Republicans Own Detroit Bankruptcy

[Stephanie]

To say Republicans are responsible for Detroit a city ran by criminal democrats for over 50 years shows how dishonest democrats are.

the op is a dummy and a tool..

he lets people like Ed Schultz lead around by the nose

 

[Pop23]

Then prove me wrong if you can. (SPOILER ALERT: you can't!)

Dude, you've been bitchslapped so many times in this one thread I'm surprised you keep slinking back. Just reinforces my theory that to be a libtard (at least a pro like you) you have to be intellectually dishonest, brainless, and have no sense of shame or propriety.
You qualify in all areas.

Drive-bys of posters saying this is the dumbest thread ever does not qualify as a bitchslapping.

Maybe, but you prove it

 

[antiquity]

^^^^Racist asshole.

Since when are facts racist?

Since when does intelligence, knowledge or any other factor determine the legitimacy of a vote?

It doesn't. Plenty of stupid people voted for George Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him. Their votes counted, too.

So you agree my post wasn't racist?

 

[thanatos144]

To say Republicans are responsible for Detroit a city ran by criminal democrats for over 50 years shows how dishonest democrats are.

the op is a dummy and a tool..

he lets people like Ed Schultz lead around by the nose

He is not just stupid he is a dishonest ass.

 

[DiamondDave]

OK, you all have deflected long enough, and I am tired of proving you wrong.

Back to the OP:

If it was Obama's Economy after 2 years in office, why isn't it Snyder's Detroit after 2 years?

Were there efforts in DET to reduce the spending etc?? Did Obama reduce spending??

Obama was not handed a trillion+ deficit every year.. he did that all himself...

The ones currently in charge in DET are responsible for handling the bankruptcy procedures that they started... they are not responsible for the spending that got DET there... Obama is not responsible for spending that happened before his time either... but he doubled down on the bad practice, went with policy that was against helping business and employment, and made a bad situation worse... if Obama had cut spending, eliminated programs etc as a result of bad Bush spending and even though it was on the right path it did not keep from an inevitable bankruptcy, THEN it would be the same type of situation..

 

[peach174]

OK, you all have deflected long enough, and I am tired of proving you wrong.

Back to the OP:

If it was Obama's Economy after 2 years in office, why isn't it Snyder's Detroit after 2 years?

Snyder does not run Detroit.
Dave Bing does.

 

[Pop23]

In August 1980, Carter’s approval rating among Democrats was about equal to Obama’s current rating among Americans as a whole. That was due to Kennedy's challenge.

Carter was ahead until the last week or so, when, on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Carter abandoned campaigning that day, addressing the nation that night.


From Gallup:

So your point is Obama is equal to or less than Carter, who even liberals think sucked ballz! Point well taken!

No, my point is that Kennedy weakened Carter. A united Democratic Party may have won in 1980.

Key word here folks. MAY

Your original post on this said that Kennedy Handed the election to Reagan. No MAY it was a DID

Another fail

Anyone keeping count?

 

[Pop23]

Are you sure you want to leave up that post?
Tell ya what, I will give you a chance to take it down ti save yourself the embarrassment of the ridicule that is about to follow.
BTW,m Detroit is a piss pool and the democrats which have been running that city for 50 years OWN it.

I love it. Don't worry, Synth won't take the post down

That's no how he rolls

See, when you prove he's a silly tool he does this. ......

"You know that's not what I meant" then try's to divert attention elsewhere

It's funny because he zigs and zags so much he can't even keep up with himself after awhile. Proof is just a few posts up.

I await your apology.

Here it is

I'm sorry you put this silly thread up.

Feel better?

 

[antiquity]

So things were that bad under him or he would have been re elected.
We the people threw him out because he was a terrible President and he had a 34% approval rating.

Peach, I'm sure you are a very nice person, but you have no business discussing politics. You just don't know very much. And you don't pay attention to what you are typing.

If we go by your "logic" (bolded), then Obama being re-elected means that things have been good under him. Correct?

It's just like the OP - you wingnuts cannot talk out of both sides of your mouths and have it both ways.

As for Carter's re-election, he was primaried from the Left by Edward Kennedy. It was very divisive and split the Democratic Party.

If you knew more about politics, you would already be aware of this. Reagan barely beat Carter, and would have lost to a united Democratic Party.

Reagan barely beat Carter!!!!

Check again.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980

Don't confuse Synthaholic with facts.... of course as long as they are his its okay.

 

[salem.hills]

This is the drumbeat thing I've ever read I'm from metro Detroitand the reason their broke started after the riots of warring against businessmen and whites by Coleman Young. 20 years of him will prove deadly for the city forever possibly. And Obama had laid plans to do this to the country his war on energy and healthcare economic terror bill will break us. Add in amnesty and its over

 

[salem.hills]

Insane government pensions and Young's ignorant racism are all that was needed

 

[Pop23]

When talking of Reagan v Carter in 1980 why is the OP discounting the fact that the Republican challenger had a crowded republican field plus one that became an Independent candidate that took 5.7 million votes, likely most from Reagan?

Substance enough for ya?

 

[antiquity]

When talking of Reagan v Carter in 1980 why is the OP discounting the fact that the Republican challenger had a crowded republican field plus one that became an Independent candidate that took 5.7 million votes, likely most from Reagan?

Substance enough for ya?

Good point. I forgot about John Anderson running and I think he had more influence on the election results than Kennedy could have ever had as Synthaholic thinks.
But don't confuse Synthaholic as he might have the big one.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Wrong. Dufus. Larger margin of victory between two events does not mean quantity of votes unless the number of votes in both events is the same. A measure or degree of difference between the two events must be normalized to be relevant. You think you proved something? ROFL All you proved is how stupid your posts are and how likely it is that everything you say is a play on words or an outright lie.

IOW you proved you are a liberal.

 

[Spoonman]

Then prove me wrong if you can. (SPOILER ALERT: you can't!)

Dude, you've been bitchslapped so many times in this one thread I'm surprised you keep slinking back. Just reinforces my theory that to be a libtard (at least a pro like you) you have to be intellectually dishonest, brainless, and have no sense of shame or propriety.
You qualify in all areas.

Drive-bys of posters saying this is the dumbest thread ever does not qualify as a bitchslapping.

yea, but making the moronic post in the first place sure as hell does.

 

[Pop23]

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Wrong. Dufus. Larger margin of victory between two events does not mean quantity of votes unless the number of votes in both events is the same. A measure or degree of difference between the two events must be normalized to be relevant. You think you proved something? ROFL All you proved is how stupid your posts are and how likely it is that everything you say is a play on words or an outright lie.

IOW you proved you are a liberal.

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

 

[Synthaholic]

Since when are facts racist?

Since when does intelligence, knowledge or any other factor determine the legitimacy of a vote?

It doesn't. Plenty of stupid people voted for George Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him. Their votes counted, too.

So you agree my post wasn't racist?

No.

 

[kaz]

Since when does intelligence, knowledge or any other factor determine the legitimacy of a vote?

It doesn't. Plenty of stupid people voted for George Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him. Their votes counted, too.

So you agree my post wasn't racist?

No.

Blacks are just tools to you, you're the true racist. Seriously.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting that conservatives love to argue that investors should pay lower tax rates than wage earners,

because supposedly the investors take more risk than wage earners,

and yet, in this bankruptcy, who's more likely to lose...

...the pensioners, not the bondholders.

 

[kaz]

It's interesting that conservatives love to argue that investors should pay lower tax rates than wage earners,

because supposedly the investors take more risk than wage earners,

and yet, in this bankruptcy, who's more likely to lose...

...the pensioners, not the bondholders.

Actually nobody says that. The next post will not be you providing a link.

We say because the money was already taxed. Investors paid taxes when they earned it, and the company pays taxes on their earnings, so paying taxes again would be yet another redundant tax. Actually investors should pay no tax as even what they pay is already a redundant tax.

I do find though that liberals making up things like you do that nobody says is odd.