RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
I don't think he knows professional chess is timed then. If you don't build a winning strategy before the time runs out you still lose.
Obama Sucked Tonight
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
I don't think he knows professional chess is timed then. If you don't build a winning strategy before the time runs out you still lose.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
professional chess is, political chess isn't.
have you noticed how he seems to let himself appear weak and vulnerable for too long sometimes, only to emerge when least expected?
i remember last summer, when europe was bringing us down and trump was whipping up birtherism frenzy, and obama looked like toast. he showed up shortly after with his birth certificate, a hilarious speech at the correspondent's dinner, and bin laden's head.
i can't fathom forgoing a nice convention bump for (hopeful) gains later, but upon reading his speech, that is all i can posit. he either knew what he was doing or he just couldn't match up to the speeches that made the DNC a powerhouse until he spoke.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
I still consider the 4 year term a time limit in this metaphor.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i won't be surprised if president romney shows up in january.
i will enjoy a hearty "i told ya so" towards all those who claim "he can't be any worse!".
of course, they'll all disappear into newfound sock puppetry by then.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
To be honest Idk who wins at this point. The real problems are not in the " plans" it's how they are enforced.
I have a real life example for you. I work as an engineering consultant for the " goverment". So the department I work with can't hire any new goverment employees because of budget cuts. The problem is the work still needs to get done, so take a guess at how they get it done. They send potential employees that they would have hired over to my firm where we employ them and send them back out to the goverment department.
So now instead of just hiring the guy and pay him normal salary the budget cuts end up paying for his salary and a hefty percentage to my firm for consulting.
This kinda shit happens on a huge scale with every little thing. That's why the goverment is so inefficient
I have a real life example for you. I work as an engineering consultant for the " goverment". So the department I work with can't hire any new goverment employees because of budget cuts. The problem is the work still needs to get done, so take a guess at how they get it done. They send potential employees that they would have hired over to my firm where we employ them and send them back out to the goverment department.
So now instead of just hiring the guy and pay him normal salary the budget cuts end up paying for his salary and a hefty percentage to my firm for consulting.
This kinda shit happens on a huge scale with every little thing. That's why the goverment is so inefficient
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
No then those people will claim they wrote in Ron Paul and are somehow not responsible
And the worse part is a President Romney will fuck things up and it doesnt matter after that. Sometimes you cannot unfuck things that get fucked up. Ask any of the families who lost members in The Iraq war
ink the world
Well-Known Member
His speech was pretty much what I expected.
Telling the truth, comparing the paths of the two parties and not being overly aggressive towards his opponents. He has his attack dogs and he let's them do the dirty work. That being said I 100% agree w/ what Gov. Patrick said. It's time for Dema to grow a backbone and actually fight for their beliefs.
Make no mistake, both conventions were merely the undercard. The main event will be the debates. I find it amusing that my conservative friends think Ryan is gonna do well against Biden. I bet Joe tears Ryan apart at the debates. Biden has a long background in politics and Repubs are making a huge mistake underestimating him.
It's gonna be something to hear these guys defend their policies and actually have to answer a question from someone other than a Fox personality.
Telling the truth, comparing the paths of the two parties and not being overly aggressive towards his opponents. He has his attack dogs and he let's them do the dirty work. That being said I 100% agree w/ what Gov. Patrick said. It's time for Dema to grow a backbone and actually fight for their beliefs.
Make no mistake, both conventions were merely the undercard. The main event will be the debates. I find it amusing that my conservative friends think Ryan is gonna do well against Biden. I bet Joe tears Ryan apart at the debates. Biden has a long background in politics and Repubs are making a huge mistake underestimating him.
It's gonna be something to hear these guys defend their policies and actually have to answer a question from someone other than a Fox personality.
He said the same things 4 years ago. People believed him then. Idiots will believe him again.
He has no idea how to fix things. He just hopes things naturally get better while he is in office so he can take the credit. Of course he will still be blaming Bush for everything else.
He has no idea how to fix things. He just hopes things naturally get better while he is in office so he can take the credit. Of course he will still be blaming Bush for everything else.
ink the world
Well-Known Member
He said the same thing 4 years ago and people believed him. He's fixing the things the GOP broke or would let fail like the American auto industry, the economy and a couple pesky unfunded wars. People believed him then. Idiots still don't believe him or in facts.
Even with absolute opposition on EVERY front by the GOP he's still making progress. Of course, he has to explain to partisan idiots that the mess they created was massive and will take time to repair.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that extra $200+ billion a year is gonna turn the $1.4 trillion annual deficit into a surplus. And it's going to melt the $16 trillion in debt in no time. Tell us how that $200+ billion a year is going to solve the $118 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the progressives (which Bush was one of) gave us over the last 80 years.
Yeah, he's a genius. What a fucking joke. That horseshit doesn't fly now that he's made himself look like mongoloid trying to fuck a doorknob for 3 years. Get rid of that "thrill up your leg". If it wasn't for the "cover" the MSM provides for him, this bumbling stooge wouldn't even be on the ticket this year.
Yes, EVERYONE is a sockpuppet, cause you and Dukey are just sooooo intimidating. Because flaccid C&P posts from obvious liberal sources and self-generated memes have got them running for the hills. I think you're seeing sockpuppets and racists behind every shadow.
Just one more thing, the ONLY "land mines" that Obama is leaving behind are the two Supreme Court justices that he appointed. Everything else can be repaired, but as a nation, we'll be regretting the Obama presidency for decades because of those two individuals. The prospect of Obama getting another appointee on the SCOTUS is reason alone to vote for ANYONE that runs against him.
For the record, are you claiming the CRA, President Clinton who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or rewrote parts of the CRA had nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage crisis?
Or even a bigger problem, Clinton repealed Glass-Steagal. That was the beginning of the end.
If you dont know what that act is, go read about it.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Who wrote the bill? Oh right, Republicans. It doesn't matter who drafted and wrote it. It's all about who signed it into law, right? Just about everyone in congress said yes to this. It's not just Clinton. Look at the charts, republicans were all over this, at least some democrats foreseen what was coming. You're right, he could have veto'd it, but another one just like it or worse would have came down the pipeline.
Honestly, be it democrat or republican. Our congress is filled with corrupt politicians who are bought to pass piece of shit legislation like this into law. They depend on idiots to argue red vs blue to keep shit like this happening. You get brothers to argue long enough you can steal everything they own right from under them.
Dude, I got surveillance cameras, bring it!
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
The G/F had her cameras stolen....Couldn't see who did it but she got it recorded! lol
BA142
Well-Known Member
3 Republicans proposed GLBA which was the repealing of parts of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Clinton signed it too.
Excerpt from wikipedia...i know it's a copy paste but it's useful.
A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.[1] Less than a year later, GLB was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank.
So could one make the argument Bill Clinton just signed republican bills into law, therefore the economy boomed because of who wrote the bills rather than who signed them?
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
lol wat. That doesn't make an ounce of sense. Try again. Are you saying the GLBA bill caused the economy to boom? Please tell me you're joking.
Jeeze, you smoking too much this morn bro!
My comment had noting to do with GLBA, it was a general question about the economy during the Clinton era. We had a republican congress in his second term, that's when the economy boomed my friend. Clinton just signed the bills congress passed, so who gets the credit?
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
One could argue given that it was a majority and not entirety democrats had just as much rule in what was done. Bipartisanship was very much alive during the Clinton administration. We have a Republican majority now in the house and nothing gets done. Is that democrats fault?
Actually to be technical Republicans had 55% of the Senate and 52% of the House. I wouldn't exactly say "republicans had congress"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_United_States_Congress
Just in case you don't believe me.
Similar threads
