Nobel Prize goes to Obama...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Only for people on life support with no realistic chance of recovery or consciousness again. Slightly different to what Bilbo is alleging Obama will do.

---

Regarding abortion I guess it depends on what you consider life. Does life begin at conception or does life only begin at birth?

The generally held opinion these days it seems is that life only begins at birth.

Fo rme though life begins as soon as a feutus is created. Once it's in there, growing, living, to me it IS a human being. It's not going to exist at some point in the future, it's not only existing in some abstract alternative universe or so kind of third dimension, it exists, and is alive, right here and right now in our universe.

It's a human being, alive inside another human being. To me any discussion of abortion is the mother or parents, government etc basically saying we are going to kill this person because of......

It's just not justafiable in my world view at all, its infanticide and I don't see it as personal choice whatsoever.

If a person killed a baby born a few week premature they would be charged with murder and locked up.

But bizarelly if that same baby was still in the womb (still the same age, still the same person) it can be scraped out of the womens uterus and the only people in the wrong would be those who tried to put guilt on those involved. To me that's just baffling and completely illogical.

To be honest the wishes of the parents or the mother to me don't come into it at all. If a woman was struggling to care for her elderly parent and her life was miserable as a result she would (at least in theory at the present time) be committing murder if she decided to kill her.

---

You're giving a bunch of cells more rights than a women yet wanting to say they're all equal. BS Bilbo - as usual.


Maybe men should be more responsible when they go out to shag anything that moves...oh wait, that's right, YOU don't get pregnant.

---

Where we disagree is that I don't regard a developing child as a bunch of cells.

It's not about giving a bunch of cells more rights but rather protecting the rights of the unborn. Once the featus is developing its a human being right now imo and so abortion is morally wrong.

However I don't blame the woman as much as I blame society as a whole.

And I do appreciate what you say about women being the ones who actually deal with the process of pregnancy etc whereas men don't have any real responsibility at all.

It's a tough issue but the rights of the unborn need to be protected. The argument that they are just a bunch of cells only holds any force for the first few weeks at the very most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Maybe men should be more responsible when they go out to shag anything that moves...oh wait, that's right, YOU don't get pregnant.

---

Men need to learn to keep it in their pants or at least ensure that a condom is used.

Guess who else do? ESPECIALLY considering as they're the ones who will have their body's go through a strenuous nine months (yes, I'm sure I can't even begin to imagine!! ;)

That still doesn't stop there being a legion of slags out there who are more than happy to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

Both sexes are more than capable of being sluts. ;)

Equally responsible, it takes two to do the dirty tango.:-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

Spend Tax Payers Money on Stupid Stimulus Checks that wont do shat but put the US more in the Hole. Who ever Voted for that jackass should be slapped

---

Nobel Peace Prize :vd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI

......the Nobel Fucking Peace Prize

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Maybe men should be more responsible when they go out to shag anything that moves...oh wait, that's right, YOU don't get pregnant.

---

Men need to learn to keep it in their pants or at least ensure that a condom is used.

Guess who else do? ESPECIALLY considering as they're the ones who will have their body's go through a strenuous nine months (yes, I'm sure I can't even begin to imagine!! ;)

That still doesn't stop there being a legion of slags out there who are more than happy to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

Both sexes are more than capable of being sluts. ;)

Equally responsible, it takes two to do the dirty tango.:-X

---

Totally agree.

If women don't want the hassle of destroying a child, then perhaps they should think twice about inserting the penis.

Or else ensure that the male is wearing one of those rubber things.

Either way, it isn't all that difficult to go through life without impregnating people. I have been married for 4 years, I have never once impregnated my wife, and I won't until I am ready to provide for my family. :rolleyes:

The world would be better off with more people like me. My family in the UK are having children like rabbits. I don't relate to that kind of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well, well, well....surely he's done it all now, he's half black, he's the President of the United States, he's on TV all the time, and now he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.....for what??? What has he done?

---

Spend Tax Payers Money on Stupid Stimulus Checks that wont do shat but put the US more in the Hole. Who ever Voted for that jackass should be slapped

---

The stimulus money helps keep overall US spending from decreasing to the point where it begins to form an economic death spiral, lower spending leading to job losses leading to lower spending type thing. It helps prevent the kind od deflationary death spiral the US economy went into in the 1930s after the 1920s period of easy money, house price boom, no economic regulation. It may be that it isn't enough and you need more stimulus. I think the blame here should go to the jackass that caused the meltdown rather than the poor fucker left to deal with it.

OK so let's get this straight Kirkland, the Stimulus was supposed to help really quick, it was supposed to make jobs RIGHT NOW.....then why have we not spent all that money yet? Why are we saving money (so to speak) only to spend it later on......and more importantly why are we still losing jobs??? I thought the recession was over? I thought Obama fixed everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Maybe men should be more responsible when they go out to shag anything that moves...oh wait, that's right, YOU don't get pregnant.

---

Men need to learn to keep it in their pants or at least ensure that a condom is used.

Guess who else do? ESPECIALLY considering as they're the ones who will have their body's go through a strenuous nine months (yes, I'm sure I can't even begin to imagine!! ;)

That still doesn't stop there being a legion of slags out there who are more than happy to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

Both sexes are more than capable of being sluts. ;)

Equally responsible, it takes two to do the dirty tango.:-X

---

Totally agree.

If women don't want the hassle of destroying a child, then perhaps they should think twice about inserting the penis.

Or else ensure that the male is wearing one of those rubber things.

Either way, it isn't all that difficult to go through life without impregnating people. I have been married for 4 years, I have never once impregnated my wife, and I won't until I am ready to provide for my family. :rolleyes:

The world would be better off with more people like me. My family in the UK are having children like rabbits. I don't relate to that kind of shit.

---

Mate I'm 22 and it's ridiculous how many of my mates/people I know are having kids... I can only think of one who was in a serious relationship with the woman and even that was unplanned.

I've been with my girl for almost 2 years now and with everybody getting pregnant left right and centre it's made me extra cautious. Never once had a scare and needed a test... it's easy.

Without going into too much detail (I'll probably get ripped for this), even when she's been using birth control, I've never... *ahem* finished bare back. :-X

The lad I mentioned before... his lass was on it, it didn't work.

Women are far to eager to blame men for everything, even when an equal amount of the responsibility lies with them. Yeah there are loads of arseholes running around with their cocks out... these woman are more than happy to open their legs for them though aren't they?

I would hope no feminists would be stupid enough to say "using protection is the man's responsibility" because they're the same people who would rip a bloke's bollo"cks off for saying "Protection?! that's the woman's responsibility.

It's everyone's... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Men need to learn to keep it in their pants or at least ensure that a condom is used.

Guess who else do? ESPECIALLY considering as they're the ones who will have their body's go through a strenuous nine months (yes, I'm sure I can't even begin to imagine!! ;)

That still doesn't stop there being a legion of slags out there who are more than happy to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

Both sexes are more than capable of being sluts. ;)

Equally responsible, it takes two to do the dirty tango.:-X

---

Totally agree.

If women don't want the hassle of destroying a child, then perhaps they should think twice about inserting the penis.

Or else ensure that the male is wearing one of those rubber things.

Either way, it isn't all that difficult to go through life without impregnating people. I have been married for 4 years, I have never once impregnated my wife, and I won't until I am ready to provide for my family. :rolleyes:

The world would be better off with more people like me. My family in the UK are having children like rabbits. I don't relate to that kind of shit.

---

Mate I'm 22 and it's ridiculous how many of my mates/people I know are having kids... I can only think of one who was in a serious relationship with the woman and even that was unplanned.

I've been with my girl for almost 2 years now and with everybody getting pregnant left right and centre it's made me extra cautious. Never once had a scare and needed a test... it's easy.

Without going into too much detail (I'll probably get ripped for this), even when she's been using birth control, I've never... *ahem* finished bare back. :-X

The lad I mentioned before... his lass was on it, it didn't work.

Women are far to eager to blame men for everything, even when an equal amount of the responsibility lies with them. Yeah there are loads of arseholes running around with their cocks out... these woman are more than happy to open their legs for them though aren't they?

I would hope no feminists would be stupid enough to say "using protection is the man's responsibility" because they're the same people who would rip a bloke's bollo"cks off for saying "Protection?! that's the woman's responsibility.

It's everyone's... :rolleyes:

---

I think everybody should be responsible for themselves. If you want a sexual relationship but don't want kids, then you need to be responsible for yourself.

It's kind of like not putting locks on you front door because it's other people responsibility to be honest and law abiding, yes it is indeed their responsibility, but if you decide to not bother with locks because of this, well good luck....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

OK so let's get this straight Kirkland, the Stimulus was supposed to help really quick, it was supposed to make jobs RIGHT NOW.....then why have we not spent all that money yet? Why are we saving money (so to speak) only to spend it later on......and more importantly why are we still losing jobs??? I thought the recession was over? I thought Obama fixed everything?

---

It's difficult to spend all the money they allocated effectively in such a short space of time. It's actually more effective in terms of monetary flows and velocity to spread it out over a couple of years. We're still losing jobs because that's what happens when you have a recession. Technically we're probaly out of recession round about now, and if this recession is that same as the last two then unemployment will continue to go up for another 18 months before it starts to stabilise.


But we need to spend money to avert a death-spiral situation because this recession has been so devastating, even compared to previous recessions. Without the stimulus and the Fed flooding the financial system with liquidity we'd be full steam ahead into another Depression. Here's a handy chart that explains things quite well :

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2423/...8148d57b_o.jpg


The dotted red line is our current situation based on the very latest numbers, the dotted red data being maybe two weeks old now. You can see that with the last few recessions, as offshoring and outsourcing of jobs/cheap Asian labour have gradually supplanted large chunks of what used to be US jobs, it's taken longer and longer for employment to return to pre-recession levels. Even if this was a run-of-the-mill recession we'd be looking at another 12-18 months minimum from now before unemployment stopped rising. But you can see how severe this recession is. It could easily take years for things to get back to 2007-level employment even if management of the recovery and the financial system goes as well as can be expected.

So either it's "The stimulus needs time to work" in which case it's not the "quick fix" they sold us OR it's "We never knew it was this bad, we simply had no idea"

Kirkland, thank you for the chart though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Regarding abortion I guess it depends on what you consider life. Does life begin at conception or does life only begin at birth?

The generally held opinion these days it seems is that life only begins at birth.

Fo rme though life begins as soon as a feutus is created. Once it's in there, growing, living, to me it IS a human being. It's not going to exist at some point in the future, it's not only existing in some abstract alternative universe or so kind of third dimension, it exists, and is alive, right here and right now in our universe.

It's a human being, alive inside another human being. To me any discussion of abortion is the mother or parents, government etc basically saying we are going to kill this person because of......

It's just not justafiable in my world view at all, its infanticide and I don't see it as personal choice whatsoever.

If a person killed a baby born a few week premature they would be charged with murder and locked up.

But bizarelly if that same baby was still in the womb (still the same age, still the same person) it can be scraped out of the womens uterus and the only people in the wrong would be those who tried to put guilt on those involved. To me that's just baffling and completely illogical.

To be honest the wishes of the parents or the mother to me don't come into it at all. If a woman was struggling to care for her elderly parent and her life was miserable as a result she would (at least in theory at the present time) be committing murder if she decided to kill her.

---

You're giving a bunch of cells more rights than a women yet wanting to say they're all equal. BS Bilbo - as usual.


Maybe men should be more responsible when they go out to shag anything that moves...oh wait, that's right, YOU don't get pregnant.

---

Where we disagree is that I don't regard a developing child as a bunch of cells.

It's not about giving a bunch of cells more rights but rather protecting the rights of the unborn. Once the featus is developing its a human being right now imo and so abortion is morally wrong.

However I don't blame the woman as much as I blame society as a whole.

And I do appreciate what you say about women being the ones who actually deal with the process of pregnancy etc whereas men don't have any real responsibility at all.

It's a tough issue but the rights of the unborn need to be protected. The argument that they are just a bunch of cells only holds any force for the first few weeks at the very most.

---

Howdy, by saying a foetus can not be terminated - even if the woman wishes it - you are placing the rights of a potential human above that of a real-life walking/talking one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Men need to learn to keep it in their pants or at least ensure that a condom is used.

Guess who else do? ESPECIALLY considering as they're the ones who will have their body's go through a strenuous nine months (yes, I'm sure I can't even begin to imagine!! ;)

That still doesn't stop there being a legion of slags out there who are more than happy to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

Both sexes are more than capable of being sluts. ;)

Equally responsible, it takes two to do the dirty tango.:-X

---

Totally agree.

If women don't want the hassle of destroying a child, then perhaps they should think twice about inserting the penis.

Or else ensure that the male is wearing one of those rubber things.

Either way, it isn't all that difficult to go through life without impregnating people. I have been married for 4 years, I have never once impregnated my wife, and I won't until I am ready to provide for my family. :rolleyes:

The world would be better off with more people like me. My family in the UK are having children like rabbits. I don't relate to that kind of shit.

---

Mate I'm 22 and it's ridiculous how many of my mates/people I know are having kids... I can only think of one who was in a serious relationship with the woman and even that was unplanned.

I've been with my girl for almost 2 years now and with everybody getting pregnant left right and centre it's made me extra cautious. Never once had a scare and needed a test... it's easy.

Without going into too much detail (I'll probably get ripped for this), even when she's been using birth control, I've never... *ahem* finished bare back. :-X

The lad I mentioned before... his lass was on it, it didn't work.

Women are far to eager to blame men for everything, even when an equal amount of the responsibility lies with them. Yeah there are loads of arseholes running around with their cocks out... these woman are more than happy to open their legs for them though aren't they?

I would hope no feminists would be stupid enough to say "using protection is the man's responsibility" because they're the same people who would rip a bloke's bollo"cks off for saying "Protection?! that's the woman's responsibility.

It's everyone's... :rolleyes:

---

It's great to see guys who are responsible. Many women think it's enough to be on the pill, frankly, it isn't, never mind pregnancy and all the other STI's going round. Both parties should insist on a condom but that's a bit like saying don't get drunk and don't have sex when you're drunk.

Missy, how about we just close our legs every so often and then you wouldn't have to keep having these abortions.....;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Missy, how about we just close our legs every so often and then you wouldn't have to keep having these abortions.....;D

---

But I like the drugs too much:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

So either it's "The stimulus needs time to work" in which case it's not the "quick fix" they sold us OR it's "We never knew it was this bad, we simply had no idea"

Kirkland, thank you for the chart though

---

Who told you it was a quick fix? This is another of your FACTS Lyle.

They knew it really was that bad, just when things are really fragile the American President, Treasury topper, Fed chief don't go to the media and say "It's really bad, we're fucked!" because that would send the markets into a spin. Instead you try and project confidence that things will get better. So they did exactly what they should have done. But nobody ever used the phrase "quick fix" to describe the response to the meltdown. Quite the opposite in fact.

Kirkland, Obama and Congress said "We need this stimulus package NOW and if we don't get it now we're screwed"....well if the majority of the money hasn't been spent yet and people are saying the recession is coming to an end then of course I am going to say "Did we really need it?" and if we did and we're now coming out of it or nearing the end of it then "Do we need to spend the rest of it?"

And if the Economic Stimulus Package is so great then why didn't you give W props for his Stimulus spending spree???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

You're giving a bunch of cells more rights than a women yet wanting to say they're all equal. BS Bilbo - as usual.


Maybe men should be more responsible when they go out to shag anything that moves...oh wait, that's right, YOU don't get pregnant.

---

Where we disagree is that I don't regard a developing child as a bunch of cells.

It's not about giving a bunch of cells more rights but rather protecting the rights of the unborn. Once the featus is developing its a human being right now imo and so abortion is morally wrong.

However I don't blame the woman as much as I blame society as a whole.

And I do appreciate what you say about women being the ones who actually deal with the process of pregnancy etc whereas men don't have any real responsibility at all.

It's a tough issue but the rights of the unborn need to be protected. The argument that they are just a bunch of cells only holds any force for the first few weeks at the very most.

---

Howdy, by saying a foetus can not be terminated - even if the woman wishes it - you are placing the rights of a potential human above that of a real-life walking/talking one.

---

That's the real issue to all of this though IMO... when do you decide that life is life.

I couldn't answer that question myself tbh... and with the world having so many different beliefs/theories/research etc I can't see people ever agreeing.... not when I'm alive anyway :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Where we disagree is that I don't regard a developing child as a bunch of cells.

It's not about giving a bunch of cells more rights but rather protecting the rights of the unborn. Once the featus is developing its a human being right now imo and so abortion is morally wrong.

However I don't blame the woman as much as I blame society as a whole.

And I do appreciate what you say about women being the ones who actually deal with the process of pregnancy etc whereas men don't have any real responsibility at all.

It's a tough issue but the rights of the unborn need to be protected. The argument that they are just a bunch of cells only holds any force for the first few weeks at the very most.

---

Howdy, by saying a foetus can not be terminated - even if the woman wishes it - you are placing the rights of a potential human above that of a real-life walking/talking one.

---

That's the real issue to all of this though IMO... when do you decide that life is life.

I couldn't answer that question myself tbh... and with the world having so many different beliefs/theories/research etc I can't see people ever agreeing.... not when I'm alive anyway :)

---

That was my point Adam, it really depends on your worldview and your beliefs about where we come from.

If you believe we are created by God then life is sacred and abortion is self evidently wrong, if you believe we evolved then there is no such thing as right or wrong, but only societal norms, and hence abortion is fine,

The two camps will never agree.

@Missy, I don't see how giving a featus human rights elavates it above the woman, it places their rights on a par with them.

A woman couldn't decide to kill any other human because they didn't want them in their live so why should be able to choose to kill of their own child?

Granted other people arn't living and growing inside a women's womb, but they still need protection. The women does have free choice, she has the choice NOT to get pregnant if she doesn't want a child.

They arn't virgin births that are happening here, these women are getting pregnant because of their own actions, and part of life is that we have to accept the consequences of our actions.

But I do understand this is an extremely complicated issue and neither solution is ideal.

I am not against abortion in a legal sense, but I believe that education and support should be geared towards encouraging women, firstsly not to get pregnant if they don't want a child, and secondly that giving birth is given precendence and encouraged at all costs.

But it's an issue that will never really get solved as ultimately it depends on human nature changing, and that won't ever happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Kirkland, Obama and Congress said "We need this stimulus package NOW and if we don't get it now we're screwed"....well if the majority of the money hasn't been spent yet and people are saying the recession is coming to an end then of course I am going to say "Did we really need it?" and if we did and we're now coming out of it or nearing the end of it then "Do we need to spend the rest of it?"

And if the Economic Stimulus Package is so great then why didn't you give W props for his Stimulus spending spree???

---

Every time I point out you're wrong on the FACTS you invent new ones. Bush didn't need to spend money, he'd inherited a budget surplus, not a once-in-a-century meltdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Every time I point out you're wrong on the FACTS you invent new ones. Bush didn't need to spend money, he'd inherited a budget surplus, not a once-in-a-century meltdown.

---

Did I invent that???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB_lILm-r50
"They need help now"...DIRECT QUOTE from Obama

As for Bush, if I recall correctly the Sub Prime bubble burst in 2008 while W was still in office.

Playing devil's advocate here:

If you had a migraine, your head is unbearably hurting... you know the tablet will start to alleviate it in about 15 minutes.

But you wouldn't think to yourself 'my head is fucking killing, I need a pain killer in 15 minutes time...' you'd need it 'now'

I'll admit I don't know a great deal about this stimulus, but saying that something is needed right now isn't the same as saying something will work right now, is it?

Like I say, I'm just being devil's advocate here and I probably won't have as much insite into this as an American would, but from the logic I've seen in this thread... Obama saying that something is needed right now isn't the same as saying that it's a quick fix, just that things need to be put into motion right now.

If I was going to piss my pants in 30 seconds time, I'd need to start walking to the bathroom... right now! It wouldn't be safe to piss as soon as I started walking there though :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Playing devil's advocate here:

If you had a migraine, your head is unbearably hurting... you know the tablet will start to alleviate it in about 15 minutes.

But you wouldn't think to yourself 'my head is fucking killing, I need a pain killer in 15 minutes time...' you'd need it 'now'

I'll admit I don't know a great deal about this stimulus, but saying that something is needed right now isn't the same as saying something will work right now, is it?

Like I say, I'm just being devil's advocate here and I probably won't have as much insite into this as an American would, but from the logic I've seen in this thread... Obama saying that something is needed right now isn't the same as saying that it's a quick fix, just that things need to be put into motion right now.

If I was going to piss my pants in 30 seconds time, I'd need to start walking to the bathroom... right now! It wouldn't be safe to piss as soon as I started walking there though :p

---

Sounds like you are saying America is just moments from going down the toilet and Obama is rushing to find a potty.

I think though being about to piss yourself or already being in agony are things that demand a quick fix, actually the opposite of the point you were trying to make but I get what your saying.

A better analogy maybe to imagine you have you are on a nice camping trip with the plan to hike many miles. You have a target destination to reach by sundown but you're stuggling in rough terrain and are a few miles away still with only an hour of sunlight left. As the region is pretty treacherous and it may not be safe at night it might be more prudent to make a camp for the night where you are, putting you behind schedule and slowing your immediate progress but it will prevent any possibly accidents or disasters with you and your fellow campers wandering on these hilly slopes, in the dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

If you believe we are created by God then life is sacred and abortion is self evidently wrong, if you believe we evolved then there is no such thing as right or wrong, but only societal norms, and hence abortion is fine,

---

Does this mean because I don' believe in god I can do as I please?

Quote:

---

The two camps will never agree.

@Missy, I don't see how giving a featus human rights elavates it above the woman, it places their rights on a par with them.

---

Because by saying she can't abort means the foetus's welfare overrides that of the mother. You are taking away her right to abort and replacing it with a foetus's right to life.

Quote:

---

A woman couldn't decide to kill any other human because they didn't want them in their live so why should be able to choose to kill of their own child?

---

Because its not a living breathing thing. There are more premature babies surviving than before but only with massive medical intervention even then it is likley to have health problems because it wasn't fully developed before birth.

Quote:

---

Granted other people arn't living and growing inside a women's womb, but they still need protection. The women does have free choice, she has the choice NOT to get pregnant if she doesn't want a child.

---

The only 100% effective method is to not have sex.

Quote:

---

They arn't virgin births that are happening here, these women are getting pregnant because of their own actions, and part of life is that we have to accept the consequences of our actions.

---

If they're getting pregnant on their own you better start praying.

Good to see you'd force women to have kids they don't want, let's fill up our world with more unwanted. Great.

Quote:

---

I am not against abortion in a legal sense, but I believe that education and support should be geared towards encouraging women, firstsly not to get pregnant if they don't want a child, and secondly that giving birth is given precendence and encouraged at all costs.

---

Education needs to be for both men and women.

I think you want to return to the 1950's and 60's where women were shunned for being bad girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Playing devil's advocate here:

If you had a migraine, your head is unbearably hurting... you know the tablet will start to alleviate it in about 15 minutes.

But you wouldn't think to yourself 'my head is fucking killing, I need a pain killer in 15 minutes time...' you'd need it 'now'

I'll admit I don't know a great deal about this stimulus, but saying that something is needed right now isn't the same as saying something will work right now, is it?

Like I say, I'm just being devil's advocate here and I probably won't have as much insite into this as an American would, but from the logic I've seen in this thread... Obama saying that something is needed right now isn't the same as saying that it's a quick fix, just that things need to be put into motion right now.

If I was going to piss my pants in 30 seconds time, I'd need to start walking to the bathroom... right now! It wouldn't be safe to piss as soon as I started walking there though :p

---

...fair points, but you also would not want to take so much of a pain killer to where you overdose, and that is kind of what I am getting at.

You also wouldn't want to be so paranoid for the next time you need to go to the bathroom that you never leave the toilet.

There's "what needs to be done" and then there is "overkill" and I am of the opinion that what Obama and Congress have done is "overkill"

Heh, yeah too many paracetamol will up set your stomach... not that I take the things... much to my girlfriend's annoyance! :-\ "JUST FUCKING TAKE A PAINKILLER!" (Am I going off topic slightly? ;))

Yeah, I don't know what or how much of 'what' your economy needs etc, or even if the stimulus is at all a good thing... I'm just being devil's advocate, cos I'm a dick like that! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Every time I point out you're wrong on the FACTS you invent new ones. Bush didn't need to spend money, he'd inherited a budget surplus, not a once-in-a-century meltdown.

---

Did I invent that???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB_lILm-r50"They need help now"...DIRECT QUOTE from Obama

As for Bush, if I recall correctly the Sub Prime bubble burst in 2008 while W was still in office.

---

You're inventing the FACT that Obama was the only person asking for a stimulus. Both sides agreed that there needed to be one, they just disagreed on how to do it. Now if you go back and compare this FACT to the original FACT you were wrong about you'll see you've gone off on a tangent again.

It wasn't a subprime bubble, it was a housing and general credit bubble, subprime was only a small part of it. And it started as well as finished during Bush's presidency, Bush allowing the easy money policies and scrapping masses of regulations that allowed the bubble to form and the meltdown to happen.

Where were the Republicans out there demanding stimulus???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Where were the Republicans out there demanding stimulus???

---

President of the United States George W. Bush, was accused in a criminal complaint and lawsuit of raping Margie Schoedinger, who later died in a questionable case of suicide. Bush was also accused by Tammy Phillips, a former stripper, who was quoted in the National Enquirer in 2000 saying she had an affair with Bush that had ended in 1999. Another serious question involves statements from the wife of Red Blount, whom Bush campaigned for, while possibly A.W.O.L from the Air National Guard at age 26. She stated that he was "all over their 14 year old daughter."


Parker J. Bena was a Republican activist and a key player in the campaign to elect George W. Bush as President. Bena was charged and later pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and lying to the FBI. Bena reportedly told the feds that he had received an unsolicited e-mail containing pictures of children (some as young as three years old) performing various sexual acts, but agents learned that he had in fact voluntarily entered a number of child pornography websites and downloaded the images himself. This is said to have involved acts with children as young as 3 years old, on his home computer. Parker J. Bena was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Mark Foley, Republican Representative, Florida Sixteenth Congressional District. Resigned after trying to solicit sex from male congressional pages via an instant messenger program. The conversations included his asking a sixteen-year-old "stud" whether his penis was erect and requesting that he take out and measure his penis. The cover-up involved Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Eighth Congressional District and Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Illinois Fourteenth District.

Newt Gingrich, well established crusader against legislation that assists women and the poor, has married three times while spouting Christian values the entire time. Newt Gingrich's campaign worker Anne Manning, admitted that she gave Newt oral sex while he was still married to his first wife, essentially placing Newt in the exact same position President Clinton had to endure when Gingrich and his cronies maintained their pressure over the Lewinski incident. Gingrish informed one wife he was filing for divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer treatments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Where were the Republicans out there demanding stimulus???

---

Go back and read the papers from the relevant period. The only real difference of opinion was should the stimulus be fiscal spending (Democrats) or should it be tax cuts (GOP). Despite tax cuts being completely useless as a stimulus the GOP ended up voting for a bipartisan stimulus which was 60/40 fiscal/tax cuts, apart from the ones who were grandstanding by voting against. If McCain had been prez the stimulus would have been 60/40 the other way (even less effective than the bill that passed) but there still would have been a stimulus. And don't forget the first part of the stimulus was signed by Bush.

...not a whole bunch of Conservatives were on board with that first Stimulus

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The House overwhelmingly approved a $146 billion shot in the arm for the nation's ailing economy yesterday, sending a stimulus package to the Senate with a bipartisan appeal not to slow down the bill with significant changes.....




The 385 to 35 vote marked a rare moment of bipartisan comity in the House, as Democrats and Republicans took to the floor to praise the cooperation shown by their leaders and the Bush administration in forging a package of tax rebates and business investment incentives....




$146 Billion Stimulus Plan Passes House - washingtonpost.com


Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about everything? When you make a claim in a post in future how about checking first to see whether it has any basis in reality first?

....it doesn't say who didn't vote for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

....it doesn't say who didn't vote for it

---

here you go,

Pretty bipartisan

House Dem. yea - 216 / no - 10 / No vote - 5
House Rep. yea - 169 / no - 25 / No vote - 5

Senate Dem. yea - 46 / no - 0 / No vote - 3
Senate Rep. yea - 43 / no - 6 / No vote - 0
Senate Ind. yea - 2 / nay -0 / No vote - 0

Click the links below for a list of actual names.
source:
House votes
110th Congress, 2nd session, House vote 25 | Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com

Senate votes
110th Congress, 2nd session, Senate vote 9 | Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com

So in the end Republicans 36 voted no or didn't vote while only 18 Democrats voted no or didn't vote....the numbers back up my story as MORE Republicans were against the bill than Democrats.

Thanks for backing me up Killersheep ;)

It's a serious question. Do you never get tired of being wrong? Wouldn't you like to be right just once about something to break the monotony?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It's a serious question. Do you never get tired of being wrong? Wouldn't you like to be right just once about something to break the monotony?

---

....you should talk

So we went from.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

...not a whole bunch of Conservatives were on board with that first Stimulus

---

to..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

So in the end Republicans 36 voted no or didn't vote while only 18 Democrats voted no or didn't vote....the numbers back up my story as MORE Republicans were against the bill than Democrats.

Thanks for backing me up Killersheep ;)

---

86.69% of republicans voting for it could be considered "a whole bunch"

Granted after you applied a revision to state more Democrats voted for it, you are correct. Clearly the left with standing at 93.57% voted for it.

Of course with a spread of 280 members being democrat and 248 being republican along with 2 independents which I will leave out for arguments sake. To say that it was not a bipartisan vote is absolutely ridiculous.
At a total 90.31% of congress voting for it, with 46.79% of congress being Republican, you have no stats, reasons, youtube videos etc. that can support your initial claim.

If someone got stabbed 36 times, would you say they got stabbed "a whole bunch" of times?

See "whole bunch" is vague and therefore OK termanology for me to use in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

If someone got stabbed 36 times, would you say they got stabbed "a whole bunch" of times?

See "whole bunch" is vague and therefore OK termanology for me to use in this situation.

---

So does that mean you didn't have a point to begin with? Or is 36 now a bigger number than 212? Or does 87% or 212 congressional members of a party somehow NOT reflect a whole bunch, would you rather I amend the statement now to say Overwhelming majority?

Or would you rather talk about semantics or knife fights instead of your point.

....all I can say is I am very disappointed in those 212 people :mad: