Clint Eastwood mocks GOP; antics go unnoticed by squares

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
this has been the most anemic recovery ever.
compared to what?
not counting 1929, the economy has never been in as bad a shape as it was in 2008. I say again, if you think ANY president could have gotten us out of a hole in 4 years that it took 10+ years to dig, you're an idiot.

the failure of an economy that he has presided over.
inheriting shit is very different from creating shit.

Obama didn't create 1/16th of the deficit.

We've dug deeper holes before (Jimmy Carter anyone?) and we didn't have this much trouble getting things going again.
the mild recession that was present when Jimmy Carter took office was also not his creation, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as the economy had gotten in 2008.
these 2 era's do not compare.

Carter managed to reduce unemployment and decreased the deficit because his situation wasn't quite as dire.
he also didn't have to deal with the remnants of 2 massive (unpaid) wars and a bank bailout. he also didn't have to deal with a Republican party who would rather LET THE ECONOMY BURN than lose an election... as Zxan and Autopsy have so pleasantly reminded us.

no president in history has had to deal with such a terrible Congress.

What I do know is that sound economic policy would have led to a real recovery.
if you think ANY president could have gotten us out of a hole in 4 years that it took 10+ years to dig, you're an idiot.
demonizing business
yes...
right...

the president who gave the insurance industry millions of new policies.
the president who bailed out General Motors.
the president who saw the Dow Jones go from barely 8k to back over 13k.

he's so anti-business.
gosh golly gee whilikers. I wish he would support business more than he has.

you are unbelievable.

we think he's a bad person.
seriously??

disagree with his policies all you want.
but he seems like a pretty nice person.

the level of discourse that your rhetoric has descended to is almost unconscionable. it would just be sad if it wasn't so shameful.

Sorry I have to nitpick some of your examples but handing out a loan doesn't exactly equal "saving General Motors". Don't get me wrong, the money probably made the reorganization a lot less painful but GM turned around GM. Ford took a look at the package the government was offering, said "no thanks", and ended up doing better than any of the big three.
fair enough.

remove "saving GM" from the list.
it's still a nice list.

"Avoided depression" is maddeningly vague. We may as well credit the Obama administration for "avoiding alien siege".
I'm just going by what the economists (who are not on Fox News payroll) have to say.
and the agreement is virtually unanimous; the recession was headed for a lower point than it actually hit.

Passing healthcare reform is a huge win if you happen to like that position.
I happen to enjoy the fact that more people have health insurance than prior to the reform package. but I'm just a psychotic Marxist Liberal.

imo it didn't go far enough.
single-payer (like the government and military enjoy) is the way to go. like every other advanced/industrial nation in the world.

Then there are those that just think... meh. He didn't get unemployment down as they promised in the beginning. He kind of continued a lot of the Bush policies. Nothing horrible happened... but neither did anything great.
so he fell short on a perfect economic recovery. no one is disputing this.
so he made some lofty statements as a candidate that he couldn't live up to. no one is disputing this.

you think it's easy for a candidate to understand just how bad the situation is before he actually takes over at the helm?
you think every candidate who makes promises on the campaign trail lives up to 100% of those? promises?

let's not play naive, Hal.

you think McCain / Palin would have gotten us any closer?
you think Romney / Ryan would get us any closer?

since when did anything short of perfection come to mean OFF WITH HIS HEAD? I don't see how Obama doesn't deserve the chance to continue where he left off. I haven't heard Mitt Romney say a single thing that makes me think he will do better.

he talks with so many generalities that you have to wonder if he actually has a plan. he claims over and over again that he does, but he won't tell us what it is. there are no specifics. he won't really tell us anything about himself that doesn't sound like it came from an alien who is trying to emulate the average middle-class white man.

how anyone can look at or listen to Mitt Romney and think he sounds like an honest dude is beyond me. literally.
 
Last edited:

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
you think it's easy for a candidate to understand just how bad the situation is before he actually takes over at the helm?
you think every candidate who makes promises on the campaign trail lives up to 100% of those? promises?

let's not play naive, Hal.

you think McCain / Palin would have gotten us any closer?
you think Romney / Ryan would get us any closer?

Well the claims on unemployment came after he was in office.

Of course candidates tend to promise things they can't deliver. Obama doesn't stand alone there by a longshot.

As to your question about McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan. Who knows? I'm no fan of either of those tickets and I would have real problems with both of them as well.
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
It's pretty rough when nearly 200 people are working hard to undo, block and halt everything you do at work.

It won't matter in November, you angry racist white fat guys are so outnumbered it's just ridiculous. All the voter frauding and blocking in the world isn't going to stop the sheer mass of poor to average americans who are still totally fed up with your party's selfish wanna be, financial Darwinist horse manure.

Yes, let's just conveniently gloss over the fact that Dems had a majority in both houses since 2006, and Obama had leeway to do almost whatever he wanted. He chose to burden the economy with his monster of a health care law. Blaming those dastardly Republicans will only work for so long. It's not Republican's fault that nobody voted for Obama's budget. A real leader would take charge with such opportunities. FDR didn't have these problems. You can't make excuses anymore. Democrats had their way. This predicament they are in its entirely their doing. We are lucky that voters saw fit to add some balance back to government in 2010.
 

Capt.Toilet

Good news everyone!
Feb 16, 2004
5,826
3
38
41
Ottawa, KS
Here is what we can do. I couldn't care less whether or not Obummer or the Mormon wins this years election, but lets just say black man does win. He has 4 more years to tone his policies, and 4 more years to see unemployment supposedly go down.

If unemployement doesn't go down and it stays either the same or gets higher, then Jacks really ought to let loose his lips from that big black dingus.

On the other hand if mister magic underwear wins, I would be willing to wager that the economy will not be that much better off.
 

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
It has nothing to with whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. It has to do with the fact that this has been the most anemic recovery ever.

I don't understand why people point out things like this to prove that the president has failed. Not only does it ignore the fact that the Hayekian model purportedly heralded would suggest, in such instances, to do nothing (and not cut taxes, because, you know, the debt), which would piss off the entire country, but that we're in the middle of a GLOBAL crises, which, you know, sort of cuts down the ability to bounce back all quick in today's very, very global economy.

Maybe the stimulus did help. What I've learned about economics tells me that it's almost impossible to know for sure. What I do know is that sound economic policy would have led to a real recovery.

I'm sorry, this is hilarious: maybe it helped, we can never know for sure: this is a well-reasoned, rational understanding that not only is it next to impossible to know if things done made it better or worse, as we can't see into the alternate dimension where we did the opposite, but that we can barely even agree historically. But then you follow it up with: if he had done anything right, everything would be sunshine and lollipops. WTF? It's like your rational brain is being followed very closely (but not quite close enough) by GOP talking points.

Instead we spent the entire term demonizing business,

Hmm... I wonder why people would do such things....
laidoffherehiredabroad5.png


Hmmm... Corporations making more and more money, with less and less US workers. That must because...um, THE DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING THE ECONOMY.

It isn't that business has been demonized. At all. It is that big business has continued to screw people over, and it is infuriating. They have, indeed, been demonized.

Yes, let's just conveniently gloss over the fact that Dems had a majority in both houses since 2006, and Obama had leeway to do almost whatever he wanted. He chose to burden the economy with his monster of a health care law. Blaming those dastardly Republicans will only work for so long. It's not Republican's fault that nobody voted for Obama's budget. A real leader would take charge with such opportunities. FDR didn't have these problems. You can't make excuses anymore. Democrats had their way. This predicament they are in its entirely their doing. We are lucky that voters saw fit to add some balance back to government in 2010.

Wait, what? Burden the economy with health care? REALLY? Especially as how essentially nothing has taken effect quite yet, this is especially preposterous. Honestly, to say: well you had, you know, like a year before we started purposefully blocking everything you wanted to do, and you did something else before, therefore, this is all your fault. What? Then the fuckers turn around and say: oh man, you didn't listen to this bipartisan committee, conveniently ignoring that the person MAKING the claim is the SAME one who rallied everyone to scuttle it anyways. It's absurd.
 

Hermskii

www.Hermskii.com
Apr 13, 2003
875
3
18
56
Houston
Hermskii.com
What would you wager? What would any of you wager? I think maybe wagering self requested bans would be interesting. An example would be something like this:

Why don't one of you who are so sure of themselves wager a permanent self ban from this BUF - Off Topic" forum in the event their preferred candidate doesn't win the election? Let's say I like and want Romney to win (which is true) and then let's say that dragonfliet likes and wants Obama to win (which I think is true). Now lets say we agree to put our names on a list here for everyone to see that says we agree to have our account locked down (Banned Permanently) by HAL or Brizz or whoever if our candidate isn't voted the winner and the next in line to take the oath to be the President of these United States?

Good idea? Bad idea? Why? Why not?
 
Last edited:

Big-Al

amateur de bière
Jun 14, 2003
8,579
33
48
40
Under a black flag.
www.ttrgame.com
What would you wager? What would any of you wager? I think maybe wagering self requested bans would be interesting. An example would be something like this:

Why don't one of you who are so sure of themselves wager a permanent self ban from this BUF - Off Topic" forum in the event their preferred candidate doesn't win the election? Let's say I like and want Romney to win (which is true) and then let's say that dragonfliet likes and wants Obama to win (which I think is true). Now lets say we agree to put our names on a list here for everyone to see that says we agree to have our account locked down (Banned Permanently) by HAL or Brizz or whoever if our candidate isn't voted the winner and the next in line to take the oath to be the President of these United States?

Good idea? Bad idea? Why? Why not?

You (for Romney) vs Plumb_Drumb (for Obama), i'm sure everyone'll agree :)
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
IMG]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1756/laidoffherehiredabroad5.png[/IMG]
Not to rock the boat...

But why wasn't this bill passed between 2006-2010 and perhaps more particularly between 2008-2010? Sorry, but the previous Congress and the current administration spent more time talking about, complaining about and voting on a stupid healthcare bill that won't pass the next President's term than they did on things that actually mattered. I don't care whose fault it is now, they could have accomplished whatever they needed to in that period of time and chose not to. It stinks of waiting until now because they knew it wouldn't pass.
 

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
Not to rock the boat...

But why wasn't this bill passed between 2006-2010 and perhaps more particularly between 2008-2010? Sorry, but the previous Congress and the current administration spent more time talking about, complaining about and voting on a stupid healthcare bill that won't pass the next President's term than they did on things that actually mattered. I don't care whose fault it is now, they could have accomplished whatever they needed to in that period of time and chose not to. It stinks of waiting until now because they knew it wouldn't pass.

Well, for one, any picture like this is the result of hindsight. It's not as if congress is receiving daily updates about how many jobs corporations are shipping overseas. It isn't until after the data has had the time to be collected and analyzed that you get anything.

And the second: Don't be ridiculous, Brizz. They could have accomplished whatever they needed? So apparently they just didn't WANT to do anything, being too busy playing videogames? Maybe they just hate America and don't actually want to do anything to improve it? And oh, yeah, health care doesn't matter?

Third: Even, should you be absolutely flat out stupid and believe that the Dems were too busy fingering themselves until the Repubs swept into congress, HOW THE HELL does that justify letting off the people voting against this kind of a thing? Oh, well, the Dems finally figured this out, and wanted to fix it--they tried to remove tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, you know, because that kills our economy. And the Repubs vote against it....and it's the Dems fault for not doing it earlier? WTF?

Congress in general is screwed up, and the Dems are certainly guilty of plenty of ridiculous BS, but to blame the party that tries to do something for not doing anything, letting off entirely the people BLOCKING this. That's madness.
 

Luv_Studd

Member
Aug 17, 1999
822
6
18
57
VT
Visit site
Unfortunately for Obama, economic recovery isn't on that list. Is the life of the every day American better than it was 4 years ago? I'd say not, and this morning we learned that not even David Axelrod has enough spin to try and argue otherwise.

I am everyday American, and doing just fine, thanks. :)
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
I'm sorry, this is hilarious: maybe it helped, we can never know for sure: this is a well-reasoned, rational understanding that not only is it next to impossible to know if things done made it better or worse, as we can't see into the alternate dimension where we did the opposite, but that we can barely even agree historically. But then you follow it up with: if he had done anything right, everything would be sunshine and lollipops. WTF? It's like your rational brain is being followed very closely (but not quite close enough) by GOP talking points.

I'm not even saying that we need to see into an alternate dimension. I'm saying that the economy is complicated enough that the data we have can't really tell us how much it helped or hurt. We only know that it did not live up to the goals it set for unemployment. In fact unemployment is even worse that what they predicted without the bill. Therefore the bill can only be considered a complete failure because it didn't do what it said it would.

Hmm... I wonder why people would do such things....
laidoffherehiredabroad5.png

Once again we are leaving out all the facts. You focus on one part of the bill, and conveniently forgetting all the other crap that was in it. It was never a serious proposal anyways. You also fail to mention that Republicans were actually going to vote for the bill until Harry Reid decided that he was going to block everyone out of leaving amendments. But I guess it would be too much to ask you to even read the source provided in the picture.

Then the fuckers turn around and say: oh man, you didn't listen to this bipartisan committee, conveniently ignoring that the person MAKING the claim is the SAME one who rallied everyone to scuttle it anyways. It's absurd.

This is classic misdirection. Obama set up the comission, and then completely ignored everything they said. Who cares what Ryan said? Did he stick a gun to Obama's head and force him to ingore the commission? The president didn't even make an effort. He literally ignored it, and he can't blame anyone for that but himself. The truth is that Obama was never really serious about fixing the budget because he knows it would require reducing the size of government, and he doesn't want to do that.

And the second: Don't be ridiculous, Brizz. They could have accomplished whatever they needed? So apparently they just didn't WANT to do anything, being too busy playing videogames? Maybe they just hate America and don't actually want to do anything to improve it? And oh, yeah, health care doesn't matter?

Nobody said they didn't do anything, but where they chose to focus says a lot about where their focus was. Instead of focusing on jobs they decided to push the most liberal things they could while they still had the chance. Hence Obamacare. We could have reformed the tax code, and made America competitive again. Areas that there is bipartisan support. They weren't interested. Republicans have passed several bills in the house of representatives. I believe that with some debate and reconciliation these bills could have been passed, but Harry Reid refused to even bring them up for vote in the Senate. The Senate has hardly done anything since 2010 because of this. If anyone is to blame for congress being inept right now it's Harry Reid.
 

N1ghtmare

Sweet Dreams
Jul 17, 2005
2,411
12
38
Where least expected
I don't even know what Romney's policies are. He hasn't even said a word about Afghanistan. According to Clint Eastwood, Republicans have been against Afghanistan all along!

Romney's policy is thus: Everything that is not Obama. Obama hangs around in Afghanistan a few more years? Bad. Obama wants to pull out? Bad. He wants to add 50,000 troops? Bad.

Because statistics and polls show that Generic Republican vs Obama; Obama looses, but if its Romney vs Obama, Obama wins. This of course is completely stupid because anyone's personal concept of a perfect Generic Republican (or Democrat) will always win against any other candidate. However, this is what Romney is tying to do. Be a Generic Republican and thus have no position on anything.

In the history of the US every few decades we have a recession. These tend to be a spike downward followed by a slow downhill then a gradual slow uphill. This is exactly what has happened in every US recession and was exactly what happened in the current recession. There is nothing special about this one and nothing that our government could have done to change this. Democrats who thought Obama would be our jesus lord and savior and should leave because he didn't turn around the economy -well- you were foolish in voting for him thinking he would. That doesn't mean voting for him was a bad decision, but it means you voted for him for the wrong reasons. Republicans who think he is a communist fascist athiest dictator who hates freedom (seriously, he cannot be all of those at once!) are really just racists who want to find another definitional scapegoat to label him as.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Nobody said they didn't do anything, but where they chose to focus says a lot about where their focus was. Instead of focusing on jobs they decided to push the most liberal things they could while they still had the chance. Hence Obamacare. We could have reformed the tax code, and made America competitive again. Areas that there is bipartisan support. They weren't interested. Republicans have passed several bills in the house of representatives. I believe that with some debate and reconciliation these bills could have been passed, but Harry Reid refused to even bring them up for vote in the Senate. The Senate has hardly done anything since 2010 because of this. If anyone is to blame for congress being inept right now it's Harry Reid.
Exactly. There are lots of people to blame today, and they should be blamed. But the sole proprietor of Congress ineptitude right now is Harry Reid. How that guy even holds office is still way beyond me. I guess that is what the President campaigning for you and giving you money does for you.

As TWD stated, it says everything about what they were focusing on. Recent polls show that very few Americans even care about healthcare reform right now. Looking at the graph provided by Gallup, you can see that in 2008 the "fervor" was around the same and even when politicians and legislation barrage it, it's never peaked 36%. Meanwhile, 1 in 6 working age adults don't have a job today.

And, come on, really? You're going to use the "they noticed a problem and decided to do something about it" argument here? This is something people were complaining about in the 2000 Presidential campaign, the 2004 Presidential campaign, the 2008 Presidential campaign... and it wasn't until 2012 that someone in Congress actually said "Hey, let's fix this!"? Right... Again, it stinks of only going to the floor because they already knew it wouldn't pass.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
Well the claims on unemployment came after he was in office.
yeah and Bush promised us that he could capture or kill bin Laden.
politicians are politicians are politicians...

I think it's still pretty obvious that Obama is the lesser of evils between himself and Romney. by a long shot.
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
yeah and Bush promised us that he could capture or kill bin Laden.
politicians are politicians are politicians...

I think it's still pretty obvious that Obama is the lesser of evils between himself and Romney. by a long shot.

Oh look, I don't know that Bush was saying he personally would capture or kill bin Laden. Isn't it fair to assume he meant "we" as in the United States. If he gave a time table then fair enough, but I don't recall that he did. Isn't that reaching a bit?

My challenge to unemployment is that, while in office, the Obama administration gave clear indicators that the rate would not rise above a certain percentage and that it would drop. It did and it didn't.

Honestly though, I think that particular point is not as important as the fact that the economy is just sort of... languishing at the moment. I don't blame his policies for creating the recession... it was obviously inherited from Bush. It just isn't doing much of anything at the moment. We've seen bits of hope with housing starts and other indicators but then it ultimately just stays about the same.

Long story short... I just don't see the enacted policies that have caused an improvement.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
Oh look, I don't know that Bush was saying he personally would capture or kill bin Laden. Isn't it fair to assume he meant "we" as in the United States. If he gave a time table then fair enough, but I don't recall that he did. Isn't that reaching a bit?
how is it reaching?
Bush came on TV while the Twin Towers were still smoldering and told us that we were going to find and bring justice to the people responsible for the attacks. he promised to capture or kill bin Laden.

liar liar pants on fire :rolleyes:

since when are you into splitting hairs?
yes. Obama has made a couple of promises he couldn't keep... just like every other president before him.

My challenge to unemployment is that, while in office, the Obama administration gave clear indicators that the rate would not rise above a certain percentage and that it would drop.
god forbid he aims high?

I don't know what your point is, Hal.
I thought you were slightly more rational than this.

political promises should always be viewed more as plans or goals.
I know you weren't born yesterday. since when do you believe that every word a politician speaks is one that HE MUST KEEP lest he immediately be removed from office?

the economy is just sort of... languishing at the moment. I don't blame his policies for creating the recession... it was obviously inherited from Bush. It just isn't doing much of anything at the moment. We've seen bits of hope with housing starts and other indicators but then it ultimately just stays about the same.
yes!
we agree that the economy is less than perfect!

so your next best idea would be to elect Romney / Ryan?
these guys want to return to the GOP economic planks that we already know don't work. the planks that we already know were responsible for leading us into this mess to begin with.

vote for the guy who has been less than perfect.
or vote for the guy who advocates an ideology that we already know is doomed to fail.
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
how is it reaching?
Bush came on TV while the Twin Towers were still smoldering and told us that we were going to find and bring justice to the people responsible for the attacks. he promised to capture or kill bin Laden.

liar liar pants on fire :rolleyes:

since when are you into splitting hairs?
yes. Obama has made a couple of promises he couldn't keep... just like every other president before him.

god forbid he aims high?

I don't know what your point is, Hal.
I thought you were slightly more rational than this.

political promises should always be viewed more as plans or goals.
I know you weren't born yesterday. since when do you believe that every word a politician speaks is one that HE MUST KEEP lest he immediately be removed from office?

yes!
we agree that the economy is less than perfect!

so your next best idea would be to elect Romney / Ryan?
these guys want to return to the GOP economic planks that we already know don't work. the planks that we already know were responsible for leading us into this mess to begin with.

vote for the guy who has been less than perfect.
or vote for the guy who advocates an ideology that we already know is doomed to fail.

You're reading way too much into what I'm saying and I can see that you're getting upset.

I don't hold President Obama to a higher standard than I'd hold any other. I know things don't always go according to plans and I accept that. All I'm saying is that maybe this isn't the best plan.

You were very quick to point out things that didn't work out so well for the guy you didn't like. Are you not interested in being equally critical of the one you're backing?


:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.