They made fun of Bush long before the eight years were about to end. The opposing party will always heir their displeasure of the President. Of course, this is something you already know.
Freedom of speech
- Thread starter New2Ya
- Start date
|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
- Status
They made fun of Bush long before the eight years were about to end. The opposing party will always heir their displeasure of the President. Of course, this is something you already know.
Doesn't matter how long it's been, he's already started to bring the CHANGE he promised. We don't have to wait until our wallets feel the impact of his decisions to complain about it. He rushed into passing something he didn't read because it was just so urgent (when it's clearly not a front loaded plan at all) and screwed us over more by doing so. He's already incurred a higher deficit in 3 months than Bush did in his presidency with these plans. Maybe it will pay off, maybe it won't (well, the bonuses definitely won't), but as long as he is making decisions people don't like, I see no reason for them to lay off.
"hmm... veto or not veto
Gosh, if I veto this bill, people who oppose me will criticize me (because they do it regardless of my actions), and the economic turmoil will get worse. If I sign this bill, I'll still be criticized, but our system won't collapse, at least for now...
Tough decision, tough decision... better go with saving AIG so our house of cards economy doesn't cause millions to lose their jobs.
What's that? CEO bonuses? But companies who were bailed out before got them, and it's not like I can do anything about it, Congress voted against putting a cap on them, it never even reached my desk! Hm? The media's making a big deal out of it? Well, better go talk about it then.
People are still complaining about it? Damn, I need to get things back on track. Better reach out to the media. I wonder if Leno is available."
Also, if you're talking about the annual deficit, it's MARCH.
The economy has to get money flowing and there need to be people working so there's tax revenue.
Gosh, if I veto this bill, people who oppose me will criticize me (because they do it regardless of my actions), and the economic turmoil will get worse. If I sign this bill, I'll still be criticized, but our system won't collapse, at least for now...
Tough decision, tough decision... better go with saving AIG so our house of cards economy doesn't cause millions to lose their jobs.
What's that? CEO bonuses? But companies who were bailed out before got them, and it's not like I can do anything about it, Congress voted against putting a cap on them, it never even reached my desk! Hm? The media's making a big deal out of it? Well, better go talk about it then.
People are still complaining about it? Damn, I need to get things back on track. Better reach out to the media. I wonder if Leno is available."
Also, if you're talking about the annual deficit, it's MARCH.
The economy has to get money flowing and there need to be people working so there's tax revenue.
Giving the bonuses to AIG was not in his plans, don't try to make it look like it was well-intentioned.
How does the bill keep the system from collapsing? It's a bunch of infrastructure projects loaded down with scientific ventures. Not to say that those aren't worthy places to put money, it's just not something we can afford right now. And what's important is reducing spending, something he promised to do, but has done the complete opposite.
How does the bill keep the system from collapsing? It's a bunch of infrastructure projects loaded down with scientific ventures. Not to say that those aren't worthy places to put money, it's just not something we can afford right now. And what's important is reducing spending, something he promised to do, but has done the complete opposite.
What I'm saying is that there was nothing Obama could do about them, and that they are COMMONPLACE among bailouts.
And you're confusing the AIG bill and the stimulus bill. The AIG bill was meant to keep AIG from collapsing, because it's holding onto a lot of loans and mortgages. If AIG were to go belly-up, houses financed by it would be forclosed, and businesses would no longer have a line of credit and then have to go bankrupt.
The stimulus bill is meant to create jobs by funding infrastructure, alternative energy, and other projects. So get people working so they spend money, save in the bank, pay taxes, and so on.
These things are necessary spending. Obama is already working on a new budget, which now has the Iraq War which was previously hidden. He has said that certain things in government that are wasteful or pointless will be cut out or overhauled so they are efficient. For example, giant payments to farming corporations are being cut. Not to mention the withdrawal from Iraq.
And you're confusing the AIG bill and the stimulus bill. The AIG bill was meant to keep AIG from collapsing, because it's holding onto a lot of loans and mortgages. If AIG were to go belly-up, houses financed by it would be forclosed, and businesses would no longer have a line of credit and then have to go bankrupt.
The stimulus bill is meant to create jobs by funding infrastructure, alternative energy, and other projects. So get people working so they spend money, save in the bank, pay taxes, and so on.
These things are necessary spending. Obama is already working on a new budget, which now has the Iraq War which was previously hidden. He has said that certain things in government that are wasteful or pointless will be cut out or overhauled so they are efficient. For example, giant payments to farming corporations are being cut. Not to mention the withdrawal from Iraq.
BECAUSE HE WAS OUT FISHING!!! Gheeeeez...
All Obama does is work on the economy and fix the mess Bush has made. You can't complain about that.
I'm not even defending anyone. I'm just saying that the opposing party will always make their disapproval of the President known. I generally don't defend or attack any president anyway. I mean, I pretty much just make vote (or will in the future, anyway), see the results, and hope for the best. It's really all you can do once everything is said and done.
Which would be more excusable if he hadn't found out about it after the fact.
Oh, no, I was talking about the AIG bill at first and the stimulus bill after that. I thought you were referring to the stimulus bill when you said it was supposed to help the economy from dying. Never mind on that, then. But really, don't you think the man could have learned a bit more about what was in the bill before he signed it? It could have been modified.
Some of the stuff in there is more expensive than the jobs it will create can contribute to the economy.
If these things are true, then good. However, I thought a lot of the things in the stimulus bill can fall under wasteful spending.
You are so unbelievably one-sided.
I'm an idealist, yes.
That doesnt make me one-sided. I can see two parts of the story. However I rather choose the righteous one. Maybe I'm mistaken on that part and I choose the "wrong" side, but seen the history of my decisions and the criticism I have given shows me that I've been right so far.
One-sided as in:
'Bush was awful and destroyed all things good. Obama spends all day helping you ungrateful bastards. My opinion is right. How can you possibly believe otherwise?'
Well, fact of the matter is, Bush screwed up and left the country in a mess. That's a fact.
Obama is the new president and needs to fix what Bush screwed up. That's a fact.
Obama is working on it, he's in the news almost every day because he changed laws or reaches a majority for investments, etc.
Obama is fighting for the rights of many people that have been neglected the past 8 years.
So yeah, I am pretty confident about the fact that Obama is doing righteous things.
Does that make me one-sided? Or maybe just realistic?
I don't think there's anything wrong with you believing what you choose to believe. It only becomes a problem when you start pressing it on other people as if you can't understand how they could ever believe otherwise, and that they must be misinformed if they do. So yeah, I think rejecting every belief other than your own is one-sided, which is what your original comment was doing.
Everybody is unfortunately allowed to express their thoughts to large crowds - And face the consequences...
Still some things are banned to say. There is no such thing as freedom of speech.
Still some things are banned to say. There is no such thing as freedom of speech.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,098
- Awards
- 5
Quit talking about Obama and the economy unless you're somehow capable of relating it to the subject of this thread.
Freedom of speech should know no restrictions in public life. And frankly I disagree with every kind of censorship in the media, but obviously companies are allowed to set their own regulations.
Do I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to congregate at funerals to harass the family of the deceased? Of course not, but the solution to that is to impose policies regarding assembly and not freedom of speech.
My personal rule regarding this issue? You have the right to say whatever you want to say, but I have the right to beat the shit out of you if I dislike it.
Freedom of speech should know no restrictions in public life. And frankly I disagree with every kind of censorship in the media, but obviously companies are allowed to set their own regulations.
Do I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to congregate at funerals to harass the family of the deceased? Of course not, but the solution to that is to impose policies regarding assembly and not freedom of speech.
My personal rule regarding this issue? You have the right to say whatever you want to say, but I have the right to beat the shit out of you if I dislike it.
- Status