Obama inspires a nation

[meadandale]

[quote=afx114]I thought it was funny how Drudge had to change his headline 3 times today to reflect how the DOW going negative was Obama’s fault, then when it was back up it wasn’t, then when it went back down it was again.

Check out the screecaps: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/drudge-dow-obama/

Hilarious.[/quote]

Think progress…there’s an unbiased news source if I’ve ever seen one. On par with the Huffington Post and The Daily Kos.

I’ll give you the same credit for posting that bullshit that you’d give me if I’d posted something from Fox News.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=cr]

Here’s my analysis: Breezey is conflicted (kind of like Alex_Angel – whatever happened to him btw? Breeze is that you?). Deep inside he loves Obama, but he knows Obama is as clueless as W. More polished, but less experienced. Optimistic, but inept.

He hopes (like all BO supporters) his enthusiasm will catch on, but he’s put on enough cheer routines to know it won’t. So he needles us with posts likes this primarily to get a reaction.

We all know it, but humor him anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=cr]

Here’s my analysis: Breezey is conflicted (kind of like Alex_Angel – whatever happened to him btw? Breeze is that you?). Deep inside he loves Obama, but he knows Obama is as clueless as W. More polished, but less experienced. Optimistic, but inept.

He hopes (like all BO supporters) his enthusiasm will catch on, but he’s put on enough cheer routines to know it won’t. So he needles us with posts likes this primarily to get a reaction.

We all know it, but humor him anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=cr]

Here’s my analysis: Breezey is conflicted (kind of like Alex_Angel – whatever happened to him btw? Breeze is that you?). Deep inside he loves Obama, but he knows Obama is as clueless as W. More polished, but less experienced. Optimistic, but inept.

He hopes (like all BO supporters) his enthusiasm will catch on, but he’s put on enough cheer routines to know it won’t. So he needles us with posts likes this primarily to get a reaction.

We all know it, but humor him anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=cr]

Here’s my analysis: Breezey is conflicted (kind of like Alex_Angel – whatever happened to him btw? Breeze is that you?). Deep inside he loves Obama, but he knows Obama is as clueless as W. More polished, but less experienced. Optimistic, but inept.

He hopes (like all BO supporters) his enthusiasm will catch on, but he’s put on enough cheer routines to know it won’t. So he needles us with posts likes this primarily to get a reaction.

We all know it, but humor him anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=cr]

Here’s my analysis: Breezey is conflicted (kind of like Alex_Angel – whatever happened to him btw? Breeze is that you?). Deep inside he loves Obama, but he knows Obama is as clueless as W. More polished, but less experienced. Optimistic, but inept.

He hopes (like all BO supporters) his enthusiasm will catch on, but he’s put on enough cheer routines to know it won’t. So he needles us with posts likes this primarily to get a reaction.

We all know it, but humor him anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?

[socrattt]

[quote=TheBreeze]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?[/quote]

Breeze, someone has hacked your account!! What is going here? Change your password quick!

Ok, the jokes over and now Breeze has officially come back to earth. I completely agree with your post. I can’t believe I just said that! When we start agreeing with Breeze we have to assume a revolution is right around the corner. I saw something last night on CNN that said Obama and this stimulus plan had an approval rating of 70%! Ya right. I don’t believe that more than 30% of the population approve of these false hopes.

LET THEM FAIL, LET THEM FAIL! That will be the new chant of 2009!

[socrattt]

[quote=TheBreeze]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?[/quote]

Breeze, someone has hacked your account!! What is going here? Change your password quick!

Ok, the jokes over and now Breeze has officially come back to earth. I completely agree with your post. I can’t believe I just said that! When we start agreeing with Breeze we have to assume a revolution is right around the corner. I saw something last night on CNN that said Obama and this stimulus plan had an approval rating of 70%! Ya right. I don’t believe that more than 30% of the population approve of these false hopes.

LET THEM FAIL, LET THEM FAIL! That will be the new chant of 2009!

[socrattt]

[quote=TheBreeze]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?[/quote]

Breeze, someone has hacked your account!! What is going here? Change your password quick!

Ok, the jokes over and now Breeze has officially come back to earth. I completely agree with your post. I can’t believe I just said that! When we start agreeing with Breeze we have to assume a revolution is right around the corner. I saw something last night on CNN that said Obama and this stimulus plan had an approval rating of 70%! Ya right. I don’t believe that more than 30% of the population approve of these false hopes.

LET THEM FAIL, LET THEM FAIL! That will be the new chant of 2009!

[socrattt]

[quote=TheBreeze]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?[/quote]

Breeze, someone has hacked your account!! What is going here? Change your password quick!

Ok, the jokes over and now Breeze has officially come back to earth. I completely agree with your post. I can’t believe I just said that! When we start agreeing with Breeze we have to assume a revolution is right around the corner. I saw something last night on CNN that said Obama and this stimulus plan had an approval rating of 70%! Ya right. I don’t believe that more than 30% of the population approve of these false hopes.

LET THEM FAIL, LET THEM FAIL! That will be the new chant of 2009!

[socrattt]

[quote=TheBreeze]

Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.

With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.

I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.

Is there no end to this madness?[/quote]

Breeze, someone has hacked your account!! What is going here? Change your password quick!

Ok, the jokes over and now Breeze has officially come back to earth. I completely agree with your post. I can’t believe I just said that! When we start agreeing with Breeze we have to assume a revolution is right around the corner. I saw something last night on CNN that said Obama and this stimulus plan had an approval rating of 70%! Ya right. I don’t believe that more than 30% of the population approve of these false hopes.

LET THEM FAIL, LET THEM FAIL! That will be the new chant of 2009!

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=arraya]
Karl Benz invented the automobile and he was German[/quote]

So that’s who we need to blame for enslaving us all.
[/quote]

Yeah, that was kind of a lame criticism, I rescind that one.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=arraya]
Karl Benz invented the automobile and he was German[/quote]

So that’s who we need to blame for enslaving us all.
[/quote]

Yeah, that was kind of a lame criticism, I rescind that one.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=arraya]
Karl Benz invented the automobile and he was German[/quote]

So that’s who we need to blame for enslaving us all.
[/quote]

Yeah, that was kind of a lame criticism, I rescind that one.

[Arraya]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=arraya]
Karl Benz invented the automobile and he was German[/quote]

So that’s who we need to blame for enslaving us all.
[/quote]

Yeah, that was kind of a lame criticism, I rescind that one.

[Author]

Posts