Only Liberals will blame big snows and cold weather on Global warming... if it was warm... it would be rain and not snow.
|
Only Liberals will blame big snows and cold weather on Global warming... if it was warm... it would be rain and not snow.
Sorry I forgot you need the sarcasm text invoked
No, it's called weather. It always snows in Texas in the winter and February brings the biggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It is disgusting here. I've had a layer of ice on my yard for weeks now . We got rained on after the 2 ft storm .Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
When the ground is exposed ,it is swamped . I've had to wash down the dogs almost every day. I can do some hiking with ice cleats on . But this stuff really restricts activity .
All I can say Tom is you choose to live where it snows
Sorry Speech, but I couldn't resist.
Monthly Weather Forecast for Dallas, TX - weather.com
That's OK, just had almost a week in San Diego and we need the moisture. Get back to me when the temp and humidity are both 98 there. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Come over here and we will offer you 98 humidity and a balmy 70-75 soon this will give way to a balmy autumm without the humidity to be followed by 32 - 50 with no snow
Well yeah ;but then again ,we don't want for fresh pottable water . You pick your poisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Touche"Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Most quick way to get rid of the liberals and socialists... will be for an asteroid to hit the earth. Few of them have survival skills or can do much of anything people would consider useful after an "O"pocalypse. Collecting welfare and standing in line for handouts would NOT be a worthy skill.
According to the Republicans you are already surviving an "O"pocalypse but the meteor hit back when that good ole boy, George, you remember him, "Mission Accomplished" George, was asleep on the throne
Our unemployment rate was almost 1/2 what it is now under Bush.. and the national debt was 1/4 what it is now under Obama... the man who makes drunken sailors look fiscally responsible. Despite their reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I'd trade the wors year under Bush for EVERY year so far under Obama.
That might be a fair trade but what do you think good ole George would have done differently? Would he have let the banks sink, Would he have been bailed out by his Saudi friends? Would he have let GM and Chrysler die? You cannot compare pre GFC with post GFC and say look! I expect he might have started another war so your industries would have been running full steam producing munnitions, and all those unemployed could have been at the front, WMD under the bed as they say, you would have been locked in war with the Iranians under good ole George. No George would have stimulated the economy with yet another tax cut so all his friends would pay no taxQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Actually Smoothy the deficit has gone down under Obama despite you guys whaling about spending while making sure the rich guys got their welfare checks.
Then explain how the national DEBT has almost quadrupled... thats all money that has to be paid back to someone (and not just China)... and when the interest rates go up... as they most certainly will... the interest owed on that will balloon trememdously.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Smoothy they don't understand debt and deficit, BO can have a lower deficit and still add to debt, all he has to do is reduce spending in the current year but the debt continues to grow while ever there is a deficit. Some big money was spent a few years ago and big money is still spent and a miserable $85 billion isn't going to make any difference. You guys must be paying almost $1 trillion in interest by now and if you are not then the time will come when you do and that $1 trillion is adding to the debt every year. It's like maxing out your credit card and paying the monthly payment with another credit card..
I applaud the idea that the party has to stop but just reducing expenditure isn't going to repay the debt, the people have to repay the debt or ultimately face massive inflation and devaluation of the currency. Goods from China won't be cheap then
Rich guys sucking money out and not even bothering to trickle any down. They have profited by hook and crook, during a global financial meltdown and cannot get own their supply side economics together. But then again supply side economics was never meant to enrich anyone else but the supply siders.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Technically it did go down, after an astronomical jump in 2009, but still higher than Bush's last year in office. Oh, and the debt has doubled under Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
More than half of his spending though was keeping the country going from the financial melt down and taking on the hidden cost of two wars and rich guy tax cuts. We may not have fully recovered after four years, but we are slowly.
Do you actully believe that? Any proof to back that up? Since almost all of the Stimulous went to places that created no jobs and were all lefty programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
More people had jobs in George Bushes worst year than have been employedd in Obamas best year.
Tal, you really should read something besides Think Progress.
Imagine that... revenues expanded during a period of tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate
U6 rate... the real unemployment rate roughly doubled under the entire time under Obama.
Not his fault that big business screwed up the economy and laid off a lot of people. The stock market doubled but they didn't call the workers back. Big business is making huge profits, yet they haven't called the workers back. That's the private sectors fault, not government.
I can't even blame Bush for those unemployment numbers.
Not his fault?. everything Obama has done since he got elected has been anti-business... and those numbers reflect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Talk to a business owner sometime... they will all tell you the same thing.
All my buddies that have businesses say they are making good profits, and expanding or thinking about it.
Obviously Obama is not to be held accountable for anything with Tal.
I know a lot of business owners and they are all ticked off with Owebama... some of them USED to be democrats too... they aren't any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Well that may be, he might have done some things that don't benefit them, but you have to get used to it, for the time being, he is in control, if there is such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Look BO has effectively been a lame duck for the last two or more years, he can't get his policies through the house and you have the ridiculous situation where bills have to originate in the SENATE and even then they have little hope of carrying. Your system, where it is possible for an administration to exist without the support of a majority in the house, flies in the face of reason. It makes the country ungovernable. You spend your lives in a perpetual election campaign
He had enough to get elected that's all that mattered. Try again in '16.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Dude, a leader finds a way to get it done. Other than Obamacare Obama couldn't even get his agenda through when he had both houses, why the hell should the House bend over and take it in the a$$ now?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
P.S. Obama is the one on a permanent campaign, and that's his agenda for the next two years, he's already quit governing.
You forgot winding one war down, and ending another, and then the true "mission accomplished" with Bin Laden. Better than the last guy.
Where did you get the idea bill have to originate in the senate? Any bills involving spending money have to originate in the house of representatives. And no its not a ridiculous situation. Its part of the separation of powers and checks and balances.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hands Off My Purse! Why Money Bills Originate in the House
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
— Article I, Section 7, Clause 1
Well smoothy you recently had the situation where bonehead wanted the senate to go first and he has said as much on more than one occasion. Yes, your budget must originate in the house, but what does that really mean, they can take a bill penned by the senate and pass it and then the senate can pass it. I'm sure you have heard of negotiation and right now you have an Aunt Sally situation where no matter what anyone says nothing is going to get done. The reconciliation process doesn't exist because legislation cannot get to that phase. Face it obstructionism reigns
I'll give him bin laden even though anyone would have done that. But otherwise anyone can quit, your guy is a pro at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Harry Ried is the prince of Obstruction...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And incidentally... apparently unlike Australia... our President isn't an Omnipotent king.
Anyone didn't, he did, and he said he would during his campaign. Promise kept. Not to mention he took out the Al Quaida high command in the process, including the traitor American who plotted the Christmas bomber.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 AM. |