Crummy News for America --> Unemployment Rate back up to 9%

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Do you know the definition of the word hypocrite Chas?

Just the type of answer I knew I would get.

Point made.

Thanks for playing.






Got a Life.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Just the type of answer I knew I would get.

Point made.

Thanks for playing.

Exactly what point have you made other than you really must not know what the word hypocritical means?

hy·poc·ri·sy
noun /hiˈpäkrisē/
The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

Read the definition Chas. I would have actually had to make the claim to the moral standards (showing respect in this specific case) like you did for what I say to be hypocritical. I didn't make any comment at all like that. I have never represented myself as always showing respect to political figures like you did. Therefore, even if I did call our worthless president names, even though it might be disrespectful, it would not be hypocritical.

And no, I don't actually expect somebody whose preferred method of communication is with animated smiley faces to comprehend this and respond intelligently.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

I'll give him as much respect as you give the President; how about that? Deal?

Then we'll clearly see exactly who is a Hypocrite.

Still no answer.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Still no answer.

Ummmmm... no answer for what? Are you expecting an answer to "I'll give him as much respect as you give the President"? What kind of answer are you looking for?

I don't give two shits how you talk about Boehner.

If you had paid attention you would have noticed that other than the hypocritical aspect of it, I never once commented on how much respect you gave him. We have already established that you can't comprehend that part of it so there is really no point in trying to explain it again.

[Luetic]

maybe McDonald's will hire another 60k minimum wage part time no benefit workers so the liberals can celebrate obamas "job creation" lol

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Luetic

maybe McDonald's will hire another 60k minimum wage part time no benefit workers so the liberals can celebrate obamas "job creation" lol

www.365black.com

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

www.365black.com

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Luetic

maybe McDonald's will hire another 60k minimum wage part time no benefit workers so the liberals can celebrate obamas "job creation" lol

Malmart has been doing it for years … and works for their business model.

If it’s Jobs for Americans, how bad can that be for America?

You can’t bitch about the American Unemployed and then bitch about American Employers employing Americans.

Just stop bitching and enjoy whenever Employers Employ American Workers.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Malmart has been doing it for years … and works for their business model.

If it’s Jobs for Americans, how bad can that be for America?

You can’t bitch about the American Unemployed and then bitch about American Employers employing Americans.

Just stop bitching and enjoy whenever Employers Employ American Workers.

ZO6PD was bashing Bush all the time for jobs like these being created when he was president, oh it is ok if that is the majority of the jobs Obama's admin can help create with all of the reckless spending of his first two + years in office, ok for a Lib to do this but not Bush

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

ZO6PD was bashing Bush all the time for jobs like these being created when he was president, oh it is ok if that is the majority of the jobs Obama's admin can help create with all of the reckless spending of his first two + years in office, ok for a Lib to do this but not Bush

YES; especially to support all the reckless spending for the prior 96 months … cause / affect

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

YES; especially to support all the reckless spending for the prior 96 months … cause / affect

The reckless spending started under the Nancy and Harry show in 2008, that is when the deficts zoomed, but then libs ignore this, but you can not ignore that the Messiah spending is making us borrow 42c for every dollar we spend and this can not contiue or we will be the next Greece. Oh did you see Greece financial rating was down graded again today

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

The reckless spending started under the Nancy and Harry show in 2008, that is when the deficts zoomed, but then libs ignore this, but you can not ignore that the Messiah spending is making us borrow 42c for every dollar we spend and this can not contiue or we will be the next Greece. Oh did you see Greece financial rating was down graded again today

Yea sure ... whatever. all that happened in just a couple years.

[Mark C5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

The reckless spending started under the Nancy and Harry show in 2008, that is when the deficts zoomed, but then libs ignore this, but you can not ignore that the Messiah spending is making us borrow 42c for every dollar we spend and this can not contiue or we will be the next Greece. Oh did you see Greece financial rating was down graded again today

During his Presidency, Bush exercised his veto powers a total of 12 times. Of those 12 vetos, 4 occurred in 2008 or later. Of those 4, 3 were Bills that could be considered spending Bills. Two involved changes to the U.S. Farm Bill and one involved the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.

Given this record I'd have to say the President and Congress shared equally in the increased spending at the very least.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Mark C5

During his Presidency, Bush exercised his veto powers a total of 12 times. Of those 12 vetos, 4 occurred in 2008 or later. Of those 4, 3 were Bills that could be considered spending Bills. Two involved changes to the U.S. Farm Bill and one involved the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.

Given this record I'd have to say the President and Congress shared equally in the increased spending at the very least.

I can agree to that ... like I always say, those who are in charge ... and in charge. If you're going to give them the blame during their time in office, you need to give then equal credit for their time in office.

Right

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

The reckless spending started under the Nancy and Harry show in 2008, that is when the deficts zoomed, but then libs ignore this, but you can not ignore that the Messiah spending is making us borrow 42c for every dollar we spend and this can not contiue or we will be the next Greece. Oh did you see Greece financial rating was down graded again today

Nope...didn't start under Nancy, Harry and Bush...it bloomed under Nancy, Harry and Bush. The Republicans were doing a fine job of failing to control spending under Bush up to that point.

It has exploded under Nancy, Harry and Obama, though...

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by Mark C5

During his Presidency, Bush exercised his veto powers a total of 12 times. Of those 12 vetos, 4 occurred in 2008 or later. Of those 4, 3 were Bills that could be considered spending Bills. Two involved changes to the U.S. Farm Bill and one involved the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.

Given this record I'd have to say the President and Congress shared equally in the increased spending at the very least.

Oh but the libs have been blaming it all on Bush, seems that you posted some facts withouts links to support, not that I do not believe, but the first two years of the Messiah and his reckless spending his deficits dwarfs all of Bush's time and two years of that was with lib control

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Nope...didn't start under Nancy, Harry and Bush...it bloomed under Nancy, Harry and Bush. The Republicans were doing a fine job of failing to control spending under Bush up to that point.

It has exploded under Nancy, Harry and Obama, though...

And each time they increased spending they threatened to withhold funds for the troops if he didn't sign it.

That's one reason Bush went along, he had no choice, because they tied spending to the war funding.

[Mark C5]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

And each time they increased spending they threatened to withhold funds for the troops if he didn't sign it.

That's one reason Bush went along, he had no choice, because they tied spending to the war funding.

Bush showed no such hesitation. On May 1, 2007 he vetoed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act because he did not agree with the timeline for combat troop withdrawal contained in the Bill.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

And each time they increased spending they threatened to withhold funds for the troops if he didn't sign it.

That's one reason Bush went along, he had no choice, because they tied spending to the war funding.

Sorry...I refuse to hold Bush blameless.

They had 6 years with both houses and the Presidency and the increased spending every year, even without including the military.

They had every opportunity to make the reforms that the right is calling out for now...and they failed.

I blame the Republicans from 2001-2006 for the crap we have now more than I even blame the Democrats. They set the climate for it. They created the "but you did it!" mentality...and they can't deny it.

It's why we have to have the new blood like the Tea Party stand up and actually make something happen.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Sorry...I refuse to hold Bush blameless.

They had 6 years with both houses and the Presidency and the increased spending every year, even without including the military.

They had every opportunity to make the reforms that the right is calling out for now...and they failed.

I blame the Republicans from 2001-2006 for the crap we have now more than I even blame the Democrats. They set the climate for it. They created the "but you did it!" mentality...and they can't deny it.

It's why we have to have the new blood like the Tea Party stand up and actually make something happen.

So I challenge you and everyone else right now; how many months should it take to fix a Global Economy Crash. I want to make sure we're fair when we measure. Oh and don't forget to count who get to share blame.