It's all about knowing who your friends are...

medicineman

New Member
Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner. That is exactly what you should do; skip the man's entire argument and go straight into a personal attack. Any chance you are a Progressive?

Maybe this link will help you learn how to think.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
One must always consider the source. I'm pretty sure the left doesn't see this as true, just more hypocracy by the right. It is not ad-hominem to question the credibility of the author, especially when there is no hard evidence to authenticate his premis, just Ad-hominem conjecture by the extreme right.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
The author isn't putting out a premise. He is simply stating what is happening.

The conclusion is up to you, but this is no way to treat your closest ally....and this is by no means the first time.

Now I understand Obama has no love with the British because of his father, but that is a personal problem, and if he can't sort out how to separate his personal feelings with state policy....he should step down.

This is embarrassing.... and will cost us dearly down the road.

Eastern Europe is already gone.... Obama blew their trust. What's next...western Europe.

Europe is waking up to the Obama nightmare....it is taking awhile, but they see it now.

What a mistake.....
 

medicineman

New Member
The author isn't putting out a premise. He is simply stating what is happening.

The conclusion is up to you, but this is no way to treat your closest ally....and this is by no means the first time.

Now I understand Obama has no love with the British because of his father, but that is a personal problem, and if he can't sort out how to separate his personal feelings with state policy....he should step down.

This is embarrassing.... and will cost us dearly down the road.

Eastern Europe is already gone.... Obama blew their trust. What's next...western Europe.

Europe is waking up to the Obama nightmare....it is taking awhile, but they see it now.

What a mistake.....
Sometimes I admire your wit, sometimes not. This is a not situation. Obama has done what? He has made new friends accross the globe. He is a steadfast friend to Britian. Even friends need rebukes occasionly. You and your cohorts are every bit as bad about railing against Obama as any on the left were about Bush. It is called the opposition, and of course you wouldn't like what the opposition does and of course you would attack them on every front. I do admire the tenacity of those on the right, misguided as it is. If the left had even a quarter of their ability to stand together, we'd have health care with a public option. I'm as pissed at Obama for his lack of leadership on health care as you guys are for whatever pisses you off. BTW, you win the prize, (Republican sweep in 2010, write it down) I now believe you. The dimwit dems did it to themselves.
 

westhamm1132

Active Member
haha thanks crackerjacks for supporting GB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8563581.stm i saw this after my last poast.
and obama pulled out of some sort of deal with the poles and chekz so not to aggravate the russians i dont think obama has bad intentions i think hes just trying to stay neutral and do whats best for the usa (rightly so) after gwb made pissed off alot of people.

i dont think if will affect how the people of gb and usa feel about eatch oter tho we will be allies for a long time. Maybe the u.s needs way more than 2 partys tho its not realy right for the worlds biggest supper power to have only 2 possible presidants that people can vote for its eather left or right there should be some middle ground there should be 4 i think.
 

jeff f

New Member
Hugo chavez is one of the most important figures in politics right now. He is one of the MOST popular world leaders. PERIOD. everybody listens to what he says. He does not take lightly to corruption and abuse of power. .
this was meant to be comedic right? does not take lightly to corruption? funny funny shit dude.

didi you forget that he confiscated private companies? did you forget he took over and shut down journalists he didnt like? same with tv stations. did you forget that he keeps his boot on the throats of his political enemies? and how bout them elections? real honest and wholesome huh?

dude, you are a lost soul searching for the right dictator to support. glad you finally found one. :-(
 

CrackerJax

New Member
haha thanks crackerjacks for supporting GB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8563581.stm i saw this after my last poast.
and obama pulled out of some sort of deal with the poles and chekz so not to aggravate the russians i dont think obama has bad intentions i think hes just trying to stay neutral and do whats best for the usa (rightly so) after gwb made pissed off alot of people.

i dont think if will affect how the people of gb and usa feel about eatch oter tho we will be allies for a long time. Maybe the u.s needs way more than 2 partys tho its not realy right for the worlds biggest supper power to have only 2 possible presidants that people can vote for its eather left or right there should be some middle ground there should be 4 i think.
There are more than two parties in the USA, but like everything in the USA....they exist upon their merit. I know ppl complain about financing, but if you put together a platform that attracts voters, the money will follow.

Yes, our relationship will continue after Obama....but trust is another matter. The Czechs and Poles you speak of have lost their trust of us (rightfully so). There was absolutely no need to capitulate to russia on that matter. russia herself has a missile defense system in place on their southern flank against North korea.....they simply don't want eastern europe to stand on their own....unless they are pulling the strings. Russia is a place of despotism and brutality, and should be treated as such. To give them equal or even more equal footing than GB is a disgrace..... a real disgrace.
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
WERE WAS EVERY ONE AT WHEN BUSH WAS MESSING THINGS UP? DID IT TAKE A BLACK MAN FOR YOU GUYS TO REALIZE THE GOVERNMENT WAS MESSED UP? I VOTED FOR OBAMA BECAUSE HE WAS ABOUT CHANGE, IM NOT SAYING ITS HAPPENING OR WILL HAPPEN, BUT YOU ACT LIKE MCCAIN AND PALIN WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, COME ON GUYS, and we have been in debt forever, i grew up knowing about a national debt and no one cared about it then, we invaded iraq and spend billions a month and you guys had no threads talking about that, or all the other things that went wrong, all i hear in here is GLENN BECK talking points, dems took control because the GOP failed, and now the dems are failing and your like YEAH, GOP all the way, they all have it wrong and if you cant see that then "read a book"lol
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
^^^^^Someone has not been paying attention.

Or has no frame of reference.

Obama was in office when you joined in August of 2009.

Unless you did a hell of a lot of lurking prior to that, you simply have no idea what you are saying.
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
ok, you are right, i pulled that out of my ass, but honestly all i hear is hate these days, when bush sent me to war in iraq i didnt hate on him, i accepted itI know obama is not doing things the right way, i thought he would unite the country but right now we are more divided than ever, but every time i turn on fox they are hating, when i turn on cnn they are hating, its sickening guys, what i cant stand is the people that i talk to are just now saying that our country is messed up when we all know damn well its been this way for a while, so right now every one is worried about who is right, they care nothing about the issues just about being right, like Boehner was on cnn today, he said his main goal is to stop this healthcare bill, so we have a party trying to fix healthcare and another trying to demonize them,
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I'm pretty sure McCain wouldn't have rolled into town with the intent of taking over the private sector and spending 4 times what Bush did.

Pretty sure....

Neither one is a great choice, but as is now VERY clear.... McCain was the lesser of the two evils. America made a mistake.....we will learn from it though.

Don't expect anyone with ZERO experience will get near the White House again.
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
also, alot of people.... alot of them act like Obama is the reason our country is in such bad shape, that is what i cant stand as well, i guess thats why i stick up for the guy, he was in office for 2 weeks and was already accused of messing up the economy, 2 weeks man, the recession started before he took office,
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
bush had experience and look were that took us, experience is over rated, i would rather a smart guy that looks out for poor people, it took obama to decriminalize pot federally, thats a no brainer for alot of people,
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
and just to let you know, the private sector is worse than the government, the private sector is not held accountable at all, by any one, at least the government changes often,
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
and bush spent more on one war than obama has, bush and mccain didnt even have a war strategy, they think we can just stay in iraq and afgan forever, thats just plain retarded,
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
anyhow, i bet obama stays in office, he is actually trying to make our country better, not keep it at a stand still, as much crap as he got, he still won the election, people were sick of the gop, i was, and right now people are sick of the dems, not obama, Obama is the man son, every one voted for change because our country is going down hill, and now you want to hate on him because he is trying to fix a broken system and gets accused of a government take over, thats just silly when you look at facts, the patriot act was a government take over, so blaming Obama for that is obviously wrong
 

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
obama has spent more than any single us president in the history of the republic. he spent more than FDR (new deal, WWII, manhatten project) more than JFK (space program) more than eisenhower (us interstate system) reagon (600 ship fleet navy) the list is long of presidents that have spent less and contributed more to the nation than obama has.

im not an obama supporter or basher, but those are the facts.
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
obama has spent more than any single us president in the history of the republic. he spent more than FDR (new deal, WWII, manhatten project) more than JFK (space program) more than eisenhower (us interstate system) the list is long of presidents that have spent less and contributed more to the nation than obama has.

im not an obama supporter or basher, but those are the facts.

ok, how do you know that? how do you know obama spent all this money? what facts? last i heard half the money isnt even spent, and he is claiming to reduce the deficit, but no one cares, they just care about what fox news says, i bipartisan committee says its true but the gop says"i dont believe it" why dont they believe it? they think obama is trying to ruin our country, who really thinks that?
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]U.S. N[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]ATIONAL[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]D[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]EBT[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]C[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]LOCK[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Mar 2010 at 06:54:04 PM GMT is:
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The estimated population of the United States is 308,007,474
so each citizen's share of this debt is $40,865.64.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.99 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House![/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
  • Do you have any questions about the National Debt or this Debt Clock?
    Here are some answers. The Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt also has their own Public Debt FAQ.
[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]National Debt -- In the News[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]Other sites concerned about the National Debt are:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
  • Also, the U.S. Department of the Treasury provides daily, monthly, and yearly figures for the Debt--to the penny! These are the figures I use to calibrate this Debt Clock.
[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]This debt clock is maintained by Ed Hall ([email protected]). It was last calibrated using information obtained from the U.S. Department of the Treasury dated 11 March 2010. Population figures are derived from the U.S. Bureau of the Census' Population Clock.[/FONT]
 

edwardtheclean

Well-Known Member
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

He set aside $787 billion in a stimulus for various sectors of the economy, and another $410 billion for homeowners.

However, only about half of the $787 billion has been applied for, so it has not all been spent and looks like it won't all be spent. About half of what has been applied for and used has been paid back as well.

And Obama has drastically cut spending in all other areas save education and national defense.




The budget Obama was allowed was $3.4 trillion; but it looks like he won't even reach that high. As a comparison, Bush's budget was $3.1 trillion last year, but Obama's budget includes the wars when Bush's budget does not. Obama's budget also had to deal with the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush left him from last year, while Bush's budget was only hampered by the $500 billion deficit left from the 2007 fiscal year.


Obama has called for spending so far of about $1.2 trillion. However, since only half of it was used, and half of that paid back, it is really closer to about $250 billion total spent so far.




Add-on:

Obama has severely cut spending.

Republicans are more than happy to tell you his budget is $3.6 trillion, which number 1 is an exaggeration. It is $3.4 trillion, which is already $200 billion less than what Republicans say it is. Again, Bush's final budget was $3.1 trillion, already within $300 billion of Obama's actual budget.

There are many reasons this is important. First up is deficits. I already pointed that out, but here is the math. Bush's budget last year was hampered by a $500 billion deficit he left himself from 2007; but Obama's current budget is hampered by a $1.4 trillion deficit Bush left him from last year. That is a $900 billion bigger hole that Bush put Obama in than he put himself in.

Obama was only ahead in spending by $300 billion; now Bush is ahead in spending by $600 billion.

Next up is the wars. While Obama's budget does include the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush's budget did not include either war. The estimated cost of the Iraq War is $10 billion a month, $120 billion a year. Afghanistan is $2 billion a month, $24 billion a year. Since we are working with the year, we will add $120 billion for Iraq and $24 billion for Afghanistan to Bush's total; to make it fair and hold him to the same standard Obama is being held to. That is $144 billion that needs to be added to Bush's total.

Bush was ahead in spending by $600 billion; it is now $744 billion.

And finally, Bush's bailout. Obama's bailout is already in his budget, so does not need to be added again. Republicans played some games with Bush's bailout, however.

When Bush's bailout first got up for a vote, it was $700 billion. It was soundly defeated in the House of Representatives by the House Republicans. They were hailed as Conservative heroes.

So the authors of the bill went back and added $150 billion in Republican pork spending to the bill to attract those Republicans. The bill was now $850 billion, and guess who voted for it? That's right, the House Republicans.

The original $700 billion Bush asked for was given to him and his Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. But they felt they could not spend it all in the little time they had left; so they hit upon a plan in which they would split the money in half, keep $350 billion and give the other $350 billion to Obama's team.

Bush and Paulson then promptly lost their own half by not having a tracking system in place. It is somewhere in the economy, but no one can figure out where. This is where Rush and Hannity took over.

Because we did not find out Bush had lost the money until after Obama got to office, they tried to blame Obama for that lost $350 billion. On top of that, they also tried to blame Obama for that $150 billion in Republican pork spending. While it was approved during Bush's term by Republicans in Congress, it was not spent until Obama's term. Rush used that to try and blame that spending on Obama.

That is $500 billion that was not counted against Bush when it should have been. He was ahead in spending by $744 billion; when you add that money back to him it now goes to $1.244 trillion more than what Obama is spending. But that $500 billion was also unfairly counted against Obama, and now must be taken away.

So when you take it away, Bush outspent Obama by $1.744 trillion. That means that Obama has managed to cut spending by $1,744,000,000,000. Obama has cut Bush's spending by nearly $2 trillion.
 
Top