Online Now 1994

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

On this Board 62
Record: 514 (5/20/2013)

Online now 2019
Record: 9625 (10/8/2011)

Boards ▾

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

The McGuire Room

The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information

The Sarge

The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.

GCI Archives

Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.

Spurnotes Archives

The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes

Video Archive

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.

Test Forum

Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.

Reply

I hate to bring up an old topic, but

  • dutch30805 said...

    so you think the economy hasn't turned around then?

    It depends on what you want me to base my answer on. If it's labor figures and GDP growth, then I don't know, I don't really keep up with it. If you are asking me my gut feeling, then things are better. Our clients are in better financial positions and are asking similar questions as they were 4-5 years ago, not 2-3 years ago. Does that mean it won't go back down again? No, double dips do exist, just ask the UK. Maybe I'm wrong and it hasn't turned around at all.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • joetheogre said...

    By this logic, can't women want the right to marry women (as men have) and vice versa and it be equal rights?

    The fact remains 12 million people in this country, roughly the size of Ohio, are not allowed to marry the person they want to.

    His silly word games are based on the myth that the "definition" of marriage has remained constant throughout history.

    That's far from accurate.

    signature image

    81 Alumnus ●

  • dutch30805 said...

    i followed your lead and said 2008 when i meant 2009.

    Sorry I type faster than I think. Unfortunately, I do a lot of things faster than I think.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • Not a fan of infographics, but I saw this picture today. Interesting.

    Sorry, link didn't attach the first time

    http://i.imgur.com/joB7S.jpg

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by joetheogre on 5/9/2012 at 10:04 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    It depends on what you want me to base my answer on. If it's labor figures and GDP growth, then I don't know, I don't really keep up with it. If you are asking me my gut feeling, then things are better. Our clients are in better financial positions and are asking similar questions as they were 4-5 years ago, not 2-3 years ago. Does that mean it won't go back down again? No, double dips do exist, just ask the UK. Maybe I'm wrong and it hasn't turned around at all.

    earlier you implied the economy had "turned around."

    did you intend to do that?

    signature image signature image

    "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

    dutch30805 ●

  • dutch30805 said...

    earlier you implied the economy had "turned around."

    did you intend to do that?

    I also made it clear I don't keep up with facts and figures and because leaders of the GOP and the dems have all said it has turned around, that I thought that was how the economy was being framed now. Even Romney, whether he be a GOPer or a Dem, used to say its Obama's fault the economy sucked, but now he says Obama sucks because it's not turning around fast enough. Fast enough seems to imply it has turned around.

    Again, I don't know and I'm not sure how this matters for purposes of our discussion. At what point after Obama took office are job losses attributable to him and not Bush?

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • joetheogre said...

    Not a fan of infographics, but I saw this picture today. Interesting.

    Sorry, link didn't attach the first time

    http://i.imgur.com/joB7S.jpg

    I thought you meant the new photo in your signature was interesting - North Carolina demographics - not so much

    johnhunt

  • johnhunt said...

    I thought you meant the new photo in your signature was interesting - North Carolina demographics - not so much

    One thing I don't understand about NC is why we have so many counties. There's 100 of them. I don't know why that is necessary. I guess we wanted more sherrifs than SC.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    One thing I don't understand about NC is why we have so many counties. There's 100 of them. I don't know why that is necessary. I guess we wanted more sherrifs than SC.

    It may have more to do with taxation and revenue sharing than increasing the state sheriff’s association membership.

    For what it's worth SC has 46 counties...Delaware has 3

    The largest states - Alaska has 25 and California 58 ... Texas 254.

    This post was edited by johnhunt on 5/10/2012 at 8:07 AM

    johnhunt

  • CockAtLaw said...

    I also made it clear I don't keep up with facts and figures and because leaders of the GOP and the dems have all said it has turned around, that I thought that was how the economy was being framed now. Even Romney, whether he be a GOPer or a Dem, used to say its Obama's fault the economy sucked, but now he says Obama sucks because it's not turning around fast enough. Fast enough seems to imply it has turned around.

    Again, I don't know and I'm not sure how this matters for purposes of our discussion. At what point after Obama took office are job losses attributable to him and not Bush?

    so romney is now saying the economy has turned around? is that what you're saying?

    i already answered your last question so i'm not sure how asking the question again is necessary for purposes of our discussion.

    signature image signature image

    "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

    dutch30805 ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    One thing I don't understand about NC is why we have so many counties. There's 100 of them. I don't know why that is necessary. I guess we wanted more sherrifs than SC.

    159 counties in georgia. I heard there are that many so cattlemen would have to travel shorter distances to markets, which were historically located in county seats. Just what i heard. grain of salt, etc

    signature image signature image

    "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

    dutch30805 ●

  • dutch30805 said...

    so romney is now saying the economy has turned around? is that what you're saying?

    i already answered your last question so i'm not sure how asking the question again is necessary for purposes of our discussion.

    Ok, so just to be clear, no job losses from 2009 are attributable to Obama in your opinion? I'm not arguing one way or the other with you about this. I dont' care who we attribute them to because it doesn't matter. It's an attempt by each side to find an easy victim. It's easy to say one person is responsible than to say 535 people are responsible.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • dutch30805 said...

    so romney is now saying the economy has turned around? is that what you're saying?

    i already answered your last question so i'm not sure how asking the question again is necessary for purposes of our discussion.

    This is one interview he gave:

    LAURA INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

    MITT ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. There's never been a time anywhere in the world where an economy has never recovered. The question is, has it recovered by virtue of something the President's done or has he delayed the recovery and made it more painful?

    The latter is, of course, the truth. The President's policies have made it, have made this recession deeper, and have made the recovery more tepid, more difficult on the American people. This is the worst recovery we've seen from a recession since Hoover. And President Obama wants to take credit for things getting better, he in fact has made things worse. He's made this recovery take much longer.

    But will our economy get better someday? Of course it will, and it will not be thanks to the President Obama. It will be in spite of President Obama, and that's of course the message we have to give. If people think the right course for improving an economy is to massively expand debt and grow the government, well they can vote for Barack Obama. But, we know better.

    INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

    ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? (laughs) It just happens to be the truth. We're going to see the numbers, in terms of how the economy does. It's very possible, by the way, that the economy will go into a decline again. I can't tell you that I can predict that's it going to get better. But I think at some point it's going to get better.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • 81 Alumnus said...

    The Holy Bible says very clearly that if a man lays with another man as man does with a woman, he should be killed. It says not a single,solitary word about lesbians.

    if you follow the Holy Bible word for word, you must advocate the death of gay men, and leave lesbians alone.

    Otherwise, you are twisting the Holy Bible to justify your own non-Bible based opinions. Aren't you a little, tiny bit afraid that you might have to answer for that some day.

    Just a little.

    The Bible, in the Old Testament, calls for stoning for a lot of different things. Those do not apply under the Blood of Christ as he took the punishment for those who accept Him as their Lord & Savior. Don't try to twist those Words for the Bible also says that those who add or take away from the Word will answer severely.

    Myopia does not become any of us and double for lawyers. I am confident in my place in Jesus and do not worry about where I will spend eternity. I do, however, worry about America's place in His plans if we continue down this path. Homosexual acceptance, unmarried sex, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, flesh-eating diseases, antibiotic-resistant diseases, etc, are becoming more prevalent. Summer in the middle of winter, winter in the middle of spring... earthquakes galore... end time prophesy?

    I don't twist words nor do I quibble. Words mean something. I love the sinner and hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore I hate homosexuality.

    however, being cantankerous is not a sin, so I do not hate you.

    dodgerblue42312

  • CockAtLaw said...

    Ok, so just to be clear, no job losses from 2009 are attributable to Obama in your opinion? I'm not arguing one way or the other with you about this. I dont' care who we attribute them to because it doesn't matter. It's an attempt by each side to find an easy victim. It's easy to say one person is responsible than to say 535 people are responsible.

    picking-a-nit, but 536 people are responsible...100 senate, 435 house, 1 BHO

    dodgerblue42312

  • dodgerblue-42 said...

    Homosexual acceptance, unmarried sex, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, flesh-eating diseases, antibiotic-resistant diseases, etc, are becoming more prevalent. Summer in the middle of winter, winter in the middle of spring... earthquakes galore... end time prophesy?

    So, just so I understand your position, because people are now accepting of homosexuality, we are being punished and doomed to die, potentially all of Earth end of days type stuff, whether it be by viruses, earthquakes, seasonal adjustments, or other natural means?

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • dodgerblue-42 said...

    picking-a-nit, but 536 people are responsible...100 senate, 435 house, 1 BHO

    Had 535 people done something and BHO vetoed that something, then maybe that holds true. But if 535 people don't do anything, BHO can't do anything either. He doesn't control the purse and he doesn't control the budget.

    If he does try to be aggressive, he opens himself to arguments from both sides about overreach of executive power; from the left who want to see it reduced and from the right who just will compain about anything he does.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    Ok, so just to be clear, no job losses from 2009 are attributable to Obama in your opinion? I'm not arguing one way or the other with you about this. I dont' care who we attribute them to because it doesn't matter. It's an attempt by each side to find an easy victim. It's easy to say one person is responsible than to say 535 people are responsible.

    the pres is partly responsible. this is especially true when a pres runs on villifying the past one and vowing to fix the economy and acknowledging if he fails it will be a "one term proposition" for him.

    and if you "dont care" stop asking or talking about it. It's enough for me to know you agree re: bush 2 inheriting a recession. That shows you have brains in your head rather than mush, sawdust, etc. Good man.

    signature image signature image

    "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

    dutch30805 ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    This is one interview he gave:

    LAURA INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

    MITT ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. There's never been a time anywhere in the world where an economy has never recovered. The question is, has it recovered by virtue of something the President's done or has he delayed the recovery and made it more painful?

    The latter is, of course, the truth. The President's policies have made it, have made this recession deeper, and have made the recovery more tepid, more difficult on the American people. This is the worst recovery we've seen from a recession since Hoover. And President Obama wants to take credit for things getting better, he in fact has made things worse. He's made this recovery take much longer.

    But will our economy get better someday? Of course it will, and it will not be thanks to the President Obama. It will be in spite of President Obama, and that's of course the message we have to give. If people think the right course for improving an economy is to massively expand debt and grow the government, well they can vote for Barack Obama. But, we know better.

    INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

    ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? (laughs) It just happens to be the truth. We're going to see the numbers, in terms of how the economy does. It's very possible, by the way, that the economy will go into a decline again. I can't tell you that I can predict that's it going to get better. But I think at some point it's going to get better.

    and you take from this romney is saying the economy has turned around?

    if so i disagree, our disagreement is semantical in nature, and there is no reason to proceed further on that line on discussion imo

    good talk

    signature image signature image

    "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

    dutch30805 ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    Nope, I'm all for lesbians, as long as they're hot and I get to watch.

    I agree. While I am all for good-looking lesbiens and bi's getting married to each other, two men should NOT be allowed to marry because that's just YUCKY.

    Golden Cock

  • dutch30805 said...

    the pres is partly responsible. this is especially true when a pres runs on villifying the past one and vowing to fix the economy and acknowledging if he fails it will be a "one term proposition" for him.

    and if you "dont care" stop asking or talking about it. It's enough for me to know you agree re: bush 2 inheriting a recession. That shows you have brains in your head rather than mush, sawdust, etc. Good man.

    I agree he is partly responsible. I think everyone in Washington shares the blame.

    I don't care and I will stop after this post asking about it. And I don't really care if W inherited a recession or not. As you know, it's simply a matter of perspective as to whether he did or didn't or it doesn't really mean anything. I have absolutely no problem or disagreement with you believing the 2001 recession is on Clinton, as long as the same rules apply to W and Obama; and based on your agreement that 2009 job losses are on Bush, I respect your opinion. I appreciate you being consistent, that is all I was going for. Romney's ad would disagree with you and I was curious as to where you stood. And I am not implying in any way you agree with everything Romney says, you have made it clear you don't and you don't agree with his ad regarding job losses from 2009 being Obama's fault.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • dutch30805 said...

    and you take from this romney is saying the economy has turned around?

    if so i disagree, our disagreement is semantical in nature, and there is no reason to proceed further on that line on discussion imo

    good talk

    Yes, it sounds like it's semantics now. Let's move on.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • CockAtLaw said...

    I agree he is partly responsible. I think everyone in Washington shares the blame.

    I don't care and I will stop after this post asking about it. And I don't really care if W inherited a recession or not. As you know, it's simply a matter of perspective as to whether he did or didn't or it doesn't really mean anything. I have absolutely no problem or disagreement with you believing the 2001 recession is on Clinton, as long as the same rules apply to W and Obama; and based on your agreement that 2009 job losses are on Bush, I respect your opinion. I appreciate you being consistent, that is all I was going for. Romney's ad would disagree with you and I was curious as to where you stood. And I am not implying in any way you agree with everything Romney says, you have made it clear you don't and you don't agree with his ad regarding job losses from 2009 being Obama's fault.

    so you believe it's possible for a pres who has been in office less than 2 months when a recession begins to be responsible for that recession (to the extent a pres is responsible for recessions?)

    This post was edited by dutch30805 on 5/10/2012 at 12:26 PM

    signature image signature image

    "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

    dutch30805 ●

  • dutch30805 said...

    so you believe it's possible for a pres who has been in office less than 2 months when a recession begins to be responsible for that recession (to the extent a pres is responsible for recessions?)

    To the extent presidents can be responsible for recessions (and that is a very small extent because I don't think they bear as much responsibility as the media throws at them), I think it would be very unusual circumstances for a president to be responsible for a recession so soon into their term.

    It's kind of like cooking. If I walk into a kitchen and the ingredients are there to bake a cake, then I can bake a cake. If I walk into the kitchen and pull the cake out of the oven, have I baked a cake? Doesn't seem like it. If I walk in and only some of the ingredients are mixed and I finish baking the cake, have I baked it? Maybe, maybe not.

    I don't know enough about what caused the 2001 recession to know if Bush was at fault (again, to the extent a president can be at fault, which I think is very little). To me, it seems like that is closer to walking into the kitchen and pulling the cake out of the oven. But, admittedly, I don't know all of the facts; I was in high school at the time and more important things on my mind.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • dodgerblue-42 said...

    The Bible, in the Old Testament, calls for stoning for a lot of different things. Those do not apply under the Blood of Christ as he took the punishment for those who accept Him as their Lord & Savior. Don't try to twist those Words for the Bible also says that those who add or take away from the Word will answer severely.

    You're twisting scripture for your own purposes, or you're ignorant.'

    When asked if His followers needed to follow the Law(that's where all those stonings you dimiss come in) Christ responded "yes" adding "I come not to change ONE WORD of the Law, but to fulfill it,".

    This post was edited by 81 Alumnus on 5/10/2012 at 1:59 PM

    signature image

    81 Alumnus ●

South Carolina
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports