, no matter how much of a traitor he is. This asshole could behead his own kid and you'd still defend him....you, have been brainwashed. You would be considered an enemy of this country if there were a real president in place.
Says the man who believe showing teenagers how to flip tires in an alley behind a storage locker somehow makes him a success while the two term elected leader of the free world is a failure
Joe Loco this is your premise ....remember
you said Obama wasn't properly vetted yet the fact is that Obama was vetted in the exact same way that every other candidate is vetted which is by his party, the opposition party and then by the press
Now, the fact that you are an illegitimate coach is completely different issue
-
Says the man who believe showing teenagers how to flip tires in an alley behind a storage locker somehow makes him a success while the two term elected leader of the free world is a failure
Joe Loco this is your premise ....remember
you said Obama wasn't properly vetted yet the fact is that Obama was vetted in the exact same way that every other candidate is vetted which is by his party, the opposition party and then by the press
Now, the fact that you are an illegitimate coach is completely different issue
You don't even lift bro
-
I'll give you 1 good reason. Because the majority of the people who voted for Obama, regret it.
Source?
-
You don't even lift bro
yep, not since about 18 hours ago
how about you Nancy ?
-
Um, 52.9% of people chose obama at the election booth last time. That's what I was talking about, sorry I wasn't clear.
Now, as far as your statement about "Because the majority of the people who voted for Obama, regret it. "
Link to that? Are you referring to that 71% poll which was in error, and the actual number of obama voters that said they regret it is actually much much lower? I tried finding a poll to support you, cause that is a REALLY good point, but could not find one. That poll with 71% somehow included Romney voters lol... so yeah, it was a little weird there. If you can show a LEGIT link showing a poll where the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR OBAMA now regret it, that'd be excellent!
Honestly, even if Coach is right that the majority of people who voted for Obama now regret it it's still not a good point, imo because it's just another negative statement Republicans are making about democrats instead of a positive statement about the policies that Republicans support. (If your message is basically, "Yeah, we suck -- but not as much as Obama" I don't think that motivates people to vote; I think many voters will just say, "we're fucked either way" and stay home.)
Not to mention that Coach's reason seems to presuppose that every democrat will make the same sort of decisions that Obama would make (or has made). All dems are not the same any more than all republicans are.
-
Honestly, even if Coach is right that the majority of people who voted for Obama now regret it it's still not a good point, imo because it's just another negative statement Republicans are making about democrats instead of a positive statement about the policies that Republicans support. (If your message is basically, "Yeah, we suck -- but not as much as Obama" I don't think that motivates people to vote; I think many voters will just say, "we're fucked either way" and stay home.)
Not to mention that Coach's reason seems to presuppose that every democrat will make the same sort of decisions that Obama would make (or has made). All dems are not the same any more than all republicans are.
that should be pretty easy to prove if it were true
-
that should be pretty easy to prove if it were true
there was a big hoax poll out there, and a few right-wing news outlets fell for it. Wasn't an actual poll, more of a combination of obama AND romney voters.
I believe something like 6% of obama voters, or 3% of overall 2012 voters, woudl have changed their vote, by the actual poll. it's a huge thing - it means romney would have won election if it was done today. however, the "MAJORITY" line, that's not true at all.
-
there was a big hoax poll out there, and a few right-wing news outlets fell for it. Wasn't an actual poll, more of a combination of obama AND romney voters.
I believe something like 6% of obama voters, or 3% of overall 2012 voters, woudl have changed their vote, by the actual poll. it's a huge thing - it means romney would have won election if it was done today. however, the "MAJORITY" line, that's not true at all.
yep, I was expecting someone here to actually post it
-
God, this is like watching people pick on a retarded kid.
Oh wait.... that's exactly what is happening here.
-
God, this is like watching people pick on a retarded kid.
Oh wait.... that's exactly what is happening here.
Shut the fuck up dummy. Hopefully you're gone in a day two. A few of us are trying our best rid your useless ass.
-
No 240, I read that poll (71%) but let's take an approval from your liberal buddies at msnbc. I chose this because even these numb nuts are reporting his incompetence.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-americans-dissatisfied-economy
Perhaps a few more could be pulled on foreign policy as well.
-
No 240, I read that poll (71%) but let's take an approval from your liberal buddies at msnbc. I chose this because even these numb nuts are reporting his incompetence.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-americans-dissatisfied-economy
Perhaps a few more could be pulled on foreign policy as well.
I seriously doubt you read the poll
Much more likely that you got an email (probably from WND or Newmax) giving you that bogus 71% and you dipshits passed it around amongst yourselves and you swallowed just like you do all the other bullshit they spoon feed you morons
-
I seriously doubt you read the poll
Much more likely that you got an email (probably from WND or Newmax) giving you that bogus 71% and you dipshits passed it around amongst yourselves and you swallowed just like you do all the other bullshit they spoon feed you morons
Still blowing Obama?
-
I seriously doubt you read the poll
Much more likely that you got an email (probably from WND or Newmax) giving you that bogus 71% and you dipshits passed it around amongst yourselves and you swallowed just like you do all the other bullshit they spoon feed you morons
I know the 71% was bogus.
JOB APPROVAL
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
ECONOMY
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_economy-2820.html
FOREIGN POLICY
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_foreign_policy-2821.html
-
You're changing the subject, redirecting it to show us what a shitty job obama is doing.
I already agreed with you on this.
What I'm searching for is any evidence that "MAJORITY" of obama voters regret it. THAT is gigantic, that's beyond huge. Link to that?
-
I know the 71% was bogus.
JOB APPROVAL
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
ECONOMY
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_economy-2820.html
FOREIGN POLICY
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_foreign_policy-2821.html
How do you explain the natural oscillations of the market based on Obama's melanin content? what about that?
-
How do you explain the natural oscillations of the market based on Obama's melanin content? what about that?
How you explain when you spend more than you take in that it somehow increases the economy. How you explain that when you borrow at higher interest rates and rob peter to pay paul that it doesn't create more debt?
How do you explain after years and years of saying that you can't make nice nice with terrorists and the only thing they have on their minds is to destroy the country and it's people and you still insist that "negotiating" is still the right thing to do?
-
How you explain when you spend more than you take in that it somehow increases the economy
Things like investments, infrastructure have all proven to increase the overall economy, add jobs etc.
. How you explain that when you borrow at higher interest rates and rob peter to pay paul that it doesn't create more debt?
quantum entanglement.
How do you explain after years and years of saying that you can't make nice nice with terrorists and the only thing they have on their minds is to destroy the country and it's people and you still insist that "negotiating" is still the right thing to do?
Nothing we do will make a differene, you are dealing with lunatics
My above post was complete nonsense, I knew you would respond without even reading what I wrote.
-
My above post was complete nonsense, I knew you would respond without even reading what I wrote.
Most of your posts are complete nonsense.
-
Shut the fuck up dummy. Hopefully you're gone in a day two. A few of us are trying our best rid your useless ass.
Oh look at the dumb ass whining. Poor baby. Instead of telling us all how upset you are by how much real estate I own in the little heads of you midgets, maybe better efforts could be spent reviewing 4th grade English books again.
English can't be your first language with a post like above.
-
My above post was complete nonsense, I knew you would respond without even reading what I wrote.
The red is just complete nonsense that you can't even attempt to explain to anyone who knows better. Please stop.