jrh72582
Well-Known Member
I used the future tense. WILL BE.Our economy is not stable, anything but.
I used the future tense. WILL BE.Our economy is not stable, anything but.
Relax, it's my PREDICTION. MY PREDICTION. Geez....Ok, in that case....our economy WILL not be stable(anytime soon), anything but.
that's a big negative there.... Now I do see plenty of trouble ahead, but the fix was in for the recession before Obama ever swore the oath (ahem). He has injected next to nothing into the economy and not in the right places (which upsets us who understand economics greatly).The recession would have been over anyway? You're saying without the bailouts and stimulus the recession would be nearly over...not a chance. We'd be sinking into depression....the catch is we are still going to sink into depression, only now we have put it off a couple years, and it will be even worse than had we just let it happen in the first place.
Oh right, Bush fixed the economy. I forgot about that. Or was it Reagan who fixed this recession? I know it MUST have been a republican - I can't just remember which.that's a big negative there.... Now I do see plenty of trouble ahead, but the fix was in for the recession before Obama ever swore the oath (ahem). He has injected next to nothing into the economy and not in the right places (which upsets us who understand economics greatly).
Obama has had only one effect on the economy....negative. Very soon now the commercial bubble of debt. is going to wash out.....next comes the wave of bad mortgages written off by our wonderful govt. via Fred & Fannie (no problems there anymore, right? ).... They will come in waves every 5 years for the next decade.....that's how they were written...adjustable loans....2 year, 5 year, 10 year. All of that plus the commercial side has yet to go through the pipeline.
take away the tax cuts... (bad idea)....pile on the new taxes....pile on the debt..... pile on Afghanistan....and we are in for a very big mess. We also have a leader who hasn't a clue what to truly do about it. Not a correct clue anyway....truly sad, but totally avoidable.
What would the economy look like if instead of scaring the crud out of the markets and instead of spending time going after businesses, the govt. lifted corporate and capital gains taxes off and got the heck OUT OF THE WAY!?? It would look a heck of a lot better than we do today....without 1.2 Trillion in added debt.
But I get ahead of myself...the true misery hasn't begun..... get prepared if you can. It's going to be a bumpy ride till we can ditch this guy in 3 years....
So in virtue of writing something down, it becomes reality? Let's give it a try....No, Bush made a horrible mistake and I have posted that many times.
No, it was clearly the 2 trillion in liquidity funds pumped by the FED in January. There is no data to support Obama having any effect. His policies will be felt however....and it won't be a policy of success....the numbers adding up to failure are already written.
Didn't even click the link. Don't care. I'm sure he lied. Of course he lied - he's a politician, from Chicago. Come on! Of course he lies! So there you go. He lied. What's new? Every president ever lied. Relevance?JRH is due some credit for showing up and trying {albeit poorly} to change the topic of this thread to a discussion on past presidents and fantastic predictions of glory for the Anointed One. However, the topic on the table is actually about a specific lie out of the "plethora" of lies by Obama we could talk about. The reason we are dwelling on this particular lie is simply because it was exposed by your beloved liberal press. Any comments on that subject or are we all tuckered out from trying to sidetrack the discussion. We really are interested in your insight on that specific topic.
Didn't even click the link. Don't care. I'm sure he lied. Of course he lied - he's a politician, from Chicago. Come on! Of course he lies! So there you go. He lied. What's new? Every president ever lied. Relevance?
And I have no clue what you mean when you speak of the 'liberal press'.
For the last time - I DON'T WATCH YOUTUBE VIDEOS when no other claim is made, when no synopsis is provided, and no evidence is presented. When someone says, "Dude, Obama sucks" and I reply, "Why? How? Explain!" and he says, "Watch this!", then I leave. If you cannot provide, in your own words, enough evidence and support to at least back up a claim - if visual media must do all the work for you - then it's a sad day. Visual media should have NO place in logical debate. It's easy to juxtapose and manipulate. It encourages sloven behavior and lazy standards. This is a solid argument and generally accepted.no clue alright
For the last time - I DON'T WATCH YOUTUBE VIDEOS when no other claim is made, when no synopsis is provided, and no evidence is presented. When someone says, "Dude, Obama sucks" and I reply, "Why? How? Explain!" and he says, "Watch this!", then I leave. If you cannot provide, in your own words, enough evidence and support to at least back up a claim - if visual media must do all the work for you - then it's a sad day. Visual media should have NO place in logical debate. It's easy to juxtapose and manipulate. It encourages sloven behavior and lazy standards. This is a solid argument and generally accepted.
Politicians cannot make videos do all their work. Teachers cannot make videos do all their work. Doctors cannot make videos do all their work. Leaders, organizers, pastors, and soothsayers cannot make videos do all their work. Video sucks unless it's used for entertainment purposes only. That's my stance. Medium as a metaphor. Feel free to disagree.
Get your hubris out of my face. I know how internet forums work, son. I don't watch videos and I WILL comment. You see how that works?It's a feed from a VERY trusted and long standing liberal news outlet. It is also on the very first post and is indeed the reason for this thread.
First you watch it.
Then you comment on it.
Too difficult to grasp?
This is consistent with previous statements.For the last time - I DON'T WATCH YOUTUBE VIDEOS when no other claim is made, when no synopsis is provided, and no evidence is presented. When someone says, "Dude, Obama sucks" and I reply, "Why? How? Explain!" and he says, "Watch this!", then I leave. If you cannot provide, in your own words, enough evidence and support to at least back up a claim - if visual media must do all the work for you - then it's a sad day. Visual media should have NO place in logical debate. It's easy to juxtapose and manipulate. It encourages sloven behavior and lazy standards. This is a solid argument and generally accepted.
Politicians cannot make videos do all their work. Teachers cannot make videos do all their work. Doctors cannot make videos do all their work. Leaders, organizers, pastors, and soothsayers cannot make videos do all their work. Video sucks unless it's used for entertainment purposes only. That's my stance. Medium as a metaphor. Feel free to disagree.
So you admit complete and utter ignorance on the subject being discussed yet wish to make your thoughts known.Get your hubris out of my face. I know how internet forums work, son. I don't watch videos and I WILL comment. You see how that works?
You kids....
I guess what I find a little contradictory and confusing about your stance on not using videos as supporting evidence, is your past refusal to accept arguments that don't include supporting evidence. Not that your opinion or views are needed (none of ours are) or wanted, but you do include yourself in these threads and not to be disrespectful, but you don't set the rules or the criteria for what is deemed acceptable as evidence. You can set those standards for yourself, no one can argue that point, but don't ask for evidence in support of someone's claim and then continue to make the argument on what qualifies.Get your hubris out of my face. I know how internet forums work, son. I don't watch videos and I WILL comment. You see how that works?
You kids....