Rooting For the President to Fail

[HAL 9000 96]

I believe he just got the stimulus package enacted. You might want to whine and flat out spew venom if it fails or find something else to whine about if it works.

Are you denying that we are debating the limits of free speech when it comes to criticising Obama's policies and acts? Or, as I asked before, has he done nothing so far, and that is the objection to criticism?

Like I said... feel free to whine as much as you like. Even if there isn't much to whine about.

No whining from me. But, the more you say it the more true it seems to be (in your own mind) I suppose.

Criticism of the stimulus package is allowed, btw.

By all means... criticize as much as it makes you happy to do so. Line by line, issue by issue.

Whine, rant, criticize, disagree, etc. Do as you will. You don't need special permission nor clearance to voice your opinion.

strange how that stringent a requirement wasn't around when gwb was in office.........

oh get over it.

Bush didn't have anything to do with this law other than making it a necessity.

But what line would you like to discuss in separate? I think we have hundreds of topics here in OT that have plenty of information as to details, reasons, and issues about why people made on the spot assessments about GWB.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:h1enr.pdf

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:h1enr.pdf

407 pages of it. So go ahead, line by line, issue by issue. Not blanket VW statements, but fact by fact. Since you've read it, of course. That means you know it.

This is the document that matters, as far as analysis. Short read, only eight pages: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9989/hr1conference.pdf

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

I believe he just got the stimulus package enacted. You might want to whine and flat out spew venom if it fails or find something else to whine about if it works.

Are you denying that we are debating the limits of free speech when it comes to criticising Obama's policies and acts? Or, as I asked before, has he done nothing so far, and that is the objection to criticism?

Like I said... feel free to whine as much as you like. Even if there isn't much to whine about.

No whining from me. But, the more you say it the more true it seems to be (in your own mind) I suppose.

Criticism of the stimulus package is allowed, btw.

By all means... criticize as much as it makes you happy to do so. Line by line, issue by issue.

Whine, rant, criticize, disagree, etc. Do as you will. You don't need special permission nor clearance to voice your opinion.

strange how that stringent a requirement wasn't around when gwb was in office.........

oh get over it.

Bush didn't have anything to do with this law other than making it a necessity.

But what line would you like to discuss in separate? I think we have hundreds of topics here in OT that have plenty of information as to details, reasons, and issues about why people made on the spot assessments about GWB.

"oh get over it" - that must be hal machine code language for "i don't have a better answer."

and thanks for just proving my point about it all with that in bold.

[HAL 9000 96]

I believe he just got the stimulus package enacted. You might want to whine and flat out spew venom if it fails or find something else to whine about if it works.

Are you denying that we are debating the limits of free speech when it comes to criticising Obama's policies and acts? Or, as I asked before, has he done nothing so far, and that is the objection to criticism?

Like I said... feel free to whine as much as you like. Even if there isn't much to whine about.

No whining from me. But, the more you say it the more true it seems to be (in your own mind) I suppose.

Criticism of the stimulus package is allowed, btw.

By all means... criticize as much as it makes you happy to do so. Line by line, issue by issue.

Whine, rant, criticize, disagree, etc. Do as you will. You don't need special permission nor clearance to voice your opinion.

strange how that stringent a requirement wasn't around when gwb was in office.........

oh get over it.

Bush didn't have anything to do with this law other than making it a necessity.

But what line would you like to discuss in separate? I think we have hundreds of topics here in OT that have plenty of information as to details, reasons, and issues about why people made on the spot assessments about GWB.

"oh get over it" - that must be hal machine code language for "i don't have a better answer."

and thanks for just proving my point about it all with that in bold.

No, it implies that you need to quit yer whining.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What I can totally mention is that these expenditures have constructive, domestic tasks affixed to them. Not unlike the international fiasco most of Bush's follies were directed at. And that will likely be the end of it I presume.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:h1enr.pdf

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:h1enr.pdf

407 pages of it. So go ahead, line by line, issue by issue. Not blanket VW statements, but fact by fact. Since you've read it, of course. That means you know it.

Have you read it? If you haven't, then you wouldn't be able to discuss it in substance.

No, I have not read all 407 pages of it like you claim you have.

But the question is on you to show us, line by line, since you know it... why its bad.

I have read it and believe it to be harmful. You believe it's good, but you don't know it, and haven't read it. Approach me again when you're ready for a decent pro and con discussion.

I can take your word for it. Teach me how its bad, and allow me to look up the pertinent details. After all, the information is there. Otherwise, you are merely preaching to the wrong choir. Since you have read it, of course.

And no- I have not stated anything specific about the bill, so there again you are making a false assessment. Please, stay on task or don't play.

In this thread, you have explicitly shown your irritation with anyone who disagrees with Obama's plans and actions, repeatedly calling them whiners. You are not unbiased. So, your credibility to judge my bias is weak, at best. Play when you have the means. Read the bill, and build your credibility on the basis that you know what Barry and the Dims are proposing, not just the spin they offer.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is the issue at hand which you are evading:

Teach me all about all of those 407 pages. The facts are in there. I could trust your word, like I said. I am even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in pointing to the specific areas of the bill that are susceptible, as you imply, to Democratic bias. So please, if you will- surely since passage on 19 February you have had enough time to read it as you say. I can read, so give me, issue by issue, page number, and your perspective. Since you have read it of course.

I not only have time, I'm paid to do so.

Come back when you have done the same.

[HAL 9000 96]

What I can totally mention is that these expenditures have constructive, domestic tasks affixed to them. Not unlike the international fiasco most of Bush's follies were directed at. And that will likely be the end of it I presume.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:h1enr.pdf

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:h1enr.pdf

407 pages of it. So go ahead, line by line, issue by issue. Not blanket VW statements, but fact by fact. Since you've read it, of course. That means you know it.

Have you read it? If you haven't, then you wouldn't be able to discuss it in substance.

No, I have not read all 407 pages of it like you claim you have.

But the question is on you to show us, line by line, since you know it... why its bad.

I have read it and believe it to be harmful. You believe it's good, but you don't know it, and haven't read it. Approach me again when you're ready for a decent pro and con discussion.

I can take your word for it. Teach me how its bad, and allow me to look up the pertinent details. After all, the information is there. Otherwise, you are merely preaching to the wrong choir. Since you have read it, of course.

And no- I have not stated anything specific about the bill, so there again you are making a false assessment. Please, stay on task or don't play.

In this thread, you have explicitly shown your irritation with anyone who disagrees with Obama's plans and actions, repeatedly calling them whiners. You are not unbiased. So, your credibility to judge my bias is weak, at best. Play when you have the means. Read the bill, and build your credibility on the basis that you know what Barry and the Dims are proposing, not just the spin they offer.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is the issue at hand which you are evading:

Teach me all about all of those 407 pages. The facts are in there. I could trust your word, like I said. I am even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in pointing to the specific areas of the bill that are susceptible, as you imply, to Democratic bias. So please, if you will- surely since passage on 19 February you have had enough time to read it as you say. I can read, so give me, issue by issue, page number, and your perspective. Since you have read it of course.

I not only have time, I'm paid to do so.

Come back when you have done the same.

So you say- and for the nth time, put it to good use by teaching us.

Maybe you can get overtime.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If a$$holes could fly, this place would be an airport.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If a$$holes could fly, this place would be an airport.

More like a space station.

[HAL 9000 96]

If a$holes could fly, this place would be an airport.

Still waiting. Line by line.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Make it worth the wait. Read the bill.

[HAL 9000 96]

Make it worth the wait. Read the bill.

Apparently, since its evident you didn't read it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Make it worth the wait. Read the bill.

Apparently, since its evident you didn't read it.

Not discussing it with someone who hasn't read it doesn't provide much evidence, but you've made it clear that you don't need evidence to believe and support an illusion.

[HAL 9000 96]

Make it worth the wait. Read the bill.

Apparently, since its evident you didn't read it.

Not discussing it with someone who hasn't read it doesn't provide much evidence, but you've made it clear that you don't need evidence to believe and support an illusion.

Which is why I have been pleading for you to point to specifics I can look up within the bill.

No need to bias oneself unless of course, one hasn't read the bill and lies that one has. The burden of proof is on you. For quite a few posts now all you had to do was point to a few specifics but instead you chose to be deflective, evasive, and unsurprising. I for one have repeatedly asked for specifics that can be the foundation of a rational discussion which you have refused to disclose...

[jundp 191]

Gosh I'm so sad my Sunday is almost over....

Wait, nope, I'm just being re-affirmed as to what I'm missing by giving up VJ: nothing

[HAL 9000 96]

Gosh I'm so sad my Sunday is almost over....

Wait, nope, I'm just being re-affirmed as to what I'm missing by giving up VJ: nothing

That's all I've gotten out of the one whom read the bill. You'd figure that if you disagree with something, you'd have some substance to disagree over.