Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by valo403

C'mon, that's just pure ignorance. Was there a big movement of people questioning whether Carter was born in the US? Was Bush accused of being a muslim at every turn? Was Reagan compared to Hitler?

If this was what is holding back Captain Unicorn from making the world a better place then he is truly an incompetent.

Just for fun, lets see what did those three have holding them back that Obama NEVER had?

Carter - That Iranian hostage thing and Middle East WAR peace process. Oil Embargoes. Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union. A badly deteriorating military.

Reagan - Carter's administration of the US economy. Easily a far worse situation than Obama ever had to deal with. European Union...oops Soviet Union. A crappy Military. Iraq-Iran war.

Bush - Hmmm here is a tough one. How many time did he get called Hitler? I think Bu####ler comes to mind.

So Valo what about our debate? If you want to talk about Bush's craptastic handling of the American economy, his crony capitalism, etc...We could find a lot of agreement. Just don't tell me that Obama HAS NOT continued (and quadrupled) the same dumb@ss crony capitalism or much of the Bush policies.

His foreign policy, a joke at best. Every administration leaves the next one in a tough situation. His foreign policy successes? Osama Bin Laden (gee tough call on that one) and containment of China's aggressive foreign intimidation of its' neighbours(though this may be all Hillary's doing). That's it. Arab(Islamic?) Spring had nothing to do with him.

For all the crap with Iraq at least Obama was left a somewhat peaceful nation on its way to Democracy. He has taken that and handed it over to the Iranians. Forbes article on the subject as well.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HOZ

If this was what is holding back Captain Unicorn from making the world a better place then he is truly an incompetent.

Just for fun, lets see what did those three have holding them back that Obama NEVER had?

Carter - That Iranian hostage thing and Middle East WAR peace process. Oil Embargoes. Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union. A badly deteriorating military.

Reagan - Carter's administration of the US economy. Easily a far worse situation than Obama ever had to deal with. European Union...oops Soviet Union. A crappy Military. Iraq-Iran war.

Bush - Hmmm here is a tough one. How many time did he get called Hitler? I think Bu####ler comes to mind.

So Valo what about our debate? If you want to talk about Bush's craptastic handling of the American economy, his crony capitalism, etc...We could find a lot of agreement. Just don't tell me that Obama HAS NOT continued (and quadrupled) the same dumb@ss crony capitalism or much of the Bush policies.

His foreign policy, a joke at best. Every administration leaves the next one in a tough situation. His foreign policy successes? Osama Bin Laden (gee tough call on that one) and containment of China's aggressive foreign intimidation of its' neighbours(though this may be all Hillary's doing). That's it. Arab(Islamic?) Spring had nothing to do with him.

For all the crap with Iraq at least Obama was left a somewhat peaceful nation on its way to Democracy. He has taken that and handed it over to the Iranians. Forbes article on the subject as well.

Are you really thinking this list is close to two wars, the brink of the next depression, massive debt, rising unemployment, rising China, rise of an uncomprimising Tea party, bias media that splits the country, BP Oil Spill, Arab Spring, Japanese disaster, a crumbling European economy, tornado disasters in the South, the housing crisis..

You put them all together it is a tough hand but as individuals not so much.

Keep on waving the Hannity flag

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

If this was what is holding back Captain Unicorn from making the world a better place then he is truly an incompetent.

Just for fun, lets see what did those three have holding them back that Obama NEVER had?

Carter - That Iranian hostage thing and Middle East WAR peace process. Oil Embargoes. Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union. A badly deteriorating military.

Reagan - Carter's administration of the US economy. Easily a far worse situation than Obama ever had to deal with. European Union...oops Soviet Union. A crappy Military. Iraq-Iran war.

Bush - Hmmm here is a tough one. How many time did he get called Hitler? I think Bu####ler comes to mind.

So Valo what about our debate? If you want to talk about Bush's craptastic handling of the American economy, his crony capitalism, etc...We could find a lot of agreement. Just don't tell me that Obama HAS NOT continued (and quadrupled) the same dumb@ss crony capitalism or much of the Bush policies.

His foreign policy, a joke at best. Every administration leaves the next one in a tough situation. His foreign policy successes? Osama Bin Laden (gee tough call on that one) and containment of China's aggressive foreign intimidation of its' neighbours(though this may be all Hillary's doing). That's it. Arab(Islamic?) Spring had nothing to do with him.

For all the crap with Iraq at least Obama was left a somewhat peaceful nation on its way to Democracy. He has taken that and handed it over to the Iranians. Forbes article on the subject as well.

The recession of 73 to 75, caused by opec oil price rises, nothing to do with Carter, was a minor glitch compared with our current recession. The only president that had to deal with anything comparable to Obama would be Hoover/Roosevelt in the dirty thirties.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Are you really thinking this list is close to two wars, the brink of the next depression, massive debt, rising unemployment, rising China, rise of an uncomprimising Tea party, bias media that splits the country, BP Oil Spill, Arab Spring, Japanese disaster, a crumbling European economy, tornado disasters in the South, the housing crisis..

You put them all together it is a tough hand but as individuals not so much.

Keep on waving the Hannity flag

The largest of the 2 wars was already won and winding down. The much smaller war was about to benefit from the freed up troops from Iraq. The heavy lifting as well as the majority of the financial burden came on Bush's watch.

The massive increase in debt, unemployment above 8%, bias media, BP oil spill, and the rise of the tea party were events he bares most of the responsibility for.

Basically Obama inherited a financial crisis. It was shapeing up before he won office so if he didn't think he was up for the job than he should have stepped aside. Nobody is blaming Obama for the crisis but, rather how he didn't handled it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The recession of 73 to 75, caused by opec oil price rises, nothing to do with Carter, was a minor glitch compared with our current recession. The only president that had to deal with anything comparable to Obama would be Hoover/Roosevelt in the dirty thirties.

I think you are simplifying the problems they had there. What about the double digit inflation?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The recession of 73 to 75, caused by opec oil price rises, nothing to do with Carter, was a minor glitch compared with our current recession. The only president that had to deal with anything comparable to Obama would be Hoover/Roosevelt in the dirty thirties.

Dude,

I know he had nothing to do with it. As per Valo's post it is about what he had to deal with it.

Reagan had a worse economic condition at the beginning of his Presidency. FAR worse than Obama. Obama continued the Cony Capitalism to the Nth degree and was rewarded with a recession. No, not all his fault, because the European Union owns a lot of it too. But he sure didn't create any soft landing. Instead of taking a bitter pill to let companies (GM and Chrysler) and banks fail, he continues Bush's bank bail out and propped up crappy companies. And now we all benefit from his largesse. Nice recession that is looking like it will trump the last one.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Basically Obama inherited a financial crisis. It was shapeing up before he won office...

Please provide support for that claim.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Please provide support for that claim.

Bush's 780billion dollar bailout of the financial sector prior to Obama's election.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Please provide support for that claim.

The housing market flat lined in the spring of 2008 and it was Bush that asked for the first major bail out for GM as well as the major banks. Obama voted for it as a Senator.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Reagan had a worse economic condition at the beginning of his Presidency. FAR worse than Obama.

By what measures? Please support that claim.

The only person I've heard assert that is Sean Hannity.

“The fourth quarter of 2008, right after the Lehman failure, now shows an 8.9% annual rate of decline in GDP and now represents the worst single-quarter decline in GDP since the 10.4% drop in the first quarter of 1958, exceeding the 7.9% decline in the second quarter of 1980.”

http://www.ihs.com/products/global-i...?ID=1065930147

Originally Posted by HOZ

Instead of taking a bitter pill to let companies (GM and Chrysler) and banks fail, he continues Bush's bank bail out and propped up crappy companies.

TARP was on Bush's watch; Obama continued the policy but there was really no other option at the time.
The auto sector bailout has been a success.

[Gozer]

How was the crisis "shapening up prior to Obama's election" ?



http://articles.businessinsider.com/...eet/30088805_1

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

By what measures? Please support that claim.

The only person I've heard assert that is Sean Hannity.

“The fourth quarter of 2008, right after the Lehman failure, now shows an 8.9% annual rate of decline in GDP and now represents the worst single-quarter decline in GDP since the 10.4% drop in the first quarter of 1958, exceeding the 7.9% decline in the second quarter of 1980.”

http://www.ihs.com/products/global-i...?ID=1065930147

One bad quarter doesn't even equal a recession. It is the accumulative effect of many bad quarters in a roll that cause bankruptcies and foreclosures.

Originally Posted by Gozer

TARP was on Bush's watch; Obama continued the policy but there was really no other option at the time.
The auto sector bailout has been a success.

The auto sector was not a success. It both cost the taxpayers money and prevented the only thing that could have fixed GM's problems: bankruptcy. Thanks to Obama's interference GM is still on the hook for a gold plated pension plan that will continue to drag the company down and make them uncompetitive. GM still closed plants. They were also forced to invest heavily in a electric car that was a failure financially from day one.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

One bad quarter doesn't even equal a recession. It is the accumulative effect of many bad quarters in a roll that cause bankruptcies and foreclosures.

It was your claim to defend, not mine.

By what measure was the crisis shapening up?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How was the crisis "shapening up prior to Obama's election" ?



http://articles.businessinsider.com/...eet/30088805_1

That chart shows just what I was saying. The problem started at the beginning of 2008. Obama knew what he was signing up for.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It both cost the taxpayers money and prevented the only thing that could have fixed GM's problems: bankruptcy.

Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. In other words, doing nothing could have cost more than twice as much the bailout.
By the way, that $28.6 billion figure doesn't include the business taxes the federal government would have lost but can now expect from two large, profitable automakers and their suppliers. It also doesn't include any lost state and local tax revenue.

-http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_bailout_costs_gains/index.htm

I didn't approve of the auto-industry bailout, but I think I was wrong.
Clearly the economy would be in a worse state (today) without it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

It was your claim to defend, not mine.

By what measure was the crisis shapening up?

Maybe we are missing something in the translation. When I say "shapeing up" I mean "clearly forming".

You have to remember that those job losses Bush posted in his last year started in the housing sector and moved on to include the financial sector. Obama's poor job postings were despite him injecting billions into the economy.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Gozer

“The fourth quarter of 2008, right after the Lehman failure, now shows an 8.9% annual rate of decline in GDP and now represents the worst single-quarter decline in GDP since the 10.4% drop in the first quarter of 1958, exceeding the 7.9% decline in the second quarter of 1980.”

http://www.ihs.com/products/global-i...?ID=1065930147
.

Lets start with this one.

Unemployment was the highest since the dirty thirties. He had a monolithic enemy of incredible power.....that would be the ORIGINAL European Union called USSR!!! Al Qeuda is a pipsqueak in comparison. A toe nail infection.

The military sucked. They were too busy dope smok'n.

How shatty? Reagan slayed the economic dragon first before driving the greatest evil to extinction!

Was this below situation worse than Obama....by a mile and 10,000

Slaying the Dragon

Before prosperity, however, there would be a bit more pain. Through most of the first two years of Reagan's first term, Americans already battered by the stagflation of the 1970s had to endure the sharpest recession in decades. The severity of the downturn was largely a consequence of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker's determination to end the devastating inflationary trends of the 1970s by any means necessary. Following the monetarist teachings of influential University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, Volcker resolved to "slay the inflationary dragon" by sharply curtailing the growth of the money supply. That monetary contraction, imposed starting in 1980, succeeded in its primary objective; the inflation rate fell from a devastating high of 13.5% in 1980 to just 3.2% by 1983.19 However, it also produced a sharp jump in real interest rates that contributed to the brutal recession of 1981-82. The national unemployment rate exceeded 10% throughout 1982, rendering more Americans jobless than at any time since the Great Depression. (Not coincidentally, President Reagan's public approval rating bottomed out at just 35% that same year.)

To his great credit, however, Reagan stuck by Volcker even when it would have been politically expedient for him to pressure the Fed Chairman to expand the money supply to provide a short-term boost to the economy. Both men's patience paid off after 1983, when—with inflation under control at last—the economy began growing again. That growth continued, unabated, through the rest of Reagan's two-term presidency, marking the longest peacetime period of unbroken economic expansion yet seen in American history. (An even longer boom would occur a decade later, during a Bill Clinton presidency that largely followed Reagan's lead in economic policy.) Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%; in the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.20

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=y...ection&f=false

http://www.house.gov/jec/economic_conditions.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/economic_conditions.html

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The problem started at the beginning of 2008.

What "problem" ? Certainly not the deficit. Bush reduced revenues and his budget did not include the wars or his favourite social programs.





I understood "shapening up" to mean improving. Did I mis-interpret that?
Did you mean the economy was tanking and that somehow supports your assertion that Obama is responsible unemployment levels?

[GreenLantern2814]

Seriously, stop arguing about the president and just agree that Iran is a ####ty place to live.

Honestly, if you think a politician is going to fix things one way or another, you're an idiot. The masses who voted for Obama didn't see their lives change one damn bit, and the masses that voted for Bush or McCain aren't all miraculously in the 1%.

Stop bitching back and forth about who's running the government and go accomplish something. The Man isn't keeping you down, but he is providing you with a great way to justify your own ####ty lot in life without looking in a goddamn mirror.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. In other words, doing nothing could have cost more than twice as much the bailout.
By the way, that $28.6 billion figure doesn't include the business taxes the federal government would have lost but can now expect from two large, profitable automakers and their suppliers. It also doesn't include any lost state and local tax revenue.

-http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_bailout_costs_gains/index.htm

I didn't approve of the auto-industry bailout, but I think I was wrong.
Clearly the economy would be in a worse state (today) without it.

I think you were right. A brief bankruptcy wouldn't have shut down either company. The creditors couldn't have afforded the losses. What it would have done is force GM to cut waste and allowed them to adjust both wages and pensions to conform with their foreign competitors. All three American automakers have huge pension liabilities which makes it near impossible to produce a competitive product. It is their number one problem. Obama's investments had more to do with protecting the Union than saving American companies and jobs.