Are Americans really this Gullable?

[drsmith1072]

All I heard was a campaign speech.

Then you obviously weren't listening

His "pay their fair share" mantra.

Funny how it doesn't seem to bother rightwingers when they use that same mantra when they talk about "broadening the tax base" and making those who are too poor to pay income tax "pay their fair share"

He can't run on his sucky record. Note he only mentioned his signature "historic" HC bill in passing.

So you claim it's just a campaign speech and then begrudge him for not making it a campaign speech and running on his record?? WOW! According to you he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I much preferred Mitch Daniels rebutal speech. He actually talked about the problems and he did it in what, 6 minutes or so?

Got more out of his speech than the hour and a half of pure boredome that Barry spewed.

LOL of course you did. Really is that what he talked about? Seems to me that his speech was nothing but a campaign add trying to blame obama for everything as he spewed the standard right party talking points.

And yes. Some Americans ARE that gullible.

And you are perffect example of that, contradictions and all.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

"public sector jobs" classify as useless ticks, so, no, we don't care about them.

 

[Jarhead]

Doc,

That is false. The right is not saying the poor should pay more tax. That is spin at best....an outright lie at worst.

The left said the wealthy need to pay their fair share....and the right said "if they pay anything and others pay nothing, then how can you say they are not paying their fair share?"

They never said the poor should pay more. They were saying the term "fair share" makes no sense.

And it doesnt.

 

[drsmith1072]

Says the troll who has nothing valid to offer. He presented his opinions and made claims. I disagreed with his opinions, presented counter arguments when necessary and asked him for substance to support his claims.

If you have a problem with that then that is something you need to address on your own time.

Basically, his game is to get off some "one-liners".

I liked your post by the way. I would argue that Obama has increased regulations. After we saw what happened on Wall Street, it was high time that regulations were increased.

The problem is that when you write regulations, you either have to be so nuanced that the regulations become toothless or so broad that they affect everybody. The monied interests on Wall Street have the money to adapt to get around the regs. Mom and Pop businesses on Main Street can't be so nimble. As always a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

I would argue that the regulations are there but they are necessary since we've seen that the free market will take advantage of every loophole.

Now, Candy...you're ruining all the hard work by Deanie and the Doc! It's important when telling the "big lie" that everyone remain on message. Deanie and the Doc have stated that Obama has given us fewer regulations...because as we all know (eye roll) President Obama can do no wrong...so if you're going to be a lib on this board it's your duty to back them up even when what they're saying is so ridiculous that it would make an honest man blush.

Do you find that being dishonest as you try to put words into other people's mouths so you can demean them for things they never actually said is a valid argument??

When and where did I state that Obama has given us fewer regulations? Got proof troll? Fact is that someone else said he increased them so I asked for proof of their claims. Also, when and where did I say obama can do no wrong?

P.S. I'm not a Doc. D and R are my intitials.

 

[daveman]

why they got stimulus money is irrelevant.

The fact that some companies got stimulus money while their competitors did not is the iussue at hand.

If company A needs stimulus money it is for one of two reaons

1) Becuase their industry is hurting
2) they have a failed business model

Now...if it is 1, then either all should get or none should get. Otherwise it is creating success for one company at the expense of another...which results in, at best, a wash.

If it is 2, then the stimulus is rewarding a company with a failed business model and that will result in either the ultimate loss of the funds or a temporary sign of success for the company...which is disingenuous at best.

Thus why stimuli such as the recovery act dont work. A universal stimulus, such as a tax break to all, may work....and it doesnt give anyone an unfair advantage...but cherry picking the "winners' is not the type of stimulus that will work.....

But the bottom line....

The satimulus created jobs for companies that receieved the money....but killed jobs for their competitors.

Thus why we hear X amount of jobs created but number of employed nearly 2 million less than before the stimulus.

None of that matters to the Faithful. GOBAMA!!

No...it doesnt.

That is why everytime I present this...and this is probably the fourth or fifth time....no one on the left wants to debate it...or even acknowledge it.

Why?

Becuase it makes sense....and it ruins their belief that the stimulus was a success.

Indeed. They really do believe that their opinions define reality.

Reality, of course, doesn't give a shit.

 

[daveman]

Do you find that being dishonest as you try to put words into other people's mouths so you can demean them for things they never actually said is a valid argument??

But it's okay when you do it?

Funny how it doesn't seem to bother rightwingers when they use that same mantra when they talk about "broadening the tax base" and making those who are too poor to pay income tax "pay their fair share"​

 

[drsmith1072]

The left's problem is one of perception. They pay attention only to the last thing their leaders say. And they never pay attention to what their leaders do.

If what they say contradicts what they said yesterday, no problem. Reality is redefined. If tomorrow's speech contradicts today's, that will be the new reality.

Orwell really nailed them.

LOL now this in hilarious coming form the side that has both romney and gingrich at the top of their list for candidates.
BOTH have a history of saying one thing and doing another as well as contradicting things that they have said in the past. So it's quite hilarious that you would even try to make such a lame argument when it defines the republican party and this election cycle is all the proof anyone needs to verify that. LOL
The past only matters to republicans when they can use it to attack those on the left. However, when their own candidates and presidents get questioned about their past then it becomes off limits. LOL

 

[Jarhead]

None of that matters to the Faithful. GOBAMA!!

No...it doesnt.

That is why everytime I present this...and this is probably the fourth or fifth time....no one on the left wants to debate it...or even acknowledge it.

Why?

Becuase it makes sense....and it ruins their belief that the stimulus was a success.

Indeed. They really do believe that their opinions define reality.

Reality, of course, doesn't give a shit.

See? Still no one on the left will comment on my post.

It is amazing how silence speaks VOLUMES.

 

[Oldstyle]

Basically, his game is to get off some "one-liners".

I liked your post by the way. I would argue that Obama has increased regulations. After we saw what happened on Wall Street, it was high time that regulations were increased.

The problem is that when you write regulations, you either have to be so nuanced that the regulations become toothless or so broad that they affect everybody. The monied interests on Wall Street have the money to adapt to get around the regs. Mom and Pop businesses on Main Street can't be so nimble. As always a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

I would argue that the regulations are there but they are necessary since we've seen that the free market will take advantage of every loophole.

Now, Candy...you're ruining all the hard work by Deanie and the Doc! It's important when telling the "big lie" that everyone remain on message. Deanie and the Doc have stated that Obama has given us fewer regulations...because as we all know (eye roll) President Obama can do no wrong...so if you're going to be a lib on this board it's your duty to back them up even when what they're saying is so ridiculous that it would make an honest man blush.

Do you find that being dishonest as you try to put words into other people's mouths so you can demean them for things they never actually said is a valid argument??

When and where did I state that Obama has given us fewer regulations? Got proof troll? Fact is that someone else said he increased them so I asked for proof of their claims. Also, when and where did I say obama can do no wrong?

P.S. I'm not a Doc. D and R are my intitials.

Gee, I made the assumption that since you asked for proof that Obama had given us more regulations that you doubted that was the case. Was I wrong? As for my putting words in other people's mouths? I was being sarcastic. The people like Deanie and TM really don't think Obama can do no wrong. Some of the nonsense they post here borders on farce.

 

[drsmith1072]

I mean I just have to ask. I sat through the whole state of the Union and really listened. Once again I found myself hearing things that sound great to me from a Man who seems to say one thing and do another.

Are Americans really going to fall for this Illusionist who says one thing while doing another?

He talked about lowering Regulations when he has presided over a massive increase in Regulations.

He Talked about Lowering Taxes, when he wants to Raise them.

He Talked about Energy Security when he blocks Development of our own Resources and Puts off the Keystone Pipe Line for Partisan Political Reasons.

He Talks about working together when he has been one of the most Partisan Presidents ever.

He accuses Republicans of not acting on Jobs when no less than 30 Bills passed in the House are Dead in the Senate because his party controls it.

He opened the speech talking about Iraq and then Telling us were all safer and America is more Respected because of what the Generation that fought there did for us all, when he and his Party Have spent the last 9 Years telling US Iraq made the world hate us, and made us less safe.

I mean seriously are the American People Gullible enough to but this Crap?

A better question...

Does he have such little respect for the American People that he feels it is OK to play on their gullability?

LOL Yet relying on gulliblity is the only real reason republicans have any power at all. claims like "The left is going to take all of your guns" when there is no proof of said argument. However, that doesn't stop the gullible from buying into that spin and voting against people for arguments they never made.

The "big government" argument is one of the biggest things that gets right wingers support from the gullible. It's funny how candidates like bachmann can whine about "big government" even though her family makes money off of big government.

Or how about all of the whining the gullible right did about wanting to increase regulations on freddie and fanny that the right engaged in as they tried to blame the minority members for blocking the legislation they claim would have pevented the housing melt down and then look at all of the gullible right winged lemming who are now fighting against increased regulations.

So thanks for the spin about obama but it's hilarious coming from the side of the sepctrum that lives and breaths due to the gullibility of their followers.

 

[Sallow]

All I heard was a campaign speech.

His "pay their fair share" mantra.

He can't run on his sucky record. Note he only mentioned his signature "historic" HC bill in passing.

I much preferred Mitch Daniels rebutal speech. He actually talked about the problems and he did it in what, 6 minutes or so?

Got more out of his speech than the hour and a half of pure boredome that Barry spewed.

And yes. Some Americans ARE that gullible.

He can run on his record...because it doesn't suck. Private sector is creating a good number of jobs. Bin Laden is dead. HMOs can't kick you if you get sick.

Those things alone are great.

The right keeps disconnecting the word failure from it's true meaning.

9/11..failure.
Katrina..failure.
Financial collapse..failure.
TARP..response to failure.
Iraq..war crime.

Got it?

The private sector is creating a "good number" of jobs, Sallow? What's amusing is how Obama's jobs numbers have been so abysmal for so long that something mediocre can suddenly seem "good" to all of his followers. It's like little Johnnie bringing home F's on his report card year after year and then suddenly getting some D's and that's viewed as a "good" grade by his idiot parents.

Considering there was a catastrophic collapse in employment before the Stimulus was implemented..and continued job growth after..it's amusing you guys continue with the "failure" meme.

 

[drsmith1072]

Dont you get it?

If I go out and earn $100 dollars and then spend $200 dollars and someone asks how I am doing financially and I tell them "great, I earned $100 this week"....am I being honest and offering accurate information?

Yes, there were X amount of people hired....but at the same time, there were X+Y people that lost their jobs.

So this was not an issue of jobs created by this administration...This is an issue of people replacing other less productive people...and additional ones being laid off.

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

Do you have a REAL example that actually applies or are vague generalities all that you have to offer?

 

[daveman]

The left's problem is one of perception. They pay attention only to the last thing their leaders say. And they never pay attention to what their leaders do.

If what they say contradicts what they said yesterday, no problem. Reality is redefined. If tomorrow's speech contradicts today's, that will be the new reality.

Orwell really nailed them.

LOL now this in hilarious coming form the side that has both romney and gingrich at the top of their list for candidates.
BOTH have a history of saying one thing and doing another as well as contradicting things that they have said in the past. So it's quite hilarious that you would even try to make such a lame argument when it defines the republican party and this election cycle is all the proof anyone needs to verify that. LOL
The past only matters to republicans when they can use it to attack those on the left. However, when their own candidates and presidents get questioned about their past then it becomes off limits. LOL

Now you get to find posts of mine where I say I'm supporting either Newt or Romney.

I don't claim to speak for my "side". I speak only for myself. You see, I'm an individual.

I understand you leftists have trouble with that concept.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

"public sector jobs" classify as useless ticks, so, no, we don't care about them.

Least your honest about it.

But I appreciate the job our military, police, firemen, teachers, santation people and others do.

I don't think they are ticks.

 

[Claudette]

All I heard was a campaign speech.

Then you obviously weren't listening

His "pay their fair share" mantra.

Funny how it doesn't seem to bother rightwingers when they use that same mantra when they talk about "broadening the tax base" and making those who are too poor to pay income tax "pay their fair share"



So you claim it's just a campaign speech and then begrudge him for not making it a campaign speech and running on his record?? WOW! According to you he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I much preferred Mitch Daniels rebutal speech. He actually talked about the problems and he did it in what, 6 minutes or so?

Got more out of his speech than the hour and a half of pure boredome that Barry spewed.

LOL of course you did. Really is that what he talked about? Seems to me that his speech was nothing but a campaign add trying to blame obama for everything as he spewed the standard right party talking points.

And yes. Some Americans ARE that gullible.

And you are perffect example of that, contradictions and all.

Talk about gullible DR.

You obviously bought what Barry was selling in his hour and a half long campaign speech.

Hope and Change anyone.

 

[drsmith1072]

Basically, his game is to get off some "one-liners".

I liked your post by the way. I would argue that Obama has increased regulations. After we saw what happened on Wall Street, it was high time that regulations were increased.

The problem is that when you write regulations, you either have to be so nuanced that the regulations become toothless or so broad that they affect everybody. The monied interests on Wall Street have the money to adapt to get around the regs. Mom and Pop businesses on Main Street can't be so nimble. As always a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

I would argue that the regulations are there but they are necessary since we've seen that the free market will take advantage of every loophole.

I know in some areas regulations have increased but that does not show that obama has drastically incresed the over all number of regulations. That is I asked someon who claimed that he did to prove his argument. He listed only two instances where increased regulations were imposed and that in no way shape or form proves that the overall number of regulations has increased.

BTW I still remember back when rightwingers on this very board tried to blame barney frank for stopping legislation that they claim would have increased regulation on freddie and fannie and prevented the crisis. So I guess arguing in favor of increased regulation is "ok" as long as they can blame democrats for preventing it. LOL

That is factually incorrect.

prove it?

Rightwingers on this board complained that Barney Frank refused to heed to the warnings about the impending implosion of FM and FM.

and yet that is not what they said when they tried to hold the left accountable for blocking legislation that would have created a NEW regulatory agency which in of itself would have created new regulations defining this new agency.

We did not want more regulations on them. We wnated the existing regulations to be enforced....in particular...the regulations that give the federal government the right to monitor their activities seeing as they are federally subsidized.

He refused to do so...and when it was done, he slammed the findings as false and not worthy of consideration.....and I am sure you saw the clip of hiim doing so.

funny that you say that NOW. However, then why all of the rage and fury as the right claimed that barney frank and the left blocked legisaltion that would have created more regulations over fredgy and fannie as well as created a NEW cabinet position that would ahve reported Directly to W??

Here is one of the videos republicans liked to post.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA]Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie - YouTube[/ame]

One of the republicans talks about creating a NEW regulator position who has powers equal to other financial regulators which would mean NEW regulations.

So tell me a new line of BS. Apparently you think I am as gullible as those on the right.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2663668-post66.html

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOshw4kIGR4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2f51de3RVAAAAAAAADQ]THE MADNESS OF A LOST SOCIETY - YouTube[/ame]

 

[amrchaos]

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

"public sector jobs" classify as useless ticks, so, no, we don't care about them.

Least your honest about it.

But I appreciate the job our military, police, firemen, teachers, santation people and others do.

I don't think they are ticks.

Are we talking about "JOBS" or "CAREERS"?

 

[Katzndogz]

obama should raise taxes on the rich forcing more of them out of the country in which case they will pay no taxes at all.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

Do you have a REAL example that actually applies or are vague generalities all that you have to offer?

Actually, no......I am sure there are becuase it is basic business logic.

If you give money to one company that needs it and not to its immediate competitor who also needs it....do you not think it would give the one who got the money an unfair advantage?

And if it gives them an advantage.....which, of course it will.....do you not think it would hamper success of the competitor?

Let me ask you this..

You go into a store to buy a TV....he says "give me a down payment and I will have it for you in 3 days"...the reason being that he does not have the money to keep inventory, so he orders on demand.

You go to the store next door and he offers you the same TV at the same price and he has it in stock becuase he got stimulus money that gave him the ability to keep an invenotry.

Assuming all other factors are equal..both nice guys, both reputable stores, etc.

Who would you buy the TV from?

You need an actual example of this to understand the theory?