Obama on the economy

[Dave the Clueless]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDAmPIq29ro

LOL!

-------
When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 27 2012 8:21 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDAmPIq29ro
>
> LOL!

all whites. that's either a tea bagger party or vancouver bc.

mo_ntresor

[bratt]

Obama on jobs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[VegasJerry]

Dodge the facts anyway that embarrasses you the least. You are, and remain, economically illiterate. The president saved the economy; overhauled Healthcare (which the CBO says will save money) saved the American auto industry and has jobs bills sitting in Congress being intentionally blocked by Republicans for the explicit reason of keeping the economy down. I consider it treason.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[bub]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:01 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On Jul 27 2012 9:21 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDAmPIq29ro
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> -------
>> When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012
>
>Obama on jobs
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker

it's ok. he has plans on meeting with his job council one of these
days they haven't met for the last 6 months..almost the same as with
his cabinet

[bratt]

I read that during his whole presidency total time was less than the
average American spent walking their dog.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:01 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On Jul 27 2012 9:21 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDAmPIq29ro
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> -------
>> When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012
>
>Obama on jobs
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html

From your cite:

'That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs
might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign
heats up."

So much for your dishonest attempt to imply that Obama's been
neglecting the council.

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[VegasJerry]

Oh! Oh! Now just where is sS? It's been 17-hours.....

[TruthSeeker]

On 27/7/12 6:19 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html

> From your cite:

> 'That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs
> might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign
> heats up."

> So much for your dishonest attempt to imply that Obama's been
> neglecting the council.

Oh, how delicious. You didn't notice that the President's own jobs
council being unwilling to be seen meeting with him isn't exactly high
praise?


--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[bratt]

Was not dishonest in the least. Did you read the whole thing?

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:32:36 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 27/7/12 6:19 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html
>
>> From your cite:
>
>> 'That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs
>> might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign
>> heats up."
>
>> So much for your dishonest attempt to imply that Obama's been
>> neglecting the council.
>
>Oh, how delicious. You didn't notice that the President's own jobs
>council being unwilling to be seen meeting with him isn't exactly high
>praise?

There you go again. The point was the dishonesty portrayal of Obama
as not caring about the jobs council. Are you that confused or is
this just more of your trademarked dishonesty?

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:14:01 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>

wrote:

>On Jul 27 2012 7:19 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:01 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 27 2012 9:21 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDAmPIq29ro
>> >>
>> >> LOL!
>> >>
>> >> -------
>> >> When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012
>> >
>> >Obama on jobs
>> >
>> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html
>>
>> From your cite:
>>
>> 'That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs
>> might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign
>> heats up."
>>
>> So much for your dishonest attempt to imply that Obama's been
>> neglecting the council.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Revelation" Papon
>
>Was not dishonest in the least. Did you read the whole thing?

Yes. The article says that Romney is trying to manufacture an issue
by harping on the lack of meetings, pretending that Obama has chosen
to ignore the council. Did you have something else in mind?

[da pickle]

Hate to interrupt the crap flood, but do you think that Obama cares
about the jobs council?

[Truthseeker]

There YOU go again. You don't control the agenda. Every time someone
comments on something you post that takes the discussion in a direction
that you don't like, you whine that they "didn't get [your] point."

Besides, Obama could still call a meeting even if some of the members
don't show up, so it wasn't a dishonest portrayal. And if the reason he
hasn't called a meeting is that the members have indicated to him that
they don't want to meet with him, that is STILL on point.



--
Truthseeker

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 9:43:28 AM UTC-7, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 7/30/12 12:39 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:32:36 -0600, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/7/12 6:19 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>
> >>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html
> >>
> >>> From your cite:
> >>
> >>> 'That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs
> >>> might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign
> >>> heats up."
> >>
> >>> So much for your dishonest attempt to imply that Obama's been
> >>> neglecting the council.
> >>
> >> Oh, how delicious. You didn't notice that the President's own jobs
> >> council being unwilling to be seen meeting with him isn't exactly high
> >> praise?

> > There you go again. The point was the dishonesty portrayal of Obama
> > as not caring about the jobs council. Are you that confused or is
> > this just more of your trademarked dishonesty?

> There YOU go again. You don't control the agenda.

There you go again, dodging the very point he was making and refusing to answer the simple question that proves it.

> Every time someone
> comments on something you post that takes the discussion in a direction
> that you don't like, you whine that they "didn't get [your] point."
>
> Besides, Obama could still call a meeting even if some of the members
> don't show up, so it wasn't a dishonest portrayal.

Yea, actually it was. You dodge to "He should call a worthless meeting to prove me right."

> And if the reason he
> hasn't called a meeting is that the members have indicated to him that
> they don't want to meet with him, that is STILL on point.

No, it's not, and therein lies your lies.

It amazes me how the right wingers are able to use you and your kind as cannot fodder. They feed you the cool aid and you gulp it down.



>
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker

Who actually doesn't

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:43:28 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 7/30/12 12:39 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:32:36 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/7/12 6:19 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html
>>>
>>>> From your cite:
>>>
>>>> 'That article suggested that the group of business executives and CEOs
>>>> might be reticent to appear with Obama as his reelection campaign
>>>> heats up."
>>>
>>>> So much for your dishonest attempt to imply that Obama's been
>>>> neglecting the council.
>>>
>>> Oh, how delicious. You didn't notice that the President's own jobs
>>> council being unwilling to be seen meeting with him isn't exactly high
>>> praise?
>>
>> There you go again. The point was the dishonesty portrayal of Obama
>> as not caring about the jobs council. Are you that confused or is
>> this just more of your trademarked dishonesty?
>
>There YOU go again. You don't control the agenda. Every time someone
>comments on something you post that takes the discussion in a direction
>that you don't like, you whine that they "didn't get [your] point."

What a weasel you are. I made a point. You pretended to address
it by changing the subject and putting words in my mouth You do
this sort of dodge all the time.

>Besides, Obama could still call a meeting even if some of the members
>don't show up, so it wasn't a dishonest portrayal. And if the reason he
>hasn't called a meeting is that the members have indicated to him that
>they don't want to meet with him, that is STILL on point.

No, that's not on point. The OP tried to create the impression that
Obama didn't care about the committee. That was a complete
misrepresentation, no matter how much hand waving and subject changing
you try to engage in. If you want to make a point about the
significance of the committee members avoiding him, then make it as a
separate, distinct point, not as a supposed rebuttal of mine.

[TruthSeeker]

Fail. I pointed out the faults in your position while further
clarifying the larger situation. You don't take too well to that, I've
noticed.

>> Besides, Obama could still call a meeting even if some of the members
>> don't show up, so it wasn't a dishonest portrayal. And if the reason he
>> hasn't called a meeting is that the members have indicated to him that
>> they don't want to meet with him, that is STILL on point.
>
> No, that's not on point. The OP tried to create the impression that
> Obama didn't care about the committee. That was a complete
> misrepresentation, no matter how much hand waving and subject changing
> you try to engage in.

No it was not. If he cared about the committee he would hold their feet
to the fire, or replace members unwilling to participate. He just
abandoned it instead, no matter your attempt to spin that.

> If you want to make a point about the
> significance of the committee members avoiding him, then make it as a
> separate, distinct point, not as a supposed rebuttal of mine.

One more time, you don't control the topic. I will post as I choose,
making my points as I choose to make them, not subject to your approval.

I won't be replying this week, though, I'll be away.



--
TruthSeeker

[VegasJerry]

The "Fail" is all yours. He's right. You do that all the time to me and others. It's what makes you such a loser.

> You don't take too well to that, I've
> noticed.
>
> >> Besides, Obama could still call a meeting even if some of the members
> >> don't show up, so it wasn't a dishonest portrayal. And if the reason he
> >> hasn't called a meeting is that the members have indicated to him that
> >> they don't want to meet with him, that is STILL on point.
> >
> > No, that's not on point. The OP tried to create the impression that
> > Obama didn't care about the committee. That was a complete
> > misrepresentation, no matter how much hand waving and subject changing
> > you try to engage in.

> No it was not.

Once again, yes it was.

> If he cared about the committee he would hold their feet
> to the fire, or replace members unwilling to participate.

The point against you is made, once again.

How can you not be embarrassed? Are you trying to Beldin your way out of this by repeating your stupidity in hopes of trying to fool others?

You're such a fucking loser you're beginning drop into the Travel-mo_ron-SS range.


Jerry 'n Vegas

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:47:22 -0600, TruthSeeker

This is where you fuck up time and time again. You pointed out no
fault in my position. You responded to my point with a non-sequitur
disguised as a counter argument. That's a red herring fallacy. You
do this repeatedly, and when I call you out on it, you respond with
the same gibberish about me controlling the point.

Oh, and by the way, your use of the word "delicious" is revealing.
You've used that word before in similar context. I wonder what you
find so delicious in my choosing to make a different point from the
one you imagined I should make? Some sort of putdown, no doubt. If
it's so delicious, then you obviously revel in it.

That's one of the differences between you and me. I find it painful
when I have to repeatedly call out your intellectual dishonesty and
correct your logical fallacies. You, OTOH, revel in the putdown.

>> If you want to make a point about the
>> significance of the committee members avoiding him, then make it as a
>> separate, distinct point, not as a supposed rebuttal of mine.
>
>One more time, you don't control the topic. I will post as I choose,
>making my points as I choose to make them, not subject to your approval.

Nobody's restricting your freedom to post. But when you post
non-sequiturs and red herrings, I will continue to call you out on
your fallacious reasoning.