or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Worst (First 100) Days Ever
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Worst (First 100) Days Ever - Page 6

post #201 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Evidence that they "deregulated" it?



The Bush admin did this?



They WERE regulated. They ARE regulated. Lack of regulation was not the problem, e.



I don't agree with that. Take a look. They raised them steadily, finally reaching over 6%.



Awesome...how should we have stopped it? The bubble was created by the free market...and it corrected itself.



That might be true, but how did it cause the meltdown?



I would say it actually started with Carter and the CRA. I don't know about bank regulations...you'd have to give me some examples. And what about the government pushing lenders to make subprime loans? The government is as much at fault as the banks are.



You know they say a good rationale a day is better than sex!
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 #202 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He's not going anywhere for a long, long time.

That's right! I'm staying right here. Someone has to keep you in check.
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 #203 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's right! I'm staying right here. Someone has to keep you in check.


Yes, by all means...someone needs to balance out my tendency to argue on the facts...it must be balanced with meaningless, wandering rhetoric. That is where you come in. Indeed.
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 #204 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, by all means...someone needs to balance out my tendency to argue on the facts...it must be balanced with meaningless, wandering rhetoric. That is where you come in. Indeed.


Wait a min. Let's run that through the reality filter :
Quote:
" someone needs to balance out my tendency to distort on the facts. "

Yes I know.

And staying there " a long, long, time " sound's like the Coon's holding cell.

If you're were making reference to those episodes of " South Park " recently yes they were great episodes. Especially Cthulhu! I used to read
HP Lovecraft when I was younger so I thought it was very funny.
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 #205 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wait a min. Let's run that through the reality filter :
Yes I know.

And staying there " a long, long, time " sound's like the Coon's holding cell.

If you're were making reference to those episodes of " South Park " recently yes they were great episodes. Especially Cthulhu! I used to read
HP Lovecraft when I was younger so I thought it was very funny.


Please demonstrate one instance where I've "distorted the facts." A link would be nice.
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 #206 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Please demonstrate one instance where I've "distorted the facts." A link would be nice.

Whatr about your reply to e1618978 ?

We've been over what happened during the Reagan years concernin the S&L debacle. It was Reagan's deregulation that caused the situation in the first place!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_...ation_scandals

From Wikipedia :
Quote:
Savings & loan crisis
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion of taxpayer monies. [29] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments made with this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of which were operating, more or less, as banks, thus requiring the FDIC to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date. The Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
An indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote at the time, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [30]

John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[31]

This was pretty damning stuff but you want to down play it and focus on Carter!

Here's the exchange :
Quote:
Quote:
7. Dismantling of bank regulations that were put in after the great depression (starting with Regan)

I would say it actually started with Carter and the CRA. I don't know about bank regulations...you'd have to give me some examples. And what about the government pushing lenders to make subprime loans? The government is as much at fault as the banks are.

Of course you'll deny or obfuscate. That's why I don't
go to this trouble too often.
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 #207 of 220
Hey SDW! Now we have two examples of how you distort the facts. There's another in the Water Boarding thread.
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 #208 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Whatr about your reply to e1618978 ?

We've been over what happened during the Reagan years concernin the S&L debacle. It was Reagan's deregulation that caused the situation in the first place!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_...ation_scandals

From Wikipedia :

This was pretty damning stuff but you want to down play it and focus on Carter!

Here's the exchange :

Of course you'll deny or obfuscate. That's why I don't
go to this trouble too often.


I love how you try to pre-empt any counter argument by implying that disagreeing with your premise constitutes "obfuscating, denial or distorting facts." I won't be falling for that little trick of yours. I will post my opinions and continue to make intellectually honest arguments based on fact.

Speaking of which, I do appreciate the Reagan example. However, I'd ask you to consider that when one types "Reagan Administration scandals" into Google or Wikipedia, one is likely to get a list of articles that just happen to assign blame for certain scandals to that administration. It's really not surprising.

As for the article itself, I have a problem with it: It's not "damning" at all. The problem is it violates Wiki's neutrality policy, because it contains unsupported statements and opinions, such as:

Quote:
Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments made with this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of which were operating, more or less, as banks, thus requiring the FDIC to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money.

That would need to be supported. Then we have this....

Quote:
This with some other "deregulation" policies ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history

That one is really bad. Which policies? How did they lead to the scandal? The article is written with clear point of view, which is not up to Wiki's standards. For another point of view, let's just type in "savings and loan crisis" into Wiki and see what happens. Oh, look:

Quote:
Major causes according to United States League of Savings Institutions

The following is a detailed summary of the major causes for losses that hurt the savings and loan business in the 1980s:[6]

1. Lack of net worth for many institutions as they entered the '80s, and a wholly inadequate net worth regulation.

2. Decline in the effectiveness of Regulation Q in preserving the spread between the cost of money and the rate of return on assets, basically stemming from inflation and the accompanying increase in market interest rates.

3. Absence of an ability to vary the return on assets with increases in the rate of interest required to be paid for deposits.


4. Increased competition on the deposit gathering and mortgage origination sides of the business, with a sudden burst of new technology making possible a whole new way of conducting financial institutions generally and the mortgage business specifically.

(continued)

"Deregulation" isn't even mentioned until item #5. 15 reasons are given. Two of them saying something about deregulation.

So tell me, who is distorting the facts...the person that does research on "Reagan administration scandals," or the one that researches "savings and loan crisis." Hmmm?



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey SDW! Now we have two examples of how you distort the facts. There's another in the Water Boarding thread.


You have no examples. You have examples of how you distort the facts, actually. Hilarious.
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 #209 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I love how you try to pre-empt any counter argument by implying that disagreeing with your premise constitutes "obfuscating, denial or distorting facts." I won't be falling for that little trick of yours. I will post my opinions and continue to make intellectually honest arguments based on fact.

Speaking of which, I do appreciate the Reagan example. However, I'd ask you to consider that when one types "Reagan Administration scandals" into Google or Wikipedia, one is likely to get a list of articles that just happen to assign blame for certain scandals to that administration. It's really not surprising.

As for the article itself, I have a problem with it: It's not "damning" at all. The problem is it violates Wiki's neutrality policy, because it contains unsupported statements and opinions, such as:



That would need to be supported. Then we have this....



That one is really bad. Which policies? How did they lead to the scandal? The article is written with clear point of view, which is not up to Wiki's standards. For another point of view, let's just type in "savings and loan crisis" into Wiki and see what happens. Oh, look:



"Deregulation" isn't even mentioned until item #5. 15 reasons are given. Two of them saying something about deregulation.

So tell me, who is distorting the facts...the person that does research on "Reagan administration scandals," or the one that researches "savings and loan crisis." Hmmm?






You have no examples. You have examples of how you distort the facts, actually. Hilarious.

God what a smoke screen!

This kind of long winded arguing that really says nothing except you think I'm wrong and that's that. This is exactly why I don't go into a detailed reply to you anymore. It wouldn't matter what I said or what kind of facts I presented.

Point in fact almost everyone who has read about or ws old enough to experience it for themselves agrees that the S & L scandel ( not a small item and really shouldn't be compared with lesser scandels as a lot of money left the country forever and a lot of people went broke ) was extra stupid and mostly Reagan's fault ( even back while it was happening which was a long time before Wikipedia but I'm sure you'd like to distort the facts to make it seem different which is laughable for those of us who actually lived through it ) Except Reagan fans of course.

It's just like the WMD discussion. You just won't admit you're wrong. And really after numerous conversations with you my fault is in ever entertaining the idea that you would.

Quote:
You have no examples. You have examples of how you distort the facts, actually. Hilarious

Yes I know you ignored what most were saying about you in that thread.
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 #210 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



God what a smoke screen!

This kind of long winded arguing that really says nothing except you think I'm wrong and that's that. This is exactly why I don't go into a detailed reply to you anymore. It wouldn't matter what I said or what kind of facts I presented.

Point in fact almost everyone who has read about or ws old enough to experience it for themselves agrees that the S & L scandel ( not a small item and really shouldn't be compared with lesser scandels as a lot of money left the country forever and a lot of people went broke ) was extra stupid and mostly Reagan's fault ( even back while it was happening which was a long time before Wikipedia but I'm sure you'd like to distort the facts to make it seem different which is laughable for those of us who actually lived through it ) Except Reagan fans of course.

It's just like the WMD discussion. You just won't admit you're wrong. And really after numerous conversations with you my fault is in ever entertaining the idea that you would.




Quote:
Point in fact almost everyone who has read about or ws [sic] old enough to experience it for themselves agrees that the S & L scandel [sic] was extra stupid and mostly Reagan's fault...

Classic stuff, jimmac!
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 #211 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Classic stuff, jimmac!

I may have said it before but that doesn't make it not true.


Back then it was big news and it's generally accepted ( not just by Wikipedia ) that it was a result of Reagan's policies ( it doesn't matter that you don't like this ).

I'm sorry you weren't able to pay attention at the time. I guess you were too busy with other things.
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 #212 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I may have said it before but that doesn't make it not true.


Back then it was big news and it's generally accepted ( not just by Wikipedia ) that it was a result of Reagan's policies ( it doesn't matter that you don't like this ).

I'm sorry you weren't able to pay attention at the time. I guess you were too busy with other things.

By all means, go look up some poll data on the public's perception of Reagan currently. Then tell me how generally accepted your notion is.
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 #213 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

By all means, go look up some poll data on the public's perception of Reagan currently. Then tell me how generally accepted your notion is.

Yeah I know he was popular. That doesn't mean he was perfect or not responsible for this scandel.

I know you'll want to over look this but look who comes in first and third to Reagan in post president popularity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104380/JF...-Day-Poll.aspx

This part :
Quote:
Bring Back Reagan

is because of the current uptick for Republicans as a reaction to Obama and current situations concerning the economy.
That won't last forever. And " Yes! "I'm sure of that.

Here's an interesting take ( and very telling ) :
Quote:
Boomers vs. Generation X

Nostalgia appears to play a modest role in Americans' choice of past president to serve the country today. The most popular choice of Baby Boomers, now aged about 50 to 64, is the man who was president of their youth: Kennedy. The top choice of those 30 to 49 years of age (broadly speaking, Generation X) is the president who served during their childhood or young adult years: Reagan.

Seniors are more likely than any other group to choose Roosevelt. Younger adults -- those 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 -- are the most likely to choose Clinton.



Notice where the attitude of younger adults fall. That will strongly affect things in the future.

I personally don't know of too many students at the University where I work that favor Republicans or have fond memories of them.

That's a bit of a change from the way things were in the late 80's when I started working there.

But let me guess! You don't like Gallup.

You look yourself! Here's what one finds when one does a search for Was Reagan responsible for and the S & L scandel :

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Was+Rea...=QBRE&qs=n&sk=

Notice how many references to the scandel and the Reagan Administration.

Or stick your head in the sand. Which ever you prefer.

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 #214 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah I know he was popular. That doesn't mean he was perfect or not responsible for this scandel.

Agreed.

Quote:

I know you'll want to over look this but look who comes in first and third to Reagan in post president popularity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104380/JF...-Day-Poll.aspx

I don't deny that, but I also don't see what it has to do with this discussion.

Quote:

This part : is because of the current uptick for Republicans as a reaction to Obama and current situations concerning the economy.
That won't last forever. And " Yes! "I'm sure of that.

Here's an interesting take ( and very telling ) :

Notice where the attitude of younger adults fall. That will strongly affect things in the future.

jimmac, the reason I asked you to look up polling data was because you posted something about "almost everyone agrees" it was Reagan's fault, or something like that. You were specifically discussing public opinion, which is why I responded with comment about....public opinion.

Quote:

I personally don't know of too many students at the University where I work that favor Republicans or have fond memories of them.

That's a bit of a change from the way things were in the late 80's when I started working there.

Irrelevant, vague, biased and completely subjective.

Quote:

But let me guess! You don't like Gallup.

I like it fine, thanks. Unfortunately your post and opinion is not based on Gallup data, even though you do provide a link. It's like arguing that there are 100,000,000 elephants on Earth, then providing a Gallup link to support it that shows public perception of professional athletes.
Quote:

You look yourself! Here's what one finds when one does a search for Was Reagan responsible for and the S & L scandel :

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Was+Rea...=QBRE&qs=n&sk=

Notice how many references to the scandel and the Reagan Administration.

Or stick your head in the sand. Which ever you prefer.


You must be fucking kidding me. You did a search for "Was Reagan responsible forthe S&L scandel [sic]? I even talked about getting biased results based on the search terms, yet you ignored it.

Let's do some more to illustrate biased results:

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Lady GaGa a Man?

Are College Employees Stupid?

You see? Biased results. Oh, and by the way: If we're going to continue this discussion, you might want to learn to spell the word SCANDAL. I was going to ignore it, but after the third or fourth time, I thought you should know how to spell the goddamned word.
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 #215 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed.



I don't deny that, but I also don't see what it has to do with this discussion.



jimmac, the reason I asked you to look up polling data was because you posted something about "almost everyone agrees" it was Reagan's fault, or something like that. You were specifically discussing public opinion, which is why I responded with comment about....public opinion.



Irrelevant, vague, biased and completely subjective.



I like it fine, thanks. Unfortunately your post and opinion is not based on Gallup data, even though you do provide a link. It's like arguing that there are 100,000,000 elephants on Earth, then providing a Gallup link to support it that shows public perception of professional athletes.


You must be fucking kidding me. You did a search for "Was Reagan responsible forthe S&L scandel [sic]? I even talked about getting biased results based on the search terms, yet you ignored it.

Let's do some more to illustrate biased results:

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Lady GaGa a Man?

Are College Employees Stupid?

You see? Biased results. Oh, and by the way: If we're going to continue this discussion, you might want to learn to spell the word SCANDAL. I was going to ignore it, but after the third or fourth time, I thought you should know how to spell the goddamned word.

Quote:
I don't deny that, but I also don't see what it has to do with this discussion.

You wanted to look at polls.

Quote:
You must be fucking kidding me. You did a search for "Was Reagan responsible forthe S&L scandel [sic]? I even talked about getting biased results based on the search terms, yet you ignored it.

Let's do some more to illustrate biased results:

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Lady GaGa a Man?

Are College Employees Stupid?

You see? Biased results. Oh, and by the way: If we're going to continue this discussion, you might want to learn to spell the word SCANDAL. I was going to ignore it, but after the third or fourth time, I thought you should know how to spell the goddamned word.

This was your typical evasive tactic used to the max. And God not the spelling bee again. Now do I really have to look over your stuff again to find a mistake ( which you know I will )?

Typical distraction.

When I find said mistake do you want me to ask if teachers are stupid?
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 #216 of 220
Crap Jimmac, you've gone through multiple threads and done nothing other than dismiss everything and roll your eyes.

It mighe be time for ignore again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #217 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Crap Jimmac, you've gone through multiple threads and done nothing other than dismiss everything and roll your eyes.

It mighe be time for ignore again.

Ah! Here we go from an earlier post in another thread ( his N. Korea thread ). SDW's reply to Sammi Jo I believe.

Quote:
realize that you're attempting to impress with that with that bloated post-bomb of a list. It's really a worthless argument to get into, because you're employing a strawman tactic.

Straw Man is two words! But he continues to spell it this way!

Also
Quote:
mighe

is supposed to be " Might ". But you guys don't make mistakes right?

And if you put me on ignore we all know how long that's lasted in the past.

But we all know the old saying about when the going gets tough the tough get going.
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 #218 of 220
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You wanted to look at polls.

What..just any random-ass poll? A list of popularity doesn't do much except prove my point.

Quote:

This was your typical evasive tactic used to the max.

What, pray tell, am I avoiding? I'm saying that you're getting biased results based on what you type into Google. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I even gave you examples.

Quote:

And God not the spelling bee again. Now do I really have to look over your stuff again to find a mistake ( which you know I will )?

You know full well we're not talking about "mistakes" or typographical errors. We're talking about the fact that you DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL BASIC WORDS. We know that because you've used the same spelling 3-4 times. It calls into question your skills in using the written language. At least it explains your rambling, incoherent arguments.

Quote:

Typical distraction.

When I find said mistake do you want me to ask if teachers are stupid?

First, see above. It's not just a mistake or typo...everyone makes those. You make much larger, egregious errors. And yes, jimmac...multiple writing errors matter in life. People judge your intellect from your writing. It's just a fact. Sorry if you don't like it.

Secondly, the example I used was NOT supposed to be an insult (Are College Employees Stupid?). It was an example of BIASED RESULTS as I explained earlier.

Jesus, you're ability to misinterpret and miss the point is without parallel.
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 #219 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What..just any random-ass poll? A list of popularity doesn't do much except prove my point.



What, pray tell, am I avoiding? I'm saying that you're getting biased results based on what you type into Google. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I even gave you examples.



You know full well we're not talking about "mistakes" or typographical errors. We're talking about the fact that you DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL BASIC WORDS. We know that because you've used the same spelling 3-4 times. It calls into question your skills in using the written language. At least it explains your rambling, incoherent arguments.

Quote:
You know full well we're not talking about "mistakes" or typographical errors.

First, see above. It's not just a mistake or typo...everyone makes those. You make much larger, egregious errors. And yes, jimmac...multiple writing errors matter in life. People judge your intellect from your writing. It's just a fact. Sorry if you don't like it.

Secondly, the example I used was NOT supposed to be an insult (Are College Employees Stupid?). It was an example of BIASED RESULTS as I explained earlier.

Jesus, you're ability to misinterpret and miss the point is without parallel.

So now you're reading my mind?

This :
Quote:
It calls into question your skills in using the written language. At least it explains your rambling, incoherent arguments.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the content of my posts and is an excuse to try to discredit them without addressing the content. That's what's wrong with your lame ass argument. And Straw Man is two words bucko. You spelled it as one all the time so what's the difference between that and what you are accusing me of?

The difference with me SDW is that I try to address what you've said not how you spelled them in a sentence.

Everyone makes mistakes here and some have made some whoppers. Even you as I've had to point out more than once when you pull out this old distraction ( it's not really a counter argument ).

If you can't address the content of people's posts and try to distract to other things why do you bother coming here?
Something's called into question here. Your ability to come up with a good counter argument.

Sorry I won't just quietly roll over and say " SDW you and trumpy are too smart for me! How I could ever hope to hold my own in an argument with you guys is beyond me. "

I don't agree with your points, outlook on the world, or your party. That's just the way it is. If you don't like a different point of view I suggest you only go to places where they share it.
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 #220 of 220
Here's an interesting comparison of the first 100 days for Bush vs. Obama.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Bush-Obama-100-Days
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Worst (First 100) Days Ever