Quayle’s son: Obama is the ‘worst president in history’

[Mayhem]

Jeezus Tapdancing Christ, people. Stray from the topic much? All we're talking about is what a simpering moron Ben Quayle is. If he was a Democrat, he still would be a simpering moron (but with good intentions). But, he's a Republican, so guess what? He's still a simpering moron (who doubles as an evil fuck). This is really all you need to know.

 

[D-rock]

I voted for "Dubya", but I have to admit he wasn't a very good president. As bad as he was, he was far better than Carter.

Considering the number of objective people out there, even a lot of them historians, that consider Bush one of the very worst if not the worst president ever you must have Carter dead last (Which Carter wasn't really that bad.)

 

[Hot Mega]

You don't need to rephrase it a different way. I'm not an idiot. I understood your analogy the first time you presented it.

I wasn't trying to defend Quayle. I was just making a comment. Sheesh.

If you would like, I could dredge up all the instances where Reagan made his opponents look like idiots, and there were MANY of those instances, but it doesn't really prove that the current democrats are idiots any more than the incompetence of Dan Quayle or George W. Bush proves anything about other republicans.

Well one of us isn't making sense then...

What does present day republicans have to do with it?? You originally said Dan Quayle could have turned Bentson's quip around on him if thus and so...

I simply said thus and so wasn't done because it wasn't possible by Dan Quayle (because of his inherent mental tools)...what does that have to do with me talking about present day GOPers or whatever???

Your comments were about Dan Quayle as were mine...what does all this other stuff you're talking about have to do with it??

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Saw him interviewed on CNN today, he just may be stupider than his father. He should do well in the Republican party.

"Stupider"???

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Well one of us isn't making sense then...

What does present day republicans have to do with it?? You originally said Dan Quayle could have turned Bentson's quip around on him if thus and so...

I simply said thus and so wasn't done because it wasn't possible by Dan Quayle (because of his inherent mental tools)...what does that have to do with me talking about present day GOPers or whatever???

Your comments were about Dan Quayle as were mine...what does all this other stuff you're talking about have to do with it??

Because you have a habit of always saying people are stupid if they don't agree with your political views.

 

[Hot Mega]

Because you have a habit of always saying people are stupid if they don't agree with your political views.

Whaaa??? I don't call individuals names here unless they try and call me names...

So...find where I said that here...(if they don't agree with me politically) then you have a point.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Whaaa??? I don't call individuals names here unless they try and call me names...

So...find where I said that here...(if they don't agree with me politically) then you have a point.

I didn't mean the people on this board. I mean politicians, reporters, celebrities, or any other people who take a stand publicly with a conservative viewpoint. You do it almost without fail in every single thread.

You can also read all the other comments by liberals in this thread or any other one. For example, just look at the post by knowone just a few posts ago. They always play the "stupid" card. No offense, but it gets pretty stale after a while.

 

[Hot Mega]

I didn't mean the people on this board. I mean politicians, reporters, celebrities, or any other people who take a stand publicly with a conservative viewpoint. You do it almost without fail in every single thread.

How did we get here now???

Well if I insinuated this Quayle was as stupid or more stupid than his pops, that's true. But it has nothing to do with his political lean. This guy...aside from his initial idiocy...the more I read about him..the more it seems he is on par or worse than his goofy pops. The subsequent stories bear that out.

You can also read all the other comments by liberals in this thread or any other one. For example, just look at the post by knowone just a few posts ago. They always play the "stupid" card. No offense, but it gets pretty stale after a while.

I can't speak for other people who comment here.:2 cents:

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

How did we get here now???

Well if I insinuated this Quayle was as stupid or more stupid than his pops, that's true. But it has nothing to do with his political lean. This guy...aside from his initial idiocy...the more I read about him..the more it seems he is on par or worse than his goofy pops. The subsequent stories bear that out.


I can't speak for other people who comment here.:2 cents:

No worries my liberal friend. I guess I just had to get it off my chest. When I vented, you were the closest one around. Sorry about that.

 

[CunningStunts]

Quayle wasn't any bigger an idiot VP than Biden is now...

And regardless of the source, I think history will show this guy is probably correct.

 

[Hot Mega]

Quayle wasn't any bigger an idiot VP than Biden is now...

Sorry. He was/is... The Quayle family is so dumb they couldn't even correctly surname themselves after a fowl.

And regardless of the source, I think history will show this guy is probably correct.

On what basis? For not letting unemployment skyrocket to 20 to 25 pct as with the Depression or hover above 10 pct for nearly a year like under Reagan??

For not making laws up as he choses behind the backs of Congress??

On the basis of wasting nearly a trillion dollars of teabagger loot democratizing another country??

Allowing the Taliban and AQ to nearly overrun us in Afghanistan?? Who knows what may ultimately be the outcome there but it won't be for lack of a responsible effort as was his predecessor.

Oh...I remember now...he's engaged in the unprecedented acts of appointing Czars and issuing executive orders.

Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler who are now profitable and the teabaggers stand to make a profit on the endeavor. Isn't that a win-win?

The banks are repaying what they've borrowed and are in positions to make business...isn't that a win also??

These same silly rabbits decrying bailout this and bailout that would be the first in line bitching about unemployment going to 20 pct and saying Obama isn't "doing anything" about it.

Of course they would have been singing the same blather about tax cuts and blah blah blah... Never mind the fact that we pay some of the lowest taxes in US history now and lower than all but 2 years of Reagan's entire presidency (for example).

Reagan cut the top rate from 69 pct to 50 pct in July '81...unemp was at 7.4 pct. a year later it was 9.8 pct..it went over 10 pct 2 months later. Staying above 10 pct for another 10 months. Reagan's first term was nearly up before it got back down to the 7 and a half pct. range.

Point is businesses hire when there is more demand for their goods and services than they can provide...not because they have more money. Businesses are in business to make a profit..not hire people. More money in the form of just tax cuts obviously wouldn't drive hiring....So IF the g'ment is going to spend money in the form of some jobs program versus tax cuts...the job program approach would be far more effective. Not only does it create jobs...it creates consumers for business who then must create jobs to meet rising demand.

I'm just not sure how Obama is worse by any stretch of reality on the facts. But when has that stopped the blather.

You disagree with his policies..okay but doesn't make someone worse if their deeds don't merit the distinction.:2 cents:

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Point is businesses hire when there is more demand for their goods and services than they can provide...not because they have more money.

While that is sometimes the case, it is not always the case. How about a growing business? They may hire employees when they are struggling financially, and hope to grow out of the situation.

Another situation when a business could hire employees is when they are diversifying into another type of business.

Businesses are in business to make a profit..not hire people.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear a democrat say that. You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard them say that "the purpose of business is to create jobs." Bravo Hot Mega! You are 100% correct.

More money in the form of just tax cuts obviously wouldn't drive hiring....So IF the g'ment is going to spend money in the form of some jobs program versus tax cuts...the job program approach would be far more effective.

This is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. Chances are, neither one of us will ever be able to change the other guy's mind.

Not only does it create jobs...it creates consumers for business who then must create jobs to meet rising demand.

It's not the job of government to create consumers. In our system of free enterprise, a business should create, sustain, and build it's own customer base by providing a product or service that was previously unavailable, or by improving on that which was already in the marketplace.

When the government steps in and feeds businesses with customers, they have no reason to work harder to become better. It's kind of like when a 700 pound fatty who is a shut in is enabled to stay in bed by family members who keep delivering pizza, cheeseburgers, and ice cream to their bedside. These family members do mean well, but they are doing more harm than good in the long run. The same goes for the government in this case.

 

[Hot Mega]

While that is sometimes the case, it is not always the case. How about a growing business? They may hire employees when they are struggling financially, and hope to grow out of the situation.

Another situation when a business could hire employees is when they are diversifying into another type of business.

You're pretty far off on both. Businesses hire to meet a demand...period. Even if the purpose is to branch into a new sector that would be out of a sense there was an unmet demand they could accommodate...

And unless you're talking about small time hiring..in the overwhelming majority of cases business use the money of others (banks or investors) to meet demand..they rarely are risking their capital (money recouped from tax cuts) for this.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear a democrat say that. You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard them say that "the purpose of business is to create jobs." Bravo Hot Mega! You are 100% correct.

Again. I'm not a Demo and while you're :bowdown: you should bear in mind that businesses don't inherently take tax cuts to expand or hire. That would be the most inefficient way for a g'ment to attempt to influence an unemployment rate. If a business had a burgeoning demand...they don't need a tax cut to meet it...that's what banks are for. From meeting this new demand...they realize more profits than any silly tax cut can generate for them.

This is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. Chances are, neither one of us will ever be able to change the other guy's mind.

Probably not but at least the historical record is on my side in this case.

It's not the job of government to create consumers. In our system of free enterprise, a business should create, sustain, and build it's own customer base by providing a product or service that was previously unavailable, or by improving on that which was already in the marketplace.

That is right but it doesn't exist in a vacuum as our g'ment is a part of this economy with it's responsibility to infrastructure, defense, social services like education, etc.

In light of this, suggesting the g'ment ought not be involved in influencing the economy where necessary and practical shows a blindness to part of the picture.

Technically it's not the job of the g'ment to create one, single consumer. Likewise, it's not the job of any company to create one, single consumer...but they do so indirectly by the jobs they require/create to meet a task. In either case these employee/consumers drive demand which directly drives employment numbers.

When the government steps in and feeds businesses with customers, they have no reason to work harder to become better. It's kind of like when a 700 pound fatty who is a shut in is enabled to stay in bed by family members who keep delivering pizza, cheeseburgers, and ice cream to their bedside. These family members do mean well, but they are doing more harm than good in the long run. The same goes for the government in this case.

Maybe you're reading this from a script or some think tanks book or something but it is absolutely in a g'ment's power, interest and responsibility to engage in practices which help their economy when necessary.

The g'ment is not feeding business with consumers. They are employing individuals to complete employment tasks they just happen to end up being consumers too when they have money in hand.

 

[ralph furley]

says the son of the worst vice president in history. what a douchebag

 

[monicasilver]

:clap:

And Arizona will elect this idiot Jr....why? Because Arizonans are fucking stupid. Sorry FOs Arizona membs. but the facts are the facts...and you will most certainly prove this true but putting this imbecile into a g'ment office...even though he's clueless as demonstrated by this dumb ad.


Cuntinued at link....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100812/el_yblog_upshot/quayles-son-obama-is-the-worst-president-in-history

:clap::nanner::glugglug::spump:

 

[vodkazvictim]

To anybody that hates Obama I would ask the following question:

"He has been in power for a very short time, how can you blame anything on him when his predecessor was in power for three straight terms?

For those that love Obama I would ask the following question:
Why is he playing the middle ground?

 

[HELLRAISER]

And Arizona will elect this idiot Jr....why? Because Arizonans are fucking stupid. Sorry FOs Arizona membs. but the facts are the facts...and you will most certainly prove this true but putting this imbecile into a g'ment office...even though he's clueless as demonstrated by this dumb ad.


Cuntinued at link....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100812/el_yblog_upshot/quayles-son-obama-is-the-worst-president-in-history

Generic Conservatives know full well that they can be elected into office by making statements that are either false, hypocritical and inconsistent:

Obama is a socialist

a Muslim

an illegal alien

a communist

the worst president

they're pro-life & pro-death penalty (which is an oxymoron)

anti-Big Government

anti-deficit

anti-Affirmative Action

anti-gay rights

anti-Muslim

anti-illegal immigration

Yet, when one takes the time to research and study factual history one will see that the GOP has been taken over by generic Conservatives who have contradicted themselves to no end and have done far more harm than good for this country and the world abroad

 

[monicasilver]

To anybody that hates Obama I would ask the following question:

"He has been in power for a very short time, how can you blame anything on him when his predecessor was in power for three straight terms?

For those that love Obama I would ask the following question:
Why is he playing the middle ground?

This is what we have come to. The plan of attack these days is just that - Attack. Discredit everyone. I guess this is easier than taking a firm stand for what you believe and support.

Here is what I believe; I believe I will have another glass of pinot noir.

 

[pool_hustler]

For those that love Obama I would ask the following question:
Why is he playing the middle ground?

Partly because he's not all that far from the middle to begin with, despite all the insane rantings about him being a marxist/communist.

In the past he had an excellent reputation as a negotiator/mediator.
As President of the Harvard Law review he was reknown for being able to bring opposing sides together.

I think he genuinely believed that in the midst of the multiple crises he inherited there was a very real possibility of increased bipartisanship. I mean logically thinking who in their right mind would put power politics over the well being of a nation in crisis? As he came to find out, many in the GOP would.

He also has to deal with a force that's even more powerful than the presidency, or congress: the money lobby is going to fight any major changes to their protected financial system, so any financial reform is going to be forced to steer a very middling, milquetoast course - no matter the risk of another similar meltdown.

He is also a student of Lincoln, and Lincoln, at least at the outset of his presidency, had the same goal of bringing disparate factions together in a time of crisis. Lincoln even named a couple of very powerful men who opposed him politically to his cabinet, which as I recall was all but unheard of up until that time. Obama also named opposition party members to his cabinet.

 

[roronoa3000]

He must have been in a coma 2000-2008.