• 199 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#151 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@Enigma777 said:

What happened? Was playing the drinking game if taking a shot every time Romney says the word "economy" and I must have passed out 15 mins into it...

Make it for every time he says "jobs" and you'll die of alcohol poisoning.

#152 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@BraveToaster

Why is it okay to say that Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ, but people want to shank you when you say the same about Obama?

Who the hell is saying Mitt Romney is the antichrist?

A few Facebook acquaintances.

#153 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7076 posts) -
@BraveToaster

@MariachiMacabre said:

@BraveToaster

Why is it okay to say that Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ, but people want to shank you when you say the same about Obama?

Who the hell is saying Mitt Romney is the antichrist?

A few Facebook acquaintances.

Those people are hypocrites. Being angry because fuckheads accuse Obama of being the Kenyan Socialist Antichrist and then doing the same shit to Romney is ridiculous. But no one is doing that here so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.
#154 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre: Don't forget un-American Muslim Communist!

#155 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@BraveToaster

@MariachiMacabre said:

@BraveToaster

Why is it okay to say that Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ, but people want to shank you when you say the same about Obama?

Who the hell is saying Mitt Romney is the antichrist?

A few Facebook acquaintances.

Those people are hypocrites. Being angry because fuckheads accuse Obama of being the Kenyan Socialist Antichrist and then doing the same shit to Romney is ridiculous. But no one is doing that here so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.

It was just a random thought that has been bugging me for a while. These are the only forums that I use so I thought I would complain here.

#156 Posted by phantomzxro (1571 posts) -

@Jams said:

@BoFooQ said:

Gay marriage isn't going to come up cause neither one of them is going to do anything about it, sadly. If Obama gets reelected there is probably a chance he tries to pass something while leaving office. however, he not going to say much about it cause people know Rommey is against it so they assume he is for it and why loss votes by correcting someone.

The "government doesn't create jobs" thing was odd. I thought that was a large part of Mitt's plan create millions of jobs?

Gay marriage has to be put on the back burner because there are more pressing matters to attend to. Social issues should always take the back seat to keeping people employed, foreign issues and immigration issues. Until the country is running like a well oiled machine, social issues should be held off. That's my opinion anyways.

I don't think they mean what they think they mean on the government creating jobs. The government can create jobs sure. But we can't run only on government jobs nor can we fix the economy by creating more government jobs.

The thing I hated most about Obama is when he said that he wants to create higher paying higher tech jobs and that hard labor jobs are not what we need. You know what? We need worker ants. We need people to flip burgers and mow the lawn. We need people to go and clean septic tanks and wire houses. We need street sweepers. We should be praising people who work these hard jobs and encouraging more of them to come back from the countries we gave them away to. Not everyone can get paid million bux. We need to start manufacturing products in the USA again and we need people to smile and be proud when they say they helped put the leather sole in the shoes people wear.

Well first i say yes the more pressing matters come first but let's not sweep social issues aside so hastily. People want to feel like they matter in this country and if they feel like they don't they will stop supporting this country which leads to other issues such a economy, immigration issues, and violence. I agree with you on the government jobs can't be the only jobs added which is what was meant in the debate.

But i have to say i think Obama's point was two fold in that one America is not going to win back jobs that can be outsourced into cheap labor because we don't support under paying workers below minimum wage. So if a company can earn profit by outsourcing its work force in countries that support that then its a losing battle for this country. Secondly even if we entertained the idea of a flexible competitive low wage work force to keep these jobs in our country, these jobs would not support the average American with the prices today. So Obama just saying if we have more skilled workers overall there would be less of a need to fight for these type of jobs and maybe put people in the positions to bring jobs back here. The examples you listed i don't feel they are the jobs being endangered by outsourcing or jobs going over seas.

#157 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

#158 Posted by Superkenon (1414 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Nah. It's China.

#159 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

@Superkenon said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Nah. It's China.

Yeah that got really obnoxious to. Who the fuck do these two think they are talking to?

#160 Posted by Superkenon (1414 posts) -

@JasonR86: The American People!!!

Yeah, I dunno. I feel like they've both given up on trying to sell their agendas to the general public, and anymore are only trying to fire up their respective bases. I don't think there was any point in that entire debate that would have swayed someone to one side or another. But then again... what can they say that would? Geh.

I really don't want to become cynical about the process, but... well, here I am.

#161 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

#162 Edited by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be disliked for having money. Unfortunately the US government has to count their money. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

#163 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

#164 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree dude.

#165 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree dude.

All well and good.

#166 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

#167 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6396 posts) -

Where the fuck was Gary Johnson during all of it?

#168 Posted by golguin (3874 posts) -

@Ocean_H said:

@golguin said:

@MarkWahlberg said:

@TheFreeMan said:

@ShadowConqueror said:

Having children before marriage somehow leads to providing AK-47's to drug lords. Or something.

Yeah, the fuck was that about? The misquote was real brutal, too. Funny, but painful.

See, I have a hard time watching these debates because a lot of it is just them reciting their stump speeches 2 minutes at a time - instead of an actual debate - but then I miss weird shit like this. Hopefully someone will post the good bits on youtube....

My internet connected cut off twice. Once was during the women's healthcare talk and the other was during the assault weapons ban. I missed that part so I'll have to check it out to hear for that because that sounds insane.

Romney was just completely insane.

Women's equality.

"Binders full of women"

Gun control

Now I see what an insane answer Romney gave for gun control. The best way to stop assault weapons is to get single mothers to get married.

#169 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

Where the fuck was Gary Johnson during all of it?

Smokin trees

#170 Edited by NTM (7334 posts) -

Romney made some bad decisions, like saying things that weren't true and then being called on it, but I didn't like how before everyone was talking about they're expressions, and this time around Obama was just smiling the whole time when he wasn't talking as opposed to the last debate, as if he watched the news and now he has to act on it; I didn't really appreciate that. It's a weird thing to complain about, but still. Either way, I still say Obama.

#171 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3781 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

The price of gasoline was like $3-$4 throughout 2008 in Illinois, so I don't know what the fuck everyone is talking about. It dropped down immediately before the election and rose back up immediately after.

Also, the president has little to no control over the price of gas, so that argument has always been moot.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650/face-the-facts-a-fact-check-on-gas-prices/

The cost of gas in June of 2008, the early stages of the heavy summer driving season and during the presidential campaign, was $4.10 per gallon. The 2008 gas crisis hit its peak one month later with prices averaging $4.11 per gallon.

Source: Consumer Reports

By August, the cost fell to $3.74 and continued to fall until the price averaged $2.07 just after Election Day in November, when Mr. Obama was elected president.

Source: Consumer Reports

Reince Priebus: "He's defending a president that had-- gas prices were a dollar eighty-five a gallon when he took over."

The cost of gas was $1.84 just six days after President Obama's inauguration. As noted above, that is far cheaper than the cost of a gallon of gas six months prior in July 2008. Gas prices have the ability to fluctuate quickly.

And in regards to some jobs not coming back? The truth hurts. The only way we are getting some of those jobs back is to lower the amount of restrictions we have on businesses regarding wages, hours, working conditions, etc. Capitalism has determined that China and other countries are more cost-effective. Unless we go back to The Jungle, or other countries start protecting the rights of their citizens as well as we do, we've lost those jobs forever. The trick is to create new jobs, in fields where America is competitive.

People really need to educate themselves before they vote. I'd rather an uninformed citizen not vote than vote on assumptions or misinformation, no matter which side they're on.

#172 Posted by tripmills (25 posts) -

Romney is pure snake oil. It blows my mind as to how people can just fall for his 'pitch'.

Aside from the headline bits, there were a few times where Obama kept good composure where he could have been a dickhead. There is one part where Romney says something along the lines of "production jobs are already coming back to the US because of our energy resources..blah blah blah". That is a claim that some of Obama's policies are working and jobs are being created here - very odd thing to say.

What really has been blowing my mind of late is the amount of young people who support Romney. I can see some bum fuck, out of work, fat, lazy, WHITE, guy who is looking for an excuse for why someone hasn't knocked on his door to offer him back his job of dipping the tips of shoe lace strings into the vat of plastic... voting for Romney.

I like to think young people are smart and seek out knowledge with an open mind.

where's my beer?

#173 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Republicans haven't been the same since George Bush first took office. They went from conserving money to spend as much as possible to help their rich friends and leave it to the democrats to clean it up. Any one seen Fox News today they are in full on clean up mode, showing the best of Romney in the debates and getting political experts like Dick Cheneys daughter to explain why Obama is bad for national security, funny since 1000's of Americas died from foreign attack when her dad was incharge (lets be honest George W. Bush was nothing but a scape goat).

#174 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Republicans haven't been the same since George Bush first took office. They went from conserving money to spend as much as possible to help their rich friends and leave it to the democrats to clean it up. Any one seen Fox News today they are in full on clean up mode, showing the best of Romney in the debates and getting political experts like Dick Cheneys daughter to explain why Obama is bad for national security, funny since 1000's of Americas died from foreign attack when her dad was incharge (lets be honest George W. Bush was nothing but a scape goat).

I can see we can't have a conversation you and I.

#175 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7076 posts) -
@Wrighteous86

@QuistisTrepe said:

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

The price of gasoline was like $3-$4 throughout 2008 in Illinois, so I don't know what the fuck everyone is talking about. It dropped down immediately before the election and rose back up immediately after.

Also, the president has little to no control over the price of gas, so that argument has always been moot.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650/face-the-facts-a-fact-check-on-gas-prices/

The cost of gas in June of 2008, the early stages of the heavy summer driving season and during the presidential campaign, was $4.10 per gallon. The 2008 gas crisis hit its peak one month later with prices averaging $4.11 per gallon.

Source: Consumer Reports

By August, the cost fell to $3.74 and continued to fall until the price averaged $2.07 just after Election Day in November, when Mr. Obama was elected president.

Source: Consumer Reports

Reince Priebus: "He's defending a president that had-- gas prices were a dollar eighty-five a gallon when he took over."

The cost of gas was $1.84 just six days after President Obama's inauguration. As noted above, that is far cheaper than the cost of a gallon of gas six months prior in July 2008. Gas prices have the ability to fluctuate quickly.

And in regards to some jobs not coming back? The truth hurts. The only way we are getting some of those jobs back is to lower the amount of restrictions we have on businesses regarding wages, hours, working conditions, etc. Capitalism has determined that China and other countries are more cost-effective. Unless we go back to The Jungle, or other countries start protecting the rights of their citizens as well as we do, we've lost those jobs forever. The trick is to create new jobs, in fields where America is competitive.

People really need to educate themselves before they vote. I'd rather an uninformed citizen not vote than vote on assumptions or misinformation, no matter which side they're on.

Didn't you here? The leader of the free world now has a responsibility to coddle us like fucking children, saying he's gonna stop those big bad Chinese from taking jobs and get those jobs back through sheer will alone. No one wants to admit that factory jobs are going to continue leaking into the Third World because megacorporations would rather save 9 bucks an hour and employ factories that skirt the lines of human rights violations than pay fair wages or taxes.
#176 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7076 posts) -
@MariachiMacabre
@Wrighteous86

@QuistisTrepe said:

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

The price of gasoline was like $3-$4 throughout 2008 in Illinois, so I don't know what the fuck everyone is talking about. It dropped down immediately before the election and rose back up immediately after.

Also, the president has little to no control over the price of gas, so that argument has always been moot.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650/face-the-facts-a-fact-check-on-gas-prices/

The cost of gas in June of 2008, the early stages of the heavy summer driving season and during the presidential campaign, was $4.10 per gallon. The 2008 gas crisis hit its peak one month later with prices averaging $4.11 per gallon.

Source: Consumer Reports

By August, the cost fell to $3.74 and continued to fall until the price averaged $2.07 just after Election Day in November, when Mr. Obama was elected president.

Source: Consumer Reports

Reince Priebus: "He's defending a president that had-- gas prices were a dollar eighty-five a gallon when he took over."

The cost of gas was $1.84 just six days after President Obama's inauguration. As noted above, that is far cheaper than the cost of a gallon of gas six months prior in July 2008. Gas prices have the ability to fluctuate quickly.

And in regards to some jobs not coming back? The truth hurts. The only way we are getting some of those jobs back is to lower the amount of restrictions we have on businesses regarding wages, hours, working conditions, etc. Capitalism has determined that China and other countries are more cost-effective. Unless we go back to The Jungle, or other countries start protecting the rights of their citizens as well as we do, we've lost those jobs forever. The trick is to create new jobs, in fields where America is competitive.

People really need to educate themselves before they vote. I'd rather an uninformed citizen not vote than vote on assumptions or misinformation, no matter which side they're on.

Didn't you here? The leader of the free world now has a responsibility to coddle us like fucking children, saying he's gonna stop those big bad Chinese from taking jobs and get those jobs back through sheer will alone. No one wants to admit that factory jobs are going to continue leaking into the Third World because megacorporations would rather save 9 bucks an hour and employ factories that skirt the lines of human rights violations than pay fair wages or taxes.
Hear* stupid mobile site.
#177 Posted by EXTomar (4665 posts) -

I find it weird people are bemoaning and defending the wealthy while making villains out of public servants and unions. *shrug* I don't think anyone should be breaking contracts to take away "golden parachutes" any more than breaking contracts to break up unions just because someone doesn't like them.

#178 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

I find it weird people are bemoaning and defending the wealthy while making villains out of public servants and unions. *shrug* I don't think anyone should be breaking contracts to take away "golden parachutes" any more than breaking contracts to break up unions just because someone doesn't like them.

No one should make villains out of anyone. It is an oversimplification of bigger issues done by those who want to manipulate people into believing that large problems can actually be singularly caused by small entities.

#179 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Republicans haven't been the same since George Bush first took office. They went from conserving money to spend as much as possible to help their rich friends and leave it to the democrats to clean it up. Any one seen Fox News today they are in full on clean up mode, showing the best of Romney in the debates and getting political experts like Dick Cheneys daughter to explain why Obama is bad for national security, funny since 1000's of Americas died from foreign attack when her dad was incharge (lets be honest George W. Bush was nothing but a scape goat).

I can see we can't have a conversation you and I.

Intelligent response when you have no rebuttal.

#180 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Republicans haven't been the same since George Bush first took office. They went from conserving money to spend as much as possible to help their rich friends and leave it to the democrats to clean it up. Any one seen Fox News today they are in full on clean up mode, showing the best of Romney in the debates and getting political experts like Dick Cheneys daughter to explain why Obama is bad for national security, funny since 1000's of Americas died from foreign attack when her dad was incharge (lets be honest George W. Bush was nothing but a scape goat).

I can see we can't have a conversation you and I.

Intelligent response when you have no rebuttal.

Uh-huh.

#181 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

@PillClinton said:

@JasonR86 said:

I just watched the debate. I still feel the same way I did before. Though one thing really stuck out to me.

Apparently, the 'rich' are the biggest, most super-duper jerks on the whole planet. They apparently enjoy raping, murdering, and general mayhem. And Obama will apparently be our Robin Hood and will take down those evil, vile 'rich' folk and keep them from doing harm to the rest of us. God bless you sir!

Well, that's an extremely reductionistic way to look at it. Robin Hood, really? It's about more financial and tax equality, funding necessary parts of what keeps our society running with a slight tax increase on the richest people in the world, who can absolutely afford it and whose lifestyles won't change in the least as a result. Defending the super rich over normal people (like me, and, I assume, yourself--forgive me if I'm wrong there) strikes me as counter-intuitive at best.

I personally don't like counting other people's money or judging their lifestyle. I don't care what the wealthy do and I don't feel they should be demonized for having money. Unfortunately the US government can't do this. And I understand paying taxes and determining the amount of taxes you pay based off of how much you earn. But Obama is straight up demonizing them and speaking of them like vile creatures. I don't agree with that sentiment. I also don't agree with the idea of of placating to an audience with which you speak. Both Obama and Romney did that.

Well it was the Wall Street Stock Market culture, which makes up a good majority of the richest people in this country, that caused the 2008 recession. I don't have much sympathy for them, and I don't think demonizing them is necessarily wrong. You do understand that the super rich used to pay a 90% tax rate under Eisenhower (a Republican), right? He would be considered a downright socialist today. Now that rate is extreme, and nobody's proposing anything even close to that now--just higher than the current rate. I happen to think that's fair.

Republicans haven't been the same since George Bush first took office. They went from conserving money to spend as much as possible to help their rich friends and leave it to the democrats to clean it up. Any one seen Fox News today they are in full on clean up mode, showing the best of Romney in the debates and getting political experts like Dick Cheneys daughter to explain why Obama is bad for national security, funny since 1000's of Americas died from foreign attack when her dad was incharge (lets be honest George W. Bush was nothing but a scape goat).

I can see we can't have a conversation you and I.

Intelligent response when you have no rebuttal.

Uh-huh.

Yip

#182 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

Also, the president has little to no control over the price of gas, so that argument has always been moot.


And in regards to some jobs not coming back? The truth hurts. The only way we are getting some of those jobs back is to lower the amount of restrictions we have on businesses regarding wages, hours, working conditions, etc. Capitalism has determined that China and other countries are more cost-effective. Unless we go back to The Jungle, or other countries start protecting the rights of their citizens as well as we do, we've lost those jobs forever. The trick is to create new jobs, in fields where America is competitive.

People really need to educate themselves before they vote. I'd rather an uninformed citizen not vote than vote on assumptions or misinformation, no matter which side they're on.

I'm aware that the executive branch only has limited influence on the cost of energy prices, but that wasn't my point and I'm quite sure you knew that. Obama's statement indicated the utter lack of even a rudimentary understanding of how economics works. That's why the comment was a gaffe.

The comment about jobs was an attempt to excuse his administration's awful record, (which Obama cannot run on) to push the concept of "the new normal" and followed it up with vacuous rhetoric about creating "higher skill" jobs as though he could snap his fingers and make that magically happen. Unless Obama happens to run a major tech company, it was a bullshit statement. I agree that globalization has changed everything forever, but the reality is that we're not encouraging job growth right now, (sorry, involuntary part time jobs don't count) no one is being offered full-employment and things will only get worse in 2014 with the full implementation of ACA. The truth hurts.

#183 Edited by Still_I_Cry (2494 posts) -

I swear, some people were watching a different debate than I was. I saw Obama running with "woulds" and "coulds" and not "I have done"." You are no longer the one trying to get elected, Obama, you have to let the people know that you have a good, er, ok, well, erm..well, you have a record..

#184 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3781 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

Also, the president has little to no control over the price of gas, so that argument has always been moot.


And in regards to some jobs not coming back? The truth hurts. The only way we are getting some of those jobs back is to lower the amount of restrictions we have on businesses regarding wages, hours, working conditions, etc. Capitalism has determined that China and other countries are more cost-effective. Unless we go back to The Jungle, or other countries start protecting the rights of their citizens as well as we do, we've lost those jobs forever. The trick is to create new jobs, in fields where America is competitive.

People really need to educate themselves before they vote. I'd rather an uninformed citizen not vote than vote on assumptions or misinformation, no matter which side they're on.

I'm aware that the executive branch only has limited influence on the cost of energy prices, but that wasn't my point and I'm quite sure you knew that. Obama's statement indicated the utter lack of even a rudimentary understanding of how economics works. That's why the comment was a gaffe.

The comment about jobs was an attempt to excuse his administration's awful record, (which Obama cannot run on) to push the concept of "the new normal" and followed it up with vacuous rhetoric about creating "higher skill" jobs as though he could snap his fingers and make that magically happen. Unless Obama happens to run a major tech company, it was a bullshit statement. I agree that globalization has changed everything forever, but the reality is that we're not encouraging job growth right now, (sorry, involuntary part time jobs don't count) no one is being offered full-employment and things will only get worse in 2014 with the full implementation of ACA. The truth hurts.

Actually, economists agree with Obama on gas prices. So no matter what you "meant", you're wrong. And you ignored the part where I said gas prices were $3-$4 in America for almost all of 2008, save the month Obama was elected.

It is "the new normal". Those jobs left because we regulate a minimum wage in our country. We regulate the amount of hours an employee can work in a row. The amount of mandatory overtime. We have safety standards for employee working conditions. Those things all cost companies time and money that companies would rather not spend, so they go overseas. Most major corporations already pay a small percentage of taxes to the US government and utilize plenty of loopholes. Look at GE. The government was PAYING THEM money. They weren't paying any taxes. The only way we will get manufacturing jobs back in great numbers is to destroy unions and loosen or eliminate regulations on corporations (who already have pretty loose regulations as it is). I don't think American wants to accept a world where 14 year old Americans are being worked to the bone like at FOXCONN. Or where if you lose a limb on the job you're just fired and the company has no responsibility to you or your well being. Those jobs can come back, but only if we stop valuing the rights of the lower-class in America. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Ignore all the Socialist stuff at the end and see what life was like before the government regulated business. That was only a century ago. Otherwise, how do you plan on bringing those manufacturing jobs back?

Higher education/skill breeds a higher work-force that can do better and more advanced jobs. The jobs that are more readily available in America than factory work. His statement was absolutely spot-on.

#185 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Wrighteous86: Well fuck me, if Media Matters says it, then it MUST be true!

#186 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3781 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Wrighteous86: Well fuck me, if Media Matters says it, then it MUST be true!

Way to be dismissive, but there are links to and quotes from genuine studies and quotes from experts, in addition to excerpts and articles from the Wall Street Journal. The information is also out there. Rather than combat my points and information with counter-points and information, you went with "teh bias". While Media Matters is a skewed site, you can find this information anywhere, and they directly quoted independent studies and sources.

I assume your silence concedes to the fact that gas prices were $3-$4 throughout 2008 (which is both easily found online on the record, and I can confirm with anecdotal evidence since I drove back and forth to and from college in 2008 and can specifically remember what I was paying for in gas on those trips), that the President has little effect on gas prices, and that we can't win back manufacturing jobs without lowering the standards we expect provided to American citizens. These are all basically factual statements. Yet you will likely ignore this information, knowing that you can't prove it's wrong but you just "feel" it's wrong, and vote comfortably knowing that Obama is the reason gas prices are so high and we are leaking jobs permanently to China, and that some other candidate can cure these economic ills much better.

EDIT: The 2nd link in a google search for "Gas $4 in 2008" was a 2008 article from CNN Money asking why "Gas prices have grown to $4".

A Washington Post article where oil experts and economists explain that the president has no real influence on gas prices.

Hey look, a Forbes article about how manufacturing jobs in general are shrinking, and that countries should start focusing on creating highly-skilled workers for the more advanced jobs that a more tech-dependent society will require.

But yeah, your gut probably knows better than CNN Money, oil experts, economists, the Washington Post, historical facts and trends, recordings, anecdotal information, Forbes writers, business analysts, and Obama combined.

#187 Posted by ThePickle (4163 posts) -

Jill Stein 2012.

#188 Posted by Demoskinos (14751 posts) -

I'm just going to leave this here.... Enjoy.

#189 Posted by Animasta (14669 posts) -

@ThePickle said:

Jill Stein 2012.

#190 Posted by clumsyninja1 (817 posts) -

The funny thing is neither of Obama or Romney 5 point tax plan will never work...

#191 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Wrighteous86: Well fuck me, if Media Matters says it, then it MUST be true!

Way to be dismissive, but there are links to and quotes from genuine studies and quotes from experts, in addition to excerpts and articles from the Wall Street Journal. The information is also out there. Rather than combat my points and information with counter-points and information, you went with "teh bias". While Media Matters is a skewed site, you can find this information anywhere, and they directly quoted independent studies and sources.

I assume your silence concedes to the fact that gas prices were $3-$4 throughout 2008 (which is both easily found online on the record, and I can confirm with anecdotal evidence since I drove back and forth to and from college in 2008 and can specifically remember what I was paying for in gas on those trips), that the President has little effect on gas prices, and that we can't win back manufacturing jobs without lowering the standards we expect provided to American citizens. These are all basically factual statements. Yet you will likely ignore this information, knowing that you can't prove it's wrong but you just "feel" it's wrong, and vote comfortably knowing that Obama is the reason gas prices are so high and we are leaking jobs permanently to China, and that some other candidate can cure these economic ills much better.

EDIT: The 2nd link in a google search for "Gas $4 in 2008" was a 2008 article from CNN Money asking why "Gas prices have grown to $4".

A Washington Post article where oil experts and economists explain that the president has no real influence on gas prices.

Hey look, a Forbes article about how manufacturing jobs in general are shrinking, and that countries should start focusing on creating highly-skilled workers for the more advanced jobs that a more tech-dependent society will require.

But yeah, your gut probably knows better than CNN Money, oil experts, economists, the Washington Post, historical facts and trends, recordings, anecdotal information, Forbes writers, business analysts, and Obama combined.

When you post things from a partisan website, you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone, just sayin'. I do see that you have a penchant for dabbling in logical fallacies with unfortunate frequency.

While it is indeed true that the executive branch has only limited means to control the cost of a globally traded commodity such as oil, those limited means are significant nonetheless. Citing weak demand as a reason for lower gas prices (and the demand is never weak) due to a wrecked economy requires one to ignore facts. See, your pals at Media Matters would have us forget about how far the dollar has fallen. The dollar has taken quite a beating in the Obama years, but what else do you expect to happen when you keep printing money to solve your problems? (sorry, unintended Ron Paul moment) As a result, stuff costs more when you make your purchases with a devalued currency. You don't have to have a master's degree in economics to work that out.

Oh, and what did we buy with all that stimulus cash anyways? Did we not try to lower our demand on foreign oil with all those crony capitalism green tech startups? How did that work out? Oh wait, energy prices continued to rise! Was the demand strong all of a sudden? Oh wait, gas prices must have risen so much because the recovery has already occurred and things are all better now. At least this is what we're meant to believe. Yeah, I sure feel the recovery every time I drive up and down the I-880 on my $4.70 per gallon gasoline and looking over at that empty Solyndra building.

#192 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3781 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Wrighteous86: Well fuck me, if Media Matters says it, then it MUST be true!

Way to be dismissive, but there are links to and quotes from genuine studies and quotes from experts, in addition to excerpts and articles from the Wall Street Journal. The information is also out there. Rather than combat my points and information with counter-points and information, you went with "teh bias". While Media Matters is a skewed site, you can find this information anywhere, and they directly quoted independent studies and sources.

I assume your silence concedes to the fact that gas prices were $3-$4 throughout 2008 (which is both easily found online on the record, and I can confirm with anecdotal evidence since I drove back and forth to and from college in 2008 and can specifically remember what I was paying for in gas on those trips), that the President has little effect on gas prices, and that we can't win back manufacturing jobs without lowering the standards we expect provided to American citizens. These are all basically factual statements. Yet you will likely ignore this information, knowing that you can't prove it's wrong but you just "feel" it's wrong, and vote comfortably knowing that Obama is the reason gas prices are so high and we are leaking jobs permanently to China, and that some other candidate can cure these economic ills much better.

EDIT: The 2nd link in a google search for "Gas $4 in 2008" was a 2008 article from CNN Money asking why "Gas prices have grown to $4".

A Washington Post article where oil experts and economists explain that the president has no real influence on gas prices.

Hey look, a Forbes article about how manufacturing jobs in general are shrinking, and that countries should start focusing on creating highly-skilled workers for the more advanced jobs that a more tech-dependent society will require.

But yeah, your gut probably knows better than CNN Money, oil experts, economists, the Washington Post, historical facts and trends, recordings, anecdotal information, Forbes writers, business analysts, and Obama combined.

When you post things from a partisan website, you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone, just sayin'. I do see that you have a penchant for dabbling in logical fallacies with unfortunate frequency.

While it is indeed true that the executive branch has only limited means to control the cost of a globally traded commodity such as oil, those limited means are significant nonetheless. Citing weak demand as a reason for lower gas prices (and the demand is never weak) due to a wrecked economy requires one to ignore facts. See, your pals at Media Matters would have us forget about how far the dollar has fallen. The dollar has taken quite a beating in the Obama years, but what else do you expect to happen when you keep printing money to solve your problems? (sorry, unintended Ron Paul moment) As a result, stuff costs more when you make your purchases with a devalued currency. You don't have to have a master's degree in economics to work that out.

Oh, and what did we buy with all that stimulus cash anyways? Did we not try to lower our demand on foreign oil with all those crony capitalism green tech startups? How did that work out? Oh wait, energy prices continued to rise! Was the demand strong all of a sudden? Oh wait, gas prices must have risen so much because the recovery has already occurred and things are all better now. At least this is what we're meant to believe. Yeah, I sure feel the recovery every time I drive up and down the I-880 on my $4.70 per gallon gasoline and looking over at that empty Solyndra building.

Honestly, Media Matters was just the first link that showed up when I searched for the information.

You make some strong points, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't. I appreciate the fact that you can back them up though, and I respect your opinion.

#193 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@Still_I_Cry said:

I swear, some people were watching a different debate than I was. I saw Obama running with "woulds" and "coulds" and not "I have done"." You are no longer the one trying to get elected, Obama, you have to let the people know that you have a good, er, ok, well, erm..well, you have a record..

Are you willfully ignorant to facts? Bank bailout, auto industry bailout, saving us from a depression, Don't Ask/Don't Tell (only important if one is a tolerant individual, though), health care reform, troops out of Iraq, bin Laden is dead, a few more I can't remember right off the top of my head, but I'm willing to look it up if you wish.

#194 Posted by KingBroly (1645 posts) -

The bank bailout happened under Bush.

#195 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@KingBroly: Well, true, most of it did, but some hefty federal loans were handed out under Obama to banks, weren't they? To Google!

#196 Posted by Still_I_Cry (2494 posts) -

@PillClinton: Lol is all I have to say to that. Willfully ignorant of facts? Yeah, you are just a bit in that response.

#197 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@Still_I_Cry: How exactly? The one thing I could've been more clear on is that while TARP was initiated under Bush at basically the very end of his presidency, it was overseen and followed-through under Obama. My language may have been harsh and for that I apologize, but saying Obama's record is terrible (ultimately subjective, I know) and that he did nothing is incredibly reductionistic and not taking into consideration fully the reality of what he inherited in just the first month of his term.

#198 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

Honestly, Media Matters was just the first link that showed up when I searched for the information.

You make some strong points, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't. I appreciate the fact that you can back them up though, and I respect your opinion.

I realized after the fact that the MM link appeared at the top of Google search. I understand now that you posted the link as an aggregate source. At first I had thought you were being a typical partisan internet douche, but I see now that you're merely somebody with a different opinion with a solid argument. I overreacted a bit and for that I apologize for initially coming off as a bit hotheaded.

#199 Posted by KingBroly (1645 posts) -

@PillClinton said:

@KingBroly: Well, true, most of it did, but some hefty federal loans were handed out under Obama to banks, weren't they? To Google!

I think you're mixing the bank bailout with the auto bailout. In any case, Obama doesn't tout the bank bailout as his doing, only the auto bailout.