• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's approval rating grows following memorable week

Conservative said:
I can see why you need a massive central govt. to provide you with all your wants and needs.
Click to expand...

Now you're in full-fledged retreat when you resort to that worn-out old rightwing cant. But you've been on the run ever since I slammed down that fudged debt crap you posted. Put a fork in yourself, con. You're done.
 
Conservative said:
Are you Frick or Frack? What you are showing is how young you are. Do you normally get a dividend before making the investment or afterwards?
Click to expand...

Does anyone know a word that means "more unintelligible than gibberish" because our friend "con" has gone there with that comment?
 
Conservative said:
You blame Bush and totally ignore previous Administrations and just like your cohort here you have no idea what you are talking about regarding this issue.
Click to expand...

As the article I gave you showed, he was the president who exploited the CRA and tried to capitalize politically from all the bad loans and the investment instruments based on those loans. So you think he should be given a pass just because he was also the most incompetent and ignorant president (having taken the lead from Reagan) in modern history? No wonder all we get is abysmal failure when the people you vote for actually get power. Failure and incompetence are core values for people like you.
 
digitusmedius said:
Does anyone know a word that means "more unintelligible than gibberish" because our friend "con" has gone there with that comment?
Click to expand...

Wow, big words, since you don't know what dividend means who gave you this phrase to post? Let's see, Reagan has lower Debt to GDP ratio than Clinton, had a Democrat House to deal with, doubled GDP, grew FIT revenue 60% with three years of Tax cuts, added 17 million jobs vs. Obama who has increased GDP 2.8 trillion of which 842 was govt. spending from the stimulus, added 7.6 trillion to the debt, had a Democrat Congress in helping create this poor recovery, and for that investment created a net gain of 6 million jobs from when he took office many of which were part time and 2 million from the employment high when the recession began. Yes, I can see why you are a Gruber Democrat.
 
digitusmedius said:
As the article I gave you showed, he was the president who exploited the CRA and tried to capitalize politically from all the bad loans and the investment instruments based on those loans. So you think he should be given a pass just because he was also the most incompetent and ignorant president (having taken the lead from Reagan) in modern history? No wonder all we get is abysmal failure when the people you vote for actually get power. Failure and incompetence are core values for people like you.
Click to expand...

Short attention span, poor understanding of civics and history, biased and partisan liberal who calls himself a progressive. You have been indoctrinated well.
 
digitusmedius said:
As the article I gave you showed, he was the president who exploited the CRA and tried to capitalize politically from all the bad loans and the investment instruments based on those loans. So you think he should be given a pass just because he was also the most incompetent and ignorant president (having taken the lead from Reagan) in modern history? No wonder all we get is abysmal failure when the people you vote for actually get power. Failure and incompetence are core values for people like you.
Click to expand...

A very good article on the Mortgage Crisis. As I have stated over and over again there is a lot of blame to go around to both parties but rather than acknowledge that you and others choose to make Bush the whipping boy totally ignoring Democrat contributions. In addition to the reality that home ownership grew significantly in the 90's, that the true benefit of that ownership was the Democrat Party, the implementation of the sub prime loans this article places the blame on both parties but states that the bubble began in 1997

Who’s to Blame for the Housing Bubble? - Developments - WSJ

“
There is plenty of blame to go around,” Mr. Pinto says. “In particular both parties got enamored with unrealistically and quickly growing the homeownership rate. However I would give (the bigger share of the blame) to the Democrats.”
Click to expand...

Mr. Lawler says: “Both (parties) in my mind were fully and completely culpable. Both focused on programs to promote homeownership without much thought. One (the Democrats) focused too much on housing goals (for loans to lower-income people) and government’s role, while the other (Republicans) focused on lax regulation, even of institutions where the government and taxpayers were at risk.”
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Wow, I cannot believe I am reading this. Obviously you have no idea what a dividend is on any issue. Do you ever get a dividend before making an investment? Of course he spent the money, that is what generated the dividend so that other President's didn't have to spend the money. Goes against your belief, doesn't it? Try to think big picture rather than impose your biases on this economic opportunity?
Click to expand...

I'm typing on a i-phone or the word tripled would be bigger and bolder than John Hancocks signature on the Declaration of Independence.

I'll tell you ONE MORE TIME DUDE and then we're DONE!!!!

The B movie actor turned our national debt into three (3) trillion dollars at a time when Americans were still learning what a billion means!!!!! Do you understand this? He ruined america. He taught presidents that you can make a phone call to China, borrow what you want. He taught presidents that you can smuggle arms to our enemies, and if congress ever calls you on it, you can just tell them that you don't recall doing so, and they won't send you to prison! He and his late die hard supporters are MORONS and criminals, and the destroyers of america, hear??????
 
Montecresto said:
I'm typing on a i-phone or the word tripled would be bigger and bolder than John Hancocks signature on the Declaration of Independence.

I'll tell you ONE MORE TIME DUDE and then we're DONE!!!!

The B movie actor turned our national debt into three (3) trillion dollars at a time when Americans were still learning what a billion means!!!!! Do you understand this? He ruined america. He taught presidents that you can make a phone call to China, borrow what you want. He taught presidents that you can smuggle arms to our enemies, and if congress ever calls you on it, you can just tell them that you don't recall doing so, and they won't send you to prison! He and his late die hard supporters are MORONS and criminals, and the destroyers of america, hear??????
Click to expand...

I am going to try this one more time, you obviously have no understanding whatsoever of what a dividend is and how you generate dividend whether you are typing on an I-Phone or not. Simply admit you are wrong and I will at least respect you somewhat. If he taught Presidents about return on investment they failed to listen because the Peace dividend was real and should have caused President's to slow down defense spending which it did in part in the 90's prior to 9/11. That isn't teaching people to spend more but rather get something out of that spending.

Die hard people like you have no understanding of exactly what Reagan did as you focus on a 1.7 trillion addition to the debt, not what that debt generated along with the benefits. If you cannot recognize that reality then we are indeed DONE, continue to wallow in your biased ignorance.
 
Conservative said:
Are you Frick or Frack? What you are showing is how young you are. Do you normally get a dividend before making the investment or afterwards?
Click to expand...

Do you normally dust the cracks and crevices of Alzheimer's patients, hmm?
 
Montecresto said:
Do you normally dust the cracks and crevices of Alzheimer's patients, hmm?
Click to expand...

No, I just beat the hell out of people like you with facts, logic, and common sense and I can do it all day.
 
Conservative said:
No, I just beat the hell out of people like you with facts, logic, and common sense and I can do it all day.
Click to expand...

Yes, most 80 year olds, are able to set around searching for the right button to punch on their keypads ALL DAY long. The rest of us are busy working to make sure that when you walk to the mailbox and open it, your SS check, that a democrat, long dead, made sure would be there post mortem just for you, even though you want to trash such social programs, all..........day..........long!!!!!!
 
Yes that is what I do and I thank you for paying for my SS but you ought to be mad that LBJ who put SS on budget so Congress could spend the money so you have to fund my SS
 
Conservative said:
Yes that is what I do and I thank you for paying for my SS but you ought to be mad that LBJ who put SS on budget so Congress could spend the money so you have to fund my SS
Click to expand...

Why do you care? Had you been old enough then, you'd have shot yourself in the foot by opposing SS at the time the party that represents American citizens and not BIG BUSINESS, was creating it. :lamo
 
Conservative said:
A very good article on the Mortgage Crisis. As I have stated over and over again there is a lot of blame to go around to both parties but rather than acknowledge that you and others choose to make Bush the whipping boy totally ignoring Democrat contributions.
Click to expand...

I've never denied that there were multiple players from both parties responsible for the deregulation of the investment banking system but there is a principle in law known as the "last clear chance rule." It means that in cases where two parties in a case have shown negligence the court or jury will find against that party who is judged to have had the "last clear chance" to avoid causing damage and chose not to do so. George W. Bush could have heeded the warnings coming from multiple quarters (as the linked article describes) but not only chose not to act but actually exploited the corrupt system in place for political gain. The 2004 election was very close and had there not been this apparent real estate boom market created by all the toxic actions of lenders, borrowers (not the poor in this case but "flippers") appraisers and investment bankers Bush would have not had nearly that appearance of a robust economy (which was just a façade as we were to learn a few years later. So trying to pass the buck, which I realize is the first republiscum reflex when they f**k things up which is every time, is not going to work.
 
Montecresto said:
Why do you care? Had you been old enough then, you'd have shot yourself in the foot by opposing SS at the time the party that represents American citizens and not BIG BUSINESS, was creating it. :lamo
Click to expand...

You seem to believe I am older than I actually am but that doesn't matter, what matters is you and I contribute to SS as does your employer and mine. That money was to go into a SS trust fund for our retirement supplement when we retire. LBJ put that money on budget and it has been spent replaced with IOU's that have to be funded in the future. Of course that means you pay for my SS and retirement which makes it a Ponzi scheme. You don't see to understand reality.

You think it is only the Republican part that represents big business? As I have shown you really don't have a lot of credibility or understanding of reality.
 
digitusmedius said:
I've never denied that there were multiple players from both parties responsible for the deregulation of the investment banking system but there is a principle in law known as the "last clear chance rule." It means that in cases where two parties in a case have shown negligence the court or jury will find against that party who is judged to have had the "last clear chance" to avoid causing damage and chose not to do so. George W. Bush could have heeded the warnings coming from multiple quarters (as the linked article describes) but not only chose not to act but actually exploited the corrupt system in place for political gain. The 2004 election was very close and had there not been this apparent real estate boom market created by all the toxic actions of lenders, borrowers (not the poor in this case but "flippers") appraisers and investment bankers Bush would have not had nearly that appearance of a robust economy (which was just a façade as we were to learn a few years later. So trying to pass the buck, which I realize is the first republiscum reflex when they f**k things up which is every time, is not going to work.
Click to expand...

Why don't you do some research for a change and see what Bush tried to do in 2006 and what Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said about Freddie and Fannie? What you have no understanding of is the Housing bubble and what really created it and when it started. Anyone who believe 2004 was the beginning is very naïve, gullible and truly a partisan hack.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to believe I am older than I actually am but that doesn't matter, what matters is you and I contribute to SS as does your employer and mine. That money was to go into a SS trust fund for our retirement supplement when we retire. LBJ put that money on budget and it has been spent replaced with IOU's that have to be funded in the future. Of course that means you pay for my SS and retirement which makes it a Ponzi scheme. You don't see to understand reality.

You think it is only the Republican part that represents big business? As I have shown you really don't have a lot of credibility or understanding of reality.
Click to expand...

I'm self employed.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm self employed.
Click to expand...

So you have your own money invested in your business and generates an income for you and your family. Did you get that dividend before you made the investment like you believe should have come from Reagan's military spending prior to making that investment?

The real issue is yes, your income taxes now fund my SS and Medicare but the question is why should they? LBJ saw to it and you fail to recognize that.
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you do some research for a change and see what Bush tried to do in 2006 and what Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said about Freddie and Fannie? What you have no understanding of is the Housing bubble and what really created it and when it started. Anyone who believe 2004 was the beginning is very naïve, gullible and truly a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Lol. Says the chief partisan hack. If the economy crashed on Obama's watch, YOU'D NEVER LET ANYBODY BLAME IT ON THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. You should change your avatar. Btw, you're the one that told me that you were in your mid forties when Reagan was elected, always bragging on your mature age and experience. :lamo
 
Conservative said:
So you have your own money invested in your business and generates an income for you and your family. Did you get that dividend before you made the investment like you believe should have come from Reagan's military spending prior to making that investment?

The real issue is yes, your income taxes now fund my SS and Medicare but the question is why should they? LBJ saw to it and you fail to recognize that.
Click to expand...

I have more criticisms of LBJ than merely that. My fathers SS account when he retired at 62 was 87K, he's now 91, his account long since expired. There's lots of reasons why I'm working today for people long retired, and you have learned nothing in your 80 years except that democrats, all, are children of the devil. You should change your avatar. Btw, you said you were done discussing this with me a dozen posts ago. :lamo
 
Montecresto said:
I have more criticisms of LBJ than merely that. My fathers SS account when he retired at 62 was 87K, he's now 91, his account long since expired. There's lots of reasons why I'm working today for people long retired, and you have learned nothing in your 80 years except that democrats, all, are children of the devil. You should change your avatar. Btw, you said you were done discussing this with me a dozen posts ago. :lamo
Click to expand...

Shows how little you know, first I am not nearly as old as you believe as I told you I was in my early to mid 40's during the Reagan term so somehow that puts me at 80 now. From what I have seen that is basic liberal math even though you refuse to admit who you are. Second, I grew up a staunch JFK Democrat and in fact played him in my Civics class during the 1960 election cycle as it wasn't a problem the to be a conservative Democrat. Three, the Democrat Party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama left me a long time ago. Fourth you have no concept of leadership and personal responsibility. There are reasons that the results and numbers today show this to be a very severe recession and maybe one of our worst and that reason starts with lack of leadership along with poor economic policies.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend the role of the Federal Govt. and you look at the 1.7 trillion dollar debt of Reagan's without looking at the results generated from that debt because you fail to recognize the return on investment. Had Reagan not generated the results, not created a peace dividend, not created 17 million jobs, not restored honor and respect around the world for this country then you would be right about tripling the debt. Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case and the majority in this country got it which is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984 and showed the leadership to bring us out of a worse recession than this one. Liberals cannot accept that because they look at the results today and numbers today while comparing them to those in the 81-82 recession while ignoring the policies that generated the numbers today and then.
 
Montecresto said:
Lol. Says the chief partisan hack. If the economy crashed on Obama's watch, YOU'D NEVER LET ANYBODY BLAME IT ON THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. You should change your avatar. Btw, you're the one that told me that you were in your mid forties when Reagan was elected, always bragging on your mature age and experience. :lamo
Click to expand...

I unlike you understand leadership and economic policies
 
Conservative said:
Shows how little you know, first I am not nearly as old as you believe as I told you I was in my early to mid 40's during the Reagan term so somehow that puts me at 80 now. From what I have seen that is basic liberal math even though you refuse to admit who you are. Second, I grew up a staunch JFK Democrat and in fact played him in my Civics class during the 1960 election cycle as it wasn't a problem the to be a conservative Democrat. Three, the Democrat Party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama left me a long time ago. Fourth you have no concept of leadership and personal responsibility. There are reasons that the results and numbers today show this to be a very severe recession and maybe one of our worst and that reason starts with lack of leadership along with poor economic policies.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend the role of the Federal Govt. and you look at the 1.7 trillion dollar debt of Reagan's without looking at the results generated from that debt because you fail to recognize the return on investment. Had Reagan not generated the results, not created a peace dividend, not created 17 million jobs, not restored honor and respect around the world for this country then you would be right about tripling the debt. Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case and the majority in this country got it which is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984 and showed the leadership to bring us out of a worse recession than this one. Liberals cannot accept that because they look at the results today and numbers today while comparing them to those in the 81-82 recession while ignoring the policies that generated the numbers today and then.
Click to expand...

You were in civics class during the 1960 election cycle, :shock: I knew you were old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom