Message to Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby DuckinFool » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:55 pm

seastreet wrote:
jaysweet3 wrote:Well, now that he's gone...we can get back to bashing the ill thought policies of the dems.


Image



Street....you are killing me man.....absolutely killing me. :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois


Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:19 am

dudejcb wrote:How short sighted is it to let the fabulously profitable pay no taxes while our record national debt grows exponentially? Very stupid for a party that portends to understand the financial world and its negative impact on business and its ablity to get and use capital.
First off, there are 2 major points you will not even acknowledge.

1. Taxing American corporations helps foreign corporations. In effect, we are subsidizing foreign corporations at the expense of American corporations. This is especially stupid when it is a strategic industry like oil.

2. The "corporate" taxes are primarily paid by "ordinary" Americans and not "rich" Americans. They pay the taxes through smaller pensions, higher costs of goods and services, and lower salaries.

The solution is to reduce government and not expand it. I agree we have to pay the bills and whatever scheme we come up with to pay the bills, it will come out of the pockets of middle income American. The poor have no money and the rich will pay their accountants and lawyers and not the government.

dudejcb wrote:Lives were saved? well I hope so but there's no evidence to support the claim.
And if we would have prevented 9/11, there would have been no "proof" of that either. It really is childish to think that Bush has accomplished absolutely nothing positive. Anything good was just and accident or there is no proof :no: (I just need to poke your homophobia nerve with a gay emoticon).
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:44 am

Oh you're right. When we tax BP, the oil company from England in charge of Alaskan crude we're helping foreign companies. the fact isnonoe of them have a country anymore... they are multi-national money pits.

Don't even talk strategery with me. There is no evidence of strategic thought in anything that has come out of the White house or congress since the R's took over. The only common thread is running through all that time is let's help the fat cats, screw the average family guy, and tell it backwards. That's a strategy to be proud of.

Whenever this administration thinks it's done a good thing they throw a victory party. Are you kidding? How many times has John Ashcroft take the podium to spew supposed successes? Have you forgotten the "Mission Accomplished" folderall perpetrated by the Whitehouse staff and blamed on the sailors?

Please list all of (or any of) Bush's positive accomplishments. I'm curious. If any are genuine I'll concede the point, but on balance this run of power holding has been incredibly lopsided featuring mos prominently failures and class warfare... dividing, not uniting.

BTW: even McCain, as of yesterday's headlines, is now preaching more and better government regulation and oversight, even though his economic guru was the one who unleased the dogs of Wallstreet. I suppose that's Clinton's fault.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:13 am

dudejcb wrote:Oh you're right. When we tax BP, the oil company from England in charge of Alaskan crude we're helping foreign companies. the fact isnonoe of them have a country anymore... they are multi-national money pits.
I don't know the detail, but I'm sure BP has an American corporation, probably wholly owned by BP, but not necessarily. This would be an American corporation, not like Ford or GM, but still working in America using American labor. Taxing them would encourage them to explore in the North Sea or other areas of the world where it would be more profitable. They would not stop production and would expand if given the opportunity. However, if it were more profitable to produce oil in America, they would expand even further than they otherwise would have. It is economics 101. I wish they taugh this at the Harvard Law School.

dudejcb wrote:Don't even talk strategery with me. There is no evidence of strategic thought in anything that has come out of the White house or congress since the R's took over. The only common thread is running through all that time is let's help the fat cats, screw the average family guy, and tell it backwards. That's a strategy to be proud of.
I can't help it that you get all your "information" from left wing sources. There is a clear plan with clear objectives. However, it is a war. It doesn't work like a construction project with a schedule, a critical path, etc. It's a fluid environment that requires continual adaptation. We got in trouble when we started standing still in Iraq. We went back on the move and look what happened. Now we need to stay on the move and not get complacent again.

dudejcb wrote:Have you forgotten the "Mission Accomplished" folderall perpetrated by the Whitehouse staff and blamed on the sailors?
They had accomplished a major mission. They did not declare Victory in Iraq. They did not declare Victory in the War on Terrorism. They said mission accomplished and it had been. Why do you think the aircraft carrier was heading back to the U.S.? Because they had accomplished their mission. And you support people that don't even know the definition of sex and is. I guess that is why you don't know what the word mission means.

dudejcb wrote:If any are genuine I'll concede the point
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby brownlou » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:32 am

Wow Spinner---
I think you are a smart guy and I was looking forward to seeing the list of George Bush's positive accomplishments. Hmmm....I read your post and can't seem to find it. Where did you post the list?
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:30 am

When I get a chance I will get to the list, but dude will not concede the point. That statement is what is referred to as a red herring.

While I'm working on the list, I will provide you the list of Senator Obama's positive accomplishments.

1. Elected to the U.S. Senate because his opponents sealed divorce records were released. Judge wins election for Obama

2. Elected to the Illinois Senate by invalidating signatures of his primary challengers including the incumbant. Judge wins election for Obama

3. Never won a seriously contested election.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Burns said he believed that Obama did not enjoy using the tactic to knock off Palmer.

"It was not something he particularly relished," Burns said. "It was not something that I thought he was happy about doing."

But Obama did it anyway, clearing the field of any real competition.
Well, that's good to know. I didn't enjoy it, but I did it any way.

Now he wants a judge in Alaska to win this election for him. He used these same legal tricks in every step up the ladder, but this time it's different. I guess he enjoys it now.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:52 am

Spinner,

that's BS. I'll concede anything that is true and give credit where credit is due, just as I have done in the past... I'm interested in reality not partisanship.

now i'm going to check out the link you posted.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:12 pm

Obama is a scumbag that came out of the corrupt Chicago political machine. There are basically three corrupt factions in Illinois politics as I understand it. The Republican machine under Governor Ryan has pretty much collapsed with Governor Ryan's conviction and current residence in prison. The Democratic machines are the Mayor Daley machine and the anti-Daley machine (for lack of a better name). Obama is from this second faction. Everything here is corrupt from top to bottom. Republican/Democrat. It doesn't matter. That is just Illinois and especially Chicago politics. The only good thing is that the two factions are fighting now and the Democratic Governor is a complete moron.

You do not want any Illinois politician anywhere near the White House. They only know how to do politics one way. Win at any cost and the tax money is mine to use for myself and there is no limit to how much I will tax you to get what I want. If you want to do business with my government you are going to have to pay to play. This might be direct campaign contributions, "donations" to the my pet $500M park or other pet projects, etc. They don't want money, they want power. You are not going to find $90k in cold cash in Obama's freezer. He has his $1.5M Hyde Park home and a few million in the bank from bad books. Now he wants power and lots of it. That is Chicago politics that Obama rose up through to where he is today.

What is scary is none of this bothers the long-time residences. This is just how everybody does business. It's like I image it to be in some 3rd world dictatorship.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby brownlou » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:48 pm

Spinner---
Sorry, I didn't realize that it was easier to make an anti-Obama list then to make a list of Bush's positive accomplishments.

Damn, I thought I would learn something new today....oh well.

I don't think a fellow defending Bush's record should be bringing judges into the equation. It just weakens your position is all I am saying.
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:03 pm

You do know Bush is not running for election. We have two choices Either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. You are stuck in the past. We need to look in the future.

Why should I fall for the red herring and waste my time coming up with a list of major achievements. I have provided many over various debates with dude.

Liberation of millions of people is irrelevant.

Reducing the tax rate on every tax payer is just a give away to the rich.

Keeping a sound economy through the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history on the heels of the internet bubble bursting and the accounting bubble bursting and now maintaining a positive growth rate through the bursting of the housing bubble doesn't matter.

Through all of it the average unemployment rates have remained lower than the average for any of the last 3 decades.

Libya's nuclear weapon program is currently residing in the U.S.

North Korea is pretty well in a box.

Appointing two great Supreme Court Justices (although that definitely required arm twisting).

That's just a tiny fraction of meaningless things that just happened to have occurred while Cheney ran the country.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:43 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:You do know Bush is not running for election. We have two choices Either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. You are stuck in the past. We need to look in the future..
Whoa whoa whoa. If we need to look forward (and I agree with that) why do bring up Clinton so often?

SpinnerMan wrote:Why should I fall for the red herring and waste my time coming up with a list of major achievements. I have provided many over various debates with dude.

Liberation of millions of people is irrelevant..
compiling a list of positive Bush accomplishments is hard to accomplish. I understand that.

Bush hasn't freed anyone. That distinction goes to our troops. If Bush had givine it any thought he could have freed them and provided them with enough safety to get their feet under them. but we know what actually happened, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. poor planning and follow through... he get no credit for anything as neither story is complete yet, only made worse. that's his legacy.

SpinnerMan wrote:Reducing the tax rate on every tax payer is just a give away to the rich...
false spin, spinner...

SpinnerMan wrote:Keeping a sound economy through the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history on the heels of the internet bubble bursting and the accounting bubble bursting and now maintaining a positive growth rate through the bursting of the housing bubble doesn't matter.

Through all of it the average unemployment rates have remained lower than the average for any of the last 3 decades...
business cycles are what they are and it has taken some time for Bush's "medecine" to finally begin to kill the patient. What did Greenspan say just yesterday about Bush's policies? Wasn't flattering.

SpinnerMan wrote:Libya's nuclear weapon program is currently residing in the U.S.

North Korea is pretty well in a box.

Appointing two great Supreme Court Justices (although that definitely required arm twisting).

That's just a tiny fraction of meaningless things that just happened to have occurred while Cheney ran the country.


Well I think I ws theone who said we had Saddam in a box, didn't need to go to war and had unfinished business in Afghanistan. but I'll accept the flattery. And thatnks for admitting it was Cheney all along. The boy dunderhead didin't have the smarts or the kahoneys to do anything let alone finish his air guard service.

2 grreat supremes? don't you mean 2 judicial activists with ultra-conservative predilictions?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby brownlou » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:13 pm

on unemployment
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO ... NS14000000

on economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/busin ... f=business

on Libya and North Korea...which is joint effort with UN (yes I used those nasty initials..lol) and other countries...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... uclear.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... uclear.htm

on the freeing millions of people.......that is a can of worms that I am staying away from.

Yes, I know Bush isn't running.
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:25 pm

This is why it was a pure red herring and I knew dude would not concede a single point.

SpinnerMan wrote:Reducing the tax rate on every tax payer is just a give away to the rich...

dudejcb wrote:false spin, spinner...


He reduce the tax rate in every single bracket. This is an indisputable fact. Even something as completely simple as that is "not true" in your book.


SpinnerMan wrote:Through all of it the average unemployment rates have remained lower than the average for any of the last 3 decades...


brownlou, apparently doesn't know what the word average is or is just providing random noise.

Data from his link

Image
As you can clearly see the average unemployment under Bush has been lower than it has been over the last couple decades and is in the very normal range.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby brownlou » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:06 pm

See Spinner, I know you are a smart guy. I missed that average in your post. Good for you! Bravo!!
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby jaysweet3 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:39 pm

There is only one reason for anyone to vote for Obama in this election. That reason is that they strictly vote for the Democratic party. Straight down the party line and not for the best candidate.

Time and time again, we have given the point and follow up, on the who, what, and why McCain is a better choice. But you guys keep coming back with Bush, Bush, Bush. And don't give me that lame rhetoric that McCain is another 4 years of Bush policies.

When asked why to vote for Obama, one of you guys said, someone read one of his books and they said it sounded really neat. Give me a break. I live in his home state. He has done nothing in his short and unremarkable career. You guys backed the wrong horse coming out of the primaries. Look at you now...
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:09 am

brownlou wrote:See Spinner, I know you are a smart guy. I missed that average in your post. Good for you! Bravo!!
Sorry, if I came across a little too harsh. I try to choose my words carefully. It's a bit of a pet-peeve when somebody feels the need to respond to a specific point, but doesn't read it carefully. I'm sure I do it to, and try to appologize when I screw up. This is also why Obama drives me nuts because he says literally nothing in his statements. He chooses his prepared words very carefully so they sound good, but mean nothing. That's what you would expect from a top-level Harvard Law Student.

For example, he ripped on McCain for saying the economy is fundamentally sound. The economy is "fundamentally" sound. The logical interpretation of Obama's attack ad would be that he believes the economy is fundamentally unsound, but he would never ever say that. So he carefully plays on people's fear without actually saying something that he would be forced to defend. If the economy is fundamentally unsound, then he would have to propose fundamental changes to the economy. This would scare people far worse than the current turmoil caused by the bursting of the latest economic bubble.

Bubbles have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the economy and Obama should know this. Although I'm not sure that he does. It's nearly impossible to see how any President will prevent the next bubble. Although if they do, it's much like preventing a terrorist attack. There is usually no real proof. However, when the bubble bursts they send shockwaves through the economy that cause a lot of damage that must be repaired. It's much like a Hurricane. It destroys a lot in the local area (sector where the bubble bursts) that will be mostly rebuilt and patched up pretty quickly unless the government screws it up (New Orleans) and it has ripples through the rest of the country (higher gas prices, higher unemployment, lower stock prices, etc.).

Each bubble that burst does not identify fundamental changes to the economy, but it may indicate fundamental changes to the particular sector. However, you have to identify the root cause. Large loans to poor credit risks was a stupid idea :eek: Bubbles lead to such stupid and illogical behavior that seemed fullproof to the people in the bubble, which always includes a lot of people that should have known better. But that's what makes it a bubble. I firmly believe that bubbles will be more frequent in the internet age, because they are based on bad information permeating through the entire mainstream. The faster we can spread information, the quicker we can build bubbles. That is just going to be part of the internet age. Nothing is 100% positive.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SpinnerMan and 3 guests