Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 04:59 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
towards those who take the time to present logical arguments with supporting evidence.


The best laugh of the day. Thanks.


I'm sure laughing is easier then presenting logical arguments of your own with supporting evidence. Don't pretend that you are being anything but lazy.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 05:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Look at it this way Cyclo. If there were English people on these threads posting the sort of stuff you guys do I would get stuck into them for bringing my nation into disrepute.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 05:23 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Look at it this way Cyclo. If there were English people on these threads posting the sort of stuff you guys do I would get stuck into them for bringing my nation into disrepute.


Is it somehow preferable to be responsible for that yourself, as you so often are here on A2K?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 05:28 pm
@spendius,
I saw an interview with Aaron Gryder after he won the Dubai Gold Cup by some distance. That's my idea of American men.

You lot are a disaster from the spin point of view.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 06:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie wrote:
Quote:
Again, did you or did you not say that you did not think spending hundreds of billions of dollars was the way out of the financial crisis?


I never said such a thing; you are the one incapable of understanding simple English. Since you are the one making the claim, show me where I said such a thing.

BTW, I don't need your condescending bull ****.


You're absolutely right and I apologize. You didn't say that. What I was remembering was this:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, I understand that over one million jobs are at stake at the US auto companies, but they should not be bailed out with taxpayer money. Our government should not intervene in all companies who are faced with bankruptcy.

GM and Chrysler has too much debt and future benefit costs for taxpayers to be bailing them out. They should have planned better for the long term. Many who lose their jobs today do not have the same benefits as the auto workers. Why should they (the taxpayers) be responsible for supporting something many themselves do not have? Totally unfair.


and this:

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the reason why taxpayer money shouldn't be bailing out the auto companies. Their debt load and cost of production makes it impossible for them to survive from too many bad decisions of the past.


Now you DID say that. So on what planet does somebody say something like that and then hope their President succeeds in doing it?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 06:24 pm
@Foxfyre,
What I've said is my personal opinion, and some have disagreed with Obama's spending which mostly has to do with expanding too much social services by creating too much debt now rather than waiting until tax revenues can support them.

The opinions about the auto companies are self-explanatory.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 06:49 pm
I tend to avoid the tiresome food fights yall get into but...
Foxfyre, CI made his pitch for why the govt should not bailout GM and Chrysler. But President Obama went in a different direction, ignoring CI's advice. You seem to find it odd that CI would wish the scheme to be successful despite his feeling that we are heading in the wrong direction. You seem to feel that CI should want the Obama plan to fail. CI can speak for himself, but I don't see the logic in your thinking.
I recall putting up a post on the night President Bush got us into Iraq, Foxfyre. I argued against the idea but, once the deed was done, I certainly didn't hope for failure.
I recall, fadingly with the passage of time, a young Army squad leader in VN being asked by the platoon SGT and the LT above him for a suggestion in 10 seconds or less about what to do in a particular situation. I can assure you the young squad leader, if his idea was rejected, didn't hope for failure.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 07:51 pm
@realjohnboy,
there's quite a number of members here on a2k whose apparent sole purpose is food fights, C.I. and Foxy are mere examples of such.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 08:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Please post my remarks that even suggest that I have said:
1) I am an expert in economics
2) I have determined that Obama team actions are already failures
3) I know that Obama has failed to take the right steps

In addition to Sowell I look to the classical economists (John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu) and the more modern Walter Williams, the late Milton Friedman, several publications that I read regularly including the Wall Street Journal, and lately have been reading Robert P. Murphy.

You however are on record as saying you think the big spending initiatives are the wrong way to go. Obama supports them. Do you hope he fails in that?

It doesn't take an expert in economics to know you can't borrow your way out of debt, as Daniel Hannan pointed out. Don't let the ci's of the world bother you, Foxfyre, in fact I would not take him seriously anymore.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:00 pm
@realjohnboy,
I also personally opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, RJB, and I very much wanted President Bush and the hawkish members of Congress to fail in their initiative to do that. During the long months that we appealed to the UN for help and sanction for that, I thought we might dodge that bullet. I advised my elected representatives of my feelings.

The President and members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican made me see that I wasn't going to get my wish and actually made me hopeful that I was wrong. And before the vote was taken in Congress, the impassioned bipartisan arguments for war had me believing that it was the right thing to do. Once the troops were committed, I threw my whole support behind the effort. I believe that is the thing to do when you have boots on the ground in harms way.

And no, once the vote is taken and the deed is done, I don't want people to get hurt or the country to be damaged just because I didn't get my way. I won't and have not spoken against President Obama or the initiatives in any way to undermine efforts in progress.

But nobody has convinced me that a 3.5 trillion dollar budget is a good deal for this country. Nobody has persuaded me that it is smart to put the people now, and however many future generations into deep debt for initatives that the experts are giving us little assurance have any chance to work. No one has made an impassioned speech to convince me that it is a good thing for the government to threaten private citizens because the citizens benefitted from a law that Congress passed and the President signed just because some members of Congress and the President were then embarrassed.

When the deal isn't done yet is the time to speak up. And yes, I hope the President fails in his attempt to pass a 3.5 trillion dollar budget. I hope the Congress rethinks and reins in the enormous stimulus package and adopts one that will actually stimulate the economy and create jobs. I don't believe the one they passed will do that and I think it is wrong not to say so before it's a done deal. I hope the President fails in his cap and trade scheme and other measures that I believe to be the wrong way to go.

There is a huge difference between opposing the government when you think it is wrong and calling the President hateful names and accusing him of all sorts of things that he has not done and wishing the worst kind of scourge upon him. That was done to George W. Bush for most of eight years. I do not wish that on Barack Obama and I won't do that to him.

I will continue to speak out when I believe the President and Congress are taking the wrong path or when I believe they are not forthcoming and when I believe those we elect to represent us are failing to do that.

As for the auto bailout, it isn't a done deal yet. I agree with CI that it is the wrong thing to do. I think it is incumbant upon all of us to advise our elected representatives how we feel about things like that before they do it rather than wait and condemn them after it is done. I hope the President fails in his intent to throw more good money after bad in a scheme that I think is the wrong way to go. And now is the time to say it and not wait until it is already done.

Once it is done, if it is done, then I will hope for the best that it will work.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:03 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

I tend to avoid the tiresome food fights yall get into but...
Foxfyre, CI made his pitch for why the govt should not bailout GM and Chrysler. But President Obama went in a different direction, ignoring CI's advice. You seem to find it odd that CI would wish the scheme to be successful despite his feeling that we are heading in the wrong direction. You seem to feel that CI should want the Obama plan to fail. CI can speak for himself, but I don't see the logic in your thinking.
I recall putting up a post on the night President Bush got us into Iraq, Foxfyre. I argued against the idea but, once the deed was done, I certainly didn't hope for failure.
I recall, fadingly with the passage of time, a young Army squad leader in VN being asked by the platoon SGT and the LT above him for a suggestion in 10 seconds or less about what to do in a particular situation. I can assure you the young squad leader, if his idea was rejected, didn't hope for failure.


rjb, you seem fairly logical, but listen to reason, and I think Foxfyre would concur. Some things, I want Obama to succeed, because that means America succeeds and we succeed, but most of his stuff, I do not want him to succeed because it means failure for the country and for what is right and just, and it means we fail. I wish no ill come to Obama, none, but I think principles should trump any individual, and that is all Obama is, nothing more. He was voted in as president, but in no way does that indicate that all of his initiatives and personal success means success for right, for America, for principles, and for us.

I can explain it with this illustration. If I am riding in a car, and the driver is turning down a dead end road, or a road that leads to certain trouble, I would rather the car get bogged down sooner than later, so that the car can be turned around and headed in the right direction.

Anybody that can't acknowledge the logic of this "wanting Obama to fail" nonsense really doesn't have much thinking ability, or intellectual honesty.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:08 pm
@okie,
The wanting "Obama to fail" mantra was nothing more than the Democrats sitting around trying to figure out how to marginalize Rush Limbaugh, thats all it ever was, nothing more. The whole thing was an absolute joke, except those people that have searched tirelessly to try to find something on Limbaugh. If thats the best they can do, I would say it was a flop. They need to go back to the drawing board.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:21 pm
@okie,
And how all this discussion was started was the Obama supporters accusing those of us who were opposing various initiatives of wanting Obama to fail. There is a big difference in wanting a wrong headed idea or initiative to fail before it can do any damage and wanting the Presidency to fail.

By the way, RJB is not only logical, reasonable, and a decent human being, he is a lot of fun and smart too even when he is taking me to task. Smile
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


By the way, RJB is not only logical, reasonable, and a decent human being, he is a lot of fun and smart too even when he is taking me to task. Smile


April Fool's!
(thanks foxfyre)
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:48 pm
@realjohnboy,
You're welcome RJB. I might be persuaded to say that about you on April 5 even. Smile
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

And how all this discussion was started was the Obama supporters accusing those of us who were opposing various initiatives of wanting Obama to fail. There is a big difference in wanting a wrong headed idea or initiative to fail before it can do any damage and wanting the Presidency to fail.

By the way, RJB is not only logical, reasonable, and a decent human being, he is a lot of fun and smart too even when he is taking me to task. Smile

Its a trick, thats all it was. I find it fascinating that Democrats try to use the same tricks that they see Republicans complaining about, but the tricks are not applied in the correct manner. An example, Republicans seem to have the advantage on a strong national defense and military heroics and so forth, so Kerry tried to fool everybody with his driving the boat into Boston and the phony salute. But the trick didn't work. Corruption, Clinton was lambasted for 8 years for being a totally corrupt administration, which it was, so they borrowed the angle and went after Republicans. That angle did work somewhat, but it was so hypocritical and alot of us could see through it, but it worked nevertheless. Now that all the tax cheats and other crooks are being collected into Obama's administration, as well as documented with Fannie and Freddie, in Congress and elsewhere, corruption no longer matters of course. Republicans complained about Democrats wanting Bush to fail, as in Iraq, so now they borrow that angle and try to apply it, but they don't apply it correctly, but instead say we want Obama to fail. We do, but not in ways that makes America fail, as they did. Its as if they are dumb or naive, or perhaps they intentionally are blind to it. I think it boils down to party trumps principles rather than principles trump party.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Wed 1 Apr, 2009 10:56 am
http://offcamber4wd.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=17771&g2_serialNumber=1
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Wed 1 Apr, 2009 01:00 pm
@okie,
For a flop Obama aint doing so bad up against the face of the republican party, aka Rush Limbaugh.

Quote:
WASHINGTON " The deepening recession is taking a slight toll on President Barack Obama's standing, but he's still twice as popular as archnemesis Rush Limbaugh, according to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll.

The survey found that 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is doing his job roughly 50 days into his presidency. That was down slightly from 69 percent a month ago.

At the same time, 29 percent disapprove of Obama's performance, a small increase from 26 percent a month ago. The poll of 1,070 adults taken last Thursday through Monday has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Still, the president's numbers remain high, roughly twice as high as his predecessor's in his final year in office and more than twice as high as those for Limbaugh, the right-wing radio talk-show host.


source

But I forget most of you don't believe in polls unless of course they go your way.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 1 Apr, 2009 01:17 pm
I saw a poll once that said the majority of the people believed martians landed at Roswell. So I guess it happened? And Obama is the messiah, if a poll says so?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 1 Apr, 2009 01:29 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I saw a poll once that said the majority of the people believed martians landed at Roswell. So I guess it happened? And Obama is the messiah, if a poll says so?


Okie, don't. Just don't.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1202
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 10:44:14