Reading and Comprehension Skills Required.

Dissent is patriotic. You are so dishonest you actually suggest hoping Obama fails, and working to obstruct each and every policy effort by a POTUS elected by the people is dissent. It is not, it is tantamlunt to treason.
First off, "tantamlunt" isn't even a word. Dumbass. :lol:

Second, did you have the same opinion when the left was hoping Bush failed, and worked to obstruct each and every policy effort by a POTUS elected by the people?

You will either respond that no such thing happened, or that yes, you had the same opinion. Neither of which will be at all credible.

Or you might go full-on moonbat and screech that Bush was "selected, not elected". :lol:

Once again, for stupid leftists: Obama is not America. Good Gaea, you morons just refuse to understand that.

First of all Cavil is a word and describes your post (to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily). Of course most knew the word was tantamount.

Next, no one i know hoped Bush failed, for to hope he failed would impact the American people. And, as most of us know Bush didn't need any help to fail, he was nearly perfect in that regard.

Yes, I dissented, I thought from day one (Sept. 11, 2001) that we should go after the perps as criminals, calling for a war on terror was stupid, suggesting a new crusade (as Bush did) was insane and invading and occupying Iraq has been tragic.

We still don't understand why 19 Saudi nationals attacked our nation. Of course Bush believed they did so because 'they' hate our freedom. I ask if that is so, what do you think motivated the Arab Spring and the earlier green movement in Iran? Were those Muslims in the streets terrorists or freedom fighters? And if they value freedom, why do they really hate us?
No...they didn't hope that he failed...they only made movies about it...

NO they only made movies about his asassination

*Cavil indeed*
 
Dissent is patriotic. You are so dishonest you actually suggest hoping Obama fails, and working to obstruct each and every policy effort by a POTUS elected by the people is dissent. It is not, it is tantamlunt to treason.
First off, "tantamlunt" isn't even a word. Dumbass. :lol:

Second, did you have the same opinion when the left was hoping Bush failed, and worked to obstruct each and every policy effort by a POTUS elected by the people?

You will either respond that no such thing happened, or that yes, you had the same opinion. Neither of which will be at all credible.

Or you might go full-on moonbat and screech that Bush was "selected, not elected". :lol:

Once again, for stupid leftists: Obama is not America. Good Gaea, you morons just refuse to understand that.

First of all Cavil is a word and describes your post (to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily). Of course most knew the word was tantamount.
You screwed up...and it's MY fault. :lol: Typical leftist.
Next, no one i know hoped Bush failed, for to hope he failed would impact the American people. And, as most of us know Bush didn't need any help to fail, he was nearly perfect in that regard.
Now, don't move the goalposts just because you're losing, Weasel Boi.

I didn't ask if anyone you knew hoped Bush failed. Now you need to admit you know that liberals did indeed hope Bush failed.

Flashback: Minutes before 9/11 attacks, Carville said he hoped Bush wouldn’t succeed « Hot Air

Oh, and looky here!

"Would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" asked an August 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The result? Ninety percent of Republicans wanted Bush to succeed, versus 7 percent who did not. Among independents, 63 percent wanted the President to succeed, compared with 34 percent who did not. What about Democrats? Forty percent wanted him to succeed, but 51 percent did not.​

Do me a favor: Don't claim that wanting someone not to succeed is different than wanting him to fail. Because that would be stupid.

Oh, and stop letting bad comedians do your thinking for you. They're not very good at it.
Stewart: Limbaugh 'Arguably Treasonous' Wanting Obama To Fail | NewsBusters.org
Yes, I dissented, I thought from day one (Sept. 11, 2001) that we should go after the perps as criminals, calling for a war on terror was stupid, suggesting a new crusade (as Bush did) was insane and invading and occupying Iraq has been tragic.

We still don't understand why 19 Saudi nationals attacked our nation. Of course Bush believed they did so because 'they' hate our freedom. I ask if that is so, what do you think motivated the Arab Spring and the earlier green movement in Iran? Were those Muslims in the streets terrorists or freedom fighters? And if they value freedom, why do they really hate us?
They hate us because they're told by their governments that the Great Satan is responsible for their crappy lives. They're stupid enough to believe it. They have a lot in common with American leftists.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I dissented, I thought from day one (Sept. 11, 2001) that we should go after the perps as criminals, calling for a war on terror was stupid, suggesting a new crusade (as Bush did) was insane and invading and occupying Iraq has been tragic.

We still don't understand why 19 Saudi nationals attacked our nation. Of course Bush believed they did so because 'they' hate our freedom. I ask if that is so, what do you think motivated the Arab Spring and the earlier green movement in Iran? Were those Muslims in the streets terrorists or freedom fighters? And if they value freedom, why do they really hate us?

Treatring terrorists as criminals certainly worked for Pres Clinton. Oh, wait a minute.

We certainly understand why we were attacked on 9/11 and BUsh was absolutely right. The Arab Spring has little to do with freedom. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is looking like the dominant party. We'll see what happens other places but I suspect we will see more Islamic radicalism, not less.
 
Can we get real for a moment? Businesses don’t need more financial incentives. They’re already sitting on a vast cash hoard estimated to be upwards of $1.9 trillion. Besides, large and middle-sized companies are having no difficulty getting loans at bargain-basement rates, courtesy of the Fed.

In consequence, businesses are already spending as much as they can justify economically. Almost two-thirds of the measly growth in the economy so far this year has come from businesses rebuilding their inventories. But without more consumer spending, businesses won’t spend more. A robust economy can’t be built on inventory replacements.

The problem isn’t on the supply side. It’s on the demand side. Businesses are reluctant to spend more and create more jobs because there aren’t enough consumers out there able and willing to buy what businesses have to sell.

The reason consumers aren’t buying is consumers’ paychecks are dropping, adjusted for inflation. And job losses are mounting. The 83,000 new private-sector jobs created in May represent a net loss because 125,000 jobs are needed merely to keep up with an expanding labor force. The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits edged higher last week.

At the same time, many Americans are falling behind in their mortgage payments. And housing prices continue to drop – making homeowners feel even poorer.

Close to 60 percent of the half-trillion drop in household debt since the depth of recession has been defaults rather than repayments. This makes it harder for people who’d like to enter the housing market to get new mortgage loans, or for anyone to refinance. Other consumer debt burdens are rising. On Tuesday the Fed reported consumer credit outstanding rose in April – mostly from record-high levels of student-loan debt and an up-tick in credit-card borrowing due to food and gas price increases outpacing wage gains


Robert Reich (Why the President Must Come Up With Demand-Side Solutions, And Not Go Over to the Supply Side)




if one word could be utilized it would, imho, be

JOBS!

Are you an advisor to Obama? Because with an analysis that stupid you could easily be.
Jobs come from companies. The gov't could hire people to dig ditches but they would have to tax companies fo the money. We've seen how that's worked out.
Businesses will invest when the environment becomes favorable and they dont have to worry about:
1) Sarbanes Oxley
2) Obamacare
3) Cap N Trade
4) Further regulation
5) More taxation (just ask the makers of medical devices, taxed under Obamacare)
6) Incipient inflation
7) Eroding value of the dollar
8) Foreign instability caused by Obama's weak policy.

Until then, fuhgeddaboutit.

Biz will only invest in demand, or the potential of it Rabbi....
 
Your fantasy realistic? :lol:

The stimulus has failed. Inarguably. Doing it over even larger only means the failure will be larger.

you can't say the stimulus failed. what you can say is it didn't succeed quickly enough or in larger numbers.

the president was far too conciliatory and gave far too much of the stimulus package in the form of tax cuts. given that we already know supply side economics is a massive failure since we've lived with the voodoo economics for the past 10 or so years, this was clearly a mistake.

how anyone can keep perpetrating the fraud that there is such a thing as trickle down is beyond me.

auditor was right. the money should have been dumped into massive infrastructure projects. at every site, there should have been a huge sign saying "your federal tax dollars at work".

that would have infused cash into the economy, created jobs and cut off the rightwingnut effort to destroy confidence in the economy... which i believe is the single greatest reason things are stalled.

Then by all means print as much money as you need to, mountains of it and pass it out to your cronies , lets see if it works this time.
Maybe this time they will "fix the infrastructure" like they were going to the first time instead they made payoffs.
Lets see how far a dollar goes when you are done.
Scott tissue will be worth more.
 
Yes, I dissented, I thought from day one (Sept. 11, 2001) that we should go after the perps as criminals, calling for a war on terror was stupid, suggesting a new crusade (as Bush did) was insane and invading and occupying Iraq has been tragic.

We still don't understand why 19 Saudi nationals attacked our nation. Of course Bush believed they did so because 'they' hate our freedom. I ask if that is so, what do you think motivated the Arab Spring and the earlier green movement in Iran? Were those Muslims in the streets terrorists or freedom fighters? And if they value freedom, why do they really hate us?

Treatring terrorists as criminals certainly worked for Pres Clinton. Oh, wait a minute.

We certainly understand why we were attacked on 9/11 and BUsh was absolutely right. The Arab Spring has little to do with freedom. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is looking like the dominant party. We'll see what happens other places but I suspect we will see more Islamic radicalism, not less.

The jihad continues.
 
Your fantasy realistic? :lol:

The stimulus has failed. Inarguably. Doing it over even larger only means the failure will be larger.

you can't say the stimulus failed. what you can say is it didn't succeed quickly enough or in larger numbers.

the president was far too conciliatory and gave far too much of the stimulus package in the form of tax cuts. given that we already know supply side economics is a massive failure since we've lived with the voodoo economics for the past 10 or so years, this was clearly a mistake.

how anyone can keep perpetrating the fraud that there is such a thing as trickle down is beyond me.

auditor was right. the money should have been dumped into massive infrastructure projects. at every site, there should have been a huge sign saying "your federal tax dollars at work".

that would have infused cash into the economy, created jobs and cut off the rightwingnut effort to destroy confidence in the economy... which i believe is the single greatest reason things are stalled.

The stimulus is less than it could have been in part because much of it was really TAX BREAKS (which doesn't put people to work, does it) and much of it couldn't possible CREATE jobs, so much as prevent STATES from having to lay people off.

Think about how much the USA invested saving the bansters and their duped clients, compared to the PALTRY sum given over to stimulating the economy.

The banks should have been taking haircuts.

Instead they were getting manicures for free.(read more supply side econ)

The US government overpaid for assets like AIG and GM. (read more supply side econ)

Meanwhile after saving the banks by assuming responsibility for their toxic assets, the banks didn't even bother to begin lending again but instead went into a frenzy of giving themselves PAY RAISES and bonuses!?

The stimulus "failed" because it was a half assed response.

IN relative terms (to the GDP) compare what the USA did in terms of investing stimulus to what China did and you'll see what I mean.

China's stimulus was $600 billion stimulating into a $5.87 trillion GDP

Ours was $787 billion feeding into a $14.7 trillion dollars GDP.
 
Last edited:
I'm on a large fed stim job now

as far as i can see, it's stimulated boatloads of HB-1's

they've even bought a condemned building close by to house them all
 
daveboy, do you know the difference between apples and oranges?
Yes. Do you know that if you call an apple an orange, it's still an apple?

Apparently not. :lol:

Horseshit. You're either stupid for believing it, or you're lying. Which is it?

Of course, bear in mind the two aren't mutually exclusive.

For about 10 minutes, then they started screeching about war crimes.
...Obama, faced an organized effort to make sure he failed, and in my judgment and the judgment of others that effort is tantamount to treason.
Your judgement is seriously fucked. Note to retard leftists: Disagreeing with Obama is NOT treason, no matter how much you'd like to execute those who do.

Your little tin god is NOT America.

Hmmmph. Remember when dissent was patriotic? That stopped in January of '09. :cool:

Dissent is patriotic. You are so dishonest you actually suggest hoping Obama fails, and working to obstruct each and every policy effort by a POTUS elected by the people is dissent. It is not, it is tantamlunt to treason.

O'Raly? so when the demonRats actively worked to stop President Bush in his endeavors aka privatizing SS you committing acts of treason? Oh! My! You are a effen hypocrite.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top