The "Stay Classy, Obama" Thread

Hilary Clinton should have been the nomination. I'd vote for her with confidence rather than put up with this empty suit and his pastor type speeches. All talk no action. Obama has a race to save his legacy from being ''promised hope and change, delivered nothing''
 
[quote name='pyschonerd']That's all Obama is good at...speeches. But talk is just that.[/QUOTE]
I see you've since deleted the comment. And would you look at that? Bibi just sucker punched the living shit out of the single most prominent Israeli politician pushing back against American influence in Israel... and just happened to fix their relationship with Turkey (the only NATO member that's at all Islamist) at the same time. And Erdogan knows all too well that America just gave him a massive political coup for free.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21902273

Bibi gets the screws put to him. Avi Lieberman gets crushed like a grape. Turkey and Israel will normalize relations again. And America looks like the good guy because we actually are the good guys here. Yea, words r dum n stuff.

0/10. Needz moar bombs amirite?
 
LOL!!!!z this like the USA apologizing for accidentally drone"ing" civilian over in Iraq, Pakistan, and where ever we see fit.

This is why gov't and those who work in government are ALL INHERENTLY EVIL human beings, they get to get by by saying sorry and using tax money from the peasantry ( us working class ) to fix their problem..

Imagine if a regular joe can get by killing people and saying sorry and here is some money from "donations" I got, so please don't hold me accountable.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEEHHEHEHEEEEE.....here we go again. How did we end up with soooooooo much bureaucracy and complexity? Don't get me wrong, I blame the banks just as much as the gov't for going along with the gov't "suggestion" to loan to those who can't pay, but insuring their loans with taxpayer money is crazy. How about letting banks ruin themselves by making poor decisions rather than forcing those poor decisions on them? No BAILOUTS for ANYBODY!!! Stupidity, greed, lack of self responsibility, and desire for "control" will be the end of us.
 
But egofed, the government pushed for people with low incomes to have an easier time getting home loans when Clinton was in office and that worked out splendidly with no repercussions.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']But egofed, the government pushed for people with low incomes to have an easier time getting home loans when Clinton was in office and that worked out splendidly with no repercussions.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and large banks never used that as a cash grab to over-leverage themselves into creating credit default swaps to in-turn insure them without caring if they failed or not. I suppose it's just easier to blame poor people than the rich fucks that decimated the economy while not only remaining rich, but are RICHER because of it because they were the ones that engineered it.

I know you're into making superficial pithy remarks, but come the fuck on.

edit: As for Clinton being a neo-liberal shithead president in the same vein as Obama? Color me NOT surprised. Republicans have a rep for wanting to dismantle the social safety net, but leave it to Democrats to actually DO it.
 
No, I'm into blaming the government and those in power that you seem to think do no wrong for making lax as fuck policies that countless administrations back and give bankers their backing and don't let them fail when they fuck up (hey just give them a bailout!). But hey, let's just blame rich people because that's the flavor of the day. Come the fuck on. I understand you think democrats walk on water but at some point open your damn eyes.
 
I've come to a realization that many people see the banks as unable to help themselves. Meaning that rather than saying that they (the banks) could have held back and not loaned money to those who couldn't repay it, they get overlooked and the people who were given the loans are blamed instead. It's like blaming the water for your ruined floor when it's the pipe that broke and spilled water everywhere.
 
Why would a bank every deny a loan Clak? There are no repercussions to giving out loans to someone with shitty credit or low income. The banks just go "derp" and wait for that lovely government bailout.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']No, I'm into blaming the government and those in power that you seem to think do no wrong for making lax as fuck policies that countless administrations back and give bankers their backing and don't let them fail when they fuck up (hey just give them a bailout!). But hey, let's just blame rich people because that's the flavor of the day. Come the fuck on. I understand you think democrats walk on water but at some point open your damn eyes.[/QUOTE]
You been on vs. for just about as long as I have and you know your post is complete bullshit.

[quote name='perdition(troy']Why would a bank every deny a loan Clak? There are no repercussions to giving out loans to someone with shitty credit or low income. The banks just go "derp" and wait for that lovely government bailout.[/QUOTE]
There's been so much written about what caused the economy to crash and THIS is all you've gotten from it? Seriously WTFBBQ. Does everything have to be broken down into quick soundbites for you or something? Hate to break it to you, but shit is complicated...far more complicated than that conservative pseudo-libertarian drivel you're regurgitating.
 
So what he's basically done is prove my point, that banks aren't expected to act responsibility, just to be as greedy as possible. It's the government's fault for tempting banks into being irresponsible, they can't help themselves.
 
I've come to a realization that many people see the people as unable to help themselves. Meaning that rather than saying that they (the people) could have held back and not got loans when they couldn't repay it, they get overlooked and the banks who gave the loans are blamed instead. It's like blaming the broken faucet for flooding your kitchen when the guy who wanted a glass of water broke the faucet because he didn't know how to use it.
 
if a person can't explain a credit default swap or collateralized debt obligation without the help of google, then they have no ground to stand on in making claims about what caused the collapse of 2007.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I forgot Andrew Breitbart's drunk, scum of the earth carcass is underground.

Thanks for making my weekend![/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention drug addicted. The man liked his cocaine.
 
So Obama didn't waste $500 million in tax payer money? Thanks for adding such on topic and meaningful comments, fellas. I thought it sounded waaaay too idiotic to be true......
 
okeefe-pimp250.jpg
 
I actually hope a republican does win the next election so we can prove just how hypocritical some of you are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I actually hope a republican does when the next election so we can prove just how hypocritical some of you are.[/QUOTE]


"When"? Do you mean "win"? :roll: Bush spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave, major payouts to friends just like Obama. You forget, I'm anti big gubment in either direction.

How about that 18% Obama tax rate? Wasn't he bad mouthing Romney for his sub 20% rate? There's some hypocrisy for you, Clakky.
 
[quote name='egofed']So Obama didn't waste $500 million in tax payer money?[/QUOTE]

Where is (a) that cited in the breitbart article you linked or (b) otherwise sourced?
 
[quote name='egofed']So Obama didn't waste $500 million in tax payer money? Thanks for adding such on topic and meaningful comments, fellas. I thought it sounded waaaay too idiotic to be true......[/QUOTE]

According to this, they never got the full $528 million. The loan was conditional and suspended last year when milestones weren't met. The article cites them securing $193 million in loans, but that doesn't seem to be all from the federal loan. I can't find any source that says exactly how much they actually got.

It's also worth noting that this loan was part of the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program that was passed by Congress in September of 2008. From what I've found, only four companies have secured (conditional) loans from it (decided on by the Dept. of Energy): Fisker, Nissan, Tesla, and Ford.
 
You people can argue with each other all you want, but Obama is no different then the hack and hacks that all came before each other.

How come two sides can't fight against, when there is only one common enemy ( gov't in general ), its called politics

They are all the same, if Bush was evil, what does it say about a person who said he would fight against evil but once elected became no different ?
 
No, it was linked from the Maddow video and was too stupid to not share. I felt it didn't warrant its own thread so I tacked it on here. There's another MSNBC video with Melissa Perry and a panel discussing solutions to poverty that is linked there also. Halfway interesting but I didn't hear any real solutions. The one host did write something to the effect, "Just give people more money. Easy!" Whooooooooo....
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, so it totally must have been missing from the program, then.[/QUOTE]

What did they propose? Increasing the amount you can make before losing benefits? Even the libs referred to the under the table jobs as "hussles". You want to reward tax evasion? The little nerdy guy's solution,
"Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy."




Yeah, that teaches responsibility and the importance of education and wise decision making....:roll:


What solutions did you hear that i missed? I was watching it as streaming segments so maybe I missed em. Please enlighten me.
 
[quote name='Clak']The bubble is mighty thick myke, mighty thick.[/QUOTE]

Bubble?!? I thought you had like half the forum on ignore.....:applause:
 
Obama is simply Bush III. The expansion of executive power is nothing new, but partisan hacks will give Obama a pass for it now, as they did when Bush was president. The only change is the name of the party.
 
^ EDIT: Nancy Giles spoke about demand-side economics (though she said something along the lines of debunking the "wealthy are job creators" myth). You're the one who misunderstands that as "give people more money" which implies "undeserved money" or "welfare" or "lazy people getting free things." Which is ideology guiding your view - both the assumption of supply-side macroeconomics working, as well as this being undeserved money.

If you don't understand demand-side economics, don't blame the program for not presenting solutions. Though it's clear you're right when you say "you didn't hear" the solutions. I already knew that.

[quote name='Spokker']Obama is simply Bush III.[/QUOTE]

Remember when y'all voted for Bush?
Remember when y'all defended the shit out of Bush's policies? The lies, the wars, the spending, the debt, the killing, the suspension of habeas corpus?
Remember when y'all laughed at those who suggested Obama was a centrist/Reaganesque warmonger?

I remember all that. Right wingers don't get to throw down "Bush" as a pejorative just because it's finally occurred to you that he was the worst President in history by any reasonable metric (economic/social/foreign policy).

Y'all have some penance to deal with first.

Cue "I didn't vote for him" and "I'm a Libertarian" hand-wringing. You can lie to us here, but the truth is on your soul.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Glenn Greenwald is a top constitutional expert?

I mean, I know y'all Libertarians are charter members of crazytown, but come on....[/QUOTE]

"Former New York Times general counsel James Goodale – who represented the paper during its Pentagon Papers fight with the Nixon administration – said in an interview yesterday that Obama is worse than Nixon when it comes to press freedoms."

"Jonathan Turley – perhaps the top constitutional law expert in the United States (and a liberal) – writes:
The painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be."


Don't like Greenwald, what about these other guys the article cites?;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ EDIT: Nancy Giles spoke about demand-side economics (though she said something along the lines of debunking the "wealthy are job creators" myth). You're the one who misunderstands that as "give people more money" which implies "undeserved money" or "welfare" or "lazy people getting free things." Which is ideology guiding your view - both the assumption of supply-side macroeconomics working, as well as this being undeserved money.

If you don't understand demand-side economics, don't blame the program for not presenting solutions. Though it's clear you're right when you say "you didn't hear" the solutions. I already knew that.



Remember when y'all voted for Bush?
Remember when y'all defended the shit out of Bush's policies? The lies, the wars, the spending, the debt, the killing, the suspension of habeas corpus?
Remember when y'all laughed at those who suggested Obama was a centrist/Reaganesque warmonger?

I remember all that. Right wingers don't get to throw down "Bush" as a pejorative just because it's finally occurred to you that he was the worst President in history by any reasonable metric (economic/social/foreign policy).

Y'all have some penance to deal with first.

Cue "I didn't vote for him" and "I'm a Libertarian" hand-wringing. You can lie to us here, but the truth is on your soul.[/QUOTE]


Hahahahahhaah... so the word "give" implies earning something??? If he would have said "pay more", then we have a conversation. Is their solution doubling the minimum wage? Don't all wages have to double then? 4-12 years of college looks less appealing if fry cooks are bringing down 30 some thousand dollars. I'm no economics major like you, but wouldn't prices on EVERYTHING have to increase to pay these wages?

Actually, I didn't vote Bush or Romney. Last person I voted for was Perot. I refuse to stand in line to vote for either crappy main party that we have. I was going to vote Johnson or Romney last election, but the 4 hour wait dissuaded me. I also don't hate Obama. I view him much as I viewed Bush, a well intentioned man who has no true power without the Legislative Branch. I was shocked when Medicare Part D was passed UNFUNDED!

You have a lot of unresolved bitterness towards those who have different opinions than your own. Did a Repub or Libertard break your heart at one time? Anyway, I'll just enjoy my time in "crazytown". It's really kooky and groovy here.....;)
 
[quote name='egofed']Is their solution doubling the minimum wage? Don't all wages have to double then?...I'm no economics major like you, but wouldn't prices on EVERYTHING have to increase to pay these wages?[/QUOTE]

Look kids - a right-winger and someone who can't help but think in linear terms; also fancies themselves someone who knows sound economic policy when they hear it (and also doesn't know sound economic policy when they don't hear it ;)).

Do you really believe what you wrote above? You were an adult in 1992, and you believe that this is how the minimum wage influences the economy?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Look kids - a right-winger and someone who can't help but think in linear terms; also fancies themselves someone who knows sound economic policy when they hear it (and also doesn't know sound economic policy when they don't hear it ;)).

Do you really believe what you wrote above? You were an adult in 1992, and you believe that this is how the minimum wage influences the economy?[/QUOTE]

Did you want to address the definition of the word "give"? Or actually state what the so called solutions given were? Nah, I see your idea of a conversation is hurling insults and trying to look superior. Thanks for the stimulating "back and forth".....:roll:
 
"give" is your verb, so perhaps you could improve your stance by not attributing *your* verbiage to other people, and then using that stance to show what "they" said.

(and that's without getting to the core of needing to define a term as the last bastion for internet debate. just give up now, gramps.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"give" is your verb, so perhaps you could improve your stance by not attributing *your* verbiage to other people, and then using that stance to show what "they" said.

(and that's without getting to the core of needing to define a term as the last bastion for internet debate. just give up now, gramps.)[/QUOTE]

"Give" is definitely not my verb. It was used in the MSNBC piece. The little guy with glasses wrote as his solution to poverty, "Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy."
Check it out in the video. I love the gramps insult also. Let's see if you are a big enough man to admit that you were wrong. None of the other libs here have yet. You can be a trend setter, whippersnapper. (I couldn't think of any other antonym for gramps. I was concerned that the origin may be racial, but found this amusing bit of info instead. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whipper snapper )
Hehehehehehehheehehhee.....:applause:
 
I didn't take Economics 101 or anything like that (But I will once I save some money or find some recommended books),
anyways mykevermin are you implying that increasing minimum wage does not directly affect the costs of products?

My parents said something similar about that once, I would like to understand that concept some more! Could you please explain to me? :D
 
[quote name='d0ren']I didn't take Economics 101 or anything like that (But I will once I save some money or find some recommended books),
anyways mykevermin are you implying that increasing minimum wage does not directly affect the costs of products?

My parents said something similar about that once, I would like to understand that concept some more! Could you please explain to me? :D[/QUOTE]
Google works just fine. Do your own homework. It's the mark of someone worth talking to.

edit: How bout a freebie: Adjusting for inflation, has the federal minimum wage ever been higher than it is today? In those times it was higher, was the country getting better or worse? Does the federal minimum wage even move the needle or are other issues much more important to pricing, employment, etc? What about McDonald's? Highly dependent on low skilled, low paid workers. In the last 10 years we have had several wage increases. What did same store sales do over that time? Did pricing rise? Did net income decrease? Are there other factors at play more important?

I'm excited to see your dissertation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top