BF2S Forums S&P Lowers USA Credit Rating to AA+

primary contributor to debt, rofl, hahahaha good 1 m80

ive learned to ignore uzi when it comes to america

healthcare didn't cause a recession. debts and recessions are different things.

Uzique wrote:

healthcare didn't cause a recession. debts and recessions are different things.

Who said anything about a recession? We were talking about a creditworthiness downgrade.

13rin wrote:

Shocking wrote:

13rin wrote:

That's bullshit.  The house weeks before passed 3 different fiscally responsible bills, all rejected by the dem controlled Senate.  Obamerfail and the rest of the drooling idiots had no plans or solutions... They merely wanted a blank check.  Compromise doesnt mean giving into the democrats position.

The dems plan was rejected as well. Wasn't a bad plan either, it actually was a compromise as it offered spending cuts and tax increases.

It was a horribly bad plan.  I'm tired of paying for other people's free shit.  Just because they suck oxygen for they live under the same Flag (which is now arguable) as I, doesn't mean I owe them shit by default.  Time to trim back.

Thats not reasoned argument, thats just parroting of GOP propaganda.

I'm tired of paying for other people's free shit.

Cut military spending then.

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Quit reading Huffington Post/MSNBC and just work through some of this for yourself.

I watch Fox News and read drudge mostly. I have been turned off by HP after the AOL takeover and the fact the sites barely works properly. I watch O'Reilly religiously. I don't read MSNBC.com, I prefer CNN.com and occasionally Fox News. Do you have any any other assumptions to where I get information from or since I'm not agreeing with you I must not be thinking for myself?

It has nothing to do with you not agreeing with me. It has everything to do with the content of your argument. Those two are not the same thing. You are arguing with incomplete/factually incorrect bases, or you are ignoring the facts that are available. That leads to a flawed analysis.

Your position mirrors the left-leaning media outlets' talking points, which are easily discredited with a basic perusal of other sources and a little critical thought on the issues involved, rather than buying in to the emotion-driven nonsense being sold by the politicos of the world (like HP and various MSNBC and Fox talking heads).

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I watch Fox News and read drudge mostly. I have been turned off by HP after the AOL takeover and the fact the sites barely works properly. I watch O'Reilly religiously. I don't read MSNBC.com, I prefer CNN.com and occasionally Fox News. Do you have any any other assumptions to where I get information from or since I'm not agreeing with you I must not be thinking for myself?

It has nothing to do with you not agreeing with me. It has everything to do with the content of your argument. Those two are not the same thing. You are arguing with incomplete/factually incorrect bases, or you are ignoring the facts that are available. That leads to a flawed analysis.

Your position mirrors the left-leaning media outlets' talking points, which are easily discredited with a basic perusal of other sources and a little critical thought on the issues involved, rather than buying in to the emotion-driven nonsense being sold by the politicos of the world (like HP and various MSNBC and Fox talking heads).

I've heard your arguments and points from a hundred different sources already. They largely mimic the things I hear coming from right wing sites, sources, etc.

How is it I'm parroting left wing sources and you're not parroting ring wing sources?

I still think it's funny you accuse me of being a HP drone...

Because I don't read/visit right wing sites/sources? That's one big reason. It's fundamental problem solving, Mac. That's another.

The fact that you said there would be a default says enough. There was never going to be a default. Couldn't be a default. There was a chance that some government programs wouldn't have been fully funded, but there was zero chance that a single creditor wouldn't have received their payment on time. Because of the fundamental way our government functions. Very basic research would've shown that. But instead, you (and others) bought into the fearmongering, part and parcel--and that fearmongering (this time) was coming from the left, almost exclusively.

And if you've heard the arguments, what is it about them--since they are based on fact and analysis, vice emotion and hyperbole--that you can counter? What makes them weaker than the arguments you adhere to that have been disproven?

Macbeth wrote:

What arguments do I adhere to?

Macbeth wrote:

The tea party was holding the whole thing up over a balanced budget amendment. Even if they had passed a balanced budget amendment it would not have gotten through the state legislators in time for the Aug. 2nd deadline. 

You can't tell me they were being serious or going into this in good faith...

Macbeth wrote:

I'm not a Euro and I think the Tea party sucks cock. You can't blame the media for making the tea party out to be a collection of retards. They did and still do it to themselves.

Macbeth wrote:

I mean that they suck period. I'm not referring to just this incident or how they handle their PR. Their movement is shit. Completely.

It had nothing to do with PR and everything to do with the fact they are lead and stocked full of morons.

Macbeth wrote:

Every Tea party member I met is either a  "Christian conservative" or a misinformed geriatric. Sometimes both. I have no faith in that movement and would like it if they went away.

Seriously. You read like a DNC talking point issuance, if a little rougher around the edges.

No mention of what the Dems did that "wasn't in good faith" (no-show POTUS, storming out of negotiations, threatening congressmen, no plan offered until the last minute but plenty of criticism for the opposition's plan, etc).

And the TP got their consideration of a balanced budget amendment (which I don't agree with, btw). They never demanded that it be legislated and voted on before the debt ceiling got raised.

This is that "single issue party" that Dilbert is convinced America needs to break out of that terrible (misnamed) "two-party system." they care about one thing and one thing only: fiscal responsibility.

Which is beside the point. There was goodness in what the TP members did, even if their methods left something to be desired. To even get the entrenched politicians to be arguing about the size of the cuts instead of the amount of increase in spending is a paradigm shift of epic proportions. But they're morons.

FEOS wrote:

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your phone should be ringing off the hook.

I've only seen them state that leaving Iraq & Afghan would save money. I don't equate stopping those wars to being defense cuts.

The republicans offered up the "tripwire" that applied across the board cuts (to include defense) that amount to $1.2T if an agreement isn't reached by Nov. Additionally, it was republicans in the "gang of six" that offered hundreds of billions in defense cuts...and got excoriated by their base for it.

Didn't know that the tripwire cuts extended to the DoD as well. I know there are small groups within the republican party that want to cut Defense quite heavily but usually the main party line doesn't follow those views, as your example of the gang of six proves.

Anyway, I know you're a proponent for defense cuts but aren't you worried your job will end up in the line of fire?

Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-07 12:35:36)

I said I actually met tea party members. How is my experience with them parroting MSNBC and Huffingtonpost?

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The republicans offered up the "tripwire" that applied across the board cuts (to include defense) that amount to $1.2T if an agreement isn't reached by Nov. Additionally, it was republicans in the "gang of six" that offered hundreds of billions in defense cuts...and got excoriated by their base for it.

Didn't know that the tripwire cuts extended to the DoD as well. I know there are small groups within the republican party that want to cut Defense quite heavily but usually the main party line doesn't follow those views, as your example of the gang of six proves.

Anyway, I know you're a proponent for defense cuts but aren't you worried your job will end up in the line of fire?

I think the trip-wire cuts are a convenient way for both sides to save face. The Dems tossed in some provisions of Obamacare and the Republicans tossed in defense cuts. Neither side would want to go back to their constituents and say they made mistakes or that they're cutting stuff that are supposedly part of their core beliefs. I guarantee the debt commission fails, the trip wires are enacted, and both sides moan and groan and point the finger at the other about the horrible outcome, while secretly it's what they wanted to happen all along, they just didn't want to take responsibility and have voters blast them for it. That's my pseudo-conspiracy theory take on it anyway.

lol

well at least it would be a step in the right direction

Well every single one I've met...every single one...everyone...

I've tried multiple times too.