Conquer Club

Neoteny wrote:

one term.

remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.

Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....

Spock Fail



The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....

Spock Fail



The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.

You don't have any idea what I was referring to, do you?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....

Spock Fail



The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.

You don't have any idea what I was referring to, do you?

I'd say more old M.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....

Spock Fail



The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.

You don't have any idea what I was referring to, do you?

I'd say more old M.

Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

I'd say more old M.

Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.

Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.

Nowadays it's any SEC West team that's decent. (Aubrun is still kinda fun [and you have to say it like that])

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

I'd say more old M.

Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.

Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.

Is this some sort of Star Trek X-Men orchestrated hymns crossover?

MeDeFe wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

I'd say more old M.

Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.

Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.

Is this some sort of Star Trek X-Men orchestrated hymns crossover?

YesLOL

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have). I think some parts of his job creation act were really effective. Other parts, not so much. I disagree with the bailouts, but a Republican president would have done the same thing, so I can't really have a beef with President Obama on that one. I'm kind of disappointed about his lack of action on gay rights and the Patriot Act, but he has time for that stuff. I'd give him a C+ if I were grading him (Bush gets a D, Clinton gets a B-, Bush I gets a B+, Reagan gets an A for point of reference).

TGD, why would you rate Bush with a B+?

His handling of the Panama canal situation was very... blunt, to say the least. That and the Persian Gulf War by not allowing more time for Saudi Arabia to negotiate some kind of arrangement, and basically the poor handling of that war (in the long-term sense of things).

Of course, I'm overlooking domestic issues and some other things, so I'd like for you to enlighten me.

I thought his handling of the Panama Canal was fine. The Persian Gulf War was fine (I don't think long-term we can have it both ways, at least from a consistency in politics perspective - either you were for the Bush I limited war and then you are against the current conflict or you were for a Bush I total war and then you are for the current conflict). I guess I could go B or B-, but he wasn't a bad president, at least not like his son.

MeDeFe wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.

I'd say more old M.

Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.

Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.

Is this some sort of Star Trek X-Men orchestrated hymns crossover?

Only if you're Wolverine or a Vulcan.

A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.

Care to elaborate?

Phatscotty wrote:A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.

Obama, no. The American people, though can and likely will.

Even the tea-partiers in many areas are having to agree that we need to be paying more, not less for certain things, like schools and health care. Folks are realizing that the REAL dupe was the Republicans who wanted nothing more than a big insurance industry wave.

thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have). I think some parts of his job creation act were really effective. Other parts, not so much. I disagree with the bailouts, but a Republican president would have done the same thing, so I can't really have a beef with President Obama on that one. I'm kind of disappointed about his lack of action on gay rights and the Patriot Act, but he has time for that stuff. I'd give him a C+ if I were grading him (Bush gets a D, Clinton gets a B-, Bush I gets a B+, Reagan gets an A for point of reference).

Reagan and Bush Sr. both better then Clinton? Clinton had the highest approval rating at the end of his term (even with the hugely overblown Lewinski thing) out of all the presidents post-war. Never mind getting into actual policy or legacy but I don't see how you can rate both of them (Bushalso being only a 1 termer) above him by some margin.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.

Obama, no. The American people, though can and likely will.

Even the tea-partiers in many areas are having to agree that we need to be paying more, not less for certain things, like schools and health care. Folks are realizing that the REAL dupe was the Republicans who wanted nothing more than a big insurance industry wave.

because Player knows the tea party so well....

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....

what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.

Obama, no. The American people, though can and likely will.

Even the tea-partiers in many areas are having to agree that we need to be paying more, not less for certain things, like schools and health care. Folks are realizing that the REAL dupe was the Republicans who wanted nothing more than a big insurance industry wave.

Yes, all I hear at the Tea Parties and in the emails is how we need to pay more for things. That is why we get together Player, to oppose lack of money being spent on things.

We already pay more per child in education than any other country but we clearly need to spend more because it is working like a charm.

You prove Michael Savages famous line quite nicely. "Liberalism is a mental disorder" You truly exist in your own fantasy world.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

What is truly amazing is his claim that things would be worse if he had not done what he did. He has absolutely no proof to back that up and it is pure speculation. He can't even tell us if the money he spend saved or created the jobs but yet he can give us the number of jobs it saved or created. Can someone explain to me how that works? If his dishonestly and diarrhea of the mouth where not so bad and the situation so serious this would be incredibly funny.

From a Social Justice perspective his policies are making the country poorer which means more homeless, more children not getting the food they need, elderly loosing their retirement investments and not being able to go back to work, less money going to charities in 3rd world countries to help the destitute.......and the beat goes on with immigration reform because he does not really care about jobs.

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....

what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?

... It's amazing. "The economy is up" says the Chicago thug, and the networks fall in line. Meanwhile, unemployment rises yet again and foreclosures set a new record.

... I suppose it all depends on one's understanding of the term, "up".

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....

what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?

... It's amazing. "The economy is up" says the Chicago thug, and the networks fall in line. Meanwhile, unemployment rises yet again and foreclosures set a new record.

... I suppose it all depends on one's understanding of the term, "up".

...

The recovery has begun, even though it's obviously hard to tell from driving down Main Street. There has always been a documented gap between when recessions begins ending and a decrease in unemployment numbers. The major thing is that, as companies begin hiring again, discouraged workers begin reentering the labor market, so that even as the population of total unemployed people decreases, the number of unemployed people looking for work increases.

One of these days you guys are gonna run out of kool aid..