OBAMA Knocked it out of the fucking park - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

DWB · 09-07-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

Like or hate his speech - the question is which one is more likely to move the country forward rather than backwards, even just a bit? Neither one can solve all the problems but as Clinton suggested - is the country better than it was a few years ago? I think yes

The reality of the situation is, it doesn't matter who is sitting in office now or next year. Whoever wins will buckle to corporate / banking / wall street lobbyists and still has to deal with Congress. The Fed calls all the shots financially, so the presidents hands are ties there too. So it's just one big cluster fuck that is getting kicked on down the road a little more, and a little more, and a little more, until the road ends. Whoever is the unfortunate president at that time will go down in history as the man who destroyed the USA, even though he had very little to do with it.

bronco67 · 09-07-2012, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I have more faith in Romney, And I do believe they have plans to fix the economy. Most likely stuff the majority of people would be against, and that's why I think they are not telling their plans...

Example would be hitting piracy and getting that tax money. So many are against this, because they want everything for free that it would kill his chances of becoming president. I'm not saying this is one of the plans, just saying it's an example that would help the economy that people would be against. another would be a major welfare reform.

All I heard at the RNC speeches was a list of stock platitudes.

At least the DNC was much more specific about what has been done, with actual numbers.

2012 · 09-07-2012, 07:57 AM

Presidents

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Why do you guys keep spewing nonsense, without bothering to fact check?

U.S. domestic oil production is higher than it has been in eight years, and our imports are less than half of consumption, for the first time in 17 years. 20 million new acres have been opened for exploration in the Gulf.

You don't even have to give him credit for it, but it's still true. It's silly to pretend the truth is a lie, just because you don't like the guy.

I never said anything was a "Lie"

I said Obama took credit for it when in reality his administration did everything it could do legally to STOP oil production in the U.S.
That oil production is happening from private lands that the govt. had no say-so over.

YOU should fact check.

It's like you're saying that if you lived in a town and opposed a project...but it happened anyway and made money...that you should take credit for it. lol

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

also oil for fuel is an old fucking technology maybe we should get something new. Its funny we are all tech guys are you all still using dos?
The Chinese are number one in solar ,a technology Americans created. The Chinese gov invested 30 billion dollars in it. Funny how that works.

The Chinese are number one in building FACTORIES that make the style of solar panels that have been around since Jimmy Carter put them on the White House in 1976

That's called cheap Chinese labor and ZERO govt. safety regulation.

You know we can't compete with that!

But to insinuate that the Chinese are somehow on the cutting edge of solar technology is NOT true. They are just able to produce shit much more cheaply (just like they do everything else)

tony286 · 09-07-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The Chinese are number one in building FACTORIES that make the style of solar panels that have been around since Jimmy Carter put them on the White House in 1976

That's called cheap Chinese labor and ZERO govt. safety regulation.

You know we can't compete with that!

But to insinuate that the Chinese are somehow on the cutting edge of solar technology is NOT true. They are just able to produce shit much more cheaply (just like they do everything else)

http://www.renewable-energy-technolo...ntre-set-china

SmutHammer · 09-07-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

Like or hate his speech - the question is which one is more likely to move the country forward rather than backwards, even just a bit? Neither one can solve all the problems but as Clinton suggested - is the country better than it was a few years ago? I think yes

I don't think we are better off. not based in my own experiance.

When Clinton was in office, Money was easy to get and it seemed you could make as much as you wanted if you just put in more work.

Near the end of Bushes term, You had to work harder, but again, the money was still there.

Now it seems you have to live your life working, Just to make ends meet.

Break it down however you want. but that is my openion.

Connor · 09-07-2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I don't think we are better off. not based in my own experiance.

When Clinton was in office, Money was easy to get and it seemed you could make as much as you wanted if you just put in more work.

Near the end of Bushes term, You had to work harder, but again, the money was still there.

Now it seems you have to live your life working, Just to make ends meet.

Break it down however you want. but that is my openion.

Are we better off than when Clinton was in office? HELL no.

Are we better off than four years ago today when the markets were in absolute free fall, Congressmen were talking possible martial law, and then jobs started dumping by the millions in the following months? Yeah, that's a no brainer.

BTW, those of you who saw the speech and think it's over... sorry, it doesn't work that way. Speeches only rally the base, they don't often do a lot to swing independent and undecided voters -- and there aren't many of those this year.

ANYTHING can still happen. Obama could DESTROY his opponent in all three debates and STILL lose because of the jobs reports. America doesn't use common sense when it votes, sadly.

Connor · 09-07-2012, 10:14 AM

Also Ed, you're in adult... so not a normal industry. We got "hammered" (see what I did there!) by a number of forces that have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the consequences of digital media.

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

http://www.renewable-energy-technolo...ntre-set-china

That is from their own press release (kind of like the FSC heh-heh).

Here is reality. The United States leads the world in solar technology. Most of it coming from MIT (isn't that kinda funny):

http://solarfeeds.com/the-5-most-sig...ances-of-2011/

Gerco · 09-07-2012, 10:19 AM

Ok, you have a house. Guy comes over and burns it down. So you hire a second guy who starts to rebuild it while guy #1 pisses and moans and does everything he can to prevent the work from happening.... and then first guy is pissed cause the second guy is taking to long to rebuild it and wants to bring the matches over again...

Basically our situation.

Rochard · 09-07-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I don't think we are better off. not based in my own experiance.

When Clinton was in office, Money was easy to get and it seemed you could make as much as you wanted if you just put in more work.

Near the end of Bushes term, You had to work harder, but again, the money was still there.

Now it seems you have to live your life working, Just to make ends meet.

Break it down however you want. but that is my openion.

It's not about "you" it's about everyone.

I've documented how my home town has been affected by the economy over and over again. My neighborhood - upper middle class - was a ghost town because over half of the houses were vacant. Businesses were shutting down, all construction projects stopped - half completed. All of this has been reversed. Our houses are full again in our neighborhood, construction has resumed, and new businesses are opening. The "Rainbow Market" - which was locally owned for the past seventy years - closed, and now a new store is going up in place of the old store.

It's gotten better for me too - I'm making more than ever before, and my wife is employed full time too.

I don't how much of this is because of Obama, but the Republican party is saying "he failed" when things are in fact better.

Kevin Marx · 09-07-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

That "someone new" has exactly the same policies as the idiot who left America on life support after 8 horrible years.

So curious to me that everyone attacks a full 8 years of Bush.

A president doesn't do things on their own (although this one seems to be trying to do a lot of things outside of Congressional involvement). They have to work with Congress. Bush had a Democratic Congress for a good period of his presidency as did Obama for the first 2 years. A lot of the blame for shit that has happened belongs there as well.

Quote:

Stick with Obama. Things ARE better off now - with ZERO help from the Republicans.

1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America?s long-term fiscal problems.ye

Try being in the healthcare industry before talking about this being a big win (of which I am). It's a shitty piece of legislation that has more to do with taxation and government control than healthcare. It also puts the healthcare industry in a worse position that people perceive it is now.... all with the guise of "covering" 32 million uninsured Americans. Remember that for these uninsureds to be taken care of, someone has to pay for it.... That's you and me bub unless you are one of the uninsured's and then it's just me and those just like me that have the wherewithal to pay for it. Nothing's ever Free.

The number one cause of America's long term fiscal problems?? Hah... try borrowing money from the Chinese to fund every fucking welfare program we have. People getting things for nothing. BTW, welfare to Israel and African nations is just as ludicrous as handing out food stamps and unemployment. Someone's gotta pay for that and at a certain point, the handouts overcame the funding. How can we possibly keep borrowing to fund welfare? It's a time bomb that's ready to explode. Don't kid yourself.

BTW, I looked up GDP numbers the other day. Are you aware that our GDP is roughly 2.5-3 times higher than the Chinese? Why the hell do we need to borrow money from them? Why????? Handouts.... plain and simple. If we stop handing shit out, then we stop borrowing and we can pay for ourselves. How about some fiscal responsibility by both parties in our own country. They need to stop buying votes by promising shit to people and other places. It's really easy to give away money that doesn't come from your own pocket.

Quote:

4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.

We will never fully leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Won't happen. Will the military drawdown happen? Sure. We will remain there as a fixture just like in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. It's nice to have bases in other parts of the world for when the baddies start shit up. It's just logical.

Quote:

6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.

Yea Obama. What a wonderful thing he did by ordering the kill shot. Whomever is in the big chair when the time came would have pretty much made the same decision. I don't give him much leadership credit for saying shoot the fucker. Big deal.

Do I think Bush/Administration was playing games? Yeah, I do, but I also feel the Dems and GOP play the same games.

From a leadership standpoint I don't think Obama has been very successful and his primary focus has been to allow the government more oversight and control of the citizenry. I think that task began a long time ago and I think Bush helped to push it along as well.

From a purely economic standpoint, I feel that a businessman has better skills and experience to move the country along than Obama, who's experience had nothing to do with monetary knowledge.

Romney has things I disagree with, absolutely, but in this 2 horse race, I'm not sure why people just accept that Obama is the one to continue for another 4 years when the first 4 have been far from anything close to good.

I don't think Romney is just a rehash of Bush, but I do feel he's a better selection than Obama episode 2

Kevin Marx · 09-07-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's not about "you" it's about everyone.

I've documented how my home town has been affected by the economy over and over again. My neighborhood - upper middle class - was a ghost town because over half of the houses were vacant. Businesses were shutting down, all construction projects stopped - half completed. All of this has been reversed. Our houses are full again in our neighborhood, construction has resumed, and new businesses are opening. The "Rainbow Market" - which was locally owned for the past seventy years - closed, and now a new store is going up in place of the old store.

It's gotten better for me too - I'm making more than ever before, and my wife is employed full time too.

I don't how much of this is because of Obama, but the Republican party is saying "he failed" when things are in fact better.

Question: How many of those houses sold for the value they went empty at?

My street went through the same process. We have a full street again and all the houses that went under sold for almost 1/2 of what they went foreclosed value at. I'm not sure I call that progress or "better off" as my home value is almost the same it was over 12 years ago; but yeah, we have a full street again and 4 people got smokin deals on homes in a very nice location.

The foreclosures get dumped on the general population because the banks were saved. So in essence, my home value dropped and I also as a taxpayer now get to subsidize the new owners lessened home value. Not sure I would call that progress or better off either.

I posted in another thread. A lot of the shit that happened was during and because of a Democratic Congress. A president doesn't operate in a vacuum by himself. Bush wasn't a great president, but neither is Obama. Shit is moving and happening because Americans are innovators and survivors, not because a president is doing things to help the citizenry. Government tends to get in the way of people. The only reason legislation is necessary is to act against abusers. Moral and ethical people need no legislation to exist.

MaDalton · 09-07-2012, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

The point was, all of these politicians have people / teams who write their speeches for them. The words they say are often not their own.

Jon Favreau is the Director of speech writing for president Obama, who has a team of speech writers. Obama's team knocked it out of the park. Obama simply read their words with conviction and made everyone believe they were his own, with a message that is generic, yet very well calculated.

Favreau is paid $172,200 a year. He has been named one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" by Time magazine. He is the real genius behind Obama.

Obama is a great speaker, but it is only fair to give credit where it is due. And this does not just apply to Obama, this goes for all of them. I just single out Obama because everyone goes on and on about how great his speeches are, but he doesn't even write them.

and here i thought why would the guy who directs Iron Man work for an extra $172k a year to write speeches...

turns out there are two of them

SuckOnThis · 09-07-2012, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

So curious to me that everyone attacks a full 8 years of Bush.

A president doesn't do things on their own (although this one seems to be trying to do a lot of things outside of Congressional involvement). They have to work with Congress. Bush had a Democratic Congress for a good period of his presidency as did Obama for the first 2 years. A lot of the blame for shit that has happened belongs there as well.

Try being in the healthcare industry before talking about this being a big win (of which I am). It's a shitty piece of legislation that has more to do with taxation and government control than healthcare. It also puts the healthcare industry in a worse position that people perceive it is now.... all with the guise of "covering" 32 million uninsured Americans. Remember that for these uninsureds to be taken care of, someone has to pay for it.... That's you and me bub unless you are one of the uninsured's and then it's just me and those just like me that have the wherewithal to pay for it. Nothing's ever Free.

The number one cause of America's long term fiscal problems?? Hah... try borrowing money from the Chinese to fund every fucking welfare program we have. People getting things for nothing. BTW, welfare to Israel and African nations is just as ludicrous as handing out food stamps and unemployment. Someone's gotta pay for that and at a certain point, the handouts overcame the funding. How can we possibly keep borrowing to fund welfare? It's a time bomb that's ready to explode. Don't kid yourself.

BTW, I looked up GDP numbers the other day. Are you aware that our GDP is roughly 2.5-3 times higher than the Chinese? Why the hell do we need to borrow money from them? Why????? Handouts.... plain and simple. If we stop handing shit out, then we stop borrowing and we can pay for ourselves. How about some fiscal responsibility by both parties in our own country. They need to stop buying votes by promising shit to people and other places. It's really easy to give away money that doesn't come from your own pocket.

We will never fully leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Won't happen. Will the military drawdown happen? Sure. We will remain there as a fixture just like in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. It's nice to have bases in other parts of the world for when the baddies start shit up. It's just logical.

Yea Obama. What a wonderful thing he did by ordering the kill shot. Whomever is in the big chair when the time came would have pretty much made the same decision. I don't give him much leadership credit for saying shoot the fucker. Big deal.

Do I think Bush/Administration was playing games? Yeah, I do, but I also feel the Dems and GOP play the same games.

From a leadership standpoint I don't think Obama has been very successful and his primary focus has been to allow the government more oversight and control of the citizenry. I think that task began a long time ago and I think Bush helped to push it along as well.

From a purely economic standpoint, I feel that a businessman has better skills and experience to move the country along than Obama, who's experience had nothing to do with monetary knowledge.

Romney has things I disagree with, absolutely, but in this 2 horse race, I'm not sure why people just accept that Obama is the one to continue for another 4 years when the first 4 have been far from anything close to good.

I don't think Romney is just a rehash of Bush, but I do feel he's a better selection than Obama episode 2

And here we have a teabagger, from Arizona nonetheless, saying don't blame Bush the president has little effect on things and then babbles on how Obama ruined the country.

PornoMonster · 09-07-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

Question: How many of those houses sold for the value they went empty at?

My street went through the same process. We have a full street again and all the houses that went under sold for almost 1/2 of what they went foreclosed value at. I'm not sure I call that progress or "better off" as my home value is almost the same it was over 12 years ago; but yeah, we have a full street again and 4 people got smokin deals on homes in a very nice location.

The foreclosures get dumped on the general population because the banks were saved. So in essence, my home value dropped and I also as a taxpayer now get to subsidize the new owners lessened home value. Not sure I would call that progress or better off either.

I posted in another thread. A lot of the shit that happened was during and because of a Democratic Congress. A president doesn't operate in a vacuum by himself. Bush wasn't a great president, but neither is Obama. Shit is moving and happening because Americans are innovators and survivors, not because a president is doing things to help the citizenry. Government tends to get in the way of people. The only reason legislation is necessary is to act against abusers. Moral and ethical people need no legislation to exist.

Exactly, I have said this to him before. If I had extra money and thought the house was at rock bottom prices, I would invest in the ones that fell 40-60%. Why, they will go back up to those prices someday maybe.

epitome · 09-07-2012, 11:38 AM

LOL as usual the amount of wrong information offered up by the opposition in this thread is astounding.

I give up. A certain % of the population will always be clueless and I must accept that.

UCZone · 09-07-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninavain

bye bye Mittens Romney

I agree, I think Obama is doing good, I would not trust Romney not even with taking care of my cat. When you see that a candidate cant be honest and share all you know he is hiding something and cant be trusted.

PornMD · 09-07-2012, 11:50 AM

I would love to try a different president than Obama. But Romney? THAT'S the best the Republicans could put up? Guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama 4 years ago in record fashion? And Santorum and Bachmann were at one point legitimate candidates?

The Republican party is seriously falling apart.

Kevin Marx · 09-07-2012, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

and here i thought why would the guy who directs Iron Man work for an extra $172k a year to write speeches...

turns out there are two of them

I was wondering the exact same thing

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

And here we have a teabagger, from Arizona nonetheless, saying don't blame Bush the president has little effect on things and then babbles on how Obama ruined the country.

Nope, not a member of the Tea Party. I tend to identify as a right-leaning Moderate. I don't think Obama has ruined it by himself, but I think he's doing a damn good job of moving it in that direction. I also didn't say don't blame Bush. I think he helped to fuck it up pretty good as well. I however see past the "one man in the big chair" argument and help lay the blame in other places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Exactly, I have said this to him before. If I had extra money and thought the house was at rock bottom prices, I would invest in the ones that fell 40-60%. Why, they will go back up to those prices someday maybe.

OMG... someone acting on capitalist principles!!!!

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 12:56 PM

Don't any of you remember what happened in 2008?

There is no "horrible Bush years" for the economy. The economy kicked ass and unemployment was super low.

What killed the economy was the collapse of the housing market. Nothing else.

Why everyone has a hard on and thinks that Bush tax cuts caused the recession is just ridiculous. And remember...Pres. Obama insisted that they be KEPT his entire presidency too.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy collapsing and neither did Bush. The housing market collapse did it at the end of 2008.
And that was caused by Republican and DEMOCRAT politicians in the House and Senate who were busy funneling money back to the big banks who contribute to their campaigns.

And those same Democrat & Republican Senators and House Congressman who voted for that stuff are still in power and talking shit trying to fool you into thinking they didn't do anything wrong so they can keep their career politician jobs.

What Bush did was take away a big chunk of our freedom and privacy. And get us involved in stupid wars.

But the economy?
When Obama said in his speech that it took "decades" to create the mess and he can't clean it up in 4 years (though he pledged to do so at the beginning of his term. lol)...that was a lie.
The economy was roaring up until the housing crash.

Fix that, and you fix the economy.

Kevin Marx · 09-07-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Don't any of you remember what happened in 2008?

There is no "horrible Bush years" for the economy. The economy kicked ass and unemployment was super low.

What killed the economy was the collapse of the housing market. Nothing else.

Why everyone has a hard on and thinks that Bush tax cuts caused the recession is just ridiculous. And remember...Pres. Obama insisted that they be KEPT his entire presidency too.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy collapsing and neither did Bush. The housing market collapse did it at the end of 2008.
And that was caused by Republican and DEMOCRAT politicians in the House and Senate who were busy funneling money back to the big banks who contribute to their campaigns.

And those same Democrat & Republican Senators and House Congressman who voted for that stuff are still in power and talking shit trying to fool you into thinking they didn't do anything wrong so they can keep their career politician jobs.

What Bush did was take away a big chunk of our freedom and privacy. And get us involved in stupid wars.

But the economy?
When Obama said in his speech that it took "decades" to create the mess and he can't clean it up in 4 years (though he pledged to do so at the beginning of his term. lol)...that was a lie.
The economy was roaring up until the housing crash.

Fix that, and you fix the economy.

nicely said

kane · 09-07-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Don't any of you remember what happened in 2008?

There is no "horrible Bush years" for the economy. The economy kicked ass and unemployment was super low.

What killed the economy was the collapse of the housing market. Nothing else.

Why everyone has a hard on and thinks that Bush tax cuts caused the recession is just ridiculous. And remember...Pres. Obama insisted that they be KEPT his entire presidency too.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy collapsing and neither did Bush. The housing market collapse did it at the end of 2008.
And that was caused by Republican and DEMOCRAT politicians in the House and Senate who were busy funneling money back to the big banks who contribute to their campaigns.

And those same Democrat & Republican Senators and House Congressman who voted for that stuff are still in power and talking shit trying to fool you into thinking they didn't do anything wrong so they can keep their career politician jobs.

What Bush did was take away a big chunk of our freedom and privacy. And get us involved in stupid wars.

But the economy?
When Obama said in his speech that it took "decades" to create the mess and he can't clean it up in 4 years (though he pledged to do so at the beginning of his term. lol)...that was a lie.
The economy was roaring up until the housing crash.

Fix that, and you fix the economy.

I think it took the housing market several years (not decades) to build to the point where it eventually burst. The banks started realizing that they could give out these sub-prime mortgages to anyone who can walk and breathe at the the same time then package them up and sell them off before they ever went bad. A ton of banks got in on it and many of them built entire investment portfolios on these mortgages. After 4-5 years of this kind of craziness the mortgages started going bad and suddenly the house of cards came tumbling down.

Was Bush responsible? Not wholly. The deregulation of the banking industry allowed for the widespread selling of these mortgages and the greed of the mortgage and banking industries drove them to just hand out loans with reckless abandon. You can also add in people buying these houses thinking they are going to make a quick buck off them into that as well. There is plenty of blame to go around, but in the end Bush was leading the show and when the team doesn't play well it is the coach that gets blamed.

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I think it took the housing market several years (not decades) to build to the point where it eventually burst. The banks started realizing that they could give out these sub-prime mortgages to anyone who can walk and breathe at the the same time then package them up and sell them off before they ever went bad. A ton of banks got in on it and many of them built entire investment portfolios on these mortgages. After 4-5 years of this kind of craziness the mortgages started going bad and suddenly the house of cards came tumbling down.

Was Bush responsible? Not wholly. The deregulation of the banking industry allowed for the widespread selling of these mortgages and the greed of the mortgage and banking industries drove them to just hand out loans with reckless abandon. You can also add in people buying these houses thinking they are going to make a quick buck off them into that as well. There is plenty of blame to go around, but in the end Bush was leading the show and when the team doesn't play well it is the coach that gets blamed.

True...and part of the blame goes to people getting those loans as well when they couldn't afford them.
But at the time the economy was so good that people figured they COULD pay for them.

And the Democrats who voted for the bills that made all that happen, now sit back and scream "Bush" and "tax cuts" like they had nothing to do with anything. Bunch of career, corrupt politicians is what they are.

epitome · 09-07-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

The point was, all of these politicians have people / teams who write their speeches for them. The words they say are often not their own.

Jon Favreau is the Director of speech writing for president Obama, who has a team of speech writers. Obama's team knocked it out of the park. Obama simply read their words with conviction and made everyone believe they were his own, with a message that is generic, yet very well calculated.

Favreau is paid $172,200 a year. He has been named one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" by Time magazine. He is the real genius behind Obama.

Obama is a great speaker, but it is only fair to give credit where it is due. And this does not just apply to Obama, this goes for all of them. I just single out Obama because everyone goes on and on about how great his speeches are, but he doesn't even write them.

I love posts like this. If it were a business thread everybody would be giving him high fives talking about how much of a great CEO he is for picking an amazing team. Obama though? Nope. He can pick a good speech writer but he certainly can't pick other amazing advisers.

The reality is this country is better off than it was four years ago. It could be even better off but he hits opposition with everything he tries to do. Somehow though he's managed to push through enough of his policies to still be able to say he accomplished more than not. It'd get anybody else re-elected but when it's Obama...

He's done great things for the majority but people are so brainwashed that they think the country should only do things for the minority.

tony286 · 09-07-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Don't any of you remember what happened in 2008?

There is no "horrible Bush years" for the economy. The economy kicked ass and unemployment was super low.

What killed the economy was the collapse of the housing market. Nothing else.

Why everyone has a hard on and thinks that Bush tax cuts caused the recession is just ridiculous. And remember...Pres. Obama insisted that they be KEPT his entire presidency too.

Tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy collapsing and neither did Bush. The housing market collapse did it at the end of 2008.
And that was caused by Republican and DEMOCRAT politicians in the House and Senate who were busy funneling money back to the big banks who contribute to their campaigns.

And those same Democrat & Republican Senators and House Congressman who voted for that stuff are still in power and talking shit trying to fool you into thinking they didn't do anything wrong so they can keep their career politician jobs.

What Bush did was take away a big chunk of our freedom and privacy. And get us involved in stupid wars.

But the economy?
When Obama said in his speech that it took "decades" to create the mess and he can't clean it up in 4 years (though he pledged to do so at the beginning of his term. lol)...that was a lie.
The economy was roaring up until the housing crash.

Fix that, and you fix the economy.

Actually if you look at the real numbers job Creation was very flat during Bush.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...on-mitt-romney
AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: 20,000

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCLUDING THE DISASTROUS LAST YEAR: 65,000

NUMBER OF MONTHS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH THERE WERE 500,000 OR MORE JOBS CREATED: 0.

I remember my dad working at a major health ins company and they were pitching people all the time during the golden bush yrs. Wages have been flat since Reagan, its cheap credit that made people feel like they were doing better.
I do agree with you both sides were guilty for the housing bubble.

epitome · 09-07-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

True...and part of the blame goes to people getting those loans as well when they couldn't afford them.
But at the time the economy was so good that people figured they COULD pay for them.

And the Democrats who voted for the bills that made all that happen, now sit back and scream "Bush" and "tax cuts" like they had nothing to do with anything. Bunch of career, corrupt politicians is what they are.

So we want less regulation.
We get it.
Shit gets all fucked up.
We elect someone that wants to regulate more.
Regulating is bad again.
Now we want to elect someone that want's less regulation.

kane · 09-07-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

True...and part of the blame goes to people getting those loans as well when they couldn't afford them.
But at the time the economy was so good that people figured they COULD pay for them.

And the Democrats who voted for the bills that made all that happen, now sit back and scream "Bush" and "tax cuts" like they had nothing to do with anything. Bunch of career, corrupt politicians is what they are.

I read a while back that around 40% of the sub-prime loans were for vacation/investment properties so you know people thought they could buy a house, renovate it and flip it for quick money even though they had no idea what they were doing so they ended up getting stuck with it.

Joshua G · 09-07-2012, 03:14 PM

sorry guys. the correct answer is that the Fed, in conjunction with several banks that are too big to fail, run this country. the presidents influence is limited to things he can accomplish through executive orders. obviously he has no power to get congress to support his agenda (see health care debate, closing gitmo, regulating wall street etc) congress only does what wall street lobbyists tell them to do. so go ahead & vote & pretend you are making an impact. LOL.

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Actually if you look at the real numbers job Creation was very flat during Bush.

When employment is under 5% (effectively full employment) you don't need a lot of new job creation. People weren't getting fired in record numbers.

Look, we can try to re-write history or you can just REMEMBER how well you, your friends, and family were doing compared to today.

Robbie · 09-07-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

So we want less regulation.
We get it.
Shit gets all fucked up.
We elect someone that wants to regulate more.
Regulating is bad again.
Now we want to elect someone that want's less regulation.

No.
I don't remember "We" wanting anything like that.

The banks (and all the congressmen and Senators who are all corrupt) saw a way to make a shit ton of money. So they greased the palms of our politicians and got things changed.

There was no "We" to it.

I'm just shocked that not enough people put any blame at all on the politicians who made these things happen. They didn't do it because "we" asked them to. They did it because they are career politicians and the banks are just one of the ways that they line their pockets and keep power.

The only reason Obama (or ANY politician) would regulate banks is to give his own agenda priority. If he's trying to regulate banks...I would bet you anything it's to help make money for one of his OWN contributors.

Or we can all believe that Obama, or Bush before him, or ANY politician in history actually does things because they care about you and me.

Relentless · 09-07-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Look, we can try to re-write history or you can just REMEMBER how well you, your friends, and family were doing [during the Clinton administration] compared to today.

Fixed it for you...

sweetcuties · 09-07-2012, 08:07 PM

Looking forward to another 4 years

SmutHammer · 09-07-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Fixed it for you...

No matter how much any of us would want it, Clinton is gone and can't be president again.

Even Clinton stood up for Mitt and the Republic party in his speech.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetcuties

Looking forward to another 4 years

I'm sorry, That is pretty sad....

garce · 09-07-2012, 08:17 PM

Bill Clinton should should apply for Canadian citizenship buy a house in Quebec, and run for any level of Government that's he's eligable for.

He can get his dick sucked anytime he wants. No-one will really care. Shit, I'll suck his dick myself.

BFT3K · 09-07-2012, 09:07 PM

GrantMercury · 09-07-2012, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Marx

I don't think Romney is just a rehash of Bush, but I do feel he's a better selection than Obama episode 2

How is Romney not a rehash of Bush?

GrantMercury · 09-07-2012, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

sorry guys. the correct answer is that the Fed, in conjunction with several banks that are too big to fail, run this country. the presidents influence is limited to things he can accomplish through executive orders. obviously he has no power to get congress to support his agenda (see health care debate, closing gitmo, regulating wall street etc) congress only does what wall street lobbyists tell them to do. so go ahead & vote & pretend you are making an impact. LOL.

It does matter who you vote for. True, no president is all-powerful (thankfully), but there is significant power in the bully pulpit and the power of the veto, as well as executive orders. Then there are those SCOUTS nominations....

GrantMercury · 09-07-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

When employment is under 5% (effectively full employment) you don't need a lot of new job creation. People weren't getting fired in record numbers.

Look, we can try to re-write history or you can just REMEMBER how well you, your friends, and family were doing compared to today.

Bush & Cheney took a strong, healthy country from Bill Clinton and after 8 years left us FUBAR. We lived it. Seems like you're the one trying to rewrite history.

Quote:

IT was a time of low inflation ? the lowest overall rate for any president since John F. Kennedy.
Other than that, the economic record of President George W. Bush was largely a disappointing one. During his administration, the country grew at the slowest overall pace of any recent president, whether measured in gross domestic product or employment. The last president to preside while the stock market did worse was Herbert Hoover.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/bu.../24charts.html

Why wasn't Bush at the RNC if things were going so well then compared to today?

Redrob · 09-07-2012, 11:08 PM

I'm not as good off as I was 12 years ago; but, I'm better off today than I was four years ago....and, that is proof enough for me.

SmutHammer · 09-07-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

How is Romney not a rehash of Bush?

Can you please tell me what it is that you like about Obama so much?

And a real reason you think Romney won't do a better job?

Redrob · 09-07-2012, 11:11 PM

I heard that 18 of Romney's senior advisors are ex-Bush boys including Karl Rove.

KillerK · 09-08-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Bush & Cheney took a strong, healthy country from Bill Clinton and after 8 years left us FUBAR. We lived it. Seems like you're the one trying to rewrite history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/bu.../24charts.html

Why wasn't Bush at the RNC if things were going so well then compared to today?

What Robbie said is true, if the housing market didn't burst we wouldn't have a shitty economy.

So we need to look at what actually caused it. From what I read, it was Clinton who caused it. He signed something that forced banks to give loans to people who shouldn't.

Do you know how many people in 2004-2007 were buying homes and getting 40-80k from the bank to spend on Cars, Boats, Furniture, Electronics? Thousands and thousands of people did this.

How many people make enough money to support a $4k Mortgage ? Not a lot in say Stockton, Sacramento or Phoenix.

Robbie · 09-08-2012, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Bush & Cheney took a strong, healthy country from Bill Clinton and after 8 years left us FUBAR. We lived it. Seems like you're the one trying to rewrite history.

Nope...the country remained strong until the housing market collapsed in 2008 dragging down the banks.

You didn't live shit. I actually own property and know what happened because I lost a lot of money and DID live it.

Bush and Cheney didn't write the legislation that caused that. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate did.

Dude...do you not understand what career politicians are doing to our country?

Robbie · 09-08-2012, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

I heard that 18 of Romney's senior advisors are ex-Bush boys including Karl Rove.

And Obama's cabinet is filled with Goldman Sachs guys.

You know...the ones who are supposed to be in jail.

"Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama?s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head"

" Goldman Sachs kept White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on a $3,000 monthly retainer while he worked as Clinton?s chief fundraiser, as first reported by Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney. The financial titans threw in another $50,000 to become the Clinton primary campaign?s top funder. Emanuel received nearly $80,000 in cash from Goldman Sachs during his four terms in Congress ? investments that have reaped untold rewards, as Emanuel assumed a leading role championing the trillion-dollar TARP banking bailout law."

"Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson serves under Geithner as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout ? $10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs. "

"Obama?s close hometown crony, campaign finance chief and senior adviser Penny Pritzker was head of Superior Bank of Chicago, a subprime specialist that went bust in 2001, leaving more than 1,400 people stripped of their savings after bank officials falsified profit reports. Pritzker?s lawyer at O?Melveny and Myers, Tom Donilon, is now Obama?s deputy national security adviser. He earned just shy of $4 million representing her and other high-profile meltdown clients including Goldman Sachs."

I can keep listing them...there's a whole page of this stuff. But this is GFY and you're an Obama zombie who doesn't think he does anything wrong...but reality is he's just another corrupt politician. Just like all of them.

Brujah · 09-08-2012, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I can keep listing them...there's a whole page of this stuff. But this is GFY and you're an Obama zombie who doesn't think he does anything wrong...but reality is he's just another corrupt politician. Just like all of them.

Are you a Romney zombie?

Robbie · 09-08-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Are you a Romney zombie?

Nope. I voted Obama in 2008. And after Clinton's speech I'm thinking about it again...

But for you and others to just flat out ignore the shit with Obama like he's Jesus or something is just ridiculous.

I just posted some info that should outrage any good liberal. But it didn't. Your only reply was to call me a "Romney Zombie". lol

I'm pretty sure that if Romney wins...it won't be from a "cult of personality" that Obama has with guys like you. Romney has no personality.

But I'm waiting to see what happens in the debates. The biggest hurdle for me to vote for Obama again is I have come to the conclusion that NOBODY should get more than one term (prez, senators, or congressmen)

Brujah · 09-08-2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nope. I voted Obama in 2008. And after Clinton's speech I'm thinking about it again...

But for you and others to just flat out ignore the shit with Obama like he's Jesus or something is just ridiculous.

I just posted some info that should outrage any good liberal. But it didn't. Your only reply was to call me a "Romney Zombie". lol

I'm pretty sure that if Romney wins...it won't be from a "cult of personality" that Obama has with guys like you. Romney has no personality.

But I'm waiting to see what happens in the debates. The biggest hurdle for me to vote for Obama again is I have come to the conclusion that NOBODY should get more than one term (prez, senators, or congressmen)

You have it wrong. I usually consider myself voting for the lesser evil, so to speak, than for a candidate I believe in or endorse. I'm more of an independent.

You called someone an Obama zombie, and you're inferring that I am one too. I didn't call you a Romney zombie. I ASKED you if you were, because I didn't know. I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between a question, and an accusation.

I'm more interested in why the Romney team, Fox news, etc... feel the need to lie about facts. As an independent voter, and very curious where things stand, it comes across to me like they do it because you don't really have anything valid. I was raised a Mormon, and know quite a bit about Romney and his father already.

I'm not interested in the debates, nor the conventions. I can read and research and find out where the candidates stand on issues important to me.

I love the idea of term limits too, but I'd go with two terms. I definitely feel we need to get rid of the career politicians.

kane · 09-08-2012, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

What Robbie said is true, if the housing market didn't burst we wouldn't have a shitty economy.

So we need to look at what actually caused it. From what I read, it was Clinton who caused it. He signed something that forced banks to give loans to people who shouldn't.

Do you know how many people in 2004-2007 were buying homes and getting 40-80k from the bank to spend on Cars, Boats, Furniture, Electronics? Thousands and thousands of people did this.

How many people make enough money to support a $4k Mortgage ? Not a lot in say Stockton, Sacramento or Phoenix.

What you are likely thinking about is a bill that was passed in 1977 and it worked just fine until congress/senate right at the end of Clinton's presidency passed a law that deregulated the banks. Prior to this investment banks and savings and loan banks were separate things. This bill allowed savings and loan banks to offer investment products. This also freed them up to bundle mortgages together and start selling them.

Prior to this the banks were careful about who the loaned to. They had to give some mortgages to under-qualified, but they could pick and choose those people and the number was pretty small. They choose wisely because they had to deal with the mortgages if they defaulted. With this new law they were able to make these shitty loans, then package them up and make them look nice and pretty and sell them off to other banks/investors. At this point they stopped caring about who they gave the loans to because they were going to be long gone by the time the people who got them defaulted.

They spent 5-6 years doing this and filling the banking system full of shitting mortgages. Other banks used those mortgages as the foundation upon which they built other investments so when it went bad it wasn't just one mortgage one bank, it was the entire industry that hurt and the entire housing industry and bubble that had been built on a mass selling of shitty mortgages collapsed and took with it a lot of other things.

09-07-2012, 07:57 AM	#53
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	Presidents __________________ best host: Webair \| best sponsor: Kink \| best coder: 688218966 \| Go Fuck Yourself

09-07-2012, 10:14 AM	#59
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	Also Ed, you're in adult... so not a normal industry. We got "hammered" (see what I did there!) by a number of forces that have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the consequences of digital media. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

09-07-2012, 10:19 AM	#61
Gerco Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,052	Ok, you have a house. Guy comes over and burns it down. So you hire a second guy who starts to rebuild it while guy #1 pisses and moans and does everything he can to prevent the work from happening.... and then first guy is pissed cause the second guy is taking to long to rebuild it and wants to bring the matches over again... Basically our situation. __________________ Http://www.extremehole.com ** CLOSED ** 400 HOURS of exclusive custom extreme content, already on external HD in Raw DV ready to encode. over 150,000 exclusive images and more.

09-07-2012, 11:50 AM	#70
PornMD Mainstream Businessman Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Diego Posts: 9,291	I would love to try a different president than Obama. But Romney? THAT'S the best the Republicans could put up? Guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama 4 years ago in record fashion? And Santorum and Bachmann were at one point legitimate candidates? The Republican party is seriously falling apart. __________________ Want to crush it in mainstream with Facebook ads? Hit me up.

09-07-2012, 12:56 PM	#72
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Don't any of you remember what happened in 2008? There is no "horrible Bush years" for the economy. The economy kicked ass and unemployment was super low. What killed the economy was the collapse of the housing market. Nothing else. Why everyone has a hard on and thinks that Bush tax cuts caused the recession is just ridiculous. And remember...Pres. Obama insisted that they be KEPT his entire presidency too. Tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy collapsing and neither did Bush. The housing market collapse did it at the end of 2008. And that was caused by Republican and DEMOCRAT politicians in the House and Senate who were busy funneling money back to the big banks who contribute to their campaigns. And those same Democrat & Republican Senators and House Congressman who voted for that stuff are still in power and talking shit trying to fool you into thinking they didn't do anything wrong so they can keep their career politician jobs. What Bush did was take away a big chunk of our freedom and privacy. And get us involved in stupid wars. But the economy? When Obama said in his speech that it took "decades" to create the mess and he can't clean it up in 4 years (though he pledged to do so at the beginning of his term. lol)...that was a lie. The economy was roaring up until the housing crash. Fix that, and you fix the economy. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

09-07-2012, 11:38 AM	#68
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	LOL as usual the amount of wrong information offered up by the opposition in this thread is astounding. I give up. A certain % of the population will always be clueless and I must accept that.

09-07-2012, 03:14 PM	#80
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	sorry guys. the correct answer is that the Fed, in conjunction with several banks that are too big to fail, run this country. the presidents influence is limited to things he can accomplish through executive orders. obviously he has no power to get congress to support his agenda (see health care debate, closing gitmo, regulating wall street etc) congress only does what wall street lobbyists tell them to do. so go ahead & vote & pretend you are making an impact. LOL.

09-07-2012, 08:07 PM	#84
sweetcuties Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 5,859	Looking forward to another 4 years __________________

09-07-2012, 08:17 PM	#86
garce Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 7,103	Bill Clinton should should apply for Canadian citizenship buy a house in Quebec, and run for any level of Government that's he's eligable for. He can get his dick sucked anytime he wants. No-one will really care. Shit, I'll suck his dick myself.

09-07-2012, 09:07 PM	#87
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764

09-07-2012, 11:08 PM	#91
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	I'm not as good off as I was 12 years ago; but, I'm better off today than I was four years ago....and, that is proof enough for me.

09-07-2012, 11:11 PM	#93
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	I heard that 18 of Romney's senior advisors are ex-Bush boys including Karl Rove.