|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Mitt /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1392231452 Message started by WebsterMark on 02/12/14 at 10:57:32 |
|
Title: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/12/14 at 10:57:32 just finished the Netflix movie Mitt about the two Presidential election he was in and I'm freaking pissed..... When you see behind the scenes footage of how Romney really is ..... it's depressing to think we're stuck with this POS Obama for another 3 years...... After the 5 years we've suffered through him and all his lies etc... when you go back and see footage of his BS when he was running for election, it's unbelievable to think anyone voted for him. Now that we know everything he said he was going to do, he in fact did and those things were the disasters most of us figured they would be..... it's maddening. The gap of competence between the two men is like standing on one side of the Grand Canyon and looking over to the other. And now I see the media building the same line of BS around Hilary. Whoever the Republicans put up will be made out to be something he isn't. We always have to beat our opponent and the media. We've got to find a way however or the USA is completely f'd if we have to go through what amounts to Obama #3 and perhaps #4 with Hilary. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/12/14 at 11:00:43 Bubs will run a lame horse,, someone everyone hates. Hillary wins |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 02/12/14 at 14:26:34 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-arrogance-of-mitt/283725/ |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/12/14 at 15:02:40 That was a stupid and shallow review. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Dane Allen on 02/12/14 at 15:56:13 704245545342556A46554C270 wrote:
That is how a smear works. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/12/14 at 16:21:02 ? it was a stupid review. Did you read it? Look, bottom line is since Hopey's been President, every major economic indicator has gotten worse. He's having to pick and choose what parts of obamacare to implement because, as anyone with a brain knew ahead of time, it had no prayer of working. There is ZERO chance Romeny would have done worse and a good bet we'd be much better off. It just makes me sick to death we have to live through the worst presidency in our history...... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 02/12/14 at 17:51:54 4C7E79686F7E69567A69701B0 wrote:
Web... I'm not gonna' argue,.. particularity with someone that makes up their own facts... ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/05/16/economically-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/2/ - Today this measure of how people feel about the country is still nowhere near 2000 levels, but it is almost 3 times better than 4 years ago. -Forbes - Today the Congressional Budget Office is reporting a $200B decrease in the deficit almost entirely due to increased revenue from a growing economy and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity. -Forbes http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-bush-vs-obama/ G.W. Bush - negative 3.5 percent annually Obama - positive 20.1 percent annually Fact: The US stock market performed better under Obama than G.W. Bush by a staggering 23.6 percentage points a year. Unemployment is down... Housing prices are coming back up... The DOW is around 16,000 today... higher than ever... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/31/962053/-Just-the-facts-please-Stock-performance-under-Clinton-Bush-and-Obama http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/191280/q1_2011_djia_wjc_gwb_bho.png If we had Mittwitt in office,... we would be continuing the decline of the Bush admin... Game set and match to Obama... I'm done here... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/12/14 at 19:05:57 Oh sew.... You're smarter than that. You know you're cherry picking stats....unemployment's lower cause people have stopped looking and dropped out, lowering the percentage, you know that. No one can possibly say the economy is better with Obama. Come on now.... Be serious. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 02/12/14 at 22:06:00 Oh Web,.. I'm precisely as smart as I am... If you see a DOW at 16,000, lower unemployment, higher consumer confidence, better home sales, and lowering deficit, as tragedy... you need a reality check... I honestly can't find a negative indicator... do you care to cherry pic one?... I've just covered the stocks, employment, homes, deficit, and consumer confidence... What's left?... What indicator ?... You just said,... "every major indicator"... you said that... Is a 16,000 stock market, a negative?... Is higher consumer confidence?... IS there anything to support your already defunct conclusion?... You're bias is pitiful... Fox driven pitiful... The numbers say different... every measure... Obama has turned this around... It hasn't reached the levels that Clinton did,... but he started in a much shallower hole.... ..and,.. if you take these numbers as a percentage increase,.. it is actually better than the Clinton years in most areas... Bush created "negative growth"... an Orwellian term for decline... (a term his father created)... Web... (you say "you're smarter than that" to me)... but really,... are you?... Hate Obama if you must,... but, call a spade a spade... And that was intentional... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/13/14 at 06:01:22 Two points: For you to say Obama has turned this around is every bit as delusional as jog and 9/11. Now if you stick with me, I'll give you overwhelming evidence to show what everyone already knows, except you perhaps. 2nd point, if you intend to take over the role of our old friend Starlifter and play the race card and call me a racist, then I shout out a hearty FU. Could I not say you were against Herman Cain because he was a black man? Could I not say teddy Kennedy's objections to clearance Thomas was strictly because of his color? I am not a racist anymore than you are, so again screw you if you do that again. Now, do you want to play this game or not? I'm home this week waiting to get my wisdom tooth yanked so I've got time. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 02/13/14 at 06:27:54 497B7C6D6A7B6C537F6C751E0 wrote:
::)... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/13/14 at 06:49:18 is that your 'doesn't matter what you say; i'm still gonna sink to the gutter and call you a racist when you prove me wrong' face or is that your 'bring it on' face? |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/13/14 at 06:53:43 cause i'm not gonna start this if you're gonna pull a JOG and Rat on me.... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 02/13/14 at 08:23:59 That makes 3... 3 vacuous posts doing nothing to support the contention that Obama is an economic disaster... Keep it up... By "pulling a JOG or Rat"... I assume you mean directing the topic away from any indisputable fact that contradicts your conclusion... Such as you are pulling right now... You're pulling a Webster... ;D... Diverting the topic from the Obama economy, to my smiley face... The stock market. employment, consumer confidence, housing, deficit... All facts... Take another look at the chart above... It ends at 2011... it's continued up since then... You're not going to start this,.. because you have no place to start... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/13/14 at 08:44:44 Okay, you asked for it. Game on. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 02/13/14 at 09:16:01 That makes 4... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 02/13/14 at 09:27:40 The number of part time workers has skyrocketed to a high of 20.1% in Jan 2010, has come down slightly since then, but will leap upwards when Obamacare is implemented even further. Growing part time workers are devastating to a nation’s economics as it sets up even more government assistance funded by more borrowing which further weakens the economy and continues the cycle. Part of the part time growth has been a Obamacare no doubt, but the other part is a fear of hiring full time workers because confidence is not there. That is the exact reason our CEO said why he was hesitant to hire in a couple of areas, because he has no confidence right now. (note: a word of caution; on one hand you can’t blame evil corporates who are so selfish they would sell their mother’s for a buck and on the other hand say they are purposely trying to make Obama look bad. You can only use one of those arguments) The U.S. labor force is still shrinking rapidly. Back in 2007, 66 percent of Americans had a job or were actively seeking work. Today, that number is at 62.8 percent — the lowest level since 1977: The unemployment number is misleading, the real number the participation rate. Gee; who was President in 1977?..... In January 2005 at the end of Bush’s first term, 25 million people rec’d food stamps, up from 17 million when he took office. When he left, it was at 32 million. Today under Obama, it’s 47 million. Again, that’s a reflection of so many not even looking for a job and so many only on part time which is only going to grow higher thanks to Obamacare. In one half the time, Obama has matched this number. Here’s an interesting number; During President Bush’s first term, the average duration of unemployment was 17 weeks. During President Obama’s first term, the average duration of unemployment was 34 weeks. Another one: DEBT - At the end of President Bush’s first term the U.S. national debt was 64 percent of gross national product. The U.S. national debt was $7.6 trillion or roughly $26,000 per person. At the end of President Obama’s first term in office the U.S. national debt was more than 100 percent of gross domestic product. The U.S. national debt was more than $16.4 trillion, more than $52,000 per person. So before we go back and forth, pick one topic and we’ll beat it to death. And yes, this is where I keep you from pulling a Jog/Rat and bounce all over the place. Pick one. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Dane Allen on 02/18/14 at 10:37:56 In addition, Mitt would never let 4 Americans die in Benghazi and play it off for politics to win an election!! Sadly, Obama is representative of the people who elected him and of our country as a whole. Integrity, honesty, patriotism, charity, ethics and character do not matter anymore. Obama is just the oozing sores symptom of a much larger problem, our morals held as a society are gone. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Trippah on 02/22/14 at 20:02:29 Mitt almost single handedly destroyed Massachusetts, letting the University system fall into disrepair (cause he believed that if you were worthy of college, your Mom and Dad should pay, (or the university alumnae etc) not the government. He signed the Mass health care to all not because he wanted to but because the Senate President told him if he vetoed it the veto would be over ridden, and to Mitt, not appearing in charge is worse than signing off on something he was against. He would do anything to get elected..and the Clintons are pro business pseudo Deomcrats and Hillary has already shown she would sacrifice a few government workers rather than look out of touch (Yes, she and Mitt are both delusional...or in fact simply aware that power is the goal of politics). :) |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by pgambr on 02/22/14 at 23:02:01 To-ma-to To-mat-o Dems Pubs Gambino Bonanno None of them work for us any longer. Just the PTB and the people who help put them in office. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by thumperclone on 03/11/14 at 11:30:39 the deficit is half of what it was when bush left |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 03/11/14 at 12:27:03 46636C67436E6E676C020 wrote:
Oh, cumon'!... Bush wasted a trillion dollars, and 5,000 US lives going after a guy he knew had nothing to do with 9/11... then realized he had no exit strategy, because none was possible... ...and you are in a in uproar over 4 lives?... It is a shame, but there is no comparison... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/14 at 14:36:09 Sew, you are exhibiting signs of BDS….. Bush Derangement Syndrome. The topic was Mitt vs Obama, not sure how Bush got dragged into it. That would be like me bringing Clinton into it. Now, if you want to make a case what you think Mitt would have done, have at it, but leave Bush out of it. As far as a trillion spent in 5 years, Obama spent a trillion in one year which was known as the stimulus. If Obama can claim a positive economic impact by giving money away to union laborers in key swing states during an election year to dig holes and fill them back up with dirt again, certainly you shouldn’t discount the advantage of military spending on the economy. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 03/11/14 at 15:51:03 Mitt, would have been Bush III... (and the first two went so well)... :-/... A large very part of the stimulus money was paid paid back, some even brought a profit... ...and spending on stimulus beats spending on killing, any day... BDS my A$$... don't try to be cute... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/14 at 18:33:22 and Obama is Carter II&III...... My point still stands. Bush was not part of this topic. You brought him into this as cover for Obama's failings. I don't blame you, I would too if I were you. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/14 at 18:34:43 by the way Sew, I was in Phoenix last week and almost got stuck an extra day. If I had, I was gonna rent a car and drive to Tucson to visit you. I still say we would share a beer and have a decent time together. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by verslagen1 on 03/12/14 at 09:00:41 465A475F425740515E5D5C57320 wrote:
You meant twice of when bush left... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/FederalDebt1940to2012.svg/665px-FederalDebt1940to2012.svg.png |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/12/14 at 10:34:28 The question is Would Mitt have sucked as bad? Well,, NO,, Mitt wouldnt have had the idiot base supporting his every move. The "Moves" arent really HIS,, theyre the direction the elite want. Mitt couldnt have accomplished for them what Bammy could. Neither could Hillary. THATS why she was told to stand down by the elites at the B/Berg meeting they went to when the media was held captive on a plane. The voice of the people IS NOT & HAS Not been heard in DC since before I became politically aware at age 12, 47 years ago. JFK was wrongly believing HE was the President & paid for it, I believe Reagan also had decided HE was gonna be a real President, & was shown how bad that could be for his health,, We have our presidents selected for us. The options are limited to assholes who are owned & operated by interests that conflict with the best interests of the People. The media is used to teach people that the ones who would benefit the People are crazy.. A La Ron Paul,, Had he been elected, he would have been killed or somehow destroyed & made a gelding of. TPTB are losing, tho.. the tide is turning. The People are waking up. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Dane Allen on 03/12/14 at 12:15:31 1305120F17020F14600 wrote:
Do you mean TARP? The stimulus as I understand it has been about a trillion a year, 70% of it is direct transfer payments to keep libs in power. We lost about 10 billion on the government motors bailouts for unions. Out debt has gone up over a trillion per year to prevent nature from taking its course, a market correction that would get the country back on the road to financial health. Things have not changed since Frank/Dodd finacnial fiasco that caused this whole mess in the first place. There is a lot of movement in various markets but our debt has skyrockets, unfunded liabilities have skyrocketed and unemployment and labor participation dropout have skyrocketed. We are at about 37% unemployment and the only reason nothing has gotten any better is the flood of cash to the masses to hide the problem. Libs live for today and spend like there is no tomorow. >:( |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/12/14 at 12:17:54 I like this guys numbers,, not sure he isnt being conservative,, http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by pgambr on 03/12/14 at 14:32:35 534C4A4D50576656665E4C400B390 wrote:
I may be incorrect but, aren't JFK & RR the only two presidents to publicly speak against the secret societies (TPTB) later to be shot? |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 03/12/14 at 15:46:50 I Oswald and Hinkley were Bilderberg's, I'll go buy a hat and eat it... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/12/14 at 18:20:09 No one is implying they were. Oswald never fired a shot,,Hinkley? The how & why of that guy doing what he did wont be known,, Odd the connection between Bush & his dad, tho, innitt? |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by pgambr on 03/12/14 at 18:57:21 I do not contend the members of the secret societies come together and decide the world’s fate. I believe they work together as individuals in an effort to consolidate power and wealth for one another. In this process the political platforms are molded and shaped while they act in concert with one another. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/14 at 19:50:09 455254585747350 wrote:
99% correct. 1% deduction for saying they work to increase wealth and power for one another when it's actually they work only for themselves and only involve others when doing so is the best path to achieving a goal. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/14 at 19:53:35 796660677A7D4C7C4C74666A21130 wrote:
Nope, not odd at all. I was at a food conference this week. All the major food companies were there. They talk, had dinner, a few cocktails, played golf. The leaders of these companies know each other same as leaders in the oil business know each other. It would be odd if they didn't...... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by pgambr on 03/12/14 at 20:14:16 Quote:
That is a much better way to articulate how they interact. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 03/13/14 at 00:35:58 People constantly find conspiracy in mutual interest... Rich people are powerful... and they have rich and powerful friends... And they will use their wealth and power to their benefit... That ain't conspiracy... ... or at least not any plot that any fool couldn't see a mile away... If I like cookies and you like cookies,.. we gonna' go look for some cookies... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by North Country on 03/28/14 at 19:03:26 It is amazing how Mr. Mark and a couple of other good people here can ignore facts that are true, and struggle to present what they know is not true as facts. Is this a “tea party” thread of some kind? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/29/14 at 06:57:28 Yea? What facts are those, oh wise one?..... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/29/14 at 07:48:10 Its understandable that the wealthy work in their best interest. Its also obvious that theyve used that $$ & power to corrupt & influence OUR legislative process & created a system that works for them & against the average schmuck. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Serowbot on 03/29/14 at 08:36:30 415E585F42457444744C5E52192B0 wrote:
This is true.... and although it can't ever be stopped,.. it could be reined in... The notion that money equals speech, and that corporations are people must be dispelled... ;)... |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by North Country on 03/29/14 at 11:06:18 Yea? What facts are those, oh wise one?.... Sir, facts cannot be found on FOX news. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/30/14 at 06:49:31 7C74756B6563060 wrote:
Now that was an answer that speaks volumes about you. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/30/14 at 09:06:25 Fox went to court to test the system. They wanted to prove they have a right to lie. Not"Protected if WRONG" But they proved they have the right to make up lies. & theyve done it, too,, Not everything they say is a lie, but enough is that I dont watch..Unless Im just needin a laff.. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by North Country on 03/30/14 at 12:28:37 "Now that was an answer that speaks volumes about you." Sir, it would appear that you would rather cast aspersions than commit to an intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions. Mr.Guy 2, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/30/14 at 20:28:15 Webster... has a potty mouth... His post gets deleted... Serow |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by North Country on 03/30/14 at 21:07:26 You have issues Mr.Mark. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/31/14 at 07:59:16 Well,, sounds to me like Ive discovered your "news source".. you can keep it, Therer is just enough truth allowed out there to keep people coming back. The lies are subtle & constannt, |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/31/14 at 08:17:00 JOG; I read a dozen or more sites regularly. Fox is just one of them and to discount them completely is silly. Like I said, Bengazi would be dead (like those 4 people) without them. No organization is perfect but please don't fall into the simplistic 'Fox Lies' bull$h!t put forth by hard core liberals. Fox is as good a major news organization as there is, but I certainly agree a person needs to supplement and get information from numerous sources. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/31/14 at 08:20:11 4B43425C5254310 wrote:
Yes, my issue is with paper thin parrots like you repeating talking points. I have no desire to deal with another one on this site so show some depth. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/31/14 at 08:38:37 I have a shortwave radio in the shop. If im in there, its on, & I dont get to listen to JUST what I want. I am stuck with some radio hosts that I dont agree with a good bit of the time. I listen to Hannity, Beck, Fox stuff,, BUT, I also get Alex Jones & HE tells whats happening. Now , he gets casrried away sometimes. I have to turn it down & let him rant. But for content, I havent beat his show. He interviews Generals & people who have access to info that youll never see on Fox. I check G Edward Griffins REality Zone every friday, Fox news sells the same pablum that allowed our parents & grandparents to be conned into the spot we are in, Just enough truth to let people know things arent okay, not enough to know whats actually going on,.Fox tell ya about the Bilderbergers? IDK, I dont watch news on TV, hardly ever.& while EVERYBODY was running Michael Jackson, 24 /7 , Nobody ( except Jones) covered the meeting in Florida. Ohh, it wasnt a big deal. Just an 8 foot fence around a luxury hotel, no press, no one allowed in except world leaders..no biggeee.. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by pgambr on 03/31/14 at 08:43:06 Is their an impartial news source? I can't remember an organization for years that is forthright. I along with many of you gather information from several sources. The best thing I did several years ago was unplug the TV and put it in the closet. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by WebsterMark on 03/31/14 at 10:14:44 There’s a very telling story told from years ago. The story goes that at some point in the past, a news division exec told the president of the network he had good news and bad news for him. The good news was the news division turned a profit for the first time. The bad news was the news division turned a profit for the first time. News went from being thought of mostly as a public service to yet another revenue producing activity of a giant corporation. Walter Cronkite became a star, a celebrity and his factually incorrect comments about Vietnam swayed public opinion. Now out of 23 minutes of network news where the majority of the country (voters!) get their information from, a good chunk of that is absolutely worthless, cute little fluff pieces. The real news is too complicated to cover in depth so you get the briefest summary which in the case of the 3 major over the air networks and 2 out of 3 major cable outlets, is heavily slanted to the left. And that is how a failed president got re-elected despite a disastrous first term in which almost (all?) every policy aspects he promised to address had grown worse. |
|
Title: Re: Mitt Post by Dane Allen on 04/01/14 at 11:19:59 676F6E707E781D0 wrote:
In relation to every other "news" network, including Reuters, AP and others, FOX News is about the only one of the group where facts can be found. For me that still isn't enough so I have to go a lot farther in my research. MSNBC, on the other hand, is chicken soup fantasy for the liberal soul. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |