Obama

[Sibirsky]

Pay attention to whats going on. REALLY pay attention. Dont just watch the mainstream media. Theyre his puppets.

Instruct me, I'm all ears.

Hes intentionally destroying our economy (10% unemployment!) to use the crisis as an excuse to push his socialist agenda. He knew the bailout wouldnt work, it wasnt supposed to.


And Glenn Beck is a great man, to whoever asked me. But hes not he only one you should listen to.

destroying out economy? how about our economy is stabilizing

the job loss is caused by forces already in existance and motion since bush sr

obamas not socialist, i am, he's not

the bailout DID work: it pushed us back from the brink

The economy would have stabilized faster if there were no bailouts. The job losses were in existence since Bush Jr you mean right? Or do the 20 million jobs created during the Clinton times do not count?

The bailouts were not necessary. I already have posted a bank plan that would work much better.

[Sibirsky]

Pay attention to whats going on. REALLY pay attention. Dont just watch the mainstream media. Theyre his puppets.

Instruct me, I'm all ears.

Hes intentionally destroying our economy (10% unemployment!) to use the crisis as an excuse to push his socialist agenda. He knew the bailout wouldnt work, it wasnt supposed to.


And Glenn Beck is a great man, to whoever asked me. But hes not he only one you should listen to.

destroying out economy? how about our economy is stabilizing

the job loss is caused by forces already in existance and motion since bush sr

obamas not socialist, i am, he's not

the bailout DID work: it pushed us back from the brink

Stabilizing? 10% unemployment and growing is not stabilizing.

but increase in house markets, stock markets, and an overall cease in inflation is stabilizing

Housing should me even more unaffordable. Explain to me why the stock market is rising.

[Inertina]

The economy would have stabilized faster if there were no bailouts.

[Citation needed]

The bailouts were not necessary. I already have posted a bank plan that would work much better.

And i'm sure the people in charge thought about an idea similar to whatever yours was, discarded it as unworkable, and went with one that has done the job impressively well.

[Arkinesia]

To pay someone, it has to take form someone? Do you not understand this incredibly simple concept?

Do you not understand the concepts of deficit spending and Keynsian economics?

I understand it very well. Something else I understand... it doesn't work.

You understand deficit spending, but you think it doesn't work?

I have to say, then - you don't understand what you think you understand.

Don't you know ANYTHING? It doesn't work! The New Deal was a failure! Government spending didn't bring us out of the depression, world war II did! World War II, and the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that the government shunted into the economy as a result.

So government spending does NOTHING!

No, the New Deal brought us out of the Depression.

Slower than if the government had just left the American people alone

[Sibirsky]

Pay attention to whats going on. REALLY pay attention. Dont just watch the mainstream media. Theyre his puppets.

Instruct me, I'm all ears.

Hes intentionally destroying our economy (10% unemployment!) to use the crisis as an excuse to push his socialist agenda. He knew the bailout wouldnt work, it wasnt supposed to.


And Glenn Beck is a great man, to whoever asked me. But hes not he only one you should listen to.

destroying out economy? how about our economy is stabilizing

the job loss is caused by forces already in existance and motion since bush sr

obamas not socialist, i am, he's not

the bailout DID work: it pushed us back from the brink

Stabilizing? 10% unemployment and growing is not stabilizing.

but increase in house markets, stock markets, and an overall cease in inflation is stabilizing

All this means nothing if people arent working.

And dont even get me started on the government taking over a business.

the only businesses govt has been Temporarily taking over for the purpose of keeping them alive are the biggies (AIG, GM, etc), subsidies and bailout money DO NOT mean that the govt is in control.

and those big businesses that the govt saved, if they wer to fail, the social, financial and economic consequences would be so dire that the unemployyment wud b WAYYYY higher then wat they r now. the govt saved our economy, it may hav not been the perfect way (if ther is one), but it was the only way

It wasn't the only way. And by forcing out GM's CEO, and then forcing out GM's new CEO, and AIG's CEO they were not in control?

[Sibirsky]

Stabilizing? 10% unemployment and growing is not stabilizing.

Actually unemployment has been down since October. But why bother with the real world when we can just trash Obama!

The real unemployment rate is close to 22%. Depressionary indeed.

[Milks Empire]

It wasn't the only way. And by forcing out GM's CEO, and then forcing out GM's new CEO, and AIG's CEO they were not in control?

Hey, they could have chosen not to pursue the money. It's no different than a private investor - you take their money; you play by their rules.

[Pope Joan]

I am Graduated from one of the top ten law schools in America, Northwestern U, in Chicago, class of 1974.

The brightest law school students go on the staff of the university's Law Review. Look at most of the current Supreme Court justices; they were on there.

Out of that elite, the best of the best was the head of the team, the chief of the review.

That was Obama.

At Harvard.

And his area of expertise was constitutional law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... ditor.html

[Sibirsky]

REAL news sources. Fox, rightwingnews.com, biggovernment.com to name a few. And yeah, I know, "lol fox isnt fair and balanced!". Typical liberal smear tactic.

Ah. Parody account.

Got it.

Why? You assume Im a parody because I am conservative? Is this place so sad that there are no real conservatives? Just jesters?

No, I assume you are a parody because of the ridiculous extreme, but more...

...because you trot out 'rightwingnews.com', and then pretend that Fox news would be controversial.

You overplayed your hand.


I feel sorry for KMA, actually - since he thought you were for real.

I knew Fox would be controversial because I live in the real world. The smear machine is constantly talking about how bias it is. It is a little, but not nearly as much as the Clinton News Network.

And I know rightwingnews.com isnt unbias. Id have to be an idiot not to.

I just dont care. Much like you dont care when you listen to NPR and how bias to the left it is.

u gotta learn the difference between "left-wing bias" and delivering the facts

the only left bias news show i know of is the Ed Show on msnbc, i dont like that show, i like it wen its the most unbias as possible, thus i watch Hardball, Countdown (it gets annoyingly bias sumtimes) and the Rachel Maddow Show

i also listen to NPR, which is hilariously centrist..not bias in any sens of YOUR definition

Hardball? Chris Mathews has a thrill running up his leg every time he talks about Obama. He is beyond biased. He's in love.

[Sibirsky]

To pay someone, it has to take form someone? Do you not understand this incredibly simple concept?

Do you not understand the concepts of deficit spending and Keynsian economics?

I understand it very well. Something else I understand... it doesn't work.

You understand deficit spending, but you think it doesn't work?

I have to say, then - you don't understand what you think you understand.

Historical examples have shown us that it doesn't work.

[Inertina]

Historical examples have shown us that it doesn't work.

except historical examples have shown it does. The New Deal and WWII are fabulous cases of deficit spending during a recession which ended it quicker.

[Sibirsky]

The economy would have stabilized faster if there were no bailouts.

[Citation needed]

The bailouts were not necessary. I already have posted a bank plan that would work much better.

And i'm sure the people in charge thought about an idea similar to whatever yours was, discarded it as unworkable, and went with one that has done the job impressively well.

The 1920-1921 Depression was 18 months long. The GDP contraction in it's first year was larger than the first year of the Great Depression. Unemployment rose higher, and faster than the first year of the Great Depression. The government's response? Nothing. Like I said, it lasted 18 months. During the Great Depression the government freaked out and created the New Deal. The Great Depression lasted 12 years. The government conveniently ignores these facts. Because that would give them less control if people knew this.

The people in charge want to be in charge of more. My (not really mine, something I read) plan would not give them more control.

[Sibirsky]

To pay someone, it has to take form someone? Do you not understand this incredibly simple concept?

Do you not understand the concepts of deficit spending and Keynsian economics?

I understand it very well. Something else I understand... it doesn't work.

You understand deficit spending, but you think it doesn't work?

I have to say, then - you don't understand what you think you understand.

Don't you know ANYTHING? It doesn't work! The New Deal was a failure! Government spending didn't bring us out of the depression, world war II did! World War II, and the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that the government shunted into the economy as a result.

So government spending does NOTHING!

No, the New Deal brought us out of the Depression.

Slower than if the government had just left the American people alone

Please. Look up the 1920-1921 Depression. The New Deal, prolonged the Great Depression.

[Sibirsky]

It wasn't the only way. And by forcing out GM's CEO, and then forcing out GM's new CEO, and AIG's CEO they were not in control?

Hey, they could have chosen not to pursue the money. It's no different than a private investor - you take their money; you play by their rules.

I am not saying that getting rid of the CEOs was not the right move. I am just saying the wrong people did it.

[Sibirsky]

I am Graduated from one of the top ten law schools in America, Northwestern U, in Chicago, class of 1974.

The brightest law school students go on the staff of the university's Law Review. Look at most of the current Supreme Court justices; they were on there.

Out of that elite, the best of the best was the head of the team, the chief of the review.

That was Obama.

At Harvard.

And his area of expertise was constitutional law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... ditor.html

Yet he continues to violate it.

[Milks Empire]

Please. Look up the 1920-1921 Depression. The New Deal, prolonged the Great Depression.

That comparison will not hold without solid evidence - that means actual sources, not assertions. Kindly either give us some or shut the hell up.

[Arkinesia]

It wasn't the only way. And by forcing out GM's CEO, and then forcing out GM's new CEO, and AIG's CEO they were not in control?

Hey, they could have chosen not to pursue the money. It's no different than a private investor - you take their money; you play by their rules.

I am not saying that getting rid of the CEOs was not the right move. I am just saying the wrong people did it.

Getting rid of the GM CEOs? That was the wrong move.

They should have let a dyin' dog die. GM's been out cold for the last ten years, just let Yeller die!

[Moreau Catholic High]

I am Graduated from one of the top ten law schools in America, Northwestern U, in Chicago, class of 1974.

The brightest law school students go on the staff of the university's Law Review. Look at most of the current Supreme Court justices; they were on there.

Out of that elite, the best of the best was the head of the team, the chief of the review.

That was Obama.

At Harvard.

And his area of expertise was constitutional law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... ditor.html

Yet he continues to violate it.

And how does he do that?

[Sibirsky]

Historical examples have shown us that it doesn't work.

except historical examples have shown it does. The New Deal and WWII are fabulous cases of deficit spending during a recession which ended it quicker.

The 1920-1921 Depression, which was deeper in it's first year than the Great Depression resulted in the government doing nothing. And lasted 18 months. The Great Depression resulted in the New Deal, and lasted 12 years.

Of course, how could I be so stupid, 12 is less than 18.

[Sibirsky]

Please. Look up the 1920-1921 Depression. The New Deal, prolonged the Great Depression.

That comparison will not hold without solid evidence - that means actual sources, not assertions. Kindly either give us some or shut the hell up.

www.google.com

[Sibirsky]

I am Graduated from one of the top ten law schools in America, Northwestern U, in Chicago, class of 1974.

The brightest law school students go on the staff of the university's Law Review. Look at most of the current Supreme Court justices; they were on there.

Out of that elite, the best of the best was the head of the team, the chief of the review.

That was Obama.

At Harvard.

And his area of expertise was constitutional law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... ditor.html

Yet he continues to violate it.

And how does he do that?

He has violated property rights for example.

[Milks Empire]

It wasn't the only way. And by forcing out GM's CEO, and then forcing out GM's new CEO, and AIG's CEO they were not in control?

Hey, they could have chosen not to pursue the money. It's no different than a private investor - you take their money; you play by their rules.

I am not saying that getting rid of the CEOs was not the right move. I am just saying the wrong people did it.

Way to totally ignore my fucking point.
The corporations took the money when they did not have to. They are now beholden to this investor as they would be any other investor. Whether or not you or I think they should have invested is 100% moot.

I am Graduated from one of the top ten law schools in America, Northwestern U, in Chicago, class of 1974.
The brightest law school students go on the staff of the university's Law Review. Look at most of the current Supreme Court justices; they were on there.
Out of that elite, the best of the best was the head of the team, the chief of the review.
That was Obama.
At Harvard.
And his area of expertise was constitutional law.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... ditor.html

Yet he continues to violate it.

PROOF. NOW. You're getting to be as bad as Robustian and Bluth Corporation

[Sibirsky]

PROOF. NOW. You're getting to be as bad as Robustian and Bluth Corporation

You are not up to date with news are you? Actually this is old news. But regardless, you don't pay attention?

[Gebeta]

Has he shut down GB prison yet?

George Bush has a prison?

its Guantomino Bay aka Gitmo
I think he need to stop blaming bush and make good on what he said

I agree.

Now that we're out of the poor economy handed to us from the Bush admini.... oooh, we're not are we.

Okay, well, now that we're out of the two wars that they got us into..... oh, I see.

Hmm.

Do you think maybe we should worry about not blaming the previous administration ONCE the legacy of the former administration has been overcome?

Just a thought.

he needs to stop saying i was handed this war, economy and fix it, i don't expect it to be done overnight, he not a miracle worker ofcoruse. i just want to see somthing that would be long term improvement, not short term.

[Milks Empire]

PROOF. NOW. You're getting to be as bad as Robustian and Bluth Corporation

You are not up to date with news are you? Actually this is old news. But regardless, you don't pay attention?

You are making the claims. It is not our job to have sources to back up your claims. Period. Give us sources or get lost.