Conquer Club

jbrettlip wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Funny. You know, if American's weren't so fucking stupid, and didn't have a history of violence towards Presidents they don't approve of, and since they had their fair chance at electing a President they wanted, about 1/3 of that cost would be gone, since the security wouldn't have had to be so damn much.

I am sure none of that security has to do with terrorists. Wow your 53 word sentence is truly impressive. I am glad "American's" are so fucking stupid that one that writes like you is going to possibly teach America's (note proper use of apostrophe) high school students English someday.

Oh I don't know... New Labour said something about wanting to stop the teaching brain-drain, didn't they?

KoolBak wrote:What a waste

Sorry, I just thought the first response really summed it up...

Juan_Bottom wrote:And another thing, does anyone else wonder if Cheny was in a wheelchair because of his heart, and not because he strained his back picking up books?

Dick Cheney has a heart?

MeDeFe wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And another thing, does anyone else wonder if Cheny was in a wheelchair because of his heart, and not because he strained his back picking up books?

Dick Cheney has a heart?

I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney has nothing wrong with him, other than the fact that he didn't want to stand for Obama.Cheney is that ruthless and conniving. (and petty, don't forget petty).

Juan_Bottom wrote:^funny


Does anyone else think it's BS of Obama to say "some campaign promises need to be put on hold so that we can focus on the economy. We are all going to have to sacrifice. We are all going to have to do without some things."

And then the bastard has a 170 millon dollar inaugeration? All raised for the super riched and bailed out wall street?
Still no one finds Obama elitist in some way?

And as for the New Deal, I think Obama may be the next Hoover.

Not to get into ancient history, but Hoover's policy of budget cuts to try to avoid the recession which became the Great Depression is the exact opposite of Obama's plans with regards to the recession. Hoover cut government spending, Obama is looking to dramatically increase it in the short term (hopefully) So, Obama may actually end up being worse than Hoover, if this package doesn't work right, but his overall policy and Hoover's economic approach to fighting recession could scarcely be more different.

jbrettlip wrote:
I am sure none of that security has to do with terrorists. Wow your 53 word sentence is truly impressive. I am glad "American's" are so fucking stupid that one that writes like you is going to possibly teach America's (note proper use of apostrophe) high school students English someday.

I'm glad you're so intelligent to know that I said nothing about Terrorists, just fucking stupid, racist, unhappy Americans, that, instead of accepting that Obama has won through a fair Democratic system, but instead, have threatened to kill him. Thanks for looking like an idiot though.

Kotaro wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:
I am sure none of that security has to do with terrorists. Wow your 53 word sentence is truly impressive. I am glad "American's" are so fucking stupid that one that writes like you is going to possibly teach America's (note proper use of apostrophe) high school students English someday.

I'm glad you're so intelligent to know that I said nothing about Terrorists, just fucking stupid, racist, unhappy Americans, that, instead of accepting that Obama has won through a fair Democratic system, but instead, have threatened to kill him. Thanks for looking like an idiot though.

Wow, I do look like an idiot. Let me reword my post for you in Kotaro speak:

Perhaps the resaon there is increased security costs is the same reason it take 30 minutes to clear security at an airport i.e.more screening and closer watch on suspected terrorists (oops, almost used a period there which would have ruined my beautiful run on sentence) not just worrying about death threats which I beleive have been threatened against ALL presidents at one time or another thus showing that it isn't only because Obama won and is black which also kills your theory that all American's (note my incorrect apostrophe, just for you) are not racist nor fucking stupid.

Although you definitely fit into the second category. Please use your 19 or so years of life to tell me how the world should work. Especially since you life experiences consist solely on sucking your mom's teat, playing playstation and listening to university professors that may lean slightly to the left of reality.

In other words, please feel free to go f*ck yourself.

spurgistan wrote:Not to get into ancient history, but Hoover's policy of budget cuts to try to avoid the recession which became the Great Depression is the exact opposite of Obama's plans with regards to the recession. Hoover cut government spending, Obama is looking to dramatically increase it in the short term (hopefully) So, Obama may actually end up being worse than Hoover, if this package doesn't work right, but his overall policy and Hoover's economic approach to fighting recession could scarcely be more different.

I just mean that he is a throw-away one term president.

He also started spending like crazy (something FDR attacked him for in the campaign) toward the end of his term.. 47% increase in federal spending, 20% increase in the National Debt, and by 1932, one of the largest tax increases on corporations sin US history.

Admittedly, that's an over-simplification... to type a full analysis is something too time consuming and it would be too difficult for most of you greased-up internet monkeys to understand anyway, but I'll see of spurgistan or someone picks me up on this and we can see about a debate on Hoover, because he and his policies are quite interesting.

Napoleon Ier wrote:to type a full analysis is something too time consuming and it would be too difficult for most of you greased-up internet monkeys to understand anyway

Of course, as you are far more intelligent and educated than anyone here. How do you stand posting here daily amongst such lower life forms? It must be very hard to climb down off your high horse and ratchet down all that "intelligence" in order to communicate with us.

Backglass wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:to type a full analysis is something too time consuming and it would be too difficult for most of you greased-up internet monkeys to understand anyway

Of course, as you are far more intelligent and educated than anyone here. How do you stand posting here daily amongst such lower life forms? It must be very hard to climb down off your high horse and ratchet down all that "intelligence" in order to communicate with us.

Well, yes Backglass, believe it or not, understanding the dynamics of the Great Depression requires a basic comprehension of monetary policy that isn't something people on this forum have had the willingness to take the time to understand. So any attempt to post a lengthy analysis based on these economic concepts will result in mongoloids like you making a daft throwaway Obama-style comment about Capitalism=fail, have a load of your sidekicks laugh boorishly, then think you've made a serious contribution to discussion.

I'm sure some people here are perfectly well informed and able to debate the matter however, and so I'll wait for them to make themselves known, and we can entertain a serious discussion of economics, without the riff-raff like you getting involved.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:to type a full analysis is something too time consuming and it would be too difficult for most of you greased-up internet monkeys to understand anyway

Of course, as you are far more intelligent and educated than anyone here. How do you stand posting here daily amongst such lower life forms? It must be very hard to climb down off your high horse and ratchet down all that "intelligence" in order to communicate with us.

Well, yes Backglass, believe it or not, understanding the dynamics of the Great Depression requires a basic comprehension of monetary policy that isn't something people on this forum have had the willingness to take the time to understand. So any attempt to post a lengthy analysis based on these economic concepts will result in mongoloids like you making a daft throwaway Obama-style comment about Capitalism=fail, have a load of your sidekicks laugh boorishly, then think you've made a serious contribution to discussion.

I'm sure some people here are perfectly well informed and able to debate the matter however, and so I'll wait for them to make themselves known, and we can entertain a serious discussion of economics, without the riff-raff like you getting involved.

Thank you for making my point. Back up on your horse now, little man!

You really don't have any room to crticize when it comes to being overly self righteous..

I thought this thread was for me and Kotaro to have the one sided battle of wits we were engaged in.I guess since his loss is obvious, he decided to just "deadbeat" the thread. Oh well, good riddance.

Regardless of which group of corrupt politicians is in office, the idea of spending millions of taxpayers dollars on a presidential inauguration is insane. Our political system has been broken for a long time. The last time there was a glimmer of hope was when that nutjob Ross Perot ran for office. He was a complete crazy, but at least the public was willing to vote for a third party. That is what it will take to fix the system... We need a third, maybe a fourth party that will siphon power and influence away from the Republicans and Democrats. More parties would transfer power back to the people.

Alas, we get the government we deserve. It appears that we deserve to have a government by the lobbyists, for the special interests, and of the wealthy that has one hand in our wallets, and the other up their own arses.

Greedy suns-a-beyotches... Politicians suck.

I agree with Andre. How many political parties does Germany have elected to their positions of power? I think it used to be about 15-20 different parties. We have 2 to choose from and the fringe parties are viewed as wackos. (which some are).

LOL It is such a waste of money, and to think Obama froze the white house staff to save a few bucks but cant stop the wastes of 170 million dollar's, that money could have help feed a lot of starving people..

bigdaddyslim2 wrote:LOL It is such a waste of money, and to think Obama froze the white house staff to save a few bucks but cant stop the wastes of 170 million dollar's, that money could have help feed a lot of starving people..

if i remember correctly it comes from a white house fund, so your guns or butter analysis here is fundamentally flawed, as i also believe portions of the money come from donations as well.

I believe nearly all of the 170million came from the private sector, which is why everyone is calling foul. By "private sector" we mean very rich people, and BAILED OUT BANKERS. It's basically a reversal of everything Obama said that he was about.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I believe nearly all of the 170million came from the private sector, which is why everyone is calling foul. By "private sector" we mean very rich people, and BAILED OUT BANKERS. It's basically a reversal of everything Obama said that he was about.

I believe this link shows this claim is inaccurate.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=98442&provider=top

golilox wrote:Its not a depression yet, its a recession.

A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose your own.

Eh, I said "believe" lol.
But I believe that It's still a reversal of what Obama said he is about. "We all ave to sacrifice and tighten our belts." "I'm working for the little guy." <by this last one I'm still calling to attention that bailed out bankers did raise substancial sums for the inauguration.

The1exile wrote:

golilox wrote:Its not a depression yet, its a recession.

A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose your own.

So it is a depression...

I find it odd, that a man who ran on the principal of raising taxes on the rich, has an inauguration paid for by those same people....oh wait, he already dropped that campaign "promise".

Juan_Bottom wrote:

The1exile wrote:

golilox wrote:Its not a depression yet, its a recession.

A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose your own.

So it is a depression...

I think the correct term is "prolonged period of less-than-zero economic growth".

Error.

Any period of more than two quarters of negative GDP growth qualifies as recession. Wrong again, Sturmbannführer MeDeFe.