What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[SirJosephPorter]

A policy is a success if achieves its intended aim. The "stated" aim, however, may be completely different from the intended aim. Obama will never come right out at state that he intends to socialize the US economy.

And how do you know all this, Extrafire? Do you have an inside track to Obama, does he confide in you, tell you what his intentions are? He has stated his aim, that he wants to improve the economy, clean up the gigantic mess left by Bush and the Republicans. Who told you that his aims are something different? Do you have any evidence for your contention (other than the far right blogs)?

Obama will never come right out at state that he intends to socialize the US economy.

Again, do you have a crystal ball, a spy in the White House? What gives you the right, the authority to say that Obama’s real aim is different from his stated aim? That is just your political opinion speaking (or maybe you are listening to drug addict on loan from God, Limbaugh).

And anyway, you missed the boat here. Socialize? That is so yesterday. These days it is much more fashionable (in far right circles) to call Obama, a Communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, a Muslim terrorist. Socialist? That is so lame, you will be voted out of the club.

It's the socialization of the economy that Republicans want him to fail at (something you've been told repeatedly).

By socialization of the economy I assume you are referring to his stimulus package (though you conveniently seem to forget that your President, Bush enacted the first stimulus package). The stimulus package is designed to pull the economy out of the ditch that Bush put it in. So when you hope that his stimulus package fails, you are hoping for another depression, with unemployment of 25% and inflation of 20%.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think the accepted definition of a recession is 3 consecutive months of negative growth.

Extrafire, it is two consecutive quarters of negative growth (and not three successive months) that constitutes a recession.

A depression was re-defined as a longer period, but I'm not sure just how long. 6 months? Can't remember

There is no generally accepted definition of a depression. Depression can mean pretty much what somebody wants it to mean. Thus when a Democrat is in power, depression is 9% unemployment, 2% inflation. When a Republican is in power, it is 25% unemployment, 20% inflation.

This is nothing like the recessions we've been through since the end of the great depression.

You mean now it is nothing like the recession we have been through, before November it was just the run of the mill recession, after Obama got elected, it magically got tranformed into the worst depression ever, worse even than the Great Depression.

The cause of the crash is unique, the depth of the crash is much deeper and so far we're pretty much paralleling the economic decline of the great depression.

Surely the cause is not unique, I thought Obama caused it.

As for the stimulus having any effect, well check out this link:

Was the Stimulus Irrelevant? - Columns - American Issues Project

Another extreme right wing talk show host disagrees with Obama. Yeah, big surprise there.

Looks like the US is going to have a socialized economy and a government so deeply in debt that it would be impossible to pay it off even in a boom economy and a depression to boot.

That is your opinion. As to that, I don’t see that your candidate, McCain would have done anything differently. He would have continued Bush’s economic policies. Obama’s policy as far as stimulus is concerned is not really all that different from what Bush or McCain would have done. Where Obama differs from McCain is that Obama opposed even further massive deregulation, he opposed tax cuts for the rich etc. But as far as stimulus package was concerned, most politicians and economists were in agreement, that the stimulus package (both of them) was necessary.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Al Gore, David Suzuki, Paul McCartney, Shawn Penn, Ted Kennedy, Che Guevarra and the greatest rock-star hero of them all, the One who walks on water, the saviour of the world, Saint Barack Obama, to name just a few.

:lol: Oh, that's rich! Please explain your slavish devotion to the Obamessiah.

Really, Firstfire? Show me even one post where I have slavishly praised any of these people.

As to Obama, show me even one post of mine where I praise him. I have said it repeatedly, I am ambivalent about his economic stimulus, I take the word of the economists that it was necessary. I have also said repeatedly, I don’t know if Obama will succeed.

I may have praised one or two things that these people did. For instance I have respect for Gore for the way he brought the issue of global warming to world’s attention, he did stellar work there. But as to Gore the man, I just don’t know him well enough to form an opinion. The fact that I support the environmental work done by Gore and Suzuki does not mean that I agree with everything they do or say, that I admire them as human beings.

So as I said, show me even one post of mine where I slavishly praise or support Gore, Suzuki or anybody else. Unlike the dittoheads (who have godlike devotion to drug addict on loan from God), I am not into hero worship, I am well aware of the limitations of the different politicians.

My loyalty is to the principles (liberal principles), not to personalities.

 

[Francis2004]

A policy is a success if achieves its intended aim. The "stated" aim, however, may be completely different from the intended aim. Obama will never come right out at state that he intends to socialize the US economy.

And how do you know all this, Extrafire? Do you have an inside track to Obama, does he confide in you, tell you what his intentions are? He has stated his aim, that he wants to improve the economy, clean up the gigantic mess left by Bush and the Republicans. Who told you that his aims are something different? Do you have any evidence for your contention (other than the far right blogs)?

Obama will never come right out at state that he intends to socialize the US economy.

Again, do you have a crystal ball, a spy in the White House? What gives you the right, the authority to say that Obama’s real aim is different from his stated aim? That is just your political opinion speaking (or maybe you are listening to drug addict on loan from God, Limbaugh).

And anyway, you missed the boat here. Socialize? That is so yesterday. These days it is much more fashionable (in far right circles) to call Obama, a Communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, a Muslim terrorist. Socialist? That is so lame, you will be voted out of the club.

It's the socialization of the economy that Republicans want him to fail at (something you've been told repeatedly).

By socialization of the economy I assume you are referring to his stimulus package (though you conveniently seem to forget that your President, Bush enacted the first stimulus package). The stimulus package is designed to pull the economy out of the ditch that Bush put it in. So when you hope that his stimulus package fails, you are hoping for another depression, with unemployment of 25% and inflation of 20%.

Not to benefit anyone SJP but no administration or any political party in the world state 100% what they will do at all times. It is just a reality that one must adjust to world events and financial situations.. Just as Conservatives had to adjust to the rise in Seniors and social requirements so will new administrations and why Clinton did not bring in Medicare as he wanted..

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quite right, Francis, President’s actions are usually dictated by the circumstances. Indeed, that is why governments the world over are stimulating the economy, it goes beyond political persuasion. Conservative governments are stimulating the economy as much as liberal governments are. So no doubt what Obama does will depend to a large extent upon world events.

 

[Colpy]

I just wish SOME of the US Presidents would read the bloody US Constitution, concentrating on the first 10 Amendments.

For Starters, The First Amendment DOES NOT ban prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in Courts, or any other religious expression on or by public officials. What it does do is ban the establishment of a state religion, as the Church of England is in Great Britain....read it, fer God's sake.

Secondly, the Second Amendment means everyone gets to own and carry firearms, unless forbidden by previous criminal offenses. Full stop.

Thirdly, and pertaining to Mr. Obama....Military Tribunals ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL unless the person charged was serving in the military forces of the USA at the time the offense was committed. READ the Fifth Amendment, please.

I remember a story about my uncle, educated in the 1920s.....when he completely screwed up a history test, his teacher dragged him from the class and yelled at him..."The Battle Of Hastings, 1066' (whack with the strap)....repeated 12 times.

Although I would disagree with the method used on a child, perhaps I could teach new Presidents......."It means what it says....and ONLY what it says.....it is a DEAD document" WHACK!!!

And, in closing, it REALLY pisses me off that I have to lecture Americans on the greatest and most revolutionaty political document ever produced.....when it is THEIRS....not mine.

 

[YukonJack]

"I just wish SOME of the US Presidents would read the BLOODY US Constitution, concentrating on the first 10 Amendments."

Colpy, for the sake of your soul, you'd better not be Roman Catholic!

According to the all-knowing expert on all religions in the world and also all things about American politics, and also all things having to do with arts, and all things having to do with morality (ha ha), your use of the word "BLOODY" condemned you to eternal hell-fire.

Just read his post #40 in the forum: "Is Islamic Finance The Answer?"

According to him, he invented and popularized the word "bloody" just as he invented and poularized the expression: "verbal diarrhea". His post there, at least, proves that he is an expert on verbal diarrhea.

Bow your head and say you are sorry, before it is too late!!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

According to him, he invented and popularized the word "bloody" just as he invented and popularized the expression: "verbal diarrhea".

Having another senior moment, Yukon? I did not claim that I invented the word ‘bloody’, I merely explained its origin to you (which you evidently were unaware of).

 

[YukonJack]

"Having another senior moment, Yukon? I did not claim that I invented the word ‘bloody’, I merely explained its origin to you (which you evidently were unaware of)."

Another disrespectful, snide remark of old age that you may or may not be lucky enough to reach some day, since you have nothing to defend your shakey stand on topics you are woefully unfamiliar with.

I don't clutter my mind with nonsense, at least not on purpose. So, your linguistic "dissertation" about the history of or the consequences of using the word "bloody" flew right by me as it should have.

Would have made you happier if I had said that he invented and/or popularized the word "bloody" just as he invented and/or poularized the expression: "verbal diarrhea"."

Probably not. Both are lies and you know it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Again, you did not refute what I said (that I explained to you how ‘bloody’ is a swear word), but went off at a tangent.

 

[Cannuck]

"Having another senior moment, Yukon?

SJP likes to insult people...almost as much as he likes to accuse others of doing nothing but insulting people.

 

[lone wolf]

SJP likes to insult people...almost as much as he likes to accuse others of doing nothing but insulting people.

The difference being, SJP poops posies. Ask him.... He'll tell us.

Golly, I hope I'm still on ignore....

 

[darkbeaver]

There was a period, perhaps no more than two weeks after September 11, 2001, when the Democrats did not want Bush to fail in every respect in the entire eight years of Bush's Presidency. They wanted their country to lose in Afganistan. They wanted their country to lose in Iraq. (they stiil do, just to be able to gloat over how wrong Bush was). They were hoping for a record unemployment. They wanted the economy to tank by forcing banks and Freddie Mac and Fannie May giving loans - subprime - to born losers. They never stopped - ably supported by their ally, the left-wing (sorry, redundancy!) MSM - to ridicule everything GW Bush had ever said or done. There has NEVER BEEN any "loyal" opposition in the world that has ever been more disloyal than the American Democrats 2000-2008. There has never been any opposition that was hoping for a President to fail, as much as the treasoneous Democrats 2000-2008.

Being Democrats, however - dishonest and cowardly by definition - they never had the guts to say it outright, like Rush Limbaugh.

They never forgave and/or forget that their incompetant candidate was not able to carry his own state or the state of the President under whom he served as VP. They never forgot or forgave the fact that their other equally incompetant candidate was trounced by Bush in 2004.

And as far as carrying a grudge - as SirJosephPorter visualizes a possible Republican control of House and Senate - just look at all the efforts of Obama administration lackeys, way-past-their-best-before-date Congressmen and Senators (once again ably supported by the left-wing MSM) to convict Bush and Cheney for keeping America safe from terrorists. In the almost bankrupt New York Times (no wonder, for promulgating Left-wing lies), Boston Globe etc., and on MSNBC (available on TV for all those who are not too cheap to subscribe) and to a somewhat lesser degree, CNN, that is the everlasting topic.

The post and hypothesis by SirJosephPorter is at best a pathetic joke. If his chrystal ball is so reliable, how about predicting the numbers on the next draw of 649?

I'M very drunk and I still can' tmake any sence of this drivel.

 

[darkbeaver]

SJP likes to insult people...almost as much as he likes to accuse others of doing nothing but insulting people.

Why are you bothered by people stuff?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'M very drunk and I still can' tmake any sence of this drivel.

You don’t’ have to be drunk for that to happen, darkbeaver. Very few posters can make any sense out of Yukon Jack’s post (except that they are being insulted).

Yukon has a logic of his own which works on the far right, extreme right lines; he borrows most of his thoughts from WorldNetDaily, TownHall or similar extreme right websites.

 

[YukonJack]

Quoting darkbeaver:

"I'M very drunk and I still can' tmake any sence of this drivel."

Quoting SirJosephPorter:

"You don’t’ have to be drunk for that to happen, darkbeaver. Very few posters can make any sense out of Yukon Jack’s post (except that they are being insulted).

Yukon has a logic of his own which works on the far right, extreme right lines; he borrows most of his thoughts from WorldNetDaily, TownHall or similar extreme right websites."

Perfect rejoinder - totally devoid fact and logical arguments - from a couple of conceited duds.

 

[JLM]

Quoting darkbeaver:

"I'M very drunk and I still can' tmake any sence of this drivel."

Quoting SirJosephPorter:

"You don’t’ have to be drunk for that to happen, darkbeaver. Very few posters can make any sense out of Yukon Jack’s post (except that they are being insulted).

Yukon has a logic of his own which works on the far right, extreme right lines; he borrows most of his thoughts from WorldNetDaily, TownHall or similar extreme right websites."

Perfect rejoinder - totally devoid fact and logical arguments - from a couple of conceited duds.

Lighten up Y.J.- they have every right to disagree with you- heck i've even been known to disagree with you.

 

[YukonJack]

JLM, disagree in a decent and respectable manner is OK.

But these two know nothing of the meaning of decent and respectable. They make accusations they have no way to support. They make innuendoes that are at least offensive, mostly incoherent and at worst, are downright lies.

If you doubt me, just read anything by the beaver. If this is the symbol of Canada, I weep for our country.

 

[JLM]

JLM, disagree in a decent and respectable manner is OK.

But these two know nothing of the meaning of decent and respectable. They make accusations they have no way to support. They make innuendoes that are at least offensive, mostly incoherent and at worst, are downright lies.

If you doubt me, just read anything by the beaver. If this is the symbol of Canada, I weep for our country.

Why would I? I don't consider him to be a source of information, comparible say to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. But having said that you are still a couple of notches away too.

 

[YukonJack]

"Why would I? I don't consider him to be a source of information, comparible say to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. But having said that you are still a couple of notches away too."

It takes special talent to make an insult wrapped in compliment (or for that matter a compliment wrapped in an insult) sound real. You have succeeded.