- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,707
- Reaction score
- 58,410
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Where does the quote you are using to support your argument disprove the point you are arguing? Nothing in your quote makes mention of the GOP, but in fact makes specific mention of POLICY MAKING. Who is making all of the policies that are being blocked? Isn't it Obama's policies that were not effective?
A Standard & Poor’s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default — a position put forth by some Republicans.
Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.
“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”
linkypoo...
The GOP was right to oppose Obama's failed and ineffective bills as they are not in the best interest of the American people as a whole.
It is cool how you tried to use "cherry picking" as an excuse to ignore a fact and then tried to "cherry pick" a different line from the same article that just disproves your point even further. I wish I could learn that trick so I could become a liberal.
Let's see... I tell you about my military service, you bring it up to make a personal slam on me and my service in the USMC.
Stay classy!
You can play coy about it but it was the debt ceiling political gamesmanship they are referring to. That is why and when they downgraded us. As evidenced by the S&P's director:
Yeah... if you call cherry picking choosing a reference to "MOST" versus digging down into the article to find some "oh and this might have been a small part" bit. What was the "MOST" cause of it is rather the relevance of my quote.
He is not slamming your military service, he is slamming your ignorance. Please feel free to explain how his post was in any way a slam to your military service. You just have your panties in a bunch because he didn't automatically bow down to you and kiss your feet just because YOU FEEL you are entitled to a different respect level.
My dad is a Vietnam vet that saw combat for several years. There are 2 very important things my dad taught me (amongst many other things):
1) You don't need special recognition for things that you should just do anyways
2) You need to go out and make your own life happen
Out of curiosity, did you ever see real combat in your military career? Did you ever kill a person?
I call cherry picking the same thing you call it. Picking whichever details you feel support your argument the most while ignoring the rest of them that debunk your argument. A perfect example of this is how you ignored the rest of my comment which points out that the quote you cherry picked also disproved your point. Care to comment on that part as well? How about the part where I pointed out that everything else you were saying was BS? Anything to say about that? Or would you rather we just play a game where we all make comments and then we all cherry pick parts of everyone else's comments and make our own out of context arguments that are all essentially pointless?
First off, I wasn't talking to you and you don't know the background to between his and my conversation on that. You don't know me my friend. I don't expect any extra level of respect than another so you can spare me your trolling life-lecture there.
As far as your dad. Good for him. Although I feel for him because that was some rough **** and he no doubt saw things that he can never unsee which can be tough.
Summing up your post you make comments on me, someone that you know nothing about, make broad idiotic personal slams about as if you did know me and now you want to know more about me and my service? lol... If I thought you had any true interest, easy enough I'd tell you. You played your hand of what you like to do with personal information.
stay classy!
Pick one and we'll discuss it.
this line of bs coming from someone who thinks obama should have been able to fix the mess he inherited within 24 hours of taking office...good grief, the hackery here is simply amazing.
First off, you are in a forum, which means you are talking to all of us. You don't know me which is why we are not friends. Anyone who has to explain their military service is usually doing it for attention.
What you failed to consider in your rant was that just because I don't post and interact with you on a regular basis, does not mean that I have not read your posts and how you interact with other people. If there is another you for us to know, then by all means, why not show us the real you?
The last part of your post was an obvious rant spawned purley out of frustration. I know nothing about what you look like, how you dress or how your voice sounds, but I know the important parts about how you think and your mentality when interacting with other people. Isn't that what really matters? If I dismissed your arguments because I thought you were ugly, then I would be the ignorant one, but I am interacting with the personality that you are displaying on these forums accordingly.
That would be 24 MONTHS, not 24 hours. He's failed miserably. Just when will it be his economy?
That would be 24 MONTHS, not 24 hours. He's failed miserably. Just when will it be his economy?
From a liberal point of view it will be Obama's economy once a repubilcan president is in office and the economy has improved.
My bad. I mistook how tough a guy you were. :lamo
Sorry tough guy.
Way too funny man... Did you actually want to talk about some policies or are you just this infatuated that you want to keep discussing me?
Explain to us what you think a tax break is since it is obvious that you are confused.
Tough guy? You were the one that said I don't know you, yet you call me "friend"? How does me calling you out on that make me some kind of tough guy?
I brought up policies and asked you direct questions which you continue to ignore. You were the one whining and ranting about being personally attacked. My reply to you was very relevant to your comments, but I would not expect any different song and dance from a liberal. How did you expect me to respond to your temper tantrum?
ok... looks like rational debate is out. Looks like we are done here. lol
From a liberal point of view it will be Obama's economy once a repubilcan president is in office and the economy has improved.
If you want to discuss policies, pick one... I'm all for it.
That's weird. I've heard NeoCons say that Reagan caused the economic boom in the 90s.
That's weird. I've heard NeoCons say that Reagan caused the economic boom in the 90s.
By the way, for Conservative, looks like GDP grew again in Q3, this time by 2.5%.
Funny how this started to happen once the GOP regained majority control.
2009q2 -0.7
2009q3 1.7
2009q4 3.8
2010q1 3.9
2010q2 3.8
2010q3 2.5
2010q4 2.3
2011q1 0.4
2011q2 1.3
2011q3 2.5
I'm not confused at all. The definition of tax cut is a reduction in taxes. Over the last 30 years, the tax rates have been reduced for the rich and increased for the middle class.
Right...And I have heard Liberals say that Obama's bad economy is Bush's fault. Since I am neither NeoCon or Libera, do you have anything relevant to say?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?