king Obama

[zako 10+ year member]

I've done the research. My taxes would go up several thousand dollars per year if the Bush tax cuts expired and I'm nowhere near that 100k.

Check your numbers. There is very little true in this statement.

No, I don't think it could. You could say that a problem occurred. Money was injected to delay collapse. No reforms were put into place. So, the same problems exist, they are just much larger due to the currency injected, and inflation.

That's _your_ view, not based on some kind of research. I could post links to a bunch of economist blogs, including tenured professors, who think otherwise.. but let's admit it, you will not ever believe what I post and based on your 'research' I can hardly buy your arguments.

Oh lord. Google George Piro and the saddam hussein interrogation. It will show you how your liberal mind has been deceived by your beloved media.

I do think that I am one of the least polluted people with the media. I haven't been watching TV until the mid of 2010. Up to that point, I read a lot of printed and online sources, newspapers, blogs, etc from Wall Street Journal and NYT to regional papers. Among printed things, back then, I was also subscribed to "The Economist" which was hardly liberal (enough to recall their "The Case for War" issue from 2002 or so). The only things I watch on TV is mostly travel, animals, food, and motorsports shows.

 

[05fronty 5,000+ posts]

hmm he said the same bullshit last year. blah blah blah. op also blow me

 

[jirehn 10+ year member]

Well the Speech is really good.

 

[ahole-ic]

but if government shouldn't do a stimulus he shouldn't ask for FEMA funds because the people have to pay for both if u say government shouldn't be involved in the private sector then government shouldn't be there when the private sector fuks up

Does Bobby Jindal not work for the government? The people have already paid for FEMA. It's a government program that money will go into whether Jindal asks for it or not. Stimulus is extra money that must be seized from the people. I realize that you do not understand that there is a difference. You are only able to comprehend "government spending", and that's ok. Not everyone can grasp everything.... but it doesn't make you correct.

 

[ahole-ic]

That's _your_ view, not based on some kind of research. I could post links to a bunch of economist blogs, including tenured professors, who think otherwise.. but let's admit it, you will not ever believe what I post and based on your 'research' I can hardly buy your arguments.

Go ahead and do it. This is not my opinion. This is what I know to be true based on facts. Even obama admitted it. So go ahead. Post those things you say you can post.

I do think that I am one of the least polluted people with the media. I haven't been watching TV until the mid of 2010. Up to that point, I read a lot of printed and online sources, newspapers, blogs, etc from Wall Street Journal and NYT to regional papers. Among printed things, back then, I was also subscribed to "The Economist" which was hardly liberal (enough to recall their "The Case for War" issue from 2002 or so). The only things I watch on TV is mostly travel, animals, food, and motorsports shows.

It's not just tv. The internet has tons of liberal blogs. There are lots of liberal publications. So this is no excuse. You are clearly clouded by the media because the facts show things other than what you believe. You had to have been led to them.

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

the "stimulus" and "bailout" didn't stimulate anything - it was simply a payoff to the corporate overlords that payed to put Obama and congress in office.

 

[zako 10+ year member]

Go ahead and do it. This is not my opinion. This is what I know to be true based on facts. Even obama admitted it. So go ahead. Post those things you say you can post.

Link please.

You should look up the definition of word 'fact'. To say that "stimulus had no effect" on the macro economy, is a speculation at best.

It's not just tv. The internet has tons of liberal blogs. There are lots of liberal publications. So this is no excuse. You are clearly clouded by the media because the facts show things other than what you believe. You had to have been led to them.

Yeah yeah. I don't read any whacked blogs. I think I mentioned what I read.

Well, then please show me where is that chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon stockpile that GWB, Rice, Rumsefeld, etc were talking about. Where are the traces of Saddams hidden WMD programs? Should I turn to Fox news to learn about that? Please. What proofs did the WH have of their existence in the first place? I haven't heard of a single convincing argument. Even Powell's speech at UN didn't produce any substantial 'evidence'. Where are the mobile biological warfare laboratories? Who gave us the information about them? What about credible sources pointing at Rumsefeld wanting to bomb Iraq immediately after 9/11 because "there were no good targets in Afghanistan". You still trust those people?

What about Saddam's links to Al Queda? There was no proof before the invasion, or after? Am I saying something wrong? Is my mind polluted by the liberal media? Please. GWB and his neocon friends duped everyone to start their war project, and the country paid dearly for it.. with lives. Of course, it's much easier to discount me as someone whose mind was polluted with 'liberal media'. What independent media do you use the get your facts?

 

[ahole-ic]

Link please.
You should look up the definition of word 'fact'. To say that "stimulus had no effect" on the macro economy, is a speculation at best.

Oh I clearly know the definition. you said you could prove what you say. I told you to, you did not. you tried to deflect on me because you were caught in your lie.

Here is a study that clearly shows it didn't work: http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

Yeah yeah. I don't read any whacked blogs. I think I mentioned what I read.

Well, then please show me where is that chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon stockpile that GWB, Rice, Rumsefeld, etc were talking about. Where are the traces of Saddams hidden WMD programs? Should I turn to Fox news to learn about that? Please. What proofs did the WH have of their existence in the first place? I haven't heard of a single convincing argument. Even Powell's speech at UN didn't produce any substantial 'evidence'. Where are the mobile biological warfare laboratories? Who gave us the information about them? What about credible sources pointing at Rumsefeld wanting to bomb Iraq immediately after 9/11 because "there were no good targets in Afghanistan". You still trust those people?

What about Saddam's links to Al Queda? There was no proof before the invasion, or after? Am I saying something wrong? Is my mind polluted by the liberal media? Please. GWB and his neocon friends duped everyone to start their war project, and the country paid dearly for it.. with lives. Of course, it's much easier to discount me as someone whose mind was polluted with 'liberal media'. What independent media do you use the get your facts?

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News

There you go. Read that. It proves your argument horribly horribly wrong. You didn't know about this because it wasn't widely reported on by the liberal news that you subscribe to.

In case nobody reads the link, it is the interrogator of Saddam. Saddam confesses to him that he feared invasion from Iran mostly. He had to let him think he had WMD, so that's why he did everything in his power to keep the world from knowing he didn't have much if anything. He even admits to spreading that he DID have them to keep Iran off of him. He then says he misjudged GWB thinking he was just like everyone else and would not act on what he said. Then when the troops arrived, he told the "royal guard" or whatever they were to hang on long enough for the "holy war" to start, which indicates al qaeda and ******* bombers. It's all right there.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

There you go. Read that. It proves your argument horribly horribly wrong. You didn't know about this because it wasn't widely reported on by the liberal news that you subscribe to.In case nobody reads the link, it is the interrogator of Saddam. Saddam confesses to him that he feared invasion from Iran mostly. He had to let him think he had WMD, so that's why he did everything in his power to keep the world from knowing he didn't have much if anything. He even admits to spreading that he DID have them to keep Iran off of him. He then says he misjudged GWB thinking he was just like everyone else and would not act on what he said. Then when the troops arrived, he told the "royal guard" or whatever they were to hang on long enough for the "holy war" to start, which indicates al qaeda and ******* bombers. It's all right there.

I didn't bother reading the link, but your explanation showed no example of Saddam having anything to do with Al Qaeda. Are you assuming that a holy war = al quaeda in Iraq?

 

[ahole-ic]

I didn't bother reading the link, but your explanation showed no example of Saddam having anything to do with Al Qaeda. Are you assuming that a holy war = al quaeda in Iraq?

It did didn't it? I mean factually al qaeda had a presence in Iraq eventually did it not?

 

[dumple 5,000+ posts]

Communism to be seems the best, does that make me unamerican or super American because I don't want to see the country. Fail worse

 

[ahole-ic]

Communism to be seems the best, does that make me unamerican or super American because I don't want to see the country. Fail worse

If we're sharing opinions, I think that makes you decidedly unAmerican. Free enterprise is what has made this country great. There was a time in this country people felt we had to fight communism. It was commonly known to be inferior. Over time the media has worn people down and beat this idea that "fairness" has nothing to do with what a person earns.

 

[zako 10+ year member]

Oh I clearly know the definition. you said you could prove what you say. I told you to, you did not. you tried to deflect on me because you were caught in your lie.Here is a study that clearly shows it didn't work: http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

And how does this contradict anything I said? Look at the confidence interval size in the paper summary in the abstract. It's _wild_. Looking at the interval bounds, it's plausible to say that 0 jobs were created and 1378 thousand were lost. Looking at the opposite bounds, you could say that 900 thousand jobs were created in the public sector and 160 thousand were lost. The way I see it, without reading the rest of paper, the results are not statistically significant to make any kind of statement about the stimulus, good or bad. Also check the last sentence of the abstract. Even if the stimulus may not have created any private sector jobs, it's plausible to attribute it to the fact that many states were using stimulus money to plug in the holes in their own revenue falls due to recession.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News

There you go. Read that. It proves your argument horribly horribly wrong. You didn't know about this because it wasn't widely reported on by the liberal news that you subscribe to.

In case nobody reads the link, it is the interrogator of Saddam. Saddam confesses to him that he feared invasion from Iran mostly. He had to let him think he had WMD, so that's why he did everything in his power to keep the world from knowing he didn't have much if anything. He even admits to spreading that he DID have them to keep Iran off of him. He then says he misjudged GWB thinking he was just like everyone else and would not act on what he said. Then when the troops arrived, he told the "royal guard" or whatever they were to hang on long enough for the "holy war" to start, which indicates al qaeda and ******* bombers. It's all right there.

You contradict yourself here. Your article implies Saddam had no links or alliance with Al Queda or Bin Laden. There is also quite a difference between allegedly planning an alliance with terrorists for self-defense versus having to do anything with 9/11 or other Al Queda activities. As for WMDs, I have heard the argument that "Saddam wanted others to think he has WMDs", but that still does not change the fact that no credible proof of a WMD program was provided by the White House before the war. Only speculations. Iraq's official stance was that they do not have WMDs and months before invasions UN inspectors were allowed into the country. Despite the damning 'proof' that he had WMDs, they couldn't find anything and the war began anyways.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

LOL @ trying to support the Saddam WMD argument in any way.

 

[ahole-ic]

And how does this contradict anything I said? Look at the confidence interval size in the paper summary in the abstract. It's _wild_. Looking at the interval bounds, it's plausible to say that 0 jobs were created and 1378 thousand were lost. Looking at the opposite bounds, you could say that 900 thousand jobs were created in the public sector and 160 thousand were lost. The way I see it, without reading the rest of paper, the results are not statistically significant to make any kind of statement about the stimulus, good or bad. Also check the last sentence of the abstract. Even if the stimulus may not have created any private sector jobs, it's plausible to attribute it to the fact that many states were using stimulus money to plug in the holes in their own revenue falls due to recession.

In short, and reading through the gobbledygook, it didn't work.

You contradict yourself here. Your article implies Saddam had no links or alliance with Al Queda or Bin Laden. As for WMDs, I have heard the argument that "Saddam wanted others to think he has WMDs", but that still does not change the fact that no credible proof of a WMD program was provided by the White House before the war. Only speculations. Iraq's official stance was that they do not have WMDs and months before invasions UN inspectors were allowed into the country. Despite the damning 'proof' that he had WMDs, they couldn't find anything and the war began anyways.

I didn't contradict myself at all. The article disproves the rest of everything you said here.