jerryzflies

Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. Those who are more interested in Obama failing than in the USA succeeding would not agree. I certainly don't like bankers and Wall Street Whizzes making $millions being bailed out after tanking the world's economies, but I see no realistic alternative. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Gallup reports 62% approval this morning. www.gallup.com/Home.aspx How does that compare with your guy on Jan 19th? It must stick in your throat that last November the voters of the US decided that the GOP was not competent to run the White House, the Senate, or the House. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Reagan's cuts had to be reversed by GHW Bush because the deficit ballooned so much. And, of course, following your logic GW Bush's tax cuts "brought about" the current economic shitstorm. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

So, Americans as a whole have made some piss poor decisions in at least the last 4 years. Greed has lead to a complete collapse of confidence and the financial system. Yet the guy with less than 100 days in office is to blame? That just doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't agree with all the actions he is taking, but to lay such massive blame before results are even measurable is insane. The current drop in the DOW is due to the numbers released pertaining to the 4th Quarter of 2008. The man wasn't even president yet. I know that many on here want Obama to fail, but you are screaming before you are even allowing him to fail, which certainly devalues your message. Obama's approval rating this morning was 62% (Gallup) vs 26% disapprove. The whiners on here are still sore that "The Deregulator" lost in November. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

There's been no leadership in the GOP since Bush took over in 2000. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Obama gets high marks in new poll WASHINGTON (AFP) March 4 The large snapshot of more than 2,500 voters by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute reveals deep pessimism among US voters about the state of the economy and prospects for a recovery. ..... Overall, voters approve of Obama's handling of the economy 57 to 33 percent, and significantly give him much higher marks on the issue -- 56 to 26 percent -- than Republicans. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Obama gets high marks in new poll WASHINGTON (AFP) — Americans are skeptical that President Barack Obama will solve the economic crisis within two years but still overwhelming approve his job performance, a new poll found Wednesday. Most voters also support Obama's mortgage rescue plan unveiled last month in a bid to quell a rising tide of home foreclosures -- but think it is unfair to people who played by the rules and met all their payments. The large snapshot of more than 2,500 voters by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute reveals deep pessimism among US voters about the state of the economy and prospects for a recovery. Half of the survey sample was asked whether they believed that the federal government could fix the economic crisis within two years, and answered no by a margin of 68 to 26 percent. The other slice of the survey group was asked whether Obama alone would be able to lead the country out of the economic mire within the same time period, and answered no by a 64 to 28 percent margin. Yet Obama's approval rating, so far at least, seems immune to the impact of the worst economic crisis in decades -- 59 percent of those polled said they approved of the job their new president was doing, compared to 25 percent who did not. Overall, voters approve of Obama's handling of the economy 57 to 33 percent, and significantly give him much higher marks on the issue -- 56 to 26 percent -- than Republicans. "President Barack Obama's approval rating is solid, compared to the historical record of new presidents," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute. "But the lofty numbers he enjoyed after his election are leveling off, largely because of declining support among Republicans," Brown said. There is also more good news than bad for Obama on three of his key domestic policy priorities, which he has been highlighting in the last two weeks. By a 55 to 39 percent margin voters believe that he will get healthcare reform -- an issue that has bedeviled past Democratic presidents -- through the Congress this year. By a 61 to 35 percent breakdown they also say they believe Obama when he promises not to raise taxes on anyone with a family income under 250,000 dollars a year. But the president's vow, made last week to cut the ballooning budget deficit in half by the end of his term in 2013, draws more cynicism. Fifty-five percent of Americans do not believe he can do it, compared to 38 percent who do. The survey was conducted between February 25 and March 2 among 2,573 voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

What year did you get your law degree? And aren't you the guy who keeps telling us he has negative net wealth? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I seem to recall the rabid right blaming the "Clinton Recession" for all economic bad news for about 6 years into Bush's administration, but expect Obama to clear up Bush's mess in 6 weeks! If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Tough to defend him when Medvidev has admitted getting the letters on Russian TV. Really? All Things Considered, March 3, 2009 · Both the U.S. and Russia are denying that any secret deal is in the works concerning missile defense and Iran. The denials follow a front-page story in Tuesday's New York Times reporting that President Obama sent a "secret letter" to Moscow, suggesting he would back off deploying a missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing its nuclear weapons program. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Oh cry me a river. Obama is clearing up a mess created by a president who enriched the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else, and whose policies led to the biggest economic mess in three generations. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

chuckakers will chime in soon to tell us that Barney Frank made them do it. actually it had alot to do with Cox and clinton. I posted the article on another thread a couple days ago. The "Enron Loophole" of which you write was sponsored by Phil Gramm (R) and supported by John "the Deregulator" McCain. Nice try though. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

chuckakers will chime in soon to tell us that Barney Frank made them do it. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Then I guess that establishes my previous statement to be accurate. RIF Whatever floats your boat. You know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. OK, not much point in discussing this any further. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. When it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution outweighs yours by quite a lot. Sorry. Again, that doesn't negate my statement. No, it just makes it meaningless. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. You haven't bothered to read Martlet's posts, then? And your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. When it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution outweighs yours by quite a lot. Sorry. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK" "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Some of them. It's disheartening that so many of them, and you, choose the path of the sheeple. It must frost you that they, and not you or I, decide what the Constitution means. Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Its so we feel at home when we go to America. It sounds like you've been eating the wrong foods in America. One needs to understand why Americans sometimes eat substandard foods. We don't eat at Denny's because it tastes good. We eat at Denny's because they're open and located conveniently near the bar. We don't eat at Taco Bell because of the authentic Mexican flavor. We eat at Taco Bell because we can place our order in English American, and drink the water without getting the shits for a week. We don't eat at McDonald's because the food tastes good. We eat at McDonald's because we're too fucking fat and lazy to actually be bothered to get out of our cars and walk all the way across the small parking lot to go inside and eat. When Americans want flavorful food, we tend to select foreign dishes. Just not English dishes. I see that the life expectancy in UK is longer than in the US. Maybe it's the healthcare, maybe it's the food. I doubt it's the weather. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I didn't bring up the "scariness" factor, kbordson did, followed by dreweckhart, followed by aggiedave. Why don't you take it up with them? I don't need much of an argument since you guys can't even agree on what your argument is. Where's rushmc when you really need him? He could bring some much needed clarity of thought and intellectual rigor to your side. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

The logical disconnect in your argument (not that you're using any, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) is that those feature are not there to "scare people". It was someone on YOUR side*** who brought up scariness, not me. Now if the design is "scary", who is it meant to scare if not people? Ducks? Deer? Rabbits? Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. kbordson, dreweckhart and aggiedave, to name but three, specifically referred to the scary factor. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Do you get the point that SOME FAMILIES.. enjoy going out to the range and having what they call FUN. You ever fire something full auto... Rock and ROLL is hella fun... oh.. maybe for YOU it would be all macho.. to jump out of airplanes????? Its all about tastes.. and personal choices... if someone wants to own some commie guns for fun... why not....maybe some fo the commies want some of our toys... like maybe a PD canopy instead of some of the Russian gear Oh, I sure can, but this discussion is about COSMETICS according to mnealtx, not about full auto capability or commie guns for fun. Someone on your side is lying. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.