Obama's speech tonight [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

View Full Version : Obama's speech tonight

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 08:31 PM

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

There is no pork in this bill, only worthwhile projects to save 4 million jobs

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 08:36 PM

Most ecomomist...agree almost unanimously

:lol

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 08:38 PM

This whole thing would be funnier if it weren't so damning for our future.

jack sommerset

02-09-2009, 08:42 PM

He used to say create 4 million job.Now its save 4 million jobs. Typical politician. Americans can lose 10 million more jobs and Obama will say it could have been 14 million. The guy is dirty.

jack sommerset

02-09-2009, 08:43 PM

This speech is live right?

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 08:49 PM

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 08:49 PM

This speech is live right?

Yep. Setting a record for 'ums' and 'uhs' too.

FreeMason

02-09-2009, 08:57 PM

Obama is good, but he is not great. It is easy to see through his twisted words once you understand his tactics.

The way he can twists things around is quite impressive. I can see how it fools the average American. The dude is a top notch politician.

It is good to know, it is more important to be BIPARTISAN than to get a decent bill through the SYSTEM.

FreeMason

02-09-2009, 09:01 PM

Even the dude from Fox News didn't have the balls to ask the right questions.

Mr. President, if these times are indeed as crucial as you say they are, how do you defend Pelosi and other members of your party using this opportunity to push agenda through and disguise it as a trillion dollar stimulus bill?

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 09:03 PM

Obama's got the art of starting to talk about something and then going off on some random ass tangent for 10 minutes so no one remembers the original question down to an art form.

Obstructed_View

02-09-2009, 09:38 PM

His supporters will love and forgive him, and blame his successor for all his mistakes.

Twisted_Dawg

02-09-2009, 09:57 PM

And what's the criteria for saving 4 million jobs? If 4 million people don't get fired tomorrow, did it work? :/

I can't believe someone asked him about A-Rod doping. What. the. fuck.
Someone tell him he's supposed to be leading now. This sounds like a campaign stump.

Thats what I thought. But then again maybe that reporter (from the Washington Post no doubt) intentionally threw that softball question out to break the momentm of the questions and to let Obama waste time rambling some useless dribble about baseball.

DarrinS

02-09-2009, 10:03 PM

A good question for our savior might have been, "Uhh, what if this massive spending doesn't work?"

Gino

02-09-2009, 10:06 PM

Disappointing to see so many stupid talking points in his first national address.

I guess Pelosi's been in his ear and he's thinking "You know, a lot of she says is starting to make a lot of sense!"

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 10:08 PM

A good question for our savior might have been, "Uhh, what if this massive spending doesn't work?"

Or howabout "we were promised transparency about the taxpayer's money for the TARP program. Now your Treasury Secretary and his administration are refusing to respond to a Bloomberg lawsuit under the FOIA seeking to learn where the funds went. How are we supposed to believe you that Americans will get to see where every penny of this new stimulus package is going when your administration refuses to disclose the recipients of TARP funds despite such disclosure being a part of the original TARP bill?"

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-09-2009, 10:11 PM

Or howabout asking him why it is the free market has been allowed to correct market issues for this country's entire financial history, but now you're telling us only your government can fix this problem. Considering you and many of your Congressional colleagues authored a TARP program that hasn't done a damn thing to fix the financial industry other than give badly run businesses more of our money, do you really expect us to believe such an arrogant statement?

DarrinS

02-09-2009, 10:11 PM

Disappointing to see so many stupid talking points in his first national address.

I guess Pelosi's been in his ear and he's thinking "You know, a lot of she says is starting to make a lot of sense!"

The more I think about it, he almost has a free pass because he's surrounded by some serious douchery.

DarrinS

02-09-2009, 10:12 PM

Gino

02-09-2009, 10:18 PM

What really pissed me off was how upset he got when grilled about the size of the deficit. He blamed Bush for the deficit and yapped about "8 years of their way blah blah"

He wants to increase the federal budget by 30% in his first month of office.

This is more than all the money we've spent in Iraq since the war began. This is twice as much as our defense budget. Think about it: WE COULD TRIPLE THE DEFENSE BUDGET with the amount of money he wants to spend.

I knew he was a liberal lemming. This isn't even his bill, but he's willing to do whatever his party tells him to do. What a leader!!!

ChumpDumper

02-09-2009, 10:29 PM

Now all that's left is to pray things get worse so you'll pick up some seats in 2010.

tonylongoriafan

02-09-2009, 10:34 PM

i was a little upset it pre-empted House...but i was super pumped it finished right before 24

Viva Las Espuelas

02-09-2009, 11:39 PM

"no one is above the law"

ha. that's a laugh. look at your own Cabinet, Mr. President.

......and the part about "stimulus is about spending", Mr. President. i think the people, your employer, are the ones that should do the spending. not you spend it for us.

boutons_

02-10-2009, 01:01 AM

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 03:52 AM

"no one is above the law"

ha. that's a laugh. look at your own Cabinet, Mr. President.Are you seriously trying to play this card after the last eight years?

......and the part about "stimulus is about spending", Mr. President. i think the people, your employer, are the ones that should do the spending. not you spend it for us.You'll get your tax rebates and cuts.

Shut up and spend it. Your side lost.

whottt

02-10-2009, 04:15 AM

The way he can twists things around is quite impressive. I can see how it fools the average American. The dude is a top notch politician. ]

He's a lawyer, what do you expect? If I have my way no lawyer will ever be elected President of the US again.

RobinsontoDuncan

02-10-2009, 08:18 AM

JudynTX

02-10-2009, 08:40 AM

And what's the criteria for saving 4 million jobs? If 4 million people don't get fired tomorrow, did it work? :/

I can't believe someone asked him about A-Rod doping. What. the. fuck.

Someone tell him he's supposed to be leading now. This sounds like a campaign stump.

Yea, totally uncalled for in my opinion. Who cares? A-Rod admitted he did.

That's when I stopped listening to his speech.

florige

02-10-2009, 08:40 AM

I didn't realize the board had so many GOPers left. You must all be pissed that everyone was impressed with the speech last night and the Gallup just realeased poll numbers that say the majority of Americans support Obama and the congressional dems and only 31% support the GOP

No because we are all blind lemmings who are being brain washed by Obama. I'm sure McCain would have had this crisis solved already, and we would now be on the verge of global peace. Shame on Obama for not having this petty problem solved in 2 weeks.

clambake

02-10-2009, 10:53 AM

i liked the part where he told the house sitters, that got us in the mess, to shut the fuck up.

you guys don't like to be talked to like that, huh?

George Gervin's Afro

02-10-2009, 11:41 AM

i liked the part where he told the house sitters, that got us in the mess, to shut the fuck up.

you guys don't like to be talked to like that, huh?

:rollin

Those who are complaining about deficits sat idely by while the previous administration doubled it...:wow

implacable44

02-10-2009, 11:51 AM

Anybody have any suggestions BETTER than what's being proposed?

We know tax cuts don' do shit, that's why Repugs want $Ts in tax cuts.

Anybody?

I don't have any. The problems are many and extremely complex. My guess is unemployment will hit 15%.

One thing is sure, Geithner's TARP II will not force the finance sector to clean up its act. 100s of $Bs given away and no strings attached, no accountability.

The USA ship is sinking and the top 5% is commandeering the lifeboats and letting everybody else drown.

"My country, right or wrong" is for suckers. There is no America. America has been destroyed by the financial sector while their govt whores in DC let them romp and rape at will.

Geithner is nothing but Paulsen II.

The Repugs will do everything possible to block and make any move by Obama a failure.

The Repugs don't have enough power to block the savior -- and he will do a great job of failing all by himself. HE keeps on down this path and exposes himself for what and who he really is and what he really believes in ... and he will be done.... well except for those folks that do want national socialism .. welath redistribution ..marxism ... That want a HUGE federal government and believe in global warming. Those folks will be happy....

George Gervin's Afro

02-10-2009, 12:24 PM

implacable44

02-10-2009, 12:39 PM

I still can't find anything about socialism in any campaign speech or legislation . I keep hearing about it from the dead enders on this board but I can't find aything about it anywhere. I guess it's a scare/fear tactic those same people are crying about...

oh well read that well known Republican magazine , NEWSWEEK and check the cover there sir... or take a look at USA Today yesterday... Obama doesn't have the courage to come out and say what he is for.. he uses colorful words ... descriptions so folks like you fall in line cuz it sounds so great -- you only hear the lyrics - you ignore the message and meaning.

George Gervin's Afro

02-10-2009, 12:41 PM

oh well read that well known Republican magazine , NEWSWEEK and check the cover there sir... or take a look at USA Today yesterday... Obama doesn't have the courage to come out and say what he is for.. he uses colorful words ... descriptions so folks like you fall in line cuz it sounds so great -- you only hear the lyrics - you ignore the message and meaning.

Or you could just be a sore loser and are trying to tarnish anything he does.

balli

02-10-2009, 12:59 PM

i liked the part where he told the house sitters, that got us in the mess, to shut the fuck up.

you guys don't like to be talked to like that, huh?
Yeah, his whole press conference basically amounted to- if you're sincere and have good ideas we'll listen, but if you're just one of the non-rational, want us to do nothing, lunatic know-nothings who got us into this mess in the first place... fuck off.

I'd like to second that notion by telling Gino and AHF to fuck off. You people are idiots.

doobs

02-10-2009, 01:00 PM

I still can't find anything about socialism in any campaign speech or legislation . I keep hearing about it from the dead enders on this board but I can't find aything about it anywhere. I guess it's a scare/fear tactic those same people are crying about...

If Obama were a socialist--and I'm not saying he is--he would never use the word "socialism." Surely you understand that. Words are just words. Substance matters.

He would use words like "bottom-up economic growth" or "spread the wealth around" or "closing the income gap" or God-knows-what-else.

FreeMason

02-10-2009, 01:01 PM

The affects of Obama's actions do not match his pretty words.

It can't be put any more simple than that.

balli

02-10-2009, 01:02 PM

So you'd all prefer a complete economic collapse then?

implacable44

02-10-2009, 01:04 PM

So you'd all prefer a complete economic collapse then?

it is well documented that the government behind FDR only EXTENDED the great depression with everything they did ... Obama is onthe exact same path -- to make it worse -- to extend it. you are blind and dumb.

clambake

02-10-2009, 01:09 PM

i like it when people hark to the past when they have nothing to offer the future.

balli

02-10-2009, 01:15 PM

doobs

02-10-2009, 01:18 PM

balli

02-10-2009, 01:21 PM

I mean, why are you so angry?
Like I said:

It's just too much that people can do nothing but scream about pork and socialism. No ideas, no prescription, no taking of responsibility, no apologies, no appreciation, no brains.

Gino

02-10-2009, 01:23 PM

I can't even begin to debate this. It's just too much that people can do nothing but scream about pork and socialism. No ideas, no prescription, no taking of responsibility, no apologies, no appreciation, no brains- I fucking hate you republican assholes with every fiber of my fucking soul.

I like that, supposedly, Republicans have gone from having the "same old ideas that have failed" into "having NO ideas".

Because cutting capital gain and payroll taxes aren't "ideas" to liberals.

But throwing money at everything under the sun while increasing the federal budget by 30% is a fresh new "idea".

btw - I dont ever want to hear how much the war in Iraq has cost. The amount Obama plans to spend in his first month of office blows away the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

The dude will do whatever Pelosi tell him to do. Thats not leadership.

clambake

02-10-2009, 01:26 PM

sounds like people forgot who threw the money.

how convenient.

balli

02-10-2009, 01:32 PM

. Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And in fact there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start carrying back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy. We stand to lose about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and another trillion next year. And what that means is you've got this gaping hole in the economy.

As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing. Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

There are others who recognize that we've got to do a significant recovery package, but they're concerned about the mix of what's in there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that tax cut, or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project. But what I -- what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth.

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now, and the economic crisis that we have right now.

Number two is that although there are some programs in there that I think are good policy, some of them aren't job creators. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that those programs should be out of this particular recovery package, and we can deal with them later. But when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package -- something again that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.

When people suggest that, what a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy efficient -- why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings, or weatherizing 2 million American's homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economic stimulus. And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets, and we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

Now, maybe philosophically you just don't think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree with that. I think that's the reason why we find ourselves importing more foreign oil now than we did back in the early '70s when OPEC first formed. And we can have a respectful debate about whether or not we should be involved in energy policymaking, but don't suggest that somehow that's wasteful spending.

So we can differ on some of the particulars, but again, the question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.

implacable44

02-10-2009, 01:52 PM

You are like the mad rapper dude - so much hate... because people think differently than you -- I am the opposite - I have virtually no feelings either way for liberal retards like yourself because it isn't worth the energy -- it is a pure waste of emotion to deal with your kind.

Ideas -- Obama's idea is to spend - spend - spend - buy votes - spend - entitle - spend , manipulate the census - and then spend some more.

What government should be doing is cutting back -- just like the rest of America - cutting back instead of growing - expanding and spending. Cut back - cut taxes and increase revenue. You know what the government did in the 1920's for the depression that happened then ? -- cut back and reduced taxes. -- read Thomas Woods "Meltdown".....

but then none of this matters to people like you...you want a cradle to grave society - you feel "owed" and "entitled" -- so all this Obama madness is good in your mind. -- what the heck are you doing in Utah anyway ??? seems like an entire state is opposed to your philosophy.

balli

02-10-2009, 01:58 PM

implacable44

02-10-2009, 02:18 PM

Actually we're broke as fuck and don't know what to do, just like every other state. And our Republican governor was recently on his hands and knees begging for federal money, just like every other Republican governor.

just like every other "republican" governor ? don't you mean every governor or are you pretending the democrat governors are performing well ?

clambake

02-10-2009, 02:48 PM

you guys crashed and trashed every party.

thats why your opinions are worthless.

thats why you got killed in the election.

america has spoken.

Gino

02-10-2009, 03:43 PM

Good article over at RealClearPolitics.com:

February 10, 2009
The President Attacks a Republican Straw Man
President Obama, as we all know, made bipartisanship a central theme of his campaign last year. Yet he was unable to pull in many Republicans on the stimulus bill. In the wake of this, some have suggested that the President's bipartisan success will be in changing the tone. This is what Alex MacGillis and Paul Kane wrote last week on the front page of the Washington Post:

But the White House did not view the rejection of Obama's initial bid at fostering bipartisanship as a stinging disappointment. Even as Obama was unable to pick up their votes, he was left with many Republicans praising his outreach. And judging by Obama's record, it is this tone of mutual respect that -- at least for now -- he may be after as much as actual votes on bills he could pass without significant GOP backing. [Snip]
When Obama called for an end to "broken and divided politics," his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and others contended that there were few instances in Obama's career when he had made major concessions that upset fellow Democrats to reach agreement with Republicans.

But this, said some who have worked with Obama, overlooked his intent. To Obama, they said, fixing "broken politics" is less about making concessions just for the sake of finding common ground and more about elevating the debate -- replacing cynical gamesmanship and immature name-calling with intellectually honest arguments and respect for the other side's motives. In his book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama waxes nostalgic about the fellowship and vigorous debate of Congress's halcyon days in the mid-20th century more than about the centrist deals the era produced.

If this is the bipartisan direction the President intends to head in, I think that could be a good thing - and, in the long run, it could produce policy compromises as both sides begin to believe that the other is treating them in good faith.

Unfortunately, I do not think last night's press conference was helpful in achieving this goal. Time and again, I noted that the President engaged in a rhetorical maneuver commonly called "attacking a straw man." That's what you do when you mischaracterize your opponent's position, and you refute the mischaracterization rather than what your opponent really thinks.

Ed Morrissey and Mary Katharine Ham noted the same trend during the presser, and I want to take some time to amplify this point. The first instance came in his introductory remarks:

But as we've learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.
Who's arguing that "tax cuts alone" will solve this problem? Even if some are, is this the median position on the Republican side? Is this the position of the more moderate members of the GOP Senate caucus like Lugar, Voinovich, and Murkowski? How about moderate House Republicans like Kirk, LoBiondo, and Castle? We might count it as bipartisanship if Obama had picked up a few of them, but he didn't. Is it because this is their position? I don't think so.

The following came in his answer to AP's Jennifer Loven:

Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
Again, this characterization might be valid for a minority on the Republican side - but I have not heard anybody serious criticize the idea that the government should not intervene. George W. Bush's tax cuts early in this decade were sold in part as government intervention to ameliorate recession - and Republicans loved that. The difference between the sides is in the strategy for intervention, not the principle that the government has the authority to intervene, or that intervention is imprudent. The real debate is not whether intervention should happen, but how it should happen.

He made a similar comment in response to Chip Reid:

As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing.
Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think what -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

Again, who is seriously arguing that nothing should be done?

The President then said this:

There are others who recognize that we've got to do a significant recovery package, but they're concerned about the mix of what's in there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that -- that tax cut or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project.
If they are sincere? This fits back into a previous comment he made (not quoted here) about "the usual political games." The implication seems to be that there is some subset of members in opposition who are insincere, who are playing the usual political games and not genuinely interested in the best bill possible.

Who fits this profile?

This is not really attacking a straw man, but it is a related rhetorical maneuver called ad hominem attack, wherein you go after personal qualities of your opponent rather than the argument s/he is making. Additionally, the attack is so vague that it is essentially unfalsifiable. He's not singling out anybody in particular, so it is impossible to refute the charge.

He then said this:

This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that, "What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient." Why would that be a waste of money?
We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus.

And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

Now, maybe philosophically you just don't think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree with that; I think that's the reason why we find ourselves importing more foreign oil now than we did back in the early '70s when OPEC first formed.

Is this really the opposition's argument? To my ears, they're asserting that things like this, while they might be worthy, are not stimulative - and they should be implemented via the normal legislative process.

And who thinks the federal government should not be involved in energy policy? And even if somebody did think that, how does that relate to energy efficiency in government buildings? Is there anybody arguing that because the government should not meddle in the economy to secure greater energy efficiency, they shouldn't put new windows in the J. Edgar Hoover Building? That makes no sense at all.

Finally, in his response to Mara Liasson, the President again questioned the intentions of his opposition:

Well, as I said before, Mara, I think that old habits are hard to break. And we're coming off an election, and I think people want to sort of test the limits of -- of what they can get. You know, there's a lot of jockeying in this town, and a lot of "who's up and who's down," and positioning for the next election.
One thing that I think is important is to recognize that, because all these -- all these items that you listed are hard, that people have to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we've been carrying around for too long.

I think there are a lot of Republicans who are sincere in recognizing that, unless we deal with entitlements in a serious way, the problems we have with this year's deficit and next year's deficit pale in comparison to what we're going to be seeing 10 or 15 years or 20 years down the road.

And so when I hear people just saying, "Ah, we don't need to do anything," "This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill," without acknowledging that, by definition, part of any stimulus package would include spending -- that's the point -- then what I get a sense of is, is that there's some ideological blockage there that needs to be cleared up.

Note the first line of the third paragraph: "a lot of Republicans" are sincere. Implication: plenty of them aren't, too. They are testing the limits, trying to get everything they can as a prelude to the next election.

The final paragraph actually links the two rhetorical maneuvers I've indicated. He mischaracterizes the Republican position, then dismisses it by saying that they are ideologically blocked (whatever that means).

So, time and again in this press conference, we saw the President mischaracterize the Republican position. That's not to say that no Republicans (or conservatives) hold the views that the President claimed they do (though I don't think anybody is opposed to modernizing government buildings!). The point is that none of these views reflect the median Republican position, let alone the "left-leaning" position of the kinds of Republicans who could be brought into a Democrat-led initiative like this stimulus bill.

Now, I've singled the President out not because he is the only politician who engages in this kind of maneuvering. Far from it! In fact, these rhetorical maneuvers are the stock in trade of debate in Washington. Politicos "win" arguments by mischaracterizing their opponents' positions and/or attacking their personal motivations. That's just how the game is played.

The problem is that - as MacGillis and Kane argue - Obama's objective is to change the tone, making it more civil. If he wants to see that happen, he needs to stop making such assertions, for all they will do is annoy the opposition. This is why I've singled the President out today - because elevating the tone means fairly (and sometimes even charitably) characterizing your opposition. That is a necessary condition for a civilized debate.

That's something I would like to see happen more often in our political debate, and the President's press conference genuinely disappointed me in that regard.

Gino

02-10-2009, 03:47 PM

you guys crashed and trashed every party.

thats why your opinions are worthless.

thats why you got killed in the election.

america has spoken.

I dont remember Obama campaigning on a trillion dollar spending bill in his first month that included all of the junk this bill includes.

Recent polls say that America definately doesn't like this bill.

Try again.

clambake

02-10-2009, 03:55 PM

obama had to take money away from bush before he took office.

you guys had to keep fucking up as you left the room.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:01 PM

I dont remember Obama campaigning on a trillion dollar spending bill in his first month that included all of the junk this bill includes.

Recent polls say that America definately doesn't like this bill.

Try again.While the president puts on a full-court press, the debate over the $800 billion-plus bill -- which includes increased government spending and tax cuts -- appears to have split the public. A slight majority, 54 percent, favors the bill; 45 percent are opposed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/09/poll.obama.stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview

You try again.

George Gervin's Afro

02-10-2009, 04:06 PM

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:14 PM

While the president puts on a full-court press, the debate over the $800 billion-plus bill -- which includes increased government spending and tax cuts -- appears to have split the public. A slight majority, 54 percent, favors the bill; 45 percent are opposed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/09/poll.obama.stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview

You try again.

From your article:

Sixty-four percent of those polled said the current bill being debated in the Senate would help the economy a lot or somewhat, while 36 percent felt that the package would not help the economy much or at all.

"The public may be lukewarm on the stimulus package because they only see limited benefits from it," Holland said. "Sixteen percent say it would help the economy a lot, but 48 percent foresee only some improvements if the bill passes."

Many Republican lawmakers argue that the bill is too expensive. It appears that argument may be working with Americans. Fifty-five percent of those questioned felt the price tag for the stimulus plan is too big, while three in 10 said the bill would spend the right amount of money and 13 percent felt not enough money is in the legislation.

No one is saying to do nothing. To say that the "public has spoken" and wants this bill to pass as presently constructed (as clambake claimed) is a complete fabrication.

Obama needs to stop whining.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:14 PM

He's referring to the talk radio crowd being overwhelmingly against the bill.I don't know exactly what they thought a liberal congress and president would do when they got into office.

As was said before, the Republicans shouldn't have done such a horrible job when they were in control of all branches of government -- had they not, they might be relevant now.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:17 PM

From your article:

No one is saying to do nothing. To say that the "public has spoken" and wants this bill to pass as presently constructed (as clambake claimed) is a complete fabrication.

Obama needs to stop whining.So 54 percent of the people are for the current bill and 64 percent think it will help the economy.

What exactly is your argument here?

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:18 PM

I don't know exactly what they thought a liberal congress and president would do when they got into office.

As was said before, the Republicans shouldn't have done such a horrible job when they were in control of all branches of government -- had they not, they might be relevant now.

I thought you were smarter than THAT.

clambake

02-10-2009, 04:19 PM

No one is saying to do nothing.
bullshit

To say that the "public has spoken" and wants this bill to pass as presently constructed (as clambake claimed) is a complete fabrication.
just because it could pass doesn't mean he won't trim it. grow up.

Obama needs to stop whining.
:lol you're a dumbass.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:21 PM

I thought you were smarter than THAT.So what are you saying Republicans did while they were in control of every branch of government to merit anything more than their current power level in congress?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 04:21 PM

From your article:

No one is saying to do nothing. To say that the "public has spoken" and wants this bill to pass as presently constructed (as clambake claimed) is a complete fabrication.

Obama needs to stop whining.

Its actually the truth. Why do you think they elected Obama?

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:22 PM

So 54 percent of the people are for the current bill and 64 percent think it will help the economy.

What exactly is your argument here?

Fifty-five percent of those questioned felt the price tag for the stimulus plan is too big, while three in 10 said the bill would spend the right amount of money and 13 percent felt not enough money is in the legislation.

My point is that MOST people want it changed just like the Republicans do.

I find it hard to believe that the government could spend a trillion dollars and it doesnt help the economy "somewhat".

Again, Obama needs to stop whining and cut the stupid campaign rhetoric. Grow a pair and stand up to Pelosi.

clambake

02-10-2009, 04:25 PM

nobody on earth is afraid of pelosi.

except you and rush listeners.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:27 PM

My point is that MOST people want it changed just like the Republicans do.So Republicans are for Keynesian stimulus, they are just whining about a few percentage points of spending.

Do you realize what that means?

I find it hard to believe that the government could spend a trillion dollars and it doesnt help the economy "somewhat".I find it hard to believe you don't know exactly how owned the Republicans are right now.

Again, Obama needs to stop whining and cut the stupid campaign rhetoric. Grow a pair and stand up to Pelosi.Not really. All he has to do is sign the bill once it is passed. He did win, after all.

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:27 PM

nobody on earth is afraid of pelosi.

except you and rush listeners.

And Barrack.

I think most would agree he shouldnt have let the house democrats draft this bill.

I guess theres a new philosophy with the libs on the board:

"Nothing Obama ever does is wrong."

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:29 PM

So Republicans are for Keynesian stimulus, they are just whining about a few percentage points of spending.

Do you realize what that means?

I find it hard to believe you don't know exactly how owned the Republicans are right now.

Not really. All he has to do is sign the bill once it is passed. He did win, after all.

Who's whining about "a few percentage points"? Again, thats just stupid rhetoric. If it was just a few points then they would have come to a deal much sooner. The fact is that most of the bill is wastelful spending. The hyped "contruction and infrastructure" accounts for only 60 billion. Less than 10 percent.

And I dont think the Republicans are "owned" when Barrack is on TV obviously irritated that the public is agreeing with them.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:31 PM

And Barrack.

I think most would agree he shouldnt have let the house democrats draft this bill.

I guess theres a new philosophy with the libs on the board:

"Nothing Obama ever does is wrong."I hate to break this to you, but all spending bills originate in the house.

Sure there is pork in the bill, but even Kay Bailey is talking about how Texas needs to get its hands on that money no matter what her feelings about the bill are. She's owned as well.

clambake

02-10-2009, 04:32 PM

And Barrack.

I think most would agree he shouldnt have let the house democrats draft this bill.

I guess theres a new philosophy with the libs on the board:

"Nothing Obama ever does is wrong."

he'll do whatever he wants with this bill....and he'll piss off some democrats while he does it.

you're still listening to the losers.

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:33 PM

Good analysis. Its basically setting itself up to fail.

Analysis: Stimulus bill that's not all stimulating

Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 30, 6:05 pm
ET AP – President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the Middle Class Working Families Task Force, Friday, … WASHINGTON – They call it "stimulus" legislation, but the economic measures racing through Congress would devote tens of billions of dollars to causes that have little to do with jolting the country out of recession.

There's $345 million for Agriculture Department computers, $650 million for TV converter boxes, $15 billion for college scholarships — worthy, perhaps, but not likely to put many Americans back to work quickly.

Yes, there are many billions of dollars in "ready-to-go" job-creating projects in President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill. But there are also plenty of items that are just unfinished business for Congress' old bulls.

An $800 billion-plus package, it turns out, gives lawmakers plenty of opportunities to rid themselves of nagging headaches left over from the days when running up the government's $10 trillion-plus debt was a bigger concern.

There's $1 billion to deal with Census problems and $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year. The Senate would devote $2.1 billion to pay off a looming shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia.

"I have communicated to the administration that there are parts of this package that don't meet the test that they themselves established of temporary, timely and targeted," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. He wants Obama to weigh in to knock out the clunkers during House-Senate negotiations.

But nothing is in the legislation by accident. By including in the Senate stimulus bill such far-ranging ideas as $40 million to convert the way health statistics are collected — from paper to an electronic system — lawmakers are able to thin out their in-boxes, even if they aren't doing much to create jobs.

There's also $380 million in the Senate bill for a rainy day fund for the Women, Infants and Children program that delivers healthful food to the poor. WIC got the equivalent of a $1 billion infusion last fall.

At the same time, putting items in the stimulus bill that really should be handled in annual appropriations bills creates more room in the latter for pet projects and other programs.

It creates "headroom," a top Senate GOP budget aide said, for things senators didn't have room for in the regular process but still want to do.

Some lawmakers are sounding warnings.

"I suggested ... less spending and especially less spending for those items that are not stimulus and should be funded through the regular appropriations process," said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, top Republican on the Appropriations Committee.

Part of the reason so much non-stimulus spending has made it into the stimulus bill is that there are only so many traditional jobs-heavy public works projects that can get started quickly. As it is, most of the money in the bill for road building, water projects and mass transit probably won't be spent until the economy has turned around and is back on a recovery path.

For example, just one-third of $30 billion proposed by the House for highway construction would reach the economy in the next year and a half, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats are going ahead with Obama's $500 tax credit for most workers and $1,000 for couples even though there's wide agreement that last year's rebate checks weren't effective in sparking recovery.

Defenders of the package said that once experts determined it would take $800 billion to start to pull the country out of recession and emphasized the urgency, details took on less importance.

"If the house is burning, you're not going to worry about which hose you grab, so long as you get water on the fire," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., one of the chief authors of the House package as chairman of its appropriations committee.

But some Democrats, like Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, think the $3.5 billion in the stimulus package devoted to health research, or the $14 billion-$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships by $400 to $500 would be better spent on additional brick and mortar infrastructure projects.

"You don't want to be against Pell Grants," Nelson said. "But the question is, how many people go to work on Pell Grants? Should it be in this legislation if it's about jobs?"

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Andrew Taylor covers Congress and the federal budget for The Associated Press.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:35 PM

Who's whining about "a few percentage points"? Again, thats just stupid rhetoric. If it was just a few points then they would have come to a deal much sooner. The fact is that most of the bill is wastelful spending. The hyped "contruction and infrastructure" accounts for only 60 billion. Less than 10 percent.What is the total spending Republicans claim they want cut from the bill.

A few percent.

And I dont think the Republicans are "owned" when Barrack is on TV obviously irritated that the public is agreeing with them.54 percent approve of the bill as is.

Nothing is perfect, and Republicans can't wait to get that money for their states either. You have fallen for their posturing. Were they ever worried about wasteful spending when they were in complete control of the government?

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:36 PM

I hate to break this to you, but all spending bills originate in the house.

Sure there is pork in the bill, but even Kay Bailey is talking about how Texas needs to get its hands on that money no matter what her feelings about the bill are. She's owned as well.

You are TERRIBLY mistaken. Not only can the white house draft spending bills, but the senate can as well. Take for instance the Republican alternative to the stimulus drafted by the republicans in the senate.

And the white house's excuse for not drafting the bill has been that they felt people in the house would be better prepared this early in his presidency.

Do you always make shit up?

I think we're done here.

clambake

02-10-2009, 04:37 PM

i'm starting to think you need a frisbee golf course.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 04:40 PM

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:40 PM

You are TERRIBLY mistaken. Not only can the white house draft spending bills, but the senate can as well. Take for instance the Republican alternative to the stimulus drafted by the republicans in the senate.

And the white house's excuse for not drafting the bill has been that they felt people in the house would be better prepared this early in his presidency.

Do you always make shit up?

I think we're done here.:lol

By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit.

http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/approps_proc.htm

We are indeed done here.

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:46 PM

:lol

By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit.

http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/approps_proc.htm

We are indeed done here.

You dumbass. You just said that ALL spending bills originate in the house. Now you say the house or senate.

Care to change your statement?

btw - The white house drafts spending bills all the time.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 04:51 PM

I thought you said we were done? Perhaps you just don't know what originate means.

Anyone can draft a bill. You can draft one. Go ahead, I'd love to see your work.

Gino

02-10-2009, 04:55 PM

I thought you said we were done? Perhaps you just don't know what originate means.

Anyone can draft a bill. You can draft one. Go ahead, I'd love to see your work.

My point exactly. Obama allowed the house to dictate what went into the bill.

Bush signed the NCLBA a couple of days after taking office. The bill was completely based off his blueprint.

THIS bill has very little Obama input. No one bothered because they know he's not gonna stand up to Pelosi.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 05:01 PM

My point exactly. Obama allowed the house to dictate what went into the bill.

Bush signed the NCLBA a couple of days after taking office. The bill was completely based off his blueprint.

THIS bill has very little Obama input. No one bothered because they know he's not gonna stand up to Pelosi.Or because he largely agrees with the spending bill as it originated in the house.

Why exactly would Obama contradict Pelosi at this point? It's not like they are diametrically opposed politically.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 05:07 PM

Actually we're broke as fuck and don't know what to do, just like every other state. And our Republican governor was recently on his hands and knees begging for federal money, just like every other Republican governor.

I don't think EVERY republican governor is begging.

lefty

02-10-2009, 05:11 PM

Fuck that speach

They had to cancel " how I met your mother "

Aaaaaaaaargh

balli

02-10-2009, 05:14 PM

Fuck that speach

They had to cancel " how I met your mother "

Aaaaaaaaargh
Just be thankful we give your Canadian ass American TV to begin with.

doobs

02-10-2009, 05:14 PM

My point exactly. Obama allowed the house to dictate what went into the bill.

Bush signed the NCLBA a couple of days after taking office. The bill was completely based off his blueprint.

THIS bill has very little Obama input. No one bothered because they know he's not gonna stand up to Pelosi.

Obama wants this bill, as far as I can tell. If he signs it, it belongs to him.

For something this important, the President had better have a ton of input. No matter what--whether he drafted it personally or whether he consulted a million aides or whether he just let Nancy and Harry do what they want with it--it's his bill, it belongs to him. This is the Obama stimulus.

George Gervin's Afro

02-10-2009, 05:34 PM

I think it's very important to remember that the GOP got it's ass kicked by the American people during the last 2 elections. Any input from you ladies is not necessary.

Crookshanks

02-10-2009, 06:06 PM

I think it's very important to remember that the GOP got it's ass kicked by the American people during the last 2 elections. Any input from you ladies is not necessary.
It's also very important to note that when this bill TOTALLY fails, there will be no one to blame but the Democrats! :lol

This is the democrats bill from start to finish - there will be no republicans to blame (Spector, Snowe and Collins don't count because they're RINO's) when it doesn't help the economy and the masses start getting restless because the Messiah hasn't paid their mortgage or put gas in their car.

Good times ahead! :toast

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 06:07 PM

It's also very important to note that when this bill TOTALLY fails, there will be no one to blame but the Democrats! :lol

This is the democrats bill from start to finish - there will be no republicans to blame (Spector, Snowe and Collins don't count because they're RINO's) when it doesn't help the economy and the masses start getting restless because the Messiah hasn't paid their mortgage or put gas in their car.

Good times ahead! :toastSo you are happy that things will get worse?

:toast indeed. Good to know your hatred for America is no longer hidden.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:07 PM

You are TERRIBLY mistaken. Not only can the white house draft spending bills, but the senate can as well. Take for instance the Republican alternative to the stimulus drafted by the republicans in the senate.

And the white house's excuse for not drafting the bill has been that they felt people in the house would be better prepared this early in his presidency.

Do you always make shit up?

I think we're done here.

:lmao

You're as owned as the GOP is.

The GOP tried to play politics with this bill in order to try to gain some power. They lost. Obama pretty much has majority support from the American people for this Bill and thats only going to go up after the town halls and press conference of the past 2 days.

George Gervin's Afro

02-10-2009, 06:08 PM

It's also very important to note that when this bill TOTALLY fails, there will be no one to blame but the Democrats! :lol

This is the democrats bill from start to finish - there will be no republicans to blame (Spector, Snowe and Collins don't count because they're RINO's) when it doesn't help the economy and the masses start getting restless because the Messiah hasn't paid their mortgage or put gas in their car.

Good times ahead! :toast

Or it could work and the GOP will pay an even heavier price in 2010..:toast

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:08 PM

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:08 PM

I don't think EVERY republican governor is begging.

Uh, who isn't?

balli

02-10-2009, 06:09 PM

It's also very important to note that when this bill TOTALLY fails, there will be no one to blame but the Democrats! :lol

This is the democrats bill from start to finish - there will be no republicans to blame (Spector, Snowe and Collins don't count because they're RINO's) when it doesn't help the economy and the masses start getting restless because the Messiah hasn't paid their mortgage or put gas in their car.

Good times ahead! :toast
And when it succeeds, we'll remember that Republicans deserve absolutely none of the credit. I can't wait until 6-8 years from now when Republicans are going to be looked at as a disease. More so than they already are.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 06:31 PM

Uh, who isn't?

I don't think Indiana is.
I'll have to ask. I thought we had a surplus.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 06:32 PM

I don't think Indiana is.
I'll have to ask. I thought we had a surplus.If the unemployment figures in Elkhart are any indicator, federal aid will be quite welcome.

If Indiana doesn't need it, however, they can pass on any aid offered.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 06:36 PM

Here are a couple of stories about the $3 billion or so of federal money Indiana is most definitely going to spend.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/main.asp?SectionID=51&SubSectionID=180&ArticleID=87482&TM=55066.03

http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?ID=472918

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 06:37 PM

If the unemployment figures in Elkhart are any indicator, federal aid will be quite welcome.

If Indiana doesn't need it, however, they can pass on any aid offered.

I just asked in the newsroom.
Indiana does, in fact, have a surplus. Daniels is NOT running to the government and asking for any bailouts...but if the government gives the money or offers the money to IN, we'll take it.
Daniels prefers not to touch the surplus because he's afraid things will only get worse...that's when we'll need the extra cash we have stored away.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:45 PM

I just asked in the newsroom.
Indiana does, in fact, have a surplus. Daniels is NOT running to the government and asking for any bailouts...but if the government gives the money or offers the money to IN, we'll take it.
Daniels prefers not to touch the surplus because he's afraid things will only get worse...that's when we'll need the extra cash we have stored away.

Of course you're going to take the money.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 06:45 PM

The surplus is about 1/3 the amount that Indiana is getting from the federal government.

Like I said, Republicans will pretend to bitch about it then cash the check anyway.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 06:47 PM

The surplus is about 1/3 the amount that Indiana is getting from the federal government.

Like I said, Republicans will pretend to bitch about it then cash the check anyway.

A surplus is a surplus. It's more than you can say about most other states at this point.
And when Daniels was elected, this state was in a financial nightmare due to past governors.

Say what you want, but if I had a surplus or sorts in my account, and someone offered me money, I'd be a fool not to take it.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 06:49 PM

Of course you're going to take the money.

I don't understand what the problem is.
The state could always use the money, so why not take it?
It's not as if Daniels went to Obama and said, "PLEASE, PLEASE give us money! We're broke!"

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:49 PM

WTF do I care if you run a surplus if you still need aid? Its not like you're going to use your surplus money for the programs you need. Its a surplus in name only.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:50 PM

I don't understand what the problem is.
The state could always use the money, so why not take it?
It's not as if Daniels went to Obama and said, "PLEASE, PLEASE give us money! We're broke!"

Who cares who you get the money? Your congressmen and Senators "beg" each and every session for federal money for your state.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 06:51 PM

A surplus is a surplus. It's more than you can say about most other states at this point.
And when Daniels was elected, this state was in a financial nightmare due to past governors.

Say what you want, but if I had a surplus or sorts in my account, and someone offered me money, I'd be a fool not to take it.So why is anyone complaining about the stimulus package?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 06:55 PM

WTF do I care if you run a surplus if you still need aid? Its not like you're going to use your surplus money for the programs you need. Its a surplus in name only.

No one said you had to care.

This got started because ballijuana said,

Actually we're broke as fuck and don't know what to do, just like every other state. And our Republican governor was recently on his hands and knees begging for federal money, just like every other Republican governor.

That's incorrect. Our republican governor is NOT on his hands and knees begging for money.

Like it? Don't like it?
I couldn't care less.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 06:57 PM

So why is anyone complaining about the stimulus package?

Because there are things in this package (or was. I haven't checked the final package) that might be important, but aren't worthy, if you will, of being in a STIMULUS package.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:58 PM

If I stay I have a 50 dollar surplus, then ask you for 150 dollars to pay my bills, am I really running a surplus?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 06:58 PM

Because there are things in this package (or was. I haven't checked the final package) that might be important, but aren't worthy, if you will, of being in a STIMULUS package.

What are these things and what type of affect will they or won't they have on the economy?

I'll give you an example. The 480 million for work study programs that were taking out by the senate are bad because college students sit on the money and do not spend it. They'd probably just put it in a CD. That would be bad for the economy and would not stimulate anything. And it wouldn't create jobs because those "jobs" that college students would have wouldn't actually be jobs.

Great job, Senators! Wooohoooo!

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:01 PM

What are these things and what type of affect will they or won't they have on the economy?

There WERE some medical points added that I didn't think had a place in a stimulus package...STD education or something and smoking cessation.
I was looking for a final layout of the revised plan, but I didn't see one.

There was a list on CNN.com the other day with a list of things that were dropped. Most of the things I agree with, but there were a couple of points I disagreed with.

I'll see if I can find the list.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 07:01 PM

Because there are things in this package (or was. I haven't checked the final package) that might be important, but aren't worthy, if you will, of being in a STIMULUS package.So what federal money do you want your state to refuse?

If your state is sitting on a surplus, isn't all the federal spending in this bill for your state unnecessary and wasteful?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:04 PM

If I stay I have a 50 dollar surplus, then ask you for 150 dollars to pay my bills, am I really running a surplus?

Again, the fact that this governor pulled this state from the red in a relatively short period of time is huge.

This state was a mess before Daniels.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:05 PM

There WERE some medical points added that I didn't think had a place in a stimulus package...STD education or something and smoking cessation.
I was looking for a final layout of the revised plan, but I didn't see one.

There was a list on CNN.com the other day with a list of things that were dropped. Most of the things I agree with, but there were a couple of points I disagreed with.

I'll see if I can find the list.

You didn't agree with the programs or goals or whether or not they would stimulate economic growth?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:05 PM

Again, the fact that this governor pulled this state from the red in a relatively short period of time is huge.

This state was a mess before Daniels.

LOL you miss the point that YOU CAN'T BRAG ABOUT A SURPLUS AND TURN AROUND AND TAKE FEDERAL STIMULUS MONEY!!

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:06 PM

So what federal money do you want your state to refuse?

If your state is sitting on a surplus, isn't all the federal spending in this bill for your state unnecessary and wasteful?

That's actually a point of contention right now.

If Daniels thinks we need to refuse the money, then so be it.
But for us, stimulus money would actually be used to stimulate the economy because we're not in the mess most states are in.

Are you saying Indiana should be penalized for not being in debt?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:07 PM

At the governor's request, the Indiana Department of Transportationhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20090210/NEWS01/902100335/1002#) has identified 27 projects valued at $44.5 million that might be paid for through federal stimulus package funds.
"Gov. Mitch Daniels has stressed to INDOT that it is imperative to fund projects that will put people to work quickly, and these projects will do that," INDOT commissioner Karl B. Browning said in a press release.
Gosh - that governor of yours sure isn't asking for money at all.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:07 PM

LOL you miss the point that YOU CAN'T BRAG ABOUT A SURPLUS AND TURN AROUND AND TAKE FEDERAL STIMULUS MONEY!!

No. I got your point.
If we're not in the red and we're not sitting at $0, it's a surplus - No?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:08 PM

That's actually a point of contention right now.

If Daniels thinks we need to refuse the money, then so be it.
But for us, stimulus money would actually be used to stimulate the economy because we're not in the mess most states are in.

Are you saying Indiana should be penalized for not being in debt?

Penalized? WTF? Thats like saying I'm penalized because the fire dept doesn't stop by my house since its not on fire.

And there is no point of contention. Your governor is going to take the federal mone, just like every other GOP governor, just like Bali said.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:08 PM

Gosh - that governor of yours sure isn't asking for money at all.

that's his plan if he gets the money, no?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:09 PM

No. I got your point.
If we're not in the red and we're not sitting at $0, it's a surplus - No?

In name only. You need the money just like every other state. Whats the value of a surplus if you're in the red by any real economic measure? Enron tried that form of accounting once.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:09 PM

that's his plan if he gets the money, no?

There is no if.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:09 PM

Penalized? WTF? Thats like saying I'm penalized because the fire dept doesn't stop by my house since its not on fire.

And there is no point of contention. Your governor is going to take the federal mone, just like every other GOP governor, just like Bali said.

The point of contention is whether or not Indiana should be forced to use the money in the surplus.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 07:09 PM

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:10 PM

In name only. You need the money just like every other state. Whats the value of a surplus if you're in the red by any real economic measure? Enron tried that form of accounting once.

but it's a surplus?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:10 PM

There is no if.

Ok...so he was saying what his plan was for the money...not BEGGING for the money?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:12 PM

Are you saying Indiana needs no help?

Meh...I don't know if we NEED to help, but why shouldn't we take the money being given?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:12 PM

Indiana must have a surplus because they don't bother teaching their students English or more specifically about hyperbole.

You do realize Bali's governor wasn't actually begging either, right?

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:14 PM

Meh...I don't know if we NEED to help, but why shouldn't we take the money being given?

:lol

Elkhart has the highest unemployment rate in the country but you're not sure if you need the help. Thats hilarious.

You sure are proud of that surplus.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:15 PM

Meh...I don't know if we NEED to help, but why shouldn't we take the money being given?

If you don't need it then its wasteful spending. Aren't you against wasteful spending?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:16 PM

Indiana must have a surplus because they don't bother teaching their students English or more specifically about hyperbole.

You do realize Bali's governor wasn't actually begging either, right?

You said:

Penalized? WTF? Thats like saying I'm penalized because the fire dept doesn't stop by my house since its not on fire.

And there is no point of contention. Your governor is going to take the federal mone, just like every other GOP governor, just like Bali said.

and I said, the point of contention at this moment is whether or no Indiana will be forced to spend the surplus.

Say what you want and make little digs at me, but if you want to rip on Indiana schools, think about this...I didn't go to school in Indiana. Nice try.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 07:17 PM

Meh...I don't know if we NEED to help, but why shouldn't we take the money being given?If you don't need the help, why take the money and add to the federal debt?

And judging from the 15% increase in the unemployment rate in December, Indiana might actually need more help than you realize.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:17 PM

Forced to spend? Are you kidding me?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:17 PM

If you don't need it then its wasteful spending. Aren't you against wasteful spending?

We aren't begging for the money.
If we can use that money though to stimulate the economy, which is what this is for, then how is that being wasteful?

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:17 PM

:lol

Elkhart has the highest unemployment rate in the country but you're not sure if you need the help. Thats hilarious.

You sure are proud of that surplus.

It's up there, but I don't believe it's the highest. I believe that's reserved for a CA town.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:18 PM

If you don't need the help, why take the money and add to the federal debt?

And judging from the 15% increase in the unemployment rate in December, Indiana might actually need more help than you realize.

Surplus!

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 07:18 PM

We aren't begging for the money.
If we can use that money though to stimulate the economy, which is what this is for, then how is that being wasteful?Does Indiana need the money?

Yes or no.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:19 PM

Forced to spend? Are you kidding me?

Daniels doesn't want to spend the extra money we have because he thinks we might need it more in the future.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:19 PM

Does Indiana need the money?

Yes or no.

Need? I've heard no...
If it's offered, would we take it? Sure.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:21 PM

Daniels doesn't want to spend the extra money we have because he thinks we might need it more in the future.

So instead of spending the money to do the projects you need to do now, you want to save it for the future problems and in order to do the projects you need to do now you're going to take federal money.

Guess what, you need the stimulus. Congrats. I know its not exactly what you're being told but I'm sure you can figure out what is actually happening. If someone told you the sky was green you wouldn't believe him even if you walked out and saw it was blue, right?

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 07:21 PM

Need? I've heard no...
If it's offered, would we take it? Sure.From this point on, you can no longer credibly complain about federal spending.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:22 PM

Daniels doesn't want to spend the extra money we have because he thinks we might need it more in the future.

Need? I've heard no...
If it's offered, would we take it? Sure.

Mind boggling.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:25 PM

Well, not that this hasn't been F-U-N...because it has been FUUUUUUUUNNNN...
But I think I'd rather watch the Spurs game now.

MannyIsGod

02-10-2009, 07:27 PM

Well, not that this hasn't been F-U-N...because it has been FUUUUUUUUNNNN...
But I think I'd rather watch the Spurs game now.

Yeah, I'd rather watch the game then sit here and have my hypocrisy pointed out as well.

SpursFanFirst

02-10-2009, 07:36 PM

Yeah, I'd rather watch the game then sit here and have my hypocrisy pointed out as well.

Yeah. that's it.

I truly couldn't care less if you like what Indiana is doing.
Ballijuana said every governor is begging. I say no. You say yes.

Guess what? We disagree. I did NOT see this coming. :rolleyes

SouthernFried

02-10-2009, 07:39 PM

Your in Debt 1 Trillion dollars.

You tell everyone your gonna fix things by going in debt another 3 Trillion Dollars.

Does this work for anyone in real life?

"Hey, Honey. We're in debt up to our asses. We gotta do something about it. Start charging baby!!"

"but..but...we have to stimulate the economy and get people to start spending more. So, lets take MORE money from them, then give it back to them!"

If this wasn't really happening, I would think it too bizarre to take seriously.

SIG

clambake

02-10-2009, 07:52 PM

this just in.........now it's 4 trillion.

tomorrow i'll call it 6 bazillion.

Crookshanks

02-10-2009, 09:22 PM

I don't hate America - I hate Obama and everything he stands for. He's an egotistical, arrogant SOB who doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 09:23 PM

I don't hate America - I hate Obama and everything he stands for. He's an egotistical, arrogant SOB who doesn't have a clue what he's doing.Do you want your state to get any stimulus money?

lefty

02-10-2009, 09:27 PM

Just be thankful we give your Canadian ass American TV to begin with.

A lot of American TV shows are successful thanks to Canadian actors/writers, so STFU

SnakeBoy

02-10-2009, 09:33 PM

You evil conservatives need to lay off Obama. Look how much he means to his followers....

vY84fF2hzhY

Crookshanks

02-10-2009, 09:34 PM

Do you want your state to get any stimulus money?

Texas has a surplus and the one thing I did hear was in there for Texas was that Frisbee golf course. That needs to be cut with no questions asked!

I don't know of anything else in there that's specifically for Texas - but since Cornyn and Hutchison are very strongly against the stimulus bill; I wouldn't think they were asking for anything. Don't know about all the Reps - I do know my Rep here in Tarrant County was one of the ones leading the pack of Republicans that voted against the bill.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 09:38 PM

Texas has a surplus and the one thing I did hear was in there for Texas was that Frisbee golf course. That needs to be cut with no questions asked!That's up to Texas.

I don't know of anything else in there that's specifically for Texas - but since Cornyn and Hutchison are very strongly against the stimulus bill; I wouldn't think they were asking for anything. Don't know about all the Reps - I do know my Rep here in Tarrant County was one of the ones leading the pack of Republicans that voted against the bill.Hutchinson and Cornyn are going to accept every penny of stimulus money.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 09:48 PM

Besides, Hutchinson voted for the financial sector bailout last October --you know the one with less accountability and no job creation -- was she wrong then?

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 09:49 PM

You evil conservatives need to lay off Obama. Look how much he means to his followers....

vY84fF2hzhYThat guy got two jobs because of Obama.

The stimulus plan is already working!

Crookshanks

02-10-2009, 09:51 PM

Besides, Hutchinson voted for the financial sector bailout last October --you know the one with less accountability and no job creation -- was she wrong then?
Yep! I wrote to both Senators asking them to vote NO - they both responded that they felt it was the only thing to do to avoid an economic meltdown. Now that they see it didn't work - they've wised up and are voting no on this non-stimulus bill.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 09:55 PM

Yep! I wrote to both Senators asking them to vote NO - they both responded that they felt it was the only thing to do to avoid an economic meltdown. Now that they see it didn't work - they've wised up and are voting no on this non-stimulus bill.So there was an economic meltdown?

When did that happen?

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 10:10 PM

While the United States Senate took crucial votes on the stimulus package Friday evening, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was the only Senator who went AWOL, choosing to seek support for her campaign at a Texas speaking engagement instead of fulfilling her responsibilities to work for Texans in the Senate. The six votes Sen. Hutchison missed dealt with amendments to the package, reached as a bipartisan compromise by a group of Senators.

http://www.theexaminer.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=2923

Wow, Kay Bailey is really fighting the good fight, isn't she?

doobs

02-10-2009, 11:06 PM

That's up to Texas.

Hutchinson and Cornyn are going to accept every penny of stimulus money.

Please spell her name correctly. Pet peeve.

ChumpDumper

02-10-2009, 11:08 PM

Please spell her name correctly. Pet peeve.If she bothers showing up to work instead of running for governor without actually declaring, I'll spell her name correctly. Pet peeve.

Viva Las Espuelas

02-11-2009, 01:39 AM

Are you seriously trying to play this card after the last eight years?
our leader has said that ever since and before he got in. when do you think he should enforce it?

Your side lost.i wasn't exactly skipping to the polls with a hard on when i voted for mccain, so i really don't see what this old comeback is accomplishing. i really don't.

Viva Las Espuelas

02-11-2009, 01:45 AM

I didn't realize the board had so many GOPers left. You must all be pissed that everyone was impressed with the speech last night and the Gallup just realeased poll numbers that say the majority of Americans support Obama and the congressional dems and only 31% support the GOP...and the polls about the people's, not gop or democrats view. the people's "faith" in this "stimulus" bill is skyrocketing and holding strong.

Viva Las Espuelas

02-11-2009, 01:54 AM

It's also very important to note that when this bill TOTALLY fails, there will be no one to blame but the Democrats! :lol

This is the democrats bill from start to finish - there will be no republicans to blame (Spector, Snowe and Collins don't count because they're RINO's) when it doesn't help the economy and the masses start getting restless because the Messiah hasn't paid their mortgage or put gas in their car.

Good times ahead! :toast
dude, the ol' go to excuse is going to be played when it fails. "it was bush". don't you know the game, man. i mean even obama mentioned how promising it look that iraq had elections recently. i'm sure that came about over one camel ride late at night between a few iraqis.

ChumpDumper

02-11-2009, 02:19 AM

our leader has said that ever since and before he got in. when do you think he should enforce it?Which law?

i wasn't exactly skipping to the polls with a hard on when i voted for mccain, so i really don't see what this old comeback is accomplishing. i really don't.Same thing all your impotent bitching is accomplishing.

Viva Las Espuelas

02-11-2009, 02:39 AM

Which law? you really can't keep up, can you?

ChumpDumper

02-11-2009, 03:11 AM

you really can't keep up, can you?Which law is currently being violated by Obama or his administration?

I'll understand if you become afraid to answer and run away.

Viva Las Espuelas

02-11-2009, 09:56 AM

Which law is currently being violated by Obama or his administration?

I'll understand if you become afraid to answer and run away.really. are you that stupid that you can't keep up with the "conversation"? i mean, it's only been 2 posts and you're lost........and when did i ever say law. man, you need more medication. overdose on it. please. you'll now be known as Spoonfed.

doobs

02-11-2009, 10:35 AM

If she bothers showing up to work instead of running for governor without actually declaring, I'll spell her name correctly. Pet peeve.

That makes no sense at all. Pet peeve.

Blake

02-11-2009, 10:53 AM

I don't hate America - I hate Obama and everything he stands for. He's an egotistical, arrogant SOB who doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

so in your opinion was Bush selfless, humble, great guy that knew exactly what he was doing?

clambake

02-11-2009, 10:54 AM

it makes sense.

"And now the distinguished gentleman errrr...lady from Texas, how do you vote?"

"Whats that? Not here again?"

clambake

02-11-2009, 10:56 AM

i think crookskanks got an std from her butt rape in nov.

Bartleby

02-11-2009, 11:50 AM

"no one is above the law"

ha. that's a laugh. look at your own Cabinet, Mr. President.

really. are you that stupid that you can't keep up with the "conversation"? i mean, it's only been 2 posts and you're lost........and when did i ever say law. man, you need more medication. overdose on it. please. you'll now be known as Spoonfed.

ChumpDumper

02-11-2009, 02:10 PM

really. are you that stupid that you can't keep up with the "conversation"? i mean, it's only been 2 posts and you're lost........and when did i ever say law. man, you need more medication. overdose on it. please. you'll now be known as Spoonfed.
"no one is above the law"

ha. that's a laugh. look at your own Cabinet, Mr. President.

......and the part about "stimulus is about spending", Mr. President. i think the people, your employer, are the ones that should do the spending. not you spend it for us.:rollin

You will now be known as self-owning dipshit.

ChumpDumper

02-11-2009, 02:13 PM

That makes no sense at all. Pet peeve.Your screen name is doobs.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2009, 03:20 PM

Viva always owns himself. Always.

angel_luv

02-11-2009, 03:31 PM

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-11-2009, 05:12 PM

In addition to being featured on every regular news network, President Obama's speech was on BET instead of Judge Hatchett, the latter of which I was really looking forward to watching.

I highly doubt that CMT would have aired McCain's speech should he have been elected.

I am just saying. :lol

Seriously though, President Obama is an excellent speaker so I am sure he did a great job with his speech.
My favorite speech so far is the one in which he said " I screwed up". I appreciated the honest candor he demonstrated by admitting his mess up in such frank terms.

Yeah, nevermind his apology was to take the heat off the Geithner nomination, who was a tax cheat and just proposed to have the Treasury print another trillion dollars out of the thin air to fix the bank situation.

You obviously didn't watch the speech if you think he did great. He didn't have a telestrator for the Q&A portion, and it showed.

Blake

02-11-2009, 05:16 PM

You obviously didn't watch the speech if you think he did great. He didn't have a telestrator for the Q&A portion, and it showed.

You're obviously a republican hack if you think every move he makes sucks.

You probably have already found something wrong with his hair cut.

angel_luv

02-12-2009, 01:55 PM

Yeah, nevermind his apology was to take the heat off the Geithner nomination, who was a tax cheat and just proposed to have the Treasury print another trillion dollars out of the thin air to fix the bank situation.

You obviously didn't watch the speech if you think he did great. He didn't have a telestrator for the Q&A portion, and it showed.

I meant I am sure he did a great job delivering his speech - but that assumption was based soley on past performances of President Obama.

As for the content of President Obama's speech, I can't comment since, as you correctly guessed, I did not watch it.

balli

02-12-2009, 02:20 PM

For the record, his Q&A was flawless. It felt so good to hear a president actually form sentences into coherent paragraphs.

And lol at Aggie, who ripped my personal God for not using a teleprompter. Bush never did a PC in his life without a set of bulletpoints in front of him. And actually never did anything but read (butcher) them.

Crookshanks

02-12-2009, 04:31 PM

For the record, his Q&A was flawless. It felt so good to hear a president actually form sentences into coherent paragraphs.

Flawless? :lmao It was BORING and extremely painful listening to him. He was asked a question, then rambled on and on and on for 13 minutes without ever really answering the question! And all the ums and aahs really made him sound intelligent.

balli

02-12-2009, 06:15 PM

Crookshanks, you are openly hateful and retarded. Morons like you don't get to knock Obama's intellect. Not with any credibility anyway.

And I'm sorry answers longer than a bullet-point laden sentence bore you. It must suck to be dumber than a rock.

Viva Las Espuelas

02-14-2009, 12:48 PM

Huh. I guess I forgot I said it.

Apparently Obama did too.

ChumpDumper

02-14-2009, 01:37 PM

Huh. I guess I forgot I said it.

Apparently Obama did too.So did you remember which law any member of the Obama cabinet is currently breaking, or are you going to "forget" that too?

Viva Las Espuelas

02-14-2009, 02:58 PM

ChumpDumper

02-14-2009, 03:37 PM

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and
belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledgeGeithner believed his returns were correct when he filed them, and all the money he owed has been paid according to the law, so again: which law is a member of the administration currently breaking?

SouthernFried

02-14-2009, 08:48 PM

Encouraging to know...that the Head of the Treasury, "believed" he was right and correct and had paid all the money he owed, when he hadn't. That's the kind of person I want directing the IRS.

Encouraging to know that there are sheep out there who believe him.

"well...it depends on what your definition of 'sheep' is"

SIG

Winehole23

02-14-2009, 11:06 PM

SouthernFried

02-15-2009, 12:36 AM

Keep encouraging the sheep, SF. You still need somebody to put down.

Your following me around aren't ya? I mean, I like sheep. Got several wool socks... and sheep do make good eating.

But, dude...I'm married.

I hear Mr Obama needs more followers tho...give him a bleet.

Winehole23

02-15-2009, 01:45 AM

Your following me around aren't ya? I mean, I like sheep. Got several wool socks... and sheep do make good eating.

But, dude...I'm married.My condolences to your wife.

I hear Mr Obama needs more followers tho...give him a bleet.Didn't vote for him, don't particularly like him, and I'm not taking any free advice right now. You're way, way off.

ChumpDumper

02-15-2009, 05:08 AM

All you guys worked for the IMF before, right?

No?

Ok, then.

balli

02-15-2009, 11:53 AM

My condolences to your wife.
:lol

balli

02-15-2009, 12:07 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html

Gino

02-15-2009, 12:33 PM

The legislation was written by Democratic committee chairmen with no Republican input. The president covered this up by going to the Hill and meeting with the Republican caucus. But, since Obama had no direct role in writing the package, the signal to congressional Republicans was twofold: Bipartisanship was just a façade the president needed to maintain his approval ratings, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were the ones with the power, not Barack Obama.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/158lvovq.asp?pg=2

The Weekly standard just shredded Obama's first month. But theyre not the only ones. Just check out RealClearPolitics this morning:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

balli

02-15-2009, 01:04 PM

Dude try citing something other than Bill fucking Kristol's magazine and some right wing website. For fuck's sake.

ChumpDumper

02-15-2009, 02:51 PM

Wow, right wing websites don't like Obama?

Who'd a thunk it?

I will make a bold prediction that they will continue to be anti-Obama next month as well.

You heard it here first!

ducks

02-15-2009, 03:50 PM

Geithner believed his returns were correct when he filed them, and all the money he owed has been paid according to the law, so again: which law is a member of the administration currently breaking?

maybe he should get the facts and study first before he filed them
if not you pay the fucking price

not to hard you make a mistake you pay the price
not rocket science

ducks

02-15-2009, 03:52 PM

From this point on, you can no longer credibly complain about federal spending.

why do you not run for office

balli

02-15-2009, 03:52 PM

not to hard you make a mistake you pay the price
not rocket science
Apparently grammar is.

MannyIsGod

02-15-2009, 04:04 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/158lvovq.asp?pg=2

The Weekly standard just shredded Obama's first month. But theyre not the only ones. Just check out RealClearPolitics this morning:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The American people loved his first month.

God damn!

balli

02-15-2009, 04:11 PM

Obama: I'm going to be bi-partisan. Here: I'll make some concessions on tax cuts and stack my cabinet with republicans.

GOP: Fuck You. Fuck America.

Obama: Okay, well, we tried, but we'll pass the stimulus without you. And even leave in the concessions we made for you.

GOP: Failure.

Gino

02-15-2009, 05:14 PM

Dude try citing something other than Bill fucking Kristol's magazine and some right wing website. For fuck's sake.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao

realclearpolitics.com is a right wing website? How about all of todays articles that theyre citing:

RCP Morning Edition
Obama’s New Deal is Same Old Blunder - Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times
Imperfect Stimulus is Still Best Answer - Mark Zandi, Philadelphia Inquirer
Obama's Train Goes Off the Rails - William Kristol, Weekly Standard
They Sure Showed That Obama - Frank Rich, New York Times
The Welfare Issue is Alive, Alive! - Mickey Kaus, Slate
Nationalize the Banks! We're all Swedes Now - Richardson & Roubini, WP
Geithner Lays an Egg - Lawrence Lindsey, Weekly Standard
Defending Tim Geithner - James Cramer, New York Magazine
The War in Iraq Isn't Over - Tom Ricks, Washington Post
Watch Out for al-Qaeda - Marc Thiessen, Los Angeles Times
The Coming Swarm - John Arquilla, New York Times
Terror War Now Obama's - Daniel Prieto, Baltimore Sun
Islam and the West: Lines of Demarcation - Roger Scruton, Azure
Reality Intrudes on the Drug War - Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune
Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely - George Will, Washington Post
Wild Web Has Some Rethinking Free Speech - Drake Bennett, Boston Globe
Nothing Fair About Fairness Doctrine - Nolan Finley, Detroit News
Editorials
The First Three Weeks - Washington Post
Stimulus A Multilevel Disaster - San Diego Union-Tribune
Bill Not Perfect, But a Step Toward Recovery - Austin American-Statesman
Dealing With A Tragedy - Buffalo News

Are those all right wing websites too?

Idiot.

Gino

02-15-2009, 05:21 PM

What else is a right wing website? Hoopshype.com?

They essentially do the same thing.

ballijuana, stop posting for everyone's sake.

balli

02-15-2009, 05:24 PM

ballijuana, stop posting for everyone's sake.
Motherfucker, I will destroy you. I might be a jerk, but you sir, are a fucking idiot. And I will never, ever, take orders from a butt-hurt moron like yourself- you can suck my fucking dick.

balli

02-15-2009, 05:33 PM

Oh... and I could call HuffingtonPost non-partisan using the same weak logic. Try the fuck again, ya dumbass cocksucker.

ChumpDumper

02-15-2009, 05:48 PM

maybe he should get the facts and study first before he filed them
if not you pay the fucking price

not to hard you make a mistake you pay the price
not rocket scienceHe did pay the price. So he's not above the law.

why do you not run for officeWhy do you not write a novel?

balli

02-15-2009, 06:35 PM

Are those all right wing websites too?My God. I didn't even bother to read all the websites you bolded until now. You're kidding right? Like you're trolling and joking, right? You're seriously still citing a bunch of George Will and Weekly Standard articles in an attempt to claim non-partisanship. I hope you're foreign, because fuck, that's pretty damn clueless.

MannyIsGod

02-15-2009, 07:12 PM

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao

realclearpolitics.com is a right wing website? How about all of todays articles that theyre citing:

Why are you laughing to much? RCP is run by right wingers. This is no secret. Its a right wing site. The only thing you should e laughing at is your own ignorance.

You should also do us a favor and learn the difference between a link and a citation.

Gino

02-15-2009, 07:21 PM

Why are you laughing to much? RCP is run by right wingers. This is no secret. Its a right wing site. The only thing you should e laughing at is your own ignorance.

You should also do us a favor and learn the difference between a link and a citation.

Yeah, those right wing sites are always posting links (excuse me for erroneously saying this site "cited" other sites) to the ultra conservative Paul Krugman and editorial board of the New York times!

I guess the uk times online and San Diego Tribune are also "ultra-conservative". :lol

Gino

02-15-2009, 07:25 PM

My God. I didn't even bother to read all the websites you bolded until now. You're kidding right? Like you're trolling and joking, right? You're seriously still citing a bunch of George Will and Weekly Standard articles in an attempt to claim non-partisanship. I hope you're foreign, because fuck, that's pretty damn clueless.

No...I bolded all the sites that called out Obamas lack of leadership today. You just chose to focus on ones written by conservatives.

The word is out your boy Obama is a pawn. A front man for the real people in power, Pelosi and Reid.

balli

02-15-2009, 07:26 PM

Gino

02-15-2009, 07:38 PM

Why are you putting ultra-conservative in quotes? Those are your words.

Oh and dude, STFU already, the San Diego Tribune is one of the more right leaning papers in the country. It's well-known as such. God you're so fucking clueless. I'd be very embarrassed if I were you. I've personally never been so moronic, but if I were you I'd take a week or two off from posting in hopes that people forget how incredibly dumb you've been in this thread.

:lol

I guess every paper is "ultra-conservatie", even the liberal ones.

My favorite was when you called realclearpolitics "conservative" (your words not mine).

Here's the links from Saturday...Im bolding the ones that attack Obama:

RealClearPolitics Morning Edition
Real Progress For the American People - President Barack Obama
Congress Just Made a Terrible Mistake - Rep. Paul Ryan, New York Times
Stimulus A Pyrrhic Victory For the President - Phil Levy, Foreign Policy
Left Failed to Help Make Stimulus Bigger, Better - John Judis, TNR
Obama Rhetoric Is Real 'Catastrophe' - Bradley Schiller, Wall Street Journal
Stimulus Places New Limits on Wall St. Bonuses - Andrews & Dash, NYT
Transparency Was Missing from Obama's First Bill - Peter Nicholas, LAT
The Real Lessons of the Great Depression - Michael Barone, US News & WR
The Case For Spending More - Jonathan Chait, The New Republic
Jeb Bush: GOP Must Be a National Party - Fred Barnes, Wall Street Journal
Inside the Historic Reagan-Gorbachev Summit - James Mann, Vanity Fair
The End is Nearing for Chavez - Edward Schumacher-Matos, Wash Post
Matured Netanyahu is Ready to Rule - Greg Sheridan, The Australian
Banning Wilders Is In Britain's Best Interest - Nazir Ahmed, The Guardian
Playing Into the Hands of Our Islamist Enemies - Charles Moore, Telegraph
Bankers Not Malevolent But Mediocre - Christopher Caldwell, FT
How Did Dr. Wakefield Get Away With It? - David Aaronovitch, The Times
RealClearPolitics Editorials
1,073 Pages - Wall Street Journal
Pragmatic vs. Partisan - St. Petersburg Times
Senator Gregg Comes to His Census - New Hampshire Union Leader
The 'State Secrecy' Shield - San Francisco Chronicle

Let me guess? All conservative! Even the NYT!!! :lol

MannyIsGod

02-15-2009, 07:41 PM

Yeah, those right wing sites are always posting links (excuse me for erroneously saying this site "cited" other sites) to the ultra conservative Paul Krugman and editorial board of the New York times!

I guess the uk times online and San Diego Tribune are also "ultra-conservative". :lol

RCP is self admittedly a conservative website. The fact they place links to sites that are not does not change that. The more you argue this the dumber you look. Carry on.

balli

02-15-2009, 07:41 PM

Alright, I'm going for a night ski, so I'll just leave you with this- Like I said, STFU, quit embarrassing yourself.

Gino

02-15-2009, 07:59 PM

RCP is self admittedly a conservative website. The fact they place links to sites that are not does not change that. The more you argue this the dumber you look. Carry on.

We've discovered a new kind of liberal. One that claims that EVERY major publication is somehow conservative. Even the ones that DONT EVEN WRITE ANYTHING (except for the occasional blog) like realclearpolitics.com!

ChumpDumper

02-15-2009, 08:08 PM

So RCP NEVER WRITES ANYTHING.

Except when it does.

:lmao

MannyIsGod

02-15-2009, 09:48 PM

We've discovered a new kind of liberal. One that claims that EVERY major publication is somehow conservative. Even the ones that DONT EVEN WRITE ANYTHING (except for the occasional blog) like realclearpolitics.com!

English is hard.

George Gervin's Afro

02-15-2009, 11:20 PM

Gino is getting the crap beaten out of him again I see.