jrh72582
Well-Known Member
I used the future tense. WILL BE.
We are all suckers... how they must laugh at us.
- Thread starter MuyLocoNC
- Start date
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Relax, it's my PREDICTION. MY PREDICTION. Geez....
CrackerJax
New Member
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....
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
And let's not forget the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 otherwise known as Crap and Trade. If enacted, the bumpy ride will become something else entirely.
I wonder how many celebrities will have to die to divert our attention in order to get this stinking pile of offal signed into law?
I wonder how many celebrities will have to die to divert our attention in order to get this stinking pile of offal signed into law?
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
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?
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....
CrackerJax
New Member
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.
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.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
So in virtue of writing something down, it becomes reality? Let's give it a try....
My physique is bulky and muscular.
I possess a 1969 mustang GT - numbers matching, all original.
(closes eyes......clenches fists.......opens eyes.......NOTHING).
What a shame! A man can dream. I doubt you'll continue your argument then, yes? Being written is not a barometer of reality.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
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.
CrackerJax
New Member
That he won't comment on....
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
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'.
CrackerJax
New Member
no clue alright
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Do you mind if I use that in my signature?
Fair enough on the "liberal press". To you it wouldn't seem liberal. How about MMM?
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
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.
Anjinsan
Well-Known Member
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?
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
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....
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
This is consistent with previous statements.
Jay does not consider a youtube link a credible source. Understandable.
And he has acknowledged the points we have excerpted.
Anjinsan
Well-Known Member
So you admit complete and utter ignorance on the subject being discussed yet wish to make your thoughts known.
Yeah I see how that works...see it all the time.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
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.
The problem with doing so stems from a fundamental difference in what you and many of the posters in this forum, consider to be reliable/credible sources. You might argue that newspapers, magazine articles or printed quotes and data from a reputable author's book are acceptable, while I would argue they aren't worth lining my parrot cage with. You won't accept raw footage of a politician's speech as proof they said it, but you will accept a journalist quoting the same speech from watching the video. Why is the latter more credible? You are actually adding another opportunity for the journalist/writer to take points out of context, but with the raw footage you see everything. Sure some videos are edited and mashed, but there are enough sources to verify you are seeing the uncut footage.
The other problem is the simple fact that many of these factual videos and articles never see the light of day anywhere else but on sources you refuse to acknowledge. That doesn't make them any less credible when you take in to account the fact that the MMM refuses to broadcast, write, report, investigate or even allow debate on many of these valid and factual criticisms and expose's. You do acknowledge the fact that the MMM withholds a frightening majority of the stories and reports that might reflect poorly on this administration, don't you? Don't answer that because it's not the point of this reply.
Rather, explain how one might provide you with the evidence you ask for, when you won't accept any of the sources that could provide said evidence and any sources you will accept are corrupt and aren't even commenting or reporting on the subject we're currently on.