Covering Coverage

[Big Green 0]

As much as I like Romney, he'll never win because they rig the economy against him.

Oh that's it. You're down to your last strike, my friend. That might be the worst six-word series I've ever read. They-->rig-->the-->economy-->against-->him. Jesus fuck.

 

Maybe that's Mitt Romney's new campaign strategy.

 

"VOTE FOR ME! As long as I'm in the race, the economy is FINE! If I lose the primary, the economy TANKS!"

[Guest Czech please!]

Was this hypothesis submitted by Leader because they're both Mormons or something?

 

DOWNHOME KILLED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY TO RUIN MITT ROMNEY'S PRIMARY CAMPAIGN!!!

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

As much as I like Romney, he'll never win because they rig the economy against him.

Oh that's it. You're down to your last strike, my friend. That might be the worst six-word series I've ever read. They-->rig-->the-->economy-->against-->him. Jesus fuck.

I dont see how this is so horrible since Ive made the exact same point about a million times before on here that I figured everyone knew how I felt.

[Big Green 0]

As much as I like Romney, he'll never win because they rig the economy against him.

Oh that's it. You're down to your last strike, my friend. That might be the worst six-word series I've ever read. They-->rig-->the-->economy-->against-->him. Jesus fuck.

I dont see how this is so horrible since Ive made the exact same point about a million times before on here that I figured everyone knew how I felt.

 

So you REALLY think that we intentionally tanked the world's economy because of MITT ROMNEY? MITT FUCKING ROMNEY?

 

The chance to actually engage you in a conversation is one of the reasons I decided to quit lurking. There is no way that you're not a gimmick poster.

 

[At Home 0]

Marvin, that shit you said about the economy being rigged against Romney is the dumbest shit you've said. Shut the fuck up.

 

Why did it take almost a full year for the leading economists who are the Authority on Recessions to finally admit that we have been in a recession since December of 2007?

 

Oh god that's not even true at all. People were talking recession figures in the summer, and no one looks at a month of potential slowing down and proclaims WELL THAR BE A RECESSION. It takes a little bit of time before anyone's really ready to say anything. Christ you're fucking stupid.

[At Home 0]

There is no way that you're not a gimmick poster.

 

I just need this to be true for the peace of mind.

[Guest Czech please!]

Marvin is also played by a schizophrenic guy from upstate New York, actually, just a different one.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Marvin, that shit you said about the economy being rigged against Romney is the dumbest shit you've said. Shut the fuck up.

 

Why did it take almost a full year for the leading economists who are the Authority on Recessions to finally admit that we have been in a recession since December of 2007?

 

Why did it take them almost a full year? Because you are a fucking retard. Learn how economics and statistical analysis works.

 

Except that some of the same people were saying we were only in a recession like episode in May after some April employment figures were released. So we were sort of in a recession back in May, and then they just changed their minds and decided were in a full blown recession that had been going on for 6 months prior to that 6 months later.

[At Home 0]

Oh hey they definitely didn't have another 6 months of bad-looking figures to look at either.

[Guest Czech please!]

Marvin, I'm going to cast a spell on you.

[Big Green 0]

Marvin, that shit you said about the economy being rigged against Romney is the dumbest shit you've said. Shut the fuck up.

 

Why did it take almost a full year for the leading economists who are the Authority on Recessions to finally admit that we have been in a recession since December of 2007?

 

Why did it take them almost a full year? Because you are a fucking retard. Learn how economics and statistical analysis works.

 

Except that some of the same people were saying we were only in a recession like episode in May after some April employment figures were released. So we were sort of in a recession back in May, and then they just changed their minds and decided were in a full blown recession that had been going on for 6 months prior to that 6 months later.

 

If that's true, then why didn't the Romney campaign say something? It's not the media's job to bring attention to issues that will help a candidate's campaign.

[Guest Czech please!]

Okay, Marvin. I have cast "Condemned," like from Final Fantasy 6. Your post count has been changed to read -100. It will count up to zero with each post you make. When the clock hits zero, you will automatically be banned. This will force you to make your posts count. It's not a post count, it's posts THAT count.

[At Home 0]

[Gary Floyd 0]

I love you Czech

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Marvin, that shit you said about the economy being rigged against Romney is the dumbest shit you've said. Shut the fuck up.

 

Why did it take almost a full year for the leading economists who are the Authority on Recessions to finally admit that we have been in a recession since December of 2007?

 

Why did it take them almost a full year? Because you are a fucking retard. Learn how economics and statistical analysis works.

 

Except that some of the same people were saying we were only in a recession like episode in May after some April employment figures were released. So we were sort of in a recession back in May, and then they just changed their minds and decided were in a full blown recession that had been going on for 6 months prior to that 6 months later.

 

If that's true, then why didn't the Romney campaign say something? It's not the media's job to bring attention to issues that will help a candidate's campaign.

 

Well we should not forget he won the Michigan primary on the basis of him saying that he would bring back jobs to Michigan which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, I actually called Romney a liar on this but thats probably more because Michigan is so screwed up that no matter what Romney tried to do it would never happen. its also nice to see that the government is doing its best to see that Michigan loses even more of those jobs through the bailout plan to the big 3..

 

IM not wasting a post to add that he won in a state primary where the #1 fucking issue as determined by the exit polls was the ECONOMY.

[Big Green 0]

Marvin, that shit you said about the economy being rigged against Romney is the dumbest shit you've said. Shut the fuck up.

 

Why did it take almost a full year for the leading economists who are the Authority on Recessions to finally admit that we have been in a recession since December of 2007?

 

Why did it take them almost a full year? Because you are a fucking retard. Learn how economics and statistical analysis works.

 

Except that some of the same people were saying we were only in a recession like episode in May after some April employment figures were released. So we were sort of in a recession back in May, and then they just changed their minds and decided were in a full blown recession that had been going on for 6 months prior to that 6 months later.

 

If that's true, then why didn't the Romney campaign say something? It's not the media's job to bring attention to issues that will help a candidate's campaign.

 

Well we should not forget he won the Michigan primary on the basis of him saying that he would bring back jobs to Michigan which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, I actually called Romney a liar on this but thats probably more because Michigan is so screwed up that no matter what Romney tried to do it would never happen. its also nice to see that the government is doing its best to see that Michigan loses even more of those jobs through the bailout plan to the big 3..

 

Okay, let's try this again:

 

Answer the question I asked, not the question you created for yourself.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Hell if there is any conspiracy out there to be believed, it is that the GOP wanted to keep the news of how bad the economy was under wraps until Obama was sworn in, so he could be looked at as a big cause of it(typical stupid thinking) but it got so bad that the GOP leadership couldn't continue to say everythinhg is fine.

[Guest]

Wow, this is ridiculous. The economy only sunk the GOP ticket. But yeah, they tried to cover it up.

 

Moreover, how the fuck can a political party keep the collapsing global economy out of the news? How can one insinuate that it is possible to do so? We don't live in goddamn Burma. Some people just shouldn't talk about some stuff.

[SuperJerk 0]

All of you guys predicting the demise of the GOP are silly. Basically, if Obama's policies work and things start to get better, the GOP probably won't do that well in 2010 and 2012. If they don't, the GOP will probably do well in those elections. It's really not much more complicated than that. Everyone was saying the same things about the Democrats in 2002 and 2004.

 

Even if Obama's policies aren't effective, the Republicans still have to overcome the Bush legacy (and getting blamed for the economy being bad in the first place) before they can regain any real power. There's no telling how long that will take.

[Guest]

The problem with that, is that the American people have invested so much into Obama's policies working that things will not end well for his party should they be ineffective. Obama has tethered himself to his Congress. They own these bills, and the budget, and would have to take full responsibility for their ineffectiveness, should they wind up being ineffective. It cannot be pawned on anyone else.

 

Election 2006 says it all about taking full responsibility for things which have been ineffective. Republicans paid for the war. Similarly, the Democrats would have to pay for a bad economy.

 

So they had better not be ineffective. We'll see. It is pretty much as simple as Smitty said. If the policies are effective, they're going to have a long run on top.

 

Something else I needed to put out there, is that the Joe the Plumber in the news stuff, Palin blah blah blah whatever, does not help, but at the same time, it does not hurt. It is better to get these fits of retardation out at a time in which voters simply will not remember or care. When it really comes down to it, it'll be out of sight and out of mind.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Damn Czech, way to steal my thunder guy.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I would have preferred Vanish/Doom.

[At Home 0]

The problem with that, is that the American people have invested so much into Obama's policies working that things will not end well for his party should they be ineffective.

 

This is a faulty platform to stand on. Ratings are high up, and it seems like the rest of the country is so vested in Obama's personality, that they'll forego some negatives to keep him in office. He is, after all, very well liked.

 

It's too early to talk about anything.

[Guest]

Negative to some extent. Not to the extent at which the economy could collapse even further and still be willing to deal with it. Ratings are high up because people believe our economy is going to head in a positive direction sometime soon.

[At Home 0]

Right, I'm not saying that if we go into the next Great Depression, people will still be all over the Obamandwagon®. But the SF fed has the trough of the cycle ending sometime this year, and we'll begin to see positive numbers near the end of the year or beginning of next.

[NoCalMike 0]

I still don't understand why the Dems have to "own the bad economy" It wasn't their policies that put us here. Now, an argument can be made in four years (if nothing is better or it is worse) that they couldn't do anything to fix the problems, but to say they must own the bad economy after being in office for a month seems kind of a stretch.

[Guest Czech please!]

You forfeited your stretch card when you said the Republican Party tried to hide the bad economy until January 20th.

[At Home 0]

I still don't understand why the Dems have to "own the bad economy" It wasn't their policies that put us here. Now, an argument can be made in four years (if nothing is better or it is worse) that they couldn't do anything to fix the problems, but to say they must own the bad economy after being in office for a month seems kind of a stretch.

 

Because it's the Democrats that were put in charge to handle it. Regardless of the fact that this recession could take several months, if not years, to shake out (partly because of a failure to act quickly, and the action we did take was not enough), if the Democrats don't hold their own and can't say "here's the progress to show for the billions we've invested," it seems unlikely that they're going to be able to really persuade voters to keep doing what they're saying. Not to mention that Ds controlled the congress since 2006, so it partially is their responsibility.

 

But hey, the whole fucking congress is responsible because none of them are economists who could look at the problem and see that the industry was so horribly runaway that the structure was bound to collapse sometime.

[SuperJerk 0]

Election 2006 says it all about taking full responsibility for things which have been ineffective. Republicans paid for the war. Similarly, the Democrats would have to pay for a bad economy.

 

The Democrats don't have to own anything.

 

Republicans were in charge of the war when that went bad, so they got blamed. Republicans were in charge of economic policy when the economy went bad, so they got blamed.

 

If things don't get better, the Democrats just need to claim "things are worse than we thought, we need more time to undo all the damage the Republicans did."

 

 

 

 

edit: Yes, I know this is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the effects of President Bush's economic policies, but over-simplifying blame and credit is how American politics are played.

Edited March 4, 2009 by SuperJerk

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/h...p_n_170796.html

 

Golden.