Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-03-2010, 08:10 AM   #11
acecycleins
Founding Member
 
acecycleins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 4,129
Default

[quote=Morbo the Destroyer;252753]Geez Kirk, if Obama gets blamed for the recession that was already there when he was elected within months of taking office, it's certainly fair to blame Dubya who'd been in charge for 8 YEARS when it happened! C'mon dude, pick one standard of accountability or the other, but don't selectively apply them.
[quote]

The recession didn't start in the first eight years, Ken. W pulled America out of the .com recession by lowering taxes. It worked. Even with the Wars and terrorist attack, W managed to drop unemployment to an average under 6.5% during his term. How'd that happen? The root recession happened becasue of the banking meltdown from the 15yrs of bad mortgages that happened from the Clinton years forward. That was certainly not W's fault. By the time W was aware of the severity of the Freddie and Fannie issue it was literally too late. It was stupid lending practices that were coerced via threats from the banking commission that caused that. So, I don't blame Barry or W for what Congress caused.
But Barry having 9.6% of stagnant unemployment and the fact that you have to add 160k+ jobs a month just to break even with the incoming workforce is evidence that he's not improved our economic situation at all. In fact, for two years Barry's Congress managed to double the deficit that it took W eight yrs to accomplish. So, who's bigger spender? Barry is statisically.
__________________
"Slack" - a state of being in which everything flows smoothly.....a frame of mind so at ease that the universe naturally cooperates.
acecycleins is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 12-03-2010, 08:31 AM   #12
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo the Destroyer View Post
If you like that one, here's more:

The economy is taking off again, in spite of over a decade of Republican sponsored financial rape
Bill Clinton wasn't a Republican.

You DO know that subprime "everybody gets a house!" mandates issued by Bill for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were the primary cause of the financial implosion, right? But I'd be willing to entertain your opinion of what specific Republican policies constituted "financial rape". I keep asking the lib at work this, and he can never come up with anything.

Wait - you soak up the flopsweat and spittle at that lunatic asylum DailyKos. Never mind.

"The economy is taking off". Dear God. The most anemic "recovery" in history with every sign of a double-dip recession. Every Friday news dump we get more "unexpectedly" weak job numbers, "unexpectedly" weak growth, "unexpectedly" weak housing sales. And you think the economy is crapping Skittles with a rainbow contrail.

You probably also believe that Roosevelt ended the Depression. "Sure, it lasted ten years, but imagine what would have happened if he DIDN'T do all those things!"

Quote:
Geez Kirk, if Obama gets blamed for the recession that was already there when he was elected within months of taking office, it's certainly fair to blame Dubya who'd been in charge for 8 YEARS when it happened! C'mon dude, pick one standard of accountability or the other, but don't selectively apply them.
Well, if we're going to play the "who was in charge at the time" game, allow me to retort:

The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

(At the time I didn't think it would matter much, since the Republicans were acting like Democrats, with crap like spending money we didn't have for touchy-feely garbage like the prescription drug benefit. Oh, for those halcyon days of comparative restraint.)

Note that I'm not saying that's a legitimate correlation. Who is in charge at the time means nothing. What matters is if their policies had an effect. Bill Clinton left a time bomb before he rode off. That was neither Bush nor Obama's fault.

Quote:
I left out my favorite Obama Accomplishment:

Ended the Bush torture policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
The Geneva Convention is irrelevant to illegal combatants. You might as well say that the current policy is in compliance with ISO 9000.

But I'm glad to see after two years, Obama has made you happy by actually rescinding a Bush policy that he criticized. Now all he has left is Gitmo, the Patriot Act, wiretaps, renditions, Iraq, and Predator drone strikes. He did manage to get his civilian trial for a terrorist instead of a military tribunal, but since Eric Holder has assured us that no terrorist acquitted in a civilian court will ever see the light of day, these are just show trials. What was that you were saying about not fighting the Commies for nothing?

Quote:
America's standing in the world community has nearly recovered from Dubya's years of imperialist expansionism
"Imperialist expansionism"! OK, I'll bite - who's the governor of Iraq? Afghanistan? And why is the world impressed by Obama rolling back that policy when our troops are still in those countries?

If that's "imperialist", I'm Tom Brady. I'm just surprised you didn't rot out that trans-Afghanistan pipeline trope. I guess Dubya, Cheney and Halliburton just didn't have time.

Oh, and define "America's standing in the world community". All I can find is opinion polls of citizens, and that plus a buck will get you a bag of chips. Show me something that translates into concrete gains for the United States. Because from where I'm sitting, the Holy One couldn't even land his hometown the Olympics (not that I care. But he sure did).

You're being positively Kpaulian today. I like it. It's entertaining.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 08:55 AM   #13
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acecycleins View Post
I don't read Daily enough to have an opinion on them, so I will not pick on them.
Well, if you click Ken's link, here's all you need to know: they listed 90 "accomplishments" that Obama doesn't get enough credit for. Here's a sampling:

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic

33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions

34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office

39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government

59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy

63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness

68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud

75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare

88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform

89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform

90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform.

Notice what they have in common? These "accomplishments" consist of "reviews", "visits", "talks", "intentions", and my personal favorite, "put the ball in play." If you were a personnel manager and saw a resume this padded with air, you'd circular-file it.

I encourage you to click that link and see how many of the other accomplishments were positively harmful to the economy. And which are simply lies (like #71 - "Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports." Er, not so much.)

By the way, what exactly is the difficulty leftists have with putting links in their text to provide evidence for their claims? Even that dummy Sarah Palin managed to do that in a hilarious Facebook post.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 09:08 AM   #14
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzglyd View Post
That's today's release of November's unemployment figures. Fresh off the presses.

There is now a Post-it note on Ken's monitor:

"Check latest econ news b4 posting. Timing is everything!!!"
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 09:28 AM   #15
acecycleins
Founding Member
 
acecycleins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 4,129
Default

Want a little dose of reality: Currently there are 160k people a month entering the workforce as "to be hireds". What's that mean? It means, those 160k people are the break even point for growth. So, you have 1.92mil people coming into the workforce a year. You have 4.5 that need jobs desperately- now. (The numbers don't include the nearly 9+mil that simply refuse to work for a living) Those 6.42mil people are sitting on their rears waiting, right? You'd have to add 535,000 a month for a year to BREAK EVEN!!!! That is not growth. Just the break even. When you go forward you still have to add 160,000 for the upcoming years to add to the growth. Meaning: you still need to average nearly 2mil jobs annually just to get the unemployment rate to hover at the W years of 6%.
Since seasonal jobs are just that. And employers refuse to hire full time staff because Barry doesn't understand that they are directly effected by the Tax Code and Congress won't write a budget so the employers see no reason to hire. It leaves us hanging. Is this completely Barry's fault? He's the top dog. He won't address middle America. He only plays the wealth envy card because most of his supporters are not bright enough to understand that it cost money to operate a business. They think life should be profitless. How does one make a living without profit?
When all of you eager haters of the rich go to your employers and tell them that you only need enough money for food, housing and basic necessities of life and are not worried about saving for your future then you may have an argument about profits.



The above I posted on Yahoo about an hour ago. What you are seeing is not economic growth. The recession is not over for the People of America. If the business people continue to sit on money because Barry and his Minions won't address tax code and a budget it will only cause a sell off in the stockmarket at the beginning of the New Year. The evil rich will take the money and put it to use elsewhere.
__________________
"Slack" - a state of being in which everything flows smoothly.....a frame of mind so at ease that the universe naturally cooperates.
acecycleins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 09:38 AM   #16
Buzglyd
Founding Member
 
Buzglyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,904
Default

Don't forget we're also printing money and loaning it to ourselves.

Clever indeed!
Buzglyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 11:23 AM   #17
Morbo the Destroyer
Registered Member
 
Morbo the Destroyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schizuki View Post
Bill Clinton wasn't a Republican.

You DO know that subprime "everybody gets a house!" mandates issued by Bill for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were the primary cause of the financial implosion, right? But I'd be willing to entertain your opinion of what specific Republican policies constituted "financial rape". I keep asking the lib at work this, and he can never come up with anything.

Wait - you soak up the flopsweat and spittle at that lunatic asylum DailyKos. Never mind.

"The economy is taking off". Dear God. The most anemic "recovery" in history with every sign of a double-dip recession. Every Friday news dump we get more "unexpectedly" weak job numbers, "unexpectedly" weak growth, "unexpectedly" weak housing sales. And you think the economy is crapping Skittles with a rainbow contrail.

You probably also believe that Roosevelt ended the Depression. "Sure, it lasted ten years, but imagine what would have happened if he DIDN'T do all those things!"



Well, if we're going to play the "who was in charge at the time" game, allow me to retort:

The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

(At the time I didn't think it would matter much, since the Republicans were acting like Democrats, with crap like spending money we didn't have for touchy-feely garbage like the prescription drug benefit. Oh, for those halcyon days of comparative restraint.)

Note that I'm not saying that's a legitimate correlation. Who is in charge at the time means nothing. What matters is if their policies had an effect. Bill Clinton left a time bomb before he rode off. That was neither Bush nor Obama's fault.



The Geneva Convention is irrelevant to illegal combatants. You might as well say that the current policy is in compliance with ISO 9000.

But I'm glad to see after two years, Obama has made you happy by actually rescinding a Bush policy that he criticized. Now all he has left is Gitmo, the Patriot Act, wiretaps, renditions, Iraq, and Predator drone strikes. He did manage to get his civilian trial for a terrorist instead of a military tribunal, but since Eric Holder has assured us that no terrorist acquitted in a civilian court will ever see the light of day, these are just show trials. What was that you were saying about not fighting the Commies for nothing?



"Imperialist expansionism"! OK, I'll bite - who's the governor of Iraq? Afghanistan? And why is the world impressed by Obama rolling back that policy when our troops are still in those countries?

If that's "imperialist", I'm Tom Brady. I'm just surprised you didn't rot out that trans-Afghanistan pipeline trope. I guess Dubya, Cheney and Halliburton just didn't have time.

Oh, and define "America's standing in the world community". All I can find is opinion polls of citizens, and that plus a buck will get you a bag of chips. Show me something that translates into concrete gains for the United States. Because from where I'm sitting, the Holy One couldn't even land his hometown the Olympics (not that I care. But he sure did).

You're being positively Kpaulian today. I like it. It's entertaining.
Jesus, you're got explosive post diarrhea. Can't you make your point without writing a ****ing book? Or sounding like a smug, condescending, arrogant *******? You might actually have something interesting to say, but who wants to wade through paragraphs of "spittle" to get to it?
Morbo the Destroyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 01:53 PM   #18
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo the Destroyer View Post
Jesus, you're got explosive post diarrhea. Can't you make your point without writing a ****ing book? Or sounding like a smug, condescending, arrogant *******? You might actually have something interesting to say, but who wants to wade through paragraphs of "spittle" to get to it?
Jesus, Ken, make up your mind. First you say I'm a cut 'n' paste drive-by, then you say I'm a tedious logorrheic. There's just no making you happy.

Take a Pamprin and stop being so sensitive. Do you see me crying every time you say I'm a Fox News zombie or Hannity boot-shiner? The only time I recall blowing up at you for insults was for your 837th ad hominem racism implication.

Smack me down with facts. It's fun and educational.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 02:01 PM   #19
Morbo the Destroyer
Registered Member
 
Morbo the Destroyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schizuki View Post
Jesus, Ken, make up your mind. First you say I'm a cut 'n' paste drive-by, then you say I'm a tedious logorrheic. There's just no making you happy.

Take a Pamprin and stop being so sensitive. Do you see me crying every time you say I'm a Fox News zombie or Hannity boot-shiner? The only time I recall blowing up at you for insults was for your 837th ad hominem racism implication.

Smack me down with facts. It's fun and educational.
Look, I enjoy taking up the Progressive cause here. It's fun to be different. But there's two things that I stick with:

It's not REALLY important to me. I'm not going to change a damn thing, and neither is anybody else posting here. It's gum-flapping, nothing more. So it annoys me when it gets all in-your-face serious, and I'm not here to be annoyed.

I'm at work. I pop in and out for a quick laugh or moto read, or maybe some good natured jibes on politics. I could write dissertations on the Progressive viewpoint if I wanted to, but I don't. I want to poke fun at Republicans, rich people, and conservatives, and maybe throw out a different viewpoint. That's it.
Morbo the Destroyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 07:39 PM   #20
The_AirHawk
Founding Member
 
The_AirHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Leanin' Tower O' P-P-P-P-POWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Posts: 11,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trenttheuncatchable View Post
A republican president would have done a better job than Obama has done .. right. The economy may not be recovering like everyone would like it to, but blaming Obama for it is just plain asinine. (Just wanted Ken to know he's not the only MOron who doesn't think badly of the current prez.)
I think badly of him - but am not such a fool as to believe that either he or Bush had anything to do with the Economy (or Clinton, or Bush 41, or Reagan.....).

The Policies I didn't like under Bush, I still don't like under Obama - only, the facetious SOB "promised" (like anyone with a brain believes a Politician) that it would be "different". Instead, it's just Bush 44.
__________________
Parfois, on fait pas semblant
Sometimes, it's not pretend
Oderint Dum Metuant
Let them hate so long as they fear
политики предпочитают безоружных крестьян
Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants
Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along now...
The_AirHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off