or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez - Page 13

post #481 of 700
And now it's time for the New York Times to chime in with a reasonable assessment for us all to consider.

Quote:
Niger Delta becomes a cautionary tale for U.S.
Region has endured equivalent of Exxon Valdez spill every year for 50 years

Quote:
A cautionary tale for the U.S.
With new estimates that as many as 2.5 million gallons of oil could be spilling into the Gulf of Mexico each day, the Niger Delta has suddenly become a cautionary tale for the United States.

As many as 546 million gallons of oil spilled into the Niger Delta over the last five decades, or nearly 11 million gallons a year, a team of experts for the Nigerian government and international and local environmental groups concluded in a 2006 report. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 dumped an estimated 10.8 million gallons of oil into the waters off Alaska.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #482 of 700
Here's Joe Barton (R)etard speaking to the CEO of BP earlier today-

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) during a hearing on Thursday morning with BP's CEO Tony Hayward." I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown..."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_615686.html

He goes on to apologize to BP for Obama's mugging- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv0si...layer_embedded


He's the same Joe Barton who said this in 2004-


"Offshore drilling and production platforms are so technologically advanced that one platform on the surface of the water can handle production from several different wells several miles apart, house a myriad of technologically advanced computer systems, employ scores of personnel, generate electricity, enable people to face and conquer the adversities of living in the middle of the ocean, and do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; all without so much as losing a gum wrapper over the side of the platform. It is truly amazing," Barton said, at an opening for a Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing on April 29, 2004."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_615874.html

But he hasn't apologized for his BS.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #483 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's Joe Barton (R)etard speaking to the CEO of BP earlier today-

I absolutely love it when liberals show us all how much more civilized they are than the rest of us.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #484 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I absolutely love it when liberals show us all how much more civilized they are than the rest of us.

Well, you have to admit that what he said was retarded.

Anyway, your "Dat Obama he sur done good and gave to 'em hard! He sure gone and whooped der ass!" doesn't exactly stake out the high ground for yourself, not in my eyes at least.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #485 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Well, you have to admit that what he said was retarded.

Anyway, your "Dat Obama he sur done good and gave to 'em hard! He sure gone and whooped der ass!" doesn't exactly stake out the high ground for yourself, not in my eyes at least.

Fair enough. But I haven't called anyone a retard and based on several of your posts I don't think you're in much of a position to lecture anyone on "the high ground."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #486 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's Joe Barton (R)etard speaking to the CEO of BP earlier today-

Actually what Rep. Barton said was absolutely correct, though unpopular. His apology to BP something long overdue... Legally, the White House has no right to commit BP - a private corporation - to the sort of trust fund set aside for $20 B. It was a shakedown... no doubt Barry Obama learned this tactic from the master, Jesse Jackson; the Reverend known for the Rainbow Push corporate shakedown! However, BP looks to be doing anything it can to engender good PR, conceded to White House mugging. But legally, the White House has no right to force BP to cough up a dime... Rep. Barton was right to apologize to BP....

All those pontificating Democrats (and Republicans) condemning BP and its CEO today have no clue how to plug the hole in the Gulf and are completely at BP's mercy for BP to plug it. BP is doing all it can do to solve this problem. They don't need to hear from retards in Washington. And these are the same retard politicians that forced oil drilling deep offshore anyway! You might want to consider what will happen to Gulf citizens if BP goes bankrupt? Who will pay then? I think that was Rep. Barton's larger point anyway...if BP goes bankrupt American citizens will end up paying for this mess!
post #487 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Actually what Rep. Barton said was absolutely correct, though unpopular. His apology to BP something long overdue... Legally, the White House has no right to commit BP - a private corporation - to the sort of trust fund set aside for $20 B. It was a shakedown... no doubt Barry Obama learned this tactic from the master, Jesse Jackson; the Reverend known for the Rainbow Push corporate shakedown! However, BP looks to be doing anything it can to engender good PR, conceded to White House mugging. But legally, the White House has no right to force BP to cough up a dime... Rep. Barton was right to apologize to BP....

All those pontificating Democrats condemning BP and its CEO today have no clue how to plug the hole in the Gulf and are completely at BP's mercy for BP to plug it. BP is doing all it can do to solve this problem. They don't need to hear from retards in Washington. And these are the same retard politicians that forced oil drilling deep offshore anyway!

You might want to call or email Barton and tell him to flip flop again-

"I apologize for using the term 'shakedown' with regard to yesterday's actions at the White House in my opening statement this morning, and I retract my apology to BP."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_616317.html

Maybe this helped him to flip flop-

House Republican leadership threatened to strip Rep. Joe Barton's seniority on the Energy and Commerce Committee if the Texas Republican didn't immediately retract an apology he had issued to BP earlier on Thursday, a GOP leadership aide told HuffPost.

His post, however, is still not secure.

Barton is the highest-ranking Republican on the committee and stands to become its chairman if Republicans regain control of the House following the elections in November. He was called into a meeting with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and slammed for issuing the apology.

"Barton met with Boehner and Cantor this afternoon. He was told, 'Apologize, immediately. Or you will lose your position, immediately. Now that he has apologized, we'll see what happens going forward," said the leadership aide.

"He was concerned about explaining his point that the White House doesn't necessarily have the authority to do what they did. But, when you start out by apologizing to BP, you've lost your audience," said a second aide, "especially when they agreed to the fund willingly and when our Members are on record supporting the fund."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_616374.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #488 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You might want to consider what will happen to Gulf citizens if BP goes bankrupt? Who will pay then? I think that was Rep. Barton's larger point anyway...if BP goes bankrupt American citizens will end up paying for this mess!


BP is not going to go bankrupt by Obama safeguarding $20 billion. You could add another $100 billion onto that and BP still wouldn't go bankrupt.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #489 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

BP is not going to go bankrupt by Obama safeguarding $20 billion. You could add another $100 billion onto that and BP still wouldn't go bankrupt.

Obama is hardly the person to safeguard anything. His record of losing money is quite plain. Moreover, the precise reason corporations exist, separate and apart from government, is clear. Is Obama on a mission to nationalize the oil industry? What convinces you that BP will not go bankrupt? Seen their stock lately?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

House Republican leadership threatened to strip Rep. Joe Barton's seniority on the Energy and Commerce Committee...

Spine is something neither political party has...
post #490 of 700
Hands, you might consider getting your news from some place other than Huffington Post in order to get a more, ahem, balanced view of the world. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #491 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

BP is not going to go bankrupt by Obama safeguarding $20 billion. You could add another $100 billion onto that and BP still wouldn't go bankrupt.

No doubt about that.

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/pf/...10&floc=NI-mo2
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #492 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I absolutely love it when liberals show us all how much more civilized they are than the rest of us.

How is this any different than the multiple not so cleaver quips you've made?

Here's a sample :
Quote:
And tonight folks we have as our guests BP aka Satan and Barack Obama aka God to give us their take on recent events.

Or

Quote:
Sorry if I offended your King

Yeah that was reflecting reality.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #493 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah that was reflecting reality.

I really am sorry that I insulted your king. I was only a joke.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #494 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How is this any different than the multiple not so cleaver quips you've made?

Here's a sample :

Well, for one, there's a bit of a difference between using sarcasm and caricature to accentuate the positions held by someone and simply calling them a "retard."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #495 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well, for one, there's a bit of a difference between using sarcasm and caricature to accentuate the positions held by someone and simply calling them a "retard."

Quote:
sarcasm and caricature to accentuate the positions held by someone

And here you've done it again :
Quote:
I really am sorry that I insulted your king. I was only a joke

Well it might have seemed that way to you. You're being way too kind in your ability to lampoon something. Not only did you misrepresent my attitude toward Obama it was a desperate attempt to lash out at someone giving you a little of your own medicine.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #496 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Another error in logic. First, it looks like SDW replied for himself (not for NoahJ). Second, maybe NoahJ will also reply. \ Then you'll have both. It's like an extra Christmas gift!

Perhaps since he is unable to actually abide by it himself he has forgotten that I have him on ignore and have not been reading his posts for about 2-4 weeks now? Except of course when someone quotes him... Oh well...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #497 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Even so my reply button that I pushed was on Noah's post not SDW's. I would have liked to hear his take since he made the statement I was replying to. Now of course we'll never know since SDW thought he'd jump the gun and reply for him. No matter what kind of forum ( or interpretation ) the reply button is positioned where it is for that very purpose.

Funny, I thought these were as MJ said...public forums. Apparently you make the rules, now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #498 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And here you've done it again :

Well it might have seemed that way to you. You're being way too kind in your ability to lampoon something. Not only did you misrepresent my attitude toward Obama it was a desperate attempt to lash out at someone giving you a little of your own medicine.

Your attitude about Obama, as determined from reading your posts:

You still love him. In the face of clear and undeniable failure, you make excuses. You ask what he should do differently, then attack those that answer. You see policies that have clearly failed, and say we just need to give it more time. You take a monstrosity like that the stimulus bill, and say "well, he needed to do SOMETHING." Excuses. Attacks. Etc.

It's all you have left as we witness the greatest failure of a President this century.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #499 of 700
Obama does his part to help with oil spill - orders Coast Guard to stop barges short of life preservers!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spil...ry?id=10946379

Daily Idiocy from the White House!!!
post #500 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Perhaps since he is unable to actually abide by it himself he has forgotten that I have him on ignore and have not been reading his posts for about 2-4 weeks now? Except of course when someone quotes him... Oh well...

However just like everyone else you haven't paid attention to your own ignore setting so please!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #501 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Your attitude about Obama, as determined from reading your posts:

You still love him. In the face of clear and undeniable failure, you make excuses. You ask what he should do differently, then attack those that answer. You see policies that have clearly failed, and say we just need to give it more time. You take a monstrosity like that the stimulus bill, and say "well, he needed to do SOMETHING." Excuses. Attacks. Etc.

It's all you have left as we witness the greatest failure of a President this century.

Even if that were true he'd still have to stand in line.

Bush lover!

I'm sorry but it's still ok to like a certain president that is a hundred times better than the colossal mistake we had last time ( which was the guy who was around when most of our recently troubles started much as you'd like to sweep that under the rug ).


He's also still better than if we'd continued those same failed policies with the two " mavericks ". Jesus what a joke! And that's what passes for leadership in the GOP now days.

As far as Obama goes I don't like the fact that we're still embrolied in those two useless places in the middle east. We should have been out of there a long time ago. There's other things he does that I don't like but I realize that in the scheme of things he's still better than the opposition.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #502 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Funny, I thought these were as MJ said...public forums. Apparently you make the rules, now.


Funny, I seem to remember you quoting rules that aren't in guidelines recently.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #503 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Even if that were true he'd still have to stand in line.

Bush lover!

I'm sorry but it's still ok to like a certain president that is a hundred times better than the colossal mistake we had last time ( which was the guy who was around when most of our recently troubles started much as you'd like to sweep that under the rug ).

Another jimmacian unsupported statement. By all OBJECTIVE measures, he's much, much worse than Bush or any President in recent memory. Examples:

--Job growth (worst of the 11 post WWII recessions)
--Unemployment (double digit vs. 5.5% average during Bush years)
--Deficit (4x greater)
--GDP Growth (self-explanatory)
--National Debt (self-explanatory)
--Nuclear Proliferation (Iran, NK)
--Terrorism (multiple attacks and attempts vs. very few successful attacks during Bush years after 9/11)

I haven't even begun to address the more intangible failures, such as his leadership qualities, rhetorical errors, BP disaster handling, etc.

As for "things starting under Bush," this is a talking point used repeatedly. The problem is, you never identify which Bush policies contributed to said problems. You've been asked time and time again, and you always respond with "it happened on his watch!" So let's do this again: Which Bush policies contributed to the "problems" we have today?

Quote:

He's also still better than if we'd continued those same failed policies with the two " mavericks ". Jesus what a joke! And that's what passes for leadership in the GOP now days.

Which policies?

And, you don't know how McCain and Palin would have done. You simply don't. It's hard to imagine them being worse than the current President. He is an absolute disaster in every way. It is far worse than I ever dreamed possible. Incidentally, even the looney Left is starting to think so. Olbermann and Matthews (Mr. Thrill Up My Leg) trashed his pathetic speech the other night:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...e_command.html

Quote:
As far as Obama goes I don't like the fact that we're still embrolied in those two useless places in the middle east. We should have been out of there a long time ago. There's other things he does that I don't like but I realize that in the scheme of things he's still better than the opposition.


Hey, fair enough. I can respect wanting to get out of both places. It's not going to happen, but that's fine. Interestingly, Afghanistan and Iraq might be the only areas Obama hasn't managed to completely screw-up in 18 months. I don't like his "we'll send all the troops we need...but only 2/3 as many as requested and only for a short period of time" policy. Other than that, it seems he's let the military run things, which probably a good idea in this situation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #504 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Hands, you might consider getting your news from some place other than Huffington Post in order to get a more, ahem, balanced view of the world. \

What? YouTubes my favorite- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #505 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Another jimmacian unsupported statement. By all OBJECTIVE measures, he's much, much worse than Bush or any President in recent memory. Examples:

--Job growth (worst of the 11 post WWII recessions)
--Unemployment (double digit vs. 5.5% average during Bush years)
--Deficit (4x greater)
--GDP Growth (self-explanatory)
--National Debt (self-explanatory)
--Nuclear Proliferation (Iran, NK)
--Terrorism (multiple attacks and attempts vs. very few successful attacks during Bush years after 9/11)

I haven't even begun to address the more intangible failures, such as his leadership qualities, rhetorical errors, BP disaster handling, etc.

As for "things starting under Bush," this is a talking point used repeatedly. The problem is, you never identify which Bush policies contributed to said problems. You've been asked time and time again, and you always respond with "it happened on his watch!" So let's do this again: Which Bush policies contributed to the "problems" we have today?



Which policies?

And, you don't know how McCain and Palin would have done. You simply don't. It's hard to imagine them being worse than the current President. He is an absolute disaster in every way. It is far worse than I ever dreamed possible. Incidentally, even the looney Left is starting to think so. Olbermann and Matthews (Mr. Thrill Up My Leg) trashed his pathetic speech the other night:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...e_command.html



Hey, fair enough. I can respect wanting to get out of both places. It's not going to happen, but that's fine. Interestingly, Afghanistan and Iraq might be the only areas Obama hasn't managed to completely screw-up in 18 months. I don't like his "we'll send all the troops we need...but only 2/3 as many as requested and only for a short period of time" policy. Other than that, it seems he's let the military run things, which probably a good idea in this situation.

Quote:
As for "things starting under Bush," this is a talking point used repeatedly. The problem is, you never identify which Bush policies contributed to said problems. You've been asked time and time again, and you always respond with "it happened on his watch!" So let's do this again: Which Bush policies contributed to the "problems" we have today?

You might as well ask " Why did he have his job? " It's more a matter of being asleep at the wheel. Didn't he see this economic crsis coming? Doesn't he have advisors for that? A lot of economists did se it coming so he must have heard something in passing at least. It's not like it was a secret. Also Paul Krugman ( yes I know you don't like him even though he predicted this downturn ) Blames Bush for a good part of it. He's a Nobel winning economist maybe your questions should be directed towards him. My friends husband at work ( econ professor ) puts much of the blame at Bush's feet. I think they both know more than anyone on this forum about the economy so I trust their judgement over anyone I read here. After all it's their job.

And if you try to say this is just like the BP oil leak and Obama that's bogus! Bush had 8 years to do something about the economy ( and did I mention he started with a surplus! ). The Oil leak by BP is also man made but much harder to control.

Quote:
And, you don't know how McCain and Palin would have done.

I heard what they had to say while campaigning. That was enough. Palin is not fit to be that close to the presidency. When you can't answer basic questions about world affairs and you want to be vice president that's a terrible combination. McCain while a little more sane than Bush offered much the same type of leadership that was in place when we got into this economic disaster!

And like I've said Republicans are there own worst enemies. As far as I can tell it's still raining gasoline!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759828...r_in_the_gulf/

Quote:
Republican forced to apologize for BP apology
Texas' Barton called deal with Obama a 'shakedown, isn't alone in GOP

Oh well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #506 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also Paul Krugman ( yes I know you don't like him even though he predicted this downturn ) Blames Bush for a good part of it.

Paul Krugman is a hypocritical, partisan hack.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

He's a Nobel winning economist...

And more than half the shit he pontificates on isn't at all related to what he won the Nobel prize for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think they both know more than anyone on this forum about the economy so I trust their judgement over anyone I read here. After all it's their job.

Or you could do some reading and studying and thinking for yourself. Some of us have done that and learned a lot, including not just taking the word of Nobel prize winning clowns (like Krugman) at their word. \


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Palin is not fit to be that close to the presidency.

Neither is Obama but I guess we'll just have to live with that choice for now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As far as I can tell it's still raining gasoline!

And it is because of the bone-headed economic policies of the current administration. Yes, these are piled on top of some bone-headed decision of the previous administration. But the current administration has actually made things worse, not better. And the worsening was highly predictable.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #507 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Paul Krugman is a hypocritical, partisan hack.




And more than half the shit he pontificates on isn't at all related to what he won the Nobel prize for




Or you could do some reading and studying and thinking for yourself. Some of us have done that and learned a lot, including not just taking the word of Nobel prize winning clowns (like Krugman) at their word.




Neither is Obama but I guess we'll just have to live with that choice for now.




And it is because of the bone-headed economic policies of the current administration. Yes, these are piled on top of some bone-headed decision of the previous administration. But the current administration has actually made things worse, not better. And the worsening was highly predictable.

Ok. Let's see.
Quote:
Paul Krugman is a hypocritical, partisan hack.

Says the anonymous internet forum poster!

Next!

Quote:
And more than half the shit he pontificates on isn't at all related to what he won the Nobel prize for.

Same answer! Here's what he he won it for :
Quote:
the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[7] Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[8][9] liquidity traps and currency crises. According to IDEAS/REPEC (a ranking of Economists by article citations), his work has made him one of the most influential economists in the world, and he is among the 15 most widely cited economists.[10]

Quote:
I]Or[/I] you could do some reading and studying and thinking for yourself. Some of us have done that and learned a lot, including not just taking the word of Nobel prize winning clowns (like Krugman) at their word. \



I have. It's just that the economy isn't my strong suit ( I'm just not that interested to get that deep into it ). I do have other interests that I do believe you would probably find a little more challenging to talk to me about. One person can't be an expert on everything. So I rely on people who are. You're obviously interested enough in economics to have formed a strong opinion. It's just that Krugman seemed to make sense to me and he makes sense to people I respect. As I've said I even saw him speak at work about a year ago. Also my Friend at work seems to think a lot of him ( He's an Economics Professor with a PHD so who's judgement do you think I'm going to trust more? ).

You like brand Z and I like brand X. However here it's an unresolvable situation here because this world has many different views and here we are all anonymous. So we don't carry any crediblity by ourselves. It's why we have to bring in other sources of information. I'm sorry but I'd be willing to bet there are equal amounts of people out there that agree with Krugman as don't.


Quote:
And it is because of the bone-headed economic policies of the current administration. Yes, these are piled on top of some bone-headed decision of the previous administration. But the current administration has actually made things worse, not better. And the worsening was highly predictable.


Well You got that one partially right. Krugman seems to think Obama should have done more to get out of this crisis faster ( that would involve spending more money to get the economy rolling again ). Krugman said the last time we had a similar situation it was WWII that helped pull us out of it. We had then what we have now. A jobless recovery. He predicted it would go that way when I saw him speak a year and a half ago. He also said if we don't take more drastic steps we could see this go on for a decade or more ( it wasn't exactly a happy / good news lecture ).

But once again you don't agree with the Nobel winning economist :

Quote:
Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in a 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals by Prospect.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Who the hell are you again?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #508 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Says the anonymous internet forum poster!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Who the hell are you again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

and here we are all anonymous.

And that's completely irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Here's what he he won it for

I know what he won for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's just that the economy isn't my strong suit

That's obvious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I do have other interests that I do believe you would probably find a little more challenging to talk to me about.

Good for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

One person can't be an expert on everything.

True enough. That said, the basics of this are hardly all that complicated and you still, apparently, fail to grasp even those.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's just that Krugman seemed to make sense to me and he makes sense to people I respect.

What you have here is what's known as a confirmation bias. You found someone who has told you what seems to make sense to you. You have found someone who has basically told you what you want to hear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As I've said I even saw him speak at work about a year ago.

Good for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also my Friend at work seems to think a lot of him

Good for him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

( He's an Economics Professor with a PHD so who's judgement do you think I'm going to trust more? ).

I, frankly, don't really care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You like brand Z and I like brand X. However here it's an unresolvable situation here because this world has many different views

All, the old stand by...there is no objective reality or right and wrong or logic and reason...it's all just feelings and opinions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm sorry but I'd be willing to bet there are equal amounts of people out there that agree with Krugman as don't.

Which is irrelevant, because the more people that agree with him doesn't make him any more right. This is a concept which you seem to have a profound inability to grasp.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

that would involve spending more money to get the economy rolling again

Which is at the core of Keynesian idiocy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But once again you don't agree with the Nobel winning economist

And there are other Nobel prize winning economists which both you and Dr. Krugman don't agree with.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #509 of 700
Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/many...o_help_wi.html

When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to get the White House to allow willing nations, experienced with oil spill cleanup in the North Sea, to come into the Gulf of Mexico to help, Obama cited the Jones Act as his reason for being forced to decline their offer of help. The Jones Act (also known as the Sailors's Rights Act, Title 46 USC) is a protectionist piece of legislation that mandates that all goods transported by sea between US ports must be transported by US flag ships that are owned by US citizens and whose crews must be at least 3/4 US citizens.

However, the law provides a waiver in times of emergency. President Bush-43 used the waiver twice during his second term. First, in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. He allowed foreign ships to transport oil and natural gas between US ports in the Gulf. In 2006, a waiver was issued so a foreign ship could bring a jack-up rig into Alaska's Cook Inlet. Thus, emergency waivers are common. Which raises the question why Obama declined the offer of help which, had he accepted it, would likely minimized or eliminated the oil spill crisis in the Gulf.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #510 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And that's completely irrelevant.




I know what he won for.




That's obvious.




Good for you.




True enough. That said, the basics of this are hardly all that complicated and you still, apparently, fail to grasp even those.




What you have here is what's known as a confirmation bias. You found someone who has told you what seems to make sense to you. You have found someone who has basically told you what you want to hear.



Good for you.




Good for him.




I, frankly, don't really care.




All, the old stand by...there is no objective reality or right and wrong or logic and reason...it's all just feelings and opinions.




Which is irrelevant, because the more people that agree with him doesn't make him any more right. This is a concept which you seem to have a profound inability to grasp.




Which is at the core of Keynesian idiocy.



And there are other Nobel prize winning economists which both you and Dr. Krugman don't agree with.

Quote:
And that's completely irrelevant.

Uh no. You mean you'd like it to be irrelevent. The fact of the matter is you could be a 16 year old in mommy's basement stealing time on dad's computer for all I know. You have no credentials here so people here need proof from a 3rd party that's a recognizable source. An expert or a recognized site that has credible information. No one is going to just accept your word ( or mine ) as gossple at face value. You have to have something to back it up with.

Quote:
What you have here is what's known as a confirmation bias. You found someone who has told you what seems to make sense to you. You have found someone who has basically told you what you want to hear.

And you've found some one or several someone's that tell you what you want to hear ( or what you want us to accept ). In theory ( and economics is a theory ) you have a set of values that reflect your thinking. It's not the only one or it wouldn't be a theory. Since there's more than one school of accepted thought out there there's no way to resolve this theoretical impasse until some kind of after the fact outcome. It's like WMD in Iraq was a theory. Bush said he had proof. But what he had was bad information. He didn't have proof as it turns out. He didn't have pictures of bombs sticking out of Saddam's garage.

Quote:
Which is irrelevant, because the more people that agree with him doesn't make him any more right. This is a concept which you seem to have a profound inability to grasp.

Ok. So what makes your school of thinking more right? I mean both sides have as much evidence to back up their ideas. But there's no absolute judge or the argument would be over. Their wouldn't be another side. Just because you don't subscribe to that side doesn't make it go away. You believe one idea and that's fine. Their are lot's of people who don't. It doesn't make either side right. They are theories.

Quote:
And there are other Nobel prize winning economists which both you and Dr. Krugman don't agree with.

Like I've said theory. It could be that hundreds of years from now people will laugh at both as quaint ideas.

I was just watching a program about the debate between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Suskind about the nature of black holes and the idea that matter is lost as it goes through a singularity. Hawking always maintianed for years that the math says matter is lost. Suskind always maintianed what we've been taught in school for years that matter can't be created or destroyed. It turns out matter isn't lost and Hawking had to conceed. But for a reason both hadn't considered. And it's still something they both don't completely understand. As it turns out matter that goes through a Black Hole still exsts as a sort of projection or smear on the edge of the universe. Taken apart but still all there and reconstructable.

That's the thing about theories. In the subject we're discussing that's why it's called " Economic theory ".

You can repeat this over and over again but until someone better than you or I comes up with irrefutable proof they are still both Keynesian and Austrian theories.

I mean just look at this about the opposing ideas to the Keynesian theory :
Quote:
Monetarist criticism
One school began in the late 1940s with Milton Friedman. Instead of rejecting macro-measurements and macro-models of the economy, the monetarist school embraced the techniques of treating the entire economy as having a supply and demand equilibrium. However, because of Irving Fisher's equation of exchange, they regarded inflation as solely being due to the variations in the money supply, rather than as being a consequence of aggregate demand. They argued that the "crowding out" effects discussed above would hobble or deprive fiscal policy of its positive effect. Instead, the focus should be on monetary policy, which was considered ineffective by early Keynesians.

Monetarism had an ideological as well as a practical appeal: monetary policy does not, at least on the surface, imply as much government intervention in the economy as other measures. The monetarist critique pushed Keynesians toward a more balanced view of monetary policy, and inspired a wave of revisions to Keynesian theory.

[edit] New classical macroeconomics criticism
See also: Lucas critique
Another influential school of thought was based on the Lucas critique of Keynesian economics. This called for greater consistency with microeconomic theory and rationality, and particularly emphasized the idea of rational expectations. Lucas and others argued that Keynesian economics required remarkably foolish and short-sighted behavior from people, which totally contradicted the economic understanding of their behavior at a micro level. New classical economics introduced a set of macroeconomic theories which were based on optimising microeconomic behavior. These models have been developed into the Real Business Cycle Theory, which argues that business cycle fluctuations can to a large extent be accounted for by real (in contrast to nominal) shocks.

[edit] Austrian School criticism
Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally collectivist approach, arguing that such theories encourage centralized planning, which leads to malinvestment of capital, which is the cause of business cycles[19]. Hayek also argued that Keynes' study of the aggregate relations in an economy is fallacious, as recessions are caused by micro-economic factors. Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which stifle the private sector and civil society.

Other Austrian school economists have also attacked Keynesian economics. Henry Hazlitt criticized, paragraph by paragraph, Keynes' General Theory.[20] Murray Rothbard accuses Keynesianism of having "its roots deep in medieval and mercantilist thought."[21]

[edit] Methodological disagreement and different results that emerge
Beginning in the late 1950s neoclassical macroeconomists began to disagree with the methodology employed by Keynes and his successors. Keynesians emphasized the dependence of consumption on disposable income and, also, of investment on current profits and current cash flow. In addition Keynesians posited a Phillips curve that tied nominal wage inflation to unemployment rate. To buttress these theories Keynesians typically traced the logical foundations of their model (using introspection) and buttressed their assumptions with statistical evidence.[22] Neoclassical theorists demanded that macroeconomics be grounded on the same foundations as microeconomic theory, profit-maximizing firms and utility maximizing consumers.[22]

The result of this shift in methodology produced several important divergences from Keynesian Macroeconomics:[22]

1.Independence of Consumption and current Income (life-cycle permanent income hypothesis)
2.Irrelevance of Current Profits to Investment (Modigliani-Miller theorem)
3.Long run independence of inflation and unemployment (natural rate of unemployment)
4.The inability of monetary policy to stabilize output (rational expectations)
5.Irrelevance of Taxes and Budget Deficits to Consumption (Ricardian Equivalence)
[edit] Keynesian responses to the critics
The heart of the 'new Keynesian' view rests on microeconomic models that indicate that nominal wages and prices are "sticky," i.e., do not change easily or quickly with changes in supply and demand, so that quantity adjustment prevails. According to economist Paul Krugman, "while I regard the evidence for such stickiness as overwhelming, the assumption of at least temporarily rigid nominal prices is one of those things that works beautifully in practice but very badly in theory."[23] This integration is further spurred by the work of other economists which questions rational decision-making in a perfect information environment as a necessity for micro-economic theory. Imperfect decision making such as that investigated by Joseph Stiglitz underlines the importance of management of risk in the economy.

Over time, many macroeconomists have returned to the IS-LM model and the Phillips curve as a first approximation of how an economy works. New versions of the Phillips curve, such as the "Triangle Model", allow for stagflation, since the curve can shift due to supply shocks or changes in built-in inflation. In the 1990s, the original ideas of "full employment" had been modified by the NAIRU doctrine, sometimes called the "natural rate of unemployment." NAIRU advocates suggest restraint in combating unemployment, in case accelerating inflation should result. However, it is unclear exactly what the value of the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

But at the end of the day they are still just theories.

I know that you've probably already heard all of this but you need to take it to heart that here there are no absolutes. Until they become something other than theories.

Also you could be an expert at economics with great credentials. However here it means Jack. And there's a reason forums are designed this way.

1. So we can't use personal information against each other in our arguments ( although some still try ).

2. We're all equal here and have to argue with facts and logic and not our credentials. If it were otherwise there would only be a few that would always be right because of who they were.

Also at the end of the day this is a thread about an oil spill. We really should get back on topic.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #511 of 700
Nevermind. No longer worth it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #512 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well, since what I stated was an opinion (about Paul Krugman) it isn't really like we're talking about a provable fact. Secondly, it really wouldn't matter who I was. It is what I say and the logic, reason and/or facts beind it. You still don't get this. \




It is becoming ever more obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.




You'd think that was true. But, sadly, it is not.




This is true, but not for the reasons you think.




There are some basics that are beyond "theory."








I know you think you know what you're saying here because you probably heard some else say it and it sounded profound and intellectual, but you really don't.

This is also clever and subtle dodge you're trying to use to weasel out of what you've said. You are hanging your hat entirely on Paul Krugman and the fact that he's a Nobel prize winning economist. I point out that there are several other Nobel prize winning economists who would have a decidedly different view from Dr. Krugman and who might be worthy of your attention and then suddenly "it's just theories" (your intellectual-sounding word for personal opinions.)




Tell you what, when you actually know something about these various theories, then we might be able to have a more useful conversation. Until then, you're just blabbering on, hand-waving, dodging, misdirecting and smoke-screeing.




This is hilarious. You totally crack me up. First, the fact that you never "argue with facts and logic." Second, the fact that you constantly bring credentials into the debate, cleverly trying to avoid any logic, reason or facts. Third, you regularly specifically reject things I have to say because you don't know who I am (this is a fallacy by the way.) Fourth, on more than one occasion you have attempted discredit me by implying that I might be unemployed or "could be a 16 year old in mommy's basement stealing time on dad's computer." Pure genius. Pure genius.




Of course. Back to the oil spill...

Quote:
Well, since what I stated was an opinion (about Paul Krugman) it isn't really like we're talking about a provable fact. Secondly, it really wouldn't matter who I was. It is what I say and the logic, reason and/or facts beind it. You still don't get this. \

That's funny because I was wondering if you did.

Quote:
It is becoming ever more obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



How so? Was it that you couldn't follow me or was it just another insult?

Quote:
You'd think that was true. But, sadly, it is not.

Ok. Prove it.

Quote:
This is true, but not for the reasons you think.

Yes?

Quote:
know you think you know what you're saying here because you probably heard some else say it and it sounded profound and intellectual, but you really don't.

This is also clever and subtle dodge you're trying to use to weasel out of what you've said. You are hanging your hat entirely on Paul Krugman and the fact that he's a Nobel prize winning economist. I point out that there are several other Nobel prize winning economists who would have a decidedly different view from Dr. Krugman and who might be worthy of your attention and then suddenly "it's just theories" (your intellectual-sounding word for personal opinions.)

Sigh! ( slaps forehead ). I've never maintained otherwise. I've never said Paul Krugman's ideas weren't based on theory. Show me where I did. It's just that to me and a friend at work ( who is more of an expert than you or I ) his ideas have a lot of merit.

This :
Quote:
know you think you know what you're saying here because you probably heard some else say it and it sounded profound and intellectual, but you really don't

Is just an attempt to discredit. Smoke and mirrors type cheap shot again.

Quote:
Tell you what, when you actually know something about these various theories, then we might be able to have a more useful conversation. Until then, you're just blabbering on, hand-waving, dodging, misdirecting and smoke-screeing.

Is that all you can do? Insult in a lame attempt to seem superior and discredit me? Talk about smoke screen!

Quote:
This is hilarious. You totally crack me up. First, the fact that you never "argue with facts and logic." Second, the fact that you constantly bring credentials into the debate, cleverly trying to avoid any logic, reason or facts. Third, you regularly specifically reject things I have to say because you don't know who I am (this is a fallacy by the way.) Fourth, on more than one occasion you have attempted discredit me by implying that I might be unemployed or "could be a 16 year old in mommy's basement stealing time on dad's computer." Pure genius. Pure genius.

It wasn't an attempt to discredit you but to show you the playing field that obviously you still refuse to see. Yes I did say the unemployed remark and I stand corrected for it. It was a cheap shot. I'm sorry. I just wondered with a job how someone could devote so much around the clock time to this forum? I know I can't.

About the cheap shots let's both agree to stop doing that . Ok? However the 16 year old comment was just an extreme example of what I was trying to illustrate. I don't really know you anymore than you know me. So we need to bring in ideas from a 3rd source to make our claims credible. Did you ever compete in a debate in school? It's the same idea. I'll tell you what I will do. I'll admit their are many who support your school of thought lending it credibility. But proving it's the only way to think? You can't do that anymore than I can.

And yes the oil spill is the topic. If you want to start a MJ vs. jimmac thread you can but I don't think anyone would want to read it in a political forum.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #513 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What you have here is what's known as a confirmation bias. You found someone who has told you what seems to make sense to you. You have found someone who has basically told you what you want to hear.

Thanks for providing a great explanation for the smashing success of the Fox "News" Network...
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #514 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Thanks for providing a great explanation for the smashing success of the Fox "News" Network...

You're welcome. But let's not pretend that this is limited to one part of the political spectrum.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #515 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You might as well ask " Why did he have his job? " It's more a matter of being asleep at the wheel. Didn't he see this economic crsis coming? Doesn't he have advisors for that? A lot of economists did se it coming so he must have heard something in passing at least. It's not like it was a secret. Also Paul Krugman ( yes I know you don't like him even though he predicted this downturn ) Blames Bush for a good part of it. He's a Nobel winning economist maybe your questions should be directed towards him. My friends husband at work ( econ professor ) puts much of the blame at Bush's feet. I think they both know more than anyone on this forum about the economy so I trust their judgement over anyone I read here. After all it's their job.

So...he just didn't do anything. OK. Well, what should he have done, then? I'm not asking your friend's husband who is some random econ professor...I'm asking you.

Quote:

And if you try to say this is just like the BP oil leak and Obama that's bogus! Bush had 8 years to do something about the economy ( and did I mention he started with a surplus! ). The Oil leak by BP is also man made but much harder to control.

The Bush economy was overall, very strong. You've never been able to accept that. I also never blamed Obama for the leak. I blame him for blaming instead of fixing.

Quote:



I heard what they had to say while campaigning. That was enough. Palin is not fit to be that close to the presidency. When you can't answer basic questions about world affairs and you want to be vice president that's a terrible combination.


Let me guess...the Couric interview? What issues, specifically, was she not qualified to speak on? I realize Obama sounded like he was in command. But surprise...we found out that he's not. You can't honestly be claiming he has a command of world affairs, can you?

Quote:


McCain while a little more sane than Bush offered much the same type of leadership that was in place when we got into this economic disaster!

Ahh..yes. McCain=Bush. You still won't identify how Bush caused the meltdown...what he did do or failed to do. That is because you simply don't know. However, you do have a friend who's husband is an economics professor...somewhere.

Quote:

And like I've said Republicans are there own worst enemies. As far as I can tell it's still raining gasoline!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759828...r_in_the_gulf/

Oh well.

Then you haven't seen the polls. How does this one apology mean anything, really? Do you disagree with his original statement? Obama threatened BP with criminal prosecution so they would set up this fund. The problem is, that's against the law. Hmmm. Sounds like a shakedown to me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #516 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo View Post

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/many...o_help_wi.html

When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to get the White House to allow willing nations, experienced with oil spill cleanup in the North Sea, to come into the Gulf of Mexico to help, Obama cited the Jones Act as his reason for being forced to decline their offer of help. The Jones Act (also known as the Sailors's Rights Act, Title 46 USC) is a protectionist piece of legislation that mandates that all goods transported by sea between US ports must be transported by US flag ships that are owned by US citizens and whose crews must be at least 3/4 US citizens.

However, the law provides a waiver in times of emergency. President Bush-43 used the waiver twice during his second term. First, in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. He allowed foreign ships to transport oil and natural gas between US ports in the Gulf. In 2006, a waiver was issued so a foreign ship could bring a jack-up rig into Alaska's Cook Inlet. Thus, emergency waivers are common. Which raises the question why Obama declined the offer of help which, had he accepted it, would likely minimized or eliminated the oil spill crisis in the Gulf.

I'd love to see members from AI's left wing tackle this issue. The environment is to Democrats what the military is to Republicans. Republican presidents have successfully tackled military actions with broad international coalitions. At a time when the green movement is a worldwide concern, why can't a Democrat in office manage an international environmental rescue effort?

Kowtowing to organized labour in the face of a national emergency plays 100% into the Republican thinking on Obama, that he's an elitist empty suit who is totally out of his league. And once inscribed in voters' minds, perceptions like this are very difficult to erase.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #517 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama threatened BP with criminal prosecution so they would set up this fund. The problem is, that's against the law. Hmmm. Sounds like a shakedown to me.

In addition to being clueless the Obama Administration commits crimes... Who expected that?

post #518 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So...he just didn't do anything. OK. Well, what should he have done, then? I'm not asking your friend's husband who is some random econ professor...I'm asking you.



The Bush economy was overall, very strong. You've never been able to accept that. I also never blamed Obama for the leak. I blame him for blaming instead of fixing.




Let me guess...the Couric interview? What issues, specifically, was she not qualified to speak on? I realize Obama sounded like he was in command. But surprise...we found out that he's not. You can't honestly be claiming he has a command of world affairs, can you?



Ahh..yes. McCain=Bush. You still won't identify how Bush caused the meltdown...what he did do or failed to do. That is because you simply don't know. However, you do have a friend who's husband is an economics professor...somewhere.



Then you haven't seen the polls. How does this one apology mean anything, really? Do you disagree with his original statement? Obama threatened BP with criminal prosecution so they would set up this fund. The problem is, that's against the law. Hmmm. Sounds like a shakedown to me.

Quote:
The Bush economy was overall, very strong.



Listen! We're experiencing the effects still of that strong economy. Jesus those blinders get larger every day!

The one thing you can't spin is the fact that Bush was in charge as the largest downturn since the Great Depression started. Get a grip!

My friend at work ( a local university ) doesn't have to have anything to do with this. Bush's lack of leadership is almost legendary. Some call it the lost decade. Give me an extra big break.

Quote:
You still won't identify how Bush caused the meltdown

He did mostly nothing and spent money like hot cakes.

Honestly SDW I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you. That's all you do. Try to wear people down by getting them to repeat themsleves " I don't understand " " I don't rememeber " ( I know where you got that one! ) " or you just want someone to answer the same question over and over again. Sheesh! You could at least come up with a new act.

Quote:
Let me guess...the Couric interview? What issues, specifically, was she not qualified to speak on? I realize Obama sounded like he was in command. But surprise...we found out that he's not. You can't honestly be claiming he has a command of world affairs, can you?

Then you already know.

This is just twaddle! Look for your self! Everyone has seen it. Why should I have to recount it? But as I said you get people to waste time by going over old material.

What crap.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #519 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're welcome. But let's not pretend that this is limited to one part of the political spectrum.

FOX sure is.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #520 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Some call it the lost decade.

I believe that's what they will end up calling the period starting in about 2008.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

He did mostly nothing and spent money like hot cakes.

Good God! You just described almost exactly the Obama administration! Weird part is you don't even see it. Must be blinders or something.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Honestly SDW I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you.

Well it's about time you started to feel like what some of the rest of feel like in dealing with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sheesh! You could at least come up with a new act.

As could you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Everyone has seen it.

Straight from "jimmac: The Greatest Hits" album.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez