- This topic has 1,333 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 24, 2011 at 10:55 PM #725117August 24, 2011 at 11:01 PM #723926
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=eavesdropper] Does this sound better:
“Je vous en prie, mon énorme sac de merde parfumée!”
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
Eaves: Yes, being referred to as a bag of sweet smelling shit is MUCH better!
Of course, if we’re moving towards the scatological, German is so superior. Alles ist bescheissen really conveys it much more graphically (and gutturally) than French, which is a much prettier language.
BTW, I didn’t take cream puff as an insult. To the contrary.
August 24, 2011 at 11:01 PM #724013Participant[quote=eavesdropper] Does this sound better:
“Je vous en prie, mon énorme sac de merde parfumée!”
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
Eaves: Yes, being referred to as a bag of sweet smelling shit is MUCH better!
Of course, if we’re moving towards the scatological, German is so superior. Alles ist bescheissen really conveys it much more graphically (and gutturally) than French, which is a much prettier language.
BTW, I didn’t take cream puff as an insult. To the contrary.
August 24, 2011 at 11:01 PM #724604Participant[quote=eavesdropper] Does this sound better:
“Je vous en prie, mon énorme sac de merde parfumée!”
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
Eaves: Yes, being referred to as a bag of sweet smelling shit is MUCH better!
Of course, if we’re moving towards the scatological, German is so superior. Alles ist bescheissen really conveys it much more graphically (and gutturally) than French, which is a much prettier language.
BTW, I didn’t take cream puff as an insult. To the contrary.
August 24, 2011 at 11:01 PM #724757Participant[quote=eavesdropper] Does this sound better:
“Je vous en prie, mon énorme sac de merde parfumée!”
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
Eaves: Yes, being referred to as a bag of sweet smelling shit is MUCH better!
Of course, if we’re moving towards the scatological, German is so superior. Alles ist bescheissen really conveys it much more graphically (and gutturally) than French, which is a much prettier language.
BTW, I didn’t take cream puff as an insult. To the contrary.
August 24, 2011 at 11:01 PM #725122Participant[quote=eavesdropper] Does this sound better:
“Je vous en prie, mon énorme sac de merde parfumée!”
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
Eaves: Yes, being referred to as a bag of sweet smelling shit is MUCH better!
Of course, if we’re moving towards the scatological, German is so superior. Alles ist bescheissen really conveys it much more graphically (and gutturally) than French, which is a much prettier language.
BTW, I didn’t take cream puff as an insult. To the contrary.
August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM #723934an
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).
JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.
This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM #724022Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).
JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.
This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM #724612Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).
JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.
This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM #724766Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).
JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.
This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.August 24, 2011 at 11:02 PM #725130Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).
JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.
This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.August 25, 2011 at 4:41 AM #724058Anonymous
GuestDo you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.
And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?
One doesn’t need to be French-speaking intellectual to call this one. All it takes is a little common sense.
August 25, 2011 at 4:41 AM #724148GuestDo you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.
And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?
One doesn’t need to be French-speaking intellectual to call this one. All it takes is a little common sense.
August 25, 2011 at 4:41 AM #724739GuestDo you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.
And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?
One doesn’t need to be French-speaking intellectual to call this one. All it takes is a little common sense.
August 25, 2011 at 4:41 AM #724895GuestDo you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.
And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?
One doesn’t need to be French-speaking intellectual to call this one. All it takes is a little common sense.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.