Jump to content

Michelle obama' s speech she nailed it


Big girl

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, stevenash said:

As I said multiple times, I am fully tired of verbalizers that cant accomplish anything.  I know plenty of people who are not great orators but are extremely productive.  Perhaps we, as a country, ought to try someone like that.  Here are some eloquent "verbalizations" from recent history- " My stimulus plan will provide shovel ready jobs"  - " I am drawing a red line in the sand"- If you like your doctor/healthcare plan, you can keep it"  " My Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce the average annual family premium by 25%"-" I will build a 21st Century VA" - "ISIS is the JV"- "Change you can believe in"      Frankly, I have had more than my fill of great verbal abilities.  Don't want a coach who is good at pep talks but doesn't know the difference between a man to man and a zone.

Isis is the JV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one cannot distinguish between the two, importance/relative importance is of little consequence.  Most individuals and corporations cannot continue to run an annual deficit if their debt gets too high.  Unfortunately, the Federal Government simply borrows more money to cover what it owes.  That cant go on forever.  Hence the first downgrade in this countrys debt rating in History during the current administration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Englebert said:

Debt. Not deficit. Debt. Like in $20 trillion dollars worth. Do you even know the difference between the two? I can explain it but a simple Bing search should give you the answers. And anyone that has a household budget should be knowledgeable of both terms. 

Snd should know that the deficit is the most important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stevenash said:

As I said multiple times, I am fully tired of verbalizers that cant accomplish anything.  I know plenty of people who are not great orators but are extremely productive.  Perhaps we, as a country, ought to try someone like that.  Here are some eloquent "verbalizations" from recent history- " My stimulus plan will provide shovel ready jobs"  - " I am drawing a red line in the sand"- If you like your doctor/healthcare plan, you can keep it"  " My Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce the average annual family premium by 25%"-" I will build a 21st Century VA" - "ISIS is the JV"- "Change you can believe in"      Frankly, I have had more than my fill of great verbal abilities.  Don't want a coach who is good at pep talks but doesn't know the difference between a man to man and a zone.

You are a racist. My dad played basketball with you for years.  Who locked him out of the gym? Do you remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Big girl said:

You are a racist. My dad played basketball with you for years.  Who locked him out of the gym? Do you remember?

Isnt this great?  We are having a discussion about the economic health of this country and straight out of nowhere comes the race card.  If you cant win an argument, throw out " old reliable".  Does that approach reflect the superior intellect and broadmindedness that the left claims to own exclusively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Englebert said:

Sorry, I try to avoid personal attacks, but it is clear you are not intelligent enough for this discussion. Try taking a basic high school economics course then get back with me.

This is a personal attack, but thats what most pubs do. Just like their csndidate. Practice christianity and hate, just like another group that hides under sheets. Even the blm group doesnt hide under sheets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

This is a personal attack, but thats what most pubs do. Just like their csndidate. Practice christianity and hate, just like another group that hides under sheets. Even the blm group doesnt hide under sheets

Why hide when you have the full blessing of the "powers that be"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...