America provokes international lols — Totseans

America provokes international lols

VickyVicky Regular
edited September 2010 in Spurious Generalities
So first of the release of Megrahi the alleged Lockerbie bomber released by Scotland.

America want this terminally ill man put back in prison because he didn't die quick enough. Don't they realise he was released under the condition that he didn't appeal. If he did he would have probably won looking at the shaky evidence. Highlights the arrogance of American government that they think they can lord it over other countries. They also went on to accuse BP of being involved in the release. BP is 50% American owned.
Source

America protests against Iran firing up their nuclear reactor. Even though they have the right to have a civilian power plant and have allowed inspectors in. Contrary to America's ally Israel who has Nuclear Weapons but refuses to let the inspectors in. The double standards are incredible and make America look even more stupid. Also, these plants are protected by Russia so we all know that any complaints against this is just posturing.

America sends rotten food as food aid to Somalia, militants burn it. There are pictures showing the wheat as clumpy and mouldy.

America gets the "Merchant of Death". The world's biggest arms dealer is putting on trial the world's most prolific arms dealer. He must have been cutting into there profits.

A clear message is sent out to the world that America is against Islam, or at least intolerant of muslims. This is what Bin Laden claimed of America, and it seems he has been proved right.
Source

All those millions of barrels of oil that dissapeared. Looks like they lied about that one. "650ft high oil plume found"
Source

That guantanamo bay is still open too, bit hypocritical for an administration that condemns the extremists torturing people
Source


Now this isn't a personal attack on any Americans, I'm just showing how you're country is coming across in the media. It seems to be one embarassment after another. America is steadily becoming a laughing stock.

Do the majority of Americans agree with these things. The stance of Al Megrahi? Guantanamo?

Comments

  • StephenPBarrettStephenPBarrett Adviser
    edited August 2010
    Last I checked Obama has one of those plans of his which seem to take forever to shut down Guantanamo. Most of us don't know how we look to other countries and frankly don't care. I watch news from other countries though because there are always stories I can't get otherwise and its always interesting to see things from some other media's perspective. We are a pretty fucked up nation but we're mostly free.
  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    Mostly free if you are white.
  • StephenPBarrettStephenPBarrett Adviser
    edited August 2010
    If you're white and you dress like a "normal" person, whatever that is.
  • edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »

    America protests against Iran firing up their nuclear reactor. Even though they have the right to have a civilian power plant and have allowed inspectors in. Contrary to America's ally Israel who has Nuclear Weapons but refuses to let the inspectors in. The double standards are incredible and make America look even more stupid. Also, these plants are protected by Russia so we all know that any complaints against this is just posturing.

    Not only that, we have Israeli propaganda and shills on TV every day lying and trying to convince people that (contrary to every intelligence agency in America and abroad (Except Israel's lol)) Iran is building nuclear weapons with which to threaten the U.S..
  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    Not only that, we have Israeli propaganda and shills on TV every day lying and trying to convince people that (contrary to every intelligence agency in America and abroad (Except Israel's lol)) Iran is building nuclear weapons with which to threaten the U.S..

    There is a good thread on this down the page a little

    http://totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?t=2997

    Some other semi-relevant stuff

    US officials wrap up eight-nation tour on Iran sanctions

    Ahmadinejad warns against Iran attack

    Meantime, the former U.S. representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, told Fox News that Israel has until August 21 to attack the Bushehr facility. He said after that point there is too high a risk of spreading radiation. Bolton added that he does not think it is very likely Israel will actually launch an attack in the next week.
  • Panic!Panic! Regular
    edited August 2010
    I live in america and I have also noticed how ridiculous things are getting. I mean come on, we elected a nigger for president
  • edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »

    I'm worried about this Iran/Israeli shit.

    I don't know what real benefit there is for Israel in attacking Iran, but they seem really into the idea. Why aren't other countries stepping up and telling news organizations that what is going on is horseshit? Why hasn't the Russian government, for example, sent someone to explain to CNN or NBC that this is nonsense, and that Iran is not building nuclear weapons?

    Also, of course Israel won't attack before or on the 21st. If they did that, there wouldn't be radioactive shit sprayed and scattered all over the Iranian countryside.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited August 2010
    It doesn't matter what Americans think, because we have no control over the system. The president and congress do whatever the fuck they want. Whenever we vote in new people, they do the same shit the old ones did. Obama was supposed to close guantanamo. Instead of just fucking doing it, it's been almost 2 years and nothing has been done.
  • edited August 2010
    fanglekai wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what Americans think, because we have no control over the system. The president and congress do whatever the fuck they want. Whenever we vote in new people, they do the same shit the old ones did. Obama was supposed to close guantanamo. Instead of just fucking doing it, it's been almost 2 years and nothing has been done.

    I noticed that after Obama was elected, much of the public turned strongly against many of the things that he campaigned on and promised to do.
  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    I'm worried about this Iran/Israeli shit.

    I don't know what real benefit there is for Israel in attacking Iran, but they seem really into the idea. Why aren't other countries stepping up and telling news organizations that what is going on is horseshit? Why hasn't the Russian government, for example, sent someone to explain to CNN or NBC that this is nonsense, and that Iran is not building nuclear weapons?

    Also, of course Israel won't attack before or on the 21st. If they did that, there wouldn't be radioactive shit sprayed and scattered all over the Iranian countryside.

    America has pissed russia off quite a bit recently, they aren't going to help you.

    http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Russia-Helps-Iran-Fuel-Up-First-Nuclear-Power-Plant-101221779.html

    If America was to invade Iran they would be severely weakened. Also Iran would cut off 40% of the world's gas and oil supply, pushing prices up and earning Russia a lot of money and severe leverage over all of Europe.
  • edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »
    America has pissed russia off quite a bit recently, they aren't going to help you.

    http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Russia-Helps-Iran-Fuel-Up-First-Nuclear-Power-Plant-101221779.html

    If America was to invade Iran they would be severely weakened. Also Iran would cut off 40% of the world's gas and oil supply, pushing prices up and earning Russia a lot of money and severe leverage over all of Europe.

    It's Russia's involvement and friendship with Iran that makes me think we won't invade or use force against Iran. I wouldn't put it past Israel to do something, though, cunts that they are.

    It's just strange to me that more people around the world aren't speaking out about how America and Israel are treating Iran. Trying to get them sanctioned and talking about military action because they've got a nuclear power program? It's fucked up.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited August 2010
    I noticed that after Obama was elected, much of the public turned strongly against many of the things that he campaigned on and promised to do.

    They didn't realize he was black. Then they were all "OMFG! we elected a nigger!" and didn't know how to behave.

    Seriously though, I've noticed the same thing. People wanted Guantanamo closed and health care reform and the wars ended, and now it's no to all of that. I don't get it.
  • edited August 2010
    fanglekai wrote: »
    They didn't realize he was black. Then they were all "OMFG! we elected a nigger!" and didn't know how to behave.

    Seriously though, I've noticed the same thing. People wanted Guantanamo closed and health care reform and the wars ended, and now it's no to all of that. I don't get it.

    From what I've seen, it's a combination of whites being guilt-tripped/teased/whatever by friends, family and co-workers for having voted for Obama and all of the right wing media's bullshit (Communists hiding in the white-house, government takeover of the economy, etc).
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    I'm worried about this Iran/Israeli shit.

    I don't know what real benefit there is for Israel in attacking Iran, but they seem really into the idea. Why aren't other countries stepping up and telling news organizations that what is going on is horseshit? Why hasn't the Russian government, for example, sent someone to explain to CNN or NBC that this is nonsense, and that Iran is not building nuclear weapons?

    Also, of course Israel won't attack before or on the 21st. If they did that, there wouldn't be radioactive shit sprayed and scattered all over the Iranian countryside.

    The only benefit Israel cares about is being able to show there force once again. There a rogue nation that nobody will acknowledge as one. The double standard with Israel is astounding no other country could get away with a fraction of what they do on a daily basis. Unfortunantly this will never change unless we can end the zionist influence in our own goverment.
  • edited August 2010
    Iran has one hell of an air-force also. It's not as though it would be a walk in the park for Israel or the USA to invade.
  • SlappySlappy Acolyte
    edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »
    So first of the release of Megrahi the alleged Lockerbie bomber released by Scotland.

    America want this terminally ill man put back in prison because he didn't die quick enough. Don't they realise he was released under the condition that he didn't appeal. If he did he would have probably won looking at the shaky evidence. Highlights the arrogance of American government that they think they can lord it over other countries.
    I agree with you that the American government is shit.
    Vicky wrote: »
    They also went on to accuse BP of being involved in the release. BP is 50% American owned.
    Source
    This I don't understand. What do the stockholders have to do with the accusation that British Petroleum acted inappropriately? BTW, it's 25 American institutions and 14 individuals that hold 39% of British Petroleum's stock. And British Petroleum acted inappropriately.
    Vicky wrote: »
    America protests against Iran firing up their nuclear reactor. Even though they have the right to have a civilian power plant and have allowed inspectors in. Contrary to America's ally Israel who has Nuclear Weapons but refuses to let the inspectors in. The double standards are incredible and make America look even more stupid. Also, these plants are protected by Russia so we all know that any complaints against this is just posturing.
    Agreed.
    Vicky wrote: »
    America sends rotten food as food aid to Somalia, militants burn it. There are pictures showing the wheat as clumpy and mouldy.
    Fuck em. They're lucky we sent them anything.
    Vicky wrote: »
    America gets the "Merchant of Death". The world's biggest arms dealer is putting on trial the world's most prolific arms dealer. He must have been cutting into there profits.
    epic. Well, if he was selling arms to people we don't want him selling arms to, what's the problem? You're oversimplifying a lot of these points into anti-American propaganda, which speaks volumes about your intentions here.
    Vicky wrote: »
    A clear message is sent out to the world that America is against Islam, or at least intolerant of muslims. This is what Bin Laden claimed of America, and it seems he has been proved right.
    Source
    Yes, we are, and I don't believe that message is clear enough. Bin Laden himself had a hand in stoking our hatred of these idiots.
    Vicky wrote: »
    All those millions of barrels of oil that dissapeared. Looks like they lied about that one. "650ft high oil plume found"
    Source
    Be honest, Vicky.
    "It is worth noting that [the Woods Hole researchers] put this input at about twice that expected from natural seeps, which input microscopic globules of oil into the deep ocean in the Gulf as a background," he said.

    The amount of oil involved is not large and accounts for only a small percentage of the total oil released, Dr Boxall added.
    Nobody lied.
    Vicky wrote: »
    That guantanamo bay is still open too, bit hypocritical for an administration that condemns the extremists torturing people
    Source
    Agreed. I think it should stay open.

    Vicky wrote: »
    Now this isn't a personal attack on any Americans, I'm just showing how you're country is coming across in the media. It seems to be one embarassment after another. America is steadily becoming a laughing stock.

    Do the majority of Americans agree with these things. The stance of Al Megrahi? Guantanamo?

    Double standards are not unique to US policy. Of course, we have our best interests in mind, not yours, and that might come across as arrogant. Laugh all you want, I know you hate America. (speaking of double standards, it's perfectly OK to hate America for hating muslims...)
  • edited August 2010
    Also, I don't think we're going to get anywhere in court with that Viktor Bout guy.

    He seems to have some connections in the Russian government (GRU & KGB. Sure the KGB is dead now, but most of the powerful people in Russia (Politicians and businessmen) are ex-KGB.) and he's beaten all of the other cases against him.
    Slappy wrote: »
    Double standards are not unique to US policy. Of course, we have our best interests in mind, not yours, and that might come across as arrogant. Laugh all you want, I know you hate America. (speaking of double standards, it's perfectly OK to hate America for hating muslims...)

    Is it in our best interests to go to war with Iraq and get jerked around by the Israelis, or to do any of some of the ridiculous things that this country has done over the years? We're acting in someones best interests, but I don't think it's ours.

    Also, people don't hate America for disliking Muslims, they just :facepalm: at us.
  • SlappySlappy Acolyte
    edited August 2010
    Is it in our best interests to go to war with Iraq and get jerked around by the Israelis, or to do any of some of the ridiculous things that this country has done over the years? We're acting in someones best interests, but I don't think it's ours.
    Good point.
    Also, people don't hate America for disliking Muslims, they just :facepalm: at us.

    No, I think extremists on both sides are using the mosque controversy to rally their troops.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    Iran has one hell of an air-force also. It's not as though it would be a walk in the park for Israel or the USA to invade.

    Don't kid yourself if the US and Israel decided to attack Iran would be crushed with relative ease. It'd be wrong and stupid to attack them but anyone who actually see's Iran as a military threat and thinks they could actually put up a decent fight against America or Israel let alone an attack by both is blind to the facts. They may have a decent air force but to think theres is anywhere near the American or Israeli capability's is seriously blinded to the truth.
  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    Don't kid yourself if the US and Israel decided to attack Iran would be crushed with relative ease. It'd be wrong and stupid to attack them but anyone who actually see's Iran as a military threat and thinks they could actually put up a decent fight against America or Israel let alone an attack by both is blind to the facts. They may have a decent air force but to think theres is anywhere near the American or Israeli capability's is seriously blinded to the truth.

    America may be capable off attacking Iran but the damage to international relations would be severe. Turkey is already threatening to severe ties with Washington and American complicity with Israel has a lot of people angry. You're lucky you don't recognise the Hague Court or the last few Presidents would have had prime seats.

    If one of Iran's reactors were attacked it would have little to no effect on their total Nuclear programme, and this would turn most of the arab world against America. No one wants to see Iran becoming really powerful in the middle east, but they don't want any more American troops in there either. The tensions mounting in this area is similar to that of World War One. All it will take is one big event to set things off, but I really hope I'm wrong on this one. No one wants another world war when crazy israel has so many nukes.

    If Iran is ever attacked, for example if some "national tragedy" occurs and it is deemed necessary, then it would be an extremely stupid move.
  • edited August 2010
    If it came to a military conflict, we'd win (In the sense that we'd be able to defeat their military and occupy the country. There would definitely be an insurgency.), but it wouldn't be half as easy as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Iraqis saw during their conflict with Iran, they really want to keep their country.

    Also, I had no idea that we didn't recognize the Hague. I guess that's one way to avoid getting convicted for fighting aggressive wars and other varied crimes.
  • RolfRolf Regular
    edited August 2010
    If it came to a military conflict, we'd win (In the sense that we'd be able to defeat their military and occupy the country. There would definitely be an insurgency.)

    One can only push the rest of the world around so much, either way, said victory would be quite Pyhrric, states Captain Rolf.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    Vicky wrote: »
    America may be capable off attacking Iran but the damage to international relations would be severe. Turkey is already threatening to severe ties with Washington and American complicity with Israel has a lot of people angry. You're lucky you don't recognise the Hague Court or the last few Presidents would have had prime seats.

    If one of Iran's reactors were attacked it would have little to no effect on their total Nuclear programme, and this would turn most of the arab world against America. No one wants to see Iran becoming really powerful in the middle east, but they don't want any more American troops in there either. The tensions mounting in this area is similar to that of World War One. All it will take is one big event to set things off, but I really hope I'm wrong on this one. No one wants another world war when crazy israel has so many nukes.

    If Iran is ever attacked, for example if some "national tragedy" occurs and it is deemed necessary, then it would be an extremely stupid move.

    Absolutely it would be a stupid decision on are part to attack Iran. It wouldnt be good for us in the end. Im just saying theres no way in hell Iran could defeat either the US or Israel let alone an alliance of the 2.
  • edited August 2010
    Absolutely it would be a stupid decision on are part to attack Iran. It wouldnt be good for us in the end. Im just saying theres no way in hell Iran could defeat either the US or Israel let alone an alliance of the 2.

    Kind of like Afghanistan huh? Oh wait...

    No one said that Iran would win, just that it would be a hard, uphill battle. It would last longer than the 9 years it has taken to get even slightly in tune with the situation in the other occupied countries in the middle east. Go and watch fox.
  • edited August 2010
    Kind of like Afghanistan huh? Oh wait...

    No one said that Iran would win, just that it would be a hard, uphill battle. It would last longer than the 9 years it has taken to get even slightly in tune with the situation in the other occupied countries in the middle east. Go and watch fox.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attacks#Basij
    “They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging. You can shoot down the first wave and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all.”

    It'd be really shitty.
  • GallowsGallows Regular
    edited September 2010
    From what I've seen, it's a combination of whites being guilt-tripped/teased/whatever by friends, family and co-workers for having voted for Obama and all of the right wing media's bullshit (Communists hiding in the white-house, government takeover of the economy, etc).
    So 'whites' are being teased by their family and friends for voting for Obama? And this is part of the reason for Obama's failure to uphold his campaign promises?

    You must be a troll.
  • edited September 2010
    Gallows wrote: »
    So 'whites' are being teased by their family and friends for voting for Obama? And this is part of the reason for Obama's failure to uphold his campaign promises?

    You must be a troll.

    Again, I believe it's a combination. On one hand, you have the conservative media which tells America that since the election, things have become far, far worse and all because of Obama's policies. Some media outlets even entertain the idea that he is attempting to intentionally harm the economy. On the other, you have individuals being called un-American, communists and all sorts of silly bullshit by people who disagree with their politics. This has caused many people who were once vocal supporters of Obama to stop being so supportive.

    You can't really believe that he's doing poorly in the polls because of the job he's doing, can you? Since he took office, things have been improving. The measures that were put in place are slowly working and he is doing the things that we elected him to do.

    If Obama loses this next election, it will be because he had the misfortune of being elected during a time of economic crisis, and because people were made to think that he was making it (And the country in general) worse, not because he screwed up.

    Are you trolling, or just dense?
  • GallowsGallows Regular
    edited September 2010
    You can't really believe that he's doing poorly in the polls because of the job he's doing, can you? Since he took office, things have been improving. The measures that were put in place are slowly working and he is doing the things that we elected him to do.
    Did you read the OP?
    If Obama loses this next election, it will be because he had the misfortune of being elected during a time of economic crisis, and because people were made to think that he was making it (And the country in general) worse, not because he screwed up.
    Again, did you read the OP? If so, why are you talking about the 2012 election when the OP is talking about America's present international failures?
    Are you trolling, or just dense?
    I am neither, but you are evidently the latter.
  • edited September 2010
    Gallows wrote: »
    Did you read the OP?

    Did you? lol :facepalm:

    Only one of those (Guantanamo) is an example of a failed promise. Everything else is America as usual, and has little to do with Obama himself.
    Did you read the OP? If so, why are you talking about the 2012 election when the OP is talking about America's present international failures?

    Because Obama's failed campaign promises (Few as they may be compared to the fulfilled ones) would probably have an impact on the next election, and you and I were having a conversation of which the main topic seems to have been Obama.

    Also, did you read the OP? If so, why are you talking about Obama's failed campaign promises when the OP is talking about America's present international failures?


    I am neither, but you are evidently the latter.

    You're right, you are an intelligent and upstanding poster.














    trying-really-really-hard-not-to-laugh-206500.jpg?1246662972
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited September 2010
    I love the "Hate America" threads. They let me know that no matter how bad I think things might be that they are 10 times shittier where the haters are. Thanks for telling everyone that America is still #1.

    America Fuck Yeah
  • GallowsGallows Regular
    edited September 2010
    You're right, you are an intelligent and upstanding poster.
    1.gif
  • SlappySlappy Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    Again, I believe it's a combination. On one hand, you have the conservative media which tells America that since the election, things have become far, far worse and all because of Obama's policies. Some media outlets even entertain the idea that he is attempting to intentionally harm the economy. On the other, you have individuals being called un-American, communists and all sorts of silly bullshit by people who disagree with their politics. This has caused many people who were once vocal supporters of Obama to stop being so supportive.
    ... and yet on the third hand you have anybody who opposes the current administration's policies being tarred as a bigot. The same people who are quick to defend Islam with the "few bad apples" justification, are the very same people who stereotype the tea party and anything else resembling conservatism for... yep, a few bad apples.
    You can't really believe that he's doing poorly in the polls because of the job he's doing, can you? Since he took office, things have been improving. The measures that were put in place are slowly working and he is doing the things that we elected him to do.

    If Obama loses this next election, it will be because he had the misfortune of being elected during a time of economic crisis, and because people were made to think that he was making it (And the country in general) worse, not because he screwed up.

    GWB has the all-time record for consecutive months of job creation, 51 to be exact. Obama has spent billions and trillions of dollars creating how many jobs?

    A true leader riding a wave of unprecedented popularity during hard economic times has the opportunity to lead his country out of it. Obama has done nothing of the kind and to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's malicious. It's that his ideology comes before everything else. Had there been no opposition, no checks to Obama's out-of-control spending, I believe that we would be worse off and Obama would justify that as being necessary for recovery or some other BULLSHIT.
  • edited September 2010
    Slappy wrote: »
    GWB has the all-time record for consecutive months of job creation, 51 to be exact. ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Economic_indicators

    LOL
    Obama has spent billions and trillions of dollars creating how many jobs

    He's decreased monthly job-losses enormously (By hundreds of thousands per month). You're right though, fuck Obama.
    A true leader riding a wave of unprecedented popularity during hard economic times has the opportunity to lead his country out of it. Obama has done nothing of the kind and to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's malicious. It's that his ideology comes before everything else. Had there been no opposition, no checks to Obama's out-of-control spending, I believe that we would be worse off and Obama would justify that as being necessary for recovery or some other BULLSHIT.

    The "wave of unprecedented popularity" died off just months after his election. You try passing effective economic legislation when a certain party in congress decides to put up more filibusters during your term than ever before. There have been more than 90 filibusters so far. Even ideas, policies and bills that republicans originally thought up were and are being blocked because they had the presidents support. Republicans are blocking bill after bill regardless of origin for the sake of politics and it's miraculous that democrats have managed to keep things from getting much worse.

    And obviously his ideology is all that matters. That's why he has made countless concessions to get republican votes that he didn't even need for the sake of appearing bipartisan.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    Vicky wrote: »
    America may be capable off attacking Iran but the damage to international relations would be severe. Turkey is already threatening to severe ties with Washington and American complicity with Israel has a lot of people angry. You're lucky you don't recognise the Hague Court or the last few Presidents would have had prime seats.

    If one of Iran's reactors were attacked it would have little to no effect on their total Nuclear programme, and this would turn most of the arab world against America. No one wants to see Iran becoming really powerful in the middle east, but they don't want any more American troops in there either. The tensions mounting in this area is similar to that of World War One. All it will take is one big event to set things off, but I really hope I'm wrong on this one. No one wants another world war when crazy israel has so many nukes.

    If Iran is ever attacked, for example if some "national tragedy" occurs and it is deemed necessary, then it would be an extremely stupid move.

    Did nobody learn anything from what we did to japan in WW2? The reason were still in Iraq is because were trying to help them if we wanted too we could ensure the Middle east stop existing just like that. I cant think of a country today that could beat America in an all out war. China? Hell no look at our missile defense we'd stop any nuke before it left the ground. People dont realize what the US military is truly capable of should we decide to truly unleash hell. Look at out technology, our air force which is the most important part of war these days. Nobody is a threat to us get real.
  • SlappySlappy Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    Wiki, lol
    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a
    http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
    INCOME TAX REVENUE BY YEAR: ( In Billions)
    2003 = 925
    2004 = 998
    2005 = 1,206
    2006 = 1,398
    2007 = 1,534
    Unemployment rates during same period: :hai:
    2003 = 5.7 to 6.3 %
    2004 = 5.4 to 5.7 %
    2005 = 4.8 to 5.4%
    2006 = 4.4 to 4.8%
    Well now, isn't that interesting? How can he cut taxes and increase revenue at the same time? Oh yea, tax cuts on the rich create jobs... could you imagine if Obama cut taxes on the rich? He'd lose ALL of his support, not just independents. That's what I'm talking about, son. His ideology gets in the way of actual progress.
    He's decreased monthly job-losses enormously (By hundreds of thousands per month). You're right though, fuck Obama.
    :hai:


    The "wave of unprecedented popularity" died off just months after his election. You try passing effective economic legislation when a certain party in congress decides to put up more filibusters during your term than ever before. There have been more than 90 filibusters so far. Even ideas, policies and bills that republicans originally thought up were and are being blocked because they had the presidents support. Republicans are blocking bill after bill regardless of origin for the sake of politics and it's miraculous that democrats have managed to keep things from getting much worse.

    And obviously his ideology is all that matters. That's why he has made countless concessions to get republican votes that he didn't even need for the sake of appearing bipartisan.
    Need I remind you that the president has a majority in both the house AND senate? How bad does this guy suck if he can't get shit passed with a majority in BOTH houses? Because it's not just republicans who oppose his ideologically driven agenda? :hai:
  • edited September 2010
    Slappy wrote: »
    Wiki, lol
    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a
    http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
    INCOME TAX REVENUE BY YEAR: ( In Billions)
    2003 = 925
    2004 = 998
    2005 = 1,206
    2006 = 1,398
    2007 = 1,534
    Unemployment rates during same period: :hai:
    2003 = 5.7 to 6.3 %
    2004 = 5.4 to 5.7 %
    2005 = 4.8 to 5.4%
    2006 = 4.4 to 4.8%
    Well now, isn't that interesting? How can he cut taxes and increase revenue at the same time? Oh yea, tax cuts on the rich create jobs... could you imagine if Obama cut taxes on the rich? He'd lose ALL of his support, not just independents. That's what I'm talking about, son. His ideology gets in the way of actual progress.

    If you read the graph that you linked to, you'll find that you can almost pinpoint the time when Bush's economic policies came home to roost and the country began hemorrhaging jobs. Also, read about how he increased national debt (From $144.5 billion (or 1.4% of GDP) to $962.0 billion (About 6.8% of GDP), income disparity and the budget deficit.

    In fact, a huge portion of the debt incurred during his term was a direct result of the tax breaks given to the wealthiest Americans.

    When he left office, unemployment was at it's highest in 15 years.

    :hai:

    Why not address the fact that he's decreased job losses by hundreds of thousands per month?

    Need I remind you that the president has a majority in both the house AND senate? How bad does this guy suck if he can't get shit passed with a majority in BOTH houses? Because it's not just republicans who oppose his ideologically driven agenda? :hai:

    A filibuster does not mean that enough votes couldn't be found, it means that someone in congress takes advantage of the right to unlimited debate. It takes 3/5ths of the house or senate to override a filibuster by cloture.

    3/5ths is equivalent to 60%, which would mean that to override a filibuster democrats would need 260 (Excluding the remainder) votes. They do not have 260 seats, which means that unless several republicans vote against their own party (Which they don't), a filibuster cannot currently be broken.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    If you read the graph that you linked to, you'll find that you can almost pinpoint the time when Bush's economic policies came home to roost and the country began hemorrhaging jobs. Also, read about how he increased national debt (From $144.5 billion (or 1.4% of GDP) to $962.0 billion (About 6.8% of GDP), income disparity and the budget deficit.

    In fact, a huge portion of the debt incurred during his term was a direct result of the tax breaks given to the wealthiest Americans.

    When he left office, unemployment was at it's highest in 15 years.




    Why not address the fact that he's decreased job losses by hundreds of thousands per month?




    A filibuster does not mean that enough votes couldn't be found, it means that someone in congress takes advantage of the right to unlimited debate. It takes 3/5ths of the house or senate to override a filibuster by cloture.

    3/5ths is equivalent to 60%, which would mean that to override a filibuster democrats would need 260 (Excluding the remainder) votes. They do not have 260 seats, which means that unless several republicans vote against their own party (Which they don't), a filibuster cannot currently be broken.

    George W bush sucked ass but it's time to stop blaming him for everything. The only reason he's decreased Job loss was because of things like census jobs that are temporary. He's socializing this country which history shows fails every time. He's had plenty of time to fix this economy and he hasn't done shit. He promised to end the war. He hasn't. He promised to close gitmo he hasn't. You know Obama is creating a "citizen Corps' its basically like his own personal army. All his stimulus bills have only increased spending. Granted Bush did the same thing and was retarded for it. Spending is not the answer. Decreasing the size of the federal government is. Obama is quite possibly the worst president this country has ever seen. He makes Jimmy carter look like a success. He's still allowing Israel and AIPAC to ram America up the ass.
  • SlappySlappy Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    If you read the graph that you linked to, you'll find that you can almost pinpoint the time when Bush's economic policies came home to roost and the country began hemorrhaging jobs. Also, read about how he increased national debt (From $144.5 billion (or 1.4% of GDP) to $962.0 billion (About 6.8% of GDP), income disparity and the budget deficit.

    In fact, a huge portion of the debt incurred during his term was a direct result of the tax breaks given to the wealthiest Americans.
    The tax breaks combined with many other factors brought the economy into a recession. Here's a video of Democrats covering up the mortgage meltdown on c-span. They knew that these companies were in serious trouble.


    Now that I've established that the economic mess we're in can't be blamed solely on Bush or the Republicans, (considering that many republicans opposed Bush's policies) the rest of your points are moot.
    Why not address the fact that he's decreased job losses by hundreds of thousands per month?
    Because you haven't proven that. Check this out.
    The credibility of the Congressional Budget Office suffered a grievous blow during the health care debate when the CBO was forced by Harry Reid to "score" Obamacare using preposterous and plainly contrived assumptions in order to keep the cost estimates below a trillion dollars.

    Now, the CBO is damaging itself some more with wildly speculative estimates as to how many jobs, and how much economic growth, have been created by the Stimulus Plan. This headline at The Washington Post about the latest CBO report say it all: CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs.

    Notice the "may have" language. That is because the CBO is not calculating actual jobs created. Rather, it simply uses economic models which purport to predict how many jobs are created, and how much economic growth is generated, for each dollar of government spending.
    The CBO's conclusion that the stimulus created jobs is based on an economic model that began with the premise that all stimulus bills create jobs. In other words, the conclusion is already assumed as a premise. Logicians call this the fallacy of begging the question. Mathematicians call it assuming what you are trying to prove....
    The problem here is obvious. Once the CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP by the multipliers above, its conclusion that the stimulus saved jobs was pre-ordained. The economy could have lost 30 million jobs, and the model would have said that the economy would otherwise have lost 31.5 million jobs without the stimulus. An asteroid could have hit the United States, wiping out everyone outside of Washington, D.C., and (as long as Washington still spent the stimulus money) the CBO's economic model would have produced the same stimulus jobs data. There is no adjustment made to reflect what actually happened in the economy after the stimulus was enacted.


    A filibuster does not mean that enough votes couldn't be found, it means that someone in congress takes advantage of the right to unlimited debate. It takes 3/5ths of the house or senate to override a filibuster by cloture.

    3/5ths is equivalent to 60%, which would mean that to override a filibuster democrats would need 260 (Excluding the remainder) votes. They do not have 260 seats, which means that unless several republicans vote against their own party (Which they don't), a filibuster cannot currently be broken.
    So you have a problem with the way Congress is run. Welcome to the majority.
  • edited September 2010
    Slappy wrote: »
    The tax breaks combined with many other factors brought the economy into a recession. Here's a video of Democrats covering up the mortgage meltdown on c-span. They knew that these companies were in serious trouble.
    "The video you have requested is unavailable"
    Now that I've established that the economic mess we're in can't be blamed solely on Bush or the Republicans, (considering that many republicans opposed Bush's policies) the rest of your points are moot.

    Bush's economic policies and policies geared towards economic liberalism in general (Like those of the republican party) are what caused the clusterfuck that we're currently in.
    Because you haven't proven that. Check this out.

    There's a reason that nobody takes blogs very seriously, Slappy.

    So you have a problem with the way Congress is run. Welcome to the majority.

    No, retard. I was explaining why effective legislation isn't being passed, and why you are wrong in saying that Obama couldn't garner enough votes from his own party to pass bills. He can garner those votes just fine, but the republicans present a united front in opposing almost anything the president supports, in some cases, even legislation that republicans came up with in the first place.
  • edited September 2010
    George W bush sucked ass but it's time to stop blaming him for everything.

    What do you mean it's time to stop blaming him? Obama should take responsibility for causing the recession? I don't think so.
    The only reason he's decreased Job loss was because of things like census jobs that are temporary.

    The census taker jobs dropped off a while ago, and the rate of job loss per month is still far less than what it was when Bush left office.
    He's socializing this country which history shows fails every time. He's had plenty of time to fix this economy and he hasn't done shit.

    Two years is enough to completely reverse the worst economic crisis since the great depression? On top of this, a great deal of the legislation meant to alleviate the situation has been filibustered. Europe and China are doing better than the U.S. right now. If that isn't an advert for increased government control of the economy, I don't know what is.
    He promised to end the war. He hasn't.

    When did he promise anyone that he would flat out end the wars? If I remember correctly, he said that he would withdraw a certain number of troops by a certain date.
    You know Obama is creating a "citizen Corps' its basically like his own personal army.

    Nigger please. Nigger pleeeeaase.

    He promised to close gitmo he hasn't.

    Because we all know that when the president wants something, it immediately happens. :rolleyes:
    All his stimulus bills have only increased spending.

    That's because an economic stimulus involves spending money.
    Spending is not the answer. Decreasing the size of the federal government is.

    The slogan for deregulation should be "Maybe it'll be different this time!"
    Obama is quite possibly the worst president this country has ever seen. He makes Jimmy carter look like a success.

    :facepalm:
    He's still allowing Israel and AIPAC to ram America up the ass.

    AIPAC and American support for Israel is the reason that this continues. The president cannot force people to stop believing that Israel is our friend. Even if he could, what do you propose America does to stop a nuclear armed rogue state like Israel?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    What do you mean it's time to stop blaming him? Obama should take responsibility for causing the recession? I don't think so.

    He should take responsibility for making it worse.


    The census taker jobs dropped off a while ago, and the rate of job loss per month is still far less than what it was when Bush left office.

    He's certainly not creating any.


    Two years is enough to completely reverse the worst economic crisis since the great depression? On top of this, a great deal of the legislation meant to alleviate the situation has been filibustered. Europe and China are doing better than the U.S. right now. If that isn't an advert for increased government control of the economy, I don't know what is.

    What has he done to help it? Nothing he's more focused on socialist health care.


    When did he promise anyone that he would flat out end the wars? If I remember correctly, he said that he would withdraw a certain number of troops by a certain date.

    He said we'd be out of Iraq in 6 months.


    Nigger please. Nigger pleeeeaase.

    He is creating this do the research. He wants this to be mandatory

    www.citizencorps.gov




    Because we all know that when the president wants something, it immediately happens. :rolleyes:

    He hasnt even tried to close gitmo.


    That's because an economic stimulus involves spending money.

    That's the fucking problem what we need now is not more spending. They didnt help our economy at all



    The slogan for deregulation should be "Maybe it'll be different this time!"



    :facepalm:



    AIPAC and American support for Israel is the reason that this continues. The president cannot force people to stop believing that Israel is our friend. Even if he could, what do you propose America does to stop a nuclear armed rogue state like Israel?

    He can stop allowing ZOG to control us and he can stop threatening Iran and continuing Jewish wars in the Middle east. He could at least be honest about whats happening. But oh wait he needs there money and his Jew cabinet controls him.
  • edited September 2010
    He can stop allowing ZOG to control us and he can stop threatening Iran and continuing Jewish wars in the Middle east. He could at least be honest about whats happening. But oh wait he needs there money and his Jew cabinet controls him.

    As far as I know, all he's said regarding Iran is that a nuclear armed Iran would be unacceptable. Iran isn't attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, so I don't think it's much of a threat.

    Besides, nobody can stop the U.S. supporting Israel while most American citizens think that they're our friend. You can't do it.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    As far as I know, all he's said regarding Iran is that a nuclear armed Iran would be unacceptable. Iran isn't attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, so I don't think it's much of a threat.

    Besides, nobody can stop the U.S. supporting Israel while most American citizens think that they're our friend. You can't do it.

    I dont believe there developing nukes either but would you agree that it's time the US stop telling country's they cant have nukes when were the only ones who have used them. Especially considering Israel can have them. Hell even if Iran got nukes and if they decided to use them against us our missile defense and air force could stop them before they left the ground. We need to stop policing the world.
  • AltindAltind Regular
    edited September 2010
    It's because he's black, isn't it?
  • edited September 2010
    Altind wrote: »
    It's because he's black, isn't it?

    Only old people and NASCAR fans give a shit about that.
Sign In or Register to comment.