President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Behshad]

OBAMA 2012 baby! Yeah motherfuckers he'll beat that plastic mormon into submission. It takes more than 4 years to pull ourselves out of the shit stain the

republican left us in.

If that's true, how was Reagan able to do it?

Maybe its because Carter wasnt allowed two terms to fuck thing up as bas as Bush did ?

[Memorex]

There are at least 12 reasons why Mitt Romney would not make a good president. Here's John F. Ince's list. What's yours?
1 • Romney neither understands nor represents most Americans. The man lacks empathy for those who have not had all the benefits he has had in life. His presidency would be deeply polarizing. One can easily image his election as president would generate new waves of social unrest and violence. He clearly represents the 1% and the 99% will not tolerate policies that exacerbate the growing divisions between rich and poor.
2 • Romney's job creation claims are inflated and unrealistic. Mitt Romney's professional career was based on a very specific task: buying and selling companies for profit. He wants people to think that this qualifies him to be a job creator. With the exception of his investment in Staples and a few other early venture capital deals, his jobs creation claims are mostly chimera. He takes credit for creating jobs, when he was only an investor in those companies, not an executive. In practice, he predominantly used his power as an investor to eliminate jobs and shift other jobs overseas, all in the interest of making profits.
3 • Romney does not have a sound fiscal plan. Extrapolating from the projections Romney has offered for increased defense spending and tax cuts, his policies would blow a hole in the Federal budget, further eroding investors faith in the government's ability to get its fiscal house in order.
4 • Romney has little respect for the natural environment, nor a commitment to protect and preserve it for future generations.
5 • Romney has lived a cloistered and privileged life and today has a very narrow view of the world.
6 • Romney's worldview is rooted in intolerance.
7 • Romney does not fully understand the transformative power of technological change.
8 • Romney is temperamentally unfit for the presidency.
9 • Romney lacks direct foreign policy experience.
10 • Romney lacks integrity and honesty.
11 • Romney has no commitment to women or equal rights. There is little in his public statements or record to suggest he feels any responsibility for advancing the interests of women and minorities.
12 • Romney lacks sufficient charisma and personality to be a strong leader.
Note: The author, John F. Ince of this article is a former classmate of Mitt Romney at Harvard Business School and former reporter at Fortune Magazine. He is the author of Mitt Romney: King of Bain and the Man Who Wants To Be President.

Now I really don't want to be the guy on here defending Romney or whatever. But come on. This is just so stupid. These are just statements. I mean, Romney lacks integrity and honesty. Really. And is there information to back that up? Lacks direct foreign policy experience. Um, hello. We elected the most inexperienced man ever last time around, so why does that matter all of a sudden?

Not even you can read a list like this and think yea, I bet there are a lot of facts here. Obviously the person is as tilted his way as Hannity is his.

[The Sushi Hunter]

OBAMA 2012 baby! Yeah motherfuckers he'll beat that plastic mormon into submission. It takes more than 4 years to pull ourselves out of the shit stain the

republican left us in.

If that's true, how was Reagan able to do it?

Maybe its because Carter wasnt allowed two terms to fuck thing up as bas as Bush did ?

Reagan was a good leader among other things, that's why he was able to do it. I was young back then but I still don't ever recall hearing Reagan blame Carter or the dems on why he wasn't able to accomplish any specific thing while he was the president.

[Behshad]

OBAMA 2012 baby! Yeah motherfuckers he'll beat that plastic mormon into submission. It takes more than 4 years to pull ourselves out of the shit stain the

republican left us in.

If that's true, how was Reagan able to do it?

Maybe its because Carter wasnt allowed two terms to fuck thing up as bas as Bush did ?

Reagan was a good leader among other things, that's why he was able to do it. I was young back then but I still don't ever recall hearing Reagan blame Carter or the dems on why he wasn't able to accomplish any specific thing while he was the president.

While I dont agree with all this below, there are some good points made :

Ronald Reagan had major character flaws: Our only divorced president (on the grounds of "mental cruelty"), forced to marry a pregnant Nancy in a shotgun wedding, was greatly influenced by astrology in events, senility by 1983, surrounded by corruption and incompetence and found guilty of "failing to meet presidential obligations" (bottom of link), and investigated for being a Communist in 1947.

Ronald Reagan was not a good president: Campaigned for 16 years, since his Goldwater acceptance speech and won in 1980 on a balanced budget platform, yet the first thing he did was massively increase the deficit, and for wholly political reasons said his Budget Director. This is the biggest flip-flop in US political history, and it drove conservatives crazy. The corruption in his SAG term of office was reflected in massive corruption in his presidential terms (some attribution here and here and... Indeed, it's worse than reported, going so far as to terrorize church officials for their politics and having the CIA illegally infiltrate church sanctuaries. He didn't defeat "communism". The Soviet Union was less than a quarter the number of people that remain under communist regimes. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a major victory for the people in Russia and the repressed states, but Reagan's sabre-rattling kept it alive several years after it was obviously dead. Star Wars not the reason: There was no increase in the Soviet Union's military spending in response to Reagan's build-up. He screwed up at Reykjavik, proposing a deal to completely eliminate US and Soviet nukes, then backing off when it looked like Gorby would accept. Credit should go to Carter for setting exactly the right policy with a selected arms build-up, in Afghanistan, and with Solidarity. As we've seen since, the Soviet Union wasn't much of an empire and most of the people in it aren't particularly evil. Perhaps if he hadn't fired the air traffic controllers, there would have been more experienced people who would raise the alarm faster on 9/11.

He was all too willing to sell out. As mentioned above, he was investigated by Hoover for Communist leanings. Hoover scared him, but not straight. During the height of the McCarthy Witch Hunts, Reagan was head of the Screen Actors Guild. The basic result of the "investigation": No important spies were caught, and a bunch of actors' and writers' careers were ruined. Why in hell did the paranoid right go after Frank Sinatra and Harry Belafonte when Kim Philby was still at large? HUAC was one of the prime reasons more countries went commie: Clearly, any country that could do that to its citizens was the worse of the two. The main effect here in the states, aside from tightening a lot of sphincters, was to remove most of the Jews from power in Hollywood. More Beach Blanket Bingo and less Spartacus and Roman Holiday.

So... why Reagan? Why not Eisenhower? True, he wimped out when McCarthy and co. went after the real hero in the fight against communism, Gen. George C. Marshall. On the other hand, he ended 20 years of Democratic control of the White House and propelled the career of Richard Nixon. He took over from the French in Vietnam, etc. Why not Nixon? Oh yeah, he was a sleazy crook and even the right can't stand him. Why not Poppy Bush, the president when the SU dissolved and Eastern Europe was released, who successfully fought the Gulf War? But Reagan made the few very wealthy people more wealthy, quadrupling the number of billionaires by 1987. The Trickle Down Theory didn't, and the average Joe and Jane didn't do all that well... but they don't give thousands in campaign funds.

Cognitive Dissonance is the theory that people can't hold two competing ideas at the same time. When presented with two completely different views of reality, they'll pick one... and defend that one far more than it really deserves. In this case, Reagan had spend 16 years excoriating Republicans and Democrats alike if they even ran a deficit. This wasn't a plank in his platform, it was his main campaign theme. For him to completely flip-flop on the deficit issue so completely must have done odd things to the heads of the Republican party. On one hand, the guy broke his main campaign promise. On the other hand, they were making money hand over fist. On one hand, a guy who didn't go to church during his presidency replaced the devout Born Again Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, he kept talking about "family values" as if it meant something to him. On one hand, Reagan never went overseas during WWII, spending his time in uniform making films for the army. On the other hand, he lied so smoothly about his participation in the war, freely putting himself in war movie scenarios. On hand, he was obviously senile at the end of his first term. On the other hand, he read his cue cards well and played the part of president better than any real president. On one hand, he stood up to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, he trained and funded Osama bin Laden and sent an autographed bible to Ayatollah Khomeini. On one hand, he projected honesty and integrity. On the other hand, his administration was incredibly corrupt and incompetent. On one hand, Grenada. On the other hand, Lebanon.

Then there was that whole Iran-Contra thing. Traitors to the Constitution working out of the White House, Reagan giving photo ops to people who bought arms for terrorists fighting a democracy. And there was the massive HUD scandal that gets barely a mention these days. Republicans love this stuff. Republicans are soft on crime... when it's theirs.

When faced with these contradictions, no conservative will admit to himself that he was wrong. He'll look at Reagan and the Reagan presidency through rose-colored glasses, remembering a past that didn't exist and a man that never was. They'll kiss his ass from now 'till doomsday because they can't handle the truth, and will lie that much louder.

By all accounts, The Reagans is favorable to Ronnie and Nancy. It shows him resolute in the face of internal criticism, credits him with many accomplishments, etc. The hue and cry over the movie was by people who hadn't seen it. No such criticism was leveled again DC 9/11, which lied about Bush, or Primary Colors, the unflattering portrayal of a Clinton-like president. No, the neocons just couldn't stand a piece that wasn't pure Soviet-style propaganda. Sphincters tight, they went after CBS. CBS caved, just like they caved 30 years earlier over The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour (And later caved when they finally told the truth about George W. Bush going AWOL from the National Guard).

Even more than with Bush Lite, being armed with the facts about Reagan just doesn't sway an arch conservative. They've lived with the lie for decades, spending hours and hours listening to Rush and other hatemongers. They've spent more time praising Reagan than they have making love to their spouse. It may be too late for their redemption; it's not too late for ours.

[Behshad]

OBAMA 2012 baby! Yeah motherfuckers he'll beat that plastic mormon into submission. It takes more than 4 years to pull ourselves out of the shit stain the

republican left us in.

If that's true, how was Reagan able to do it?

Maybe its because Carter wasnt allowed two terms to fuck thing up as bas as Bush did ?

Reagan was a good leader among other things, that's why he was able to do it. I was young back then but I still don't ever recall hearing Reagan blame Carter or the dems on why he wasn't able to accomplish any specific thing while he was the president.

While I dont agree with all this below, there are some good points made :

Ronald Reagan had major character flaws: Our only divorced president (on the grounds of "mental cruelty"), forced to marry a pregnant Nancy in a shotgun wedding, was greatly influenced by astrology in events, senility by 1983, surrounded by corruption and incompetence and found guilty of "failing to meet presidential obligations" (bottom of link), and investigated for being a Communist in 1947.

Ronald Reagan was not a good president: Campaigned for 16 years, since his Goldwater acceptance speech and won in 1980 on a balanced budget platform, yet the first thing he did was massively increase the deficit, and for wholly political reasons said his Budget Director. This is the biggest flip-flop in US political history, and it drove conservatives crazy. The corruption in his SAG term of office was reflected in massive corruption in his presidential terms (some attribution here and here and... Indeed, it's worse than reported, going so far as to terrorize church officials for their politics and having the CIA illegally infiltrate church sanctuaries. He didn't defeat "communism". The Soviet Union was less than a quarter the number of people that remain under communist regimes. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a major victory for the people in Russia and the repressed states, but Reagan's sabre-rattling kept it alive several years after it was obviously dead. Star Wars not the reason: There was no increase in the Soviet Union's military spending in response to Reagan's build-up. He screwed up at Reykjavik, proposing a deal to completely eliminate US and Soviet nukes, then backing off when it looked like Gorby would accept. Credit should go to Carter for setting exactly the right policy with a selected arms build-up, in Afghanistan, and with Solidarity. As we've seen since, the Soviet Union wasn't much of an empire and most of the people in it aren't particularly evil. Perhaps if he hadn't fired the air traffic controllers, there would have been more experienced people who would raise the alarm faster on 9/11.

He was all too willing to sell out. As mentioned above, he was investigated by Hoover for Communist leanings. Hoover scared him, but not straight. During the height of the McCarthy Witch Hunts, Reagan was head of the Screen Actors Guild. The basic result of the "investigation": No important spies were caught, and a bunch of actors' and writers' careers were ruined. Why in hell did the paranoid right go after Frank Sinatra and Harry Belafonte when Kim Philby was still at large? HUAC was one of the prime reasons more countries went commie: Clearly, any country that could do that to its citizens was the worse of the two. The main effect here in the states, aside from tightening a lot of sphincters, was to remove most of the Jews from power in Hollywood. More Beach Blanket Bingo and less Spartacus and Roman Holiday.

So... why Reagan? Why not Eisenhower? True, he wimped out when McCarthy and co. went after the real hero in the fight against communism, Gen. George C. Marshall. On the other hand, he ended 20 years of Democratic control of the White House and propelled the career of Richard Nixon. He took over from the French in Vietnam, etc. Why not Nixon? Oh yeah, he was a sleazy crook and even the right can't stand him. Why not Poppy Bush, the president when the SU dissolved and Eastern Europe was released, who successfully fought the Gulf War? But Reagan made the few very wealthy people more wealthy, quadrupling the number of billionaires by 1987. The Trickle Down Theory didn't, and the average Joe and Jane didn't do all that well... but they don't give thousands in campaign funds.

Cognitive Dissonance is the theory that people can't hold two competing ideas at the same time. When presented with two completely different views of reality, they'll pick one... and defend that one far more than it really deserves. In this case, Reagan had spend 16 years excoriating Republicans and Democrats alike if they even ran a deficit. This wasn't a plank in his platform, it was his main campaign theme. For him to completely flip-flop on the deficit issue so completely must have done odd things to the heads of the Republican party. On one hand, the guy broke his main campaign promise. On the other hand, they were making money hand over fist. On one hand, a guy who didn't go to church during his presidency replaced the devout Born Again Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, he kept talking about "family values" as if it meant something to him. On one hand, Reagan never went overseas during WWII, spending his time in uniform making films for the army. On the other hand, he lied so smoothly about his participation in the war, freely putting himself in war movie scenarios. On hand, he was obviously senile at the end of his first term. On the other hand, he read his cue cards well and played the part of president better than any real president. On one hand, he stood up to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, he trained and funded Osama bin Laden and sent an autographed bible to Ayatollah Khomeini. On one hand, he projected honesty and integrity. On the other hand, his administration was incredibly corrupt and incompetent. On one hand, Grenada. On the other hand, Lebanon.

Then there was that whole Iran-Contra thing. Traitors to the Constitution working out of the White House, Reagan giving photo ops to people who bought arms for terrorists fighting a democracy. And there was the massive HUD scandal that gets barely a mention these days. Republicans love this stuff. Republicans are soft on crime... when it's theirs.

When faced with these contradictions, no conservative will admit to himself that he was wrong. He'll look at Reagan and the Reagan presidency through rose-colored glasses, remembering a past that didn't exist and a man that never was. They'll kiss his ass from now 'till doomsday because they can't handle the truth, and will lie that much louder.

By all accounts, The Reagans is favorable to Ronnie and Nancy. It shows him resolute in the face of internal criticism, credits him with many accomplishments, etc. The hue and cry over the movie was by people who hadn't seen it. No such criticism was leveled again DC 9/11, which lied about Bush, or Primary Colors, the unflattering portrayal of a Clinton-like president. No, the neocons just couldn't stand a piece that wasn't pure Soviet-style propaganda. Sphincters tight, they went after CBS. CBS caved, just like they caved 30 years earlier over The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour (And later caved when they finally told the truth about George W. Bush going AWOL from the National Guard).

Even more than with Bush Lite, being armed with the facts about Reagan just doesn't sway an arch conservative. They've lived with the lie for decades, spending hours and hours listening to Rush and other hatemongers. They've spent more time praising Reagan than they have making love to their spouse. It may be too late for their redemption; it's not too late for ours.

Did you post this dreck about Reagan as a post for us to take seriously? Seriously? Do you know who wrote it? Did you look him up or do you listen to his youtube and shockwave podcasts? Or did someone just e-mail it to you and you believed it? I am asking seriously here. The folks have a right to know who wrote this shit and what his esteemed credentials are. You do know the guy who wrote this is an avid Science Fiction Fan right? Do you also know the he's a "Baron" of his own little made up Country named Latronia or some shit like that. You just posted shit from a froot loop and then will have the nerve to berate a post I make from CNN or WSJ or gasp Fox News. Unreal!

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

[slucero]

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

GM having a profit is science fiction...

[Behshad]

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

GM having a profit is science fiction...

Yep that's the kind I enjoy

[slucero]

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

GM having a profit is science fiction...

Yep that's the kind I enjoy

Which would explain why nothing you post can be believed... or more accurately... as was the case with your "GM profit".. it's really hard to believe you know what you are posting about when actual facts indicate otherwise..

[Behshad]

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

GM having a profit is science fiction...

Yep that's the kind I enjoy

Which would explain why nothing you post can be believed... or more accurately... as was the case with your "GM profit".. it's really hard to believe you know what you are posting about when actual facts indicate otherwise..

Yep. Which still doesn't explain the amount of time and energy you put into reading what I have to say.
I guess you're the fool who obsesses over ally posts ,while knowing I'm wrong every time

[slucero]

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

GM having a profit is science fiction...

Yep that's the kind I enjoy

Which would explain why nothing you post can be believed... or more accurately... as was the case with your "GM profit".. it's really hard to believe you know what you are posting about when actual facts indicate otherwise..

Yep. Which still doesn't explain the amount of time and energy you put into reading what I have to say.
I guess you're the fool who obsesses over ally posts ,while knowing I'm wrong every time

Not really time consuming.. or energy draining.. but since you're "counting".... you're post count is 4 times more than me, so check the mirror fool..

And post quantity doesn't make you appear any more believable.. just more foolish...


Care to take another stab at explaining away your total fuck up of GM's profits Einstein?

[Seven Wishes2]

Three years after nearly collapsing into liquidation, a resurgent General Motors Co. posted its best annual profit ever.

GM said Thursday it earned $7.6 billion last year, a 62% gain over the prior year.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/16/business/la-fi-mo-general-motors-profits-20120215

If the election were held today, Obama would net 323 electoral votes, compared to 191 for Mitchell. It AIN'T gonna happen, RWF.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[steveo777]

Three years after nearly collapsing into liquidation, a resurgent General Motors Co. posted its best annual profit ever.

GM said Thursday it earned $7.6 billion last year, a 62% gain over the prior year.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/16/business/la-fi-mo-general-motors-profits-20120215

If the election were held today, Obama would net 323 electoral votes, compared to 191 for Mitchell. It AIN'T gonna happen, RWF.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/

And what is the unpaid portion of thier bailout loan?

Oh, and this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhi ... tcy-again/

They're gonna wait until after the election to ask for another bailout.

[slucero]

Three years after nearly collapsing into liquidation, a resurgent General Motors Co. posted its best annual profit ever.

GM said Thursday it earned $7.6 billion last year, a 62% gain over the prior year.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/16/business/la-fi-mo-general-motors-profits-20120215

Old news..

you need to learn what "channel stuffing" means.. and how its used by the auto industry to skew it's sales numbers... and it's why GM is being sued:

General Motors, Channel Stuffing And The Return Of 2008
By Derek Kreindler on July 9, 2012

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/0 ... n-of-2008/

A lawsuit filed by a Florida investor against General Motors over the age-old practice of “channel stuffing”, or sending inventory to dealers and recording it as a “sale”, so that revenue numbers can be pumped up while the vehicles languish on dealer lots. The practice of channel stuffing is universal in the auto industry, but in this case, the consequences are much broader.

The specifics of the lawsuit, which hinge on specific phrases in the IPO prospectus, can be found here.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99352395/GM-2012-Complaint

The class action suit is unlikely to do any serious damage to GM, and will likely be the site of a long, protracted legal battle. The implications of channel stuffing are what really matter, and may provide a glimpse into both General Motors, and its government stewardship.

While General Motors is touting their 32 percent year-over-year increase in sales, a closer look at the numbers reveals a couple of things. According to Bloomberg, inventory for full-size trucks was at a 135 day supply, as GM ostensibly cranked out profitable pickups and sent them off to dealers across the land, allowing them to book sales of their most lucrative vehicles just in time for the half-way mark – and coincidentally (or not), government purchases of GM vehicles rose 79 percent in June. Retail sales were up a mere 8 percent, while fleet sales rose by 36 percent.

There is a political argument to be made for all of this, with GM’s financial health being integral to President Obama’s re-election, and a validation of the auto bailout and his economic policies. The Treasury still owns a 32 percent stake in GM, and selling their shares now would mean a major loss of taxpayer money. If GM’s fortunes were to reverse, than a quick exit, perhaps at a profit, might be possible.

The inflated inventories and “channel stuffing” aren’t just a manipulative way to make GM’s numbers look better than they are – they also expose GM to a potentially dangerous financial situation similar to 2008. General Motors, like any other car company, must sell the cars it builds. Its inventories are much higher than other manufacturers. Prior to the bailout, GM was caught out with large inventories of full-size trucks and SUVs at a time when a poor economy and rising gas prices made them unattractive to consumers. This same scenario occurring again isn’t inconceivable.

from GM's own 2011 Annual Report, page 21 (bottom of the page): http://www.gmannualreport.com/common/do ... Report.pdf

Production and Vehicle Sales Volume

Management believes that production volume and vehicle sales data provide meaningful information regarding our automotive operating results. Production volumes manufactured by our assembly facilities are generally aligned with current period net sales and revenue, as we generally recognize revenue upon the release of the vehicle to the carrier responsible for transporting it to a dealer, which is shortly after the completion of production. Vehicle sales data, which includes retail and fleet sales, does not correlate directly to the revenue we recognize during the period. However, vehicle sales data is indicative of the underlying demand for our vehicles, and is the basis for our market share.

hence why Beshad won't man up and actually admit he hasn't a clue what he's talking about regarding GM's supposed "profit"...

[Behshad]

Half the shit you post is science fiction. If we can read nonesense from a fruitloop like you every day , surely we can read other's thoughts, specially since it's something that gets you a bit excited like this

I stated clearly while I dont agree with ALL of it, there are some good points in there. You will never see any of it cause in your fantasy world, birds sing your name every day and everything a republican does is great and they're all perfect in your eyes.

GM having a profit is science fiction...

Yep that's the kind I enjoy

Which would explain why nothing you post can be believed... or more accurately... as was the case with your "GM profit".. it's really hard to believe you know what you are posting about when actual facts indicate otherwise..

Yep. Which still doesn't explain the amount of time and energy you put into reading what I have to say.
I guess you're the fool who obsesses over ally posts ,while knowing I'm wrong every time

Not really time consuming.. or energy draining.. but since you're "counting".... you're post count is 4 times more than me, so check the mirror fool..

And post quantity doesn't make you appear any more believable.. just more foolish...


Care to take another stab at explaining away your total fuck up of GM's profits Einstein?

Who said anything about post counts? You have too much time on your hands to read every single post I make , even though you know all my posts are wrong.
It's pretty obvious that you're the fool , cause even though you know I'm wrong all the time , you can't help but read what I post , including this post

[The Sushi Hunter]

Here's a song to go along with all the love that's in this thread right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmUlKPthrag

[Monker]

Here's a song to go along with all the love that's in this thread right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmUlKPthrag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIgWvx38vM

[The Sushi Hunter]

""We have a black Muslim in the White House! Now that’s some amazing s--t,” Madonna said."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... R78LOpyM8#!

I thought I was going to hear her say this sarcastically, but no, she really believes that it's true. The crowd also believes that is true. Funny because the Dems claim the Republicans labeled him a Muslim just for the fuck of it to make him look bad or something.

That's one funny pep talk she gave. Sort of like when the band screams how great Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, or wherever city they are playing at is. The only time I get a rise out of when a band calls out to the city is when they call out the wrong city to the crowd, like "Hey Detroit" but they are in Chicago or someplace other than Detroit. That's funny. It's all total bullshit and she knows it and that's why she's so nervous.

The only thing I like about Madonna is she doesn't have any hideous tattoos or piercings, at least on the areas that I can see.

[slucero]

Who said anything about post counts? You have too much time on your hands to read every single post I make , even though you know all my posts are wrong.

It's pretty obvious that you're the fool , cause even though you know I'm wrong all the time , you can't help but read what I post , including this post

You did when you referred to me spending all my time reading your posts...

Here's a simple math problem for ya...

posting = time

Your post count = 12473

My post count = 3070


my post count is 25% of yours... meaning you have 75% more time on this forum than I do... and since I'm on this board 1/4th of the time you are, it's impossible for me to read "all your posts"...


It hasn't anything to do what you being "wrong all the time".. but more to do with you not knowing that the hell you are posting about.. most of the time


Focus on the topic, prove your points with facts that you can actually explain... and you'd look less foolish, and maybe learn something truthful (like the difference between "profit" and "revenue").. but I'd expect instead, when you've been proven factually wrong.. you'd rather then personally attack people by calling them names... instead of simply admitting you were wrong (or foolish)....


That's the M.O. of a troll.. and in your case a foolish troll.

[Behshad]

Who said anything about post counts? You have too much time on your hands to read every single post I make , even though you know all my posts are wrong.

It's pretty obvious that you're the fool , cause even though you know I'm wrong all the time , you can't help but read what I post , including this post

You did when you referred to me spending all my time reading your posts...

Here's a simple math problem for ya...

posting = time

Your post count = 12473

My post count = 3070


my post count is 25% of yours... meaning you have 75% more time on this forum than I do... and since I'm on this board 1/4th of the time you are, it's impossible for me to read "all your posts"...


It hasn't anything to do what you being "wrong all the time".. but more to do with you not knowing that the hell you are posting about.. most of the time


Focus on the topic, prove your points with facts that you can actually explain... and you'd look less foolish, and maybe learn something truthful (like the difference between "profit" and "revenue").. but I'd expect instead, when you've been proven factually wrong.. you'd rather then personally attack people by calling them names... instead of simply admitting you were wrong (or foolish)....


That's the M.O. of a troll.. and in your case a foolish troll.

Again, you're obsessed with my posts.
95% of my posts here are all in fun and from the past when there were bunch of friends posting back and forth.
I have all the time in the world to POST here. You on the other hand have all the time in the world to follow me around and read all my posts , knowing that I'm wrong every time , but still contributing to be my true follower

Post counts doesn't equall to the amount of time spent here READING the posts.
There are people here who post once a week but read here daily So shove your math up your ass and feel lucky that I gave you yet another post to read , enjoy and respond too.
As far as staying on topic , I will stay on topic when I feel like it and if I feel like going off topic , I'll do that. Sorry it bothers you so much , but if you're gonna follow me around at least deal with the fact that I won't always stay on topic.

Also I never attacked you personally. I'm just observing your stalker-style-behaviors

[Memorex]

Wonder if we'd all get a good rate on group therapy.

[Behshad]

Wonder if we'd all get a good rate on group therapy.

Worth a try.

[Behshad]

Wonder if we'd all get a good rate on group therapy.

Worth a try.

You're gonna need therapy come November 6. I advise getting in before Obamacare is repealed.

I'm looking forward to my beer as therapy thank buddy.

[Behshad]

[slucero]

Who said anything about post counts? You have too much time on your hands to read every single post I make , even though you know all my posts are wrong.

It's pretty obvious that you're the fool , cause even though you know I'm wrong all the time , you can't help but read what I post , including this post

You did when you referred to me spending all my time reading your posts...

Here's a simple math problem for ya...

posting = time

Your post count = 12473

My post count = 3070


my post count is 25% of yours... meaning you have 75% more time on this forum than I do... and since I'm on this board 1/4th of the time you are, it's impossible for me to read "all your posts"...


It hasn't anything to do what you being "wrong all the time".. but more to do with you not knowing that the hell you are posting about.. most of the time


Focus on the topic, prove your points with facts that you can actually explain... and you'd look less foolish, and maybe learn something truthful (like the difference between "profit" and "revenue").. but I'd expect instead, when you've been proven factually wrong.. you'd rather then personally attack people by calling them names... instead of simply admitting you were wrong (or foolish)....


That's the M.O. of a troll.. and in your case a foolish troll.

Again, you're obsessed with my posts.
95% of my posts here are all in fun and from the past when there were bunch of friends posting back and forth.
I have all the time in the world to POST here. You on the other hand have all the time in the world to follow me around and read all my posts , knowing that I'm wrong every time , but still contributing to be my true follower

Post counts doesn't equall to the amount of time spent here READING the posts.
There are people here who post once a week but read here daily So shove your math up your ass and feel lucky that I gave you yet another post to read , enjoy and respond too.
As far as staying on topic , I will stay on topic when I feel like it and if I feel like going off topic , I'll do that. Sorry it bothers you so much , but if you're gonna follow me around at least deal with the fact that I won't always stay on topic.

Also I never attacked you personally. I'm just observing your stalker-style-behaviors

Wow are you full of yourself... careful you don't swallow that shit too hard... might make yer blue eyes brown...

The only reason you post pictures is because when you try and debate anything, you wind up wearing your ass for a hat.. but they are pretty pictures..

Oh.. and thanks for just admitting you have way more time than I do.. that's a big step fer ya...

I really doesn't bother me a bit if you like to spread dis-information and prove just how much of a narcissistic troll you are... Every forum needs a village idiot...


You win by a landslide...

[Behshad]

Who said anything about post counts? You have too much time on your hands to read every single post I make , even though you know all my posts are wrong.

It's pretty obvious that you're the fool , cause even though you know I'm wrong all the time , you can't help but read what I post , including this post

You did when you referred to me spending all my time reading your posts...

Here's a simple math problem for ya...

posting = time

Your post count = 12473

My post count = 3070


my post count is 25% of yours... meaning you have 75% more time on this forum than I do... and since I'm on this board 1/4th of the time you are, it's impossible for me to read "all your posts"...


It hasn't anything to do what you being "wrong all the time".. but more to do with you not knowing that the hell you are posting about.. most of the time


Focus on the topic, prove your points with facts that you can actually explain... and you'd look less foolish, and maybe learn something truthful (like the difference between "profit" and "revenue").. but I'd expect instead, when you've been proven factually wrong.. you'd rather then personally attack people by calling them names... instead of simply admitting you were wrong (or foolish)....


That's the M.O. of a troll.. and in your case a foolish troll.

Again, you're obsessed with my posts.
95% of my posts here are all in fun and from the past when there were bunch of friends posting back and forth.
I have all the time in the world to POST here. You on the other hand have all the time in the world to follow me around and read all my posts , knowing that I'm wrong every time , but still contributing to be my true follower

Post counts doesn't equall to the amount of time spent here READING the posts.
There are people here who post once a week but read here daily So shove your math up your ass and feel lucky that I gave you yet another post to read , enjoy and respond too.
As far as staying on topic , I will stay on topic when I feel like it and if I feel like going off topic , I'll do that. Sorry it bothers you so much , but if you're gonna follow me around at least deal with the fact that I won't always stay on topic.

Also I never attacked you personally. I'm just observing your stalker-style-behaviors

Wow are you full of yourself... careful you don't swallow that shit too hard... might make yer blue eyes brown...

The only reason you post pictures is because when you try and debate anything, you wind up wearing your ass for a hat.. but they are pretty pictures..

Oh.. and thanks for just admitting you have way more time than I do.. that's a big step fer ya...

I really doesn't bother me a bit if you like to spread dis-information and prove just how much of a narcissistic troll you are... Every forum needs a village idiot...


You win by a landslide...

Trying with personal attacks , just cause you can't win the argument ?!
I'm not full of myself. You prove over and over again how obsessed you are with my posts.
I love to spread "dis-information" , but luckily you're the smart cookie here who will never fall for any of my " dis-information" , but it must bother you a tiny bit , hence the sig (which I admire by way) but next time at least get the name right ,to make it even more fun.

Cheers

[Memorex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

[Behshad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

If we'd all get along , then this thread wouldn't be 490 pages long

[AR]

Wonder if we'd all get a good rate on group therapy.

Worth a try.

You're gonna need therapy come November 6. I advise getting in before Obamacare is repealed.

I'm looking forward to my beer as therapy thank buddy.

My insurance covers this!

[slucero]

Trying with personal attacks , just cause you can't win the argument ?!
I'm not full of myself. You prove over and over again how obsessed you are with my posts.
I love to spread "dis-information" , but luckily you're the smart cookie here who will never fall for any of my " dis-information" , but it must bother you a tiny bit , hence the sig (which I admire by way) but next time at least get the name right ,to make it even more fun.

Cheers

nah. sorta like yer GM "argument"... you know the one you lost..

and thanks for admitting yer just another shill for the left... but we already knew that..

You'd like someone to be obsessed with you... lmao... yer gonna have to post a bit more than just silly pictures to garner that kind of attention from me son... It's funny how you spam the thread with pics when you can't compete in the debate..

I and many others. prove "over and over again" that all you got, is nothing.




The sig, which puts you in your place.. is fine the way it is.. is to remind others (and you) how full of shit ya are..

[Behshad]

Trying with personal attacks , just cause you can't win the argument ?!
I'm not full of myself. You prove over and over again how obsessed you are with my posts.
I love to spread "dis-information" , but luckily you're the smart cookie here who will never fall for any of my " dis-information" , but it must bother you a tiny bit , hence the sig (which I admire by way) but next time at least get the name right ,to make it even more fun.

Cheers

nah. sorta like yer GM "argument"... you know the one you lost..

and thanks for admitting yer just another shill for the left... but we already knew that..

You'd like someone to be obsessed with you... lmao... yer gonna have to post a bit more than just silly pictures to garner that kind of attention from me son... It's funny how you spam the thread with pics when you can't compete in the debate..

I and many others. prove "over and over again" that all you got, is nothing.




The sig, which puts you in your place.. is fine the way it is.. is to remind others (and you) how full of shit ya are..

Now I feel like my stalker is double my age , with the "son" and "ya"
You don't prove nothing. Only thing you prove over and over again is the fact that no matter what I post you HAVE to read it .

And of you think a sig from someone like you will " put me in my place ", then you're the one who's full of yourself. I'll still post pics and I'll still spread dis-information and you'll still continue reading then and you'll still need to unclench