Absolutely outrageous !

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
Was it the backing the winning horse mentality, or that they genuinely liked him more? I have to think it was the former.
Click to expand...

the majority of wall st execs are in new york and they are liberals. that is a fact. take a look at citibank. all huge obama and clinton supporters.
 
#32
#32
SavageOrangeJug said:
Don't eat your Cheerios, LG.

droski just pissed in them. :good!:
Click to expand...

:eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:


abr0659l.jpg




He calls me chief and wants a link but then when I show proof up front he says he doesn't have time to read it, as if, reading comprehension and attention to detail are his strong points!!!

If you call our leftist political leaders "Hansel and Gretel" who are being abducted to the home of the wicked witch
in the forest, meanwhile dropping bread crumbs to show them the way home, LG would be your average peckerwood dining on the delicious morsels he finds along the path!!!

No doubt he will be crowing about the words of Hansel Obama and Gretel Clinton for years to come and don't ever expect him to ever get into any discussion any deeper than your average liberal mud puddle.

Some things never change.:scare:
 
#35
#35
gsvol said:
Look it up in your Funk and Wagnals, I've upped my standards, now up yours!! :finger3:

Tick tock!
Click to expand...


You called me clueless and stated what should be an easily proven objective fact, which is that "Wall Street" gave Obama $35 million, seven times what it gave McCain. I assume that you did not have personal knolwedge of this, i.e. did not count the money yourself, and that you were relying on some credible news source for that information.

I asked for a link to the source.

All you do is distract with red herrings.

At this point, I will simply assume you made up those numbers. Again, if you can cite some credible source on that, I'll be happy to listen.

Raises an interesting question about "clueless," does it not?
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
You called me clueless and stated what should be an easily proven objective fact, which is that "Wall Street" gave Obama $35 million, seven times what it gave McCain. I assume that you did not have personal knolwedge of this, i.e. did not count the money yourself, and that you were relying on some credible news source for that information.

I asked for a link to the source.

All you do is distract with red herrings.

At this point, I will simply assume you made up those numbers. Again, if you can cite some credible source on that, I'll be happy to listen.

Raises an interesting question about "clueless," does it not?
Click to expand...
I don't know about his source, but there is no question that Obama killed McCain on Wall St. or that the upper echelons on Wall St. are littered with liberals.
 
#37
#37
BigPapaVol said:
I don't know about his source, but there is no question that Obama killed McCain on Wall St. or that the upper echelons on Wall St. are littered with liberals.
Click to expand...


I saw you made that point earlier in the thread and I have no reason to dispute your general characterization of things.

I'm just calling gsvol out on his specific claim of fact in the context of calling me clueless.

Look, for all I know, he's dead on right. I just want to see the source for the claim, that's all. Why is that proving to be so difficult?
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
I saw you made that point earlier in the thread and I have no reason to dispute your general characterization of things.

I'm just calling gsvol out on his specific claim of fact in the context of calling me clueless.

Look, for all I know, he's dead on right. I just want to see the source for the claim, that's all. Why is that proving to be so difficult?
Click to expand...
I don't think he's dead on right. 7:1 ratio is extreme.
 
#39
#39
BigPapaVol said:
I don't think he's dead on right. 7:1 ratio is extreme.
Click to expand...


Then he should confess that while calling me "clueless" he was making up the factual basis for doing so. To be honest, it was that ratio that caught my eye, as well. I also query who it was that made the comparison and whether they had an agenda in doing so.

But I can't tell at this point because he won't oblige me with the link to his source.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
Then he should confess that while calling me "clueless" he was making up the factual basis for doing so. To be honest, it was that ratio that caught my eye, as well. I also query who it was that made the comparison and whether they had an agenda in doing so.

But I can't tell at this point because he won't oblige me with the link to his source.
Click to expand...
and why do you care?
 
#43
#43
BigPapaVol said:
It's not. We're talking about GSVol and why you care what he thinks of your opinion.
Click to expand...


Ha, you raise a valid point.

I just don't want to miss this opportunity to demonstrate that he can't just fling around factual statements without some basis for doing so. As I say, he may well be right, I don't know. And if he is, I'll say so.
 
#44
#44
what's the big deal. hey law. this money spent to redecorate the office. doesn't that money go to contractors and furniture companies? painters and construction workers? it sounds like they are trying to stimulate the economy. that is called economics. that 1.2 million has gone out into the private sector and has allowed people to work. would rather that money be not spent?

i wonder how many would not have jobs if that money wasn't spent. economics 100 people. you libs really need to take some economic lessons.
 
#45
#45
joevol320 said:
what's the big deal. hey law. this money spent to redecorate the office. doesn't that money go to contractors and furniture companies? painters and construction workers? it sounds like they are trying to stimulate the economy. that is called economics. that 1.2 million has gone out into the private sector and has allowed people to work. would rather that money be not spent?

i wonder how many would not have jobs if that money wasn't spent. economics 100 people. you libs really need to take some economic lessons.
Click to expand...
are you going to credit Limbaugh for this or at least provide a footnote?
 
#49
#49
joevol320 said:
what's the big deal. hey law. this money spent to redecorate the office. doesn't that money go to contractors and furniture companies? painters and construction workers? it sounds like they are trying to stimulate the economy. that is called economics. that 1.2 million has gone out into the private sector and has allowed people to work. would rather that money be not spent?

i wonder how many would not have jobs if that money wasn't spent. economics 100 people. you libs really need to take some economic lessons.
Click to expand...


By your logic, the Democratic spending bill needs to be increased a billion-fold to $850 billion-billion.

The money could have been used to cover some of the bad loans or to provide future loans to increase credit liquidity. But doing this as the company goes down the tubes can't be justified, no matter how you slice it.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
By your logic, the Democratic spending bill needs to be increased a billion-fold to $850 billion-billion.

The money could have been used to cover some of the bad loans or to provide future loans to increase credit liquidity. But doing this as the company goes down the tubes can't be justified, no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

what the difference between spending it and loaning the money, or covering bad loans. anyways, that money was already set aside for the renovations, before they were having the problems.

it is very disturbing that our government has began criticizing private companies. we are a socialism.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top