More good from the President

[WillowTree]

You're not an Obama vote, or a potential Obama vote, so you don't matter. He's shoring up his moderate/centrist support, the economy is improving, the GOP has no great candidates,

6 more years of Obama unless something very very very unforseen occurs. President who stumble in their first 2 years and then bounce back are rarely if ever 1 termers.

obie wan lets everyone who doesn't vote for know "you don't matter" he's a divider not a uniter. good for you and kudo's for admitting it. Honesty is the best policy.

A usmb poster said that, not Obama, warped one.

Right.. what obie wan said was "we could ride in the back." yep

 

[G.T.]

"Just words..."

And if inefficient Regulations are scaled back, it won't be enough. Why do you even bother to get out of bed in the morning?

Oddballs' thinking of the promises to cut spending. The teabaggers have already dropped that promise

But they didn't realize when they were campaigning when the actual budget cycles run

 

[G.T.]

obie wan lets everyone who doesn't vote for know "you don't matter" he's a divider not a uniter. good for you and kudo's for admitting it. Honesty is the best policy.

A usmb poster said that, not Obama, warped one.

Right.. what obie wan said was "we could ride in the back." yep

He was talking to a former Republican Administration, not Voters. I think you know that you're dense but you actually just enjoy yourself.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm not seeing how he tore business down, he had as many crony Rich CEO's in his Administration as anyone......it's simply that you can't decipher beyond headlines.

It wasn't just him that was kind of outraged at the post-bail-out bonuses, it was most of the Country.

oh you don't.. why is he now ass kissing the chamber of commerce after once upon a time demonizing them?? You have a poor retaining pond.

You're projecting what's coming from your own conscience.

and you are flat out a liar.

 

[sangha]

I made a thread applauding a good thing.

You couldn't help coming in to for the (checks post count)...34, 140th time (wow, geez)to reaffirm that you despise D's.

No, that doesn't bug me. It's par for your life. 40X a day on average since joining almost 3 years ago.

too bad obie wan tore business down in the first place innit? now he wants to kiss and make up.

I'm not seeing how he tore business down, he had as many crony Rich CEO's in his Administration as anyone......it's simply that you can't decipher beyond headlines.

It wasn't just him that was kind of outraged at the post-bail-out bonuses, it was most of the Country.

It's just wingnut talk. That's all you'll get from WT

Under Obama, corporate profits are at a record high and the economy is adding jobs instead of shedding jobs the way bush* did

 

[G.T.]

oh you don't.. why is he now ass kissing the chamber of commerce after once upon a time demonizing them?? You have a poor retaining pond.

You're projecting what's coming from your own conscience.

and you are flat out a liar.

yepp, flat out

 

[sangha]

oh you don't.. why is he now ass kissing the chamber of commerce after once upon a time demonizing them?? You have a poor retaining pond.

You're projecting what's coming from your own conscience.

and you are flat out a liar.

Care to tell us about how Obama, who saved several major corps from going under (GM, Ford, etc) is destroying jobs, while bush* and ther epiblicans (under whose watch several major corps failed) did such a bang up job that 8 million jobs were destroyed?

I thought not

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama orders review of government regulations - Yahoo! News

Obama discovered that acting like a Progressive wasn't working for him.

So now he's trying to act more conservative.

Too bad most of us don't have short term memory loss.

Progressives being pro regulation is not the same as pro inefficient regulations. Those are mini individual debates all on their own. Regulations being inefficient isn't a position "owned" by a side or another, but of course you'll take itaway!~ However good it feels to be owning all of the correct answers andyour opponents are all traiterous retards, I'm sure it's great for selfconfidence.

Maybe you can show me any good results from Obamacare so far.

The idea works if that is your goal, but the problem is they have a hidden agenda. Crashing the system so they can rebuild it.

Crashing the system will destroy too many lives. To be honest I don't think they give a shit.

 

[mudwhistle]

You're projecting what's coming from your own conscience.

and you are flat out a liar.

Care to tell us about how Obama, who saved several major corps from going under (GM, Ford, etc) is destroying jobs, while bush* and ther epiblicans (under whose watch several major corps failed) did such a bang up job that 8 million jobs were destroyed?

I thought not

Obama didn't do anything other then bailout their pension system. That is why they were going under. You can thank the unions for that.

 

[G.T.]

Obama discovered that acting like a Progressive wasn't working for him.

So now he's trying to act more conservative.

Too bad most of us don't have short term memory loss.

Progressives being pro regulation is not the same as pro inefficient regulations. Those are mini individual debates all on their own. Regulations being inefficient isn't a position "owned" by a side or another, but of course you'll take itaway!~ However good it feels to be owning all of the correct answers andyour opponents are all traiterous retards, I'm sure it's great for selfconfidence.

Maybe you can show me any good results from Obamacare so far.

The idea works if that is your goal, but the problem is they have a hidden agenda. Crashing the system so they can rebuild it.

Crashing the system will destroy too many lives. To be honest I don't think they give a shit.

I don't see the system crashing any time soon.

My Insurance company sent me a big packet to read through about how the Healthcare law will effect me. It seemed to jibe with what the CBO was saying, and it didn't seem like Armageddon as you'd presume it was going to be if you listen to the right-wingers.


Even now, their point of contention is that it's a job killer: stating that ACCORDING TO THE CBO, it will COST 650K jobs.

What the CBO report REALLY says, is that about that many people are now working JUST to get better/any health insurance, and that need to work ONLY for that reason will ease, and that's what envelopes most of the 650K number is people voluntarily leaving employment.

The spin machines work so good for partisans.

 

[sangha]

Obama discovered that acting like a Progressive wasn't working for him.

So now he's trying to act more conservative.

Too bad most of us don't have short term memory loss.

Progressives being pro regulation is not the same as pro inefficient regulations. Those are mini individual debates all on their own. Regulations being inefficient isn't a position "owned" by a side or another, but of course you'll take itaway!~ However good it feels to be owning all of the correct answers andyour opponents are all traiterous retards, I'm sure it's great for selfconfidence.

Maybe you can show me any good results from Obamacare so far.

The idea works if that is your goal, but the problem is they have a hidden agenda. Crashing the system so they can rebuild it.

Crashing the system will destroy too many lives. To be honest I don't think they give a shit.

1) Insurers can't deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions
2) Insurers must cover dependent children under their parents plan until the dependent reaches 26
3) Requires that 85% of your premium go towards paying for health care

 

[Avatar4321]

And his approval ratings are way up.

You and I clearly have different definitions to "way up".

 

[Avatar4321]

Leadership would have been paying attention when Gov. Brewer and Congresswoman Giffords, and Senator Kyle and Senator McCain spoke to him about the problems of Arizona. Nope his azz gets an F in leadership.

So now McCain is good, and should be listened to? I can't keep your flip-flopping straight.

Unlike you, most of us don't have a problem supporting normally bad politicians on issues they are currently correct about.

 

[Avatar4321]

Progressives being pro regulation is not the same as pro inefficient regulations. Those are mini individual debates all on their own. Regulations being inefficient isn't a position "owned" by a side or another, but of course you'll take it away!~ However good it feels to be owning all of the correct answers and your opponents are all traiterous retards, I'm sure it's great for self confidence.

Could you provide an example of an efficient regulation?

 

[Avatar4321]

It's just wingnut talk. That's all you'll get from WT

Under Obama, corporate profits are at a record high and the economy is adding jobs instead of shedding jobs the way bush* did

Unfortunately, the rest of us don't live in your fantasy world.

 

[G.T.]

Progressives being pro regulation is not the same as pro inefficient regulations. Those are mini individual debates all on their own. Regulations being inefficient isn't a position "owned" by a side or another, but of course you'll take it away!~ However good it feels to be owning all of the correct answers and your opponents are all traiterous retards, I'm sure it's great for self confidence.

Could you provide an example of an efficient regulation?

Sure.

Eliminating hidden fees from credit cards.
Creating a minimum standard for safety in our automobile industry.
Regulating the amount of toxins that can be in our food and water supply.

Just a few.

 

[Jarhead]

Progressives being pro regulation is not the same as pro inefficient regulations. Those are mini individual debates all on their own. Regulations being inefficient isn't a position "owned" by a side or another, but of course you'll take it away!~ However good it feels to be owning all of the correct answers and your opponents are all traiterous retards, I'm sure it's great for self confidence.

Could you provide an example of an efficient regulation?

Sure.

Eliminating hidden fees from credit cards.

Correction...

They were never hidden.

So the real answer is..

Making it so that even if one opts not to read his contract, it can not be held against him.

"hidden" was defined as "wording in a contract that people saw as unimportant"

 

[G.T.]

Could you provide an example of an efficient regulation?

Sure.

Eliminating hidden fees from credit cards.

Correction...

They were never hidden.

So the real answer is..

Making it so that even if one opts not to read his contract, it can not be held against him.

"hidden" was defined as "wording in a contract that people saw as unimportant"

The contracts were purposely, (even admittedly) worded far more complex than the average non-legalise consumer was able to decipher. And although I'd agree that it's still on their own shoulders(the consumer), I still found that to be a shotty business practice regardless.

 

[Jarhead]

Sure.

Eliminating hidden fees from credit cards.

Correction...

They were never hidden.

So the real answer is..

Making it so that even if one opts not to read his contract, it can not be held against him.

"hidden" was defined as "wording in a contract that people saw as unimportant"

The contracts were purposely, (even admittedly) worded far more complex than the average non-legalise consumer was able to decipher. And although I'd agree that it's still on their own shoulders(the consumer), I still found that to be a shotty business practice regardless.

perhaps..

But if one did not understand it, then why did one sign it?

Whereas I understand the reasoning behind the regulation, the way it was marketed to the people made it sound like those that signed without understanding what tey signed were victims.

They were not.

They were culrptis of irresponsible behavior. They signed saying the understood when, in fact, they did not understand.

And it now opens the door to people ALWAYS falling back on that excuse..

Before you know it...a contract will read like a childrens book.....and we will be scores of years behind the rest of the world as it petrtains to intelligence.

 

[G.T.]

Correction...

They were never hidden.

So the real answer is..

Making it so that even if one opts not to read his contract, it can not be held against him.

"hidden" was defined as "wording in a contract that people saw as unimportant"

The contracts were purposely, (even admittedly) worded far more complex than the average non-legalise consumer was able to decipher. And although I'd agree that it's still on their own shoulders(the consumer), I still found that to be a shotty business practice regardless.

perhaps..

But if one did not understand it, then why did one sign it?

Whereas I understand the reasoning behind the regulation, the way it was marketed to the people made it sound like those that signed without understanding what tey signed were victims.

They were not.

They were culrptis of irresponsible behavior. They signed saying the understood when, in fact, they did not understand.

And it now opens the door to people ALWAYS falling back on that excuse..

Before you know it...a contract will read like a childrens book.....and we will be scores of years behind the rest of the world as it petrtains to intelligence.

ahahahaha. I don't think the whole Rabbit hole theory will happen here man. I'm really not that worried about it.