Topic: Krauthammer: Obama 'seething,' | |
---|---|
Looking at current reports tells the real story...My numbers apply to his second term, '13 and '14.....Also, I would give previous administration credit for the '09 numbers..It's that delayed reaction spin you've used as a defense so many times in past debates.... Im not 'defending' anything, Im posting the numbers and nothing is delayed when we are speaking about whether a POTUS has an impact, it is relevant to consider any and/or all presidents from which to draw a conclusion,,, so I believe you are completely missing my point. the CURRENT report tells of the past twelve months,, this president has supported increased wages for the past 95 months,,,lol so the assertion that a presidents stand on wages is somehow what causes prices to rise or fall is disproven by the obvious fluctuation over this presidency(and the one prior) in that trend,,, during a time when we had a president who did not support wage hikes we had some of our highest CPI rates,, if the support was the cause of increase, inversely, a lack of support should be expected to cause decrease and since the trend does not bare that out in any way,, its a false line of logic,,, I thought your point was a sitting president has nothing to do with a chity economy...Silly me... lol,, agreed my point was that a sitting president doesn't control the prices,,,,which I kind of stated in my initial response to the assertion that a POTUS would be responsible,, |
|
|
|
Looking at current reports tells the real story...My numbers apply to his second term, '13 and '14.....Also, I would give previous administration credit for the '09 numbers..It's that delayed reaction spin you've used as a defense so many times in past debates.... Im not 'defending' anything, Im posting the numbers and nothing is delayed when we are speaking about whether a POTUS has an impact, it is relevant to consider any and/or all presidents from which to draw a conclusion,,, so I believe you are completely missing my point. the CURRENT report tells of the past twelve months,, this president has supported increased wages for the past 95 months,,,lol so the assertion that a presidents stand on wages is somehow what causes prices to rise or fall is disproven by the obvious fluctuation over this presidency(and the one prior) in that trend,,, during a time when we had a president who did not support wage hikes we had some of our highest CPI rates,, if the support was the cause of increase, inversely, a lack of support should be expected to cause decrease and since the trend does not bare that out in any way,, its a false line of logic,,, I thought your point was a sitting president has nothing to do with a chity economy...Silly me... lol,, agreed my point was that a sitting president doesn't control the prices,,,,which I kind of stated in my initial response to the assertion that a POTUS would be responsible,, So it is true!!...Jeezeeeee Harmony do some reading.... |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 11/09/14 12:46 PM
|
|
have done it and have the certification to prove it, too
how much one 'reads' has little to do with how they interpret these things,,, for example Constitutionally, the American president just doesn’t have that much control over the economy. “No one knows this better than Barack Obama,” he said, noting that Congress has blocked the president’s efforts to stimulate the economy. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/ Im sure Princeton professors of economic do plenty of 'reading' on the topic,, ( I realize the slant here too, being the specific attack on the congress, but I see that same slant in other well 'read' people who make specific attacks on the POTUS) |
|
|
|
have done it and have the certification to prove it, too how much one 'reads' has little to do with how they interpret these things,,, for example Constitutionally, the American president just doesn’t have that much control over the economy. “No one knows this better than Barack Obama,” he said, noting that Congress has blocked the president’s efforts to stimulate the economy. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/ Im sure Princeton professors of economic do plenty of 'reading' on the topic,, ( I realize the slant here too, being the specific attack on the congress, but I see that same slant in other well 'read' people who make specific attacks on the POTUS) Maybe so, but do you also see your slant?.... |
|
|
|
have done it and have the certification to prove it, too how much one 'reads' has little to do with how they interpret these things,,, for example Constitutionally, the American president just doesn’t have that much control over the economy. “No one knows this better than Barack Obama,” he said, noting that Congress has blocked the president’s efforts to stimulate the economy. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/ Im sure Princeton professors of economic do plenty of 'reading' on the topic,, ( I realize the slant here too, being the specific attack on the congress, but I see that same slant in other well 'read' people who make specific attacks on the POTUS) Maybe so, but do you also see your slant?.... no, as I have not blamed any particular person or group for rising prices,,, understanding the complex array of factors that contribute,,, |
|
|
|
have done it and have the certification to prove it, too how much one 'reads' has little to do with how they interpret these things,,, for example Constitutionally, the American president just doesn’t have that much control over the economy. “No one knows this better than Barack Obama,” he said, noting that Congress has blocked the president’s efforts to stimulate the economy. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/ Im sure Princeton professors of economic do plenty of 'reading' on the topic,, ( I realize the slant here too, being the specific attack on the congress, but I see that same slant in other well 'read' people who make specific attacks on the POTUS) Maybe so, but do you also see your slant?.... no, as I have not blamed any particular person or group for rising prices,,, understanding the complex array of factors that contribute,,, lol... |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 11/09/14 01:48 PM
|
|
by this definition, I will recant
by this definition EVERY opinion involves slant , including ones derived from 'reading' slant: a particular point of view from which something is seen or presented however, the definition I am used to and refer to ; to interpret or present in line with a special interest : angle <stories slanted toward youth>; especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slant is not something I see in what I shared,, unless an explanation of economics not falling under any one persons control is considered 'special interest' or malicious distortion,,, |
|
|
|
Charles Krauthammer: Obama 'seething,' may try to provoke impeachment http://www.examiner.com/article/charles-krauthammer-obama-seething-may-try-to-provoke-impeachment In an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Wednesday night, psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly that President Barack Obama is "seething" over the sweeping GOP victories in Tuesday's midterm elections, and may do something "reckless" in response. Krauthammer, who is widely respected in conservative circles, is also a Pulitzer Prize winner, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. Krauthammer referred to President Obama's defiant press conference after the elections. In rejecting the voters obvious discontent with Obama and the Democrat Party, the president vowed to move forward with an 'executive action' that could grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and also promised to move forward with his progressive agenda. "The principles that we’re fighting for, the things that motivate me every single day and motivate my staff every day … those things aren't going to change," the president said. Bill O'Reilly suggested at one point during the interview that Obama wants to "go out guns blazing," and Krauthammer wholeheartedly agreed, and also indicated he believes Obama is in denial over the election results. "You’re absolutely right," Krauthammer responded. "He’s a strange combination of obliviousness and recklessness. It’s as if he doesn't know what happened." Krauthammer then warned, the president is “going to sort of get his revenge on everybody by doing a reckless thing which is to legalize millions of illegal aliens, I would say, unconstitutionally, in a way that he knows is going to create a crisis.” Krauthammer said by provoking the GOP into starting impeachment proceedings Obama would hope to create backlash against Republicans, and put himself "back in the limelight … in the spotlight." But Krauthammer also cautioned such a move by the Republicans would not be a good idea. "We’re talking about him," Krauthammer said. "That’s what he wants." "This is time for Republicans to be very disciplined. They won the election because they were disciplined. They stayed on message. They made it a referendum on Obama, and they won," he continued. "What they have to do now is to go from being the party of no to the party with an agenda." Not Sheeting,just defecating Bricks! |
|
|
|
by this definition, I will recant by this definition EVERY opinion involves slant , including ones derived from 'reading' slant: a particular point of view from which something is seen or presented however, the definition I am used to and refer to ; to interpret or present in line with a special interest : angle <stories slanted toward youth>; especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slant is not something I see in what I shared,, unless an explanation of economics not falling under any one persons control is considered 'special interest' or malicious distortion,,, Too late, you already said no.... |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 11/09/14 05:10 PM
|
|
its never too late to aknowledge new information,,,
|
|
|
|
I think after as hard as he has worked to be the best president in history which he will be, it is a bit disheartening that people are not realizing it.
But being a constitutional lawyer he has great respect for the vote of the people even if only 1/3 voted. |
|
|
|
I think after as hard as he has worked to be the best president in history which he will be, it is a bit disheartening that people are not realizing it. Meanwhile, back in this universe ... |
|
|
|
willow, I doubt the founding fathers will ever have one of theirs knocked off the pedastal
I do think he could be historically, ONE of the best though |
|
|
|
Looking at current reports tells the real story...My numbers apply to his second term, '13 and '14.....Also, I would give previous administration credit for the '09 numbers..It's that delayed reaction spin you've used as a defense so many times in past debates.... Im not 'defending' anything, Im posting the numbers and nothing is delayed when we are speaking about whether a POTUS has an impact, it is relevant to consider any and/or all presidents from which to draw a conclusion,,, so I believe you are completely missing my point. the CURRENT report tells of the past twelve months,, this president has supported increased wages for the past 95 months,,,lol so the assertion that a presidents stand on wages is somehow what causes prices to rise or fall is disproven by the obvious fluctuation over this presidency(and the one prior) in that trend,,, during a time when we had a president who did not support wage hikes we had some of our highest CPI rates,, if the support was the cause of increase, inversely, a lack of support should be expected to cause decrease and since the trend does not bare that out in any way,, its a false line of logic,,, Not only do you defend him and everything he does, you sure do spend a lot of time doing it.... |
|
|
|
Im flattered to be observed so closely
|
|
|
|
I think after as hard as he has worked to be the best president in history which he will be, it is a bit disheartening that people are not realizing it. But being a constitutional lawyer he has great respect for the vote of the people even if only 1/3 voted. It's funny the crap you Libbos come up with to defend your Fuhrer. You couldn't be more further from the truth. This election had record breaking results. The tide of almost the entire country turned, including some of the most Democratic states in the country. The Libbo Senators that actively stood behind him got their a$$e$ kicked out of office this past election. His approval rating is sinking faster then the Titanic. Being the pu$$y he is he let the most dangerous terrorist organization we have ever seen take over two countries. Oh btw he is such a great constitutional lawyer that he has violated several laws and they Republican and Democrat lawmakers are talking about impeaching him, but go ahead and blindly keep coming to the defense of your Fuhrer. We wouldn't expect any less. |
|
|
|
I think after as hard as he has worked to be the best president in history which he will be, it is a bit disheartening that people are not realizing it. Meanwhile, back in this universe ... |
|
|
|
Charles Krauthammer: Obama 'seething,' may try to provoke impeachment http://www.examiner.com/article/charles-krauthammer-obama-seething-may-try-to-provoke-impeachment In an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Wednesday night, psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly that President Barack Obama is "seething" over the sweeping GOP victories in Tuesday's midterm elections, and may do something "reckless" in response. Krauthammer, who is widely respected in conservative circles, is also a Pulitzer Prize winner, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. Krauthammer referred to President Obama's defiant press conference after the elections. In rejecting the voters obvious discontent with Obama and the Democrat Party, the president vowed to move forward with an 'executive action' that could grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and also promised to move forward with his progressive agenda. "The principles that we’re fighting for, the things that motivate me every single day and motivate my staff every day … those things aren't going to change," the president said. Bill O'Reilly suggested at one point during the interview that Obama wants to "go out guns blazing," and Krauthammer wholeheartedly agreed, and also indicated he believes Obama is in denial over the election results. "You’re absolutely right," Krauthammer responded. "He’s a strange combination of obliviousness and recklessness. It’s as if he doesn't know what happened." Krauthammer then warned, the president is “going to sort of get his revenge on everybody by doing a reckless thing which is to legalize millions of illegal aliens, I would say, unconstitutionally, in a way that he knows is going to create a crisis.” Krauthammer said by provoking the GOP into starting impeachment proceedings Obama would hope to create backlash against Republicans, and put himself "back in the limelight … in the spotlight." But Krauthammer also cautioned such a move by the Republicans would not be a good idea. "We’re talking about him," Krauthammer said. "That’s what he wants." "This is time for Republicans to be very disciplined. They won the election because they were disciplined. They stayed on message. They made it a referendum on Obama, and they won," he continued. "What they have to do now is to go from being the party of no to the party with an agenda." Ummmm, this is a duplicate post. You might wanna look at other threats before you create a new one. http://mingle2.com/topic/415939 |
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Mon 11/10/14 05:25 AM
|
|
Looking at current reports tells the real story...My numbers apply to his second term, '13 and '14.....Also, I would give previous administration credit for the '09 numbers..It's that delayed reaction spin you've used as a defense so many times in past debates.... Im not 'defending' anything, Im posting the numbers and nothing is delayed when we are speaking about whether a POTUS has an impact, it is relevant to consider any and/or all presidents from which to draw a conclusion,,, so I believe you are completely missing my point. the CURRENT report tells of the past twelve months,, this president has supported increased wages for the past 95 months,,,lol so the assertion that a presidents stand on wages is somehow what causes prices to rise or fall is disproven by the obvious fluctuation over this presidency(and the one prior) in that trend,,, during a time when we had a president who did not support wage hikes we had some of our highest CPI rates,, if the support was the cause of increase, inversely, a lack of support should be expected to cause decrease and since the trend does not bare that out in any way,, its a false line of logic,,, Not only do you defend him and everything he does, you sure do spend a lot of time doing it.... He could be caught with his pants down with a little boy doing a rub and tug and at the same time have a nose full of coke and those two cheerleaders on here would come to the aid of their Fuhrer. |
|
|
|
Looking at current reports tells the real story...My numbers apply to his second term, '13 and '14.....Also, I would give previous administration credit for the '09 numbers..It's that delayed reaction spin you've used as a defense so many times in past debates.... Im not 'defending' anything, Im posting the numbers and nothing is delayed when we are speaking about whether a POTUS has an impact, it is relevant to consider any and/or all presidents from which to draw a conclusion,,, so I believe you are completely missing my point. the CURRENT report tells of the past twelve months,, this president has supported increased wages for the past 95 months,,,lol so the assertion that a presidents stand on wages is somehow what causes prices to rise or fall is disproven by the obvious fluctuation over this presidency(and the one prior) in that trend,,, during a time when we had a president who did not support wage hikes we had some of our highest CPI rates,, if the support was the cause of increase, inversely, a lack of support should be expected to cause decrease and since the trend does not bare that out in any way,, its a false line of logic,,, Not only do you defend him and everything he does, you sure do spend a lot of time doing it.... He could be caught with his pants down with a little boy doing a rub and tug and at the same time have a nose full of coke and those two cheerleaders on here would come to the aid of their Fuhrer. its funny that those who claim others are worshipping a person are the ones that hold that person to some GODLIKE extraordinary(historically) expectations,,, lol |
|
|