shhhh. Quiet.UNI88 wrote:You can't have it both ways arguing here that Obama's employment numbers are good and arguing elsewhere that people are underemployed and that the middle class is in decline. I'll agree with the 2nd part but the first part is based on lies, damn lies and statistics.kalm wrote:
Thanks AZ. Way to challenge yourself.
To help you out, Obama's employment numbers and stock market numbers are better than Reagan's at this point in his presidency.
He said "current crop", sweetheart.travelinman67 wrote:Horsecrap!dbackjon wrote:
Good gosh you are delusional
Reagan started wars all over the planet. His chicken-shit response to the Lebanon Marine Massacre is what embolden the current crop of Islamic terrorist.
The PLO was active LONG before Reagan.
Arafat was coordinating suicide attacks years before you first jacked off to Bobby Sherman.
He didn't say they were good, he said they were better than Reagan's. Not the same thing.UNI88 wrote:You can't have it both ways arguing here that Obama's employment numbers are good and arguing elsewhere that people are underemployed and that the middle class is in decline. I'll agree with the 2nd part but the first part is based on lies, damn lies and statistics.kalm wrote:
Thanks AZ. Way to challenge yourself.
To help you out, Obama's employment numbers and stock market numbers are better than Reagan's at this point in his presidency.
When Reagan was President, more people had money. Bush and Obama took a lot of the money and peoples dreams and their privacy away. The rich get richer under Bush and Obama. Really 16 years of the same crap.houndawg wrote:That was because he spent like a drunken sailor and left the bill for us to pick up. Fvcking piece of ****.Gil Dobie wrote:Reagan years were feel good years, Bush and Obama have returned us to the Jimmy Carter malaise.
You think that just started under Bush?Gil Dobie wrote:When Reagan was President, more people had money. Bush and Obama took a lot of the money and peoples dreams and their privacy away. The rich get richer under Bush and Obama. Really 16 years of the same crap.houndawg wrote:
That was because he spent like a drunken sailor and left the bill for us to pick up. Fvcking piece of ****.
Parsing bullshit.houndawg wrote:He said "current crop", sweetheart.travelinman67 wrote:
Horsecrap!
The PLO was active LONG before Reagan.
Arafat was coordinating suicide attacks years before you first jacked off to Bobby Sherman.
Wrong. Reagan's cowardly, weak-kneed response to the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon, the Marines that he sent over there unarmed, showed the terrorists that he was a paper tiger and emboldened them all. Stupid fvck should have listened to his astrologer.travelinman67 wrote:Parsing bullshit.houndawg wrote:
He said "current crop", sweetheart.
Fail!
Hamas' was a 1987 Palestinian spinoff of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (established in the 20's), created IN RESPONSE TO THE 1987 INTIFADA!
Hezbollah was a 1982 Lebanese spinoff of Shia Iranian political wing in response to Israel's 1982 incursions into Lebanon.
Reagan had no more influence upon the creation of muslim terrorist organizations than Justin Beiber had upon the Post-Modern era.
Look it up.
Hello, kalm. Hey man, just wanted to give you a call and let you know that your great work at cs.com is not going unnoticed here in the DPRK worker's paradise. Keep up the good work and there might be a Hero of the Revolution medal in it for you. Well, at least I won't execute you by flamethrower.kalm wrote:Thanks AZ. Way to challenge yourself.JohnStOnge wrote:
That is a ridiculous statement to anyone who was alive and old enough to know what was going on during both periods. If somebody makes that statement it's pretty much evidence that there is no reason to pay any attention to anything else they say.
To help you out, Obama's employment numbers and stock market numbers are better than Reagan's at this point in his presidency.
So now you are sticking up for Bush?houndawg wrote:You think that just started under Bush?Gil Dobie wrote:
When Reagan was President, more people had money. Bush and Obama took a lot of the money and peoples dreams and their privacy away. The rich get richer under Bush and Obama. Really 16 years of the same crap.
Why does he have to come from the Republican Party? I would take a great leader from any party.Chizzang wrote:Where is the new Ronald Reagan in the Republican Party..?
Because as "smart" as all the republicans are on this forum the Party elect seems to lack any creativity or intelligence whatsoever...
Okay, so I get it Reagan was awesome
All Hail Reagan - but - who's next....?
The barrack bombing was done by Hezbollah, trained and funded by Shia extremists in Syria and Iran.houndawg wrote:Wrong. Reagan's cowardly, weak-kneed response to the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon, the Marines that he sent over there unarmed, showed the terrorists that he was a paper tiger and emboldened them all. Stupid fvck should have listened to his astrologer.travelinman67 wrote:
Parsing bullshit.
Fail!
Hamas' was a 1987 Palestinian spinoff of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (established in the 20's), created IN RESPONSE TO THE 1987 INTIFADA!
Hezbollah was a 1982 Lebanese spinoff of Shia Iranian political wing in response to Israel's 1982 incursions into Lebanon.
Reagan had no more influence upon the creation of muslim terrorist organizations than Justin Beiber had upon the Post-Modern era.
Look it up.
CitadelGrad wrote:Hello, kalm. Hey man, just wanted to give you a call and let you know that your great work at cs.com is not going unnoticed here in the DPRK worker's paradise. Keep up the good work and there might be a Hero of the Revolution medal in it for you. Well, at least I won't execute you by flamethrower.kalm wrote:
Thanks AZ. Way to challenge yourself.
To help you out, Obama's employment numbers and stock market numbers are better than Reagan's at this point in his presidency.
Argue the employment numbersAZGrizFan wrote:He's not off limits, but those numbers can't be argued. Not by anybody with a brainstem....
But I do appreciate your efforts to get some of the stank off of Obama...
I did, but it was too cerebral for you to understand.kalm wrote:Argue the employment numbersAZGrizFan wrote:He's not off limits, but those numbers can't be argued. Not by anybody with a brainstem....
But I do appreciate your efforts to get some of the stank off of Obama...
You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than by terrorists.travelinman67 wrote:The barrack bombing was done by Hezbollah, trained and funded by Shia extremists in Syria and Iran.houndawg wrote:
Wrong. Reagan's cowardly, weak-kneed response to the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon, the Marines that he sent over there unarmed, showed the terrorists that he was a paper tiger and emboldened them all. Stupid fvck should have listened to his astrologer.
We're talking about the CREATION of the "current crop" of muslim terrorists, not actions whuch "emboldened" existing terrorist organizations.
And, for our low info posters, just about ANYTHING emboldens muslim terrorists.
Quality. What is the quality of the jobs?kalm wrote:Argue the employment numbersAZGrizFan wrote:He's not off limits, but those numbers can't be argued. Not by anybody with a brainstem....
But I do appreciate your efforts to get some of the stank off of Obama...
Most of the quality jobs are long gone thanks to globalization. Having a conk or donk in the Oval Office isn't really going to change that.CAA Flagship wrote:Quality. What is the quality of the jobs?kalm wrote:
Argue the employment numbers
Sweet mother of God the excuses are strong in this thread.Grizalltheway wrote:Most of the quality jobs are long gone thanks to globalization. Having a conk or donk in the Oval Office isn't really going to change that.CAA Flagship wrote: Quality. What is the quality of the jobs?
So what would McCain or Romney have done to reverse economic forces that have been in motion for decades? Would everyone have high-salary jobs with great benefits if one of them had been elected?AZGrizFan wrote:Sweet mother of God the excuses are strong in this thread.Grizalltheway wrote:
Most of the quality jobs are long gone thanks to globalization. Having a conk or donk in the Oval Office isn't really going to change that.
Oh good grief.Grizalltheway wrote:Most of the quality jobs are long gone thanks to globalization. Having a conk or donk in the Oval Office isn't really going to change that.CAA Flagship wrote: Quality. What is the quality of the jobs?
CAA Flagship wrote:Oh good grief.Grizalltheway wrote:
Most of the quality jobs are long gone thanks to globalization. Having a conk or donk in the Oval Office isn't really going to change that.
See above. Or just ignore it, because you don't have an answer.CAA Flagship wrote:Oh good grief.Grizalltheway wrote:
Most of the quality jobs are long gone thanks to globalization. Having a conk or donk in the Oval Office isn't really going to change that.