huskerXman

knapp, you win. I am out..

Look at the posters who are always on here with a bunch of time on their hands to dig up "facts" or debunk anything they disagree with.

It must be terribly frustrating having people digging up facts that debunk what you're saying. If this is directed at me: I apologize Skull&Bones.

don't worry, it isn't directed at you.

Coal jobs are being cut because companies can no longer afford the regulations that are putting pushed against the industry. My argument was that it could have been in a more economical way with a more sloped approach. I am not Romney.

I heard the local coal plant where I live is laying a bunch off people as well.. they are going a different directions with certain types of jobs because it is cheaper. So instead of having in house workers they are laying them off and outsourcing. This may be in part because it is union.. not 100% sure.

I want more nuclear power. Just not in my back yard.

I have one almost in my back yard..

I don't think Obama has really poisoned the pool as much as the perception in some peoples minds he has. The mind is a bad thing when it effects the economy. Obamacare isn't the plan I would have choose, but it is the law, and people will deal with it one way or another and so will I.

 

I guess a big point of contention with the Obama admin, was the coal/energy regulations given the economic situation. I care about the environment, but I think a more sloped regulation over time would have been better for our economy and innovation of technology. I wish they would cut red tape for Nuclear, natural gas, and gas refineries to reduce the energy costs on Americans. I like the green energy initiatives for our economy, but would probably implement them differently than Obama did. I guess biggest thing he could have done, was reduce the business loopholes and write offs, and lower the effective tax rate on companies that bring in less than 10 million income. Thus increasing revenue from large companies, and lowering operational cost for small companies.

You have no clue just how bad regulations have pretty much stopped Nuke plants from being built. Nuke plats have been in my family for years.

There are a large number of plants that are not getting built because of regulations.. that isn't just on BO though.

So we have 2 obama backers claiming 2 different things. one says Mitt said the government doesn't create jobs and one said Mitt said he will create jobs.

 

Either way it is a good job of deflecting..

those are both mitt's statements; that sounds like mitt is deflecting. or, well who the hell knows what mitt means.

Yeah, funny how that works. "Obama backers" quoting Mitt Romney is "deflecting." Love it.

it is, mitt has nothing to do with the topic of this thread..

So we have 2 obama backers claiming 2 different things. one says Mitt said the government doesn't create jobs and one said Mitt said he will create jobs.

 

Either way it is a good job of deflecting..

those are both mitt's statements; that sounds like mitt is deflecting. or, well who the hell knows what mitt means.

haha, that may very well be.

So we have 2 obama backers claiming 2 different things. one says Mitt said the government doesn't create jobs and one said Mitt said he will create jobs.

Either way it is a good job of deflecting..

If/when Romney is pres he will get the same response from you.

 

 

BUZZZZZZZZZ!!! But hey - thanks for playing.

 

I spent the majority of Bush II's regime debunking BS myths about him/his presidency and I'll do the same for Romney, just like I'm doing for Obama right now. Exaggerated rhetoric and outright lies do nothing to move this country forward, and I will always combat them.

 

The reason you see so much crap about Romney here is, so much derp is posted, so I spend my time debunking the crap. It's a hobby.

 

Sounds like you bought into the lies.. and it sounds like you are again. Sorry about that.

 

 

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. It is the opposite of what I said.

Oh crap you are right.. I wasn't paying attention to what you said. My bad

If/when Romney is pres he will get the same response from you.

 

 

BUZZZZZZZZZ!!! But hey - thanks for playing.

 

I spent the majority of Bush II's regime debunking BS myths about him/his presidency and I'll do the same for Romney, just like I'm doing for Obama right now. Exaggerated rhetoric and outright lies do nothing to move this country forward, and I will always combat them.

 

The reason you see so much crap about Romney here is, so much derp is posted, so I spend my time debunking the crap. It's a hobby.

 

Sounds like you bought into the lies.. and it sounds like you are again. Sorry about that.

 

 

There's very clearly a narrative going on in your head that only you hear, and that you're constantly responding to. Your response has nothing to do with what I said. It is the opposite of what I said.

See, I stopped from posting a personal comment, but you, being a mod even, couldn't hold back on your personal attacks..

losing jobs because of debt and over regulations are very different. I would think you would be able to figure that out.

 

You have stats showing we've lost jobs due to debt and over regulations (sic)? Please, show them.

holy sh#t, stop being so damn .. never mind don't want to take it personal.

if you truly believe massive debt/over regulations work for the economy then I can't help you...

If/when Romney is pres he will get the same response from you.

 

 

BUZZZZZZZZZ!!! But hey - thanks for playing.

 

I spent the majority of Bush II's regime debunking BS myths about him/his presidency and I'll do the same for Romney, just like I'm doing for Obama right now. Exaggerated rhetoric and outright lies do nothing to move this country forward, and I will always combat them.

 

The reason you see so much crap about Romney here is, so much derp is posted, so I spend my time debunking the crap. It's a hobby.

Sounds like you bought into the lies.. and it sounds like you are again. Sorry about that.

I have not said much at all the about Mitt.. except the comment about acts of terror.. can't say the same for you and carl.

but to what Romney said. Creating jobs is not the problem, it is jobs being lost due to stifling debt and regulations.

 

But if government cannot create jobs, then jobless claims and unemployment are irrelevant when gauging a president's tenure. Yet this is consistently something Republican Mouthpieces levy against him.

Bad news: Obama must take the blame.

Good news: Obama cannot take credit.

I give him credit all the time.. credit for huge debt, large unemployment numbers because of debt/ massive regulations. See credit where credit is due.

Of course it doesn't all fall on him. The 2008 economic problems were started way before BO.. he just helped it along.

but to what Romney said. Creating jobs is not the problem, it is jobs being lost due to stifling debt and regulations.

 

But if government cannot create jobs, then jobless claims and unemployment are irrelevant when gauging a president's tenure. Yet this is consistently something Republican Mouthpieces levy against him.

lol,irrelevant? Are you seriously trying to say that? Creating jobs and losing jobs because of debt and over regulations are very different. I would think you would be able to figure that out.

And you wonder why no one wants to debate you. respond to the comment, you don't need to attack the poster.

Where was the attack? Those are his own words.

 

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1038686

yep, I said that and I tend to go after Obama more because of two reason..

1) it seems Romney is the only one that gets hammered on here

2) Obama is the current president.

If/when Romney is pres he will get the same response from you. Something you can't say about Obama.

I seem to remember a couple posters trying to say why things are so pro obama, from them anyway.. Wonder if I can find those posts again? hmm

And we're pinning this on Obama, right? Because Mitt disagrees with you:

Obama, Romney trade barbs on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US

 

 

 

To boost job creation, Obama argued that it's important for the U.S. to maintain investments in science and research, and ensure there are enough skilled engineers in the nation.

 

"That's why we have to invest in advanced manufacturing. That's why we've got to make sure that we've got the best science and research in the world," he said.

 

The president also argued that tax cuts "for folks who don't need them" would add to the deficit, and in turn, hurt investments in research in science "that will create the next app, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world."

 

"We will lose that race," he added. "If we're not training engineers to make sure they're equipped here in this country, then companies won't come here."

 

To that end, Romney shot back, "Government does not create jobs."

Sure, isn't Obama running around laying claim to lower the jobless rate? I am fairly certain he is/has.

but to what Romney said. Creating jobs is not the problem, it is jobs being lost due to stifling debt and regulations.

Saw this on another site and thought it would be good here.. since we have some staunch Obama backers.

http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/18/14533490-jobless-claims-take-big-jump-in-latest-week?lite

By NBC News staff and wire reports

The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits leapt to the highest level in four months in the latest week, erasing the large drop reported last week and then some.

further down we see this..

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.

coincidence California delayed them until after the debates?

I would comment but I still don't know what was said. What was his full comment?

This really irritates the hell out of me.

Why? Do you think he is the only one that does this?

I agree it is a total joke, and shows the extent politicians will go to, but it sure as hell isn't new.

To put it gently, Xman, what everybody has been trying to tell you (in various levels of snarkiness) is that there is no possible, conceivable room for doubt that Obama called it an act of terror in that speech. It is completely, empirically clear that he was addressing the attacks when he was talking about how we would not stand for acts of terror, in that speech.

 

 

This is the game they play and have always played.. They try to play gotcha games and the actual words used. Meaning doesn't matter, the words used does matter.. it's jokers like these two that play this game. Both have done this through out their campaigns.

 

 

Who are you talking about? You haven't referred to anybody, you're just saying "they" - who is "they"?

 

The only logical conclusion here is, I feel, since you didn't actually refer to who "they" are, is to deduce that you aren't actually saying that people play gotcha games after all.

good point, even though I said "they", and we are talking about the two candidates, I didn't specifically say "the two candidates". I can see how you would be confused.

By "they" I meant the two candidates. of course it isn't new to just those two. All candidates do it.

one last post on this..

http://www.realclear...t_on_libya.html

Candy Crowley: Romney Was Actually "Right In The Main" On Libya

 

I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word.

I love this because even the moderator agreed with Romney after thinking about it more.. but not the biased Obama backers.

Obama people will never ever budge on this, so it is pointless to go any further.. of course it was pointless 3 pages ago.

I am not nor will I ever be a Mitt person. I am unbiased, I won't vote for either of these guys.

I apologize for the ignorant comment.. that was uncalled for.

To put it gently, Xman, what everybody has been trying to tell you (in various levels of snarkiness) is that there is no possible, conceivable room for doubt that Obama called it an act of terror in that speech. It is completely, empirically clear that he was addressing the attacks when he was talking about how we would not stand for acts of terror, in that speech.

take out what you think he meant.. did he actually call this an act of terror? Did he say "acts of terror like this"? Did he say this is an act of terror? Did he say anything in regards to this single act? NO he didn't. This is the game they play and have always played.. They try to play gotcha games and the actual words used. Meaning doesn't matter, the words used does matter.. it's jokers like these two that play this game. Both have done this through out their campaigns.

I posted a couple articles from various outlets that also agree that Obama did not call this act an act of terror.

Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? Can't believe how much attention that is getting. I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear.

 

...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."

Like I said from the beginning, that very well might be what he meant, but it isn't what he said, so according to the actual words Obama used Mitt was right.