O=W

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Little Ryan,

I’ve schooled you, (as have others) in how to think with the appropriate facts.[/quote]

Then perhaps you wouldn’t mind quoting one example? You can’t do it, because you’ve been wrong about everything you’ve brought up. You say Keynesian spending doesn’t work, then you give an example of Keynesian spending getting us out of a depression (except you were too stupid to know that’s what you were doing), you get elementary economic facts confused (millions of small business want to expand right now), etc.

Now, I’ve brutally kicked your ass (while getting all your info from Fox News and your “feelings” may be comfortable, it does a poor job of preparing you for a debate with someone who is more properly informed), and while your best bet is to slink off with your tail between your legs, as PR did, I’d be more than happy to assist you as you continue to embarrass yourself.

In what world? I answered every moronic statement you made, sonny jim. That YOU choose to ignore it (and to hope others do as well, no doubt), only underscores your desperation, inability to engage in rational argumentation, and fraying connections to reality.

Yes yes, I think we’ve already covered what a bunch of communists the physics department is (of course, that doesn’t make any sense, but that doesn’t stop you from peddling one of the favorite conspiracy theories that prevents your ideology from flying apart at the seams). Also, it’s not at all ironic that you accuse me of lapping up propaganda while you regurgitate perhaps the most common talking point there is on the right.

You know, simply repeating something an awful lot doesn’t make it true. You still haven’t been able to disprove ONE thing I’ve said. And it’s actually YOUR theories that are disproven by time. I’m not surprised you haven’t heard though, since you don’t read. Sorry.

Joke all you want, you’re still wrong, and you look more and more ridiculous with every post.

122

[quote]Little Ryan wrote:

Don’t you know I’m i college and that makes me smarter than anyone who actually graduated from college and has been a successfully functioning adult for many years? Also, I’m a communist doesn’t that demonstrate that I’m old enough to make my own decisions? Now play right and give me respect![/quote]

Little Ryan I’m sorry I can’t respect you, or anything that you’ve posted. You sort of remind me of my youngest child (without the communist part of course) he just knows everything, I mean everything. When you tell him to go to bed he wants to debate you. When you tell him to eat his vegetables he wants to debate again. Asked to pick-up his room he debates yet again. But unlike his mother who will engage him in debate, I don’t. You see little Ryan some people you debate with and some you just tell what to do because they’re just not old enough or smart enough or have the experience to know what the hell they’re talking about. While my 13 year old son is much smarter than you I know when not to engage him, that is called experience.

In this case rather than spending your time debating politics on a message board I think you need instead to get a job and taste a bit of the real world, as I’ve said before. Now, I know you won’t do that as long as Daddy’s paying the bills and that’s a real shame, it’s your loss. You’d rather post back about something inconsequential, toss out a stupid remark or two and impress yourself (and some of your commy friends) but what you really need is that taste of life that you so very much lack and that my misguided little friend is not debatable. Now, I’ll do the same thing for you that I do for my young son before I turn out the light and close the door having won another confrontation, I’ll give you the last word so that you can sleep better.

Happy Holidays :slight_smile:

123

I’m sorry you stepped in a huge pile of shit and didn’t realize it until I had already made a fool of you.

Do you lose those debates, too?

I’ll bet I know why.

Also, it’s disturbing that you have a child.

My sentiments exactly. That’s why you let Fox News spoonfeed you your opinions–it’s just easier than trying to get you to understand things.

ZEB translation: Ryan isn’t the only one who kicks my ass in “debates.”

[quote]blahblahblah

Happy Holidays :slight_smile:

[/quote]

You go right ahead and dodge every single question I asked you if you want, that’s fine and it’s what I expect. But I feel sorry for you–it must really eat at you to have been so completely humiliated by a young college student. Not only that, a communist!! Bet you won’t tell your conservative friends about that!

Merry Christmas! Hopefully Santa will bring you a book this year. Or a brain. Either one would be a start.

124

wow you guys are both retarded.

125

Sorry Rich, didn’t mean to wake you up.

126

In other “O=W” news:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout

[quote]Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.[/quote]

127

I would agree with the ruse that he pulled but the reasoning of this journalist is rather false. “deregulation and unchecked greed” …by the government. But thats neither here nor there, they at least get the point

128

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I would agree with the ruse that he pulled but the reasoning of this journalist is rather false. “deregulation and unchecked greed” …by the government. But thats neither here nor there, they at least get the point[/quote]

Not at all true. The current recession is due to market failures, plain and simple.

129

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I would agree with the ruse that he pulled but the reasoning of this journalist is rather false. “deregulation and unchecked greed” …by the government. But thats neither here nor there, they at least get the point[/quote]

Not at all true. The current recession is due to market failures, plain and simple.
[/quote]

Ya, it really is all that plain and simple.

Its like when you are an incurable drunk and constantly poison yourself with alcohol your liver is to blame when it collapses.

How could it possibly be any other way?

130

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
In other “O=W” news:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout

[quote]Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.[/quote][/quote]

That’s why he was hired, to do exactly as the 2nd part of the link says.

“Promise everything, deliver nothing.” (Napoleon Bonaparte)

131

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I would agree with the ruse that he pulled but the reasoning of this journalist is rather false. “deregulation and unchecked greed” …by the government. But thats neither here nor there, they at least get the point[/quote]

Not at all true. The current recession is due to market failures, plain and simple.
[/quote]

LOL! You really believe that?

You must be Barney Frank’s bitch. Really.

132

Obama, not only surrounded himself with Bankers, and Wall Street Execs, but he also put Union Bosses and Tax Cheats around him.

LOL, I did not think Barney Frank could ever get a bitch, but you might have put Ryan P. McSquirter at the top of the list.

133

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Obama, not only surrounded himself with Bankers, and Wall Street Execs, but he also put Union Bosses and Tax Cheats around him.

LOL, I did not think Barney Frank could ever get a bitch, but you might have put Ryan P. McSquirter at the top of the list.[/quote]

Hey give him a break he’s only 19 or 20 years old. I know when I was that age I thought I had it all figured out too. I used to go on and on mimicking what my professors had just spoon fed me. He’s actually a bright kid, just misguided and inexperienced that will probably change after 5 or so years of living in the real world.

134

I would like to apologize.

135
136

Obama really does face a conundrum.

If his actions satisfied the hard-left Moveon.org, Daily Kos, etc type crowd, this would lose the independents and moderate Democrats.

If his actions satisfied the independents and moderate Democrats, the hard leftists would be even angrier at him than they are now.

His solution seems to have been to have each of these parts of the spectrum only moderately displeased with him, or at least he hopes only moderately.

He has only one demographic which gives him a high approval rating (98% in a very recent Rasmussen) but while having that is good, he needs a broader base.

But it’s hard to see how he can please the Huffington Posters and independents and moderate Democrats concurrently.

Life must have been easier when all that was needed was “I’m not George Bush: John McCain is George Bush” (paraphrase.) High approval was easy to achieve then. Now he is being evaluated on his own.

137

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Obama really does face a conundrum.

If his actions satisfied the hard-left Moveon.org, Daily Kos, etc type crowd, this would lose the independents and moderate Democrats.

If his actions satisfied the independents and moderate Democrats, the hard leftists would be even angrier at him than they are now.

His solution seems to have been to have each of these parts of the spectrum only moderately displeased with him, or at least he hopes only moderately.

He has only one demographic which gives him a high approval rating (98% in a very recent Rasmussen) but while having that is good, he needs a broader base.

But it’s hard to see how he can please the Huffington Posters and independents and moderate Democrats concurrently.

Life must have been easier when all that was needed was “I’m not George Bush: John McCain is George Bush” (paraphrase.) High approval was easy to achieve then. Now he is being evaluated on his own.[/quote]

Is that demographic African-Americans, by any chance?

Anyways, if we plot political capital vs. time, we’ll see that it drops as Great Depression II drags on.

Of course, he might try reversing some of the Bush policies that got us into this mess and bringing home the troops/deport Muslims so we don’t need this enormous military apparatus and can start paying down our public debt, but he won’t do that. He’s grabbed the rudder on Bush’ heading and is steering the same direction. NO wonder his approval ratings are tracking about the same already.

138

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Obama really does face a conundrum.

If his actions satisfied the hard-left Moveon.org, Daily Kos, etc type crowd, this would lose the independents and moderate Democrats.

If his actions satisfied the independents and moderate Democrats, the hard leftists would be even angrier at him than they are now.

His solution seems to have been to have each of these parts of the spectrum only moderately displeased with him, or at least he hopes only moderately.

He has only one demographic which gives him a high approval rating (98% in a very recent Rasmussen) but while having that is good, he needs a broader base.

But it’s hard to see how he can please the Huffington Posters and independents and moderate Democrats concurrently.

Life must have been easier when all that was needed was “I’m not George Bush: John McCain is George Bush” (paraphrase.) High approval was easy to achieve then. Now he is being evaluated on his own.[/quote]

I think that he will always use the supposed fail-safe of “this was all started by Bush and his policies, etc.” But people will get tired of it, I think the more he goes back to that, the faster he loses his fan base.

Seeing the left pay off those who posed a threat to not passing health care, is a bigger sign of how bad Obama isn’t changing much of anything. Just following the “when in doubt, bribe your way to victory” policy.

139

Hmmm…ignoring the wealth of evidence to the contrary, which is more likely: that the market has never ever failed or been responsible for a recession in history, as you exert so much effort in attempting to convince us, or that an institution whose entire existence was a reaction to constant failures and depressions, is actually responsible for the depressions?

Which way does history go? Anyway you want?

140

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I would agree with the ruse that he pulled but the reasoning of this journalist is rather false. “deregulation and unchecked greed” …by the government. But thats neither here nor there, they at least get the point[/quote]

Not at all true. The current recession is due to market failures, plain and simple.
[/quote]

LOL! You really believe that?

You must be Barney Frank’s bitch. Really.
[/quote]

Good God, the Wall Street Journal believes that. That you psychopaths don’t is telling.