PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mr. Kennedy on April 28, 2009, 07:32:33 AM
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Ferick%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F04%2Ffirst100days.jpg&hash=52c3d9e3251805259a291f8922937de28873bef6)
Now you can begin flaming me and telling me how these facts are all wrong. I also expect Jumpman to chime in with some stupid remark.
-
I\'m wondering when we\'ll all be required to carry little red ipods full of his speeches
-
How about some information regarding the formula that was used to generate that graph?
Or at the very least the source?
Is there an accompanying article?
-
Now you can begin flaming me and telling me how these facts are all wrong. I also expect Jumpman to chime in with some stupid remark.
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.cracked.com%2Farticleimages%2Fdan%2Ffrugal%2Fcat3.jpg&hash=efe3ba828f5c8200c981359d4ba27313a160c0fc)
BTW: The source is right on the image, Congressional Budget Office
-
BTW: The source is right on the image, Congressional Budget Office
Actually no it isn\'t.
Since you couldn\'t be bothered to provide a source (much like Giga\'s behavior last year) I had to find it myself.
It\'s the Republican party: http://www.gop.gov/accountability (http://www.gop.gov/accountability)
Of course they don\'t provide any information on how they projected that line on the graph. They just expect you to look at it and say "uh huh... those damn democrats..." If you like what the graph says, why would you need to know how it was made? Just trust us.
-
What is that smidgen under 2020?
-
Hmmm...our financial system is on the brink of collapse and you think it\'s not going to take MONEY to fix it? We were already leaving a debt for our kids when we started borrowing money from china to fund the iraq war. How could people expect him not to increase the national debt given the situation?
It\'s a no-brainer that this was bound to happen.
-
How could people expect him not to increase the national debt given the situation?
Ummm, he could NOT spend money and NOT increase the national debt. If budget issues were the concern, why not CUT spending?
It\'s just illogical. Bush started this whole spending free for all, and now Obama is magnifying it by ten fold. Do they even care about the youth in America?
-
So you say that he should\'ve sat back and let the economy fix itself?....without throwin\' any type of money at it? Do nothing about the housing mess? Doing it your way, this thing would\'ve crashed months ago. Any way you look at it, he had to spend trillions just to keep the economy going.
Bush & co. may have started this fiasco, but from what i understand the housing sector is really what made alot of banks and alot of our major institutions collapse. He\'s spending on solar technology, investing in american hybrid technology and other energy efficient ventures...yes those things cost money, but why should we wait until our backs are to the wall in terms of creating ways to lessen out dependence on foreign oil?.......gas is low now, and nobody\'s complaining, but those guys over in those arab countries, was saying that they wanted to cut oil production in half just so that they can increase demand.
So even with the state of the economy, these guys still want to have their cake and eat it...they are not even processing the oil in terms of converting it to gas and other products like other major gasoline companies(exxon/mobil)..they are just taking the crud out of the ground and selling it...and as you\'ve noticed gas prices are rising again as we get to the summer months (yes it normally happens every year, but my point is that regardless of the economy these guys still want to get the maxium price regardless of the global economy)
So when gas prices go back to the $2.50 - $4.00 mark....don\'t bitch and whine because of the prices...that said, of course i know these energy efficient technologies aren\'t going to end our dependence on oil in general, but it still gives us other options and over time hopefully it\'ll end up being cheaper and at the end of the day he\'s investing directly in america itself and not some foreign entity.....at least he\'s making an attemp for america to be the leader again in these types of technologies instead of foreign countries.
-
So you say that he should\'ve sat back and let the economy fix itself?....without throwin\' any type of money at it?
Yes, that exactly what he should of done. Let free markets be free markets. There will always be casualties in a down economy, but the economy will always bounce back. Spending money gives you a short term fix, but only hurts you more down the road.
Austrian Economics FTW.
-
So you would\'ve let AIG fail? Fannie Mae Etc..Etc...while i agree that every firm should not be rescued, there are some firms that simply cannot fail....as much of an a$$hole AIG may have been with the bailout funds, from what i understand they had basically every american mortgage in a stranglehold, and that if they were to collapse it would\'ve been a horrific situation...not to mention they had a host of other smaller banks and foreign financial institutions mixed up in their mess...i think it was too risky to see what would have happened.....and last i checked Austria wasn\'t the no.1 economy in tha world...;)
-
So you would\'ve let AIG fail? Fannie Mae Etc..Etc...while i agree that every firm should not be rescued, there are some firms that simply cannot fail....as much of an a$$hole AIG may have been with the bailout funds, from what i understand they had basically every american mortgage in a stranglehold, and that if they were to collapse it would\'ve been a horrific situation...not to mention they had a host of other smaller banks and foreign financial institutions mixed up in their mess...i think it was too risky to see what would have happened.....
I don\'t agree with the concept too big to fail. While its heartbreaking to see people lose their jobs, why are theirs more important than the other 500,000 jobs that have been lost so far? Just LET COMPANIES FAIL. They are PRIVATE companies, and I don\'t want any part of them. I am a firm believer that people don\'t learn anything if you bail them out.
What\'s great is I now own shares in companies I didn\'t want, and would have never bought on my own. There is definitely a breach of freedom here.
and last i checked Austria wasn\'t the no.1 economy in tha world...;)
Seriously? Never mind that you don\'t know what Austrian Economics is, but you didn\'t even bother to look it up.
-
Since you are so savvy on whats been going on.
Which firm started this mess mr. kennedy?
If you answer that correctly, I\'ll give you some credibility and continue this discussion with you.
-
There\'s no single firm to blame.
This is the result of handing out mortagages to people who did should not have gotten them. But that\'s what happens when everyone who can afford houses already has houses, mortgage lenders get greedy and make stupid decisions.
And on the automobile front, GM has no one to blame but themselves for making vehicles nobody wants.
-
Seriously? Never mind that you don\'t know what Austrian Economics is, but you didn\'t even bother to look it up.
True...i didn\'t look it up,...didn\'t feel i needed to...but i just briefly looked over what it was about, and for the most part they have a capitalist stance on the economy,* let markets dictate needs/price adjustments...etc*...so there was no need to mention them since america already is a capitalist country.
I still believe AIG had too many american mortgages and other smaller banks and other foreign financial institutions involved to let it fail. You would\'ve taken a chance on basically the entire housing mortgage system folding, and most likely a huge foreign financial powerhouse coming in and taking over? Everybody would\'ve been up S**ts creek if that would\'ve happened.
I\'m all for capitalism, but the folks that already had money became even more greedy and caused this problem. Then when s**t hits the fan, these folks take their big bonuses and pensions and dissappear...with the millions they\'ve made thru shady practices....So money had to be funneled to these financial institutions or risk the complete breakdown of the system. Alot of people let the term "let them fail" roll nonchalantly offa their tongues, but i don\'t think anybody wants to experience an all out breakdown of the system close to what the great depression was back in the day.
-
You would\'ve taken a chance on basically the entire housing mortgage system folding, and most likely a huge foreign financial powerhouse coming in and taking over? Everybody would\'ve been up S**ts creek if that would\'ve happened.
Yes, because the housing market is doing so well right now. Think before you speak.
-
There\'s no single firm to blame.
This is the result of handing out mortagages to people who did should not have gotten them. But that\'s what happens when everyone who can afford houses already has houses, mortgage lenders get greedy and make stupid decisions.
And on the automobile front, GM has no one to blame but themselves for making vehicles nobody wants.
WRONG.
There is one single firm to blame.
MAC started this shit and then started selling paper to everyone else. Which is how AIG got involved.
GM got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They would have been just strong enough to survive if everything else did not fall around them. Since the economy was so weakened, that is when their bad business model caught up to them finally.
-
WRONG.
There is one single firm to blame.
MAC started this shit and then started selling paper to everyone else. Which is how AIG got involved.
GM got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They would have been just strong enough to survive if everything else did not fall around them. Since the economy was so weakened, that is when their bad business model caught up to them finally.
Wow, you just proved to me that you know very little about the credit crisis. This was caused by people defaulting on their mortgages, which was caused by mortgage lenders giving mortgages to unqualified people, which was caused by greedy banks/investors who ran out of people to give mortgages to.
I didn\'t want to sink this low, but I can\'t take someone with cannibas in the profile picture seriously. Am I stereotyping? yes. But stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason, because most of time their true.
-
Ahhh..b/c government deregulation from the 80\'s till recently had NOTHING to do with it.
MAC knew exactly what it was doing when they started to gamble. They could have won bigger than anyone can possibly imagine, just like AIG, but they didn\'t.
You are the one that knows little about this. My info comes from ppl that work at MAC, where does yours come from? Speculation and what we all have seen on the news with everyone trying to steer blame elsewhere.
Keep trying.
You have nothing so you attack my me via my avy? lol..moron.
-
Ahhh..b/c government deregulation from the 80\'s till recently had NOTHING to do with it.
MAC knew exactly what it was doing when they started to gamble. They could have won bigger than anyone can possibly imagine, just like AIG, but they didn\'t.
You are the one that knows little about this. My info comes from ppl that work at MAC, where does yours come from? Speculation and what we all have seen on the news with everyone trying to steer blame elsewhere.
Keep trying.
You have nothing so you attack my me via my avy? lol..moron.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pharmalive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fo_rly.jpg&hash=23d0caaf5b4d91b41b4fa9c62c7e9d7fe9d3d82e)
http://www.crisisofcredit.com
-
LOL
That guy is about as credible as either one of us....
-
Initially, I researched printed news and spoke with several friends working in investment banks. However, I began turning more and more to audio and video sources for information.
Yeah this guy is just blowing smoke out his ass. :rolleyes:
-
I repeat, he is about as credible as you and I. I got info from ppl at MAC as well as video and print, just like this guy.
This guy wanted more of a digital showcase/portfolio if anything...lol
-
This is more along the lines of "how does this work" than a "here\'s my opinion and who to blame."
To your point though, if that\'s the case, you can\'t call me wrong. Your saying your story is correct and mine isn\'t. This sounds rather hypocritical.
-
It all starts in one place and snowballs out of control is my point.
Many share blame in their own way, but it all starts somewhere.
The more that I think about it, The people trying to get us out of it are the same ones that set the wheels in motion to get us where we are.
-
Are you referring to Freddie Mac?
-
The .gov with MAC a close 2nd.
-
Yes, because the housing market is doing so well right now. Think before you speak.
Uhm..instead of trying to be a sarcastic smartass, how \'bout answering the question sherlock? The housing market is still struggling, but i think it could be alot worse if AIG folded. A deeper investigation of AIG revealed that if they went down, they would\'ve taken alot of innocent american families down with them, most likely a majority of families since they owned most of the mortgages (along with other institutions as i\'ve mentioned already)....i still say we couldn\'t afford to let them fold......
-
Uhm..instead of trying to be a sarcastic smartass, how \'bout answering the question sherlock? The housing market is still struggling, but i think it could be alot worse if AIG folded. A deeper investigation of AIG revealed that if they went down, they would\'ve taken alot of innocent american families down with them, most likely a majority of families since they owned most of the mortgages (along with other institutions as i\'ve mentioned already)....i still say we couldn\'t afford to let them fold......
More than Americans. They hold roughly 74 million policies in 134 countries(forgot the total number)
Not to mention all of the "paper" they own across the globe.
-
It all starts in one place and snowballs out of control is my point.
Many share blame in their own way, but it all starts somewhere.
The more that I think about it, The people trying to get us out of it are the same ones that set the wheels in motion to get us where we are.
Barney Frank
-
Oh man, I\'m so glad to see you back. You don\'t truly appreciate someone until they\'re gone.
Welcome back Giga!
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Ferick%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F04%2Ffirst100days.jpg&hash=52c3d9e3251805259a291f8922937de28873bef6)
Oh, give him a break. Look how upset he is about it in the picture. I forgive him!
Seriously, we tried the do nothing approach. That sucked. So America supported trying this new idea, even though it\'s creating a huge debt. The desired effect is not a short term boost, but a shove that gets the "leave the market to fix itself" ball rolling in the right direction again. Cross your fingers with the rest of us. But wash them first, you don\'t want to catch swine flu.
Then go buy something.
-
I see where your coming from, but I just don\'t buy it.
We have a budget deficit, so the solution is to create more debt? It\'s just illogical. I agree, the do-nothing approach doesn\'t help, but it doesn\'t make things worse either. Ideally, we\'d want to CUT spending, and close the gap on the budget deficit. Don\'t tell me there isn\'t wasteful spending in the government cause there is.
Let\'s arrive at a solution in a logical manner -
cutting spending = cutting the deficit,
cutting the deficit will lead to cutting taxes,
cutting taxes = more money in EVERYONE\'s pocket
more money will lead to more consumer spending
more spending = economic recovery.
Unfortunately the Obama (and to some extent Bush\'s) administration has so many government programs in mind that they don\'t have enough money to fund them all, therefore creating huge deficits. We don\'t need more Government programs, because 95% of the population won\'t use them. What we need is tax relief.
-
I\'m not on the tax relief bandwagon.
Neither myself or anyone I know is hurting due to taxes.
You are also missing pieces of the picture.
Cutting our deficit will not do much for the economy.
More money will not necessaily lead to more spending as more people are spending less b/c costs of everything have gone up. People are worried about keeping jobs so they are keeping money around just in case.
Like many other avenues in life, it takes money to make some.
I think Obama is doing fairly well at attacking many different fronts, I just hope he is not trying to do too much at once, which can also be a bad thing.
In no way should you believe that this is a problem that would have just corrected itself by the free market system.
-
I agree that you have to be on a budget,....but banks apparently still aren\'t lending like they should....no matter how much taxes you cut, if people aren\'t working, taxes are going to have to be raised and the u.s. is still losing jobs on a monthly basis at incredible levels. The more folks work, the more taxes goes to the state and fed. The less people work, means less money for the state and fed(not to mention that the people that have jobs already are even cutting back more), which eventually results in higher taxes at some point.
Everything is connnected, and if companies, whether they are large or small can\'t get lending from banks for their operating costs(payroll/inventory..etc) then this leads to more layoffs...in addition to more people just not buying anything because they are unsure of their future...once you stop the bleeding of jobs and get people back to work, then the economy can come back, but everything is all connected. Solving one issue isn\'t neccessarily going to make everything else fall in place.
-
I agree with you that the fastest way to fix the economy is to create jobs. The more people paying into the system, the faster the economy will rebuild. However, I still believe that the more money you have the more you are likely to spend it. You may not be hurting from high taxes, but I definitely am.
However, this could also be attributed to the fact that I live in NY City where the taxes are among the highest in the country. David Patterson has done a great job here running people out of town with his "Gym Membership" and "Bottled Water" taxes that he has proposed. And Michael Bloomberg is angering a lot of citizens with his with hikes in the MTA fares and tax hikes. So I\'m getting hit on three fronts.
-
A person can not spend their way out of debt. Why do you think the goverment can?
-
A person can not spend their way out of debt. Why do you think the goverment can?
Yea, actually a person can.
-
That was precisely my point, but some people refuse to accept that.
-
Yea, actually a person can.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hjo3.net%2Forly%2Fgal2%2Forly_luigi.jpg&hash=6f162ee1ad94e883fa3e040d53d43e2e6988cf33)
-
Yea, actually a person can.
Not unless they hit the lottery or gamble, which are extremely high risk options and the odds are always stacked in the favor of the house.
The government can not spend its way out of debt. It has been tried and does not work.
Also you are wrong that the free market could have not corrected itself. It would have taken a depression, but we would have emerged much stronger from it and cut the weight of companies that can not run their own affairs properly. By pumping money into companies like GM and Chrysler we are just prolonging the inevitable. Let them fail. I would miss the Challenger though - sweet car.
-
And what I don\'t understand is how conservatives could be to blame for this economic malaise. Our economy was as strong as it had ever been between the years of 2003-2007 (under a conservative controlled Congress and Presidency). Then in 2007 our economy started its tumble to where we are now. The dummies took over control of congress in 2006.
Hmmmm...
-
To be fair, the Repubs also particpated in this crap post 2006. Going back to the assertion that the people who caused this problem are now the ones trying to fix it is true. One more reason Congress needs term limits.
-
Not unless they hit the lottery or gamble, which are extremely high risk options and the odds are always stacked in the favor of the house.
The government can not spend its way out of debt. It has been tried and does not work.
Also you are wrong that the free market could have not corrected itself. It would have taken a depression, but we would have emerged much stronger from it and cut the weight of companies that can not run their own affairs properly. By pumping money into companies like GM and Chrysler we are just prolonging the inevitable. Let them fail. I would miss the Challenger though - sweet car.
I was speaking more from the business owners that are in debt, not the average person.
If we go into another depression, the rest of the world would literally own the US.
-
And what I don\'t understand is how conservatives could be to blame for this economic malaise. Our economy was as strong as it had ever been between the years of 2003-2007 (under a conservative controlled Congress and Presidency). Then in 2007 our economy started its tumble to where we are now. The dummies took over control of congress in 2006.
Hmmmm...
I don\'t expect you to understand.
This has been in the making since the 80\'s like i said earlier in this thread or another one here.
These things do not happen over night and not without heavy hands being involved.
-
I was speaking more from the business owners that are in debt, not the average person.
If we go into another depression, the rest of the world would literally own the US.
Not true, the rest of the world would follow us into a depression. When it was over we would be much stronger than bailing out failed companies.
-
I don\'t expect you to understand.
This has been in the making since the 80\'s like i said earlier in this thread or another one here.
These things do not happen over night and not without heavy hands being involved.
Agreed, but I\'ll do you one better. This can be linked as far back as 1977 with the CRA - a wonderful creation from Jimmy Carter. FYI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
I am not saying the cause of this crisis is mutually exclusive to the dummies, but the certainly played a huge part and most (not all) libs like to pass blame to Republicans. A lot of the republicans who contributed to this problem are neocons who I do not feel truly represent the party.
-
I agree with you that the fastest way to fix the economy is to create jobs. The more people paying into the system, the faster the economy will rebuild. However, I still believe that the more money you have the more you are likely to spend it. You may not be hurting from high taxes, but I definitely am.
However, this could also be attributed to the fact that I live in NY City where the taxes are among the highest in the country. David Patterson has done a great job here running people out of town with his "Gym Membership" and "Bottled Water" taxes that he has proposed. And Michael Bloomberg is angering a lot of citizens with his with hikes in the MTA fares and tax hikes. So I\'m getting hit on three fronts.
I hear you on the taxes...as much as i loved jersey (even moreso NYC for that matter) the property taxes in jersey were just waaay too high. Even now when i speak to my sister in jersey, she tells me that property taxes in piscataway,nj (where i used to live) in some places are like 7-8000 dollars a year....:eek: ....i never thought i would move to georgia, but when i took one look at how cheap the homes were and the property taxes,...i was sold.
-
I hear you on the taxes...as much as i loved jersey (even moreso NYC for that matter) the property taxes in jersey were just waaay too high. Even now when i speak to my sister in jersey, she tells me that property taxes in piscataway,nj (where i used to live) in some places are like 7-8000 dollars a year....:eek: ....i never thought i would move to georgia, but when i took one look at how cheap the homes were and the property taxes,...i was sold.
Don\'t confuse city, state, and county taxes with federal like some others in these threads.
People like to lump "taxes" as a whole with Washington and it simply is not true.
-
Don\'t confuse city, state, and county taxes with federal like some others in these threads.
People like to lump "taxes" as a whole with Washington and it simply is not true.
I\'m not lumping them with Washington, I\'m lumping them with Democrats, and Democrats who claim to be Republican/Independent.
-
I\'m not lumping them with Washington, I\'m lumping them with Democrats, and Democrats who claim to be Republican/Independent.
This reply right here.
You are what is wrong with Washington and this country.
You guys love to think along party lines and nothing else.
Stop.
-
Think along party lines? Don\'t Dems and Republicans both do that? Trying to claim liberals do not and only conservatives do is erroneous.
Having a one party system and no term limits are what is wrong with this country.
-
Democrats didn\'t get the "Tax and Spend" reputation by accident (stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason, nine times out of ten they are true). I\'m sorry if my generalization offends you, but do you really want me to list the number of times you lumped all Republicans into one group? Thinking along party lines is not exclusive to Republicans, so don\'t claim you don\'t do it.
-
Democrats didn\'t get the "Tax and Spend" reputation by accident (stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason, nine times out of ten they are true). I\'m sorry if my generalization offends you, but do you really want me to list the number of times you lumped all Republicans into one group? Thinking along party lines is not exclusive to Republicans, so don\'t claim you don\'t do it.
I encourage you to do so.
-
Think along party lines? Don\'t Dems and Republicans both do that? Trying to claim liberals do not and only conservatives do is erroneous.
Having a one party system and no term limits are what is wrong with this country.
Exactly my point, start reading my comments, stop reading into them.
I agree...we need more legitimate parties and 2 term limits like POTUS
-
I see where your coming from, but I just don\'t buy it.
We have a budget deficit, so the solution is to create more debt?
It was more like "We have a terrible economy, so let\'s give the money to new/more workers and get it to fix itself."
As for the budget, I like that Obama is trying to chip away at it $100 million at a time. Cutting jobs is what you don\'t want to do, though, so it\'s got to be tough to find ways to slash without hurting the economy. It\'d be easier to make cuts if the economy wasn\'t so delicate right now. I\'m personally inclined to give them a pass on the deficit for the next couple years while the country tries to right itself. Then cut spending more heavily so we can ease taxes, which is something we all would like.
-
cutting spending = cutting the deficit,
cutting the deficit will lead to cutting taxes,
cutting taxes = more money in EVERYONE\'s pocket
more money will lead to more consumer spending
more spending = economic recovery.
I hear ya, but in this situation we tried taking out all those middle steps where you wait for step one\'s "cutting spending" to equal step five\'s "more spending".
We went right to "more spending = economic recovery".
(I do recognize the difference between government spending and consumer spending, and that presents a whole new avenue of places where that spending can affect, so it\'s an interesting difference.) I do like your chart better, though, and if we get back on course nationally, I\'d like to see us go more that route.
-
I\'m sorry if my generalization offends you, but do you really want me to list the number of times you lumped all Republicans into one group? Thinking along party lines is not exclusive to Republicans, so don\'t claim you don\'t do it.
I encourage you to do so.
I\'m waiting.........
As many times as I have seen you in this forum today, you still haven\'t found anything?
-
I\'m waiting.........
As many times as I have seen you in this forum today, you still haven\'t found anything?
Sorry, it was Friday ngiht - I\'ll get it done today though.
-
Here\'s a few to start:
Why do you keep posting a black Joe The Plumber?
Why, because black people can\'t be republican?
Instead of going to teaparties, these people should look for work or go to their jobs before they get fired...lol
So liberals can protest but conservatives can\'t?
Im assuming that they have forgotten their friend Bush has taken 1020 days of vacation. That is nearly 3 years!
Why are you comparing Obama to Bush, didn\'t you yell at me for doing the same thing?
Notice how fast they found Michael Steele after Obama was elected?
Again, this is just because Obama got elected, quite a big assumption. I\'d like to see some proof.
The repubs never highlight minorities, they have very few in the party.
Really? It\'s from 2004, but this article begs to differ. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2004-08/a-2004-08-30-24-1.cfm
True, I do not think Obama would be so stupid to do that knowing about it.
So when Obama mis-steps it\'s a mistake, when [Insert Republican Here] mis-steps they are evil no good crooks.
I\'ll let that whet your appetite.
-
What do any of those have to do with lumping all republicans in one group? as quoted by you?
Who said black ppl could not be republican?
Looks like are just pulling what you want to see out of my posts.
That is not comparing Obama to Bush
I think that is is, notice how that is an opinion? No one would ever find proof of that even if it were true, dont be retarded.
This one is actually my fault, I should have worded it a bit better. I was talking about the Congress and the House.
I don\'t even remember what that last one was in context to so I comment on that yet.
-
Well the Michael Steele appointment was a no-brainer as to why they picked him...and michael steele is a fool for accepting the nomination.....he might as well have just put on some tap dancin\' shoes in front the folks that proped him up and stated "what do you\'s want me to do\'s now massah?"
Everytime i see him on tv he\'s trying to act like the sterotypical black person...."oh it\'s all good"...and "this is how we roll...the republicans are makin\' a comeback"..:rolleyes:...the guy is trying too hard to be cool and hip...and people can see right through his phonyness.
I don\'t agree with everything the dems come up with, i actually agree with some of the values that conservatives have. The republicans need to stick to their guns and try to reach out to those folks that may be dems, but also hold some core republican values to their hearts....the walking black wanna-be stereotype is as transparent as glass and is a desperate and weak attemp at trying to recruit some new members.
-
Well the Michael Steele appointment was a no-brainer as to why they picked him...and michael steele is a fool for accepting the nomination.....he might as well have just put on some tap dancin\' shoes in front the folks that proped him up and stated "what do you\'s want me to do\'s now massah?"
Everytime i see him on tv he\'s trying to act like the sterotypical black person...."oh it\'s all good"...and "this is how we roll...the republicans are makin\' a comeback"..:rolleyes:...the guy is trying too hard to be cool and hip...and people can see right through his phonyness.
I don\'t agree with everything the dems come up with, i actually agree with some of the values that conservatives have. The republicans need to stick to their guns and try to reach out to those folks that may be dems, but also hold some core republican values to their hearts....the walking black wanna-be stereotype is as transparent as glass and is a desperate and weak attemp at trying to recruit some new members.
So who told you Steele\'s appointment was because of his skin color? The dems? If it\'s so obvious, where\'s the proof. I want to see the evidence that he was selected because of his skin color.
Oh that\'s right, you don\'t have it. It\'s all speculative. So now your just assuming, he got chosen because he\'s black... you racist. :p
-
So who told you Steele\'s appointment was because of his skin color? The dems? If it\'s so obvious, where\'s the proof. I want to see the evidence that he was selected because of his skin color.
Oh that\'s right, you don\'t have it. It\'s all speculative. So now your just assuming, he got chosen because he\'s black... you racist. :p
We can speculate all we want.
Why do you think he was appointed? There are several candidates better than him.
You don\'t think it is odd that it only happened immediately after the dems scored with a negro?
-
We can speculate all we want.
Why do you think he was appointed? There are several candidates better than him.
You don\'t think it is odd that it only happened immediately after the dems scored with a negro?
considering his name had been thrown around for months, no
-
Im serious, why do YOU think he was nominated?
Also, since you are so big on proof.... Find some data that supports how early he was considered.
-
So who told you Steele\'s appointment was because of his skin color? The dems? If it\'s so obvious, where\'s the proof. I want to see the evidence that he was selected because of his skin color.
Oh that\'s right, you don\'t have it. It\'s all speculative. So now your just assuming, he got chosen because he\'s black... you racist. :p
Seriously Kennedy...i hope you\'re smarter than this...even a blind man can see why he was picked.
-
Speculation.
That\'s just what Democrats are saying.
-
Speculation.
That\'s just what Democrats are saying.
Lol, just like you are doing, pretending you are not.
Again, why do YOU think he got that spot?
Can you find data to support how long he was a viable candidate?
-
Lol, just like you are doing, pretending you are not.
Again, why do YOU think he got that spot?
Can you find data to support how long he was a viable candidate?
I can go over his credentials, which in my eyes are better than Obama\'s.
Why is it when I ask you to provide proof you run away, but then its ok for you to turnaround and ask me for proof. You certainly are good about being a hypocrite.
-
I can go over his credentials, which in my eyes are better than Obama\'s.
Why is it when I ask you to provide proof you run away, but then its ok for you to turnaround and ask me for proof. You certainly are good about being a hypocrite.
Are you fucking stupid or what?
I clearly told you I was speculating why he got the seat. I also told you it would be nearly impossible to find proof that he got it b/c of being black. Learn how to read.
You on the other hand have still not told me why YOU think he got the seat.
You also are the one that brought up the issue that he was considered for a long time. How long?
-
I clearly told you I was speculating why he got the seat.
That\'s fine, I accept that. That is exactly what I was looking for, an admission that its pure speculation. I do not believe he was elected because of skin color, which is also speculation. However, don\'t we have this policy of innocent until proven guilty?
By your logic, I could say Obama was elected because he\'s black (or half black). If I say that, you could list 100 reasons why it wasn\'t his skin color, but you\'ll never be able that it wasn\'t because he is black. You see where I\'m going?
Some Michael Steele info:
He was the Lt. Gov of Maryland
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Steele gave the Republican counterpoint to the Democrats\' Barack Obama in a keynote address, Steele\'s first major national exposure.
According to the huffpost - the most liberal garbage I have even read even admits:
The Steele choice had nothing to do with race guilt, Steele\'s compelling political charm, or even a panic choice to capitalize on Obama\'s smash White House win.
So its not like he just popped out of no where, he\'s been on the national stage just as long as Obama.
-
I don\'t buy it.
Plain and simple.
Have you seen the man speak b4 the seat?
Have you seen him speak after that seat?
Nuff said, goes back to what clips was saying about how this man speaks like he is down with the people "all of a sudden"
-
I just said I saw Michael Steele speak in 2004.
-
I just said I saw Michael Steele speak in 2004.
So you should know what clips and I are talking about.
Have you seen him speak on tv in the last 3 months?
BTW, no you didn\'t. You "said" he spoke in 2004.... go look at it.
Better yet, I will quote it b4 you edit it.
-
That\'s fine, I accept that. That is exactly what I was looking for, an admission that its pure speculation. I do not believe he was elected because of skin color, which is also speculation. However, don\'t we have this policy of innocent until proven guilty?
By your logic, I could say Obama was elected because he\'s black (or half black). If I say that, you could list 100 reasons why it wasn\'t his skin color, but you\'ll never be able that it wasn\'t because he is black. You see where I\'m going?
Some Michael Steele info:
He was the Lt. Gov of Maryland
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Steele gave the Republican counterpoint to the Democrats\' Barack Obama in a keynote address, Steele\'s first major national exposure.
According to the huffpost - the most liberal garbage I have even read even admits:
So its not like he just popped out of no where, he\'s been on the national stage just as long as Obama.
I didn\'t know knowledge of a speech in 2004 was the same as being there!!!
-
Am I missing something? Does it not say he gave they keynote at the DNC in 2004? I\'m a little confused.
-
I just re-read everything. Im reading to much shit in this thread, my mistake.