darin3 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I believe they were talking about Bushs' approval rating after his first year in office, not when he left. In that case, who really gives a rat's ass? I mean, really. But from what caddyman has been spewing, one can never tell... he's talking about this all-time low approval rating, blah blah blah. Completely moot and unsubstantial statistic, if you ask me. It's been a difficult year for (most) everyone. It's easiest to point to the leader(s) when things are going bad. I'm personally giving the guy at least another year to instill some "hope and change". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 It's been a difficult year for (most) everyone. It's easiest to point to the leader(s) when things are going bad. I'm personally giving the guy at least another year to instill some "hope and change". +1 We're all giving him at least three more years. It's completely unrealistic to expect him to have come in at the depth of the worst recession in 70 years, wave a magic wand and presto! all is suddenly bunnies and rainbows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You might not be getting an answer because there is usually very little substantive about your posts other than your ingrained "poor me, I'm a victim" rants, therefore most people skip over them automatically. Dismissing your lame attempt to engage in a cat fight by spitting at me like a kid at recess, let's pretend for a second any of that even makes sense. Well wait, let's not, since it doesn't. I'm not a victim and make no such insinuations. Since you appear to be a bit slow, I'll go slower. I was only implying - in fact, I'm saying it - that Obama got elected on form vs substance (let's pretend that wasn't obvious all along), but more to the point, did not deserve this award and likely got it for similar reasons. Ironically, you apparently agree with me on the latter at least - albeit in a very apologistic, weasel-y Obama-like way, ie "an award in hope and anticipation rather than an award in retrospect." Ah yes, the Obama battle cry: Hope! Change! Blah! As already stated, talk is cheap. Silly me, I thought you got this award for actually doing something, not because people HOPED you would do something. But I guess that's not a "substantive" viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Kinda disagree here. I think the point most people are trying to make is that Obama has this persona that everything he does is great. This persona started with his great speeches and he has been praised as this incredible leader. The fact he got a premature award like this kind of shows that message/personna is still there. He can't seem to do anything wrong in the eyes of the left. Most righties just want some of the nuthuggers to actually come out and say what this great leader has actually done to help this country without using excuses of how bad it was and without saying he is a great speaker. What has he actually done???? Give him credit for adding more troops to Afghanistan and if that or he had anything to do with killing the #2 Al Quaida dude I give him that one also. So what else is there. Time to stop hiding behind the excuses of what the past was and how charismatic he is and start to actually DO something. Oh you're just a hater, you think you're a victim, blah blah blah Nice try but give it up. The Obama nutsack lickers are too busy putting their fingers in their ears going "I CANT HEAR YOU NANANA" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 It's been a difficult year for (most) everyone. It's easiest to point to the leader(s) when things are going bad. I'm personally giving the guy at least another year to instill some "hope and change". No argument there. He inherited quite the mess. I think the overall point (mine at least) was simply give credit WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. He has earned little so far, not that that's all his fault by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Beer . . . I severely doubt you find anyone that thinks Obama deserves the Nobel prize. Including Obama. He didnt earn the Nobel. This just proves you cant trust Norweigians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Dismissing your lame attempt to engage in a cat fight by spitting at me like a kid at recess, let's pretend for a second any of that even makes sense. Well wait, let's not, since it doesn't. I'm not a victim and make no such insinuations. Since you appear to be a bit slow, I'll go slower. I was only implying - in fact, I'm saying it - that Obama got elected on form vs substance (let's pretend that wasn't obvious all along), but more to the point, did not deserve this award and likely got it for similar reasons. Ironically, you apparently agree with me on the latter at least - albeit in a very apologistic, weasel-y Obama-like way, ie "an award in hope and anticipation rather than an award in retrospect." Ah yes, the Obama battle cry: Hope! Change! Blah! As already stated, talk is cheap. Silly me, I thought you got this award for actually doing something, not because people HOPED you would do something. But I guess that's not a "substantive" viewpoint. Well, he did keep Sarah Palin one melanoma away from the Presidency. That's GOT to be worth something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Well, he did keep Sarah Palin one melanoma away from the Presidency. That's GOT to be worth something. Is it worth $787 Billion, and deficits as far as the eye cans see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Is it worth $787 Billion, and deficits as far as the eye cans see? Yes. Every cent. I'd rather go bankrupt than have that educationally subnormal lunatic anywhere within 50 miles of a nuclear button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Is it worth $787 Billion, and deficits as far as the eye cans see? I am suuure McCain wouldnt have done anything at all . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes. Every cent. I'd rather go bankrupt than have that educationally subnormal lunatic anywhere within 50 miles of a nuclear button. What happened to the rational Ursa we used to know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I am suuure McCain wouldnt have done anything at all . . . McCain was the lesser of two evils but he would have been almost as bad. Bad is bad it is time some here admit that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 What happened to the rational Ursa we used to know? What ever happened to the rational perchedoncheney'spener....oh nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 What happened to the rational Ursa we used to know? I'm dead serious. She is certifiable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Is it worth $787 Billion, and deficits as far as the eye cans see? This isn't even the accurate number anymore, since: 1. Banks have made a killing investing it, and many have announced they will be paying it back in short order to the tune of $200+B. 2. GM announced they will being paying their share back starting next quarter. 3. Much of the original amount was never dispersed. Now, if you want a real $700B number that crushed our economy, then google the to-date cost of the war in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The point is that it is the lowest EVER for anyone at this point. You keep your head in the sand buddy. Good luck with that. I see referring to G Dubb hit a nerve. His final approval rating was 22%, yet during his first year it was 80something%. So really this is just a waste of everyone's time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 but I'll be damned if I'm going to let you ditto-heads pimp false data. Are you ready for a full time job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 This isn't even the accurate number anymore, since: 1. Banks have made a killing investing it, and many have announced they will be paying it back in short order to the tune of $200+B. 2. GM announced they will being paying their share back starting next quarter. 3. Much of the original amount was never dispersed. Now, if you want a real $700B number that crushed our economy, then google the to-date cost of the war in Iraq. Y'know I read about how the banks are doing everything they can to pay back the cash ASAP so they can give bonuses out, and coupled with the non-dispersed amount, I cant believe that perch (and others) keep harping on the amount of the stimulus while ignoring the cost of the "quest to finish daddy's war" in Iraq. Kinda sad really . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Y'know I read about how the banks are doing everything they can to pay back the cash ASAP so they can give bonuses out, and coupled with the non-dispersed amount, I cant believe that perch (and others) keep harping on the amount of the stimulus while ignoring the cost of the "quest to finish daddy's war" in Iraq. Kinda sad really . . . . There was bipartisan support for the war, go back and look at the vote for it versus the way the stimulus was rammed down our throats. Also, TARP and the stimulus are two separate things. Paying back the TARP funds in no way reduces the size of the stimulus which costs more than a 6 year war that had bipartisan support at the time we went in. Kind of sad really.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 There was bipartisan support for the war, go back and look at the vote for it versus the way the stimulus was rammed down our throats. Also, TARP and the stimulus are two separate things. Paying back the TARP funds in no way reduces the size of the stimulus which costs more than a 6 year war that had bipartisan support at the time we went in. Kind of sad really.... "Saddam has WMDs! He is going to attack us! We need to invade!!" Congress . . ."really? You are sure about this?Well . . OK if you are convinced that Iraq has these weapons, then I guess we can legally vacate the UN resolution that prohibits this . . . . are you REALLY sure George? Cause this IS a big deal . . " "Yep! darn tootin'! We need to invade right away!" Congress . . "Well, some of us think you are full of it . . . but if you are confident that the US is in danger from Iraqi WMDs, then we will agree." Cut to later when the 2 trailers were found to be nothing and Saddam has absolutely no WMDs at all and no Al-Qeada connections "But . . but . . but . . the Iraq people crave freedom and democracy! THAT is why we are there! You must hate America and our troops if you dont support the war!!" -last administartion (Most of the rational world) You have GOT to be freakin kidding me . . . . . Good call Perch!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Paying back the TARP funds in no way reduces the size of the stimulus Say what now? Are you saying that if the gubment lends $100b in TARP and gets paid back $70b, that doesn't reduce the size of the loss? Doesn't it reduce it by 70%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) Say what now? Are you saying that if the gubment lends $100b in TARP and gets paid back $70b, that doesn't reduce the size of the loss? Doesn't it reduce it by 70%? Perch is right. And this is a VERY important distinction to make: TARP and the stimulus are two ENTIRELY different things. TARP was intended to save the financial system from basically completely imploding... and it worked. The stimulus was intended to save the overall economy from a much more severe recession than what has transpired... and it has, and is continuing, to work. Edited December 12, 2009 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Perch is right. And this is a VERY important distinction to make: TARP and the stimulus are two ENTIRELY different things. Aside from the fact they're both pools of government money, you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.