Now that 2012 is a lock-in for Obama

[Chris]

The Republican extremism is almost unbelievable.

They are like lemmings to the sea.

 

[Stephanie]

The Republican extremism is almost unbelievable.

They are like lemmings to the sea.

You for sure would know what a lemming is...

Hail Obama..

 

[Chris]

The Republican extremism is almost unbelievable.

They are like lemmings to the sea.

You for sure would know what a lemming is...

Hail Obama..

Hail indeed....

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 8 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 22 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.

Obama has done a very good job.

 

[Amelia]

The Republican extremism is almost unbelievable.

They are like lemmings to the sea.

You for sure would know what a lemming is...

Hail Obama..

Hail indeed....

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 8 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 22 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.

Obama has done a very good job.

Try again. Bush inherited a busted internet bubble, a paper surplus and a free-ranging Osama.

We could have been in a robust recovery for the past two years is Obama hadn't stalled it with ACA and taken his eye off the ball of how the stimulus was being used.

Obama has shown that he has no loyalty to the Constitution and there is no telling what damage he will try to do to us next.

 

[MikeK]

Sanders is too old. [...]

Old is good! That's why I liked Mike Gravel. The main problem with Obama is he's too young to not care whose toes he steps on. FDR is one good example of what I mean. No concerns about the future.

Again. When contemplating a President, old is good!

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah. Obama is doing a great job of cleaning up Bush's destruction of terrorism, his dismantling of Ghaddafi's nuclear capability, increased respect for the US in the middle east, dismantling Saddam's regime and stabilizing the country, lower tax rates, etc etc.

The truth is Obama is the biggest fuck up to occupy the Oval Office. Period. Paragraph.

By all means, we can pretend that Bush did not leave behind a massive, deep, broad and complicated financial disaster and two expensive wars that cost the lives, limbs and minds of thousands of Americans and Middle East innocents, wars that will ulitmately prove to be fruitless when the bad guys take over in each country. We can play pretend on anything.

We can divert away from what Bush left behind and blame Obama for where we are. That's partisan politics, intellectual honesty is always optional.

.

You can pretend all you want.
The facts are that the economy was about to bottom out, Obama's moves prolonged the recession. Iraq was pretty much done, and Obama simply followed Bush's timeline of withdrawl. The difference is Bush would have negotiated a continued presence and Obama just folded, guaranteeing we wil have to go back in 5 years. Bush's strategy in Afghanistan was working just fine. Obama spent many more lives and resources and announced at the outset when we were leaving. That gave the bad guys all the info they needed.
I would accuse you of no intellectual honesty but you would need an intellect first.

The economy was about to bottom out? As a financial advisor, I can tell you that is nowhere near true (not that this matters). The ramifications of this disaster are going to be felt for a very long time, just as all of us in the industry said at the time. You're either being dishonest or you're absolutely ignorant of the severity of what has happened. I'm going to guess it is the former.

The wars cost us thousands of American lives; hundreds of thousands of innocent indigenous lives; thousands of American limbs and thousands of young minds. Not to mention trillions of dollars. We could have stayed in both countries for 50 years, and when we left, the bad guys were going to move back in. Unless you think (and you evidently do) that it's our "right" to occupy sovereign countries at our whim. We'll just have to disagree there; I don't believe we own the planet.

And, of course, the predictable personal insult: "you would need an intellect first." Okay, I'm sure you're far more intelligent than anyone who dares to disagree with you. The hardcore lefties tell me the same thing. Standard partisan defense mechanism, evidently.

I definitely give you credit for defending the disaster Bush left behind. I can only imagine how much energy that kind of spinning must require. Funny thing is, I suspect YOU don't even believe it.

.

 

[Dr Grump]

By all means, we can pretend that Bush did not leave behind a massive, deep, broad and complicated financial disaster and two expensive wars that cost the lives, limbs and minds of thousands of Americans and Middle East innocents, wars that will ulitmately prove to be fruitless when the bad guys take over in each country. We can play pretend on anything.

We can divert away from what Bush left behind and blame Obama for where we are. That's partisan politics, intellectual honesty is always optional.

.

You can pretend all you want.
The facts are that the economy was about to bottom out, Obama's moves prolonged the recession. Iraq was pretty much done, and Obama simply followed Bush's timeline of withdrawl. The difference is Bush would have negotiated a continued presence and Obama just folded, guaranteeing we wil have to go back in 5 years. Bush's strategy in Afghanistan was working just fine. Obama spent many more lives and resources and announced at the outset when we were leaving. That gave the bad guys all the info they needed.
I would accuse you of no intellectual honesty but you would need an intellect first.

The economy was about to bottom out? As a financial advisor, I can tell you that is nowhere near true (not that this matters). The ramifications of this disaster are going to be felt for a very long time, just as all of us in the industry said at the time. You're either being dishonest or you're absolutely ignorant of the severity of what has happened. I'm going to guess it is the former.

The wars cost us thousands of American lives; hundreds of thousands of innocent indigenous lives; thousands of American limbs and thousands of young minds. Not to mention trillions of dollars. We could have stayed in both countries for 50 years, and when we left, the bad guys were going to move back in. Unless you think (and you evidently do) that it's our "right" to occupy sovereign countries at our whim. We'll just have to disagree there; I don't believe we own the planet.

And, of course, the predictable personal insult: "you would need an intellect first." Okay, I'm sure you're far more intelligent than anyone who dares to disagree with you. The hardcore lefties tell me the same thing. Standard partisan defense mechanism, evidently.

I definitely give you credit for defending the disaster Bush left behind. I can only imagine how much energy that kind of spinning must require.

.

The rabbi is a troll

And ignorant too

May as well throw arrogant in there too, but why he is is anybody's guess...

 

[Dr Grump]

If Obama's President, why do we even need elections?

Why even bother with 48 of the states. Ohio and Florida are the only ones that matter...

 

[California Girl]

The Republican extremism is almost unbelievable.

They are like lemmings to the sea.

Drink more kool aid. It's good for you.

 

[The T]

The Republican extremism is almost unbelievable.

They are like lemmings to the sea.

Drink more kool aid. It's good for you.

Oh...Noooo!​

 

[JakeStarkey]

You for sure would know what a lemming is...

Hail Obama..

Hail indeed....

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 8 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 22 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.

Obama has done a very good job.

Try again. Bush inherited a busted internet bubble, a paper surplus and a free-ranging Osama.

We could have been in a robust recovery for the past two years is Obama hadn't stalled it with ACA and taken his eye off the ball of how the stimulus was being used.

Obama has shown that he has no loyalty to the Constitution and there is no telling what damage he will try to do to us next.

While I agree that Obama has mismanaged badly the recovery, George W. Bush indeed has been of the worst presidents to grace that wonderful office. He was controlled by neo-cons and neo-econs, and he pandered to the social conservatives. He was anything but a small government conservative. He did more damage than twenty devils to our economy, our military, and the fabric of our society..

We cannot win defending Bush. We win by arguing economic recovery and job creation, nothing else. We do not give the Tea Party and the social conservatives another chance at power with Santorum, because if he were to be elected, he and they would destroy this country.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If Obama's President, why do we even need elections?

If all the GOP can run is Obama with an (R) behind their name, why are we bothering?

 

[The Rabbi]

By all means, we can pretend that Bush did not leave behind a massive, deep, broad and complicated financial disaster and two expensive wars that cost the lives, limbs and minds of thousands of Americans and Middle East innocents, wars that will ulitmately prove to be fruitless when the bad guys take over in each country. We can play pretend on anything.

We can divert away from what Bush left behind and blame Obama for where we are. That's partisan politics, intellectual honesty is always optional.

.

You can pretend all you want.
The facts are that the economy was about to bottom out, Obama's moves prolonged the recession. Iraq was pretty much done, and Obama simply followed Bush's timeline of withdrawl. The difference is Bush would have negotiated a continued presence and Obama just folded, guaranteeing we wil have to go back in 5 years. Bush's strategy in Afghanistan was working just fine. Obama spent many more lives and resources and announced at the outset when we were leaving. That gave the bad guys all the info they needed.
I would accuse you of no intellectual honesty but you would need an intellect first.

The economy was about to bottom out? As a financial advisor, I can tell you that is nowhere near true (not that this matters). The ramifications of this disaster are going to be felt for a very long time, just as all of us in the industry said at the time. You're either being dishonest or you're absolutely ignorant of the severity of what has happened. I'm going to guess it is the former.

The wars cost us thousands of American lives; hundreds of thousands of innocent indigenous lives; thousands of American limbs and thousands of young minds. Not to mention trillions of dollars. We could have stayed in both countries for 50 years, and when we left, the bad guys were going to move back in. Unless you think (and you evidently do) that it's our "right" to occupy sovereign countries at our whim. We'll just have to disagree there; I don't believe we own the planet.

And, of course, the predictable personal insult: "you would need an intellect first." Okay, I'm sure you're far more intelligent than anyone who dares to disagree with you. The hardcore lefties tell me the same thing. Standard partisan defense mechanism, evidently.

I definitely give you credit for defending the disaster Bush left behind. I can only imagine how much energy that kind of spinning must require. Funny thing is, I suspect YOU don't even believe it.

.

If you were advising clients to steer clear of stocks at Obama's inauguration then they missed one of the big market moves up of the decade.
So much for your information.

How much did 9/11 cost? What about Khobar Towers or all the other terrorist attacks that Clinton responded to by lobbing a missile? Both wars were cheap, as wars go. Both accomplished many objectives, foreseen and unforeseen. And both are being lost as we speak by an administration quaking in its boots from the military, the most politically-driven administration in history.

 

[Mac1958]

You can pretend all you want.
The facts are that the economy was about to bottom out, Obama's moves prolonged the recession. Iraq was pretty much done, and Obama simply followed Bush's timeline of withdrawl. The difference is Bush would have negotiated a continued presence and Obama just folded, guaranteeing we wil have to go back in 5 years. Bush's strategy in Afghanistan was working just fine. Obama spent many more lives and resources and announced at the outset when we were leaving. That gave the bad guys all the info they needed.
I would accuse you of no intellectual honesty but you would need an intellect first.

The economy was about to bottom out? As a financial advisor, I can tell you that is nowhere near true (not that this matters). The ramifications of this disaster are going to be felt for a very long time, just as all of us in the industry said at the time. You're either being dishonest or you're absolutely ignorant of the severity of what has happened. I'm going to guess it is the former.

The wars cost us thousands of American lives; hundreds of thousands of innocent indigenous lives; thousands of American limbs and thousands of young minds. Not to mention trillions of dollars. We could have stayed in both countries for 50 years, and when we left, the bad guys were going to move back in. Unless you think (and you evidently do) that it's our "right" to occupy sovereign countries at our whim. We'll just have to disagree there; I don't believe we own the planet.

And, of course, the predictable personal insult: "you would need an intellect first." Okay, I'm sure you're far more intelligent than anyone who dares to disagree with you. The hardcore lefties tell me the same thing. Standard partisan defense mechanism, evidently.

I definitely give you credit for defending the disaster Bush left behind. I can only imagine how much energy that kind of spinning must require. Funny thing is, I suspect YOU don't even believe it.

.

If you were advising clients to steer clear of stocks at Obama's inauguration then they missed one of the big market moves up of the decade.
So much for your information.

How much did 9/11 cost? What about Khobar Towers or all the other terrorist attacks that Clinton responded to by lobbing a missile? Both wars were cheap, as wars go. Both accomplished many objectives, foreseen and unforeseen. And both are being lost as we speak by an administration quaking in its boots from the military, the most politically-driven administration in history.

So the horrific costs I specified are acceptable to you. Don't know what to say.

Worse, it's tough to communicate with people who think the stock market is the economy. My clients do just fine, thanks, I keep a close eye on the markets for them. And since you think the stock market is the economy, I won't burn any more time on this.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, barring constitutional issues, we elect our presidents. So if you are complaining about elections and the results, you sound as if you are bitching. Who cares?

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy was about to bottom out? As a financial advisor, I can tell you that is nowhere near true (not that this matters). The ramifications of this disaster are going to be felt for a very long time, just as all of us in the industry said at the time. You're either being dishonest or you're absolutely ignorant of the severity of what has happened. I'm going to guess it is the former.

The wars cost us thousands of American lives; hundreds of thousands of innocent indigenous lives; thousands of American limbs and thousands of young minds. Not to mention trillions of dollars. We could have stayed in both countries for 50 years, and when we left, the bad guys were going to move back in. Unless you think (and you evidently do) that it's our "right" to occupy sovereign countries at our whim. We'll just have to disagree there; I don't believe we own the planet.

And, of course, the predictable personal insult: "you would need an intellect first." Okay, I'm sure you're far more intelligent than anyone who dares to disagree with you. The hardcore lefties tell me the same thing. Standard partisan defense mechanism, evidently.

I definitely give you credit for defending the disaster Bush left behind. I can only imagine how much energy that kind of spinning must require. Funny thing is, I suspect YOU don't even believe it.

.

If you were advising clients to steer clear of stocks at Obama's inauguration then they missed one of the big market moves up of the decade.
So much for your information.

How much did 9/11 cost? What about Khobar Towers or all the other terrorist attacks that Clinton responded to by lobbing a missile? Both wars were cheap, as wars go. Both accomplished many objectives, foreseen and unforeseen. And both are being lost as we speak by an administration quaking in its boots from the military, the most politically-driven administration in history.

So the horrific costs I specified are acceptable to you. Don't know what to say.

Worse, it's tough to communicate with people who think the stock market is the economy. My clients do just fine, thanks, I keep a close eye on the markets for them. And since you think the stock market is the economy, I won't burn any more time on this.

.

So "financial adviser" now=Economist? Really?
Were the costs of 9/11 acceptable to you? Must be. Other terrorist acts? Yeah, probably. Those were friends and relatives who died in 9/11, totally innocent bystanders. The soldiers who were killed were volunteers and accepted the risks. I guess the distinction is beyond you.
Perhaps we should just have declared defeat and adopted sharia law? That would cost less, right?
So, 'financial adviser", we will be recovering for a long time. Recovering from Obama's corruption of bankruptcy law, his Dodd-Frank monstrosity, his "consumer affairs" monstrosity, his illegal and unconstitutional acts. Yes, a long time until we can undo all the damage that idiot has done.

 

[Mac1958]

If you were advising clients to steer clear of stocks at Obama's inauguration then they missed one of the big market moves up of the decade.
So much for your information.

How much did 9/11 cost? What about Khobar Towers or all the other terrorist attacks that Clinton responded to by lobbing a missile? Both wars were cheap, as wars go. Both accomplished many objectives, foreseen and unforeseen. And both are being lost as we speak by an administration quaking in its boots from the military, the most politically-driven administration in history.

So the horrific costs I specified are acceptable to you. Don't know what to say.

Worse, it's tough to communicate with people who think the stock market is the economy. My clients do just fine, thanks, I keep a close eye on the markets for them. And since you think the stock market is the economy, I won't burn any more time on this.

.

So "financial adviser" now=Economist? Really?
Were the costs of 9/11 acceptable to you? Must be. Other terrorist acts? Yeah, probably. Those were friends and relatives who died in 9/11, totally innocent bystanders. The soldiers who were killed were volunteers and accepted the risks. I guess the distinction is beyond you.
Perhaps we should just have declared defeat and adopted sharia law? That would cost less, right?
So, 'financial adviser", we will be recovering for a long time. Recovering from Obama's corruption of bankruptcy law, his Dodd-Frank monstrosity, his "consumer affairs" monstrosity, his illegal and unconstitutional acts. Yes, a long time until we can undo all the damage that idiot has done.

I suspect this will come as a shock to you, but there were other possible approaches in the response to the attacks of 9/11. And yes, part of the many duties of a financial advisor is maintaining an appropriate grasp of economics. It's a critical element in CFP and ChFC curriculum. If that makes a financial advisor some kind of "economist", fine.

I can tell you that 100% of us know the stock market is not the economy. Perhaps one day you'll understand that, too.

And your emotional diversionary attacks on me are an indication that you know all of the above is true. Not to worry, I know you'd never admit that.

.

 

[rightwinger]

If you were advising clients to steer clear of stocks at Obama's inauguration then they missed one of the big market moves up of the decade.
So much for your information.

How much did 9/11 cost? What about Khobar Towers or all the other terrorist attacks that Clinton responded to by lobbing a missile? Both wars were cheap, as wars go. Both accomplished many objectives, foreseen and unforeseen. And both are being lost as we speak by an administration quaking in its boots from the military, the most politically-driven administration in history.

So the horrific costs I specified are acceptable to you. Don't know what to say.

Worse, it's tough to communicate with people who think the stock market is the economy. My clients do just fine, thanks, I keep a close eye on the markets for them. And since you think the stock market is the economy, I won't burn any more time on this.

.

So "financial adviser" now=Economist? Really?
Were the costs of 9/11 acceptable to you? Must be. Other terrorist acts? Yeah, probably. Those were friends and relatives who died in 9/11, totally innocent bystanders. The soldiers who were killed were volunteers and accepted the risks. I guess the distinction is beyond you.
Perhaps we should just have declared defeat and adopted sharia law? That would cost less, right?
So, 'financial adviser", we will be recovering for a long time. Recovering from Obama's corruption of bankruptcy law, his Dodd-Frank monstrosity, his "consumer affairs" monstrosity, his illegal and unconstitutional acts. Yes, a long time until we can undo all the damage that idiot has done.

You do realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 don't you?

You do realize that Bushs initial response to the recession was to do nothing? That Bush did not take serious economic actions until the elections were already lost?

Putting American soldiers at risk is serious business. Doing so to engage in nation building is unforgivable

 

[Mac1958]

You do realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 don't you?

Good catch, missed that one. First he thinks the stock market is the economy, then he thinks that Iraq perpetrated 9/11. I can't keep up!



.

 

[EriktheRed]

You do realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 don't you?

Good catch, missed that one. First he thinks the stock market is the economy, then he thinks that Iraq perpetrated 9/11. I can't keep up!



.

Ask him how long David Stockman worked for the first President Bush.