Are Americans really this Gullable?

[Oldstyle]

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.

And you think the Obama Stimulus was the reason employment came back? Now THAT is humorous, Sallow! Why do you think the Obama Administration had to invent a new statistic..."jobs saved"...to try and make the unemployment numbers look better? Because the stimulus worked? If that were the case then the whole "jobs saved" smoke and mirrors con job never would have been needed. What amazes me is how many people bought into that bullshit...hook, line and sinker. The very first time I heard someone utter the words "jobs saved" I said "whoa...what?"

 

[MikeK]

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?

I regretfully admit I agree completely with all you've said here. That man is a masterful bullshit artist. But if you are as perceptive and astute as your comments suggest you are you will agree that as bad as this phony Obama is he is a better choice than any of the Republican candidates -- certainly better than either Gingrich or Romney.

Once again I am forced to choose the lesser evil and it's a goddam shame.

 

[drsmith1072]

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"​

So how is that made up or attributed to a specific poster?? I was speaking in general about "rightwingers" and at no time tried to claim any specific person or poster made those arguments. The poster you are speaking of mentined me specifically. Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by rage over the fact that i called you out for your lame arguments two days ago?

Are you actually trying to argue that rightwingers have not talked about "broadening the tax base" which would increase taxes on those who qualify as being too poor to pay this tax??

In Iowa Tuesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was asked what to do about an “entitlement culture” in the U.S.

“We’re approaching nearly half of the United States population that doesn’t pay any income taxes,” he responded. “And I think one of the ways is to let everybody, as many people as possible, let me put it that way, to be able to be helping pay for the government that we have in this country.”

He went on to talk up “having more people who are outside the wagon pulling,” since too many people in the wagon are being pulled.

Last week, in Nashua, N.H., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney hit on a similar theme. “We want to make sure people do pay their fair share. Half the people in this country pay no income tax at all,” he said, although later, he added, “I don’t want to raise taxes on middle Americans.”

Those comments took up the call from Rep. Michele Bachmann, who told South Carolinians in July, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” She added, “We need to broaden the base so that everybody pays something, even if it’s a dollar.”

GOP Candidates: Too Many Americans Pay No Taxes - Washington Wire - WSJ

You never learn do you troll?? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Actually you specifically claimed that I said something that I did not say on two items not just the one.

Was I wrong?

Yes. Because until I make such a claim to claim I did is wrong.

As for my putting words in other people's mouths? I was being sarcastic.

that is no excuse for claimng I said something I did not.

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.

And that has nothing to do with me.

 

[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

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.

Did I say that YOU supported either?? NO I spicifaclly said "side" which is TRUE based on the fact that the the republicans have TWO top candidates right now and they are romney and gingrich.

You TRIED to define the left as a whole based on your obviously baised opinions and yet it is somehow wrong for me to present a valid counter argument defining the right in your same terms?? Really?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Please learn how to read and stop wasting my time with your trolling until you do.

 

[Contumacious]

Are Americans really this Gullable??

Ya, ya.

The First "soak the rich" scam was the so-called sixteenth amendment , which was promptly passed on to the middle class.

The "new" Obama soak the rich scam will also be passed on to consumers and/or will force capital overseas.

Of course. he will be re-elected because the parasitic faction now constitute a majority.

.

 

[drsmith1072]

All I heard was a campaign speech.

Then you obviously weren't listening




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.



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.

Really?? How so?? Please explain in detail how my comments show anything of the kind. Do you have answer to the questions I asked or proof of your claims that were questioned?? I didn't think so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Given the fact that the entire point of giving companies stimulus money was to help them do business and make it easier for them to do business, I fail to see why anyone wouldn't understand that the competitor getting the money would have an easier time doing business than the one who wasn't getting the money.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

That is actually all that you had to say. There is no reason to discuss a "theory" that you can't prove really happened. It also become hard for you to claim that your theory is based on "truth" and "is" happening when you can't prove that it has actually happened.

I am sure there are becuase it is basic business logic.

your certantiy is NOT proof that it is based on truth or is occuring no matter how certain you may be.

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?

In your theory was the one who didn't get it offered the same deal as his competitor but refuse to take it? Too many unknowns to make a valid argument.

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?

Again too many unknown variables since no REAL example exists there is no need in discussing a topic that does not relly exist and proves nothing.

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

No but you do if you expect your theory to support your claim that it's based on truth.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

 

[Staidhup]

Apparently some people have no concept of finance and the role interest plays in expanding current and long term liabilities. If one was for one minute to believe that "soaking the rich" will solve anything at all apparently fails to understand how economies grow and role risk capitol plays in the creation of jobs. Keynes failed to comprehend is that the premise of the government becoming the employer of the last resort would evolve into a long term proposition resulting in unsustainable debt that future generations would be forced to address, like a house of cards eventually collapses. The problem with Obama is his views fail to consider the role marginal propensity to consume plays in an expanding or stabilized market and economic criteria that fosters deflation and stagflation. The President has no other option but to pit one class against the other for his policies and programs demonstrate total disdain of basic economic principles, in other words a classic example of gross incompetence.

 

[Contumacious]

Apparently some people have no concept of finance and the role interest plays in expanding current and long term liabilities. .

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

 

[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"​

So how is that made up or attributed to a specific poster?? I was speaking in general about "rightwingers" and at no time tried to claim any specific person or poster made those arguments. The poster you are speaking of mentined me specifically. Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by rage over the fact that i called you out for your lame arguments two days ago?

Are you actually trying to argue that rightwingers have not talked about "broadening the tax base" which would increase taxes on those who qualify as being too poor to pay this tax??

In Iowa Tuesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was asked what to do about an “entitlement culture” in the U.S.

“We’re approaching nearly half of the United States population that doesn’t pay any income taxes,” he responded. “And I think one of the ways is to let everybody, as many people as possible, let me put it that way, to be able to be helping pay for the government that we have in this country.”

He went on to talk up “having more people who are outside the wagon pulling,” since too many people in the wagon are being pulled.

Last week, in Nashua, N.H., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney hit on a similar theme. “We want to make sure people do pay their fair share. Half the people in this country pay no income tax at all,” he said, although later, he added, “I don’t want to raise taxes on middle Americans.”

Those comments took up the call from Rep. Michele Bachmann, who told South Carolinians in July, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” She added, “We need to broaden the base so that everybody pays something, even if it’s a dollar.”

GOP Candidates: Too Many Americans Pay No Taxes - Washington Wire - WSJ

You never learn do you troll?? LOL

You claimed to know what I was thinking here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/204003-1-meellion-signatures-15.html#post4716854

Fucking dumbass.

 

[daveman]

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.

Did I say that YOU supported either?? NO I spicifaclly said "side" which is TRUE based on the fact that the the republicans have TWO top candidates right now and they are romney and gingrich.

You TRIED to define the left as a whole based on your obviously baised opinions and yet it is somehow wrong for me to present a valid counter argument defining the right in your same terms?? Really?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Please learn how to read and stop wasting my time with your trolling until you do.

Put me on Ignore, you sissy bedwetter. I post what I like, and no amount of your whining is going to change a thing.

 

[Claudette]

Then you obviously weren't listening




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.



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 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.

Really?? How so?? Please explain in detail how my comments show anything of the kind. Do you have answer to the questions I asked or proof of your claims that were questioned?? I didn't think so.

Well excuse me while I LMAO.

Jesus your just full of yourself.

As for your questions well they really aren't worth answering because in your mind you've already got the answers.

Carry on.

 

[Claudette]

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.

Did I say that YOU supported either?? NO I spicifaclly said "side" which is TRUE based on the fact that the the republicans have TWO top candidates right now and they are romney and gingrich.

You TRIED to define the left as a whole based on your obviously baised opinions and yet it is somehow wrong for me to present a valid counter argument defining the right in your same terms?? Really?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Please learn how to read and stop wasting my time with your trolling until you do.

Put me on Ignore, you sissy bedwetter. I post what I like, and no amount of your whining is going to change a thing.

Jesus Dave. Isn't he a hoot.

God what a self important ass. LOL

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Uh have you paid attention at all to the republicans and how they flip flop as they say one thing and then do another? Both romney and newt are kings of that.

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

If they buy your spin they have no one to blame but themselves.



Proof?? Listing two bills is not proof that he has increased the overall number of regulations.



he wants to raise SOME while lower others. How hard is that to understand?



Thanks for the partisan opinons about obama engaging in action only based on partisan opinions. LOL



If you weren't a partisan hack you would admit that the right has been trying to obstruct since day one of obama's presidency and as mitch mcconnell said his primary goal is to make obama a one term president and there are plenty of other republicans just like that. So how is he the most partisan when the right refuses to compromise on anything?



So because it's easy for the right to pass BS partisan bills in the house and claim that they would create jobs while throwing in items that you know will make them DOA, kind of like ryan's go nowhere budget plan that still would have required an increase in the debt ceiling if it were passed, that somehow proves that they "acting on jobs?"

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.

Can I get a quote form the SOTU that verifies what you claim becuase I remember him talking about giffords, the payroll taxcut passed in dec and how the world of jobs has changed at the beginning of his speech but where did he mention iraq in the way you claim?

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

If they read your spin and blindly accept it without question then yes they are gullible enough to buy anything.

Are you an idiot? He opened the speech with Iraq, and Talked about how they were all home now, and then immediately thanked the People who fought there and told us we were all safer and more respected in the world because of them.

Perhaps you should watch it again.


As to the rest of your Spin, It's so weak I am not even going to address it.

 

[daveman]

Did I say that YOU supported either?? NO I spicifaclly said "side" which is TRUE based on the fact that the the republicans have TWO top candidates right now and they are romney and gingrich.

You TRIED to define the left as a whole based on your obviously baised opinions and yet it is somehow wrong for me to present a valid counter argument defining the right in your same terms?? Really?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Please learn how to read and stop wasting my time with your trolling until you do.

Put me on Ignore, you sissy bedwetter. I post what I like, and no amount of your whining is going to change a thing.

Jesus Dave. Isn't he a hoot.

God what a self important ass. LOL

Uh oh. Now you've gone and hurt his widdle feewings!

 

[drsmith1072]

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"​

So how is that made up or attributed to a specific poster?? I was speaking in general about "rightwingers" and at no time tried to claim any specific person or poster made those arguments. The poster you are speaking of mentined me specifically. Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by rage over the fact that i called you out for your lame arguments two days ago?

Are you actually trying to argue that rightwingers have not talked about "broadening the tax base" which would increase taxes on those who qualify as being too poor to pay this tax??

In Iowa Tuesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was asked what to do about an “entitlement culture” in the U.S.

“We’re approaching nearly half of the United States population that doesn’t pay any income taxes,” he responded. “And I think one of the ways is to let everybody, as many people as possible, let me put it that way, to be able to be helping pay for the government that we have in this country.”

He went on to talk up “having more people who are outside the wagon pulling,” since too many people in the wagon are being pulled.

Last week, in Nashua, N.H., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney hit on a similar theme. “We want to make sure people do pay their fair share. Half the people in this country pay no income tax at all,” he said, although later, he added, “I don’t want to raise taxes on middle Americans.”

Those comments took up the call from Rep. Michele Bachmann, who told South Carolinians in July, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” She added, “We need to broaden the base so that everybody pays something, even if it’s a dollar.”

GOP Candidates: Too Many Americans Pay No Taxes - Washington Wire - WSJ

You never learn do you troll?? LOL

You claimed to know what I was thinking here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/204003-1-meellion-signatures-15.html#post4716854

Fucking dumbass.

Nice try but NO. I know it's no big surprise but you failed again.
In that thread I asked you two questions about your argument and you failed to even answer those simple questions and are now so desperate you are trying to use your failures in another thread to make false accuastions against me here. LOL

Thanks for the laughs. LOL

BTW I find it quite telling that you already cut and ran from the false accusation that you made against me in this thread after I pointed out how you were WRONG to make them. LOL The fact that you failed to address it and instead ran with your new false allegation from another thread says it all.

 

[daveman]

So how is that made up or attributed to a specific poster?? I was speaking in general about "rightwingers" and at no time tried to claim any specific person or poster made those arguments. The poster you are speaking of mentined me specifically. Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by rage over the fact that i called you out for your lame arguments two days ago?

Are you actually trying to argue that rightwingers have not talked about "broadening the tax base" which would increase taxes on those who qualify as being too poor to pay this tax??



You never learn do you troll?? LOL

You claimed to know what I was thinking here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/204003-1-meellion-signatures-15.html#post4716854

Fucking dumbass.

Nice try but NO. I know it's no big surprise but you failed again.
In that thread I asked you two questions about your argument and you failed to even answer those simple questions and are now so desperate you are trying to use your failures in another thread to make false accuastions against me here. LOL

Thanks for the laughs. LOL

Of course. It's different. Somehow. It just is.

I knew you'd attempt to weasel out of it.

 

[paulitician]

And...The Patriot Act,Recess Appointments,Signing Statements,Raising Debt Limits,War,NDAA,and so on and so on. 'Hope & Change' is the biggest Dupe-Job in American History. Period, end of story.