TradeNurkicNow
piss
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,197
- Likes
- 679
- Points
- 113
10 years of earning out the window. Obama's lost generation.
Not to the fat cats. They've done pretty well for themselves.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
10 years of earning out the window. Obama's lost generation.
Not to the fat cats. They've done pretty well for themselves.
So the guy whines about disparity between rich and poor and he's made people poorer.
He's supposed to be really smart, right?
There's an old saying about how you can't fool all of the people all of the time . . . Obama is living proof of that.
I think you're confusing indifference with stupidity
The American Public elected W and Obama twice each. You may not fool ALL of te people, but you can fool a lot of the people. Damn 'muricans.
actually he was elected once, the first time it was given to him and arguably the second time also. Democracy is a joke no matter who is president, it should be renamed Corporocracy.
10 years of earning out the window. Obama's lost generation.
I believe this, to an extent. Some of this concept seems true, though I think it's over-hyped by the media (as is everything). Depending on the article/writer/source, I've read several current age ranges of the "lost generation", but it includes people generally somewhere in the range of 16-29. Seeing the various different opinions or facts stating what the "real" lost generation is makes the perception a bit confusing, especially when the figures start including those in their late-20's (I'm barely 31, my wife just turned 30, and we're both doing just fine, so it's a bit hard to see those in their late-20's as being part of this lost generation). Not saying it doesn't exist, I just think some of it is over-sensationalized, and some of it is the different attitude the younger generation has.
I was waiting for someone to say this. Bush was technically elected, arguing about whether he received help is a whole other topic, and really, a waste of time, because it doesn't change my point.
60% of young people think that "impeach" means that there are peaches involved.
Hey now!
Ok, who should we have voted for instead? Kerry, McCain, Romney? None of those sound any better to me. No fooling.
Cool, but you're still arguing beyond something other than my point. In the words of one Mr. T, "Quit yo' jibber-jabber!"
Your point was that Bush and Obama can fool a lot of people and get elected and reelected. I was just pointing out that our choice's were actually between two fools all 4 times and one of those times the peoples choice was not even honored. Thats all for the jibberjabber.
It was more that they got re-elected than anything. Fool me once.......
You did forget Gore. As goofy as that bastard is, I have little doubt he (or the people around him) would have been more competent that the W Admin.
ahhh yes my favorite quote for GW "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"
I didn't forget Gore that time because he actually won so it wasn't really the voters getting fooled. Gore has proven to be a goof and I'm sure he would have been just as incompetent as Bush, but I do think we would have been incompetent in a different manner than Bush and one that didn't involve us invading Iraq. I often wonder how he would have handled 9/11 and the events afterwards, including everything that lead up to the financial collapse.
On a somewhat side note that I've never seen anyone discuss, doesn't it seem odd that just before the financial collapse GW passed a bankruptcy law making it more difficult and punitive to declare? Just seem like oddly coincidental timing to me.
On another side note for all you repubs calling for Obama's impeachment, why does no one care that no one was prosecuted for the housing market collapse? It seem obvious that there was plenty of illegal shit going on. Now thats some corruption that I can get behind.
As mentioned in my post, I see different stats, age groups grouped differently, etc. depending on the article or source, so I'm really not going to be swayed by one graphic.
Thank you (really).
I wasn't arguing or disputing the point. As I said, I somewhat agree with it. Just the amount of data, much of it differing somewhat, leaves things a lot murky, while the overall prevailing thought is clear.
Some of your links highlight what I also see as part of the problem: today's youth pointing the blame elsewhere and their sense of entitlement, rather than busting balls to make their way. While it has been more difficult for them to breakthrough do to economic reasons, I just sense they've confounded the problem.
Is it possible that ObamaCare is responsible for some companies either cutting down the size of their workforce, or cutting hours to avoid the regulatory and financial burdens?
That's just one govt. policy that is a wet blanket on opportunities for these kids. It's the obvious one (of hundreds of thousands of pages of new punishing regulations), mentioned as highly unpopular in the polls.
Or it would indicate that the Koch brothers weren't funding foundations to generate the articles.
