Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Barack Obama - The Lying Fascist

This is a discussion on Barack Obama - The Lying Fascist within the Off Topic forums, part of the Entertainment category; I'm not going to bother arguing further because you argue like a child. You basically list a problem, add the ...
Page: 4


  1. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I'm not going to bother arguing further because you argue like a child. You basically list a problem, add the fact that Obama happens to be president, and then draw a causality from that ignoring the fact that something called Congress exists and it's the same bunch of economists advising these administrations. You can't just cut taxes a bit and expect that to save institutions that will collapse within weeks without massive investment. That's just naive and why the current situation is completely different to recessions of the last 50 years. Jobs are being lost, it's terrible isn't it, and completely predictable because it's what happens during recessions. To have this fairytale idea that a republican administration (that openly declared it would support bailouts) could survive this climate without losing jobs by only cutting taxes, is absolutely ridiculous.

    You don't analyse situations objectively. You basically think "republican = good, tax cuts = good, me likey" and every single argument you make is based on that, irrespective of its merits. And you refuse to accept the fact that the republicans already spent $700bn and probably would have spent more, like it never happened.

  2. #47
    Psy
    Psy is offline
    Senior Member Psy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rhodesia
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Private View Post
    last but not least jesse ventura will never be elected for any high office he peaked get over it .

    NO ONE who believes 911 was an inside job will ever be elected because quite frankly you have to be a fucking naive child to believe it 911Myths wise up
    Jesse never said 9/11 didn't happen. His major dissent opinions only question why the US Government has never investigated 9/11 and why Osama Bin Laden is only on FBI's most wanted list for having attacked the US Embassies.

    USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
    FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive - Usama Bin Laden

    Just because your philosophical intelligence limits you to the phrase "don't steal mah money!" doesn't warrant you to call Obama a lying fascist (The First Amendment gives you that right). I didn't vote for him and I don't support a lot of what he says, but he's a lot better than McCain. How about this? Instead of voting republican down the line, how about you do research and educate yourself on everyone you're voting for? I know that word, educate, is like acid to your ears, but you should give it a try. You won't seem so ignorant whenever you share your opinion. You don't like Obama, why? Is it because of the people in his party? Or maybe you don't like his healthcare plan because the government hasn't done such a great job managing the Veteran hospitals.

    This is beside the point. I don't like Obama or McCain, I vote third party. I just want to defend Jesse because I happen to know a bit about him.

    Ventura only asked "why." He did research and didn't come up with an absolute answer, therefor he puts his assumptions aside and asks "why?" He doesn't think that the US did 9/11, but he also can't accept our country's conclusion based on an assumption. An assumption is less than a theory. He wants a theory to fall back on, just like the theories of creationism and evolution. Right now we have the "9/11 truthers theory" and the "assumption that the Bush Administration is right."

  3. #48
    Senior Member Private's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0000000 View Post
    I'm not going to bother arguing further because you argue like a child. You basically list a problem, add the fact that Obama happens to be president, and then draw a causality from that ignoring the fact that something called Congress exists and it's the same bunch of economists advising these administrations. You can't just cut taxes a bit and expect that to save institutions that will collapse within weeks without massive investment. That's just naive and why the current situation is completely different to recessions of the last 50 years. Jobs are being lost, it's terrible isn't it, and completely predictable because it's what happens during recessions. To have this fairytale idea that a republican administration (that openly declared it would support bailouts) could survive this climate without losing jobs by only cutting taxes, is absolutely ridiculous.

    You don't analyse situations objectively. You basically think "republican = good, tax cuts = good, me likey" and every single argument you make is based on that, irrespective of its merits. And you refuse to accept the fact that the republicans already spent $700bn and probably would have spent more, like it never happened.
    Another pathetic attempt .

    First of all . This is what i said since your dumb and read what you want to obviously.
    McCain would not have done any of the bail outs obama did* . Bush took care of the banks** , so mccain wouldn't of had to
    *What you get outta that is a fairy tail and me saying mccain said no to bail outs ... child?

    And I go back again to what i quoted** (from 3 or 4 post ago) you said "i refuse to accept it" .... Sorry if you dont know by "bank bail outs" i mean the 700bn your referring to maybe psy can help educate you.

    Second you bring up congress again and again like that other guy , you fail to mention the senate which is funny to me . In the end OBAMA SIGNS THE SHIT ! OBAMA CAN VETO IF HE DON'T LIKE IT . Considering he's got his vp on tv constantly owning the stimulus ... im pretty sure its fair for me to come to my opinions .

    Third i've establish in this quote of yours that you've lied twice . I will now show again how you lie to get your point across which is ironic considering the topic title .

    "You can't just cut taxes a bit and expect that to save institutions that will collapse within weeks without massive investment"
    This is just completely inaccurate when you look at what i said earlier . When i brought up tax cuts . I was clearly talking about how the republicans would stimulate the economy . To imply that my mention of tax cuts referred to the bail outs (banks or auto dealers) is just flat out misleading and inaccurate .

    You can call me a child but im not the one taking another's words and spinning them into lies to make my point .

    Quote Originally Posted by Psy View Post
    Jesse never said 9/11 didn't happen. His major dissent opinions only question why the US Government has never investigated 9/11 and why Osama Bin Laden is only on FBI's most wanted list for having attacked the US Embassies.

    FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive - Usama Bin Laden

    Just because your philosophical intelligence limits you to the phrase "don't steal mah money!" doesn't warrant you to call Obama a lying fascist (The First Amendment gives you that right). I didn't vote for him and I don't support a lot of what he says, but he's a lot better than McCain. How about this? Instead of voting republican down the line, how about you do research and educate yourself on everyone you're voting for? I know that word, educate, is like acid to your ears, but you should give it a try. You won't seem so ignorant whenever you share your opinion. You don't like Obama, why? Is it because of the people in his party? Or maybe you don't like his healthcare plan because the government hasn't done such a great job managing the Veteran hospitals.

    This is beside the point. I don't like Obama or McCain, I vote third party. I just want to defend Jesse because I happen to know a bit about him.

    Ventura only asked "why." He did research and didn't come up with an absolute answer, therefor he puts his assumptions aside and asks "why?" He doesn't think that the US did 9/11, but he also can't accept our country's conclusion based on an assumption. An assumption is less than a theory. He wants a theory to fall back on, just like the theories of creationism and evolution. Right now we have the "9/11 truthers theory" and the "assumption that the Bush Administration is right."
    The whole thing with the fbi is silly if you ask me . The same people who draw questions on why the fbi does this are the same ones who bitch about people being locked up in gitmo with out proof ....

    There are mountains of youtube clips of ventura on msnbc cnn and foxnews questioning alot of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 .... not just the investigation itself . To ask why the us didn't investigate , I think is silly and redundant , because they did . If they did it again they would only be adding fuel to the fire . There not going to change the minds of the people who have spent the last 8 years believe otherwise .

    The whole thing with the fbi is silly if you ask me . The same people who draw questions on why the fbi does this are the same ones who bitch about people being locked up in gitmo with out proof ....

    Psy I can understand if you read 000000's last post and assumed from that im not educated . However if you just read above you'll see he was just spinning lies to make a point .

  4. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Private View Post
    Well you get an A- for effort and for everything else u fail . Congress and the Senate (something you probably don't know about) only move paper they decide nothing . At the end of the day OBAMA signs whatever they come up with and he has the right to veto it . So while you tried hard you double fail because the congress and the senate are currently holding a super majority of democrats ... obamas party . If you are still not convinced its obama who is spending all this moeny go turn on the tv and look who's dumb ass vp has been trying to take credit for something that they themselves just recently admitted wont work .
    Quote Originally Posted by Private View Post
    Second you bring up congress again and again like that other guy , you fail to mention the senate which is funny to me . In the end OBAMA SIGNS THE SHIT ! OBAMA CAN VETO IF HE DON'T LIKE IT . Considering he's got his vp on tv constantly owning the stimulus ... im pretty sure its fair for me to come to my opinions .
    United States Congress = House + Senate.
    The Senate is part of Congress.

    I was waiting and I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet.

    I don't agree with your arguments, but go on. What else are you unhappy about?

  5. #50
    Senior Member Private's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halcyon View Post
    United States Congress = House + Senate.
    The Senate is part of Congress.

    I was waiting and I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet.

    I don't agree with your arguments, but go on. What else are you unhappy about?
    You shouldn't be surprised . Its a mistake i always make . Still doesn't change who signs the bills , the point i was making . Suggesting obama is not responsible for his own stimulus and other things he's signed is ludicrous .

  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wichita, KS =[
    Posts
    561

    Default

    fyi congress can overturn a veto by the president.. so your "Congress and the Senate (something you probably don't know about) only move paper they decide nothing." which btw its the house + senate = congress

    If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.
    it is possible for said congress to push something along w/o the presidents approval or signature .-. there are also other ways for congress to pass laws w/o the presidents approval/signature but im far too lazy to state them :\

  7. #52
    Psy
    Psy is offline
    Senior Member Psy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rhodesia
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Private, you present your opinions in such a way that it makes you look like a blithering idiot. You may be smart or you may not be. And I don't want to ask you to learn how to write coherent essays, but it wouldn't hurt. And if you could phrase your responses in such a way so that we don't feel like we are reading Bill O'Reilly's e-diary, it would help you prove your point to people with different or no opinion (Even if their opinion is "wrong" to you, a good essay can change their mind). Try a little back story or cite multiple sources. Anything. This is the internet, you're allowed to experiment.

  8. #53
    Senior Member Rad_Archer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Cold Water - Santa Cruz
    Posts
    3,058

    Default

    One day people will see that it's all a dog and pony show to control the masses and keep people's attention fixated rather then looking at who benefits. It's all one long term agenda that's gets you coming and going. You get one aspect of the agenda so people are so frustrated you can easily put in another party who then propagates the other part of the agenda. In the end the people always suffer. The only times the economy doesn't suffer from our "system" is when we have a revolutionary production period, like that of industrial revolution, invention of computers, the internet and other aspects of economics that have pulled us out of one mess or another. This can also happen with wars, such as WW2 when the US had spent, lent and then borrowed but won and therefore pulled us out of the Great Depression. BTW the banks who lent to the Allies also lent to the Axis so it was a win win, much as the world banks who created. If you look at who benefits from the sub prime mess, it took both parties and one group benefited (with artificially higher property taxes which are still there despite devalued housing values). Here's a very simple example of how it works:

    Sub Prime lending inflates values and causes continuous flipping.
    People pay more income tax on the sales and resales, more bank fees (financing etc), higher property taxes all around - still higher then values now.
    The bubble bursts, people can't pay, they lose their homes (back to the banks).
    The banks go bankrupt but are bailed out by the government (they get the money lost back).
    Banks made money on the original sales, the made money on the refi's and resales, they made money on huge balloon loans - they go bankrupt (but the bankers were already paid huge bonuses and incentives) then the government pays their debt (with our future taxes) and then the banks resell the homes to us, this time at prime lending (thus making money off us again). Good deal!

    And this little ass fucking was only done by both parties making it happen, like it or not.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Private's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,342

    Default

    "revolutionary production period" as long as the sheep are convinced global warming is real / a man made threat you wont see a revolutionary production period anytime soon in the us .

    I realized that the second china stopped buying gold and started buying materials for reusable energy . They'll be like the arabs except with man power and nukes .

    psy i know my punctuation is crap but as you said this is the internet . IRL i have 2 accountants and a secretary worrying about my punctuation.

    Oh and rad i disagree with both parties . One can easily ,as i always do , point to the democrats in 2006 defending fannie mae and freedie mac . Fannie mae and Freedie mac can easily be blamed for the housing crisis . Regulation in 2006 would've with out a doubt kept a lot more people in their homes and lessen the blow to the economy .

    If not completely to blame then you just go back to clintons admin and accorn putting people in homes they can't afford . Both of those are the left .

  10. #55

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •