It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Romney wins, it will be 2008 all over again in 4 years or less.

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 



And you ignore the fact that he has done nothing to prosecute these crimes his whole presidency, and that this charge is not of the criminal nature. Whatever.


This is not a fact, this is opinion. Obama has pursued the Wall Street fraudsters, he just hasn't succeeded in getting them prosecuted for crimes. There is no proof this is from lack of trying.

Romney's plan is the same as the GW admins plan. That is fact. I guess you could claim that doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results is an opinion.




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


This is not a fact, this is opinion. Obama has pursued the Wall Street fraudsters, he just hasn't succeeded in getting them prosecuted for crimes. There is no proof this is from lack of trying.

Romney's plan is the same as the GW admins plan. That is fact. I guess you could claim that doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results is an opinion.



So its fact. He hasn't prosecuted any bankers. Period.

And its a fact that the punishments he doled out were a slap on the wrist. Also a fact.

Now i provided article after article about how many of his administration has ties to these banks and show that he had ample opportunity to go after them harder, but you wont acknowledge this.

You will not look at the past actions of Obama, and instead focus on his rhetoric that he is tough on banks. Again, he has not prosecuted one person of relevance. So he is either incapable of doing the job, or is not interested.

Again, a cite you claim is credible disagrees with you (why did you use that cite again?), saying outright the facts I mentioned above about how hes not gone after bankers, and concludes that this move is a political ploy. You have not given one shred of evidence as to why this isn't the case, and because its a cite you used, you can't brush it off as biased as you did with the pile of cites I gave you.

Because you don't allow opinions based on a candidates pasts actions, then I will feel obligated to point out in every post you make from here on out where you criticize what Romney has done.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 



So its fact. He hasn't prosecuted any bankers. Period.

And its a fact that the punishments he doled out were a slap on the wrist. Also a fact.


Not a fact.

If he hasn't prosecuted any bankers, then how has he doled out penalties?

He just hasn't succeeded in prosecuting criminal charges, yet.

He just hasn't succeeded in making any criminal charges stick. And he has brought in a new prosecutor. Fact, the effort continues.

Of course he has ties to bankers, don't we all. That means nothing.

Fact is Obama has gone after the bankers, a fact you just admitted.

You ignore that these bankers have lots of power, and taking them down isn't going to be a cake walk.

The wheels of justice turn slowly.

While Obama has ties to bankers, Romney is a banker, who specialized in corporate take overs, so who are we going to trust, the guy who has ties to bankers, or the guy who is a banker.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I have to agree.

Please, not that again! Pretty please
Bush spent so much on the war in Iraq, that is were Romney should be complaining about.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


Ive read through this thread and it sounds like you are arguing with a 4 year old with his hands over his ears, yelling "nah nah nah! I cant hear you! Im right and you're wrong!"

Everything that has been postex so far seems to suggest that Obama is just trying to do something now so he can gain votes. He probably spent all of 20 seconds coming up with the idea to bring in a new guy to make it look like he's doing something too. I don't know about the op but I tend to go by past results. He needs to actually produce some results before I'm going to believe this is anything but a ploy to get more votes.

Also what economic recovery? The economy has been stagnate and its been shown that even the unemployment figure of 7.8% was a lie. And then we are forgeting that the only reason that ue3 is going down is because people are just getting discouraged and stop looking for work.

I agree with you we've just suffered through bush's 3rd term the last 4 years. The winner of this election will be his 4th term. Too bad people like th op can't see it. Keep up the good fight though these are the people who are buying into the problem and we need to be the ones to wake them up.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Only a bunch of children think everything can be solved with the wave of a wand.

It is politically expedient to ignore the actions that Obama has taken, and pretend he hasn't done anything because they don't meet your intentionally unrealistic expectations.

Your whole arguement isn't based on the fact that Obama hasn't done anything, but that it isn't good enough for you. What is obvious is that no matter what Obama does, it won't be good enough for repubs, because they can't admit to Obama's accomplishments anymore than they can admit to GWs failures, or that Romney's plan is the same failed policies that the GW admin followed.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I would like for you to read and really understand what I am asking when you reply, if you reply.


Originally posted by poet1b
They might as well elect GW for a third term, except Romney will be worse.


I would like to know what "worse" is. Since we all like one thing or another more than some, I would like to have context so I can understand where you are coming from.



First, Romney will stop enforcing laws against fraud, and the bankster crooks will again have free reign.


Oh, you mean there are laws being enforced that weren't enforced before? I would like to see some examples of this, if you wouldn't mind. Or, conversely, just if you could show some evidence that there has been a change in the way the laws have been enforced that would yield greater oversight than in the past.

I would also be interested in hearing why you think Romney would return us to the previous (yet as yet undefined) state.




We are now just starting to see some economic recovery, but with Romney in the white house, investors will once again turn away from real investment in actually taking the risk to produce new technology and products, and go back to fraudulent schemes.


I would like to be more specific, but it would exceed the character limit on this post. So to sum t up, could you provide some support for:

- that new technology is being invested in at a greater pace than in prior years
- that investing is up in technology over prior years
- what is being done now, as opposed to before, that is preventing the use of "fraudulent schemes"?



Obama is now deporting more illegals than any other president has ever done. Romney will stop deportations, in order to keep the cheap labor available, and the crime to keep the public scared, and eager to support the military police state.


Could you put up a link to this or something?



And then look for another 911, in order to provide another excuse for another couple of wars in some third world country.
edit on 28-10-2012 by poet1b because: Missed a word

edit on 28-10-2012 by poet1b because: Typo


Well....i guess I can't even ask for supporting information for this statement

Listen Know what? Never mind. I see that your OP is just an upswelling and overflow of your politically zealous madness.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Only a bunch of children think everything can be solved with the wave of a wand.

It is politically expedient to ignore the actions that Obama has taken, and pretend he hasn't done anything because they don't meet your intentionally unrealistic expectations.

Your whole arguement isn't based on the fact that Obama hasn't done anything, but that it isn't good enough for you. What is obvious is that no matter what Obama does, it won't be good enough for repubs, because they can't admit to Obama's accomplishments anymore than they can admit to GWs failures, or that Romney's plan is the same failed policies that the GW admin followed.


Can you please juxtapose the Romney plan with the Obama plan for me?

I would posit that neither has given you a "plan", but rather just a bunch of empty feel good promises that make good soundbites. You think it is a plan.....and I say, "How do either of you accomplish that?"

"My plan is to make maigical bunnies fly in from the moon to sprinkle manna over the entire Earth." Anyone can make a promise. And, as we see every election cycle, they all can break them.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You want to know what worse is?

Well, in economics terms, take every penny you are worth, go to Vegas (do you need to know the definition of Vegas is) and put what ever amount of money you can muster on the roulette machine on a single number. Should you have the fabulous luck of winnning, let it ride.

After you lose everything, give it a few months, and you will know what worse is. Then come
back here for your next life lesson.

Sorry, BFFT, couldn't help myself.


edit on 30-10-2012 by poet1b because: Typos

edit on 30-10-2012 by poet1b because: Add last line



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You want to know what worse is?

Well, in economics terms, take every penny you are worth, go to Vegas (do you need to know the definition of Vegas is) and put what ever amount of money you can muster on the roulette machine on a single number. Should you have the fabulous luck of winnning, let it ride.

After you lose everything, give it a few months, and you will know what worse is. Then come
back here for your next life lesson.

Sorry, BFFT, couldn't help myself.


edit on 30-10-2012 by poet1b because: Typos

edit on 30-10-2012 by poet1b because: Add last line


Poet, i have found you in the past to be intelligent. So I am trying to engage you in a real conversation by having your back up what you say with the logic used to come to your conclusions.

And, after I painstakingly enumerated the details I would like you to clarify, you respond with a half baked and ill applied metaphor?

I think the "worse" you describe would be a metaphor for either candidate.

Rise above what you are showing. Please.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by YourWIFI
[color=skyblue]It took about 10 years for the economy to become healthy after the Great Depression of 1929, yet, ignorant folks who know NOTHING about economies show disgrace at Obama for everything not being perfect yet.

The impatient folks (mostly Right-wing shills) out there need to realize that our President is not a MAGICIAN, although he very well must be a magician after being able to reverse the HORRENDOUS DAMAGE caused by REPUBLICAN Bush.

[color=skyblue]We cannot afford a THIRD BUSH TERM folks!! Obama has it going in the CORRECT FORWARD direction. Romney and Ryan will have us BACK to 2008, or more REALISTICALLY, back to 1929 or WORST!!!!!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

en.wikipedia.org...:_1945.E2.80.931973
The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. ""I am now a Keynesian in economics," proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.[86] Although this period brought economic expanding to the country as whole, it was not recession proof. The recessions of 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, and 1960 saw a drastic decline in GDP.

www.data360.org...
www.data360.org...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Summerian
 


Thanks for providing this information.

The US did it with high taxes on the rich and corporations, significant spending on infrastructure and strong public schools, and it worked, and we saw a repeat of this under Clinton.

But for some reason a large percentage of the US population rejects what works, and chooses instead to follow an ideogy that has been proven not to work, over and over again.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Then you shouldn't have asked me a question like, what is worse.

An economy in free fall, total collapse due to unpayable debts, that is worse.

Look up the other stuff yourself. Job growth in strongest in the high tech capital of the world, run with it.

If you want an intelligent conversation, try not to sound like Rush.




edit on 31-10-2012 by poet1b because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


So now you have been proven wrong, you got nothing to say?

You might want to recognize that it is politically expedient to pretend Obama hasn't done anything, beccause to admit Obama has had any level of success entirely unravels the republican attack against Obama



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Then you shouldn't have asked me a question like, what is worse.

An economy in free fall, total collapse due to unpayable debts, that is worse.

Look up the other stuff yourself. Job growth in strongest in the high tech capital of the world, run with it.

If you want an intelligent conversation, try not to sound like Rush.




edit on 31-10-2012 by poet1b because: (no reason given)


Rush? You mean Limbaugh? Do you listen to him? If not, how do you know what he sounds like? I know I haven't heard anything from him since 1993, when I was in college and still had to determine he was a moron..

Everything you describe as "worse" sounds like both parties. With the exception of Clinton, who actually did a pretty good job (best president since WWII, if you overlook his shoddy ethics).

When I say "what is worse", i want to know what you call "worse". Not some smarmy answer. I asked in earnest, the least you could do is answer the same.

Protip: The only thing I dislike more than the DNC is the GOP. So your false political dichotomy doesn't work with me.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
If Obama wins it'll be 1929 all over again in 4 years or less.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Summerian
 


Thanks for providing this information.

The US did it with high taxes on the rich and corporations, significant spending on infrastructure and strong public schools, and it worked, and we saw a repeat of this under Clinton.

But for some reason a large percentage of the US population rejects what works, and chooses instead to follow an ideogy that has been proven not to work, over and over again.



And under Obama has any of this been done?

I recall that the majority of his political capital was spent on Obamacare.

Have you read the contents of Obamacare? Do you know the implications contained in that massive document? The reason I ask is in hopes to preemptively prevent anyone from proclaiming how good Obamacare is. Because I just don't think anyone really even knows what it is going to do in the end. Except maybe the folks who wrote it (and then told us we had to pass it to see what was in it).

Other than that, he has pursued a continuation of the same economic policies (the bailout principle) as Bush. Know why this is so? Because it is a decision that is handed to the POTUS to execute. They only pretend that they have a say so. This is why Wall Street keeps getting money, even under Obama.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Obama made the mistake of trying to work with the republicans in congress, and agreed to extend the tax cuts for the super rich.

At least Obama is saying that it is time to allow those tax cuts to expire, to ask the rich to pay more.

Romney publicly states he wants more tax cuts for the rich.

Obama did tie bailout loans to be made on the condition that exec bonuses not be paid. This is against what the repubs wanted.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
All of these kind of threads would have happily been avoided if you silly Americans would have just waken up and supported Ron Paul



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grambler
 


So now you have been proven wrong, you got nothing to say?

You might want to recognize that it is politically expedient to pretend Obama hasn't done anything, beccause to admit Obama has had any level of success entirely unravels the republican attack against Obama



You are a riot. I mean literally you take the cake. You ignore the litany of links I provided that show just how little Obama has done to go after these bankers, and how he has actually appointed the very bankers he should have been going after to positions of power.

Then you post an article that you claim is a legitimate source that shows he has appointed a new prosecutor who has filed civil charges against a bank, but then concludes that this will just be a slap on the wrist and Obama only did it to try and garner votes. When this is pointed out to you, you want people to ignore the parts of you article that you disagree with.

Your only claim is he went after them before, and now hes changing for to have more success. But you haven't posted one article, or even reasoning of your own why this is the case. Your own article says its just political posturing, and I posted tons of articles showing he has had ample opportunity to go after these criminals, but chose not to.

Also, you still haven't mentioned why you posted an article that disagrees with you, a question I have asked you in every post since you did it. Well Ill tell you why you did. Because you didn't read the entire article. You just googled it, saw the top part, and posted it. This also shows that you probably didn't read all of the articles I posted. The reason I stopped discussing this with you is that you are not interested in the truth. You are interested in spreading propaganda for your guy. Period. Thats why you refuse to look at anything that shows him in a bad light.

And now you have the nerve to say I stopped posting because I was proven wrong. I know what your going to say, he went after bankers in some way, therefore he prosecuted some showing I was wrong.

But you admitted before my last post he hadn't criminally prosecuted anyone, which is what we were discussing the entire time. In case you forgot

Obama has pursued the Wall Street fraudsters, he just hasn't succeeded in getting them prosecuted for crimes


So I said in my next post you agreed, he hasn't successfully prosecuted anyone. I was clearly talking about criminal charges. I know you won't read it anyways, but here's an article showing that Obama hasn't prosecuted anyone important because he doesn't feel they've committed any crimes.


For perhaps the first time, President Barack Obama was forced to explain why there have been no prosecutions of Wall Street executives for their fraudulent actions during the run-up to the financial crisis. Asked by Jake Tapper to explain this behavior, Obama basically suggested that most of the actions on Wall Street weren’t illegal but just immoral, and that his Administration worked to re-regulate the financial sector with the Dodd-Frank reform legislation.


news.firedoglake.com...

Would you give me the names of any of the bankers he has prosecuted? (I on the other hand can give you the name of tons of whistleblowers he has prosecuted. Why would he put more energy into that?)

The reason I stopped arguing with you is because Obama is your religion. You believe anything he says, regardless of evidence to the contrary. You believe you are right because you have faith in Obama, and the faith overcomes any logic contrary to that thought. I no matter what, I can't overcome that. So I won't waste my time trying to have a civil discussion with you.

And yes Romney is a horrible candidate. My point is that both are equally terrible.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join