Forum: General Stuff
Topic: The First Obama Term
started by: GORDON

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,05:11
SO... what are we in for?  Feel free to make predictions, as well.

If he follows through with what he said about coal plants, our home energy costs are going to skyrocket.

If he makes Rev Wright his official spiritual advisor, it's going to be a bad time in America for whitey.

If he lets his wife make any decisions, white people will be enslaved for a year as a learning experience.

Ok, maybe not that last one.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,05:15
I predict federal money is going to go to "bailout" newspapers.  So many of them were in the tank for Obama, now it is payback time.

"We can not let newspapers, that great american institution, go under."

Posted by unkbill on Nov. 05 2008,05:34
But I wanted to vote Jimmy Carter and assinated in office.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,05:37

(unkbill @ Nov. 05 2008,06:34)
QUOTE
But I wanted to vote Jimmy Carter and assinated in office.

Historically, presidents assassinated in office get their previously-opposed pet projects passed by congress as a "sign of respect," or some such thing.  Lincoln and Kennedy, anyway.  Wasn't there a 3rd president assassinated?  No coffee yet this morning.  Garfield?

So....... in a way I'd like to see him do his 4 years, and as long as things don't get... really bad.... just let him be so bad that he ensures a CONSERVATIVE federal government for the 20 years after that.  Not necessarily republican.

Things can go either way, or neither.  I honestly hopes he is a great President, but my expectations on the least-vetted president in modern history are low.

Oh, also, when does the government start paying my mortgage?  I heard that was a perk.



Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2008,05:55
The problem for Barrack and the Democrats is that this past election was a one time thing. People turned out to vote who don't normally turn out to vote. This wasn't anti-Bush, this was a vote about the economy and a unique candidate with a campaign built mainly on hype. The additional turnout obviously helped the Democrats in other races too.  

Now the Dems have to live up to expectations or they know they're going to lose the next election.

The same amount of people are going to turn out for the Republican candidate. However, the same cannot be said for Barrack. He's going to lose some votes simply because everyone who turned out for him this time will not do so again.
-Some folks who only voted this time won't be interested in turning out for a "non-historic" election.
-Some honkeys will be over their "white guilt" vote.
-Some folks will be unconcerned due to him being the incumbant and simply won't bother.
-More importantly though, he stands to lose more votes based on job performance than the Republicans.

But this is a conversation for 3 years from now...

For his first term, I voted mediocre. It's too early to truly tell what is going to occur and we won't get a true sense of it anytime soon thanks to a ridiculously biased media.

The only thing I fear out of an Obama presidency is potential socialist policies being enacted and his nominations to SCOTUS. Everything else will handle itself.

Focusing on the positives I will now tell any black person talking about racism to shut the fuck up as they've proven themselves to be the most racist people in this country. I also think this is a good thing for the U.S.'s general image both home and abroad. Let's face it, Bush was not a popular guy anywhere and the Republicans needed some time out of the spotlight to let his memory fade from their party.

So the only big predictions I can make are the same ones I've been making:
-Crime will increase under president Obama.
-The MSM will be less negative about the economy.

P.S. The man is a U.S. President so I obviously do not want to see any sort of attempt on his life. On top of that, no attempts would be another gigantic "shut up" to those folks who think black people in our society are oppressed. For years every comedian in the country has joked about the first black president being assassinated. That gunshot never coming would be one seriously loud statement.



Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2008,06:08
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2008,06:47
Now I have to wonder, can we ever again have a WASP male President?  Or will the next nominees have to be hispanic, or a woman, or jewish, or gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that), or whatever else, in order to compete in getting out voters excited for the historical signifigance?
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,07:13

(TPRJones @ Nov. 05 2008,07:47)
QUOTE
Now I have to wonder, can we ever again have a WASP male President?  Or will the next nominees have to be hispanic, or a woman, or jewish, or gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that) (Not that there's anything wrong with that), or whatever else, in order to compete in getting out voters excited for the historical signifigance?

That occurred to me a couple months ago.... if a black candidate is the only thing that can unify the black community, how can any party ever again run a non-black candidate?  

Black = win if the other guy is white.

Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 05 2008,07:23
There will be some plans that are discovered and some groups of nutjobs will be caught planning some sort of attack on Obama. The same for any president but more will be made of it because of his race. I don't think anything will happen to him though.

I think he will be looked at positively after his first term because the press with be sucking his dick and telling us how the economy is coming back. I bet there are all sorts of positive takes on the economy from the press in Feb. 2009.

QUOTE
Now I have to wonder, can we ever again have a WASP male President?  Or will the next nominees have to be hispanic, or a woman, or jewish, or gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that) (Not that there's anything wrong with that), or whatever else, in order to compete in getting out voters excited for the historical signifigance?


Well like her or not but I think Sarah Palin is going to be around for awhile. She won't run against him in any way in 2012 but the hardcore conservatives/republicans love her. There was also a lot of talk about Bobby Jindal moving up the ranks and he is Indian(dot not feathers) and was a VP consideration.

I don't think you will see a lot of it though because it will be portrayed at pandering by Republicans and blacks are the only group that are married to one party.

Another positive from this is that I believe this is the end of Hillary as anything more then an overhyped senator.

Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 05 2008,07:26
QUOTE
Black = win if the other guy is white.


I don't think that will be the case anymore. I think a large number of blacks will turn out to vote for Obama in 2012 to keep the first black president successful but after that they will get lazy like everyone else and the 2nd black president won't be quite the rallying point.

Although isn't Obama already the 2nd black president?



Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,07:28

(WSGrundy @ Nov. 05 2008,08:23)
QUOTE
Well like her or not but I think Sarah Palin is going to be around for awhile. She won't run against him in any way in 2012 but the hardcore conservatives/republicans love her.

I don't know... she might start looking old and unattractive in 4 years.  That makes me respect her less, of course.
Posted by unkbill on Nov. 05 2008,07:40

(Leisher @ Nov. 05 2008,03:55)
QUOTE
P.S. The man is a U.S. President so I obviously do not want to see any sort of attempt on his life. On top of that, no attempts would be another gigantic "shut up" to those folks who think black people in our society are oppressed. For years every comedian in the country has joked about the first black president being assassinated. That gunshot never coming would be one seriously loud statement.

Well let me clarify my statement. I in no way would condone an attempt on his life. I was just being realistic. I am sure there are racist asshole that are just out of thier minds over his election.
I also found it interesting that out of 22,577 votes cast in my county 397 were for 3rd partys. With Ralph N. getting the most with 193.

Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 05 2008,08:09

(unkbill @ Nov. 05 2008,05:40)
QUOTE
I also found it interesting that out of 22,577 votes cast in my county 397 were for 3rd partys. With Ralph N. getting the most with 193.

Why do Libertarians get no love?

Just lack of press? I would think there would be a large number of people who would go for the "Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else and pay as little taxes while doing it." slogan.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2008,08:11
Governor and Senator candidates in NC got 3% (Libertarians)
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,08:27
Not a lack of love, just sometimes a need to put your vote to something other than a lost cause.
Posted by unkbill on Nov. 05 2008,08:30

(WSGrundy @ Nov. 05 2008,06:09)
QUOTE
Why do Libertarians get no love?

Ottawa County
Libertaians   98
Constitution      56
Green              27
Socialist       9
Joe Schriner(?)     1

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,10:09
The USS Clueless rises from its grave, momentarily.

< http://chizumatic.mee.nu/not_the_end_of_the_world >

Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 05 2008,10:32

(GORDON @ Nov. 05 2008,06:27)
QUOTE
Not a lack of love, just sometimes a need to put your vote to something other than a lost cause.

I agree and do the same myself. I just don't understand why it is still at the lost cause stage.

You would think there would be enough people out there that there would be seats in the house and senate at the state and federal level.

I can only assume that people are scared that if they go libertarian that their vote won't really mean anything and then someone they really dislike could get elected.

I would just like to know how you get beyond that sticking point.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2008,10:52
I'm not sure.  There is no rational arguement that will convince them, because it is a totally irrational stance held mostly by irrational people.  You need to find a purely emotional reason to shift them to being willing to go 3rd party.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Nov. 05 2008,11:36
A 3rd party person would have to run as rep/dem just to get elected.  Then, once in office, do the 3rd party thing their whole term.  Then, spin it as being all rep/dem stuff the whole time to get relected.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2008,12:28
The stock market is racist
QUOTE
Dow loses 400 points the day after an historic presidential election, as the jobs outlook worsens and oil continues its slide.

Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 05 2008,13:32
The more I think about it the more I think Obamas time in office is going to be like Clintons. People will say they like the man but reject his ideology.

Clinton is still very popular but after trying to raise taxes for the 100,000 new cops, gun legislation, and the whole national health care plan that hillary worked on the democrats lost the control of congress for the first time in 40 years.

I'm looking forward to seeing how 2010 turns out.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,13:37

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,13:28)
QUOTE
The stock market is racist
QUOTE
Dow loses 400 points the day after an historic presidential election, as the jobs outlook worsens and oil continues its slide.

As long as someone pays my mortgage for me I'll be happy.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2008,14:06

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,13:28)
QUOTE
The stock market is racist
QUOTE
Dow loses 400 points the day after an historic presidential election, as the jobs outlook worsens and oil continues its slide.

"The Dow Jones drop isn't bad news; Obama just lowered the price of stocks so the little guy has a chance to afford some, too."
Posted by Vince on Nov. 05 2008,15:21

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,06:08)
QUOTE
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.

I'm sure they will.

Oh wait... I thought that was a monkey flying out of my ass.

They won't.

I was disappointed that Obambi won, but also a little relieved.  I wasn't looking forward to trying to rationalize McCain's less than conservative decisions while he was in office for 4 years.

My siser's husband has a dental practice and they've already been hit by the economy.  People getting the work they have to have done, but not the work they need.  They're already looking at laying off someone at the office if the tax hike goes through.  I think Obama's policies (if they're more than BS election promises) are going to make this recession longer and worse than it would be otherwise.  Actually, I expect greater lay-offs just on the promises before he is even sworn in.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2008,15:38
Well, in the past nearly 50 years, Democratic administrations have done much better than Republicans in restraining spending, across the board.

So, I'm still cautiously optimistic.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2008,16:32
Perhaps, but has that been true when they also held both houses of Congress?

It's really more about Congress, anyway, after all.



Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2008,16:44
They held Congress from like 54 to 94 or something, right?  So yeah, it's true.
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2008,17:23
The didn't have both houses that whole time, though.

I'll need to do some research.

Posted by Vince on Nov. 05 2008,22:40

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,16:44)
QUOTE
They held Congress from like 54 to 94 or something, right?  So yeah, it's true.

I think Newt's gang did a lot in that department for Clinton.  Back when the Republicans were actually worth a damn.
Posted by Vince on Nov. 05 2008,22:40

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,16:44)
QUOTE
They held Congress from like 54 to 94 or something, right?  So yeah, it's true.

The house.  Not the Senate, too.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2008,14:04
"Obama win does not mean the end of racism," Activists say.

"So keep sending us money."

< http://www.reuters.com/article....ticNews >

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2008,14:20

(GORDON @ Nov. 06 2008,16:04)
QUOTE
"Obama win does not mean the end of racism," Activists say.

"So keep sending us money."

< http://www.reuters.com/article....ticNews >

America's first mulatto president.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2008,18:30
Teacher bullying grade-school students who say they like John McCain.

On video, for some reason.



I know for a fact that I've said in the past, here, that I fear reeducation camps under Democrats more than Republicans.



Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2008,19:12
Republicans do their brainwashing in churches.  Deomcrats do theirs in schools.

One of these you have to go to by law, one you don't.  Hardly seems fair.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2008,19:25

(TPRJones @ Nov. 06 2008,21:12)
QUOTE
Republicans do their brainwashing in churches.  Deomcrats do theirs in schools.

One of these you have to go to by law, one you don't.  Hardly seems fair.

Considering how long religion has had its hold on the world, I'd say it's about even.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 07 2008,12:04
I heard about this, but I didn't believe it until I saw it on a dot gov...

< http://change.gov/americaserves/ >

QUOTE
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.


So that's, what... 4 new government agencies, and a draft?  That says "require."



Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 07 2008,12:43
QUOTE
When you choose to serve

Um....

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 07 2008,12:46
You're both right. It says "choose" and "require".

Either way, this is several new departments of government. More places we need to throw money. Where will all this money come from I wonder...

Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 07 2008,13:42
So you choose to do something and then gives you this list a requirements? Why not just let people help with whatever they want for as much as they want?

What do the volunteers gets out of this. Has to be more then the satisfaction of helping others if they are requiring a certain amount of time.



Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 07 2008,13:55
He's trying to channel some FDR spirits or something.  I'm waiting for the CCC to return.
Posted by Vince on Nov. 07 2008,15:30
Or the HJ and SA
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 07 2008,15:40
SupCourt found the AAA to be unconstitutional, so they made minor changes to the wording and it did the exact same thing but then it was legal... and I believe it is still in effect.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 07 2008,15:53

(GORDON @ Nov. 06 2008,19:30)
QUOTE
Teacher bullying grade-school students who say they like John McCain.

On video, for some reason.



I know for a fact that I've said in the past, here, that I fear reeducation camps under Democrats more than Republicans.

District superintendent responds.

I'm impressed, usually these things just get.... ignored.


Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 07 2008,16:58
That's nice!

I wonder if they'll do anything about the others that weren't stupid enough to bring in a camera.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 07 2008,17:26
I was gonna say, I hope that lady learned her lesson.  Namely, never let somebody video you being a dumbass.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 08 2008,05:12

(TheCatt @ Nov. 07 2008,13:43)
QUOTE
QUOTE
When you choose to serve

Um....

Well, whatever.  It's been changed.

QUOTE
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.


As horrible as some the things coming out of his mouth are.... I will not try too hard to stop myself from laughing when and if the cultists start realizing who they voted for, and realize they made a mistake.

It's like it would be fun watching him turn us into a 2nd world country like France and Sweden.  Because I didn't vote for him!  It isn't my fault!  Bwahahaha.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 08 2008,05:54
Are you kidding?  The people who voted for Obama LOVE this kind of stuff.

It's like, wow, man, people get to like serve the community and stuff?  And like how cool is that, you know?

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 08 2008,06:25

(thibodeaux @ Nov. 08 2008,06:54)
QUOTE
Are you kidding?  The people who voted for Obama LOVE this kind of stuff.

It's like, wow, man, people get to like serve the community and stuff?  And like how cool is that, you know?

I was thinking more along the lines of they will hate it when they are FORCED to serve.
Posted by Vince on Nov. 08 2008,06:30

(GORDON @ Nov. 08 2008,06:25)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Nov. 08 2008,06:54)
QUOTE
Are you kidding?  The people who voted for Obama LOVE this kind of stuff.

It's like, wow, man, people get to like serve the community and stuff?  And like how cool is that, you know?

I was thinking more along the lines of they will hate it when they are FORCED to serve.

I agree with you, Gordo.  I expect a few stories early on with the faithful talking about how great it is to be giving back to the community.  Then it will be all whiney punks bitching about how they're having to work for their checks.

If they wanted to work for it, they'd get a job.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 08 2008,06:47
OMG - They did change it.  Those bastards.

On the other hand, at least they backed down from something so wrong-minded.  I mean, better to cover up your mistakes than keep making them.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 08 2008,07:16
Why choose when you can do both?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 15 2009,11:20
QUOTE
So bend over, kiddies; you will now get the despotic, rapacious government you asked for, and thereby deserve — good and hard, and deep, too.

[...]

So yeah, sit back and suck on it, kiddies; you’re going to have many a long, long year to ponder your foolishness and folly in helping to elect a Savior instead of a President. No, bobbling the boy-beans (to steal a funny line from Ace) and swallowing at the end are NOT optional. You’ll find that Big Government’s appetite for buggering its subjects is insatiable, just as those of us with more than the most superficial acquaintance with history already knew — and you’re the ones who promiscuously offered your tender selves up to provide the “happy” ending. Gird your loins; Big Government likes to take its time, and wring every last frisson of pleasure out of its conquests. This will assuredly not be a three-minute man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick sort of ride; Big Government is a 60 Minute Man. The fun don’t stop till Big Government says enough, no matter how raw, sore, bloody, and exhausted you might be by then.

Personally, I hope you enjoy every minute of the violent reaming you’re going to get. Because I will damned sure enjoy watching you get it. I’m a pervert like that, see.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 15 2009,12:27
C'mon, this has been built up for eight years.  It doesn't matter if B. Rock unilaterally starts off the next nuclear world war, it will be hailed as a triumph, goddamnit.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 25 2009,17:33
I read somewhere that in his first 3 months in office, Obama has spent more money than all American Presidents... combined.   Or maybe it was just proposed spending.

Anyway, anyone want to change their votes?  I am sticking to my original "We're all gonna die.

In a while I'll just repeat this poll and see if the mood is changing.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2009,18:37
I might step my dissention up to the Jimmy Carter level in a few weeks, depending on what happens.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 25 2009,18:42
Overall, I think he's done well.

That being said, we won't know the full effects of everything for a while, so I'm reserving judgment.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 25 2009,18:50
I think my fave Obama moment so far was when, asked why he gave a shitty gift to the PM of England, claimed he was "overwhelmed."

Very Presidential.

Posted by Mommy Dearest on Mar. 25 2009,21:31

(GORDON @ Mar. 25 2009,20:33)
QUOTE
I read somewhere that in his first 3 months in office, Obama has spent more money than all American Presidents... combined.   Or maybe it was just proposed spending.

Anyway, anyone want to change their votes?  I am sticking to my original "We're all gonna die.

In a while I'll just repeat this poll and see if the mood is changing.

When was the inauguration?  Think it has not been 3 months.  Took way more than 3 months to get in this condition in the first place.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 25 2009,21:58

(Mommy Dearest @ Mar. 25 2009,23:31)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 25 2009,20:33)
QUOTE
I read somewhere that in his first 3 months in office, Obama has spent more money than all American Presidents... combined.   Or maybe it was just proposed spending.

Anyway, anyone want to change their votes?  I am sticking to my original "We're all gonna die.

In a while I'll just repeat this poll and see if the mood is changing.

When was the inauguration?  Think it has not been 3 months.  Took way more than 3 months to get in this condition in the first place.

We were heading down a steep hill when he took office.  He's mashing on the accelerator.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 26 2009,16:10
SO "we were already here when he took office" = record-level spending is the best way to fix it?

Who has the link to the "The New Deal extended the Great Depression by 7 years" article?



Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 26 2009,17:37
I honestly think most of the steps he has taken have been beneficial to the economy.  It's not perfect, but it's good.

And yeah, the spending sucks, but the people it's hurting the most are the Chinese.



Posted by Vince on Mar. 26 2009,19:26
Well, I don't know how much of this is Obama's specific doing, but the debt and the printing of money is really bad.  If you noticed the big dip in the middle of the day yesterday in the markets that was due to our having to raise the interest rates on our 5 year bonds that they auctioned off yesterday in order just to sell them.

That will happen a lot if they actually go off the dollar as the global currency.  It will effectively raise the debt that much more.

So far the deficit (for the year) has almost tripled over last years which was a new record.

I'm not sure, but if the dollar actually collapses, that's a pretty big deal I'd think.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 26 2009,21:28
Indeed.

'Twould be best to keep your pantry very well stocked at all times.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 06 2009,12:25
The gutting of the military commences.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....rograms >

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 06 2009,13:16
I'm fine with that.

The less weaponry our repressive federal government has, the less it can turn on it's citizens when the shit goes down.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 06 2009,13:26
The military is the one power that federal gov't wields that is actually IN the Constitution.  And the F22 is one of the few things the gov't buys that actually works.  Yeah, better slash that.  

Maybe they need more money for that "civil defense force" or whatever it was we were talking about, before.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2009,13:47
Then why's he talking about fucking w\ Afghanistan further?  If you want to spend less on the military, the easiest way is to make them fight less frequently.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 06 2009,13:49
Because he's an idiot?
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2009,13:09

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 17 2009,06:07
Even the french are calling him a pussy.

< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6106250.ece >

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 17 2009,06:23
QUOTE
“The President is annoyed by what he sees as the naivety and the herd mentality of the media,”


I couldn't agree more.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2009,18:48
Hey look at these people in New York City running in fear because the White House decided a 747 heading toward buildings being trailed by an F-16 would be a good photo op.

Being President must be hard.




Traveling the world making best friends with all these foreigners, and scaring the shit out of Americans.  I can't think of a better metaphor for Obama.



Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 27 2009,19:04
I'm not aware Obama had anything to do with that decision.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2009,20:31
< http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news....ge.html >

QUOTE
An official from the Obama administration said the White House Military Office wanted to update its file photo of the president's plane near the Statue of Liberty.

This official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the White House Military Office told the Federal Aviation Administration that it periodically updates file photos of Air Force One near national landmarks, like the statue in New York harbor and the Grand Canyon.

"It's completely asinine after 9/11 to do that," said Keith Mercantine, who witnessed the chaos in Jersey City. "I saw ambulances out here with pregnant women."

An Air Force One lookalike and F-16 buzzed the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor in the morning, halting work on nearby construction sites, causing residents and office workers to flee their high-rises and giving thousands of people in downtown Manhattan and New Jersey a major fright.

At least two people were treated for minor injuries at Jersey City Medical Center after falling during the rush to exit their buildings.

"Everybody panicked," said Daisy Cooper, a Merrill Lynch worker in Jersey City, who lost a nephew on 9/11.  "Everybody was screaming and we all ran downstairs. I'm devastated...Everybody was running, we didn't know why we were running. We just knew it was a plane, there we go, 9/11 again."


Did you hear he named his dog after himself?

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 27 2009,20:44
Granted it's not a very bright thing to do without giving notice, but that looks like a whole lot of overreacting there to me.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2009,00:28
I'm sure the dudes that lived thru Pearl Harbor didn't freak out every time they saw boats & planes again.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 28 2009,06:58
I think the crowd was reacting in horror at the CARBON FOOTPRINT!!!1!!
Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2009,17:51

(TPRJones @ Apr. 27 2009,22:44)
QUOTE
Granted it's not a very bright thing to do without giving notice, but that looks like a whole lot of overreacting there to me.

I think it's easy to say they're over reacting from here.  It was only over reacting because they weren't headed towards a building.

This time

I don't blame them.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2009,17:52

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2009,02:28)
QUOTE
I'm sure the dudes that lived thru Pearl Harbor didn't freak out every time they saw boats & planes again.

Maybe not, but they did when they saw Japanese.

And I'm sure they freaked out when they saw a plane looking like it was making a straffing run.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2009,19:57

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2009,19:52)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2009,02:28)
QUOTE
I'm sure the dudes that lived thru Pearl Harbor didn't freak out every time they saw boats & planes again.

Maybe not, but they did when they saw Japanese.

And I'm sure they freaked out when they saw a plane looking like it was making a straffing run.

In '45, when the war ended & the soldiers came home, they didn't cower in fear every time a Japanese dude walked by them on the street.  Come on.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2009,20:41
Ah, you're suggesting the idea of another 747 crashing in buildings is impossible.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2009,21:42

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2009,22:41)
QUOTE
Ah, you're suggesting the idea of another 747 crashing in buildings is impossible.

I'm suggesting they all feel scared, but either (i) no one wants to put the energy into making sure they don't feel scared (ii) doesn't know where the fuck to start.  Cos yeah, it's possible, it's been possible for years.  Still pretty fucking easy to fuck w\ an aircraft if you put your mind to it.  What's amazing is that apparently not enough people want to make it a priority to prevent such shyte.  I'm sure you've personally linked to enough "the TSA done fucked up" articles.  This is the best we can do w\ our current resources, really?  That's not "prevent," that's "encourage."
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2009,06:05

(Malcolm @ Apr. 29 2009,00:42)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2009,22:41)
QUOTE
Ah, you're suggesting the idea of another 747 crashing in buildings is impossible.

I'm suggesting they all feel scared, but either (i) no one wants to put the energy into making sure they don't feel scared (ii) doesn't know where the fuck to start.  Cos yeah, it's possible, it's been possible for years.  Still pretty fucking easy to fuck w\ an aircraft if you put your mind to it.  What's amazing is that apparently not enough people want to make it a priority to prevent such shyte.  I'm sure you've personally linked to enough "the TSA done fucked up" articles.  This is the best we can do w\ our current resources, really?  That's not "prevent," that's "encourage."

Well, I heard Obama re-banned guns in the cockpit.  Can't trust those pilots.  I don't really feel safer knowing that.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2009,09:40
Ease of fucking w\ a plane in '01 : easy.
Ease of fucking w\ a plane in '09 : easy.

If people really thought another plane might hit, that second "easy" wouldn't be there.

Posted by Vince on May 01 2009,04:57

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2009,21:57)
QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2009,19:52)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2009,02:28)
QUOTE
I'm sure the dudes that lived thru Pearl Harbor didn't freak out every time they saw boats & planes again.

Maybe not, but they did when they saw Japanese.

And I'm sure they freaked out when they saw a plane looking like it was making a straffing run.

In '45, when the war ended & the soldiers came home, they didn't cower in fear every time a Japanese dude walked by them on the street.  Come on.

Actually, I worked w/ a vietnam vet that would get really agitated whenever he was in the same room as an Asian.

But soldiers and civilians are two different things.  A better analogy would be to force a group of people that had survived a plane crash onto a DC-9 and taxi them down a runway and see who freaks out.

Posted by Malcolm on May 01 2009,09:52
WWII & 'Nam are completely different things.
Posted by GORDON on May 01 2009,10:28
Looove to put Malcolm in a room with a bunch of New Yorkers and have him explain to them why their paranoia is irrational.
Posted by Malcolm on May 01 2009,11:45

(GORDON @ May 01 2009,12:28)
QUOTE
Looove to put Malcolm in a room with a bunch of New Yorkers and have him explain to them why their paranoia is irrational.

Paranoia's perfectly rational.

What blows my mind is how this same mob of indignant folk voted into office the leaders than made security a joke to begin w\.  I don't understand how you can support incompetents & then righteously bitch about them when they suck.

Posted by GORDON on May 03 2009,14:24
Whoa, the AP is starting to hit Obama, hard.

< http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1169822 >

QUOTE
Obamas take a walk, holding hands in the evening
By Associated Press
Sunday, May 3, 2009

WASHINGTON — The first couple took full advantage of the cool spring night.

After a date night out on Saturday evening, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama decided to take a stroll when their motorcade arrived back at the White House.

So they began walking on the driveway of the White House South Lawn while holding hands. First they passed the West Wing, then their children’s swing set. They kept walking, swinging their hands together.

There were no Secret Service agents right behind them — the agents stood off, in one of the rare moments that the Obamas had private space outside the White House walls.

As the Obamas walked behind shrubbery and out of sight, the unscripted moment left reporters guessing where they were going. To the vegetable garden? The basketball court? No final word, but they eventually came back the same way from where they started, rounding out their 8-minute walk.

Posted by TPRJones on May 03 2009,19:26
So, Obama's a rapid fire guy (*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*), is that the story?
Posted by Vince on May 03 2009,21:16
QUOTE
As the Obamas walked behind shrubbery and out of sight, the unscripted moment left reporters guessing where they were going.

And we know this is unscripted why?

Whenever the press starts talking about "unscripted", I start looking for the man behind the curtain.

Posted by Malcolm on May 04 2009,09:50
< Time to jack up taxes >, but only if you're a corporation.

QUOTE
Obama also would shift the burden of proof to individuals when the IRS alleges assets are being hidden in certain offshore bank accounts, the White House said in a statement.

Innocent till proven guilty.  Let's hear it for democracy ... freedom & justice for all, unless you own a biz, then you're getting reamed.

Posted by TPRJones on May 04 2009,10:15

(Malcolm @ May 04 2009,11:50)
QUOTE
< Time to jack up taxes >, but only if you're a corporation.

Which is nearly the same thing as taxing the consumer directly.  Prices go up to cover the new costs.  It's not like the money corporations have come from some magical money hole.  They get it from their customers.

But then the customers just see higher prices and blame corporations, instead of who's really at fault for it: the government.

Posted by GORDON on May 04 2009,12:21

(Vince @ May 04 2009,00:16)
QUOTE
QUOTE
As the Obamas walked behind shrubbery and out of sight, the unscripted moment left reporters guessing where they were going.

And we know this is unscripted why?

Whenever the press starts talking about "unscripted", I start looking for the man behind the curtain.

I don't need it to go even as far as that...

Was just commenting on the cocoa butter handjobs the press is going to be giving Obama, no matter what.

Posted by GORDON on May 04 2009,16:21
You have to admit, it would be easier to stay seated as to have a shorter trip when it is time to go to their knees and service him.


Posted by GORDON on May 04 2009,17:00
Whew, Obama taking aim at companies that offshore to tax havens.

< http://www.nytimes.com/2009....al-home >

QUOTE
Large multinational companies like Microsoft, General Electric and Cisco Systems have been bracing for such an initiative from the Obama administration. Critics of the approach say that it could lead not to the administration’s hoped-for repatriation of taxes but rather to job losses or higher prices as companies try to compensate for a greater tax burden.

Martin Regalia, chief economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce, challenged the administration’s reasoning.

“The United States is the only major industrialized country which double-taxes the overseas earnings of our companies,” he said in a statement. By limiting companies’ ability to defer tax payments, he said, “you limit the ability of U.S. companies to compete, you impede growth in the U.S. economy, and you cause the loss of jobs — both at the companies directly impacted and companies in their supply chains.”


Thank goodness those evil corporations will pay more taxes.

Except, wait, corporations don't pay tax, people do through increased prices.  So cool, a stealth tax increase on everyone.

Hope!  Change!  I feel my life getting better already!



Posted by Vince on May 04 2009,17:02

(GORDON @ May 04 2009,14:21)
QUOTE
I don't need it to go even as far as that...

Was just commenting on the cocoa butter handjobs the press is going to be giving Obama, no matter what.

Well that's a given
Posted by GORDON on May 05 2009,19:39
I just can't get over how hard the MSM is being on Obama.

< http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news....nt.html >

QUOTE
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden took a short -- but wholly noticeable -- motorcade ride from the White House to Virginia and pulled into a small, independent burger joint called Ray's Hell Burger.

The two leaders waited in line and then went right up to the counter where the meat was being grilled and ordered.

What did they order?

"I'll have a swiss cheese burger with jalapeno peppers and ketchup," Biden said to the cashier.  "Do you put the ketchup on it or do we do that ourselves?"

For the president?

"I'm going to have a basic cheddar cheese burger, medium well, with mustard," Obama said.  "Do you have spicy mustard?  I'll take that."

The president then asked about some fries.

"Are your fries pretty good?  Can you vouch for your fries?" he asked.

Unfortunately, Ray's doesn't serve fries.  But they had some cheesy tater puffs, so the duo got an order of those.

To drink, Biden got a root beer and Obama a bottle of water.


And I thought they were hard on Bush.  I take it all back... the MSM will rip anyone apart, not just republicans.

Posted by GORDON on May 09 2009,07:19
Obama: interest = tax

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ve-ball >

Posted by TPRJones on May 09 2009,07:42
I see.  And I bet when Obama promises he'll cook dinner for Michelle, he means he'll pick up some take out on the way home.
Posted by GORDON on May 09 2009,08:12
Two predictions:

1.  The costs of things is going to go up dramatically in the next 18 months.  Food, electricity, etc.

2.  Bush (W) will be killed.  Or found dead.

Posted by TheCatt on May 09 2009,10:22
QUOTE
Obama said at his third press conference last month that the housing plan his administration has launched has "already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut."

But tax analysts told FOXNews.com that lower mortgage rates actually reduces tax savings.

"While there could be overall savings by refinancing and lower monthly payments, there also could be reduced tax benefits as less interest is paid," said Gil Charney, an analyst for The Tax Institute at H&R Block.

"Also refinancing could extend the period before the mortgage is fully paid off, so this might not be desirable for someone who wants to be mortgage-free," he said.

This is one of the dumbest things I've read.

That's like saying "But analysts told Foxnews.com that earning more money actually increases tax liability."  Well, mother fucking duh.  But you have to look at the whole picture.  If your interest payments are $100/month lower, your tax liability may be $33/month higher, but you're saving a net of $67/month.  

That article is worthless.

Posted by GORDON on May 09 2009,10:36
I thought it was a dumb thing to say, too, but they had the Obama statement in quotes, so I assume he said it.
Posted by TheCatt on May 09 2009,10:57
I meant whoever wrote the article.

Obama's statement is basically true in that government action has led to lower mortgage rates, which will reduce the amount of money that people have to pay for housing.

He doesn't talk about the long term impacts of those government actions though.

Posted by GORDON on May 09 2009,11:19
Maybe the plunging stock market is like a tax cut too, since it makes stocks more affordable.
Posted by TheCatt on May 09 2009,13:09
It does provide for capital losses.
Posted by TPRJones on May 09 2009,14:54
By Obama's logic increasing Pell Grants are like tax cuts, too, because they help you get a college degree so you can earn more money.
Posted by GORDON on May 09 2009,15:05
Gas prices are going up so I can afford less gas and therefore I pay less gas tax = tax cut.
Posted by GORDON on May 09 2009,16:30

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2009,20:51)
QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Apr. 27 2009,22:44)
QUOTE
Granted it's not a very bright thing to do without giving notice, but that looks like a whole lot of overreacting there to me.

I think it's easy to say they're over reacting from here.  It was only over reacting because they weren't headed towards a building.

This time

I don't blame them.

One of the BSG FX guys has his own take.

< http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2009....re-1169 >

Posted by GORDON on May 12 2009,14:40
Again, "95% of Americans will not pay a dime in new taxes."

< http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html >

Posted by TPRJones on May 12 2009,14:59
QUOTE
"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

Fuck you very much, Mr. Jacobson.  The government has no place making judgements about the activities of the people under any circumstances.  The only way in which any citizen's activities should EVER be judged in any way is by a jury of his/her peers.



Posted by Malcolm on May 12 2009,16:17
They're effectively putting a tax on sugar + carbonation?  Wow.  Life is damn near imitating "The Simpsons" ... again.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on May 12 2009,18:04

(TheCatt @ May 09 2009,13:57)
QUOTE
I meant whoever wrote the article.

Obama's statement is basically true in that government action has led to lower mortgage rates, which will reduce the amount of money that people have to pay for housing.

He doesn't talk about the long term impacts of those government actions though.

Would you come work for me.  Oops I forgot, I don't think I can afford you.  You are missing your calling honey.

Mommy

Posted by TheCatt on May 12 2009,19:04
I might be cheaper... unemployment only pays $490 a week.
Posted by GORDON on May 15 2009,17:23
Wow... something I actually agree with.  First time for everything.

< http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html >

Posted by TPRJones on May 15 2009,17:40
QUOTE
"We're not at war with people in this country."

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the last 50 years.

Posted by Malcolm on May 15 2009,18:41

(TPRJones @ May 15 2009,19:40)
QUOTE
QUOTE
"We're not at war with people in this country."

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the last 50 years.

Shit, I'd go sixty-five, easy.
Posted by GORDON on May 20 2009,12:31
< http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277482650736747.html >

QUOTE
We wish these folks luck "working together" with the Obama auto-design team. One thing seems certain by 2016: Taxpayers will be paying Detroit to make the cars Americans don't want, and then they will pay again either through (trust us) a gas tax or with a purchase subsidy. Even the French must think we're nuts.

Posted by GORDON on May 20 2009,13:13
Apparently, no one making under $250k drinks beer.

< http://www.google.com/hostedn....8A3TBG0 >

Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2009,13:58
QUOTE
Taxes on wine and hard liquor would also go up.

And there might be a new tax on soda and other sugary drinks blamed for contributing to obesity. A tax of 3 cents per 12-ounce drink would raise about $50 billion over 10 years, according to congressional estimates. Diet drinks, however, wouldn't be taxed.

The idea behind the proposed increases is to tax lifestyle choices that contribute to rising medical costs.


Fuck you.  Stop forcing companies to insure morons & then pay for them.  Stop legislating my life w\ your already corrupt tax system.  Fuck you.  I'll brew my own beer & distill my own liquor.

Posted by TPRJones on May 20 2009,14:52
Indeed.  It would be much more accurate to state that liberal ideals regarding universal health care and access for everyone to the most expensive and cutting edge medical proceedures are the primary cause of rising medical costs.

Bread and circuses are so last century.  The new paradigm is medical care and broadband access.

Posted by TheCatt on May 20 2009,15:03
He's finally going too far.  The car companies was bad enough... this is just crap.  I hope my car runs forever just to keep polluting more.
Posted by Cakedaddy on May 20 2009,15:15
I was thinking of buying a bunch of cheap trucks now, and then selling them for a ton of money in 6 years.
Posted by GORDON on May 20 2009,16:37

(TheCatt @ May 20 2009,18:03)
QUOTE
He's finally going too far.

Racist.  You just finally hate black people, right?
Posted by GORDON on May 22 2009,11:05
< Obama hates children. >

QUOTE
Thursday was supposed to be the highlight of the year for more than 100 kindergarteners from Stafford County, Va. They got up early and took a chartered bus to the White House for a school field trip. But when they arrived, all the 5-year-olds got was a lesson in disappointment.

Obama Snubs Kids for Steelers?
Watch Video

A group of young students didn't get to tour the White House, and they say it's because of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Take a look at the best photos of President Obama and his family captured during the first few months in office.

The buses from Conway Elementary arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a little later than planned, and they were locked out.

"We were going to the White House, but we couldn’t get in so I felt sad," 5-year-old Cameron Stine said.

Parents say they were just 10 minutes late for their scheduled tour. School officials say White House staff said they needed to get ready for the president's event with the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers, so they couldn't come in.



Kind of a dick move, but whatever.  Got to have lunch with those millionaires.

Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2009,12:20
If it came down to meeting the tour of annoying kids & meeting the Super Bowl champs, I'd pick the same option.
Posted by Leisher on May 22 2009,13:00
QUOTE
If it came down to meeting the tour of annoying kids & meeting the Super Bowl champs, I'd pick the same option.


I don't really blame Obama here. I blame his staff. Obama doesn't set the schedule for these things.

As for the taxes on beer, booze, pop, etc. to pay for health care for all. Fuck you Obama and all the Democrats.

I am sick of paying for the lowest common denominator in this country. I have no problem funding a person or family who has hit hard times medically or needs funds for a bit until they're employed. However, constantly paying for generations of families to never enter the workforce is horseshit.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2009,14:33
10 minutes late, then "go fuck yourselves."  Leader of the free world can't juggle his schedule by 10 minutes... pity.  Another bad PR move by whoever is in charge, there.  Said it before, I'll say it again: It's Amateur Hour in the White House.
Posted by GORDON on May 22 2009,15:04
Is "Pravda" still owned by the russian government?

< http://english.pravda.ru/opinion....alism-0 >

QUOTE
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.


True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.


True, Obama didn't start the fire, but he is definitely throwing all of the gasoline in the world on it.

Posted by Mommy Dearest on May 22 2009,17:30

(Leisher @ May 22 2009,16:00)
QUOTE
QUOTE
If it came down to meeting the tour of annoying kids & meeting the Super Bowl champs, I'd pick the same option.


I don't really blame Obama here. I blame his staff. Obama doesn't set the schedule for these things.

As for the taxes on beer, booze, pop, etc. to pay for health care for all. Fuck you Obama and all the Democrats.

I am sick of paying for the lowest common denominator in this country. I have no problem funding a person or family who has hit hard times medically or needs funds for a bit until they're employed. However, constantly paying for generations of families to never enter the workforce is horseshit.

Yes Obama invented this tactic just like gore invented the internet.  Let's get real and blame the person's\ parties responsible for the last 30 years.  Or just the last 8 years for a start
Posted by GORDON on May 22 2009,17:38
No idea what any of that means, outside of "I hate Bush."
Posted by Vince on May 22 2009,21:09
I'm not even sure what's being bitched about at this point.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on May 23 2009,12:22

(Vince @ May 23 2009,00:09)
QUOTE
I'm not even sure what's being bitched about at this point.

Mine is the fact that Obama did not create taxes on beer, booze or pop.  Blame the responsible parties and most of that would be at each State's level.  I can not think of any Federal taxes on these things but I am sure there are some
Posted by thibodeaux on May 23 2009,12:24

(Mommy Dearest @ May 23 2009,15:22)
QUOTE
I can not think of any Federal taxes on [beer and booze] but I am sure there are some

< What are you smoking? >
Posted by GORDON on May 30 2009,15:54
I think this has something to do with... not allowing to criticize Obama's stimulus plans?

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog....fluence >

QUOTE
First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.  For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.


Not sure.  The wording of these things can be confusing.  But it looks like no one is allowed to bitch.

Posted by Malcolm on May 30 2009,16:14

(GORDON @ May 30 2009,17:54)
QUOTE
I think this has something to do with... not allowing to criticize Obama's stimulus plans?

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog....fluence >

QUOTE
First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.  For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.


Not sure.  The wording of these things can be confusing.  But it looks like no one is allowed to bitch.

The "restriction" appears to say that ...
QUOTE
required all oral communications between federally registered lobbyists and government officials concerning Recovery Act policy to be disclosed on the Internet; barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing; and also required those written communications to be posted on the Internet.


He's expanding the circumstances which require disclosure of docs on the 'net ... I think.  He also appears to be forcing more things to get put down in writing.



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2009,17:34
The Obama/MSM honemoon is still ongoing:

"Obama's Flip-Flops for the Public Good"

< http://news.yahoo.com/s....licgood >

It's basically a list of things Obama lied about in order to get elexcted, but each thing is explained with nuance.

QUOTE
Overall, however, Obama has been praised for his flexibility, not condemned for his flip-flops. One reason, pollsters say, is that he seems such a contrast to the still-unpopular Bush, who was the opposite--stubborn and set in his ways. "When presented with a tough problem where a change of course was called for, Bush just dug in. He felt that it was weakness to change his mind," says a senior Democratic strategist. He cites Bush's positions to limit stem cell research, oppose legislation expanding healthcare for children, enact partial privatization of Social Security, and pursue the Iraq war. In contrast, he says, "Obama is willing to change course if he feels it's needed. The American people will still support him if he is not seen as doing it for political reasons."


Also, get ready for everyone to pay many dimes in new taxes.



Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 05 2009,17:56
Admittedly, I hated that about Bush, too.  So, yeah, I agree.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2009,18:11
If anyone would, I knew it would be you.

I've said since he got nominated that on the issues he is either a lying sack of shit, or he was in for some serious reality checks if he actually got the job.  Now he is flip flopping on... every? campaign promise, and it gets spun as "gee, what a swell guy."  Not like that Bush, with all those policies we hated but Obama is not getting rid of so now we love it.  What are you, racist?

Fuck that.  He's a lying sack of shit, or incompetent.



Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 05 2009,19:02
Pragmatism > Clinging to retarded principles

I don't know about lying sack of shit.  Maybe.  I have little doubt he said some things that he knew he wouldn't be able to deliver.  On the other hand, I'm sure it looks a lot different once you're in office than when you're running a campaign.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 05 2009,19:25
Sounds like he might just possibly be some sort of politician?  I'm just guessing here.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 06 2009,09:22
The irony is that the policies that Obama's flipping on the most are the ones that deal with national security (and taking Bush's stances), and those were the ones that Bush was most criticized for.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 06 2009,09:39
Exactly right.

And, I have a feeling the Government branch of the MSM has been instructed to "prepare" us for across-the-board tax hikes.  "Flip flops are for your own good!" indeed.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 21 2009,16:15

Posted by Cakedaddy on Jun. 21 2009,18:24
Ya.  But it's GW's fault we have to drive that fast.  And because it's still his fault, it's ok now.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 21 2009,20:26
Obama himself is all politician, saying and doing what needs to be said, no matter what, to get power.

His wife has a long and documented history of being an angry black women who hates whitey first, America second.

Obama's LONG time spiritual leader was a documented angry black man who was on record as hating America first, whitey second.

Maybe in retrospect it's a bit ridiculous to think Obama wants anything except to destroy this country as we've known it, except quite a few people suspected it long before he was elected.  These people are currently known as "racists."  This is why Obama is driving the car at 174 mph toward the bridge abutment, with Nancy Pelosi riding shotgun.  Chicago politics married to San Francisco sensibilities, enabled by liberal guilt.  We're fucked.



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2009,13:20
"Cap & Trade Bill" gets closer to being passed.

< http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive....779.php >

Also known as the "Global Warming Tax," or the "Starve and Freeze Bill," this will send our energy bills higher in an already bad economy.  

It's like they weren't trying to destroy the economy fast enough, they need to throw this in the fire, too.

When even the Slashdot crowd is against a so-called environmental bill, you know it's bad news.

Posted by Troy on Jun. 26 2009,13:23
For some reason Slashdot has become my new "spare time waster" of choice at the new job.

Not sure why it wasn't until now.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2009,14:58
They skew really liberal most of the time, but every now and then you get someone really smart discussing a subject.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,06:46
Get ready to have your private health insurance taxed.

< http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDvu77pZr7k4 >

QUOTE
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.

The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.

“I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that often criticizes Democrats’ economic proposals. Edwards said the carve-out “smacks of political favoritism.”

Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is proposing to tax Americans whose health insurance is valued at a higher rate than what is offered to federal employees. About 40 percent of insured Americans have costlier benefits, and Baucus has said he is trying to set the level at which taxes would be imposed high enough so fewer people are affected.


Just too many sarcastic things to say.  I am vapor locked.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,06:48

(GORDON @ Jun. 26 2009,16:20)
QUOTE
"Cap & Trade Bill" gets closer to being passed.

< http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive....779.php >

Also known as the "Global Warming Tax," or the "Starve and Freeze Bill," this will send our energy bills higher in an already bad economy.  

It's like they weren't trying to destroy the economy fast enough, they need to throw this in the fire, too.

When even the Slashdot crowd is against a so-called environmental bill, you know it's bad news.

The bill passed in the House.

< http://hotair.com/archive....d-trade >

I guess now lets see what the Senate does with it.



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,16:58
I wasn't sure whether to put this in the "Global Warming is Bullshit" thread, or here.

< http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html >

QUOTE
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."


Hellooooo Cap & Trade.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 27 2009,18:19
It seems that the new U.S. state-sponsored religion is going back to nature worship.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2009,09:41
Cap & Trade "A huge regressive tax." - Warren Buffet

< http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWee....&page=1 >

QUOTE
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's begin with that vote Friday night in the House, this vote on climate change legislation, very close, 219 to 212. Democrats say it's a major step forward for energy independence, to create green jobs, to control global warming.

But you know the Republicans are saying it's going to cost Americans jobs, going to send jobs overseas. And most important, they say it is a huge tax. And on that they have some backup from one of the president's supporters, Warren Buffett.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN BUFFETT, CEO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. So it -- and it's a fairly regressive tax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you answer that? Republicans say this is the defining vote of 2008. They're going to use that in the 2010 elections.


Bend over, peeps.

And I think Troy said something about Obama working to get the economy back on track?



Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 28 2009,09:46
Obama's grasp of economic concepts is beginning to worry me.  Substantially more than it did a few months ago.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2009,09:52
I'm surprised you think he ever had a grasp of economic concepts.  I never had reason to believe that.


Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2009,13:00
Prepare for the home-lighting gestapo.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....omments >

Something for his youth corps to do... walk the streets at night and drag peeps out of their homes if they have too many lights burning inside.  For mother earth.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 29 2009,13:25
From another article:
QUOTE
The new rules will go into effect in 2012, and will save up to 594 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers up to 4 billion annually through 2042.

Standards will include decreasing electricity use by general service fluorescent lamps by 15% and incandescent reflector lamps by 25%. These lamps represent 37% and 7% of lighting energy use respectively.

So that means that I can still get normal lightbulbs, but they'll use less energy?   I'm ok with that, assuming a cost increase that's not disproportionate to the reduced energy cost.

But I couldn't find anything that gave more details than the above.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 29 2009,13:27
Is there not a single reporter with the brains or balls to ask "Mr. Obama, why do you care about $4 billion dollars that consumers are putting into this country's economy? What good can come from trying to reduce that number? What gives you the right to tell consumers what kind of lamps they can use? Shouldn't you be more concerned with government spending? How much money will it cost taxpayers for you to legislate this plan?"
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2009,13:41

(TheCatt @ Jun. 29 2009,16:25)
QUOTE
From another article:
QUOTE
The new rules will go into effect in 2012, and will save up to 594 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers up to 4 billion annually through 2042.

Standards will include decreasing electricity use by general service fluorescent lamps by 15% and incandescent reflector lamps by 25%. These lamps represent 37% and 7% of lighting energy use respectively.

So that means that I can still get normal lightbulbs, but they'll use less energy?   I'm ok with that, assuming a cost increase that's not disproportionate to the reduced energy cost.

But I couldn't find anything that gave more details than the above.

Today you're getting the most efficient balance between the actual product quality, and the cost.  The government will be putting an end to that.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2009,13:43

(Leisher @ Jun. 29 2009,16:27)
QUOTE
Is there not a single reporter with the brains or balls to ask "Mr. Obama, why do you care about $4 billion dollars that consumers are putting into this country's economy? What good can come from trying to reduce that number? What gives you the right to tell consumers what kind of lamps they can use? Shouldn't you be more concerned with government spending? How much money will it cost taxpayers for you to legislate this plan?"

Dude, isn't it obvious yet that this government's job is to change citizens' behavior, because they know best?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,05:38
No room for more premature babies in Ontario.  Send them away.

< http://cp24.com/servlet....P24Home >

I sure can't wait for all that free health care.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2009,06:08
I was reading an article about retiring to Latin American countries this past weekend.  People int heir 50's were getting health insurance for $2k per year.  Granted, it only covered emergencies.  So what do they do for normal healthcare?  They just pay for it.  A doctor visit is $30.

When I studied in Mexico, almost everyone I knew when to a doctor at least once.  When I went, it was $15, and the prescription he wrote was $5.  (14 years ago, but still, even at 2x cost it's a bargain)

The major differences in Mexico are that a) people don't have health insurance for routine crap.  They just pay for it, and b) they have lower income.  The question is how much it's a or b.  I don't know, but I'd sure love to give market healthcare a chance.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 30 2009,06:12
I saw this on facebook recently:

QUOTE
Lousy healthcare is what most Americans have now. Fixing it will take a long time and a long road and surely a lot of bumper stickers from the Republicans.


The person who wrote that works for the CDC.  Now, does she REALLY think that most Americans have "lousy" healthcare?  To me, "lousy healthcare" means you get poor quality medical goods and services.  Really?  REALLY?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,06:16
I said it long ago.... the fact so many people have their health insurance subsidized by their employers is taking much of the market forces out of the industry.  People don't know how much procedures/visits cost.  They don't have many or any options for care.  Those who provide services aren't allowed to advertise their services as less expensive than a competitor (AMA rules).

So.  Destroy the health insurance industry, save the health care industry.  Instead our government is trying to make an even bigger health insurance industry, partially or wholly government-run.  There is no way it can make the current situation better.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,06:20
And now the government is going to ban one of the few over-the-counter medications that I bother with, Nyquil.

< http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp....2623985 >

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2009,06:55
Oh fucking hell people.  First the pseudofed bullshit, now this?

I'm retiring to Mexico.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2009,09:56

(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2009,08:20)
QUOTE
And now the government is going to ban one of the few over-the-counter medications that I bother with, Nyquil.

< http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp....2623985 >

QUOTE
Government experts say the maximum daily dose listed on Tylenol and dozens of other painkillers should be reduced to help curb deadly overdoses.


How did you get "ban" from that article?  So they want to change numbers on some labels.  Whatever, I don't really read those much anyway.  You'd think they'd've better shit to spend time on, though.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,12:33
If they are forcing a number change, then the product I want is gone without a doctor prescription.  That's where I get "ban."
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2009,12:51

(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2009,15:33)
QUOTE
If they are forcing a number change, then the product I want is gone without a doctor prescription.  That's where I get "ban."

Just take more pills.

In fact....  :p

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,12:52
I wonder if it will get to that point in order to live with how hard the government is assfucking us these days.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 30 2009,16:23
But at least that fascist Bush is out of office...
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,16:51
Captain Non-Meddler publicly supports foreign leaders who seize control of their countries by defying their constitutions.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....estnews >

QUOTE
The U.N. General Assembly's decision to condemn the military coup in Honduras and demand the return to power of President Manuel Zelaya has created a rare incidence of near universal support for a man who has defied his nation's constitution and Congress.

But while Zelaya wins widespread support, including from President Obama as well as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, critics in the United States are asking why the U.S. leader doesn't take a stand against clearly illegal actions by Honduras' ousted chief executive.

"Manuel Zelaya trampled the Honduran constitution by pushing for his illegal referendum to allow him to rule indefinitely, and by firing the top military official, Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, when he refused to comply with Zelaya's unconstitutional orders," said Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla.

Zelaya, the ousted leftist leader, ignored a ruling from the Honduran Supreme Court, warnings from the military and opposition by a sizable swath of his country's population when he maneuvered to amend his country's constitution, apparently in hopes of extending his own rule


Isn't that interesting.  Our President doesn't approve of crowds using violence to gain enfranchisement, but likes presidents who remain in power despite legally being told to step down.



Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2009,17:11
< More details. >

QUOTE
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Posted by Vince on Jun. 30 2009,18:04

(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2009,18:51)
QUOTE
Captain Non-Meddler publicly supports foreign leaders who seize control of their countries by defying their constitutions.

Heh... does it surprise you that he wouldn't want this to set a precedent?

If folks start throwing elected officials out on their ass for having their constitution shit on, he's screwed.



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,18:04
So Catt, in your opinion, in this case is Obama acting evil, or incompetent?  Either he knows the situation and doesn't care, or he doesn't know the situation and still has a public opinion about it.


Or is there some nuanced 3rd option?



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,18:05

(Vince @ Jun. 30 2009,21:04)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2009,18:51)
QUOTE
Captain Non-Meddler publicly supports foreign leaders who seize control of their countries by defying their constitutions.

Heh... does it surprise you that he wouldn't want this to set a precedent?

If folks start throwing elected officials out on their ass for having their constitution shit on, he's screwed.

It was the absolutely first thing I thought of a week ago when it was noticed he didn't have anything to say about the situation.



Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2009,18:17

(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2009,21:04)
QUOTE
So Catt, in your opinion, in this case is Obama acting evil, or incompetent?  Either he knows the situation and doesn't care, or he doesn't know the situation and still has a public opinion about it.


Or is there some nuanced 3rd option?

It is strange to me that he would speak out so quickly on this, yet so slowly on Iran.

If I were to go for a 3rd way it would be: Obama is reacting to the fact that a constitutionally, democratically-elected president is being forced from office by might rather than by vote, even though elections are coming up in November, and believes that the principles of democracy should be followed, and that they outweigh whatever actions the president may have taken.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,18:21
I'll buy that.  I guess there's possibly nothing in their Constitution about what to do when their president goes total outlaw.   Maybe they don't have an allowance for impeachment proceedings?

What would happen if Obama started shooting peeps on Pennsylvania Ave. out the Oval Office window one day, on camera?  Could he be forcibly, immediately removed from office?

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2009,18:49

(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2009,20:21)
QUOTE
What would happen if Obama started shooting peeps on Pennsylvania Ave. out the Oval Office window one day, on camera?  Could he be forcibly, immediately removed from office?

I recall something about there being an "unfit for office" clause somewhere, but I don't know who would enforce it.

It would result in President Biden.  I'm not sure what to think of that.

Posted by Vince on Jun. 30 2009,19:57

(TheCatt @ Jun. 30 2009,20:17)
QUOTE
If I were to go for a 3rd way it would be: Obama is reacting to the fact that a constitutionally, democratically-elected president is being forced from office by might rather than by vote, even though elections are coming up in November, and believes that the principles of democracy should be followed, and that they outweigh whatever actions the president may have taken.

Well, unless Honduras' Supreme Court is vastly different in function from ours, they have pretty much ruled his actions in office as unconstitutional.  From what I can tell, he was attempting to break the law and acting in direct violation of his country's supreme court.

That would kind of negate the whole "constitutionally democratically elected" thing, or at least circumvent it.  He was trying to make himself king for life.

I'm starting to think Obama's evil.  He's starting to make Carter look competent.  Even an idiot should get some of these right by accident at a better rate than Obama has been.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,21:37
Funny thing is, it can be hard to distinguish between "evil" and merely following liberal principles.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2009,03:27

(Vince @ Jun. 30 2009,21:57)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Jun. 30 2009,20:17)
QUOTE
If I were to go for a 3rd way it would be: Obama is reacting to the fact that a constitutionally, democratically-elected president is being forced from office by might rather than by vote, even though elections are coming up in November, and believes that the principles of democracy should be followed, and that they outweigh whatever actions the president may have taken.

Well, unless Honduras' Supreme Court is vastly different in function from ours, they have pretty much ruled his actions in office as unconstitutional.  From what I can tell, he was attempting to break the law and acting in direct violation of his country's supreme court.

Sort of.  It sounds like he was just getting things ready to do something wrong but hadn't done it yet.  Probably a more technically correct way to handle it would have been to let him call the referendum, then declare that act unconstitutional and disallow Congress to act on it because they would have been called improperly.

I can't blame them for jumping the gun, though, if he's dumping generals until he finds some that will do whatever he wants.  If he does enough of that then there's no one left who will stop him when the time comes to do so properly.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 01 2009,10:18
OK, so I read more on Honduras.  WSJ has some great coverage if you read about 5-6 pages in.

Basically, he broke the law.  But, he could have been tried in the courts, or gone through the Honduran legal process instead of being forcibly removed.  He has stated now that he will no longer seek to amend the constitution, nor try to run for office again.  SoS Clinton has stated that the former president's return to power is not a necessary state for resolution of the issue (though I cannot find that online right now).

Protesters today demanding that he not be back in power far out-numbered protesters the other day demanding his return.

I'm guessing he ends up back, probably in power, and serves out his term.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 03 2009,12:46
QUOTE
What If George W. Bush had ...

made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?


If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2009,12:34
< We've always been at war with Eastasia >.

All I see is Eric Cartman droning, "I misinterpreted the rules.  Just repeat after me, I misinterpreted..."

Or even more frightening -- a buddy of mine caught the episode of "Cheers" where Fraiser convinced Woody to run for city council.  The advice he gives appears to've gotten Comrade Obama elected.  Comrade or Czar?



Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 06 2009,14:03
QUOTE
The Wall Street Journal reports Biden's comments were "likely to intensify calls for the administration to do more to counter job losses." White House economists "are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall."

NO

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2009,15:08
I think they mistake the word "stimulus" for "enema."  Or maybe "assfucking."
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 06 2009,19:44

(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2009,16:41)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Jun. 29 2009,16:25)
QUOTE
From another article:
QUOTE
The new rules will go into effect in 2012, and will save up to 594 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers up to 4 billion annually through 2042.

Standards will include decreasing electricity use by general service fluorescent lamps by 15% and incandescent reflector lamps by 25%. These lamps represent 37% and 7% of lighting energy use respectively.

So that means that I can still get normal lightbulbs, but they'll use less energy?   I'm ok with that, assuming a cost increase that's not disproportionate to the reduced energy cost.

But I couldn't find anything that gave more details than the above.

Today you're getting the most efficient balance between the actual product quality, and the cost.  The government will be putting an end to that.

< Maybe not. >

QUOTE
When Congress passed a new energy law two years ago, obituaries were written for the incandescent lightbulb. The law set tough efficiency standards, due to take effect in 2012, that no traditional incandescent bulb on the market could meet, and a century-old technology that helped create the modern world seemed to be doomed.

But as it turns out, the obituaries were premature.

Researchers across the country have been racing to breathe new life into Thomas Edison's lightbulb, a pursuit that accelerated with the new legislation. Amid that footrace, one company is already marketing limited quantities of incandescent bulbs that meet the 2012 standard, and researchers are promising a wave of innovative products in the next few years.

Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

"There's a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly," said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. "There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades."

The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting's Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2009,19:59
QUOTE
Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

What stupid fucking logic.  I bet people run faster when they're being chased by grizzlies, too.  Why not have wild animals "spur" every marathon?



Posted by Vince on Jul. 06 2009,21:31
QUOTE
The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting's Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.

Someone do the math on this.  I somehow suspect that at 200x the cost of an old bulb that the lifespan of most of the new bulbs wouldn't allow for it to ever pay for itself.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2009,22:48
500 cents : 25 cents is 20 : 1.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 07 2009,04:28
Yeah.

Do the math

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 07 2009,05:58
OK, did the math.

Over the life of the bulb, the new ones save $16.45.

Posted by Vince on Jul. 07 2009,19:03
I must be using really crappy bulbs.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 14 2009,19:09
Obama to AARP democratic voting block:  "Suckers."

< http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/07/09/obama-will-repeal-medicare/ >

QUOTE
Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.

It is so ironic that the elderly - who were so vigilant when Bush proposed to change Social Security - are so relaxed about the Obama health care proposals. Bush’s Social Security plan, which did not cut their benefits at all, aroused the strongest opposition among the elderly. But Obama’s plan, which will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing, has elicited little more than a yawn from most senior citizens.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 15 2009,04:31
/Nelson


Posted by Leisher on Jul. 15 2009,05:32
His numbers with the seniors, as pointed out in another column, are now under 50%. I believe his overall job rating is the same.

The next election is going to be interesting. I think Obama's novelty has worn off with everyone except the MSM who still can't get enough of him.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 15 2009,06:03
The MSM is already trying to get him 4 more years.  For some reason.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 15 2009,10:57
< Obama on health care reform. >

The man is a complete and utter fucking moron. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 15 2009,11:37

(Leisher @ Jul. 15 2009,12:57)
QUOTE
The man is a complete and utter fucking moron. 2012 2016 cannot come soon enough.
Fixed.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 15 2009,11:55

(TPRJones @ Jul. 15 2009,14:37)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Jul. 15 2009,12:57)
QUOTE
The man is a complete and utter fucking moron. 2012 2016 cannot come soon enough.
Fixed.

Have you been watching his poll numbers?

I know the MSM is ignoring them, but the tea parties increased in size during the 4th. Some by as much as ten times.

Foreign countries are treating him like shit, and are obviously not afraid of him or even respect him.

His own party is starting to turn on him (Conservative and Moderate Dems).

Obama's novelty has worn off.

Either he doesn't win re-election or the Dems get destroyed in Congress.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 15 2009,12:35

(Leisher @ Jul. 15 2009,13:55)
QUOTE
Either he doesn't win re-election or the Dems get destroyed in Congress.

Emphasis added.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 15 2009,13:02
Maybe.  A fucked up gov't run by Democrats or Republicans ... all seems pretty much the same to me.  There needs to be an alternative.  Otherwise, you may as well fucking roll dice w\ the two parties we currently got.

If a legit third party can't flourish right about now, I don't fucking know what it'll take.  If they can't land a spot in a nat'l televised debate soon, then we're locked in a cycle of mediocrity of decreasing quality.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 15 2009,15:48
So Obama's poll numbers are in the tank.  That means Jack and Squat.  The only poll numbers that matter are the electoral college results in November of 2012.

Who's gonna run against him?  Palin?  The press will destroy her.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 15 2009,16:01
Heard a rumor of Palin forming a new conservative party that was actually conservative.

She might just get the petition numbers to pull it off and get the new party on the ballots, though that will mean little at election time.  Probably.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2009,07:05

(GORDON @ Jul. 15 2009,18:01)
QUOTE
Heard a rumor of Palin forming a new conservative party that was actually conservative.

She might just get the petition numbers to pull it off and get the new party on the ballots, though that will mean little at election time.  Probably.

I wouldn't vote for her if you paid me.  In beer.  Cases of beer.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2009,07:47

(Malcolm @ Jul. 16 2009,10:05)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 15 2009,18:01)
QUOTE
Heard a rumor of Palin forming a new conservative party that was actually conservative.

She might just get the petition numbers to pull it off and get the new party on the ballots, though that will mean little at election time.  Probably.

I wouldn't vote for her if you paid me.  In beer.  Cases of beer.

That's ok.  I plan on forming a competitor to ACORN, and voting twice.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2009,11:22

(GORDON @ Jul. 15 2009,18:01)
QUOTE
Heard a rumor of Palin forming a new conservative party that was actually conservative.

She might just get the petition numbers to pull it off and get the new party on the ballots, though that will mean little at election time.  Probably.

I don't believe that for a second.  Oh, I'm sure it may be true that she's splitting away, but there will be nothing conservative about it.  It'll be straight up Christian Tight-Ass Party all the way.  

Conservative means fewer laws and smaller government, not "We hate butt pirates"

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2009,11:35
I never got that zealot christian vibe from her.  I just got it from the lefties applying it to her.  And everyone else Republican.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2009,11:46
Maybe you're right, I never paid too much attention to her after hearing a bunch of stuff about God come out of her mouth.  Maybe it was just her parroting stuff she didn't believe in order to court the Christian vote.

I'll give her new party platform an honest read.  If it's not full of fundamentalist crap that means expanding government's control over the individual, then I'll join up.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2009,12:58
She reminds me of the parents that would narc on an otherwise decent kegger when they were supposed to be out of town.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2009,13:35
She reminds me of a VPILF.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2009,20:53
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

< http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ >

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2009,00:40

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2009,22:53)
QUOTE
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

< http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ >

QUOTE
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977


You name me one person that old who doesn't've some stupid shit they did back in the 70s they'd like to forget.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 17 2009,05:06

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2009,03:40)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2009,22:53)
QUOTE
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

< http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ >

QUOTE
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977


You name me one person that old who doesn't've some stupid shit they did back in the 70s they'd like to forget.

The depth of your capacity for forgiveness is inspiring.

The scientific method hasn't changed since the 70's.



Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 03 2009,14:30
Alright, his cabinet is getting in the neighbourhood of the first Dubyah administration w\ Ashcroft.  They're getting to be that dense.

I simply can't fathom how they're trying to tie in economic recovery to health care reform.  How the fuck is something that will at least DOUBLE the size of the gov't going to save money?

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 10 2009,07:30
This sums up his first 6 months pretty well:
QUOTE
Obama won, which means you can’t disagree with him or his cronies.

His landslide victory (52%) gives him the right–no, the mandate–to silence dissent as he works to save us all from the best health care system in the world, from our coveted currency, from the hurtful disapproval of the world’s dictators, from our undeserved Bill of Rights, and from the tyranny of oil.

Posted by Vince on Aug. 11 2009,05:51

(Malcolm @ Aug. 03 2009,16:30)
QUOTE
Alright, his cabinet is getting in the neighbourhood of the first Dubyah administration w\ Ashcroft.  They're getting to be that dense.

I simply can't fathom how they're trying to tie in economic recovery to health care reform.  How the fuck is something that will at least DOUBLE the size of the gov't going to save money?

It's never been about saving money.  Europe's proven that time and time again with their healthcare reform.

It's about power and control.  When you can print your own money, there's no power in money, so they're left with controlling our lives to get that rush.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 11 2009,05:56

(Vince @ Aug. 11 2009,07:51)
QUOTE
It's never been about saving money.

They're claiming it is.  Saying that the Obama healthcare reform plan will reduce the national debt, stimulate the economy, save the auto industry, and save the planet from global warming.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 11 2009,09:44
Wow.  Arlen Specter made a complete ass of himself at some meeting in Pennsylvania yesterday.  The dude that provoked him appears to be insane, going on about how god is going to judge him or something.

< click >

QUOTE
SPECTER: I’m encouraging constitutional rights.  I’m encouraging constitutional rights by coming to Lebanon to talk to my constituents.  I could be somewhere else.  I don’t get any extra pay — I don’t have any requirement to be here.

Yeah, sorry to get you off your fucking throne, your majesty.

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 11 2009,10:01
Constitution, eh?  Which part of the Constitution empowers Congress to "reform health care."
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 11 2009,10:04

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 11 2009,12:01)
QUOTE
Constitution, eh?  Which part of the Constitution empowers Congress to "reform health care."

I'm sure they could bullshit some reason, probably involving the interstate commerce clause.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 11 2009,10:27
Wow.  Just, wow.  Clearly he does not know for whom he works.  Here's hoping his constituents let him know.

If they were proposing this as "We want everyone covered, so we're doing it, but it's gonna cost us a lot of $," I don't think there'd be half the anger.  I also think it'd be less popular.  But, for me at least, the anger comes from the fact that they're either 1) lying to us about costs or b) too dumb to know better.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2009,17:37
Probably fake, but amusing in a schadenfreude way... a letter from a grandfather to his granddaughter why he can no longer support her financially...

< http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerki....-ashley >

QUOTE
   John G. is 63 years old and owns a small business. He’s a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year has all but evaporated. With the stock market crashing and new taxes coming his way, John assumes now that he will work to his dying day.

   John has a granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the latest fashions, and loves to go out to nightclub s and restaurants. Ashley campaigned hard for Barak Obama. After the election she made sure her grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received a big I told-you-so earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that her party is taking over.

   Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her 3 bedroom townhouse. Like she has done many times in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply:

      Sweetheart,

       I received your request for assistance.
       Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I’m sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own…”The Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan.” Let me explain.

       Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as you know, but we have never had the fancier things like European vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed. Your president is raising our personal and business taxes significantly.. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less for us, and we must cut back on many business and personal expenses.

       You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my office for more than 23 years? The one who always gave you candy when came over to visit? I had to let her go last week. I can’t afford to pay her salary and all of the government mandated taxes that go with having employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days a week to answer phones, take orders and handle the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will lose even more income to the Wal-Mart.

       I’m also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I called him at school this morning. He already knows about it and he’s upset because he will have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to Greenland to survey the polar bears.

       That’s just the business side of things. Some personal economic effects of Obama’s new taxation policies include none other than you.
       You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. But by your vote, you have chosen to help others — not at your expense — but at our expense.

       If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call 202-456-1111.
       That is the direct phone number for the White House. You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the People’s President, and is going to help every American live a better life. Based on everything you’ve told me, along with all the promises we heard during the campaign, I’m sure Mr. Obama will be happy to transfer some stimulus money into your bank account. Have him call me for the account number which I memorized years ago.

       Perhaps you can now understand what I’ve been saying all my life:
       those who vote for a president should consider the impact on the nation as a whole, and not be just concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Obama supporters don’t seem to realize is all of the money he is redistributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called “less fortunate”) comes from tax-paying families.

       Remember how you told me, “Only the richest of the rich will be affected”? Well guess what, honey? Because we own a business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way, but in the real world, we are far from it.

       As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money; less money for everything, including granddaughters.

       I’m sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry. The free lunches are over. I have no money to give you now.

       So, congratulations on your choice for “change.” For future reference, I encourage you to try and add up the total value of the gifts and cash you have received from us, just since you went off to college, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next 4 (or 8 ) years. I have not kept track of it, Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our hearts.

       Remember, we love you dearly….but from now on you’ll need to call the number mentioned above.. Your “Savior” has the money we would have given to you. Just try and get it from him.

       Good luck, sweetheart.

       Love,

       Grandpa.





Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 16 2009,19:01
I hope the White House phone systems & e-mail servers choke on people calling up & asking for cash.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2009,10:41
< Move along, nothing to see here >.  Revised 10-year deficit forecast -- up @ $2 trillion, for a total of $9 trillion.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 26 2009,11:12
Bush's fault, I'm sure.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 26 2009,11:32
QUOTE
The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget raised its 10-year tally of deficits expected through 2019 to $9.05 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than it projected in February. That would represent 5.1 percent of the economy’s estimated gross domestic product for the decade, a higher level than is generally considered healthy.

The Congressional Budget Office, which unlike the administration did not account for the president’s policy proposals in its latest report, increased its projection of deficits over the next decade. Absent any changes in law, it said the deficit would rise to $7.1 trillion, from $4.4 trillion in March.

The C.B.O. did analyze the president’s budget in June and concluded his proposed tax cuts and spending would push deficits through 2019 above $9 trillion. While the administration now agrees with that figure, technical data in the new C.B.O. report suggests that if it were to review the Obama budget now, it would project deficits through 2019 above $10 trillion, analysts speculated.

So Obama's policies will cost $3 TRILLION more in debt according to the CBO.



Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2009,13:48
I think I'm writing in Alice Cooper for prez next election.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 30 2009,17:53

(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2009,13:41)
QUOTE
< Move along, nothing to see here >.  Revised 10-year deficit forecast -- up @ $2 trillion, for a total of $9 trillion.

Another reason to like Roth IRAs and 401(k)s.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 03 2009,08:02
Obama's "green jobs" adviser:  Republicans are "assholes."

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ssholes >

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2009,08:40
QUOTE
"I apologize for the offensive words I chose to use during that speech," Jones said in a written statement to Politico. "They do not reflect the views of this administration, which has made every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion...

First off, you're higher than Tommy Chong in a B-2 stealth bomber w\ a pound of hash.

QUOTE
He made the remarks ... after a woman ... asked him why President Obama and congressional Democrats were having trouble moving legislation -- even though Republicans, with a smaller majority, didn't have as much trouble earlier in the Bush administration.

"Well, the answer to that is, they're assholes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter.

I'm not faulting anyone for calling someone else an asshole, but this isn't politically intelligent.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 03 2009,08:48

(Malcolm @ Sep. 03 2009,11:40)
QUOTE
I'm not faulting anyone for calling someone else an asshole, but this isn't politically intelligent.

I think you just unintentionally summed up this entire administration, so far.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 03 2009,11:24

(GORDON @ Sep. 03 2009,11:02)
QUOTE
Obama's "green jobs" adviser:  Republicans are "assholes."

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ssholes >

Same guy thinks Bush was behind 9/11.

< http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs....e_blogs >

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 03 2009,11:29
I have a feeling he might be "stepping down" soon. At the very least, I doubt we'll see him giving interviews anymore.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2009,08:11

(GORDON @ Sep. 03 2009,14:24)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 03 2009,11:02)
QUOTE
Obama's "green jobs" adviser:  Republicans are "assholes."

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ssholes >

Same guy thinks Bush was behind 9/11.

< http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs....e_blogs >

Same guy thinks Bush hates black people.

< http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobas....xt=true >

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 04 2009,09:24
QUOTE
Jones quickly involved others in his presentation by lobbing questions back at his audience; each raised hand signaled another person won over. "Is there anyone here who has a recurring dream that there's something you're supposed to be doing?" he asked. "You look at your journal and the same idea keeps coming back? Is there anyone here who ever swallowed hard and took a stand for something that you knew was unpopular? Has anybody in this room ever really, really screwed something up, and then tried again? Well, I would say if you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a social entrepreneur."

The activists hung on Jones' words, captivated by the potential that he described within each of them. He finished with an exhortation worthy of a revival: "Our species is struggling to live through you, through that dream, through that journal entry that keeps recurring," he said, his voice quivering with passion. "I beg you, I beg you, embrace that rule-breaking, life-affirming, risk-taking you that the world needs so desperately right now."


Wow.

I wonder if Morpheus is pissed that this asshole is doing his routine.

It would have been funny if someone had yelled "Thanks, but I'll take the blue pill!"

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2009,09:34
MSM is not interested.

< http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion....02.html >

QUOTE
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.


edit - foxnews.com has it on the front page, but everyone knows how crazy they are... amirite?



Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 04 2009,09:53
writer: "Maybe we should run a story about Van Jones calling Republicans assholes?"
editor: "That's not news, they are assholes."
writer: "True"

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2009,10:05

(TheCatt @ Sep. 04 2009,12:53)
QUOTE
writer: "Maybe we should run a story about Van Jones calling Republicans assholes?"
editor: "That's not news, they are assholes."
writer: "True"

Eh.  I think most people are outraged because if the situation were reversed...

Remember when Cheney called some reporter a "major league asshole?"  We all knew about that.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 04 2009,11:44
Speaking of the MSM...

They apparently published a photo of a Marine in the final moments of life despite his family and the Secretary of Defense asking them to not do so.

< Article. >

Their justification:
QUOTE
"AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is," said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.


It's too bad that the vast majority of the MSM in this country doesn't report on the reality of politics, "however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is."

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 05 2009,22:26
< Under the bus he goes. >

Say hi to Rev Wright while you're down there.

Have you noticed that this sort of news always seems to come during the weekend when it can more easily be buried in the news?



Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 06 2009,06:44
QUOTE
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Translation
QUOTE
Assholes

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 06 2009,10:58
QUOTE
White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after weeks of controversy stemming from his past activism.


I didn't know "activism" = "swearing, cursing."

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 06 2009,11:47
Of course it is.  Just as having kids write an essay on how they can best help Obama is the same as "just telling kids to work hard in school."
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,13:41
I didn't think anyone took Palin seriously any more... now I find that the White House does.  Interesting.

< http://www.politico.com/blogs....in.html >

QUOTE
On Gov. Palin's Attacks

Every non-partisan organization that has looked at her claims say they are false. And the ideas in her op-ed are both scary and risky. Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn't adopt.


Singled out by name.  Very interesting.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 09 2009,14:05
Maybe they just think she's an easy target.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,14:24
They give her significance by not ignoring her.  What, are they worried about her?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 09 2009,14:57

(GORDON @ Sep. 09 2009,16:24)
QUOTE
They give her significance by not ignoring her.  What, are they worried about her?

If everyone else is taking potshots at her, why not them?  It's just a matter of "taking on" someone who's got a recognizable name to push a goddamned agenda.  Next time the punching bag politician of the year trophy gets awarded, I'm sure they'll be personally disagreeing w\ the new winner.

& sure, maybe they lend a bit of credit to her for singling her out, but not that much.  You can't shoot someone down in the press unless you draw a bit of attention to it.  Nature o' the beast.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,15:34
I just honestly didn't think anyone took her seriously, any more.

I'm not saying I don't understand her resigning the governorship; she was getting sued into bankruptcy with "ethics violations" lawsuits, but it still tastes like she got beaten, to me.  I didn't have any expectations of her being politically relevant anymore.  But now, she has a divisive President gunning for her.  Like I said, interesting.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2009,18:41

(GORDON @ Sep. 09 2009,17:34)
QUOTE
I just honestly didn't think anyone took her seriously, any more.

That's probably exactly why they mentioned her, thus equating those opposed to their plans with her.



Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,19:09

(TPRJones @ Sep. 09 2009,21:41)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 09 2009,17:34)
QUOTE
I just honestly didn't think anyone took her seriously, any more.

That's probably exactly why they mentioned her, thus equating those opposed to their plans with her.

But doesn't this just rally everyone around her who already disagree with Obama?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2009,19:12
At this point anyone who still takes Palin seriously is never going to agree with any plan Obama would come up with.  They aren't the audience of this sort of thing.  It's designed to associate their opponents with her in the minds of those in the middle, or those on their side but not yet in agreement with them.

And the more people that rally with Palin, the more effective the tactic becomes with their target audience.



Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,19:12
Ok.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 12 2009,14:17
< What the fuck? >
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 12 2009,16:03
All Obama's missing here is an aircraft carrier and a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2009,10:31
< I've got to get some of what Diamond Joe Quimby's smoking >.

QUOTE
The bailouts have largely stabilized the financial system, but regulatory reform is needed to prevent a similar crisis from happening again, said President Obama in a speech delivered Monday on Wall Street.

Yeah, we need more regulation.  We don't have enough bullshit laws already.  It can work, if only the right people & rules were in charge.

Fucking bullshit.



Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 14 2009,10:55
I'm in favor of at least two regulations:
1) Forcing contracts such as the credit default swaps to be traded in structured markets, with some form of collateral posting. (Devil is in the details)
2) Fiduciary duty requirements for brokers.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 16 2009,06:09
I'm too lazy to look it up, but someone here predicted this tactic:
< Disagreeing with Lord Obama makes you racist. >

You'd think that the worst president in history wouldn't be anxious to defend the guy that's on pace to take his title.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 16 2009,09:12
QUOTE
Carter, a Democrat, said Joe Wilson's outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.

Where the fuck were you four years ago?

& Carter's not the worst prez in history.  Maybe top 10.  He is proving to be an extraordinarily ignorant ass, though.



Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2009,11:16
Sooo tired of the race card.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 18 2009,14:32
Obama throws away eastern European missile shield, tells Poland to go fuck themselves, 70 years to the day after the Soviet Union took them over.

< http://www.foxnews.com/opinion....-russia >



Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 18 2009,18:27
I'm beginning to think that the reason the rest of the world likes Obama so much is the same reason frat boys invite stupid college freshmen females to their keggers.

Easy target.

Posted by DoctorChaos on Sep. 18 2009,19:52
And Bush was said to have ruined US relations with the rest of the world.

What a jackass.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 18 2009,21:19

(DoctorChaos @ Sep. 18 2009,21:52)
QUOTE
And Bush was said to have ruined US relations with the rest of the world.

What a jackass.

He had the diplomatic finesse & rhetoric skills of an anvil.  On the other hand, a walking vagina isn't any better.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 19 2009,04:46
I guess the question is:  is it better to be a dick, an asshole, or a pussy?
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 19 2009,05:57
We simply went from one extreme to the other.

We had the cowboy who said things needed to be done his way, and if you don't like it, then get out of our way.

Now we've got the equivalent of a  pathetic girl in high school who's willing to sleep with anyone just so that people like her.



Posted by DoctorChaos on Sep. 19 2009,09:17
How is throwing Poland under a bus pleasing everyone?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 19 2009,11:39

(DoctorChaos @ Sep. 19 2009,11:17)
QUOTE
How is throwing Poland under a bus pleasing everyone?

It's getting Russia off our back so they'll be more apt to throw in w\ us on bitchslapping Iran & N. Korea, which will in turn go a long way towards getting China off our backs over the same issues.

Fucking U.N. security council veto power.



Posted by Leisher on Sep. 19 2009,13:11
Poland is in the AV Club. Sure, they're a good friend, but you can shit on them, and they'll take it because they're happy to just have a friend.

Russia is a cool kid who doesn't give a shit if you're friends or not.

And what Malcolm said about making them happy to get their backing on the security council is valid.

International diplomacy was not Bush's strong point, but again, that doesn't make Obama awesome at it by default.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2009,20:34
Ten points to whomever can find where, in these forums, I said Obama would be bailing out newspapers.

It may have even been in this thread.

< http://thehill.com/blogs....-bill?h >

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 21 2009,03:47
QUOTE
Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy,"


Then why is he bailing out the newspapers?

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 21 2009,05:14

(TPRJones @ Sep. 21 2009,05:47)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy,"


Then why is he bailing out the newspapers?

Following that, he said ...
QUOTE
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

You're concerned that online news outlets don't fact check?  That media may degenerate into one meaningless soundbyte after another?  Yeah, that'll be a shitty day when that happens.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 21 2009,05:18
Hmmm, I thought most newspapers were already non-profits.

*groan*

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 01 2009,17:05
If you've lost Big Bird, you've lost middle America.


Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 01 2009,18:34
So, should we delete this thread to protect the two people who selected the second answer to this poll up above?  Before the feds come and take them away like they did with the Facebook poll?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 01 2009,18:51
I dunno, I'm guessing the feds are still trying to figure out what assinated means.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 02 2009,10:03
Interesting clip from Conan.

Do they reflect his views or are they going after the older, more conservative leaning audience that they've lost since Leno left?

Posted by Mommy Dearest on Oct. 02 2009,11:24

(TheCatt @ Oct. 01 2009,21:51)
QUOTE
I dunno, I'm guessing the feds are still trying to figure out what assinated means.

That is really funny :p
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 02 2009,13:25
Rio gets the 2016 Olympics.

Funny because Chicago was first out the the MSM made such a big deal of Obama making a big deal out of it.

< http://espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4525513 >

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 04 2009,13:38
< wow >
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2009,15:34
Tina Fey leaves SNL, and look what happens....

Obama may have gotten nothing accomplished so far, but have you seen his abs??!!??

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 05 2009,19:54

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 04 2009,16:38)
QUOTE
< wow >

CNN feels obligated to fact-check the skit.

< http://hotair.com/archive....ls-skit >

When did they start checking facts?

Zing.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 09 2009,04:52
< NO FARGIN WAY >
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 09 2009,05:04
Yeah.  I just heard that on the morning news on the way in to work.

I know Europe has a love fest, but my first reaction was "I wonder what the middle east thinks of this?"

Basically, it sounds like "America will listen to Europe again - have a prize!" more than anything.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 09 2009,05:19
Wait, I thought they only gave that prize to terrorists.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 09 2009,06:16
Best comment so far:
QUOTE
There also has to be some significance to the fact that Obama wins the prize on the day that the US bombs the freaking moon.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 09 2009,07:03
Well, Obama sure has united and brought peace to our country.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 09 2009,07:11
If it makes you feel better, the deadline for nominates was two weeks after he took office.  So whomever nominated him had to do so before it was revealed that he's all talk and no action.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 09 2009,07:24
Well, I liked the Fark headline that Obama has now been linked to Yassar Arafat.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 09 2009,07:27

(TPRJones @ Oct. 09 2009,10:11)
QUOTE
If it makes you feel better, the deadline for nominates was two weeks after he took office.  So whomever nominated him had to do so before it was revealed that he's all talk and no action.

So before he even did anything, he was nominated?  wtf?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 09 2009,07:36
Well, at least then he had a higher approval rating than he has now, before everything he touched failed.  Like what he has going now.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 09 2009,08:26
Obama just made a speech about it.  I was expecting the Presidential version of JJ Walker's "DY-NO-MITE!" (which is a Nobel Prize joke... get it?), but I guess he was sufficiently humble.  He said he didn't feel he deserved it, but.... he pretty much said it was a mandate from the rest of the world about his direction for America, or something.

Anyway, his acceptance could have been worse.  I think it would have been classier for him to decline it completely.

Posted by unkbill on Oct. 09 2009,09:26

(TheCatt @ Oct. 09 2009,07:27)
QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Oct. 09 2009,10:11)
QUOTE
If it makes you feel better, the deadline for nominates was two weeks after he took office.  So whomever nominated him had to do so before it was revealed that he's all talk and no action.

So before he even did anything, he was nominated?  wtf?

What you talking about Alice. Don't you realize he is the new JFK.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 09 2009,10:54
Al Gore has a Nobel prize for his scam...oh, I mean his fight against the evil man-made global warming (that most scientists think is bullshit).

So why should Obama getting a Nobel peace prize for doing nothing at all, aside from giving lip service, be a shock?

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 09 2009,11:13
Goddamnit.  I should've just put a bottle by my bed last night & started drinking first thing this morning/afternoon/whatever.

Fucking hell.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 09 2009,11:58
From a facebook friend:
QUOTE
it is officially harder to get an honorary degree from Arizona State than a Nobel Peace prize. Congratulations to the President of the United States.


I wanted to respond: "At least one of those two is still worth something"



Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 09 2009,12:04
From gizmodo:
QUOTE
Researcher Mohd Abubakr says that his circular periodic table is better than Mendeleev's. I'd have given him the Nobel in chemistry—if Obama hadn't got it first for mixing himself a whiskey with Red Bull onboard Air Force One.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 09 2009,13:24

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 09 2009,14:07
Ha.... < Write in Obama for the Heisman Trophy. >
Posted by unkbill on Oct. 09 2009,14:52
Why(Google) did I have to live to see this? I really wouldn't care if I thought the man did something. But he was JFK before he was elected. Show me some shit and I will honor you.   Well I guess his wife is half black and came from slaves. Cheese and Rice.


Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 10 2009,08:31
Why didn’t Obama also win the Nobel prize for literature?

Because he has written a book.



Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 10 2009,09:15

(TPRJones @ Oct. 10 2009,11:31)
QUOTE
Why didn’t Obama also win the Nobel prize for literature?

Because he has written a book.

I think they have a "1 per year" limit... but give it time.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 11 2009,05:12
< Obama wins two Grammies....seriously >.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 11 2009,10:05

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 11 2009,07:12)
QUOTE
< Obama wins two Grammies....seriously >.

Spoken word albums?  My fucking god.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 11 2009,11:29
< Problems? >  Obviously the gov't isn't making enough rules.

QUOTE
"They're [the banking & finance industries, I assume] doing what they always do, descending on Congress, using every bit of influence they have to maintain the status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers, despite the fact that recently a whole bunch of those same American consumers bailed them out as a consequence of the bad decisions that they made," Obama said

Yeah, we bailed them out.  Fuck you.  You deserve a prostate exam done by Pinhead.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 13 2009,11:03
QUOTE
The Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is defending its choice amid criticism that the U.S. president has not done enough to deserve the award.

In rare comments to media, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland tells The Associated Press that "we simply disagree that he has done nothing. He got the prize for what he has done."

Jagland says Obama reached out to the Muslim world and "modified" a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

Jagland and three other members of the five-seat Nobel panel told the AP that they had expected criticism of their decision. One of them, Aagot Valle, said some of the criticism was patronizing toward Obama.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 13 2009,12:46
What kind of planet do we live on where removing a system for the defense from missiles considered an act of peace?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 13 2009,13:29
That's it?  "Reached out" to the Muslim world?  Wtf?  Are you high?

< People who got fucked >.

EDIT : Just got into the article.

[URL=Then again, I’m not a dweeby Scandinavian former Socialist party intellectual who doesn’t get out much and thus thinks it’s a miracle sent by God if a black man talks in complete paragraphs and graduates from Harvard Law School.]Dayum[/URL].



Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 13 2009,13:35
Seeing as how I royally fucked that up...

QUOTE
If I’d been reviewing it [some other nominee's credentials] as a member of the selection committee it would have knocked my socks off.  Then again, I’m not a dweeby Scandinavian former Socialist party intellectual who doesn’t get out much and thus thinks it’s a miracle sent by God if a black man talks in complete paragraphs and graduates from Harvard Law School.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 19 2009,10:35
This administration is a steaming burrito of stupidity and paranoia.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33376836/ns/politics-white_house/ >

QUOTE
WASHINGTON - White House advisers have stepped up their attacks on Fox News, claiming the cable television network is a Republican mouthpiece whose programming "is geared toward making money."

Several critics questioned the wisdom of the move while one of President Barack Obama's top adviser pledged Sunday that administration officials would still appear on the top-rated cable news network.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 19 2009,11:48
Morons.

It's been proven time and time again that while Fox might be conservatively slanted, they're nowhere near as biased as the other MSM outlets.

One example of many, and the most recent: The New York Times tried it's best to cover up the ACORN story for fucks sake. Yeah, the president and other democrats might have received a shit ton of fraudulent votes, but that's not news according to the New York Times.

It's also interesting that the Obama administration is doing it's best to not let the crumbling ACORN get investigated...

P.S. Did you hear that they're looking at the election Franken won for fraud as ACORN did a lot of campaigning and voter registration up there?

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 19 2009,11:57
That's a shame.  He's just about the only politician I have any respect for at all.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 19 2009,12:00
Franken?
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 19 2009,16:20
Yeah.  I know, it's crazy.  When he was just a political commentator/comedian I hated him.  But now that he's actually doing stuff he's got some chutzpa.  And he's honest.  It's refreshing, even if he's still a pinko commie bastard.


Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 19 2009,16:54

(TPRJones @ Oct. 19 2009,18:20)
QUOTE
Yeah.  I know, it's crazy.  When he was just a political commentator/comedian I hated him.  But now that he's actually doing stuff he's got some chutzpa.  And he's honest.  It's refreshing, even if he's still a pinko commie bastard.

Yeah, it was great only having one senator from the state for months on end while the courts decided who won.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 28 2009,12:00
Why, man, < he doth bestride the narrow world >
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 28 2009,13:55
whut?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 28 2009,14:25

(TPRJones @ Oct. 28 2009,15:55)
QUOTE
whut?

Julius Caesar.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2009,14:45
< Let's spend more. >  To quote Jon Lovitz, "Yeah, that's the ticket."
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2009,14:47
If you REALLY want to help people, give them tools that generate wealth.  Give them a good education, one that fucking matters.  Make science and technology majors FREE rides at public universities.  Fuck liberal arts majors.

(Ed note: I was a liberal arts major, but mine was the only liberal arts major that was in the top 5 starting salaries)

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 05 2009,14:57

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2009,17:47)
QUOTE
If you REALLY want to help people, give them tools that generate wealth.  Give them a good education, one that fucking matters.  Make science and technology majors FREE rides at public universities.  Fuck liberal arts majors.

Some people are just not helpable.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 07 2009,12:19
< Uh, yeah >.

QUOTE
President Obama promised American Indian leaders that he would reverse years of neglect ...

Uh, how?  He's planning to give back all the land we took?

QUOTE
"Today's summit is not lip service," Obama said Thursday in remarks opening a daylong tribal conference in Washington. "I get it. I'm on your side. I understand what it means to be an outsider.

I got a buddy of mine whose personal history seems to change depending upon the conversation at hand.

If he's talking to someone who had a large family, then he relates tales of his dozen or so stepsisters/stepbrothers/cousins he grew up w\.  If he's around someone's whose an only child, his story miraculously changes to, "Yeah, I know what it's like to grow up without any siblings."  There're words for that -- pandering, patronizing, & condescension.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 07 2009,14:35
How about "bullshit?"
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 14 2009,05:51
China has spoken... now Obama will think about reducing spending.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33910089/ns/politics-white_house/ >

QUOTE
China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, has expressed concern about the size of U.S. deficits. U.S. policymakers worry that alarm over deficits could push foreigners into cutting back on their purchases of Treasury debt.


Thanks, China!

If you recall, the lack of ID verification on Obama's campaign contribution website allowed anyone in the world to donate to his campaign.



Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 18 2009,13:03
< Incompetence or perfidy? >
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 18 2009,13:57
From the way I understand it, the site accepts whatever the recipients give it.  Call it bad programming for allowing free entry where it should limit it to things that actually exist, call it bad planning by giving money to people that are stupid, either way I'm betting simple incompetence on this one.

For now.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 18 2009,14:28
And I'm sure the money is given right back when errors are found in the donation process.  Perfidy.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 22 2009,10:08
SNL is ripping Obama pretty hard, now.

Honeymoon's over.


Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 22 2009,10:34
Ouch.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Nov. 30 2009,10:57
Watched that full episode.  They sure let Al Gore pimp the shit out of his new book and gave him the podium for a few to lecture us all on global warming.
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 30 2009,12:31
Maybe they'll make fun of him next week, now that the fraud has been revealed.
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 30 2009,13:05
< This article > was front page on Yahoo this morning.

Another one run over the weekend was extremely critical of Obama's presidency thus far and was front page on Yahoo for the better part of the day. (I forget which day.)

This is stunning for Yahoo who has a habit of running left leaning articles, and quickly removing anything that could paint Dems badly.

Posted by Leisher on Dec. 10 2009,07:24
< Obama committed to beginning withdrawal of troops in 2011. >

I just love that headline. It's so re-election oriented.

It might as well say, "Obama pledges to make it look like he's ending things in Afghanistan prior to the next election."

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 27 2010,12:57
< AIG gets another hundred billion or so >.  $182 billion, actually.  But it's all good ...

QUOTE
Geithner said taxpayers could recover the cost of the AIG bailout if lawmakers support an Obama administration proposal that would impose a $90 billion fee over ten years on financial institutions.

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 30 2010,16:05
< Obama backs ... nuclear power >?

$20 says this is a bargaining chip.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 30 2010,16:10
even Greenpeace has admitted they really screwed up by opposing nuclear power.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 12 2010,16:18
Obama wants warrentless cell phone tracking.

< http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html >

QUOTE
...the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts.


Unlike Bush's warrantless wiretapping on incoming/outgoing overseas calls that sent the left into an uproar, this actually bothers me.  They can't even begin to pretend this is aimed at foreigners.  This is straight-up tracking of American citizens.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 14 2010,14:15
Obama "Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA"

< http://www.osnews.com/story....ks_ACTA >

QUOTE
And thus, our true colours reveal. Since Obama was the young newcomer, technically savvy, many of us were hoping that he might support patent and/or copyright reform. In case our story earlier on this subject didn't already tip you off, this certainly will: Obama has sided squarely with the RIAA/MPAA lobby, and backs ACTA. No copyright and/or patent reform for you, American citizens!

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 14 2010,14:50
I think I voted for mediocre.  So far he's either that or Jimmy, and I think I'm leaning towards Jimmy.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 15 2010,08:44
I probably voted mediocre.  He's still got a year or two of fuck-ups before I'll call him Jimmy.  But he's sure as shit on the shady side of mediocre.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,18:11
Looks like Obama got his nationalized health care passed.

Enjoy your higher taxes.  Enjoy the cost of all goods and services increasing since these additional costs will be passed on to consumers.

< http://www.google.com/url?sa=....DZ5NyFw >

QUOTE


• Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel enrollees' policies because they got sick, or to place lifetime caps on their policies' payouts.
• Children can stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
• Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 will be eligible for tax credits to cover up to 35% of their insurance premiums.
• The Medicare payroll tax will go up by 0.9% to 2.35% on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples
• And various taxes on health care plans, drug importers, and medical device manufacturers.


Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 21 2010,18:14
Welcome to a continued world of health care inflation, dumbasses.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,18:17
The wife wants to leave the country, now.

What is the most fiscally conservative, socially liberal country on earth?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,18:22
One thing I am curious about... does this mean ALL business must now offer health insurance to ALL employees?

I know someone on this forum who will be absolutely screwed, if so.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 21 2010,18:37
No

QUOTE
As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,18:41
Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from WHAT requirement.... to provide coverage, or to pay that $2k penalty?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,18:48
Some TV news show just said that Caterpillar Corporation has reported this new nationalized health care is going to cost them an additional $100 million a year.

Which will be passed on to consumers.  Just want to reiterate that.

Maybe they will lay some people off to compensate.  That is a good idea in the Obama Recession.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 21 2010,18:51

(GORDON @ Mar. 21 2010,21:41)
QUOTE
Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from WHAT requirement.... to provide coverage, or to pay that $2k penalty?

I thought to provide coverage.  I mean, if there's no penalty, then they aren't being required, right?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,18:56
So here's the thing.... if small companies aren't required to cover all employees, then the employees, part time or otherwise, are required to cover themselves.

A lot of part time employees will be working only to pay for their government-required insurance, now.  Which wont even kick in for another 4 years.

This is an absolute clusterfuck.

Granted, I don't know a lot of the ins and outs, especially since no one has even seen the entire Bill, isn't that right?  Including all the peeps who voted for it?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 21 2010,19:59
I strongly suspect Democrats are going to get their asses kicked in the next election cycle.

And then when Republicans have 2/3 of the House, there will be a Constitutional Amendment making government run health care illegal.



Posted by Leisher on Mar. 21 2010,22:02
QUOTE
there will be a Constitutional Amendment making government run health care illegal.


I support that.

Posted by Troy on Mar. 22 2010,06:29
Bill really doesn't do much for anyone but Health Care Companies.

Actually, most of it seems designed to shovel money at them while removing restrictions on how much they can charge, and mandating that we have to pay them.

Fuck lobbyist.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 22 2010,06:45

(Troy @ Mar. 22 2010,09:29)
QUOTE
Bill really doesn't do much for anyone but Health Care Companies.

Actually, most of it seems designed to shovel money at them while removing restrictions on how much they can charge, and mandating that we have to pay them.

Fuck lobbyist.

I've been saying this from the start.  This just screws things up even more.

Here's my health care bill:
1) All health care expenses are tax deductible (insurance, pills, whatever).
2) Health care providers must offer the same rate to everyone.  Whatever the lowest rate they charge is to any health insurance company, they must offer to everyone.

There's more needed, but that would have been a good start.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,06:45
Ohio is one of the states going to sue over the constitutionality.  NC is not.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,06:46
I can't believe I am going to be forced by my government to buy a product I do not want.
Posted by Troy on Mar. 22 2010,07:06
Still not sure who this bill was supposed to make happy.

Fiscal Conservatives hate it for all the reasons you guys are posting.

Liberals can (I guess) see it as a first step towards a UHC like Britain/Spain whatever. But it doesn't even do that, instead, it firmly entrenches the private system with even more power, which will lead to even more profits, which will lead to even more lobbyist.

It's like the reason Communism can never work: human nature. The idea is that by requiring everyone to join a private insurance company, the healthy people will feed the system again. Those same healthy people that supposedly pulled out during the Recession, causing the private insurance pools to be full of expensive sick people, resulting in higher rates.

But Insurance companies aren't going to lower rates, even if more feeders join in. Profits and Power let them put up a smokescreen of shitty math and lobbyist that will sit directly in the pockets of government officials, D/R alike. Basically we just wrote the insurance companies a blank check. Fuck.

In conclusion: Buy stock in Health Care Companies.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 22 2010,08:19
This officially gives Obama a shittier record than his predecessor.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,09:48
Someone needs to tell me how much this is going to cost me so I can adjust spending accordingly.  If I now have to buy health insurance, I can't be buying something else.

Gosh darn simple math.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 22 2010,11:43
But now the government will pay for it all for you, right?
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 22 2010,12:20
< McCain says they're going to repeal it. >

The thing that got lost in the MSM's coverage (and it was most likely intentional) is that the majority of Americans didn't want this bill passed.

So to me, the most important thing about this bill was that our representatives voted against their constituents wishes.

That's scary shit. I told the wife "This is going to be the justification for some nutjob(s) to get violent". Place your bets now on when that's going to happen.

I also want to point out the typical Democrat "pay for votes" tactic in the bill. Among the immediate benefits are allowing people to stay on their parents' plan until they're 26 and paying for senior citizens' prescriptions. I guess buying votes is ok as long as you can disguise it as "helping people".

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 22 2010,12:56

(Leisher @ Mar. 22 2010,14:20)
QUOTE
< McCain says they're going to repeal it. >

Yeah, I trust the adaptable, dynamic, responsive, in-touch, charismatic leaders of the GOP to derail this thing ... just like they failed to do for the past several months.

QUOTE
He said he was repulsed by "all this euphoria going on" and argued that "outside the Beltway, the American people are very angry. They don't like it and we're going to repeal this."

Were there any mass demonstrations outside the White House today?  Congress?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,13:37
So I've heard "16,000 new IRS agents to process this new system."

How does the IRS figure into this?

Posted by Troy on Mar. 22 2010,14:17

(GORDON @ Mar. 22 2010,13:37)
QUOTE
So I've heard "16,000 new IRS agents to process this new system."

How does the IRS figure into this?

I believe you are fined by the IRS if you don't have medical coverage by X year.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 22 2010,14:21
Now's the time to get into the IT-medical field or start those med school classes.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 22 2010,14:37
Well, the good news is you now have the right to abuse any fat ass who super sizes their french fries, you know, since we're all in this together.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 22 2010,14:42

(TheCatt @ Mar. 22 2010,16:37)
QUOTE
Well, the good news is you now have the right to abuse any fat ass who super sizes their french fries, you know, since we're all in this together.

Crap.  That corollary had been lying dormant in my brain up till this point.  Fuck, how long before FDA- &\or department of health-inspired legislation crops up that makes sweeping changes to what substances we can consume in processed foods?  Like New York's proposed ban on salt, except on the national level?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,15:54
John Spartan, you have been fined one-half credit for violation of the Language Morality Act.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 22 2010,16:25

(Malcolm @ Mar. 22 2010,14:56)
QUOTE
Were there any mass demonstrations outside the White House today?  Congress?

No, because the people who hate it are all busy having jobs.  The bums that have time for a quick spontaneous march on Washington because they don't have to go to work all like it fine.  But then they aren't the ones paying for it.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 22 2010,17:03

(GORDON @ Mar. 22 2010,17:54)
QUOTE
John Spartan, you have been fined one-half credit for violation of the Language Morality Act.

They couldn't build the machine to keep up with me.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,17:13
I think we'll just need MD to take the HEALTH INSURANCE OR ELSE class after April 15 and tell us all how screwed we are.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 22 2010,17:59
Here's my healthcare plan:
$100 for running shoes for everyone every six months.
1 annual checkup to tell people what to work on.

Taxes on tobacco and fatty foods to pay for it.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,18:14
Heard speculation that companies that provide a health insurance plans... may stop.  The penalty for companies with >100 employees is cheaper than actually providing health insurance, per employee.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Mar. 22 2010,19:01
Well you all have "heard" lots more than I have.  I am reserving my opinion until I find out what it is all about, which so far has been lots of rumors and speculation.  I want to see the end results, then I can decide how it will affect me and mine.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 22 2010,19:41
I think it was Pelosi who said "We need to pass the bill so we can see what is in the bill."
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 22 2010,20:53
QUOTE
John Spartan, you have been fined one-half credit for violation of the Language Morality Act.


I have been saying for years that the writers of that film were prophets.

QUOTE
Well you all have "heard" lots more than I have.  I am reserving my opinion until I find out what it is all about, which so far has been lots of rumors and speculation.  I want to see the end results, then I can decide how it will affect me and mine.


Yeah, I don't need to shoot myself to know that I'm not bullet proof.

It doesn't matter how you feel about the issue of health care. It doesn't matter how you feel about society taking care of those who can't or refuse to take care of themselves. The real issue is that our elected officials passed a bill into law that most Americans did NOT want to be made a law. The Democrats have officially told the American people that they think we're too stupid to run our own lives.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 22 2010,21:28
Hasn't that been the basis of their entire platform for generations now?
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 22 2010,21:34
QUOTE
Hasn't that been the basis of their entire platform for generations now?

That's been the underlying plan for both political parties for quite some time.  I can barely classify members of Congress as people anymore.  They're their own separate subspecies.

EDIT : In order to swipe a few pachyderm votes, I hear there's promise that $0 will fund anything relating to abortions.  Compromise : another word for a half-assed solution that nobody wants.



Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 23 2010,04:25

(TheCatt @ Mar. 22 2010,20:59)
QUOTE
Here's my healthcare plan:
$100 for running shoes for everyone every six months.
1 annual checkup to tell people what to work on.

Taxes on tobacco and fatty foods to pay for it.

< Running is bad for you. >

< Eating animal fat is good for you. >

Of course, the problem is, the government agrees with YOUR wrong ideas about health, and therefore so do most doctors.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 23 2010,05:08
Old people who run 26 miles at a time may have heart stress?  The hell you say!  Oh wait, his results weren't even statistically significant anyway.

And by fatty foods, I meant more like cakes/french fries.  I eat animals every meal, and bacon every day for breakfast.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 23 2010,05:25
Actually, his dietary philosophy isn't so different from mine.  My carb/fat/protein ratio is within his range.  But I still use grain oils.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 23 2010,06:25
QUOTE
. Can you imagine sending $600 per month to your “grocery insurer” and having to get pre-authorization for your pastured butter and grass-fed beef?

He read my < article >!

Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 23 2010,06:42

(TheCatt @ Mar. 23 2010,08:08)
QUOTE
Old people who run 26 miles at a time may have heart stress?  The hell you say!  Oh wait, his results weren't even statistically significant anyway.

Whatever.  Look, do what you want to on your bum knee, but the fact is that you'd be better off not running.  < Listen to this guy, too >

I used to run, spending several hours per week just running, but I got wise and stopped.  Now I weigh 40 lbs less.  I'm back to my high school dimensions.  I work out MAYBE 30 minutes per week, lifting weights.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 23 2010,07:02

(TheCatt @ Mar. 23 2010,07:08)
QUOTE
Oh wait, his results weren't even statistically significant anyway.

Technically acurate, but misleadingly stated.  His results are stistically more likely to be true than to be false.  Not by enough to be accepted as a firm result, but by enough to be well worth further study.

In the meantime, I for one plan to not run anywhere for any reason.  Just in case.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 23 2010,11:56
< Lawsuit filed. >

13 states involved.

Most interesting part of the article:
QUOTE
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.


Maybe, but the 10th amendment has been used previously to call federal laws unconstitutional, and in each case it involved the feds trying to make states foot the bill for enforcement of a federal law, which this bill apparently does.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 23 2010,13:20
I'd love to see a single state say "Our citizens aren't paying for this, and keep your fucking IRS agents out of our borders."
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 23 2010,14:18
Did anyone watch the signing of the bill into law, today?

I had to turn it off because it was too embarrassing and gross to watch Biden giving Obama a beej on live tv.

Apparently I JUST missed the f-bomb.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 23 2010,17:28
As I understand it, Obama made a deal with the pro-life democrats to sign another bill that stipulated abortions would not be paid for with government money, in order to get their "yes" votes on the big bill.

Looks like Obama might be telling them, "Fuck off, chumps.  I aint signing shit."

< http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010....imation >

QUOTE
President Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law Tuesday. He did not sign the executive order on abortion negotiated with Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak in an 11th-hour arrangement that may well have saved the entire health care reform effort.

A White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so. Stupak predicted Obama would sign the order later this week. The White House said only that Obama would sign the order "soon."



Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 23 2010,17:59
QUOTE
Lawsuit filed.  13 states involved.


QUOTE
"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead."

I'll do it.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 23 2010,19:06

(Malcolm @ Mar. 23 2010,20:59)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Lawsuit filed.  13 states involved.


QUOTE
"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead."

I'll do it.

And that's where these arrogant fucks think they've won.

They think they've passed legislation that assures them votes from the ignorant masses and if anyone fights them on it, they can scream "What about the children?!"

Hey bitch, what about MY children? I have a job and I bust ass to ensure they're covered. I want them to have good medical care, not government run horseshit. If I wanted to pay for someone else's kids to be covered I'd give money to charity. That's why they're there. They help the people who need it.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ISN'T A FUCKING CHARITY!!

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 23 2010,21:15
The math alone frightens me ...

The country in the world nearest to the U.S. in terms of population with universal health care is Japan.  They've got about 127 million folk.  The U.S. has about 310 million.  Now take a gander at < this chart thingy >.

Posted by unkbill on Mar. 24 2010,06:57

(Malcolm @ Mar. 23 2010,21:15)
QUOTE
The math alone frightens me ...

The country in the world nearest to the U.S. in terms of population with universal health care is Japan.  They've got about 127 million folk.  The U.S. has about 310 million.  Now take a gander at < this chart thingy >.

That they live 4 years longer with less baby deaths for about a third of what we pay for health care?
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 24 2010,07:22
No, that we spend so much mor ethan everyone else already, and we just signed into law policies that will likely double or triple that cost per capita.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 24 2010,08:17

(unkbill @ Mar. 24 2010,08:57)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 23 2010,21:15)
QUOTE
The math alone frightens me ...

The country in the world nearest to the U.S. in terms of population with universal health care is Japan.  They've got about 127 million folk.  The U.S. has about 310 million.  Now take a gander at < this chart thingy >.

That they live 4 years longer with less baby deaths for about a third of what we pay for health care?

They've also got one of the highest suicide rates in the world and their economy is fucked in every orifice.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 24 2010,13:10

(GORDON @ Mar. 23 2010,20:28)
QUOTE
As I understand it, Obama made a deal with the pro-life democrats to sign another bill that stipulated abortions would not be paid for with government money, in order to get their "yes" votes on the big bill.

Looks like Obama might be telling them, "Fuck off, chumps.  I aint signing shit."

He signed it.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....bortion >

Though I don't know why this would be done in a private room with no press allowed.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 24 2010,13:44

(GORDON @ Mar. 24 2010,15:10)
QUOTE
Though I don't know why this would be done in a private room with no press allowed.

I can speculate that he doesn't want his fucking commie support base to figure out he's playing both sides.
Posted by unkbill on Mar. 25 2010,06:40

(TPRJones @ Mar. 24 2010,07:22)
QUOTE
No, that we spend so much mor ethan everyone else already, and we just signed into law policies that will likely double or triple that cost per capita.

I'm not totally on board with it costing so much more yet. We are actually already paying for the uninsured. If you go to the hospital they can not refuse service. If you can't pay the state ends up paying for the indigent. Where does the state get the money.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 25 2010,06:49
Sure, for basic emergency care that is true.  But now everyone will have insurance.  This means those people that go to the doctor for every little thing, those people that waste way too much time and money because someone else is paying for it and they don't have a job so they've got plenty of free time to find new ways to complain about something, they'll all be going to the doctor.  Constantly.  And we'll be paying for it.


Posted by Leisher on Mar. 25 2010,06:54
QUOTE
Sure, for basic emergency care that is true.  But now everyone will have insurance.  This means those people that go to the doctor for every little thing, those people that waste way too much time and money because someone else is paying for it and they don't have a job so they've got plenty of free time to find new ways to complain about something, they'll all be going to the doctor.  Constantly.  And we'll be paying for it.


And on the other end of the spectrum, people who don't want health insurance or never visit the doctor, for example 18-29 year olds, are now being forced to pay for something they don't use.

But somehow this is legal.

I'm still waiting for Christian Scientists to sue on the basis of religious freedom.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 25 2010,07:06
Oh, I hadn't thought of that.  That should be fun.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2010,07:55
It's a sad day when I'm forced to cheer for that group of religious zealots.  Fuck Jimmy Carter, B. Rock's got the potential to beat out Hoover for being oblivious to reality.
Posted by unkbill on Mar. 25 2010,09:56

(Leisher @ Mar. 25 2010,06:54)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Sure, for basic emergency care that is true.  But now everyone will have insurance.  This means those people that go to the doctor for every little thing, those people that waste way too much time and money because someone else is paying for it and they don't have a job so they've got plenty of free time to find new ways to complain about something, they'll all be going to the doctor.  Constantly.  And we'll be paying for it.


And on the other end of the spectrum, people who don't want health insurance or never visit the doctor, for example 18-29 year olds, are now being forced to pay for something they don't use.

But somehow this is legal.

Well if that's the case I would like to stop paying school taxes. I have been out for 25 years now. Why do I have to pay for someone else your kid to be educated.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2010,10:21

(unkbill @ Mar. 25 2010,11:56)
QUOTE
Well if that's the case I would like to stop paying school taxes.

Yeah, so would lots of folk.  However, I honestly wouldn't mind supporting a sane, well-defined, effective education system.  Too bad this country doesn't have one of those.
Posted by unkbill on Mar. 25 2010,16:31

(Malcolm @ Mar. 25 2010,10:21)
QUOTE

(unkbill @ Mar. 25 2010,11:56)
QUOTE
Well if that's the case I would like to stop paying school taxes.

Yeah, so would lots of folk.  However, I honestly wouldn't mind supporting a sane, well-defined, effective education system.  Too bad this country doesn't have one of those.

That is a great idea. To bad people are always in the way. Hey lets get rid of people?Heh
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 25 2010,18:41
Eat the poor.

Would also take care of the health insurance "problem."

Posted by unkbill on Mar. 26 2010,04:37
Soylent Green could solve the worlds problems.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 26 2010,11:06
< Stop.  Spending.  Money. >
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 26 2010,12:29
Health Insurance forbidden under Islam.

Uh oh.

< http://sweetness-light.com/archive....r-islam >

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 26 2010,12:33
Clearly we all need a religion.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 26 2010,16:21
IIRC, insurance is also not allowed under Christianity and Judaism.  But I could be wrong about that.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2010,00:30

(TPRJones @ Mar. 26 2010,18:21)
QUOTE
IIRC, insurance is also not allowed under Christianity and Judaism.  But I could be wrong about that.

Is that the "it's really gambling" Ned Flanders defense?
Posted by unkbill on Mar. 27 2010,06:53

(GORDON @ Mar. 26 2010,12:29)
QUOTE
Health Insurance forbidden under Islam.

Uh oh.

< http://sweetness-light.com/archive....r-islam >

This must be for Moslems that live around Dearborn, MI. Because I don't know any that don't have insurance.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2010,08:33
Infidels.  Haraam.  Fatwa!
Posted by unkbill on Mar. 27 2010,09:04

(GORDON @ Mar. 27 2010,08:33)
QUOTE
Infidels.  Haraam.  Fatwa!

Yes. I asked the wife she says most of her family back home have insurance. This would be Dearborn or middle east shit. But I wonder if it can be challenged on a religious basis. What about the Amish.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 27 2010,11:07
All because a religion says something is so doesn't mean people won't ignore that.  Because most people don't approach their religion in an honest and logical manner, they just make up any old shit that suits their needs that day.

After all, if they were capable of rationality they wouldn't be religious in the first place.



Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2010,15:18
1.  Health care "reformed."

2.  S&P 500 companies report billions in losses, reductin of benefits to employees.

3.  Democrats don't like people complaining, order CEO's to testify to congress.

< http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025940.php >

QUOTE
   Good post on the true cost of ObamaCare. But it gets better: the Dems are now shaking down CEOs who don't get with the program. In the attached letter, Henry Waxman not only orders the CEOs of AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co, and Verizon to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee, but also to produce internal analyses and emails related to their statements. They don't expressly subpoena the CEOs, so we can hope that they tell the Dems to GFY, though somehow I doubt that will happen.

   The Dems sent these letters to the Republicans on the committee after 6pm tonight with no advance notice or prior cooperation.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2010,15:24
Obama issues 15 recess appointments.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36067527/ns/politics-white_house/ >

Most transparent and open government in history!

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2010,17:32
wrt #2: It's been $1.25 billion so far.  The issue was that basically companies could double count certain expenditures for retirees twice towards tax write-offs.  The law makes it so that they can only deduct it once.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 29 2010,08:38

(GORDON @ Mar. 27 2010,17:24)
QUOTE
Obama issues 15 recess appointments.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36067527/ns/politics-white_house/ >

Most transparent and open government in history!

QUOTE
"I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government," Obama said in a statement.

Wow, yeah.  Your ideas always sound better when no one's there to disagree.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 29 2010,15:58

(TheCatt @ Mar. 27 2010,19:32)
QUOTE
wrt #2: It's been $1.25 billion so far.  The issue was that basically companies could double count certain expenditures for retirees twice towards tax write-offs.  The law makes it so that they can only deduct it once.

That doesn't change the fact that it's going to cost them an ass load of money.

My grocery store used to double my coupons.  Now they don't.  I'm out more money.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2010,08:15
< "And now a taste of things to come ..." >
QUOTE
As difficult as it was, passing the health care bill is only "a critical first step" in overhauling the system so that it "works for all Americans," President Obama told NBC's Today show.

Fuck only knows what the other steps are.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 30 2010,09:09
Nationalizing all the hospitals.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2010,11:07

(TPRJones @ Mar. 30 2010,11:09)
QUOTE
Nationalizing all the hospitals.

I'm just waiting for the next influenza virus to hit.  Even if it's only slightly worse than the average cold, I just want to see the numbers skyrocket.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 30 2010,11:18
I've been hearing that a lot of doctors plan on quitting if health care is actually nationalized... I don't know how much of that is bluster and hype, though.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 30 2010,11:59
Remember how all the liberals moved to Canada when Bush won his second term?  And all the republicans followed them because of Obama?

Yeah.

However, I do expect we'll see med school enrollments plummet.  But then the feds will get desperate, and will start paying the way through for anyone able to do it.  And when the success rates are crap they'll start relaxing standards to keep from having the whole system collapse under the collective failure of it all.  Then, of course, there'll be a bunch of incompetent doctors around and the whole system will collapse under the collective failure of them all.  On the bright side the feds will make it illegal to sue any of their doctors for malpractice, so there's that much at least; everyone they maim will have no recourse.



Posted by GORDON on Mar. 30 2010,18:50
The MSM declares war on everyone tho hates Obamacare.

Nice little summary.



And... "Like a page out a time machine..." ?

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 30 2010,21:37
< Racist Tax? >

The MSM seems to be mocking the guy who said this, but technically he's got a point.

And why replace the 5 percent taxes on cosmetic surgery and botox treatments with this one anyway?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2010,14:33
Stimulus money spent in Democratic districts over Republican districts at a 2.5:1 ratio.

Yep, the era of petty politics is certainly over.

< http://corner.nationalreview.com/post....DY0MzE= >

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2010,14:49
A trip in the Way Back machine to 2005... when dissent was legal.



Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 31 2010,15:28
Money shot 4:05 in
Posted by Cakedaddy on Mar. 31 2010,17:18
That is truely a page out of a time machine.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2010,06:48
I remember when Bush's 5.6% unemployment was a disaster for the economy, and proof that he was incompetent for the job.

I also remember the warnings that unless Obama's stimulus was passed, unemployment could be over 9%.

< http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm >



Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2010,07:02
Dear kids,

Get an education:
QUOTE

Total, 25 years and over
7.3 8.2 8.3 8.3
Less than a high school diploma
13.8 15.2 15.6 14.5
High school graduates, no college
9.1 10.1 10.5 10.8
Some college or associate degree
7.3 8.5 8.0 8.2
Bachelor's degree and higher
4.4 4.9 5.0 4.9

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2010,08:15
Only goes up to Bachelor's degrees?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2010,08:33

(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2010,11:15)
QUOTE
Only goes up to Bachelor's degrees?

"and higher"

But yeah, they dont break out professional or master/doctoral degrees.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 05 2010,08:41
QUOTE
I remember when Bush's 5.6% unemployment was a disaster for the economy, and proof that he was incompetent for the job.

I also remember the warnings that unless Obama's stimulus was passed, unemployment could be over 9%.


Well, let's be honest, they're still blaming Bush, and they will continue to do so as long as they think the public believes it.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2010,09:19

(Leisher @ Apr. 05 2010,10:41)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I remember when Bush's 5.6% unemployment was a disaster for the economy, and proof that he was incompetent for the job.

I also remember the warnings that unless Obama's stimulus was passed, unemployment could be over 9%.


Well, let's be honest, they're still blaming Bush, and they will continue to do so as long as they think the public believes it.

The next 2.5 - 6.5 years?
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 05 2010,10:06

(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2010,12:19)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Apr. 05 2010,10:41)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I remember when Bush's 5.6% unemployment was a disaster for the economy, and proof that he was incompetent for the job.

I also remember the warnings that unless Obama's stimulus was passed, unemployment could be over 9%.


Well, let's be honest, they're still blaming Bush, and they will continue to do so as long as they think the public believes it.

The next 2.5 - 6.5 years?

Exactly.

After that, I think even they know it'd be a stretch to continue blaming Bush.

I don't think Bush did anything in office that will have a lasting effect, ala The New Deal.



Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2010,10:27

(Leisher @ Apr. 05 2010,12:06)
QUOTE
The next 2.5 - 6.5 years?[/quote]
Exactly.

After that, I think even they know it'd be a stretch to continue blaming Bush.

I don't think Bush did anything in office that will have a lasting effect, ala The New Deal.

The Homeland Lack of Security Department.  The unquestionable authority of the TSA.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2010,10:35

(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2010,13:27)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Apr. 05 2010,12:06)
QUOTE
The next 2.5 - 6.5 years?

Exactly.

After that, I think even they know it'd be a stretch to continue blaming Bush.

I don't think Bush did anything in office that will have a lasting effect, ala The New Deal.[/quote]
The Homeland Lack of Security Department.  The unquestionable authority of the TSA.

I was going to say that... but the New Deal changed just about everything in the country.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2010,10:41
I think my 4 year old son could have come closer to throwing a strike.

That was Kerryesque.


Posted by Leisher on Apr. 05 2010,11:04
Wow, that pitch was way left!  :D
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2010,11:12

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2010,12:35)
QUOTE
The Homeland Lack of Security Department.  The unquestionable authority of the TSA.[/quote]
I was going to say that... but the New Deal changed just about everything in the country.

Yeah, well, I just booked a flight, so guess which it uppermost in my mind.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 05 2010,12:22

(TheCatt @ Apr. 05 2010,10:02)
QUOTE
Dear kids,

Get an education

Perhaps there's a correlation, but not a causation.  Maybe education level is a proxy for some other variable that is more important to employability.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 05 2010,18:39
Like motivation, drive, and a sense of personal responsibility?

Look at the unemployment rates for those without even a high school diploma.  That's pretty easy to get these days, too.  These aren't just your average screw-ups, these people work hard at being a drain on society.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2010,23:00

(TPRJones @ Apr. 05 2010,20:39)
QUOTE
Like motivation, drive, and a sense of personal responsibility?

Drive.  Plenty of irresponsible motherfuckers get quite far in life.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2010,10:40
< This is just begging to be ripped to shreds >.

QUOTE
Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a "wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package.

"We are over-taxed as it is," Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. "Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have," the president said.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 06 2010,13:37

(TPRJones @ Apr. 05 2010,21:39)
QUOTE
Like motivation, drive, and a sense of personal responsibility?

No, I figure it's intelligence..
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 07 2010,07:15
Possibly, but that could just be another correlating factor with what I mentioned, too.

There's a reason "slow" also means stupid.  Dumber people - generally speaking - are less likely to be goal-oriented and proactive and all that.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2010,07:35
My brother and brother-in-law are plenty intelligent, but neither finished their degrees.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 07 2010,09:10

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2010,10:35)
QUOTE
My brother and brother-in-law are plenty intelligent, but neither finished their degrees.

You do understand correlations, right?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2010,09:13

(thibodeaux @ Apr. 07 2010,12:10)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2010,10:35)
QUOTE
My brother and brother-in-law are plenty intelligent, but neither finished their degrees.

You do understand correlations, right?

Yes, just saying it isn't just intelligence.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 07 2010,10:37
I still don't understand what the big deal is about unemployment.  Every time I've decided to get a new job, I've always gotten a pretty good offer from someone within three days.  If I hold out a whole week I usually find something great.  And I'm not that special - no degree, no official professional qualifications, no easily-identifiable classification of profession, even.  It's just not that hard to find a job.

The problem isn't people that can't find work, it's people not willing to take the work they can find.  And I'm not talking about McDonald's, either, I mean decently good jobs that people think they are too good to do.  That or they just aren't looking hard enough to begin with.

Bah.  Unemployment is - in most cases - a choice.  I have little sympathy.



Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2010,10:54
I'm going to guess you're smarter than 98% of the population.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,11:07
I've found that at least 50% of getting hired in a white collar environment is being friendly and personable.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 07 2010,11:35
I won't argue with you about that, TheCatt.  :)

Partly it's just a matter of volume, really.  I define "not trying hard enough" as failing to complete at least 20 applications a day.  Less than that if you have several interviews to go to, as those can eat up some time.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2010,11:43

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2010,13:07)
QUOTE
I've found that at least 50% of getting hired in a white collar environment is being friendly and personable.

The other 50% is knowing the right people.  It's got pretty much zero to do w\ the skills you have.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,12:11

(Malcolm @ Apr. 07 2010,14:43)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2010,13:07)
QUOTE
I've found that at least 50% of getting hired in a white collar environment is being friendly and personable.

The other 50% is knowing the right people.  It's got pretty much zero to do w\ the skills you have.

As a programmer interviewing here and there, I would typically meet 4 or 5 people in the organization, including a senior programmer.   The sr programmer would ask me 4 or 5 tech questions that could be answered in a single sentence.  That was usually the extent of the technical questioning.

The rest of the interview was me being seen as a fun guy to work with.

edit - Only once did "knowing someone" get me in the door for an interview.



Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2010,13:00
Knowing someone's essentially the main reason I got my current gig.  That & the fact that the 30+ UI developers we have somehow can't even write one DB query competently.  Why grab 10 clients at once when you could grab one client ten times?
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,13:21
Aaaaaaaaand let's all be sure to enjoy our new national sales tax.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ded-tax >

Can someone dig up the quote where Barack Asshole said he'd never impose a tax on peeps making (changing dollar amount) per year?

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 07 2010,13:51
If it's to replace the Income Tax, then that's not a bad idea IMO.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 07 2010,13:54
2 people voted correctly in the poll.

Obama = Carter.

The bad part is I think he wants to trump Carter as the worst president ever.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,14:09

(TPRJones @ Apr. 07 2010,16:51)
QUOTE
If it's to replace the Income Tax, then that's not a bad idea IMO.

I saw absolutely nothing in that article that suggested eliminating the income tax.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2010,14:11

(TPRJones @ Apr. 07 2010,15:51)
QUOTE
If it's to replace the Income Tax, then that's not a bad idea IMO.

QUOTE
"If, at the end of the day, we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.

He also said that Congress might also have to consider new taxes on carbon and energy.

I just waiting for the, "Why don't we just print more money," argument.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2010,14:12

(Leisher @ Apr. 07 2010,15:54)
QUOTE
2 people voted correctly in the poll.

Obama = Carter.

The bad part is I think he wants to trump Carter as the worst president ever.

He's getting close.  But he's still got a bit to go.  When I'm waiting in line for an hour or two to buy gas at the pump, we'll talk.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,15:16
Wasn't that a direct result of price caps on gasoline?

They've already passed price caps on medical procedures, haven't they?  That will be the gas-shortage equivalent.



Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 07 2010,15:46

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2010,12:13)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Apr. 07 2010,12:10)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2010,10:35)
QUOTE
My brother and brother-in-law are plenty intelligent, but neither finished their degrees.

You do understand correlations, right?

Yes, just saying it isn't just intelligence.

But thanks to the Supreme Court, it's illegal to use IQ tests to screen employees.  So you find something that's correlated.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,16:13
This liar says he wants higher taxes, and thinks everyone else should, too.

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....43.html >

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2010,16:30

(Leisher @ Apr. 07 2010,16:54)
QUOTE
2 people voted correctly in the poll.

Obama = Carter.

The bad part is I think he wants to trump Carter as the worst president ever.

Yes, and Volcker was/is a pox on us all due to those exact two people.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2010,16:31

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2010,19:13)
QUOTE
This liar says he wants higher taxes, and thinks everyone else should, too.

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....43.html >

Hey dumbasses, guess what?  The government ALREADY ACCEPTS ALL DONATIONS.

Send all you want!

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2010,16:33
Instead of sending extra money to the bureaucracy... buy another boat.  Give your landscaper a raise.  Anything.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 07 2010,16:41
I'm pretty sure if they write a big fat check to the government it won't be turned down.  Until they've done that themselves they can shut the fuck up about making other people do it.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 09 2010,08:12
I guess it is too early to be discussing Obamacare... not even state government know what the hell is going on with it:

< http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=475804 >

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,07:49
"Obama's Secret Power Grabs"

< http://www.foxnews.com/opinion....a-carol >

The only reason I don't take that chart at face value is that I don't think the man is intelligent or experienced enough to be that devious.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,09:03
The idiots actually canceled their own health insurance when they passed the Bill.

< http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html?hpw >

And there's no doubt in my mind they will ignore the new law in order to get "theirs."  Which is not an optional for us regular people, of course.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,14:26
< Your transparent government at work >.
QUOTE
The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."

Yep.  Those CSPAN cameras must just be invisible.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,14:39
< Not enough primary care doctors?  Just promote some nurses >.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2010,14:47

(Malcolm @ Apr. 13 2010,17:39)
QUOTE
< Not enough primary care doctors?  Just promote some nurses >.

I'm OK with this.  Doctors need more competition.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,14:59

(TheCatt @ Apr. 13 2010,16:47)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 13 2010,17:39)
QUOTE
< Not enough primary care doctors?  Just promote some nurses >.

I'm OK with this.  Doctors need more competition.

I'm fine w\ it if they're trained properly.  It doesn't take a damn genius to dispense most prescriptions or diagnose/treat lots of illnesses.  But you can't be a complete twit, either.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,16:08
Will the nurses also be regulated by the AMA?  If so, there's still no competition for doctors.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2010,16:16

(GORDON @ Apr. 13 2010,19:08)
QUOTE
Will the nurses also be regulated by the AMA?  If so, there's still no competition for doctors.

I think this quote from the article answers your question:
QUOTE
The American Medical Association, which supported the national health care overhaul, says a doctor shortage is no reason to put nurses in charge and endanger patients

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,16:29
Hmm.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,20:20
Why wouldn't everyone just compensate by jacking up the requirements/costs/fees/insurance for what you need to be considered a "nurse?"
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,20:22
Why don't we just make membership in the AMA optional?

But now we're getting off topic.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 14 2010,04:52

(Malcolm @ Apr. 13 2010,23:20)
QUOTE
Why wouldn't everyone just compensate by jacking up the requirements/costs/fees/insurance for what you need to be considered a "nurse?"

Well, for now, nurses cover a wide range of services.  And this is a way for the ANA to grab more of the healthcare lottery that Obama got passed.
Posted by unkbill on Apr. 14 2010,05:57
For years, nurse practitioners have been playing a bigger role in the nation's health care,

My dad had one at the VA for years before I found out he wasn't a doctor. As far as I was concerned he was as good as a doctor and had to have everything approved threw a doctor.
Pharmacy's do it everyday. In Ohio there only has to be one pharmacist for every thirteen people working in the pharmacy.  I think the ratio should be smaller but they haven't killed me yet.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 14 2010,07:38
QUOTE
My dad had one at the VA for years before I found out he wasn't a doctor.


That's because the VA is easily the worst government run health care system in the world. You NEVER see a doctor upon your first visit. You're lucky if you ever see one. They simply don't pay for them.

If the government can't take care of this country's veterans, how good do you think health care for normal people is going to be?

Posted by unkbill on Apr. 15 2010,06:19

(Leisher @ Apr. 14 2010,07:38)
QUOTE
QUOTE
My dad had one at the VA for years before I found out he wasn't a doctor.


That's because the VA is easily the worst government run health care system in the world. You NEVER see a doctor upon your first visit. You're lucky if you ever see one. They simply don't pay for them.

If the government can't take care of this country's veterans, how good do you think health care for normal people is going to be?

I think my dads NP was a great guy who did his job well. As for government run health care. To me the VA and gov run health care are worlds apart. The VA they just screw the vets. In the world of medicine there is a lot of money to be made.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 15 2010,11:24
QUOTE
I think my dads NP was a great guy who did his job well.


That's great, however my comments had nothing to do with whether or not that nurse was any good.

And one person being a good nurse doesn't mean the system isn't fucked. For your one good nurse I'll give you thousands of fucked over vets.

QUOTE
As for government run health care. To me the VA and gov run health care are worlds apart.


Please explain that. Is it because the government runs one, and the government runs...the...other...? It's the same thing.

QUOTE
The VA they just screw the vets.


I know you don't mean that as if it's a positive...

QUOTE
In the world of medicine there is a lot of money to be made.


In what way do you think "there is a lot of money to be made" equates to good health care, particularly in a socialized system?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but all these countries with socialized health care are bankrupt or going bankrupt. On top of that, do you know where their rich people and difficult cases go to get proper medical care? HERE!!!

Will someone make a lot of money off socialized health care? Yes. Will it be done in the name of giving us good health care? No, it'll be the exact opposite. Remember, cutting costs means more money...

Posted by unkbill on Apr. 15 2010,11:40
I consider the VA as one step better than nothing. The only way to treat vets worse would be to shut it down. It does have some good points but lack many more.
As for other countries going bankrupt. We aren't exactly on top of things. Might as well join them.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 15 2010,12:05

(unkbill @ Apr. 15 2010,13:40)
QUOTE
As for other countries going bankrupt. We aren't exactly on top of things. Might as well join them.

Maybe we should stop spending so much cash buying everyone in the country a health care pony, then.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 15 2010,12:28
I approve of all these changes.  It just brings us that much closer to the Second Revolution and the founding of America II.
Posted by unkbill on Apr. 15 2010,12:38

(TPRJones @ Apr. 15 2010,12:28)
QUOTE
I approve of all these changes.  It just brings us that much closer to the Second Revolution and the founding of America II.

Amen
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 15 2010,13:29
QUOTE
I consider the VA as one step better than nothing. The only way to treat vets worse would be to shut it down. It does have some good points but lack many more.
As for other countries going bankrupt. We aren't exactly on top of things. Might as well join them.


If our forefathers thought that way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Posted by unkbill on Apr. 15 2010,17:05

(Leisher @ Apr. 15 2010,13:29)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I consider the VA as one step better than nothing. The only way to treat vets worse would be to shut it down. It does have some good points but lack many more.
As for other countries going bankrupt. We aren't exactly on top of things. Might as well join them.


If our forefathers thought that way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

That might be true. But look what our own government does to the people that fought so we could argue. Every person that ever served should have a free medical ride for life. And make that the best medical available. I think you are aware of what they get.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 15 2010,17:09
Sheeeit, former service members aren't even allowed to sue the government if they found out the water they drank on Camp Lejeune for 3 years was tainted with paint thinner.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 15 2010,19:24
He mocks tax protesters.

< http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic....TION=US >

Does this guy ever even pretend to have class?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2010,19:26
Wow, look what happens when your polling numbers are plummeting.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ailures >

You pander in a different direction.



Posted by DoctorChaos on Apr. 18 2010,07:02
The Waffle House is open 24/7  :)
Posted by Malcolm on May 19 2010,08:04
< Report on why the Nigerian Ralph Wiggum got through our system that we pump BILLIONS of dollars into >.

Short version : Everybody, everywhere fucked up in every way.

Long version/speculation : Will be used as fodder to "overhaul" more airport security procedures.



Posted by Leisher on May 25 2010,20:30
< This is interesting. >

The timing more than anything in that all this stuff with Arizona is going on.

Arizona passed their law because the feds weren't doing anything about illegals, the Dems bash that law, polls show actual citizens (voters) like it, and now this move.

I don't see how this is anything but a loss for the Dems and Obama. Arizona forced him to get off his ass, and if the Dems support it, they look like hypocrites to the Mexican-Americans that can vote.

Posted by Leisher on May 25 2010,20:35
< Obama asking Republicans for help in passing his agenda. >

Ignore how the MSM tries to cover up Obama's reason for visiting by suggesting the whole article is nothing more than Republicans bashing Obama.

They, of course, buried the best part in the last two paragraphs:
QUOTE
He questioned "the audacity" of Obama's asking for Republican help Tuesday after bipartisan talks on financial reform broke down and his landmark health-care bill passed solely on Democratic votes.

"My question is again: How can you reconcile that duplicity? You say that, but then the big issues have been constructed in such a way to absolutely be partisan," Corker said. "How can you come in on a Tuesday after [the financial bill vote]? . . . It was odd to me."


Unbiased journalism my ass.

Posted by unkbill on May 26 2010,05:55
"My question is again: How can you reconcile that duplicity?

The way I see it you man up and try. If you don't try you are part of the problem not the solution. If you don't try it is playing politics as usual. Same shit both parties trying to fuck one another while this country swirls down the sewer.

Posted by Leisher on May 27 2010,06:27
QUOTE
"My question is again: How can you reconcile that duplicity?

The way I see it you man up and try. If you don't try you are part of the problem not the solution. If you don't try it is playing politics as usual. Same shit both parties trying to fuck one another while this country swirls down the sewer.


So even though he's been and continues to be a complete asshole to them, refusing to include them in things, going around them on votes, mocking them openly in private and public, blaming them for everything wrong with the country, etc.

THEY need to "man up and try" to pass HIS agenda so he can promote it for his toads in November or they're "part of the problem"? Even though they completely disagree with his agenda of handouts and anti-capitalism?

Really?

How about considering those forgotten people in all of this, the voters, who according to all polls didn't want health care, don't think Congress is worth a damn, don't think Obama is doing a good job, and overwhelmingly don't think the country is on the right track? Don't you think someone should be protecting their interests and standing up to Obama and the Dems and their wild spending spree?

These elected officials are our representatives, not our rulers.

Unk, I'm just trying to point out that if a man did you wrong multiple times over, blamed you for your troubles to anyone who would listen, etc. How likely would you be to give him a favor when asked, knowing that he's still going to bad mouth you and take credit for any good things that come from your favor? Meanwhile, your family is taking it in the shorts.

Be honest, you most likely wouldn't bend over backwards for the guy, so why do you think the Republicans should?

And in case you've forgotten, when the Republicans had control of Congress like the Dems do now, the Dems refused to work with them on any and all issues. they walk out of meetings, blast the Republicans for not attempting to work with them, etc. Meanwhile, word from circles in the know in DC were saying that while the Republicans were attempting an ill thought out strategy of full bipartisanship, the Dems' strategy was to demand all their concession be met on all issues to prevent the Republicans from getting anything done. The Dems' plan worked.

So again, you think the Republicans should "man up and try" even though the Dems didn't?

Don't you think that maybe you're being a bit unfair to the Republicans? Don't you think Obama and the Dems could probably back off on some of their agenda a bit to promote bipartisanship? After all Unk, right now they have all the power. Isn't bipartisanship really completely up to them at this point?

Unk, I wanted to add that I hope you know I'm not picking on you or attacking you (because I responded to another of your postings elsewhere too). I just want both sides to be held to the same standard. And I might be in a bit of a argumentative mood this morning...



Posted by unkbill on May 27 2010,08:21

(Leisher @ May 27 2010,06:27)
QUOTE
THEY need to "man up and try" to pass HIS agenda so he can promote it for his toads in November or they're "part of the problem"? Even though they completely disagree with his agenda of handouts and anti-capitalism?

Really?

Yes if they want my respect and possible a vote, Yes. And not to just pass his agenda. I do remember him offering to sit down with them to discuss issues. Maybe getting some of there issues in with other bills. Do something good for this country for a change. Instead of taking care of there own asses.
Posted by unkbill on May 27 2010,08:25

(Leisher @ May 27 2010,06:27)
QUOTE
How about considering those forgotten people in all of this, the voters, who according to all polls didn't want health care, don't think Congress is worth a damn, don't think Obama is doing a good job, and overwhelmingly don't think the country is on the right track? Don't you think someone should be protecting their interests and standing up to Obama and the Dems and their wild spending spree?

From the polls I have seen 50% want and 50% don't want health care. That is not a majority of people.
I believe the wild spending spree started under and was endorsed by Bush to help bail out Wall street.

Posted by Leisher on May 27 2010,08:26
QUOTE
Yes if they want my respect and possible a vote, Yes. And not to just pass his agenda.


But again I have to ask, why hate them for doing more (in a good way) than the Dems did back when they were in the same position?

QUOTE
I do remember him offering to sit down with them to discuss issues.


Per everyone on both sides of the aisle, that's been all lip service for the cameras. You can't ask to sit down with someone and in the same breath say "We're going to pass this with or without you."

QUOTE
Maybe getting some of there issues in with other bills.


Kind of like how the health care bill is LOADED with favors for all the Dems who voted for it?

QUOTE
Do something good for this country for a change. Instead of taking care of there own asses.


And again, I hope you're not just pointing to the Republicans there. They're the minority with no power. If things are failing and not getting done, it's not because of them.

And for the record, things are failing and not getting done.

Posted by unkbill on May 27 2010,08:31

(Leisher @ May 27 2010,06:27)
QUOTE
Don't you think that maybe you're being a bit unfair to the Republicans? Don't you think Obama and the Dems could probably back off on some of their agenda a bit to promote bipartisanship? After all Unk, right now they have all the power. Isn't bipartisanship really completely up to them at this point?

Unfair no. Pissed off yes. That goes for the Dems also. Now that he is in I have stuck my hopes on change. So much so that I am thinking of voting the POP. Pissed Off People. Come November if you are an incumbent I won't vote for you. Be it Dem or Rep. Boot the assholes out. Some new blood. And in 2 years if shit hasn't changed just keep changing people until a group of them can actually knuckle down and maybe do something good for this country.
Posted by unkbill on May 27 2010,08:33

(Leisher @ May 27 2010,06:27)
QUOTE
Unk, I wanted to add that I hope you know I'm not picking on you or attacking you (because I responded to another of your postings elsewhere too). I just want both sides to be held to the same standard. And I might be in a bit of a argumentative mood this morning...

No offense takin. Just stating my opinion that is different from you.
Posted by unkbill on May 27 2010,08:35
But again I have to ask, why hate them for doing more (in a good way) than the Dems did back when they were in the same position?

I don't hate them. Hate the way business is being done.

Posted by Leisher on May 27 2010,10:18
Fair enough Unk.
Posted by TPRJones on May 27 2010,18:26
QUOTE
Do something good for this country for a change.


There is only one thing that a Congressman can do that is good for his country:  Go home.  And stay there.



Posted by GORDON on May 27 2010,19:23
Nobody's liberty is safe when congress is in session.

The liberty we have left, that is.

Posted by Malcolm on May 28 2010,08:48
The hits just keep on coming ...
< Hillary proves she knows less than nothing about economics. >
QUOTE
"Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what -- it's growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty," she said. "There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it, to our regret in my opinion."

That's pretty much up there with Nixon's, "By definition, if the president does something ... it isn't illegal," reasoning.

< Climate quandary >.
There's been this pesky oil spill in the Gulf for a bit.  Turns out that's bad news for anyone that wants to pass an energy bill involving domestic off-shore drilling.  You can either maintain the "tough" stance on drilling which will cost cash in future fuel imports or give the go-ahead to more drilling, which makes you look irresponsible.  

Dance, monkey, dance.  Haha.



Posted by TheCatt on May 28 2010,09:25
I'm OK with more taxes on people making more than $500k.

Just spread some of that to me.

Posted by GORDON on May 28 2010,10:12
Sorry Catt, not enough of that (your) money left after it goes to the auto unions, banks, investment firms, airlines, and mortgage companies.

Maybe next time!

Posted by TheCatt on May 28 2010,12:41
I'm so tired of working.  Maybe it's time to unionize.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2010,10:54
I was going to post this in the oil spill thread, but it's more Obama news than oil spill news.

One of the biggest, if not THE biggest, obstacle to cleaning up the oil spill? < President Obama. >

Why? Because of politics. He won't move fast to get things done or accept help from foreign experts and equipment because it upsets our unions.

It gets worse. Read the last two paragraphs of the article.

In two years, I think it's possible that he's already surpassed Carter in the "Worst President Ever" category.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2010,12:45
QUOTE

Article Not Ready
This article is currently being published.
It should be available for viewing in 5 minutes.

Thanks,
The Examiner.com Team


20 minutes later ... same message.

QUOTE
In two years, I think it's possible that he's already surpassed Carter in the "Worst President Ever" category.

Two thoughts spring to mind :
1. Jimmy Carter was NOT the worst president ev4r.  Bottom 10%?  I'd hear an argument for that.
2. Yet again, when I'm waiting in line at the gas pumps for a few hours to fill my car's tank, we'll talk about Obama being worse.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2010,13:19
Carter also signed away the Panama Canal.... I can see Obama doing something like that.

Carter's gas pump lines were due to price fixing by the government... also doesn't seem so far fetched for Obama.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2010,13:26

(GORDON @ Jun. 18 2010,15:19)
QUOTE
Carter also signed away the Panama Canal.... I can see Obama doing something like that.

Carter's gas pump lines were due to price fixing by the government... also doesn't seem so far fetched for Obama.

It's not too far fetched for me to die of alcohol poisoning.  Ain't happened just yet.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 23 2010,11:02
< Obama's homeowner bailout is failing. >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2010,11:08

(Leisher @ Jun. 23 2010,14:02)
QUOTE
< Obama's homeowner bailout is failing. >

QUOTE
A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.


There's only one reason the administration would pressure banks to do that.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2010,11:46
QUOTE
Consumer advocates had high hopes for Obama's program when it began. But they have since grown disenchanted.

"The foreclosure-prevention program has had minimal impact," said John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a consumer group. "It's sad that they didn't put the same amount of resources into helping families avoid foreclosure as they did helping banks."

B. Rock's been getting semi-roasted recently.

QUOTE
There's only one reason the administration would pressure banks to do that.

I can think of a few.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2010,11:48

(Malcolm @ Jun. 23 2010,14:46)
QUOTE
QUOTE
There's only one reason the administration would pressure banks to do that.

I can think of a few.

I considered "Ignorance, corruption, and political maneuvering" as one big set.  Can you think of any other reason that doesn't fall under that set?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2010,12:11
I sort of separated them out, but they live in the same neighbourhood pretty much.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 24 2010,11:10
< He just gets stupider & more pandering >.

QUOTE
"Everyone who favors repeal is welcome to come talk to these people and tell them why we should go back to . . . the way things were," he said. "But you're going to need to explain why they and tens of millions of Americans should have their rights taken away."

Give me your fucking podium, you twat.  I'll gladly do it.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 24 2010,12:00
Any bets on how long it will be before the first major health insurance company declares they are getting out of the health insurance business altogether?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 25 2010,13:01
< The "transparency" continues. >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 25 2010,14:49

(Leisher @ Jun. 25 2010,16:01)
QUOTE
< The "transparency" continues. >

Reminds me of Tony Soprano's crew meeting at that butcher shop all the time.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 06 2010,06:48
Obama:  "NASA, I want you to take America to the stars make Muslim nations feel less bad for being so backward."

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....muslims >

QUOTE
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.


That entire article is filled with sadness.



Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 06 2010,07:35
QUOTE
"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.

Maybe we can give them trophies?

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2010,07:46
Reminded of it?  Damn, lots of predominantly Muslim countries still use that technology today because their police state gov'ts can't afford better.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 09 2010,13:18

(GORDON @ Jul. 06 2010,09:48)
QUOTE
Obama:  "NASA, I want you to take America to the stars make Muslim nations feel less bad for being so backward."

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....muslims >

QUOTE
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.


That entire article is filled with sadness.

Uh oh, the NASA guy is a Marine:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Bolden,_Jr. >

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 12 2010,14:23
NASA director thrown under bus.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....sk-nasa >

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 12 2010,14:50
NASA?  Shouldn't they pretty much be required to move the "S" from their acronym now?
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 16 2010,04:33
< A big green weenie for Bolden. >
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 21 2010,10:02
< Link >.

QUOTE
“After a partisan minority blocked this critical aid to our nation’s families three separate times, the Senate has moved forward on restoring benefits to the 2.5 million Americans whose livelihood has been held hostage by obstruction and game-playing over the past weeks,” said President Obama in a statement after the Senate vote.

Yeah.  Fuck you, too, bitch.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 21 2010,10:35
"Obstruction?"  Douche.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 22 2010,08:09

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 29 2010,08:25
< What the hell >?

First line in the article...
QUOTE
President Obama on Thursday highlighted the lag in black students' test scores, saying the gap is exacerbating a wealth divide between African-Americans and white Americans.

What the fuck?

The name of this new initiative...
QUOTE
The president is discussing how his signature Race to the Top program...


QUOTE
"I want teachers to have higher salaries. I want them to have more support. I want them to be trained like the professionals they are -- with rigorous residencies like the ones doctors go through," Obama says.

What the fuck?  You don't need to pull a thirty-six hour shift teaching history, dumb-ass.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 29 2010,09:00
If someone would pay me $100k, I'd be a teacher.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 29 2010,09:21
Not me.  I've dealt with too many of the students.  You couldn't pay me enough to be a teacher, not unless I had the ability to fail students who didn't deserve to pass.  And you just can't do that anymore.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 29 2010,11:23
QUOTE
If someone would pay me $100k, I'd be a teacher.

Still not worth it sometimes.  You'd want guarantees, trust me.

QUOTE
...not unless I had the ability to fail students who didn't deserve to pass.  And you just can't do that anymore.

Sure you can.  It's just a lot more difficult in publicly-sponsored education.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 29 2010,11:29

(Malcolm @ Jul. 29 2010,14:23)
QUOTE
QUOTE
...not unless I had the ability to fail students who didn't deserve to pass.  And you just can't do that anymore.

Sure you can.  It's just a lot more difficult in publicly-sponsored education.

And this is one of the main problems with public education.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 29 2010,12:11

(GORDON @ Jul. 29 2010,13:29)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jul. 29 2010,14:23)
QUOTE
QUOTE
...not unless I had the ability to fail students who didn't deserve to pass.  And you just can't do that anymore.

Sure you can.  It's just a lot more difficult in publicly-sponsored education.

And this is one of the main problems with public education.

Eh, the main problem I see is the same problem I deal with at work -- idiots with too many safety nets.  When you make bad decisions, one natural way to correct that behaviour is to experience the unpleasant consequences of it.  There's not enough negative reinforcement to give folk the motivation to learn useful shit.  Someone else always does the heavy lifting.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 29 2010,12:36

(Malcolm @ Jul. 29 2010,13:23)
QUOTE
Sure you can.  It's just a lot more difficult in publicly-sponsored education.

Not here.  We'd lose 95% of our students.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 29 2010,13:40

(TPRJones @ Jul. 29 2010,14:36)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jul. 29 2010,13:23)
QUOTE
Sure you can.  It's just a lot more difficult in publicly-sponsored education.

Not here.  We'd lose 95% of our students.

Something tells me that would just improve the overall quality of our graduates, not their total numbers, though.  The students of this country need to be reminded that, in some important areas, second- and third-world nations are beating them because they've got every incentive in the world to improve their lives.

EDIT : I'm not suggesting forced poverty be inflicted upon folk or anything, but some negative consequence seems necessary.



Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 29 2010,14:10
I agree.  But sadly the system is set up so that if a publicly funded institution tried to do that then they'd either lose all their funding and close down or just have everyone replaced with people who won't try to do that.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2010,14:05
Well now.

< Don't I just feel like a huge asshole for putting down 20% on a home I could actually afford. >

Posted by unkbill on Aug. 06 2010,18:19

(GORDON @ Aug. 06 2010,14:05)
QUOTE
Well now.

< Don't I just feel like a huge asshole for putting down 20% on a home I could actually afford. >

Instead of the first Obama term shouldn't this be posted under the second Bush term? Try not to pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. I know the difference.



Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2010,18:22
Did you read the article at all?
Posted by unkbill on Aug. 08 2010,05:15
Yes twice and I see a mess being cleaned up.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 08 2010,05:44
Ahhh, I see.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Aug. 09 2010,07:53
Does the application for this relief have field for political party?

What? It's a valid question.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2010,14:21
"Hey FDA, why don't you go ahead and rescind approval for a breast cancer drug, because it is too expensive in my universal health care plan."

< http://hotair.com/archive....oncerns >

Posted by Troy on Aug. 16 2010,14:52
55k for one treatment that possibly extends life for less than two months and has added side effects that will more than likely kill you anyway.

Holy crap.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2010,15:18
So... the death panel says no?
Posted by unkbill on Aug. 16 2010,17:05

(GORDON @ Aug. 16 2010,15:18)
QUOTE
So... the death panel says no?

Well there is recieving care and there is grasping at straws.
And yes NO.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2010,17:16
Just as long as we're clear: The government is now starting to draw the line where peoples' lives are too expensive to maintain, and are using regulatory power to enforce it.  Now even rich people can't legally spend their own money if the FDA pulls approval for that drug.

This is a very significant point in America's history, whether you want to believe it or not, and there is no way to pin it on George Bush.



Posted by unkbill on Aug. 17 2010,05:15
If rich people want a miracle drug that cost allot, side effecst that are hell and only prolongs life several months of what may possible be hell they have the money to fly out of country and find some quack that will give it to them.
Why do you hate rich people?



Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 17 2010,05:52
1) I'm against anyone's health insurance paying for crazy expensive drugs like this.
2) Why should the rich people have to leave the country to get the drug?  That's insane.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 17 2010,14:28
Oh nevermind, it's cool.  If you donate enough to a democrat, Nancy Pelosi will pull strings for you to get access to the stuff not approved, yet.

< http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedc....9b.html >

QUOTE
Pelosi pulled strings to let dying Dallas lawyer Baron try experimental cancer drug

07:42 AM CDT on Monday, August 16, 2010

TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – Dallas' top Democratic donors will cut big checks to share dinner later this month with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most will be motivated by a desire to protect the party's congressional majority.

Lisa Blue will have an extra reason: to say thanks for Pelosi's efforts when her husband, Fred Baron, was dying of bone marrow cancer. His only option was an experimental drug whose manufacturer refused to give permission to use it for Baron's condition.

"He was a big fan of hers, and now I am as well," Blue said.

Baron, the "King of Toxic Torts," built a fortune suing on behalf of asbestos victims. He died the week before Election Day 2008 at age 61.

A prolific Democratic fundraiser, he served as finance chief that year for his friend John Edwards, who also made his fortune in court. Baron later acknowledged funneling large sums to Edwards' mistress – a scandal that gave ammunition to those who already despised trial lawyers.


{Yeah, not Obama-related, just a followup to an existing line of discussion in this thread)



Posted by GORDON on Aug. 18 2010,15:19
So, thinking realistically for a minute, is it really possible Obama wont win reelection in 2012?  99% of all black people will vote for him.  40% of white people will vote for him.  A new iteration of ACORN will pop up and tell people to "move" to the battleground states in order to vote there, and oops, you mean I can't still absentee ballot in my home state, too?  "Honest mistake."

So really, how can he lose?

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 18 2010,16:17
It's possible, but I think it's more likely that Jesus will come back.  And since Obama IS Jesus, and he's already back, then of course he's getting re-elected.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 18 2010,22:37
History has shown that Americans are more apt than not to vote based on their wallets at the moment.  Greed still does work for a few things.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 18 2010,23:07
Not sure if greed will trump racism, though, and the blind worship.

Obama can still pay their mortgage, after all.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 19 2010,07:37

(GORDON @ Aug. 19 2010,01:07)
QUOTE
Not sure if greed will trump racism, though, and the blind worship.

Greed is a million times more simpler and most voters are twonks with the attention span of a seven year-old on a Mountain Dew binge.  The downside is that you can distract them with the political equivalent of jingling your keys.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Aug. 19 2010,09:22
So, what are we doing for a distraction? I'm always up for some anarchy. :;):
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 19 2010,10:22
I'd guess there is a chance he wont even seek reelection.  I don't think he has a stomach for all the criticism, which is why he is out golfing/vacationing all the time.
Posted by Troy on Aug. 19 2010,14:05

(GORDON @ Aug. 19 2010,10:22)
QUOTE
I'd guess there is a chance he wont even seek reelection.  I don't think he has a stomach for all the criticism, which is why he is out golfing/vacationing all the time.

Oh come on, the last president who took less vacation days than Obama was Clinton.  

Didn't Reagan out do him 3x over.


Edit: And after Clinton all the way to JC, apparently.



Posted by GORDON on Aug. 19 2010,15:47
Don't know a thing about Clinton's or Reagan's vacation days, only the fact that there was entire movie about how Bush was on permanent vacation.  Did you research it, or something?  "Now watch this drive."

The fun fact I heard was that Obama has clocked X days on the golf course in the last 6 months, and zero press conferences in the same time frame.

And hey, this is the Obama thread.... did you hear about the trip he took to Los Angeles the other day that < pissed off the whole city when he caused hours-longer-than-usual traffic jams? >  And the reason he did it was because he had a democratic fund raiser in which to attend?  I wonder how much that cost the tax payer.

And I don't give a shit if President X also did it.  It's bullshit no matter who does it.  "Oh come on."

edit - Is there some sort of policy in place that the DNC foots the bill for the President to fly around for DNC fund raising?  If so, I retract my anger.  Otherwise, it is direct usage of public funds to fill a party's coffers.  And that's bullshit no matter who does it.  Flying the President to LA easily costs millions of dollars.



Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 19 2010,16:15
Two words:  carbon footprint.
Posted by unkbill on Aug. 19 2010,16:34

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 18 2010,16:17)
QUOTE
It's possible, but I think it's more likely that Jesus will come back.  And since Obama IS Jesus, and he's already back, then of course he's getting re-elected.

Woudn't that make him the anti-christ. Possible. George Bush'es are gone. Now may money is on Jane Fonda again.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 19 2010,16:37

(unkbill @ Aug. 19 2010,19:34)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 18 2010,16:17)
QUOTE
It's possible, but I think it's more likely that Jesus will come back.  And since Obama IS Jesus, and he's already back, then of course he's getting re-elected.

Woudn't that make him the anti-christ. Possible. George Bush'es are gone. Now may money is on Jane Fonda again.

I remember when everyone was certain Bush was going to reinstate the draft.

I remember when dissent was patriotic, not racist.

I remember when lefties hadn't been caught several times coordinating the latest message in secret.

The good old days.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 21 2010,05:37
QUOTE
According to CBS Radio reporter Mark Knoller – the unofficial historian of White House minutiae – Obama is on his 9th vacation since taking office. As of Aug. 19, “he has spent all or part of 38 days on ‘vacation’ away from the White House,” Mr. Knoller writes. “He has also made 14 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 32 days. It brings his total time away to all or part of 70 days.”

President Bush, at this point in his first term, had visited his Texas ranch 14 times, for a total of 102 full or partial days. He also visited Camp David 40 times, for 123 full or partial days.

“His ‘vacation’ total at this point in his presidency was all or part of 225 days away,” according to Knoller.

Less than two years in, Bush had taken 2/3 of a year of vacation.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 21 2010,05:46
Pre-9/11.

He even stopped playing golf in 2003 because he didn't feel it was the correct image for a President to be playing golf while Americans were at war.

And it was a little unexpected to me that this vacation discussion is happening because I said he doesn't have the stomach for all the criticism.



Posted by Leisher on Aug. 25 2010,12:02
Can't live up to campaign promises?

< Delete them from your website. >

I also like how it's pointed out that the MSM hasn't said shit about it. If Bush did this, it'd be a national scandal.

Personally, I'd respect Obama, or any candidate, more if they'd simply say something like "Yeah, I was hoping we could do that, but once I got in the job and saw how things were, I realized that it's not really realistic."

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 25 2010,12:15
I find it surprising that anybody believes campaign promises.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 25 2010,13:56

(GORDON @ Aug. 21 2010,08:46)
QUOTE
Pre-9/11.

He even stopped playing golf in 2003 because he didn't feel it was the correct image for a President to be playing golf while Americans were at war.

And it was a little unexpected to me that this vacation discussion is happening because I said he doesn't have the stomach for all the criticism.

9/11 was actually in 2001, not 2002.  We're currently at the point of 8/25/2002 in the Bush years.  If he did all of that vacationing pre-9/11, then he was never even in the white house until 19 days after 9/11.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 25 2010,14:04
Thank you for clarifying that.  I take it all back, Obama is amazing.

Is there anything good we can point at in his Presidency, or is it just going to be "he doesn't suck THAT" much" for the next couple years?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2010,08:08
There are cynical things I can say about it, but any tax cuts are good tax cuts.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....-growth >

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 07 2010,08:23
You know, if he shaved his head ...




Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2010,08:59
I can't decide between:
1) Let's work together to end her long, personal hell.
or
2) It's hell for us too, bitch.
QUOTE
In a new authorized biography, French First Lady Carla Bruni claims U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama told her that life in the White House is “hell.”

“Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!” Bruni says Michelle Obama told her after being asked about life as the wife of the president during a Sarkozy family visit to the White House in March.

The account, first reported by London’s Daily Mail, appears in a new book “Carla And The Ambitious,” written by French journalists Michael Darmon and Yves Derai in cooperation with Ms. Bruni.



Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2010,09:47
For the first time in her life she is proud of her country... and now she is in 'hell.'

What a tough life she has had.

Posted by unkbill on Sep. 16 2010,18:11

(TheCatt @ Sep. 16 2010,08:59)
QUOTE
I can't decide between:
1) Let's work together to end her long, personal hell.
or
2) It's hell for us too, bitch.
QUOTE
In a new authorized biography, French First Lady Carla Bruni claims U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama told her that life in the White House is “hell.”

“Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!” Bruni says Michelle Obama told her after being asked about life as the wife of the president during a Sarkozy family visit to the White House in March.

The account, first reported by London’s Daily Mail, appears in a new book “Carla And The Ambitious,” written by French journalists Michael Darmon and Yves Derai in cooperation with Ms. Bruni.

I'll bet it is hell and having security in every room. Wonder if there are tapes of every president banging his wife.   Oh Ronnie oh Ronie, Oh God Ronnieeeeee. Scary. Must be hell.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 16 2010,18:42
Ain't no one put a gun to her head and told her, "Alright, you're going to be first lady, right?  No problem with that, right?"

Must be a rough fucking life to have your every potential need thought of, being treated as close to royalty as this country allows.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2010,18:54
Coming from the White House, so I'll put it in the Obama thread:

Global Warming

Climate Change

GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ruption >

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2010,19:05
I bet < this trip > was especially hard for her.

QUOTE
Andrea Tantaros has penned a scorching editorial for the New York Daily News deeming First Lady Michelle Obama a "modern-day Marie Antoinette" for her vacation in Spain with her daughter.

"The First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her 'closest friends,'" Tantaros writes, pointing to a CNN report that Michelle Obama and her group are expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms. "Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times."

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 16 2010,19:46
QUOTE
"Every time we're digging our cars out -- what global warming?" he said. "(Global climate disruption is) more of a sort of generic blanket term, I guess, that can apply in all weather conditions."

No.  You don't get to do that.  All of this crap is based on greenhouse gases and the theory that the earth will bake because of them.  You don't get to then turn around and talk about how maybe that'll make an ice age instead.

If you want to talk about completely different problems with different causes, fine, but you can't roll it all up together into one thing like that, not when the causes and problems are polar opposites.

This move shows that the issues here are 100% political and 0% scientific.



Posted by DoctorChaos on Sep. 17 2010,03:55
Double plus good! Orwell was a prophet.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2010,11:06
Town Hall person to Obama:  I'm exhausted of defending you.

< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video....ou.html >

Obviously racist.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 20 2010,14:12
She's dumb for believing in a politician.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 21 2010,09:22
< http://video.google.com/videopl....4914517 >

Paranoia strikes deep.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 21 2010,18:08
"Mexicans were here long before America was even an idea."

< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video....ea.html >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 28 2010,10:57
Obama is still whining like a child about Fox News:

< http://www.mediaite.com/online....country >

QUOTE
Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 28 2010,11:22
I bet it was hard for the interviewer to ask questions, what with Obama's cock in his mouth the whole time.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 28 2010,11:45
QUOTE
a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.


That statement right there proves he's either a fucking moron or a lying prick.

In related news, I was going to follow that statement up with an article released today titled: "Census finds record gap between rich and poor". (Proving Obama is full of shit.)

However, upon reloading that article I have found the title changed to: < Census data: Weddings in 2009 at record low level. >

That's quite an interesting title change. And FYI: that original topic can be found 7 paragraphs into this newly titled article.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 28 2010,11:51
QUOTE
The top-earning 20 percent of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year...
At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, government data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Interesting.   So the 5%-20% range make $100-180k/year.  That's more of the population than I would have guessed.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 29 2010,10:30
"Fox News is destructive, but I heart MSNBC."

< http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42864.html >

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 11 2010,13:55
Federal gas tax hike.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....uel-tax >

Little confession, here.... I really was hoping he meant it when he said that 90% of America would not be seeing their taxes go up.  But I was never stupid enough to believe it like soooo many other people were.

Posted by unkbill on Oct. 11 2010,15:41

(GORDON @ Oct. 11 2010,13:55)
QUOTE
Federal gas tax hike.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....uel-tax >

Little confession, here.... I really was hoping he meant it when he said that 90% of America would not be seeing their taxes go up.  But I was never stupid enough to believe it like soooo many other people were.

I will pay it if by chance the roads here are better. It hasn't changed since what 1993? What hasn't been raised since 93?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 11 2010,15:56

(GORDON @ Oct. 11 2010,15:55)
QUOTE
Federal gas tax hike.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....uel-tax >

Little confession, here.... I really was hoping he meant it when he said that 90% of America would not be seeing their taxes go up.  But I was never stupid enough to believe it like soooo many other people were.

Alright.  I'm jumping on the "shittier prez than Carter" bandwagon.  Wonder how long it'll be before he overtakes Nixon.
Posted by Troy on Oct. 11 2010,16:45

(TheCatt @ Sep. 28 2010,11:51)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The top-earning 20 percent of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year...
At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, government data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Interesting.   So the 5%-20% range make $100-180k/year.  That's more of the population than I would have guessed.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States >

Household income is close, I wonder if that's what they meant.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 17 2010,20:45
Obama: "Dems are in trouble because Americans aren't thinking clearly."

< http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion....09.html >

QUOTE
At a Saturday-evening fundraiser held in the home of a wealthy Massachusetts hospital executive, President Obama suggested Democrats are having difficulties in midterm campaigning because Americans simply aren't thinking clearly.

...

It's not the first time Obama has ventured into psychology to explain the public's resistance to Democratic policies. In a now-infamous April 2008 speech  to a similarly posh fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama discussed Pennsylvanians who had seen their standard of living decline in recent years by saying: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." In the ensuing controversy over his remarks, Obama did not apologize or back down from his position but conceded he had made "poor word choices."


See, it's because our brains aren't working, not that he sucks.



Posted by unkbill on Oct. 18 2010,03:46
I agree with him.
And you might as well just change the words to what you want Obama to have said to make him look bad if you aren't going to quote him fully.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 18 2010,04:44
Sorry, I guess I was confused and not thinking clearly.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 18 2010,06:15
There needs to be a name for the condition of believing someone to be mentally deficient just because they have a different opinion about politics.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Oct. 18 2010,07:08
Having read the  entire article, he has a point about reacting to fear. However, it doesn't change the fact it is an arrogant thing to say. This further proves he's a elitist zealot who thinks he knows better than the people who give him his power. I'm anxious to see how this resulting quagmire is going to work itself out.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 18 2010,08:13
QUOTE
I agree with him.


You agree with him in what way?

Are you honestly implying that if people thought about it, they'd see how effective his policies are and how they're going to help this country?

Obama is the extreme left. He's a socialist and he's implementing socialist policies that are doomed to fail. That's not opinion. It's fact. Socialism doesn't work. Ask Europe. Ask Canada whose health care system is failing so badly that they want to copy the U.S.'s current system (not Obama Care). Ask Greece. Ask Spain. Ask Italy. Ask California who is thisclose to filing bankruptcy. Ask New York. Ask Chicago. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Any place dominated by Democrats/Liberals (I realize not all Dems are liberals, but that's another argument) is in the process of failing. If they and Obama are so right, why are their strongholds suffering?

And understand, I'm not a Republican, nor do I disagree with all Democratic political beliefs. However, I'm smart enough to know that we as a nation shouldn't be pandering to the lowest common denominator.

There are many who believe such pandering (the constant "freebies" our government hands out) is simply a way to control the populace and secure their votes. I happen to believe a percentage of moves by both parties is exactly that.

However, many Dem and liberal voters will say they're simply trying to help people, thus the socialist policies. Well, those folks need to wake the fuck up. The reality is that you can't save everyone. Human nature doesn't allow it. People can be lazy, stupid, and self-destructive and there's nothing you can do about it. By trying to force society into helping these people, all we do is drag everyone else down to their level. Don't you see that by digging downward to level the playing field, we all go down?

I'm not against government programs designed to help people out, but there has to be limits, it has to be run well, and it cannot be mandatory.

Handouts are bankrupting this country. That's not opinion, it's fact.

QUOTE
And you might as well just change the words to what you want Obama to have said to make him look bad if you aren't going to quote him fully.


Show me the full quote that doesn't make him come off as an elitist prick who thinks Americans are his fucking serfs.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 18 2010,10:17
< Both parties want to screw you >.  Someone wants to fuck with Ashcroft for his idiocy a few years back.
QUOTE
In 2005, Kidd sued Ashcroft and other officials, contending they had violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause.

Ashcroft moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that as the nation's chief prosecutor, he was absolutely immune from such claims.


You'd think the current administration, after doing nothing but blasting the previous one and pointing out how they'd run shit differently, would be all for crucifying the bastard.  But no...
QUOTE
Obama administration lawyers appealed on Ashcroft's behalf and asserted that it would "severely damage law enforcement" if the nation's top law enforcement official could be held liable for abusing his authority.

Fuck you and fuck your law enforcement authority.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 18 2010,11:43
< http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html >
Posted by unkbill on Oct. 18 2010,13:30

(Leisher @ Oct. 18 2010,08:13)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I agree with him.


You agree with him in what way?

Are you honestly implying that if people thought about it, they'd see how effective his policies are and how they're going to help this country?

Obama is the extreme left. He's a socialist and he's implementing socialist policies that are doomed to fail. That's not opinion. It's fact. Socialism doesn't work. Ask Europe. Ask Canada whose health care system is failing so badly that they want to copy the U.S.'s current system (not Obama Care). Ask Greece. Ask Spain. Ask Italy. Ask California who is thisclose to filing bankruptcy. Ask New York. Ask Chicago. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Any place dominated by Democrats/Liberals (I realize not all Dems are liberals, but that's another argument) is in the process of failing. If they and Obama are so right, why are their strongholds suffering?

And understand, I'm not a Republican, nor do I disagree with all Democratic political beliefs. However, I'm smart enough to know that we as a nation shouldn't be pandering to the lowest common denominator.

There are many who believe such pandering (the constant "freebies" our government hands out) is simply a way to control the populace and secure their votes. I happen to believe a percentage of moves by both parties is exactly that.

However, many Dem and liberal voters will say they're simply trying to help people, thus the socialist policies. Well, those folks need to wake the fuck up. The reality is that you can't save everyone. Human nature doesn't allow it. People can be lazy, stupid, and self-destructive and there's nothing you can do about it. By trying to force society into helping these people, all we do is drag everyone else down to their level. Don't you see that by digging downward to level the playing field, we all go down?

I'm not against government programs designed to help people out, but there has to be limits, it has to be run well, and it cannot be mandatory.

Handouts are bankrupting this country. That's not opinion, it's fact.

QUOTE
And you might as well just change the words to what you want Obama to have said to make him look bad if you aren't going to quote him fully.


Show me the full quote that doesn't make him come off as an elitist prick who thinks Americans are his fucking serfs.

I agree with him becuse people are scared and that makes them not think right. I also thnk other people right here in Ohio are trying to pray on that fear. Do you actually think it is the governors fault Ohio has lost 300,000 jobs. Or could it possible have been fall out from what the assholes on Wallstreet have brought down on us?
As for the beginning of this. It is a half quote. Half quotes I equate to half truths to shade your arguement to prove your view. I look at it as you might as well tell a lie about that person. To me it is the same thing. I hate to be lied to just to sway my opionion.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 18 2010,13:50
When the government has < so many strings attached to business, at every level, > from regulations to taxing them at every level to being beholden to lobbyists, then yes, I do believe government shares some of the blame when the economy gets fucked.

Especially since it has been shown that < congressional influence on Freddie and Fannie very much helped precipitate the real estate meltdown, >which was what caused all of those "assholes on Wall Street" to have problems.  The democratic congress that had been in place since 1992 2002 caused it.  Obama bailed them out, against the wishes of a majority of Americans.

I very much blame the assholes in the government for the mess, and I am neither afraid of or confused about it.  I provided the links for why I have the opinions I do.  Facts is facts.

The reason that elected officials can't answer, "How do you create jobs" just further pisses me off, because anyone who has taken business 101 can provide a decent answer to that question.


You make it easier for business to hire, Blumenthal you fucking idiot.



Posted by Leisher on Oct. 24 2010,21:22
Remember how Obamacare critics said it would lead to employers dropping health care for their employees?

< It's looking like they were right. >

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 25 2010,05:54

(Leisher @ Oct. 25 2010,00:22)
QUOTE
Remember how Obamacare critics said it would lead to employers dropping health care for their employees?

But really, that's a feature: the Obamacare people WANT the government to pay for everybody.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 25 2010,10:08
Our projected insurance rates are going to go up 21% (total, not just employee) this year.

Thanks, Obama.



Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 25 2010,10:28

(TheCatt @ Oct. 25 2010,12:08)
QUOTE
Our project rates are going to go up 21% (total, not just employee) this year.

Thanks, Obama.

Dude, stop harshing the economic recovery.  I have to go swim in my money bin.



Posted by GORDON on Oct. 25 2010,13:16

(GORDON @ Oct. 11 2010,16:55)
QUOTE
Federal gas tax hike.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....uel-tax >

Little confession, here.... I really was hoping he meant it when he said that 90% of America would not be seeing their taxes go up.  But I was never stupid enough to believe it like soooo many other people were.

Possibly dropping the mortgage interest deduction.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....duction >

Posted by DoctorChaos on Oct. 25 2010,13:52
They might as well burn down our houses. Resale values will drop further as more homes are foreclosed and there is no one interested in buying.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 25 2010,14:10

(GORDON @ Oct. 25 2010,16:16)
QUOTE
Possibly dropping the mortgage interest deduction.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....duction >

Honestly, I'm all for this. There is no compelling reason to discriminate against renters.

Yeah, I might get screwed, but seriously - let's simplify the tax code, and remove as many deductions as possible.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 25 2010,18:27
I think the democrats are going for a republican clean sweep next week
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 02 2010,07:19

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 02 2010,08:56
I voted today.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 02 2010,09:06
I haven't yet.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 02 2010,09:57

(GORDON @ Oct. 25 2010,20:27)
QUOTE
I think the democrats are going for a republican clean sweep next week

A Republican congress w\ a Democratic White House has historically been the best economic combo.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 02 2010,10:05
I'd really like to see Obamacare get repealed.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 02 2010,11:17

(TheCatt @ Nov. 02 2010,12:06)
QUOTE
I haven't yet.

Update... I'm not voting this year.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 02 2010,11:18

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 18 2010,14:43)
QUOTE
< http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html >

Having read that before I was even old enough to vote, I never appreciated that story the way I can now.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Nov. 02 2010,12:05

(GORDON @ Nov. 02 2010,13:05)
QUOTE
I'd really like to see Obamacare get repealed.

Yeah, and I'd like to have my youth back. I think we'll both be disappointed. These types don't seem big on repeal. It's like admitting they made a mistake.
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 02 2010,15:25

(TheCatt @ Nov. 02 2010,14:18)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 18 2010,14:43)
QUOTE
< http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html >

Having read that before I was even old enough to vote, I never appreciated that story the way I can now.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk >
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2010,09:22
Ohio went very red.

New Republican governor, lots of new republican congressmen.  I think mine was one of the few districts that stayed democrat... and for that I blame myself.  The universe must confound me at every turn, and in this respect it helped Marcy Kaptur, a big fan of Obamacare, to win.  I believe she was on board with it even before the vote buying started.

But I know MD really likes her.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 03 2010,10:36
In our state, one congressional district changed from D to R.  My district stayed D... again.


I've lived in 5 different cities in the past 18 years... aside from the '94 Republican Revolution, < this guy's > been my rep the entire time.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 03 2010,11:50

(TheCatt @ Nov. 03 2010,13:36)
QUOTE
I've lived in 5 different cities in the past 18 years... aside from the '94 Republican Revolution, < this guy's > been my rep the entire time.

Two words:

Durham and Chapel Hill.

And Cary, too, I guess.



Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2010,11:52
Having surfed around the internet a bit, the leftie response to last night seems that they have all agreed to act like they are happy about the results for two reasons:  All those darned blue dog democrats got voted out, and how Sarah Palin made the republicans not win as big as they would have without her.  

I kept seeing those same two points made over and over on various forums.

The left is very happy today, apparently.

Also, and I found this funny, depending on the thread I was reading the republicans suck because either all they say is NO to whatever Obama wants, or Obama sucks because he is always working and compromising with the republicans.  Everyone would agree with both of those points, sometimes at the same time.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 03 2010,11:53
This has to be the best example of Gerrymandering extant today:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....istrict >

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2010,11:57
Ohio has a better one than that I learned yesterday, let me see if I can find a pic:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio%27s_18th_congressional_district >

The two ends of that district are like night and day.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 03 2010,14:49

(thibodeaux @ Nov. 03 2010,14:53)
QUOTE
This has to be the best example of Gerrymandering extant today:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....istrict >

I knew it was the 12th without even clicking.

I think the large amount of gerrymandering is why NC doesn't switch a lot congressionally.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 03 2010,14:50

(thibodeaux @ Nov. 03 2010,14:50)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Nov. 03 2010,13:36)
QUOTE
I've lived in 5 different cities in the past 18 years... aside from the '94 Republican Revolution, < this guy's > been my rep the entire time.

Two words:

Durham and Chapel Hill.

And Cary, too, I guess.

Well, interestingly, at 55% of precincts reporting, BJ was winning.  I can only think that's the Morrisville, Cary, Raleigh portions of the district.  Then the Durham/CH votes came in.
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 03 2010,16:11
Damn Yankees.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 03 2010,18:59
Damn.  They should start printing those districts on every map of the U.S.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2010,19:58

(GORDON @ Nov. 02 2010,13:05)
QUOTE
I'd really like to see Obamacare get repealed.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....amacare >

QUOTE
President Obama spent most of his first two years in office getting a sweeping health care bill passed into law.

Now Republicans, who captured the House in Tuesday's elections, may spend the next two years trying to roll it back.

Republicans picked up at least 60 seats Tuesday in what some analysts say was a manifestation of how the unpopular health care law has divided the nation.


Smelling a lot of 'if,' but at least it's something.

Posted by unkbill on Nov. 04 2010,05:09
I'll ask the Prez what he things about current events when I meet with him Monday.
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 04 2010,12:35
< Speaking of delusional... >

That bitch is bat shit insane.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 04 2010,12:47
I've got a dollar that says she quits.  Life just wouldn't be the same now that she us used to all the Speaker perks like the private jet.  She won't want to fly commercial any more like the rest of us jackoffs.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 04 2010,15:30
QUOTE
The interview marked the first time Pelosi had publicly conceded that she was uncertain about what Democrats would like her to do.

Shut the fuck up, perhaps?

QUOTE
Asked whether she would have the support to become minority leader in January, Pelosi refused to speculate. "I don't want to speak for my caucus at this time. But I -- when we make that decision together, then we'll have an announcement about it," Pelosi said.

That's a really long way to say, "Probably not."

QUOTE
"No regrets. Because we believe we did the right thing, and we worked very hard in our campaigns to convey that..."

I'm sure < this dude >, < this dude >, < this dude >, and < this dude > felt the same about the end of their political careers.



Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2010,11:09
Obama: < "It isn't me, it's you.  You're still too dumb to see how awesome I am.  In the future I will use smaller words so you understand better." >
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2010,11:53
< Pelosi IS going to seek re-election as party leader. >

This woman is seriously delusional if she thinks the majority of Americans support her. Hell, she's delusional if she thinks she's actually acting in the best interest of most Americans.

Still, it'll be telling to see what political extreme within the Dems is really in charge of that party. To explain, please read this, which was a part of that article, but was removed within 10 minutes of the article being posted:
[QUOTE]Hoyer is more centrist than Pelosi, and the two have long had a cordial but somewhat wary relationship.

Hoyer might retain his second-ranking status, which would make him the new minority whip. But it's possible that liberals will try to oust him from the shrunken leadership ladder to prevent fellow liberals from being demoted."

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 09 2010,05:40
Other Dems to Pelosi: < Please step aside. >

I really like how they essentially say "You and your policies are the reason we lost", but do it while praising her and blaming the Republicans for "demonizing" her.

The Republicans didn't need to demonize that bitch's policies. Every person with a checking account knows you can't spend more than you earn.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 09 2010,06:30

(Leisher @ Nov. 09 2010,08:40)
QUOTE
Every person with a checking account knows you can't spend more than you earn.

O RLY?



Although, to be fair, Americans have paid down personal debt from something like $14 trillion to $13 trillion in the past year (although I cant find that link today)

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 09 2010,06:35
Well, yarly, peeps do it but they pay consequences, literally.  I think the point Leisher was making about Pelosi is that she is either ignorant or completely dismissive of those consequences.

And yes, I know there is an economic process that allows for/requires deficit spending.... and most peeps are fine with it.  I think most peeps, though, see us as so far beyond "Bloat" that it would take the light from Bloat 58 years to reach us.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 09 2010,06:37

(TheCatt @ Nov. 09 2010,09:30)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Nov. 09 2010,08:40)
QUOTE
Every person with a checking account knows you can't spend more than you earn.

O RLY?



Although, to be fair, Americans have paid down personal debt from something like $14 trillion to $13 trillion in the past year (although I cant find that link today)

Wow, the lines crossed right at 1995, the year I got my first credit card.  Sorry bout that!
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 11 2010,20:20

(thibodeaux @ Nov. 03 2010,14:53)
QUOTE
This has to be the best example of Gerrymandering extant today:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....istrict >

These are great.  And some are apparently illegal.

< http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie....ge=true >

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 12 2010,05:40
The ones around bays, or with islands, I'd cut more slack to.  But the Chicago one...now that's pretty in-your-face.
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2010,06:41
Yeah, I don't get his obsession with "water doesn't count".  It implies that every island in the US should either be a separate district or not have representation.  Water has to count.

But the shapes, they are stupid.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 24 2010,06:14
< Article. >

I've never heard of this site before so I take the article with a grain of salt.

However, if any of what they're saying is true, this could be an interesting case. Not just regarding Obama's birth place, but in setting requirements for any future president's parents' citizenship.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 29 2010,08:44
< Obama freezing federal worker pay for 2 years >

QUOTE
According to the administration, the two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and $28 billion over the next five years.

The freeze does not apply to military personnel, but will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense.

It's a small start...

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 29 2010,09:51

(TheCatt @ Nov. 29 2010,10:44)
QUOTE
< Obama freezing federal worker pay for 2 years >

QUOTE
According to the administration, the two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and $28 billion over the next five years.

The freeze does not apply to military personnel, but will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense.

It's a small start...

Nothing like a complete lack of possibility of a raise to encourage hard work.  Not that gov't works hard, anyway.
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 29 2010,12:56

(Malcolm @ Nov. 29 2010,12:51)
QUOTE
Nothing like a complete lack of possibility of a raise to encourage hard work.  Not that gov't works hard, anyway.

Maybe they'll quit and get real jobs.

ROTLMAO.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 29 2010,18:27
Remember how health care reform is saving us money?

< Lawmakers cancel $1 billion of that "savings" already. >

And that's for a bill that just lasts one month.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 29 2010,21:05

(TheCatt @ Nov. 29 2010,21:27)
QUOTE
Remember how health care reform is saving us money?

The only thing that makes me angrier that the administration tried to sell us that load of horse shit is that so many people chose to believe it.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 13 2010,07:25
We already have "free lunch" programs for the poor here in Ohio... but this part:

QUOTE
...and give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods may be sold in vending machines, lunch lines and fundraisers during school hours


I only hope hundreds of millions of dollars are spent enforcing this new legislation.

< http://finance.yahoo.com/news....ly-home >

Is it still true that prisons are required to buy a better grade of food than schools are?



Posted by GORDON on Dec. 16 2010,18:03
< Hollywood is getting sick of him. >

QUOTE
"I voted because the man that was running was a moment in history. I--in the back of my mind I wanted to show the world that America, the land of slaves...the land that tortured its black population for hundreds of years is also the place of hope that can give an African American the chance to lead the most powerful place on the face of the planet. However, if you take a look at the resume, you couldn't find somebody--in retrospect--more unqualified." on CNN's "Parker/Spitzer" this month.

Read more: < ]http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010....] >


Gosh, Gene, about half of the country already knew that before he got elected.  People were touting his experience as a "community organizer..." remember that?  He is qualified for the Oval Office because he was a "community organizer" for a while.  Christ.



Posted by Leisher on Dec. 16 2010,18:58
QUOTE
I wanted to show the world that America, the land of slaves.


He really, really needs to take a world history class.

The U.S. didn't invent slavery.
The U.S. didn't bring slaves here without help from others.
The U.S. wasn't the last place on Earth with slavery.

I don't want to do numbers because I think it'd be impossible to measure, but I'd bet the U.S. didn't have more slaves than other parts of the world.

Calling the U.S. "the land of the slaves" is like calling South Korea "the land of the automaker." It'd be more appropriate to call South Korea "the reason Starcraft 2 was made."

Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 16 2010,19:25
QUOTE
The U.S. didn't bring slaves here without help from others.

The vast vast majority of slaves were sold to the shippers by other Africans, and shipped to the south by northern merchants.  But that's conveniently forgotten by people like this.

Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 16 2010,20:45
The Arab-run African slave trade lasted up until, oh, wait, it's < still going on >.

< North African muslims enslaved quite a few Europeans, too >.

Posted by GORDON on Dec. 24 2010,09:25
I wonder how much Putin makes fun of Obama when the cameras are off.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....pproval >

Sure glad we're winning back the respect of other nations, now.



Posted by GORDON on Dec. 24 2010,14:30
Congress wouldn't pass cap and trade, so Obama is enacting it personally with the EPA.

< http://www.foxnews.com/us....estnews >

QUOTE
Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.

In a statement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.


Hey look, the Fed is taking more power.  What a surprise.

Let's all remember we are HELPING TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING when our energy bills go up.



Posted by GORDON on Dec. 24 2010,20:15
Michelle's stock just rose a little.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....eabouts >

Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 24 2010,21:00
The government is lying to our children!
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 25 2010,13:15

(GORDON @ Dec. 24 2010,22:15)
QUOTE
Michelle's stock just rose a little.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....eabouts >

Is there a point in any of that?
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 25 2010,15:12
It is hard to have a point in a conversation with a child.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 25 2010,16:01
Only if you keep thinking like an adult.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 03 2011,11:49


I have no idea what the political beliefs are of the gents who run Penny-Arcade. I go there for random gaming news and the occasional adult language filled gaming comic.

This particular comic had me wondering what their political beliefs are though, mainly because I want to know if they're serious or if this is satire? I mean, Obama supporters are aware that the MSM and the DNC blamed Bush for, literally, everything they could and are still doing so, right?



Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 03 2011,12:29
I can't even keep their names straight, but from what I can tell, the dude that draws the comics (Gabe, I think) seems more left-leaning than Tycho, who seems more right-ish.
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 12 2011,13:29
From what I gather, Mike (Gabe, the artist) is a middle-to-left liberal sort with religious tendencies, while Jerry (Tycho, the writer) is more of of a small-government liberal anarchist atheist sort.  But it's hard to be sure, they avoid politics the majority of the time.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 14 2011,13:18
< Health care repeal vote in the House on Wednesday. >

Yeah, it'll pass the House and fail in the Senate, but the Republicans know that. Even if it does pass, Obama will veto it.

So why push this repeal? So the voting public can see which Democrats vote against repealing it. Kind of smart, but I think it'd be far more effective in an election year.

Two things bugged me about this article, and all the recent articles on the health care law:
This-
QUOTE
The Congressional Budget Office has said that repealing the legislation would add $230 billion to budget deficits over the next decade. But Republicans have largely dismissed that estimate, arguing that the assumptions are flawed and that over time the healthcare law would deepen deficits.

First of all, cutting a massive, massive increase in federal spending is going to INCREASE the deficit? Yeah, I'm sure there was an image of Jesus Christ in that grilled chesse sandwich, but you had to look at it just so...

And this-
QUOTE
Currently, more than half of all states are suing, and the U.S. government is appealing a recent decision by a federal judge that the law's requirement all individuals have health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional.


That's the article's final paragraph and easily the least reported fact about Obamacare. (Not the judge's decision, but how many states are suing.) And considering the financial burden it places on states, wouldn't it be downright criminal if California, New York, and Illinois weren't a part of the lawsuit?

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 14 2011,13:25
So even if it doesn't get repealed by vote, the SCotUS may rule the entire damned thing unconstitutional.  Fingers crossed.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 15 2011,09:27
Roberts has a chance to redeem himself.  Let's all watch as he fucks it up.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 19 2011,14:22
< Latest on the repeal vote and strategies to get rid of the HealthCare law. >
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 28 2011,20:42
< Democrats lost big in last election because most americans are racist. >

Random hippie?  Nope.  Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 29 2011,09:12
< Rand Paul's response to SOTU >

If the Repubs were smart, they'd nominate one of the Pauls next year.

Alas, they're still the < Stupid Party >.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 09 2011,06:52
Every single time I hear < Obama talking about high speed rail > I keep hearing that song from The Simpsons in my head. "The Monorail!!! It put Ogdenville on the map!"

Can someone please explain to me what the thinking is behind this project? How is this going to help the economy?

Yeah, I get how $53 billion will be spent into our economy to build it, but that's a fake boost. That's all tax money.

Ok, it'll create jobs, but who pays their salary? Revenue from the monorail or the government?

And how many people will it take to run the monorail? I'm thinking a bunch of low paid conductors (like Homer) and a bunch of highly paid managers living off the government tit pretending to be important.

Who are they targeting as their consumer base? Where is the need for this service? Obviously airlines are having problems, but half of their problems are caused by the government and the TSA. And let's not pretend they won't want in on the monorail. The other half of the airlines' problems stem from their attempts to squeeze every cent out of people while giving them shittier and shittier service. Yet people are still flying, and it's statistically a safe form of travel, plus it's fast.

People also love to drive. Sure some hate commutes, but others love it, especially in this age of podcasts and audio books and a 24/7 lifestyle where people only seem to get privacy when they're in their car or the bathroom.

Did Amtrack go out of business or something? You know them right? A high speed rail service with the equipment and infrastructure to complete Obama's plan without spending $53 billion dollars...

And let's not forget buses! Who doesn't like to hang out at their local bus station? They're hip, clean, always in a great part of town, filled with the highest classes of society... Ok, maybe they're none of those things, but they're cheap. Slow, but cheap.

So where is the need for this high speed rail system? If we're going to spend $53 billion dollars, can we at least see a business plan showing all the research that's been done and the plan/time table to get that money back?

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 09 2011,09:49
QUOTE
Did Amtrack go out of business or something? You know them right? A high speed rail service

High-speed my ass.  Eighteen hours to cross less than 1000 miles is slower than Ralph Wiggum huffing paint after a lobotomy.  Passenger trains suck in this country.  Soon as they start jacking up security on trains, though, it'll become just as unfun as flying.

We all need < this >.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 09 2011,11:44
How fast do you think the monorail is going to go? And again, where's the consumer base that needs it?

Instead of a monorail, how about we spend the $53 billion researching these:

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 17 2011,21:19
< Alaska governor says they won't implement the health care law. >

I doubt he'll win his fight this way, but it's still interesting.

Oh, and check out this part of the article:
QUOTE
the overhaul is still the law, contends Timothy S. Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

"This is one renegade judge that has reached this decision," he said, calling it an "extremist opinion," likely to be reversed on appeal.


First of all, two federal judges have struck down the law, not one. Secondly, "extremist opinion"? Really asshole? Polls show that the majority of Americans think the health care law is bullshit. On top of that, this "extremist opinion" by a "renegade judge" contends that the government has no right to force citizens to purchase health care just to fund health care for those who choose not to buy it or cannot buy it. Apparently, Mr. Jost thinks the government can order me to buy health insurance. What's next? Can I be ordered to buy an American car?



Posted by Leisher on Feb. 18 2011,14:11
< House strips Health Care Bill funding. >
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 18 2011,15:49

(Leisher @ Feb. 18 2011,16:11)
QUOTE
< House strips Health Care Bill funding. >

QUOTE
The Republican-controlled House voted to shield greenhouse-gas polluters...

Holy good goddamn.  The first sentence?

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 18 2011,15:53
Republican-controlled House actually responds to the will of the people who elected them, for a change.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 18 2011,16:28
Well, it started to.  Then the other Republicans turned chickenshit.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 18 2011,16:57

(TPRJones @ Feb. 18 2011,18:28)
QUOTE
Well, it started to.  Then the other Republicans turned chickenshit.

They're just worried about the same thing every member of Congres is worried about -- representing those who elected them getting reelected and keeping those kickbacks coming.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 23 2011,17:37
Why comediennes can't mock Obama:



Jimmy Fallon:  Isn't It Kind of Weird That Obama's Playing Soccer and Picking NCAA Brackets While We're Attacking Libya?


Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 23 2011,20:04
Damn, when Jimmy Fallon's ripping on you, you're down a few rungs on the social ladder.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 30 2011,11:39
Well, it's fairly clear he isn't interested in the slowing the rise of the price of gasoline.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....trategy >

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 30 2011,12:53
I'm doing my part by driving so little, so yall are the ones fucking everything up.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2011,04:39
Gas prices have doubled since he took office.

Greens overjoyed.

< http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog....r-obama >

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2011,06:46
Not really related to anything, but I just read this, chuckled, and thought I'd share:

"This guy has launched more cruise missiles than any other Nobel Peace Prize recipient in history."

Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 31 2011,07:11
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 31 2011,07:11
< http://www.google.com/images?....bih=959 >
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2011,07:31
Welp, in spite of the assurances I heard that there wouldn't be "any boots on the ground" in Libya, I heard this morning that there were, in fact, sooper seekrit boots on the ground.

Which pretty much means that there is a situation exactly like Iraq with a dictator killing civilians with deserts full of oil, and when Bush took care of it full steam with the Marines and Congressional approval "they" cry "ILLEGAL WAR FOR OIL," and when Obama does it half-assed, there's relative silence.

But hey, you know.  Tea baggers and sarah palin, amirite?

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2011,09:17
I'd actually rather we let the Libyans sort this shit out themselves.  I would, however, provide the rebels with all the ammo they want.  Egypt managed to do shit on their own.  So did Tunisia (that the place?), I think.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 31 2011,17:29
Egypt was a different story.  The military was on the side of the people there.  Not so much in Libya.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2011,09:14

(TPRJones @ Mar. 31 2011,19:29)
QUOTE
Egypt was a different story.  The military was on the side of the people there.  Not so much in Libya.

The native populous needs to learn how to boot dictators out, otherwise, they'll always be reliant on someone else to bail them out.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 04 2011,05:25
Today on the radio they were talking about Obama's 2012 campaign ad (apparently it's sappy), and were soliciting slogans from the audience.  Two of my faves:
O.M.G.---"Obama: Mmm-mmm Good!"
Always Bet on Black

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 04 2011,05:35
I don't know how anyone can beat him when he polls at 50% favorably overall, but 98% favorably in the "attractive and successful" community.

Also not sure why he would want to do a jub he is so unsuited for... oh no wait I know money.



Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2011,08:23
So who thinks the government is going to shut down?

< http://thehill.com/homenew....enough- >

I do.  I think there is too much division on the hill and the President is not enough of a politician to bring everyone together.

Additionally, I predict, unlike other shutdowns in the past, that Social Security checks and other things like that WILL NOT be going out.  I think there is too much political gain to be had by really screwing people up.  Democrats will blame the republicans, republicans will blame democrats, the cost of gas keeps going up and no one cares, and we get one step closer to.... something.

Good times!

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2011,09:23
D.C. just needs to fall into the ocean.  Preferably with all the politicians.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2011,11:37
But then who will approve ethanol subsidies?
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2011,14:38

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2011,13:37)
QUOTE
But then who will approve ethanol subsidies?

Corn farmers, I assume.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2011,14:43
QUOTE
A GOP appropriations aide said talks reached an impasse when Reid refused to negotiate on a series of changes to mandatory spending programs that Democrats were demanding. Those reductions would allow Democrats to stave off some cuts to discretionary programs, such as education and public health research, that they consider more harmful. GOP appropriators have also chafed at Reid’s insistence that he personally negotiate all of the policy restrictions, known as riders, and not only the most controversial limitations.

Good thing Congress isn't filled with a bunch of bickering school children who stage power struggles merely to prolong their own careers.  Fuck, you could give them all of $1 to spend on the annual gov't budget and they'd still endlessly bitch about how it gets spent.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2011,06:58
QUOTE
“Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.”


< http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/118137/ >

You know, there are conspiracy theories that say the left want to screw up the economy to an extent that we can demonize it and slide it completely over to socialism.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2011,10:12
I'm still waiting for the practical wind/solar/geothermal/biofuel energy supply that can reliably outproduce a modern power plant.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2011,10:16

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2011,11:23)
QUOTE
So who thinks the government is going to shut down?

Ace has the breakdown of "angry rhetoric" from the left regarding the current budget "crisis."

QUOTE
Tally: War 3, fight 1, bombing 1, enslavement 1, war crimes 1, straight to hell 1, drumbeat (for war) 1, campaign for malicious vandalism 1, gender-discriminating bioterrorism 1, gender-targeted vehicular manslaughter 1, government conspiracy to commit serial killings of women 1


< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/314505.php >

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 08 2011,10:27
LOL.

I give up.  Obama is worse than Bush.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2011,10:48
Like I've always said... hypocrisy is a big pet peeve of mine.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2011,11:06
Campaign promises were made to be broken.

< All of them. >

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2011,11:28

(TheCatt @ Apr. 08 2011,12:27)
QUOTE
LOL.

I give up.  Obama is worse than Bush.

Bush the lesser eventually bottomed out at a certain point.  B. Rock just gets shittier.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2011,13:50

(Leisher @ Apr. 13 2011,14:06)
QUOTE
Campaign promises were made to be broken.

< All of them. >

I think he said no higher taxes on 250k and under, which, from what I've read, his proposal still says.

At any rate, I'm pro-that-plan.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2011,13:56
Doesn't it depend on how one defines "tax?"
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2011,15:19
I guess.  But what we need is less deficit, less debt.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2011,17:10
If they slap a tax on amazon, that's a tax on me.  If they increase the gasoline tax, that's on me.  If they increase corporate taxes, that's a tax on me if I use their goods and services.

I make a little less than $250k a year.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2011,11:21
Obama made a bet with someone earlier this year... he bet he could get the price of a gallon of gas to $6 by the end of 2011.

< http://money.cnn.com/2011....?hpt=T2 >

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2011,05:14
That article pisses me off:
QUOTE
Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: This is the largest single tax break, and would save over $1.7 billion a year if eliminated.
...
The percentage depletion allowance: This lets oil companies deduct about 15% of the money generated from a well from its taxes. Eliminating it would save about $1 billion a year.
...
The foreign tax credit: This provision gives companies a credit for any taxes they pay to other countries. Altering this tax credit would save about $850 million a year.

Emphasis added.  Wording it this way is wrong.  The implication is that all that money belongs to the federal government already, and they're just letting the companies keep it out of the goodness of their hearts.  That's bullshit.  That money belongs to those companies, and eliminating the credits will take it away from them and increase federal tax revenues.  And I'm fine with that, but this article was clearly written by someone who thinks the government owns everything and is just nice enough to let us keep some of it for ourselves.

That attitude is one of the key problems with liberals.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2011,07:26
Maybe if they'd stop taxing the fuck out of the companies, they'd expand and hire more folk.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 28 2011,07:35

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2011,08:14)
QUOTE
That article pisses me off:
QUOTE
Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: This is the largest single tax break, and would save over $1.7 billion a year if eliminated.
...
The percentage depletion allowance: This lets oil companies deduct about 15% of the money generated from a well from its taxes. Eliminating it would save about $1 billion a year.
...
The foreign tax credit: This provision gives companies a credit for any taxes they pay to other countries. Altering this tax credit would save about $850 million a year.

Emphasis added.  Wording it this way is wrong.  The implication is that all that money belongs to the federal government already, and they're just letting the companies keep it out of the goodness of their hearts.  That's bullshit.  That money belongs to those companies, and eliminating the credits will take it away from them and increase federal tax revenues.  And I'm fine with that, but this article was clearly written by someone who thinks the government owns everything and is just nice enough to let us keep some of it for ourselves.

That attitude is one of the key problems with liberals.

Email Steve and let him know.

edit - fixed the email link



Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2011,10:15
He either wouldn't care or - more likely - wouldn't understand my point.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 28 2011,10:25
I love it when they talk about "paying" for tax cuts.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2011,15:54
Grrrrr!
Posted by Malcolm on May 01 2011,20:36
I'm calling it, this kill will be touted next election like a standard-bearer at the thunderhead of a crusade.


Posted by GORDON on May 01 2011,21:14

(Malcolm @ May 01 2011,23:36)
QUOTE
I'm calling it, this kill will be touted next election like a standard-bearer at the thunderhead of a crusade.

No bet.
Posted by GORDON on May 07 2011,11:30
Obama's speech about bin Laden vs. Bush's speech about when they got Saddam.

Whole lot more *I* in Obama's speech.

< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/315865.php >

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2011,12:03
Saddam captured in Dec. '03.  Bush's Dec. '03 approval rating: about 55-60%.  From < here >.  Also from < here >, Obama's approval rating right before Osama is forcibly ejected from existence: about 45%, and that appears to be an upswing.  In short, one of them needs to crack 50% support, the other didn't at the time.
Posted by Leisher on May 10 2011,06:45
< Housing market still sucks. >

That article rips the feds and the Obama administration's efforts to correct the housing market.

Posted by TheCatt on May 10 2011,06:59
Meh, it will fix itself within 3 years.
Posted by Malcolm on May 10 2011,08:21
Not if it keeps getting artificially fucked with.
Posted by GORDON on May 10 2011,14:34
RomneyCare, the Massachusetts-sized version of Obamacare, is trending badly in that state.

The bad predictions of everyone with a basic understanding of economics seem to be coming true.

< http://online.wsj.com/article....88.html >

Posted by TheCatt on May 10 2011,14:48
While I don't love that article (not enough data to get a complete picture)...

I would like to say that I do love the Wall Street Journal.  Seriously.  Of all news sources, it is by far the best.  And with the recent edition of sports, supplemented by the internet for scores, etc, it's almost perfect.

I cringe at the nonsense in our local paper's editorial pages (we get the Sunday), both from the editorial columns and the letters to the editor.  But the WSJ is a refreshing change of pace for both.   People make well-reasoned, deep arguments on a variety of topics, and people (generally) respond in kind.  I don't necessarily agree with all of the editorials (though certainly more than our local (and liberal) rag), but they're generally thought-provoking.  Most importantly, regardless of which side someone is one, there's an undercurrent of "people control their destiny" that resonates deeply with my core beliefs, and is way too lacking from other spheres of discussion.

WSJ - Love it.

Posted by Leisher on May 12 2011,10:21
Medical care providers on Obamacare:

< Uhm, no. >

So over 90 percent of them won't participate in Obamacare.

Posted by TPRJones on May 12 2011,10:35
QUOTE
The Obama administration had estimated as much as $960 million in savings from the first three years of the program, and bigger amounts thereafter.

Really?  So the best case scenario is that we save $320 million a year?  In terms of the federal budget, that's absolutely nothing.  What the hell's the point of that?

I'm all for cutting the federal budget, but let's start with something that will actually make some sort of difference.

Posted by GORDON on May 12 2011,11:40
I was about to post a link that shows Obama blaming high unemployment on too darned many government employees have being laid off, but fuck it.

What's the point any more.

Posted by TPRJones on May 12 2011,12:45
When calculating employment figures, government employees paid with federal funds should be counted as a completely separate category.  It's not like they add anything to the GDP.
Posted by Leisher on May 12 2011,13:04
< Obama is a SEAL. >

He looks more like the Punisher.



Posted by GORDON on May 12 2011,13:43
I remember the Bush in a flight suit doll, so I'll let that one slide.
Posted by Cakedaddy on May 12 2011,14:44
Um, ya, but Bush WAS a pilot.  This is just stupid.
Posted by GORDON on May 15 2011,08:28
Obama just realized he might actually have to try to get reelected.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....estnews >

Posted by Malcolm on May 15 2011,11:28
QUOTE
To further expedite drilling off the Alaskan coast, where such plans by Shell Oil Co. have been delayed by an air pollution permit, Obama said he would create an interagency task force to coordinate the necessary approvals.

Processes are not "expedited" by such bureaucracy.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2011,10:07
"There are days when I say one term is enough."

< http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43391677/ns/today-today_news/ >

QUOTE
“Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said, ‘You know what guys, I want to do something different,’ they would be fine,’’ he said. “They’re not invested in daddy being president or my husband being president ... If family is doing well and Michelle is still putting up with me, then I’ve got enough energy to keep doing the work that I’m doing.’’


From what I can tell, he's not all that invested in being President, himself.



Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 14 2011,10:58
Who can blame him? We're about to crash, hard, and even being the Messiah may not be enough to keep him from getting blamed by racists.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2011,13:13

(thibodeaux @ Jun. 14 2011,13:58)
QUOTE
We're about to crash, hard...

You really believe that?
Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 14 2011,15:33
I try not to think about it, but yeah, it wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 14 2011,15:51
QUOTE
"There are days when I say one term is enough."

I'm betting none of those days happen during election season.

QUOTE
and even being the Messiah may not be enough to keep him from getting blamed by racists

I'm beginning to wonder what he'd have to do to get his approval rating in the 30% range.

QUOTE
We're about to crash, hard

Eh, maybe.  I'm not seeing any writing on the wall just yet, though.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2011,15:59

(thibodeaux @ Jun. 14 2011,18:33)
QUOTE
I try not to think about it, but yeah, it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm curious to know why so few of them don't seem to care about the rising, massive, crushing deficit.  It's like they don't think there's a really big problem.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2011,17:03

(GORDON @ Jun. 14 2011,18:59)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Jun. 14 2011,18:33)
QUOTE
I try not to think about it, but yeah, it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm curious to know why so few of them don't seem to care about the rising, massive, crushing deficit.  It's like they don't think there's a really big problem.

The only problem they have is getting elected.  Cutting the debt means cutting spending which makes people unhappy.  Which means not getting elected.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2011,17:44
Forgive me for thinking people should be better than that.


Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 15 2011,04:26
People should be better than that.  But they usually aren't.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 15 2011,06:17
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - Some Republican
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 15 2011,20:36

(Leisher @ Jun. 15 2011,08:17)
QUOTE
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - Some Republican

Smack it the fuck around when it takes too much of my money?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 21 2011,17:36
Nobel War Prize winner.

< http://policymic.com/articles/obama-wins-nobel-war-prize >

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 22 2011,06:24
< Loophole in Obamacare > could give millions of middle class folks free healthcare.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2011,17:00
QUOTE
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster said the situation was keeping him up at night.

"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.

T-shirt worthy.

EDIT : Guess < this dude > should've waited.



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 24 2011,10:50
House votes to not approve Obama's Libyan adventure:

QUOTE
"The war in Libya is illegal, unconstitutional and unwarranted. It must end," Ohio Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said.

Read more: < ]http://www.foxnews.com/politic....] >



Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 24 2011,10:52
I'll say this for Kucinich.  He's batshit insane, but it's a PRINCIPLED insanity. Which probably makes him more dangerous.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 24 2011,16:17

(thibodeaux @ Jun. 24 2011,12:52)
QUOTE
I'll say this for Kucinich.  He's batshit insane, but it's a PRINCIPLED insanity. Which probably makes him more dangerous.

It means he's more predictable.  More stubborn, yeah.  Dangerous?  Nah.  If he were going to do anything important, it would've happened by now.  He's just another psycho, albeit more consistent than most.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2011,13:43
Just wanted to point this out:

QUOTE
"The consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable," Obama said, while he denied engaging in "scare tactics."


...

"Ask Republican constituents if they're willing to compromise their kids' safety so some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break," he said.

Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/politic....hS0Nevq >


LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: I AM NOT ENGAGING IN SCARE TACTICS.  HOWEVER, YOUR KIDS COULD DIE IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO ME.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2011,16:52
QUOTE
President Obama called on Republicans Wednesday to drop their opposition to tax increases, saying "everybody else" is sacrificing their "sacred cows" for deficit reduction, GOP lawmakers should be willing to do the same.

Really ... how's that health plan coming?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2011,14:04
"The best way to get a meeting with Obama is to set up a tee time."

< http://thehill.com/homenew....ee-time >

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2011,16:20
QUOTE
"They’re in one week. They’re out one week. And then they’re saying, ‘Obama’s got to step in,’ ” the president said. "You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis and — you stay here. Let’s get it done."


(a) You ain't done shit in Afghanistan except set up a schedule to leave.  Your ass has had years to pull out of that.
(b) Bin Laden?  You "did" bin Laden?  Yeah, all you.  That shit's over.  He's dead.  He's been dead for a bit.
© The Greek crisis?  The fact that their country's broke because of bailouts to financial corps and their citizens are pissed the gov't has to cut costs?  You're dealing with that how?  You're giving them more money they'll waste that we don't have to lend?  You're giving them advice on how to manage their finances?

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 06 2011,16:25
Did Obama's stimulus work?

QUOTE
Take the Montana project. The area is not in any meaningful sense unserved or even underserved. As many as seven broadband providers, including wireless, operate in the area. Only 1.5% of all households in the region had no wireline access. And if you include 3G wireless, there were only seven households in the Montana region that could be considered without access. So the cost of extending access in the Montana case comes to about $7 million for each additional household served.


Emphasis theirs.




Posted by GORDON on Jul. 06 2011,16:32
< http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig....de-door >

QUOTE
President Obama, yesterday: “I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on Thursday so we can build on the work that’s already been done and drive towards a final agreement.  It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door.

President Obama, today: “The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.”


Emphasis theirs.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2011,17:44
If he'd had someone preceding him who'd achieved even Clinton-level notoriety, he'd be getting crucified.  I halfway hope he wins reelection so he gets to feel the consequences of his idiocy.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 07 2011,09:25
Terrorism suspects now being detained and "interrogated" on navy ships for months.

Gitmo, shmitmo.

But you've already probably seen this all over the news, since it is exactly the sort of thing they were always accusing the Bush administration of doing.

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa....ry.html >

QUOTE
The U.S. military captured a Somali terrorism suspect in the Gulf of Aden in April and interrogated him for more than two months aboard a U.S. Navy ship before flying him this week to New York, where he has been indicted on federal charges.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 07 2011,16:01
Hey, Obama was just trying to talk to a brotha.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 08 2011,14:32
< Obama: Funniest Man Alive. >
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 09 2011,17:00
Uh oh.... the New York Times recognized that George W Bush did something good..... during Obama's presidency.

Not good for Obama.

< http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/africa/10sudan.html >

QUOTE
Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to near the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede.

On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said “Thank You George Bush.”


Oh but there's MSNBC there to say "It was all Obama, baby!" where Obama's name is mentioned 4 times on the first page, and Bush's name is mentioned 0 times.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43694959/ns/world_news-africa/ >

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 12 2011,15:57
I think Obama just threatened to take money that comes directly out of your check for Social Security payments and spend it elsewhere, and not pay Social Security recipients at all.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ecurity >

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 12 2011,16:14
QUOTE
Republicans refuse to consider any tax increases while Democrats are insisting on new revenues to go along with deep spending cuts.

Thank god we pay these people all six figure salaries so they can sit down and communicate like rational adults.  On election day, I propose everyone take a photo of themselves flipping off the camera and drop it into the ballot box.  Seriously, part of the job of each and every shill Congressmen is to be able to talk a decent game.  If your rhetoric isn't up to snuff, then why the fuck do we keep you around?

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 12 2011,16:19
Either a) he means there will be no one being paid to mail the checks, so even though the money is safe it won't go out, b) he has no idea how the system works, or c) he's trying to scare old people so they tell their Republicans to buckle down and do what Obama wants.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2011,09:17

(TPRJones @ Jul. 12 2011,19:19)
QUOTE
Either a) he means there will be no one being paid to mail the checks, so even though the money is safe it won't go out, b) he has no idea how the system works, or c) he's trying to scare old people so they tell their Republicans to buckle down and do what Obama wants.

Washington is buzzing about it.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....-crisis >

All I wonder is... if Obama stops the SS payments, who will retirees blame.... Obama or republicans?

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 13 2011,09:24
You mean: who will the media SAY is being blamed? I think that makes it more of a rhetorical question, now doesn't it?

Besides, we've already seen this movie back in 1994 or whenever the last time it was that the Evil Republicans wanted to push granny over the cliff.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2011,19:09
Damn, think about what would happen in this country if 50 million people suddenly stopped paying their bills, because their only source of income disappeared.  My wife, who works collections at a bank, figures they would be absolutely awash in bounced checks and delinquent loans of all kinds.

So now that the consequences are defined:

QUOTE
President Obama walked out of high-level negotiations Wednesday, saying according to a Republican aide, "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I won't yield on this."

Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/politic....2dL8Ckf >


Apparently Obama doesn't give much of a fuck.  I assume by "bring my presidency down," he means fucking over the country.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 14 2011,12:22
It occurs to me that if Cantor had wanted to be the person the Republicans ran against Obama in 2012, he would have said, "Later, bitch" as Obama hissy-fitted out of that meeting.

It was my first instinct when I read the story.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 14 2011,19:17
Read some news story today where some poll said most Americans still blame Dubyah for the shitty economy more than JCJ (the man formerly known as "B. Rock", now known as "Jimmy Carter, Jr.").
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 14 2011,20:52
< Obama lied about his mother's fight with insurers. >

Not a big deal except this was one of his big selling points in pushing for Obamacare.

White House response: Well that's how he remembered it, and even if he did get things wrong in his story, the point is the same.

Uh no, no it isn't the same. In his version, his mother is battling an evil insurance company who refused to give her any money because her condition was pre-existing. In the real version, the insurance companies paid almost all her bills without question even though the condition was pre-existing.

The only part of those two stories that are the same in that his mother had cancer.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 14 2011,20:53
Fake but accurate, again?
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 15 2011,05:21
< The Chosen One >. It's...interesting.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 15 2011,08:15
Not sure on the numbers behind < this video >, but shouldn't this essentially be the campaign for whomever runs against Obama?
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 15 2011,12:19
< Balance Budget Game >

I tried for:
Competitive Advantage
Efficient Government
Safety Net

I got the first two, and ~2/3rds of the last.

Cut debt from 16.5T to 10.1T
Cut government from 25.9% of GDP to 21.4%
Delayed "budget bust" to 2038

Biggest changes:
Cut troops in Iraq/Afghanistan
Froze military spending
Reformed/simplified tax code.
Cut discretionary spending by 10%
Linked AMT to inflation.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 15 2011,12:51
There's no real options there to cut spending, just piddling little crap.

Where's the "shut down Homeland Security" option?  Where's "cut welfare and entitlement programs by 100%"?  Where's "eliminate all foreign aid?"

Bah.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 15 2011,15:54

(TPRJones @ Jul. 15 2011,15:51)
QUOTE
There's no real options there to cut spending, just piddling little crap.

Where's the "shut down Homeland Security" option?  Where's "cut welfare and entitlement programs by 100%"?  Where's "eliminate all foreign aid?"

Bah.

Cut foreign aid is there.
I elected "privatize security" (DHS doesnt cost much)
And you can't cut welfare that deeply, true.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2011,09:33
Well, okay, but I was just providing some examples.

A better way to put it would be "Where is the option to cut every part of the federal government except enough for the military to protect us against invasion and maybe a little bit more in reserve in case of the necessity of military action abroad?"

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 21 2011,10:10
How do you know if you've FAILED at telling a joke?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnkEI-iICQI >

If you have to say "that's a joke" after the punchline.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 21 2011,10:45
Calling a rose a penguin doesn't mean it will start eating fish.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 21 2011,11:36
Hey Obama - no shit.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 21 2011,17:09
< From season 3 premiere of "The Boondocks."  Best fake video ev4r >.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 22 2011,09:29
Senate dems kill "Cut, Cap, Balance" passed by the House.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....use-gop >

They are going to let the economy implode for political points.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 22 2011,16:41
< I didn't think of this >:
QUOTE
“Don’t call my bluff” says President Obama, thereby implicitly admitting he is bluffing.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 22 2011,17:17
Good to know they're serious about this "compromise" shit.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 22 2011,17:19

(thibodeaux @ Jul. 22 2011,18:41)
QUOTE
< I didn't think of this >:
QUOTE
“Don’t call my bluff” says President Obama, thereby implicitly admitting he is bluffing.

Also in that article...
QUOTE
So if you take an extreme group, the very worst at something, such as crime, or the very best at something, such as maths or running, they will overwhelmingly be of one particular race and sex.

What?  Are you high?

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 26 2011,05:56
Libya is a stalemate.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibdoIcC_Htk >

Yay.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 26 2011,06:20
I didn't listen to The Man last night (damn him), but I've heard clippets on the radio. It sounds like he was saying the only thing that stands between the common man and Armageddon is that sweet sweet government cash.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 08 2011,12:01
Why does Obama think it's a smart move to talk during the trading day?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 08 2011,13:34
Because he is surrounded by people telling him that he is the only savior this country has or needs, and that his followers are soothed to hear his voice.  Frequently.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 08 2011,13:37

(Leisher @ Aug. 08 2011,15:01)
QUOTE
Why does Obama think it's a smart move to talk?

Fixed
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 08 2011,13:55
"Know what else Obama inherited from Bush?  A AAA credit rating."
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 09 2011,07:27
By the way, in the original poll in this thread I voted, "His Presidency will be a failure of Jimmy Carter Proportions."  While not even Carter saw a downgrade of the country's credit rating, I'd say we are in Carter Territory, arguably.

Who else voted that with me?  We get to feel really smug while waiting for our own riots.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 09 2011,07:40
I put mediocre, but he's definitely in Carter territory.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 09 2011,07:41
This needs one of those Facebook polls:
How well is Obama doing as President?
Carter territory
It's all Bush's fault

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 09 2011,07:45
< S&P may have leaked downgrade in advance. >

This would be interesting, given that it's pretty much insider information imho given the market shift.

Ignore the rest of the article, since it's basically an Obama defense... but if this is true:
QUOTE
S&P, I'm told, began telling some of its clients about the downgrade on Friday morning. That's why the market was so screwed up on Friday.

then WTF?

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 10 2011,06:06
< People want other people to pay for their shit. >

QUOTE
Most Americans want a special congressional committee tasked with drafting a long-term solution to the nation's mounting federal deficits to include tax hikes for the wealthy and businesses and deep cuts in domestic spending, according to a new national survey.

A CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday also indicates that the public doesn't want the super committee to propose major changes to Social Security and Medicare or increase taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.


67% of people also wanted the rich to buy them a pony, and pay off their credit card bills.



Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 10 2011,08:42
Welcome to democracy.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2011,18:11

(TheCatt @ Aug. 09 2011,09:40)
QUOTE
I put mediocre, but he's definitely in Carter territory.

Same here.  It's like he's putting in effort to making stupid decisions.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2011,18:15

(TheCatt @ Aug. 10 2011,08:06)
QUOTE
67% of people also wanted the rich to buy them a pony, and pay off their credit card bills.

It's time like this I'm pissed I didn't just skip high school and college, go straight to illegal income, and just not pay any taxes.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2011,07:35
I don't know who "Felonius Munk" is, but he is a black guy laying into Obama hard, and on youtube.

Interesting.



Wasn't sure to put this here, or in the budget thread.  I think it says more to Obama's popularity thanit having any chance to get Obama to "BALANCE THE FUCKING BUDGET."

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 11 2011,09:10
I like this guy!
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 11 2011,18:38
Fucking hilarious.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 15 2011,07:10
Your approval rating is at an all time low (40%), and the majority of Americans believe this country is on the wrong path, do you:
A) Reach out to leaders of both parties and try to end all the partisan politics so real work can be done.
B) Reach out to private business and local community leaders and see what they believe needs to be done to create new jobs.
C) Actually talk to REAL voters and find out where you've gone wrong.  
or
< D) Go on a campaign tour because you're worried about re-election. >

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2011,08:11

(Leisher @ Aug. 15 2011,10:10)
QUOTE
C) Actually talk to REAL voters and find out where you've gone wrong.  

Remember what happened to Joe the Plumber when he spoke his mind?  Think any other citizen, ever, is going to do that again?
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 15 2011,09:23

(GORDON @ Aug. 15 2011,11:11)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 15 2011,10:10)
QUOTE
C) Actually talk to REAL voters and find out where you've gone wrong.  

Remember what happened to Joe the Plumber when he spoke his mind?  Think any other citizen, ever, is going to do that again?

That's a good point.

Perhaps we'll get lucky and this time around someone will say something like "Yes sir, I'd love to ask a question, but perhaps one of your aides could tell me what to ask so I don't embarrass you, and thus, force the mainstream media to try and destroy my life?"

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 15 2011,12:10
< Obama blaming GOP again. >

QUOTE
President Barack Obama launched a rare direct attack Monday on the GOP presidential field, criticizing Republican hopefuls for their blanket opposition to any compromise involving new taxes.

"Think about that. I mean, that's just not common sense,"


Really?

But it's common sense to keep spending more than what you bring in?

See, there's a whole "Ying-Yang" thing going on here. Your side wants to raise taxes to bring in more money, while the other side wants to lower spending instead of constantly raising taxes.

Which side is right?

Well, your side is producing multiple generations of Americans who have never worked because your programs give them money to do nothing. The other side thinks that is stupid. Oh, and there's the whole "finite amount of money thing", and we won't even get into how the richest Americans can actually afford to hide money or even move away or how they're the ones who create all the jobs.

You're right! It IS common sense!

QUOTE
Obama didn't mention any of the candidates by name, and started the remark by saying, "I know it's not election season yet."


It's not? Could you do me a favor and tell me again why you're riding a bus on a 5 city tour, and why you're been attending multiple events to raise money for your re-election campaign?

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 15 2011,12:40
< I just thought this was funny >:

QUOTE
So it is inevitable that a deal will be struck by August 2, because that deal doesn't actually mean anything.  This a is husband and wife arguing about rebalancing the household budget, each pretending they aren't going to pay the electric until he's agreed to cut back on beer and she's agreed not to be such a bitch.  Whether they do it or not is irrelevant, the electric's still getting paid.  The electric always gets paid, it has to, we need it for the chairs...
One of these days we won't be able to even make the minimum monthly payment, and, keeping to the household budget analogy, in those circumstances what happens isn't that the family goes bankrupt, what happens is that the couple gets divorced.  Pray on this.



Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2011,12:47
Republicans control one half of one third of the government.  Of course they are responsible for everything.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 15 2011,12:51
I think they control the SCOTUS too.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2011,12:52
Are Justices considered to be Republicans/Democrats, or Republican/Democrat appointees?
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 15 2011,12:56
Well, they start out as whatever flavor they were appointed as, but if they managed to "grow" in office, they become Democrats.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 18 2011,15:50
< Obama wants federal workforce to be "more diverse." >

I don't think I can stand to point out all the dipshittery in this article, but I thought this was interesting:
QUOTE
in fiscal year 2010, the federal workforce was 66.2 percent white, 17.7 percent black, 8 percent Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian/Pacific Islander and 1.8 percent Native American


I know that "more diverse" is code for "less white," but < according to this >, America is 66% white, 15% "Hispanic," and only 13% black. So, they plan to fire some blacks and hire some browns, I guess.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 18 2011,16:27
Obama tells Congress to fuck off, grants amnesty for illegals, except for when he doesn't feel like it.

< http://www.theblaze.com/stories....llegals >

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 19 2011,06:31

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 25 2011,11:53
Anybody taking bets on whether he wins in 2012?
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 25 2011,12:02
Everything I googled says< Obama is the favorite. >

1-2 odds or so

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 25 2011,14:19
I don't see how he's beatable.

As an aside, I sometimes hear or read people saying that Obama needs to "shore up his base," whether that's blacks or environmentalists or whatever.

SRSLY? What, they're gonna vote REPUBLICAN?

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 25 2011,14:23

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 25 2011,17:19)
QUOTE
SRSLY? What, they're gonna vote REPUBLICAN?

Have a relative tell me pretty much that exact thing.  Pissing and moaning about how shitty Obama is, but then finishing it off with, "But it isn't like I will ever vote for a Republican."
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 25 2011,15:06
QUOTE
Have a relative tell me pretty much that exact thing.  Pissing and moaning about how shitty Obama is, but then finishing it off with, "But it isn't like I will ever vote for a Republican."


It is much easier and less embarrassing to drive off a cliff then it is to turn around, thereby admitting you were wrong.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 29 2011,12:04
Still image dumping.








Posted by GORDON on Aug. 31 2011,09:44
Obama uses scare tactics to rally support for renewal of the federal gasoline tax.  There's the usual "We are going to lose so much funding" which makes it sound like peeps are going to personally lose money instead of reducing the amount the government collects, but what I liked was this:

QUOTE
But Obama said America's infrastructure -- everything from bridges to public transit -- needs the funding now. He said a 10-day delay would cost $1 billion in lost funding. He said 1 million people could lose their jobs over the course of next year without the renewal.

Read more: [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/31/obama-calls-for-extension-gas-tax-to-fund-highway-construction-repair/#ixzz1WcqYNQf0]


I think he is suggesting that a million highway construction workers work for $1,000 each.

And one person out of every 280 in America is a highway worker?  Including kids and elderly?

And what happened to their choir of "Tax the rich and not the poor and middle class?"  The poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their wage to gas taxes than do the rich.  My bullshit detector is in the red.



Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 31 2011,10:15

(GORDON @ Aug. 31 2011,12:44)
QUOTE
I think he is suggesting that a million highway construction workers work for $1,000 each.

And one person out of every 280 in America is a highway worker?  Including kids and elderly?

And what happened to their choir of "Tax the rich and not the poor and middle class?"  The poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their wage to gas taxes than do the rich.  My bullshit detector is in the red.

The timeframes on the 2 numbers were different.  $1 billion per 10 days, 1 million jobs over 365 days.  Which equates to $36.5k per job.  He's probably including some kinda of multiplier, so say it directly leads to 400k jobs lost, which leads to a domino of another 600k.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 31 2011,16:27
Obamaclock iPhone app on the charts, with a bullet:

< http://dailycaller.com/2011....p-chart >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 01 2011,10:33
An NBC affiliate in San Francisco ran this headline:

< Solyndra Filing a Disaster for Obama >

Holy shit.

QUOTE
President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra -- a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.

During a visit to the Fremont facility in spring of 2010, the President said the factory "is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. "

It's not his statements the administration will regret; it's the loan guarantees. The President was celebrating $535 million in federal promises from the Department of Energy to the solar startup. The administration didn't do its due diligence, says the Government Accountability Office. "There's a consequence if you don't follow a rigorous process that's transparent," Franklin Rusco of GAO told the website iWatch News.

The President touted the federally back money as a way to create jobs. The President's opponents immediately jumped on the deal as Solyndra made its first layoffs.

Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida warned, "I am concerned that the DOE is providing loans and loan guarantees to firms that aren't capable of competing in the global market, even with government subsidies."

Another critic, Fred Upton of Michigan: "The unfortunate reality is that loan guarantee highlights many of the systemic flaws associated with the stimulus in the mad dash to spend hundreds of billions of dollars."


And commentary from elsewhere:

QUOTE
“You will be shocked to learn that Solyndra’s majority owner, Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, was a major fundraiser for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign.”



Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 01 2011,12:47
I am shocked---SHOCKED---to learn this.


Posted by Leisher on Sep. 06 2011,06:34
< Most of the country now agrees that Obama sucks. >
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 06 2011,06:48
Dude looks rough in that photo.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 06 2011,07:14
Ever see those time lapse things they do with the presidents showing them before office and after? That job takes a toll.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 06 2011,08:09
< Obama not liberal enough for True Believers >
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 06 2011,08:47
QUOTE
Even "just the facts, ma'am" journos for big media have to decide which facts to include and which to ignore.


Say what now? That is the exact opposite of the media's job.

The media is supposed to report the facts, ALL THE FACTS, end of story. It isn't their job to pick and choose which facts they want to report and which facts they want to bury. Burying facts is how the media becomes biased, and how they help promote one agenda over another. It's job also isn't to spin the facts one direction or another, or to distort them.

For as much bashing as Fox News takes for its alleged bias towards the Republicans, and it does exist, it irritates me that the left tries to pretend that CNN and MSNBC aren't equally as biased. (And to be fair, I've heard Dems claim that MSNBC is so slanted left that they don't even watch it.)

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2011,05:37
< Tea Party Zombies Must Die. >

Nice air of civility.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 07 2011,06:22
< More doom and gloom from the Left >
QUOTE
Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.

The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.


Of course, as usual, Dowd's problem with Obama is the he just isn't liberal enough. He keeps caving into the Republicans.

And of course, it's not like they're not gonna vote for him next Fall.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 07 2011,06:29

(GORDON @ Sep. 07 2011,08:37)
QUOTE
< Tea Party Zombies Must Die. >

Nice air of civility.

Uh...did they all forget about Senator Giffords being shot in the head, and the media outrage it stirred up over Saran Palin's campaign map having a gun sight over Arizona? Remember how they said that could have inspired the shooter? Remember how they said she might as well have pulled the trigger?

I guess that's way different, and worse, than making a game where you get to shoot and kill conservatives politicians...

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2011,06:45
They have all kinds of excuses when they are called out on their ANGRY RHETORIC, but I don't think anyone can deny that the left has lost whatever moral high ground they thought they had after the Gifford shooting.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 07 2011,06:48
Ah, I love the smell of rampant hypocrisy in the morning...
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 07 2011,06:49

(GORDON @ Sep. 07 2011,08:45)
QUOTE
They have all kinds of excuses when they are called out on their ANGRY RHETORIC, but I don't think anyone can deny that the left has lost whatever moral high ground they thought they had after the Gifford shooting.

That's the single best reason to legalize gay marriage across the country right there.  Because that's the one issue left where they do have right on their side.  If the Republicans would wise up and take that away from them by letting it go through, they'd have no more high ground to stand on.



Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 08 2011,10:37
< Evidently The Man is supposed to make a speech about jobs >.

QUOTE
After three weeks of buildup, the stakes for President Barack Obama’s jobs speech Thursday couldn’t be higher

WTF? It's a speech. I haven't watched a Presidential speech since....well...maybe since the FIRST Gulf War, and you know why? BECAUSE IT'S ALL BULLSHIT. And it always amazes me how The Media plays the straight man in reporting government BS. "The stakes of this speech are high!" Spare me.

QUOTE
Democrats are already saying that neither the substance nor the size of the package is good enough.

TWSS!

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 08 2011,11:00
I'm predicting Stimulus II, but he will never once use the word "stimulus" unless it is to flatly state that "this is not a stimulus," which it obviously will be.

Just a guess.

Also he will accuse tea party congressmen of obstructionism... something about "putting politics aside and do what is right."

Also, drink when he says, "failed economic policies of the past."  That implies his haven't failed, and it's Bush's fault.  Not the democratic congress Bush had for 6 years... Bush himself.

Unlike his own Presidency where it is congress's fault, not his.

Lileks said this today:
QUOTE
A half-century experiment in draping steam­ship anchors around the necks of the productive class and expecting them to run a four-minute mile has ended in failure. The confiscation of rights and property, the moral impoverishment of generations caused by the state’s usurpation of parental obligations, the elevation of a credentialed elite that believes academia’s fashions are a worthy substitute for knowledge of history and human nature, and above all the faith in a weightless cipher whose oratorical panache now consists of looking from one teleprompter screen to the other with the enthusiasm of a man watching someone else’s kids play tennis–it’s over, whether you believe in it or not. It cannot be sustained without reducing everyone to penurious equality, crippling the power of the United States, and subsuming the economy to a no-growth future that rations energy.

To which some progressives respond: You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 08 2011,11:04

(thibodeaux @ Sep. 08 2011,12:37)
QUOTE
And it always amazes me how The Media plays the straight man in reporting government BS. "The stakes of this speech are high!" Spare me.

That's because it's not news media anymore, it's newstainment.  Everything has to be super-important so you won't change the channel.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 08 2011,11:26
Gordon, that's scarily, palpably, believable. I wish I had the stomach to watch to see how right you turn out.

I still think he wins in 2012.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 08 2011,12:13
I don't.

I think the Republicans will lose seats in Congress, but they're win the White House.

For this election, all they have to do is put up a candidate and tell him/her to not say anything and they'll win.

Obama has lost the middle, they just haven't decided which R they want to vote for yet.

Obama has also lost the youth vote, and a lot of senior votes thanks to health care.

He won't get all the support from the left like he did last time. Sure, they'll vote for him over an R, but I'll bet you they show up in far fewer numbers than last time.

More importantly, he has lost all the "white guilt" votes. People who voted for him once because they felt like it absolved them of racism won't feel that way this time.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 08 2011,15:26

(Leisher @ Sep. 08 2011,14:13)
QUOTE
For this election, all they have to do is put up a candidate and tell him/her to not say anything and they'll win.

Yeah, right.  When's the last time you saw a Presidential candidate that could keep his/her mouth shut?

If the Republican nominee is anyone even close to moderate - or even a little out there but in the right direction like Ron Paul - then they'll be a shoe-in.  Unfortunately the current Republican party is incapable of putting up a nominee that doesn't frequently proclaim that God talks to them about those awful gay people.  Then Obama would win.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 08 2011,18:05

(GORDON @ Sep. 08 2011,14:00)
QUOTE
I'm predicting Stimulus II, but he will never once use the word "stimulus" unless it is to flatly state that "this is not a stimulus," which it obviously will be.

Just a guess.

Also he will accuse tea party congressmen of obstructionism... something about "putting politics aside and do what is right."

Also, drink when he says, "failed economic policies of the past."  That implies his haven't failed, and it's Bush's fault.  Not the democratic congress Bush had for 6 years... Bush himself.

Unlike his own Presidency where it is congress's fault, not his.

It's a "jobs plan," not stimulus.

I didn't read about any direct tea party attacks, but he did basically appear to say the same about putting politics aside.

Didn't read about any Bush references.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 08 2011,20:23
QUOTE
“What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”


< "Solvent." >

I don't have the context here, but is Obama REALLY saying that? I mean...wasn't he a ConLaw professor?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 08 2011,20:39

(TheCatt @ Sep. 08 2011,21:05)
QUOTE
It's a "jobs plan," not stimulus.

QUOTE
The American Jobs Act


Wasn't the last stimulus called, "The American Recovery Act," or some such thing?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 08 2011,20:45
Someone else said this:

QUOTE
  “What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”

Hmmm… “solvent”?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2011,04:27
"$450 billion job plan."

Stimulus.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....-speech >

A lot more than what he gave his campaign donor who was in the solar panel business.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2011,08:23
MSNBC.  headline:  Wall Street slumps after Obama’s jobs speech

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....6uxsxUU >

I thought their interpretation was interesting: they say the stock market slumped not beause of what Obama said, but, "Wall Street fell sharply Friday, as investors remained skeptical about how much of President Barack Obama's $447 billion proposal to generate U.S. jobs will make it through Congress."

So the markets aren't dropping because of what Obama said, they are dropping because of those tea baggers in congress and what they might do.

Got it.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 09 2011,08:57
< Obama tells EPA to back off. >

You know his supporters hate this move.

I guess being a hippie is pretty awesome until it actually hurts job growth and becomes an anchor on your re-election campaign.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 12 2011,14:41
Stimulus 2 will be paid for by taxes
QUOTE
He said then that he'd pay for the one-year package; the White House said Monday that it would all come from tax increases. They would include:

-Limiting itemized deductions for individuals who make more than $200,000 annually and families that earn more than $250,000. Total over 10 years: $400 billion.

-Closing loopholes for oil and gas companies. Total: $40 billion over 10 years.

-Raising taxes on investment fund managers. Total: $18 billion.

-Raising taxes on corporate jets. Total: $3 billion.

Read more: < http://www.miamiherald.com/2011....mE6LR27 >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 12 2011,14:51
Taxes fix everything.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2011,06:46
Ugh, looks like we're in for another month of TEA PARTIERS ARE TERRORISTS THEY PUT PARTY ABOVE COUNTRY AND THEY ARE RACISTS BECAUSE THEY WANT ONLY OBAMA TO FAIL.

< http://online.wsj.com/article....Stories >

because they don't want to increase taxes and fix the budget by reducing it.  Wow, those bastards.



Posted by Leisher on Sep. 13 2011,07:07
I've loved watching this "Jobs Bill" get rolled out by Obama. It is a perfect example of how politicians manipulate the public.

He's claiming he's on the untouchable high road, and anyone who tries to knock him off must be attacking the American people, and thus, is evil.

Unfortunately, for anyone with an IQ, his plan is bullshit. Of course, on the other side of the coin, this country is filled with entitled idiots who believe he's speaking from a position of truth and bi-partisanship.

From the article:
QUOTE
"We've got to decide what our priorities are," he said. "Do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies, or do we put teachers back to work? Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure?"


Yes we do you ignorant prick, but giving people one option and then declaring anyone who disagrees with your shitty stimulus is wrong, isn't letting people decide their priorities.

In fact, I wish a single person in the MSM had the balls to ask:
"How does eliminating loopholes for oil companies put teachers back to work? Aren't teachers paid for with tax money? And isn't that money, in most communities, gained through taxes paid by home owners?"

Or "If you eliminate the 'tax loopholes' for oil companies, won't those costs be passed onto the American consumer and send oil prices skyrocketing? When that happens will you declare the oil companies to be evil for wanting to make a profit? Do you hate capitalism?"

Or "Enough studies have shown that here in the U.S. we've been throwing more and more and more money at education, yet results have not improved. Should it really be a priority to throw more money at education or should we instead be looking at why the system is broken, and re-examining the money we're already spending there?"

Or "'Millionaires and billionaires' Mr. President? You do realize that you want to raise taxes on families who make more than $250,000 annually? That's a far cry from millionaires, let alone billionaires. Aren't you really just trying to manipulate your voter base into a rich versus poor mentality? Isn't that essentially hate speech? Do you think that you and your parties tactics have created a nation of people with their hand out who don't think they need to work hard? Isn't a nation of lazy people who expect the government to take care of them the opposite of what the founding fathers wanted for this country? Do you think JFK would be a Republican today sir? I do."

Or "What technology are you going to invest in? What is this magic technology that's going to turn around the nation's debt and spending problems? You also mention infrastructure, which is pure comedy. Granted, it'd be nice to get roads repaired because that means road crews are working. But let's be honest here, you're talking about your monorail project. Mr. President, please watch Episode 412 of The Simpsons..."

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 13 2011,07:38
President Obama discusses his plans to improve the U.S.'s infrastructure:

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 13 2011,07:46

(Leisher @ Sep. 13 2011,10:07)
QUOTE

QUOTE
"We've got to decide what our priorities are," he said. "Do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies, or do we put teachers back to work? Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure?"


"We've got to decide: are we going to have false dichotomies, or are we going to have unicorns farting rainbows? You're either with ME, or you're with the TERRORISTS!"

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 13 2011,07:54
I'll be honest, I have no real issues with raising taxes on people making $250k or more, in order to pay for tax cuts on people making less... like me. :)
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2011,08:00
I don't like the fact he has to lie about it to get it done.  I'm not going to sy "misrepresent," it's all just different levels of lies and deception.

And what the fuck is a "fair share?"

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 13 2011,11:21

(GORDON @ Sep. 13 2011,09:46)
QUOTE
Ugh, looks like we're in for another month of TEA PARTIERS ARE TERRORISTS THEY PUT PARTY ABOVE COUNTRY AND THEY ARE RACISTS BECAUSE THEY WANT ONLY OBAMA TO FAIL.

< http://online.wsj.com/article....Stories >

because they don't want to increase taxes and fix the budget by reducing it.  Wow, those bastards.

Or worse...
QUOTE
Tea Party Debate Audience Cheered Idea of Letting Uninsured Patients Die

< Link - ABC News >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2011,11:26
The guy in the coma is going to die whether or not his neighbor is forced to pay his medical bills.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 13 2011,11:43
QUOTE
Texas, where GOP candidate Rick Perry has served as governor for more than a decade and Paul has served as a U.S. Congressman for more than 20 years, has more uninsured people, as a percent of population, than any other state. In the Lone Star State 26 percent of the population does not have health insurance, according to census data compiled by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.


And how many of those counted were illegals? Texas has a huge population of illegal immigrants.

QUOTE
In 2009, the most recent year for which data is available, more than 22 million emergency room visits nationwide- or over 17 percent– were by people who did not have insurance, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a division of the Health and Human Services Department.


And how many of those visits were life threatening? How many just showed up because they had a cold?

QUOTE
While uninsured people by law have to be treated in emergency rooms, studies show that they receive poorer-quality care than people with insurance. In fact, a quality of care study conducted by HHS found that there is a greater disparity in care quality between uninsured patients and those with insurance than any other demographic indicator.


Wait. Wait. Wait.

Are you honestly telling me, that rich people, who pay a ton more for premium healthcare, get treated better than people without insurance who pay nothing? Well, I'm stunned...

Listen, everyone should be treated so that they don't die, and have a good quality of life. Does that mean people without insurance should get private rooms? No. Should rich people get private rooms? Fuck yes, IF they're paying for them.

These idiots make it sound like people without insurance get the "cheap and ineffective" medicine and treatments.

Hey assholes, the President of the United States and the members of Congress have a better health care plan than the one they're trying to force upon ALL of us. What are you going to do about that?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,08:44
SOLYNDRAGATE!

I expect this to get very little coverage on the evening news, and it wont have legs.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ls-show >

Doesn't matter that there is apparently evidence of Obama paying back a campaign contribute with tax money.  This is way less important than Bush's fake but accurate National Guard memos.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,08:47
In case you were wondering where you can report people who have bad this to say about Obama, here's the link to his reelection campaign site.  They will take your statement there and supposedly respond accordingly.  

< http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/join-attack-wire-today >

Thank you, comrade.

"Paid for by Obama for America."

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2011,14:37
"Obama" brews.

Meaning, his cooks do.

But still neat.

< http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/16/earlyshow/main20107292.shtml >

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 17 2011,05:50
< Good Question... >
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 19 2011,11:58
< http://www.chicagotribune.com/news.....column >

I don't know if the Tribune is really MSM, or one of those shill outlets like the WashTimes, NYPost, or FauxNews.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 19 2011,12:51
CLIN-TON! CLIN-TON!
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 20 2011,05:43
My God, can you imagine: President Hillary? I think she should be ineligible because she was already "co-president" for 2 terms.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 20 2011,06:30
Clinton or Obama?  Which would you choose?
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 20 2011,06:32
< Hospitals and drug makers are pissed at Obama. >

< This article stunned me. > That's the MSM not only calling Obama a liar, but also completely destroying his argument for raising taxes on those who make more than $1,000,000. For good measure they call Warren Buffet a liar too!

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 20 2011,07:11

(TheCatt @ Sep. 20 2011,09:30)
QUOTE
Clinton or Obama?  Which would you choose?

Obama, no question.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 20 2011,07:21
I think I'd rather have Clinton.

I mean, Obama's been a disaster... Clinton, there's at least a chance of something different.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 20 2011,07:33

(TheCatt @ Sep. 20 2011,10:21)
QUOTE
I mean, Obama's been a disaster... Clinton, there's at least a chance of something different.

Hope and Change?

I'll take Evil and Incompetent over Evil and Efficient any day.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 20 2011,07:40

(TheCatt @ Sep. 20 2011,09:21)
QUOTE
I mean, Obama's been a disaster... Clinton, there's at least a chance of something different.

I have no doubt that Clinton would have been a worse disaster.

Better a Democratic President that can't get anything done than one that can.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2011,10:37

(TPRJones @ Sep. 20 2011,10:40)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Sep. 20 2011,09:21)
QUOTE
I mean, Obama's been a disaster... Clinton, there's at least a chance of something different.

I have no doubt that Clinton would have been a worse disaster.

Better a Democratic President that can't get anything done than one that can.

Obama has accomplished too much as it is.  I can't see bow hillary could be worse, especially with a republican legislature.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 21 2011,11:02
Obama still hates women, and the < MSM is finally calling him on it. >
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 21 2011,12:11
If I were married to Michelle, I'd hate women too.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 26 2011,08:15
Obama: < "Republicans would cripple the U.S." >. You know, as opposed to copying the socialist policies in Europe that have been such a huge success that four nations are about to default on their debt.

Interesting new tactic for Obama: Spend a metric fuck ton of money. Spend more money. Spend even more money. Watch the economy tank. Spend more money. Spend more money again. Watch as everything you do does nothing to help the economy. Try to push through more spending and claim everyone who doesn't agree with spending even more money is the problem. Then say Republican policies would cripple the country.

I understand he's trying to charge up his base, but that stance will get him destroyed in debates.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2011,07:21
Obama: < "If we don't pass my jobs bill, we'll just get a new Congress." >

WTF? How can anyone try to argue that this guy unites anyone? This is as polarizing as it gets.

Also, here's proof the guy is fucking delusional:
QUOTE
He argues that the public supports his proposals


Weird. Here's a guy who has a giant staff of people who give him poll results on an hourly basis, yet he still believe that the majority of the public supports his jobs bill (they don't).

I guess he's hoping if he says it enough, it'll become true.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2011,07:34
< Obama doesn't understand science. >

So he thinks the wildfires in Texas are caused by global warming, and mocks Rick Perry for thinking man-made climate change is horseshit. Wow.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2011,07:41
Obama's speech to blacks wasn't racist (although it SOOOO was), but < the coverage was. >

That's according to Karen Hunter, an African-American author.

Why? Because the AP reported it, as he said it:
QUOTE
"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."


Did you see the racism? They left off the Gs...

Now listen to Karen's explanation that explains a lot more than she realizes:
QUOTE
"I teach a journalism class, and I tell my students to fix people's grammar, because you don't want them to sound ignorant," she said.


Someone should explain to Karen that not only was Obama's speech ridiculously racist, < which this guy points out, > but by teaching budding "journalists" that it's ok to alter someone's words, she's actually teaching them to alter the facts that they should be reporting.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 10 2011,12:57

(Malcolm @ Apr. 07 2011,13:12)
QUOTE
I'm still waiting for the practical wind/solar/geothermal/biofuel energy supply that can reliably outproduce a modern power plant.

Heard a good one the other day:

How many solar panel production plants get all the energy they need from their own solar panels?

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 12 2011,17:45

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,09:08)
QUOTE
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.

Ha!
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 12 2011,17:46

(GORDON @ Nov. 05 2008,10:13)
QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Nov. 05 2008,07:47)
QUOTE
Now I have to wonder, can we ever again have a WASP male President?  Or will the next nominees have to be hispanic, or a woman, or jewish, or gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that) (Not that there's anything wrong with that), or whatever else, in order to compete in getting out voters excited for the historical signifigance?

That occurred to me a couple months ago.... if a black candidate is the only thing that can unify the black community, how can any party ever again run a non-black candidate?  

Black = win if the other guy is white.

Just wanted to say, if Cain gets the nomination, my prognostication begins to look correct.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 12 2011,18:33

(GORDON @ Oct. 12 2011,20:45)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,09:08)
QUOTE
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.

Ha!

Joke's on us.



Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 13 2011,06:02

(TheCatt @ Oct. 12 2011,21:33)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Oct. 12 2011,20:45)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Nov. 05 2008,09:08)
QUOTE
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.
Please reign in spending.

Ha!

Joke's on us.

On WHO? Who was silly enough to believe he would cut spending? Who thought he even WANTED to?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 13 2011,06:39
I'm just saying... that's all I wanted him to do.  And he SAID he would....
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 13 2011,07:15

(TheCatt @ Oct. 13 2011,09:39)
QUOTE
I'm just saying... that's all I wanted him to do.  And he SAID he would....

I can feel smug with the knowledge that I knew he was a lying sack of shit even back then.

Especially back then.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 13 2011,08:14

(TheCatt @ Oct. 13 2011,09:39)
QUOTE
I'm just saying... that's all I wanted him to do.  And he SAID he would....

Even if a President says that and means it, he doesn't REALLY control the spending ANYWAY. It's Congress that creates the budget...when they actually do, that is. And the executive branch is run by the civil service, who can't be fired.

But who believes what politicians say anyway?



Posted by Leisher on Oct. 21 2011,13:44
< Obama cut personal checks to people. >

Too busy to post comments on this at the moment.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 27 2011,12:15
If you can't win on the facts, make some up.

< http://thehill.com/homenew....ongress >

tl;dr: the new thing to say when laying the blame is that it is a "Republican Congress."

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2011,11:44
ACORN still completely transparent and operating above-board.

Hehe, just kidding.  They have a lot to do with the OWS protests under their new name.

< http://www.foxnews.com/us....exposed >

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 07 2011,07:56
< MSM finally realizing Obama's high speed rail plan is a piece of shit. >

98.5 billion to build a high speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Imagine what the costs are going to be to build that same high speed rail system throughout the nation.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 07 2011,16:47
Triple the cost once the unions get in on it.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 08 2011,12:06
Obama wants more people wasting government money on crappy degrees.

QUOTE
As the default rate rises on federally backed student loans, President Obama has responded with a plan to make education lending even more expensive for taxpayers. That's hard to do, but he's determined.

In his first student-lending reform, which was rushed through the Senate as part of ObamaCare, Mr. Obama added $1 trillion to the federal balance sheet over the next decade by eliminating private lenders. Stage two, which he offered recently at the Denver campus of the University of Colorado, added easier repayment terms and debt forgiveness. Who says Uncle Sam is a scrooge?

Specifically, Mr. Obama wants to accelerate an "income-based repayment" option to forgive more student debt and limit monthly repayments for graduates earning low salaries. Thanks to the 2010 law, this change is already scheduled to take effect in 2014. But in Denver he said, "I'm here to announce that we're going to speed things up. We're going to make these changes work for students who are in college right now. We're going to put them into effect not three years from now, not two years from now—we're going to put them into effect next year."

It's good to be the King—even if it's not legal. The 2010 law clearly states that the new repayment option is "for new borrowers on and after July 1, 2014." GOP sources in the House and Senate tell us that the Administration can probably make these changes using the authority in a related program, but they doubt that the President can put them into effect next year.

That's because such changes cannot be enacted by executive order. They fall into a regulatory category in which "negotiated rulemaking" is required, meaning the government must convene a panel to consider the proposals. Given the various requirements for rule-writing and allowing for public comment, Capitol Hill staff say there's not enough time to put these rules in place by next school year.

Assuming the panel approves these rules eventually, they will cost taxpayers $575 million a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of the 2010 law. Once in effect, borrowers will not have to pay more than 10% of their "discretionary income" each year, regardless of how much they owe. The government defines discretionary income as the difference between the borrower's adjusted gross income and 150% of the federal poverty line. If the money isn't completely paid back in 20 years, the remaining debt will be forgiven.

That's right. Wait 20 years and, presto, you're student debt-free.

Remember, student loans from the government are available regardless of credit history or assets, so default rates are high and have been rising—to 8.8%, according to the most recent government data. Add the possibility that people can choose or end up in occupations that pay low salaries, and the taxpayer loses again. A student who finances an expensive education and then pursues a career with meager salaries could be sticking taxpayers with five- or even six-figure losses by year 20. The loan then becomes a very expensive grant.

It gets even more expensive for taxpayers when student borrowers take a "public service" job after graduation, thanks to a program that began in 2007. "Public servants" can get all of their remaining federal student-loan debt forgiven after only 10 years. This applies to government employees such as teachers and to workers at nonprofits.

It's too early to know for sure how this will affect student-borrower behavior, but you can guess. Here we have the federal government offering significant financial incentives to encourage young people to choose what the late Irving Kristol called the politically active "helping professions" over wealth-creating businesses. Go to Georgetown, borrow $100,000 from Uncle Sam, join the Sierra Club, wait a decade and the loan becomes a free lunch.

The larger picture is that the President is pushing hard to turn college into one more new entitlement, regardless of cost or course of study. He said in Denver that "college isn't just one of the best investments you can make in your future. It's one of the best investments America can make in our future."

So, he added, "we want you in school." The only question is "how do we make sure you are burdened with less debt?" His answer seems to be to give kids the money instead of loaning it to them. Along with his new plan to disguise grants as short-term debt, Mr. Obama also takes credit for doubling annual Pell grants since taking office to $36 billion.

Washington's rising subsidies for college are a big reason that tuition keeps rising faster than inflation. Tuition and fees increased 4.5% at private colleges last year and 8.3% at public ones, according to the College Board's latest data. Under Mr. Obama's plan, taxpayers will provide the subsidies that allow colleges to raise their prices even higher.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 08 2011,12:06
China and I agree on something
QUOTE
Jin Liqun, the supervising chairman of China's sovereign wealth fund, speaking to al-Jazeera television this week:

If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labor laws are outdated. The labor laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hard-working. The incentive system is totally out of whack.

Why should, for instance, within [the] euro zone some member's people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach? This is unfair. The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 09 2011,06:48
< From here: >
QUOTE
*** Obama’s strength with African Americans: A second storyline you shouldn’t miss is Obama’s incredible strength with African-American voters. While some Beltway chatter and commentary has suggested that the president is losing support with these voters, our NBC/WSJ poll -- which included an oversample of 400 black respondents -- paints a very different picture. According to the survey, 91% of them approve of Obama’s job (versus 44% among all poll respondents); 49% of them believe the country is headed in the right direction (versus 19% of all respondents); 92% would vote for Obama over Romney (versus 49%); 93% would vote for Obama over Cain (versus 53%); and 59% of them say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in 2012. If Obama wins re-election next year, he can thank this support from African Americans and (to a lesser extent) Latino voters. By the way, the president doesn't lose any African-American support even in the hypothetical three-way matchups with Ron Paul or Michael Bloomberg. The president does NOT have a problem with African-Americans; folks should stop wasting news ink and bandwidth on that topic. Beyond one or two grumpy members of the Congressional Black Caucus, there's no ACTUAL evidence in the community at-large.


How is this not seen as a serious racism issue?

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 09 2011,07:54
Black people can't be racist, because they aren't white.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 09 2011,09:18
I think this is a large reason why Chris Christie is waiting 4 more years.  Obama's going to win.
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 11 2011,06:59
< The most open and transparent administration ever. >

QUOTE
Under President Obama, the Justice Department has pursued more leak investigations against government officials than any of its recent predecessors.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 29 2011,13:31
< More and more Dems have stopped drinking the Kool-Aid. >
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 29 2011,15:14

(Leisher @ Nov. 29 2011,16:31)
QUOTE
< More and more Dems have stopped drinking the Kool-Aid. >

< Don't worry: there's plenty more idiots, and they're mighty thirsty >
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 29 2011,16:26
Wow.

That's all kinds of stupid.

We should do a rebuttal video:
"I remember which party didn't want to free the slaves."
"I remember which party created welfare."
"I remember what is going on in Europe and how I don't want those policies here."
"I remember which party let Osama live to enact 9/11."
"I remember which party firmly controls 12 of the 13 states on the verge of bankruptcy."



Posted by GORDON on Nov. 29 2011,16:31
The vibe i have been seeing lately is, "The GOP will do anything to torpedo Obama because they want him out of office, period, no matter how much it hurts regular working Americans (probably because he is black and they are racist)."

I have some liberal family members who like sharing such things on facebook.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 06 2012,17:49
Opinion piece regarding Obama's recent unconstitional cabinet appointments:

< http://www.cnn.com/2012....=hp_bn9 >

QUOTE
Republican are in a tizzy, saying he is establishing a bad precedent with the moves. But frankly, they need to shut up.




....

Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 06 2012,18:50
Didn't Bush make some REAL recess appointments, and everybody had a cow, or something?
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 06 2012,21:48
From what I gather, Democrats did the same Senate-not-recess-really-sort-of-recess trick as Republicans, and Bush appointed someone anyway just like Obama did.  But I'm too lazy to verify that.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 07 2012,00:28
Yes he did.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 10 2012,15:41
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/mailvox-interesting-confession.html >

QUOTE
RINO wrote:
QUOTE
A lot of conservatives stay home if Ron Paul wins as well, I'm not sure why no one here understands that.


Fascinating. If true, this clearly shows that a lot of conservatives must be lying about how defeating Obama is so very important to them. Now, I understand why a Ron Paul supporter doesn't care if either Obama or Romney are in office, since both men will continue the foreign interventions, the bank bailouts, the debt-spending, and Obamacare.

But this raises the significant question of why a conservative supporting Romney would prefer Obama to Paul. What is the vital issue that separates Paul from Obama in Obama's favor in the eyes of these "conservatives"?

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 11 2012,06:06
< http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news....reotype >

QUOTE
First lady Michelle Obama is challenging assertions she's forcefully imposed her will on White House aides, saying she's tired of people portraying her as "some kind of angry black woman."


I read that and all I can think is U MAD BRO?

And everybody feel sorry for the poor rich, powerful lady.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Jan. 11 2012,11:08
I read that and think "Then stop being one".
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 11 2012,13:17

(Cakedaddy @ Jan. 11 2012,14:08)
QUOTE
I read that and think "Then stop being one".

Amen.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 13 2012,12:49
< http://news.yahoo.com/r-p-dep....ws.html >

QUOTE
The Department of Commerce will celebrate its 109th anniversary this year, having been created in 1903. And if President Obama gets his way , the agency won't make it much past 110.

Holy Crap, really? That's actually pretty cool.

QUOTE
a new agency that will also fold in the tasks of the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank.
..
This new agency would be smaller than the sum of its previous parts by up to two thousand employees (which will be lost through attrition, the White House says), and saving $3 billion over the next decade, said Jeffrey Zients, head of management at the Office of Management and Budget.


Impressive. IF it actually happens. I read an interesting theory once that President whose party "owns" an issue can actually sometimes make progress AGAINST that issue. For example, only Nixon could go to China (Republicans were anti-Communist), whereas only Bill Clinton could end welfare-as-we-know-it (Democrats are pro-welfare).

Can you imagine if Bush had tried to shut down a cabinet-level department?

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 18 2012,09:20
President chooses to not create some new jobs in America.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....reroute >

Or, chooses to not allow more jobs to be created in America, I guess would be more accurate.



Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 18 2012,10:10
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0m7E8TuMgxc >
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 18 2012,12:11

(thibodeaux @ Jan. 18 2012,13:10)
QUOTE
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0m7E8TuMgxc >

Republicans made him talk that way because all they want is for him to fail.
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 18 2012,14:47
Give that man back his teleprompter.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 18 2012,16:48

(GORDON @ Jan. 18 2012,12:20)
QUOTE
President chooses to not create some new jobs in America.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....reroute >

Or, chooses to not allow more jobs to be created in America, I guess would be more accurate.

Obama: It is the Republicans' fault that I had to kill the pipeline, because they are just playing politics, unlike me, as I am above politics and just telling you that it is Repulicans' fault.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....reroute >

Posted by Leisher on Jan. 19 2012,06:07
My dad's watches O'Reilly when sports aren't on (typically that's all he watches) mainly to catch Dennis Miller, but he said some black Democrat was on the other night ripping the Republicans for having a debate on MLK day. I guess O'Reilly let him shoot his mouth off for about 2 minutes declaring how this was proof the party was racist, and blah, blah, blah.

O'Reilly then stopped him and showed the guy video of the Dems holding some big convention on MLK in 2008. The guys says, "Well, that was a different situation..."

I guess another clip on the same show had Democratic officials saying, "The reason Republicans are running against Barrack for president is because they're racist."

Apparently, the Dems want to get that "white guilt" vote again in November.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2012,13:33
Obama: I don't like nuclear power, either.

< http://online.wsj.com/article....ews_wsj >

Posted by Leisher on Jan. 20 2012,13:59
< Old article, > but the entire thing is a "here's why Dems are full of shit about voter IDs" quote.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2012,14:05

(Leisher @ Jan. 20 2012,16:59)
QUOTE
< Old article, > but the entire thing is a "here's why Dems are full of shit about voter IDs" quote.

I'm sure the "when you see one there's another 10 you don't see" cockroach rule does not apply at all.  Isolated incidents.

Every recent voter fraud story has involved democrats, yes?

Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 23 2012,07:01
< America just doesn't deserve Obama >

QUOTE
As Michelle said to Oprah in an interview she did with the president last May: “I always told the voters, the question isn’t whether Barack Obama is ready to be president. The question is whether we’re ready. And that continues to be the question we have to ask ourselves.”

They still believed, as their friend Valerie Jarrett once said, that Obama was “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 23 2012,07:03
I guess she is no longer proud of her country.  That didn't last long.
Posted by unkbill on Jan. 23 2012,18:14
3 minutes into tonights debate and someone uses the word CHANGE. Same old bullshit different year. Elect a Republican and Democrats will stone wall them. Same old shit different year. At least I think Obama tried. Better than this bullshit. I get so tired of the lies. Money talks bullshit walks. That means me and middle America suffers.
Prediction. Ron Paul has to much common sence and will be shot if coming close to being elected.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 23 2012,18:19

(unkbill @ Jan. 23 2012,21:14)
QUOTE
3 minutes into tonights debate and someone uses the word CHANGE. Same old bullshit different year. Elect a Republican and Democrats will stone wall them. Same old shit different year. At least I think Obama tried. Better than this bullshit. I get so tired of the lies. Money talks bullshit walks. That means me and middle America suffers.
Prediction. Ron Paul has to much common sence and will be shot if coming close to being elected.

Secret leaked memo: Obama's stimulus was mainly to advance his political agenda, and they knew they were running up crippling deficits.

< http://blog.american.com/2012....k-obama >

Posted by Leisher on Jan. 24 2012,05:56
Don't know how accurate these numbers are, but I think it's a cool way of breaking everything down.

Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 24 2012,06:10
< Goalie Tim Thomas boycotts White House >

QUOTE
Opposed to what he called the "out of control" growth of the federal government, Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas declined an invitation to join his teammates at the White House on Monday.

The award-winning Thomas, who last year led the Bruins to the Stanley Cup championship emblematic of National Hockey League supremacy, was one of three players missing when President Barack Obama met with the team to offer congratulations.

According to a story on the team's website, < www.bostonbruins.com, > Thomas "opted out" of the White House visit. One of the other missing players was injured, and the third now plays for another team, according to the website story.

A statement by the 37-year-old Thomas posted Monday on the team website said he opposed the "out of control" growth of the federal government that threatened "the rights, liberties, and property of the people."



Posted by GORDON on Jan. 28 2012,10:13
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion....ry.html >

QUOTE
Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”

Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society.

Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 01 2012,05:28
"The People" do one of Obama's petitions to look into bribery charges since that MPAA guy went officially on the record and admitted to bribing politicians.

White House decides to do nothing.

< https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio....comment >

Shocker.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 03 2012,08:02
When the Soviet Union wanted to keep people from East Germany defecting into West Germany, they built a big wall that became a symbol of oppression around the world.  A socialism doesn't work unless you can force everyone to participate at gunpoint.

When people start getting sick of the creeping socialism in America and start leaving, a big wall is just too obvious, so instead lets impose fees for renouncing citizenship.  For now.

< http://www.nydailynews.com/news....1016265 >

$450 is better than getting machine gunned in the back as you run, but let's see where it goes from here.

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 03 2012,08:51
QUOTE
Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.

- Chris Dodd

Posted by thibodeaux on Feb. 03 2012,09:01
Yeah, be real sure to vote this November. Wouldn't want the < wrong lizards > to be in charge.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 13 2012,05:59
< Obama launches Truth Teams >

Has he done this before? It sounds familiar.

I love the name of his website, I'm sure the word's God-imagery (what's the word form of imagery? Im still waking up) is completely accidental: < KeepingHisWord >

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 13 2012,06:00
Remember this next time you hear about how republicans only "repeat talking points, in lock-step."
Posted by thibodeaux on Feb. 13 2012,06:07
They supposedly asked people to send in "fishy" criticisms of Obamacare:

< https://www.google.com/search?....a+fishy >

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 13 2012,07:10
I read a few of them.  It's basically Obama taking credit for anything that happened, regardless of the fact he had nothing to do with it.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 13 2012,09:49
Truth: President Obama presided over record budget deficits every single year of his presidency

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 13 2012,10:59
< Simpson-Bowles abandoned due to Democrats getting smacked down in midterm elections. >

QUOTE
By then, Bowles said he believes Obama decided to abandon the report based on advice from his political advisers and over the objections of his economic team. In his remarks to the forum, comments that got surprisingly little notice, the former top aide to President Bill Clinton jabbed Obama for the call: "Like every White House, there's a small cabal of people that surround the president that he trusts and works with, and I believe it was those Chicago guys, the political team that convinced him that it would be smarter for him to wait and let [incoming House Budget Chairman] Paul Ryan go first, and then he would look like the sensible guy in the game."

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 20 2012,17:43
Steve Gordon wants Clinton back in office?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 20 2012,17:50

(TheCatt @ Feb. 20 2012,20:43)
QUOTE
Steve Gordon wants Clinton back in office?

Reagan is dead.  What good would he be?
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 20 2012,17:52

(GORDON @ Feb. 20 2012,20:50)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Feb. 20 2012,20:43)
QUOTE
Steve Gordon wants Clinton back in office?

Reagan is dead.  What good would he be?

Clinton's gone vegetarian.  WTF do you think he'd do now?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 20 2012,17:54
More interns?

The main reason I answered Clinton is that I have a lot of relatives who will be confused by it.

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 20 2012,18:09
And dtman board people...
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 20 2012,18:27
Well also because the rest of them are dead.  Obviously.

Poll was too unspecific.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 20 2012,18:37
At least Clinton was a professional politician and knew how to get along with a Congress of the opposite party.  As was W.  But now we have Obama, and his own failure gets spun as a failure of Congress to cooperate.

Everyone knew he had no experience when they elected him, now they don't want to admit that he runs the job like an ignorant amateur.  It is everyone elses fault he is a failure.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 21 2012,13:46

(GORDON @ Jan. 18 2012,12:20)
QUOTE
President chooses to not create some new jobs in America.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....reroute >

Or, chooses to not allow more jobs to be created in America, I guess would be more accurate.

Obama didn't kill the pipeline, republicans did because they were difficult, so don't blame obama because he totally wants to approve it but they wouldn't let him so it isnt his fault.  At all.  So don't even think that.

< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video....ne.html >

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 23 2012,12:32
Obama: fuck the keystone pipeline.  We'll be using algae in 40 years so just relax.

< http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs....6 >

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 24 2012,06:46
Nah, we'll be using engineered bio-diesel fuels within about 20 years.  Maybe algae, but more likely derived from some form of bacteria.

We're about 15 years away from being able to gene engineer bacteria and other tailored micro organisms that can produce desired organics and hydrocarbons at will.  Add on about five more years for the suppliers, consumers and infrastructure to switch over.

At 40 years out, that's when one of them mutates and infects humans and we get the spectacular Kerosene Zombie Apocalypse.



Posted by GORDON on Feb. 24 2012,06:48
Actually, we'll probably be back to steam power in about 5 years after the next Obama term, if we're lucky.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 24 2012,07:26

(TPRJones @ Feb. 24 2012,09:46)
QUOTE
Nah, we'll be using engineered bio-diesel fuels within about 20 years.  Maybe algae, but more likely derived from some form of bacteria.

We're about 15 years away from being able to gene engineer bacteria and other tailored micro organisms that can produce desired organics and hydrocarbons at will.  Add on about five more years for the suppliers, consumers and infrastructure to switch over.

At 40 years out, that's when one of them mutates and infects humans and we get the spectacular Kerosene Zombie Apocalypse.

So my FIL actually does this exact work.  15 years? good luck.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 24 2012,07:32
He'd know better than I would, of course.  But as they say, only I can predict genius.

I expect somewhere in that field there's a genius about to have his Eureka moment that will speed things up a lot.

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 24 2012,08:11
There may be... but I remember when we were going over the numbers for cost of production, and WOW is there a long way to go.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 29 2012,07:02
< 72% of Americans think Obama's "individual mandate" for health care is unconstitutional. >

That's larger than I would have expected.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 29 2012,07:24
Too bad that in most cases, what a majority of Americans think doesn't matter in the slightest.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 29 2012,08:07
Neither does something being unconstitutional, for that matter.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 29 2012,12:04
What the hell is this?



It's an election year, and it is MSNBC, so it has something to do with Obama, thus this thread.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 29 2012,12:19
I don't know what that is, but that is some ignorant shit right there. He cannot be serious with that line of reasoning...
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 29 2012,12:26
The hardest part about being conservative, at least for me, is that I get so tired of having to be the person who says, "Nothing is free."
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 29 2012,12:33
It's technically true, government can create jobs.  But it has to take money out of private hands to do so.  Which means every government job is created only at the expense of funds that could have created a different private-sector job.

It's more accurate to say that governments can't create value.  They're purely parasitical.



Posted by GORDON on Feb. 29 2012,12:42
Fits with what I meant above... nothing is free.

Create jobs?  Sure, as long as we take money from someone else, first.  Nothing is free.

Oh, we only tax rich people and corporations to pay for these jobs?  That taxed money gets passed down to the consumer.  Nothing is free.

Free health care for all?  Someone is making the money that is getting taxed that is paying these medical bills.  Nothing is free.

Mortgage bank bailouts? Automaker bailouts? Airline bailouts?  Peter got robbed to pay Paul.  Nothing is free.

And my current fave: the GOP hates women and has declared war on their health because something about people think women should pay the $10/month (or whatever) out of their own pocket for their anti-pregnancy fuck pills.  What misogynist monsters for thinking you should pay for your own inexpensive contraception.

Anyway, nothing is free.  It's tiring.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 29 2012,16:41
TANSTAAFL
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 02 2012,13:28
Chevy Volt aint selling.

< http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news....of-work >

Isn't there a massive government incentive program to buy this car?

Since Obama keeps going to Detroit to tell the unions how awesome they are, and since the Obama administration has no interest in getting gas prices lower, and since he bailed out GM in the first place, this goes in the Obama thread.



Posted by GORDON on Mar. 02 2012,13:32
Apparently the estimated cost of Obamacare was about $100 billion too low.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ises-by >

If only someone could have foreseen that.  Anyone.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 08 2012,15:53

(GORDON @ Feb. 21 2012,16:46)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jan. 18 2012,12:20)
QUOTE
President chooses to not create some new jobs in America.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....reroute >

Or, chooses to not allow more jobs to be created in America, I guess would be more accurate.

Obama didn't kill the pipeline, republicans did because they were difficult, so don't blame obama because he totally wants to approve it but they wouldn't let him so it isnt his fault.  At all.  So don't even think that.

< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video....ne.html >

He killed it again.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....despite >

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 11 2012,16:35
Since Obama gets credit for killing bin laden because he was commander in chief at the time, is he also to blame for this, for the same reason?

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....killing >

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 15 2012,11:08

(GORDON @ Mar. 02 2012,16:32)
QUOTE
Apparently the estimated cost of Obamacare was about $100 billion too low.

Twice as much.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....estnews >

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 15 2012,11:52
The problem with your link is that it goes to Fox News, so it must be all lies and half-truths.

At least, that's why the rest of the MSM and the liberals tell me on a daily basis.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 15 2012,12:05
I considered that, but they cite their reference in the article.

< http://www.cbo.gov/sites....tes.pdf >

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 15 2012,12:11
Obama Videos!



This one is pretty funny, and really shows the effect the media has on elections.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 15 2012,16:15
Here's Obama promising us higher energy costs in 2008.


Posted by GORDON on Mar. 16 2012,14:01
Media and democrats, 2006-2008: George W Bush is at fault for high gas prices, and he is destroying the world.

Media and democrats 2012: high gas prices create jobs and are good for all of us.

It's all in this video.


Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 16 2012,20:24
Was reading an < article >about Obama's budget increasing the debt 6-11 Trillion $ in the next decade... then saw this, and thought it might make Thib gag:



One page down... wtf?

Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 18 2012,16:42
< Haw! >
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 18 2012,17:08
That talking guy is obviously racist.
Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 18 2012,17:40

(GORDON @ Mar. 18 2012,20:08)
QUOTE
That talking guy is obviously racist.

He sounds like a Nazi in fact.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 18 2012,20:25
Danish doesn't sound like German.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 22 2012,10:00
< Obama's NCAA bracket is in the 98th percentile. >

I honestly chuckled when I heard that because the first thought that went through my mind was, "I wonder who he hired to make his picks for him to make him look good."

Then I wondered how a sitting U.S. President had time to follow college basketball.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 22 2012,10:13
Mine 95th percentile in Yahoo.  All Elite Eight teams still alive.

Admittedly, sometimes, the less you know, the better in those brackets.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 26 2012,06:36
Open microphone catches Obama asking Russian president to give him wiggle room to lie to voters until after the election.

< http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012....t=hp_t1 >

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 26 2012,13:52
< Healthcare penalty "not a tax". >

Tomorrow they begin hearings about the Constitutionality of the penalty.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 26 2012,13:54
< Wait until I win the election, they I'll bend over for you. >
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 26 2012,13:58

(Leisher @ Mar. 26 2012,16:54)
QUOTE
< Wait until I win the election, they I'll bend over for you. >

That is so 6 hours, and 3 posts, ago.
Posted by unkbill on Mar. 26 2012,17:05

(GORDON @ Mar. 26 2012,13:58)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Mar. 26 2012,16:54)
QUOTE
< Wait until I win the election, they I'll bend over for you. >

That is so 6 hours, and 3 posts, ago.

Or maybe he didn't want to make a decision he wouldn't want to have his replacement to have to hold up to. Obama sure is a bastard. lol
I thought you guys hate the media for there reporting. Oh unless you think it puts a demacrate in a bad light. No wonder I don't stop here anymore.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 26 2012,17:27
It's always uncomfortable to have ones preconceived notions challenged.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2012,04:53
No more new coal plants.

"Just eat the higher electricity costs, fuckers.  And enjoy your brownouts.  Also, we're going to start regulating your air conditioner the same way we are regulating your health insurance."

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa....hpid=z7 >

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 27 2012,05:14

(unkbill @ Mar. 26 2012,19:05)
QUOTE
I thought you guys hate the media for there reporting.

On the contrary, it would be nice to see some actual news reporting from time to time.  It's their constant editorializing that is obnoxious.

In this case, I suspect it's Obama just trying to negotiate and knowing he'll be better able to do so with less political blowback after the election.  From his point of view, he's trying to do it as best he can.  On the other hand it's a bit shitty to not do the best job he could right now because he's afraid it might hurt his reelection.

As to being worried about his replacement, that's just silly.  He knows he's not going to be replaced this coming election by a different Democrat, and he doesn't give two shits about being nice to any potential Republican replacement.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2012,05:39

(GORDON @ Mar. 27 2012,07:53)
QUOTE
No more new coal plants.

"Just eat the higher electricity costs, fuckers.  And enjoy your brownouts.  Also, we're going to start regulating your air conditioner the same way we are regulating your health insurance."

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa....hpid=z7 >

Actually, natural gas is so cheap that companies are already decommissioning coal plants anyway, without any government intervention.

Thanks, fracking!

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 27 2012,06:54

(unkbill @ Mar. 26 2012,20:05)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 26 2012,13:58)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Mar. 26 2012,16:54)
QUOTE
< Wait until I win the election, they I'll bend over for you. >

That is so 6 hours, and 3 posts, ago.

Or maybe he didn't want to make a decision he wouldn't want to have his replacement to have to hold up to. Obama sure is a bastard. lol
I thought you guys hate the media for there reporting. Oh unless you think it puts a demacrate in a bad light. No wonder I don't stop here anymore.

There is no way you actually believe he's worried about not leaving a mess for his successor.

This guy is easily the most arrogant and condescending son of a bitch to sit in that chair since Nixon, yet you think he wants to make life easy on whomever might beat him in the next election? If so, you're delusional.

Another thing is he's elected for 4 years. Not 3 years and a few months, and then he gets to take a break from doing anything so he can win re-election. Do your job, and when someone calls you on something you've done, tell them you're not ducking issues just to try and score points with voters. That would earn a lot more respect than "politics as usual", which if I remember correctly, and I do, was one of the things he promised would end if he got elected.

People keep forgetting that these politicians' job isn't to get re-elected, it's to server the people. At what point has he done that? All I've seen is 3 years of "Republican's are assholes and stop us from doing anything" (even when Republicans literally had zero power).

In related news, < Olivia Snowe is hanging it up. >

She says Congress has completely lost it's focus, and is concerned more about politics than policy, and she says Obama is the worst president she's ever seen in terms of getting the parties to work together. According to her, he doesn't even try. But she's a Republican so I'm sure whatever comes out of her mouth has to be a lie right?

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2012,07:50
QUOTE
"I haven't changed," she said. "I represent what I think is a traditional Republican… a limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, individual freedom and liberty."

I want Republicans to be that.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2012,08:03

(TheCatt @ Mar. 27 2012,08:39)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 27 2012,07:53)
QUOTE
No more new coal plants.

"Just eat the higher electricity costs, fuckers.  And enjoy your brownouts.  Also, we're going to start regulating your air conditioner the same way we are regulating your health insurance."

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa....hpid=z7 >

Actually, natural gas is so cheap that companies are already decommissioning coal plants anyway, without any government intervention.

Thanks, fracking!

I was not aware of that.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2012,08:12
I do consulting work for a company that does energy consulting, and I work specifically for their natural gas division.  So yeah, natural gas is INCREDIBLY cheap right now, and everything here says it will just keep on being cheap for years to come.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2012,08:20
SO how many new gas power plants are getting built right now?

How much gas does one use per year?

How much gas are we expected to produce per year for the next 20 years?

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2012,08:25
I don't have exact #s, but I could probably find them...

But: We have a shitload of gas, and we're not going to run out in the next 20, 50, 100 years...

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2012,08:36

(TheCatt @ Mar. 27 2012,11:25)
QUOTE
I don't have exact #s, but I could probably find them...

Put your people to work on it.  I want those numbers by COB today.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 27 2012,10:18
< It doesn't look good for Obamacare. >
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2012,11:27

(Leisher @ Mar. 27 2012,13:18)
QUOTE
< It doesn't look good for Obamacare. >

I'm not getting my hopes up.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 27 2012,11:36
They've already cheated twice to get this damned thing passed, what's to stop a third time?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2012,05:30
Heard an audio clip last night from the hearings.  That woman justice... Sotomayor?  Was saying the mandate was legal because the government already does it, like when you buy a car and there are already federally mandated emissions controls on it.  The lawyer arguing against the mandate said, "This is true, but the government isn't forcing you to buy a car, and the Obamacare mandate forces you to buy insurance, so that doesn't compare."  The judge disagreed.  She said her car analogy was exactly relevant.  

So seriously... is she a highly functioning retard or something?

I like to think that in their private chambers, the other SupCourt judges are asking her that exact question, after that exchange.

Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 28 2012,06:04

(GORDON @ Mar. 28 2012,08:30)
QUOTE
So seriously... is she a highly functioning retard or something?

No, you racist. She is a < wise Latina >.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2012,06:05
She's a fucking idiot if she thinks she made a valid argument.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2012,06:36

(GORDON @ Mar. 28 2012,08:05)
QUOTE
She's a fucking idiot.

Statement corrected.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2012,06:53
Is she the one that many wondered if she'd step down from the case because she's already ruled the law as being legal in other court?

My 7 year old knows her line of reasoning is bullshit. She's either a retard, or she's playing politics. Either way, fuck her.

Does anyone else find it amazing that judges run for election in this country and actually have political parties? So much for impartiality.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2012,10:42
< MSN - Health care law doomed. >

< Yahoo - There's hope for some parts of health care law. >

I just found these two articles to be humorous as they're both up on those sites right now. MSN blames conservatives, while Yahoo praises liberals for giving the law hope.

Neither mentions that perhaps the Democrat controlled Congress should have worked harder on passing a law that's legal instead of blaming Republicans for proving it to be unconstitutional.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2012,11:36
Not getting my hopes up... not getting my hopes up....
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2012,11:44

(TPRJones @ Mar. 28 2012,09:36)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 28 2012,08:05)
QUOTE
She's a fucking idiot.

Statement corrected.

Just had a funny thought:

I remember when my perception of Supreme Court justices was that they were wise.  Those were the days.

See what I did there?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 29 2012,17:03
< http://www.nypost.com/p....A3hdHKJ >

QUOTE
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.


That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.

This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2012,13:58
< http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs....1 >

QUOTE
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama told reporters today....


Hey Obama, FDR is on the phone.

Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 02 2012,14:09
Yeah, I mean it says right there in the Constitution that it's a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" that defines what's Constitutional. Duh. He should know, he's a professor of ConLaw.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2012,17:35
This can't be right, because I can't believe that even he is this stupid:

QUOTE
The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/politic....vuWrF9T >

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2012,17:42

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2012,20:35)
QUOTE
This can't be right, because I can't believe that even he is this stupid:

QUOTE
The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/politic....vuWrF9T >

MSNBC reported it, but did not include the implication, above.

QUOTE
Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.


< http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news....-upheld >

I want to see an unedited transcript.  Really hoping Obama isn't that stupid.



Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 02 2012,17:43
OMG
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2012,18:11
CNN:

QUOTE
Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.


< http://www.cnn.com/2012....=hp_bn5 >

Again, having a hard time believing he said this, since that is exactly the reason the Supreme Court exists.  He can't possibly not know that.  The Fox News "how can an unelected group of people" comment was also not repeated on CNN.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2012,18:16
Obama is acceptions donations to his reelection campaign from foreign donors... again... which is illegal.

< http://pjmedia.com/tatler....l-hasan >

He did this the first time, too.  They "fixed" the problem.  Now they have unfixed it.

QUOTE
This video is a follow-up to Adrian Murray’s facebook post over the weekend, in which he says that he donated to the Obama campaign as “Adolph Hitler,” occupation “Dictator” living at a German address. As you can see in the clip, citizen journalist George Scaggs of Austin tries the same thing at three different campaign sites, that of Obama, Romney and Santorum. Only the Obama site accepted the donation without the verification number.



Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 03 2012,08:54
< Is this racist? >
QUOTE
“I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn't lose the black vote," a cheerful Van Jones told MSNBC this afternoon.

"President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does," he added.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2012,19:45
Obama must have said it striking down his law would be unprecidented, because they are making him answer if he was actually serious.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....-health >

QUOTE
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 04 2012,05:21
1. He did this before, in the State of the Union speech or something, where he badmouthed the SCOTUS.
2. As for this particular law, I don't see why it would be any more unconstitutional than anything else that's out there. The federal government has no limits, period. It ain't supposed to be that way, but that's where we've been for a long time now. Welcome to the party.

Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 04 2012,05:36
< See what I mean? >
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 05 2012,12:13
< Thomas Sowell looks black, but is clearly not, because he is RACIST >:
QUOTE
But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”?
...
They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way that Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after two centuries of countless precedents.

In short, he is simply lying.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2012,13:47
Looks like everyone is following my lead and saying, "There is no way he could be that stupid."

Unfortunately, that only leads to one other answer.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 09 2012,11:18
Obama not knowing Constitutional law despite being a Constitutional lawyer isn't news.

A < Republican senator saying he's stupid for not knowing, > is headline news.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 09 2012,11:28
QUOTE
Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law

Really, if this is the best he can do in terms of clear language I have little interest in his opinions.  He's stupid.

Nevermind that he's also right.  That's beside the point.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 09 2012,11:46
I forgave the Twitter-speak as typical politician "look how hip I am" bullshit.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 09 2012,12:12

(TPRJones @ Apr. 09 2012,14:28)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law

Really, if this is the best he can do in terms of clear language I have little interest in his opinions.  He's stupid.

Nevermind that he's also right.  That's beside the point.

Twitter.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 09 2012,13:54
It is entirely possible to express complete and coherent ideas in 140 characters or less without writing like an uneducated sophomoric fool.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 09 2012,16:01

(TPRJones @ Apr. 09 2012,16:54)
QUOTE
It is entirely possible to express complete and coherent ideas in 140 characters or less without writing like an uneducated sophomoric fool.

I've never seen anyone on Twitter prove that.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 09 2012,16:19
Count the characters in that quote.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 09 2012,17:59
I'm not aware we're on twitter :)
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 09 2012,19:34
True, but it still works as an example of the possibility.  :p


Posted by GORDON on Apr. 10 2012,14:23
Et tu, Clooney?

< http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news....ma?lite >

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 10 2012,16:40
What do you mean "Et tu Clooney?"

He's the reason for the smug episode of South Park after he have the speech about how liberals have never been wrong on any issue.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 10 2012,17:18
Until now I didn't really know anything about his politics outside of the Sudan stuff, which Obama has done nothing about.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 10 2012,18:33
Go watch that episode again. The speech in the background of the smug storm is his "we've never been wrong" bullshit.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2012,10:43
Find Nancy Pelosi:

< http://blog.heritage.org/2012....picture >

Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 13 2012,10:46
I've been seeing a lot of ads about how "Big Oil is using its record profits due to tax breaks to attack the President."
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2012,07:42
So, what the hell....

There was that thing with the cop and the black professor, and Obama jumped right into it with some harsh criticism of the cop, then it turned out the prof lied and that led to the beer summit.

Then there was the famous, "My son would look like him" comment, and now things are all fucked up and political and "some people" want blood, whether guilty or innocent.

The President is not one to get the whole story before rendering judgement, is my point.  But now there's this?

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....scandal >

QUOTE
President Obama, in his first public remarks on the prostitution scandal involving members of the Secret Service, said Sunday that he will be "angry" if the reported allegations against the agents turn out to be true. He said Secret Service personnel, like the rest of any U.S. delegation abroad, must "observe the highest standards."

"We're here on behalf of our people and that means that we conduct ourselves with the utmost dignity and probity. And obviously what's been reported doesn't match up with those standards," Obama said, on the closing day of his visit to Colombia.

The president, though, said he would wait until the internal investigation is complete before rendering a judgment. He said he expects the probe to be "thorough" and "rigorous" -- and that if the allegations turn out to be true, "then of course I'll be angry."



So now he has wisdom all of a sudden?  I don't believe that, so what's the deal?

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 16 2012,10:02
QUOTE
so what's the deal?


This is simple.

He reacts quickly to condemn a cracker, and someone the MSM is trying to label a cracker because he feels the public is on his side.

The problem is that the majority of the public is stupid OR listens too much to the MSM who have been proven to lie for ratings.

As for the Secret Service, they protect him and his family. Obama is smart enough to know that if a reporter showed him photos of the agent next to him banging a prostitute, he should reply, "I can't tell by that photo, I'm going to wait for the full investigation."

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 22 2012,14:24
I'll put this in this thread, since some of the stuff he uses to support his arguments was done by the Obama administration.


Posted by Leisher on Apr. 23 2012,10:03
< Obama skipping Congress more often. >

This is the shit that pisses me off.

The MSM writes a glowing article praising Obama on doing everything he can to bypass Congress to exert his will on the American people. Constitution be damned.

If George W. Bush had pulled something like this, they'd be writing articles declaring that he thinks he's king and this is a dictatorship.

After all, we all know how he acted alone on Afghanistan and Iraq, despite dozens of other countries agreeing, and being involved.

Here we have Obama bending rules to get around Congress, you know the folks elected to represent the people, and he's a fucking hero for it?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 23 2012,10:07
Well everyone knows that congress is obstructionist and wants the little guy to suffer.  Boama is heroically fighting the racist half of the legislative branch and going lone wolf.  Truly, a man who will save us all.

Have been reading too much msnbc lately.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 25 2012,12:07
Labor Department: Kids no longer allowed to do chores on the family farm.

< http://dailycaller.com/2012....-chores >

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2012,09:43
Here it is.


Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 27 2012,10:57
They asked four economists:
No, no, no, and "if it doesn't constraint job growth/employment, 2.5% isn't so bad"

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 27 2012,11:13
I think anyone who believes the MSM isn't biased as hell is ignorant.

Ditto for anyone who thinks Obama is doing a good job.

Actually, for the second one, they're either ignorant or racist.


Who is the last Democrat that was so shitty that people in Hollywood could openly bash him without fearing for their careers? Carter?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2012,11:14
Well, Clinton got bashed a lot, but it was more "laughing with him" than "laughing at him."  Clinton just gave no fucks.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 27 2012,11:28
< Hilarious. >

Isn't it odd that the AP isn't running with this story?

I'll bet they'd ignore it if it happened to a Republican too, right?

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 27 2012,11:32
< Labor Department is backing down. >
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 27 2012,11:42
QUOTE
No one would insure me because of my pre-existing conditions


No one would insure my house because it was built in a flood plain and was on fire.

This is what chaps my ass: people don't want "insurance." They want free doctor visits. But we have to pretend it's insurance, so insurance gets f-d up.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 27 2012,11:54
QUOTE

No one would insure me because of my pre-existing conditions. No one. Until President Obama stood up for me and millions of Americans like me across Iowa and across the country,” she said.
...
She said she explains her situation more clearly when she gives a 15-minute presentation on the issue. She said some of the specifics were trimmed out when she and campaign staff members shortened her standard presentation to about three minutes.

In general, she said, the campaign wanted her to speak as a person who has struggled to find coverage. “I never thought they tried to make me the face of someone giving credit to the president for doing something he hadn’t done,” she said.

Um, but you did do that.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2012,12:47

(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2012,12:43)
QUOTE
Here it is.


Top Ten Rejected NPR Headlines

10. Did Hitler Get a Bad Rap?

9. Should I tell my husband I'm cheating on him? And planning to murder him?

8. What's so Morbid about Morbid Obesity?

7. Should I bait this rat-hole with my penis? If not, why not?

6. Is thirteen really too young?

5. Should I eat a knife?

4. Who's afraid of late-stage Hanta virus?

3. Candy From Strangers: Are we teaching our children to be ungrateful?

2. Hey, anyone want to see the new Woody Allen movie?

...and the number one rejected NPR headline...

1. Your Mouth: Why it pays to be trusting about what will or won't happen there

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 30 2012,15:55
Jon Lovtiz is getting JOE THE PLUMBERed for saying something bad about Obama.

< http://www.mediaite.com/online....ot-king >

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 30 2012,17:53
Obama's 2012 campaign slogan:

< http://go.bloomberg.com/politic....ok-back >

Why that's sadly funny:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_League_Vpered >

Posted by GORDON on May 01 2012,10:44
SEALS join the Secret Service with "aren't happy with Obama."

< http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news....it.html >

Posted by TPRJones on May 01 2012,11:02
Wait, I thought Obama killed bin Laden himself, choking him out with his bare hands after riding down into his compound on a beam of starlight from the ninth dimension of awesomesauce, where the wealthy work 2,000 hours a day and pay a 100% tax rate so the other 99% can party all the time and everyone has all the contraception they could ever possibly want.
Posted by Leisher on May 01 2012,11:29
QUOTE
Wait, I thought Obama killed bin Laden himself, choking him out with his bare hands after riding down into his compound on a beam of starlight from the ninth dimension of awesomesauce, where the wealthy work 2,000 hours a day and pay a 100% tax rate so the other 99% can party all the time and everyone has all the contraception they could ever possibly want.


This.

Posted by TPRJones on May 01 2012,11:39
I can't believe I forgot to mention his unicorn-pegasus-kitten mount that he rode down on that is 50% pirate, 50% ninja, and 75% robot-monkey-dinosaur.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 02 2012,12:52
< Can you imagine if Bush had done this? >
Posted by Leisher on May 03 2012,05:53
Liberal assholes loved to say Bush=Hitler, but the similarities between Hitler and Obama are FAR more numerous.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 03 2012,06:02
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pre....ay-2012 >

QUOTE
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

Posted by TheCatt on May 03 2012,06:18
I assume all laws/proclamations/etc are all written like that, but damn.
Posted by TPRJones on May 03 2012,06:31
He chose the First of May for that?  Really?

But that's < already a (NSFW) holiday >...

Posted by thibodeaux on May 04 2012,13:34
< DAAAAAAAMN >

I could almost see myself voting for this guy.

Posted by thibodeaux on May 04 2012,13:35
< Free stuff, from cradle to grave >
Posted by TheCatt on May 04 2012,13:49
Under Romney/Ryan, Julia can just keep her own damned money,.
Posted by TheCatt on May 04 2012,13:49

(thibodeaux @ May 04 2012,16:34)
QUOTE
< DAAAAAAAMN >

I could almost see myself voting for this guy.

At this point, I'm pretty much voting for him no matter what.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 04 2012,13:51
Fuck Romney, based on his record as MassGov. He INVENTED Obamacare.
Posted by TheCatt on May 06 2012,11:55
< Biden supports gay marriage. >

Real story:  Obama will support it if it helps him politically
QUOTE
While Obama opposes gay marriage, he says his personal views on the matter are "evolving" and has noted that polls show Americans are increasingly supporting same-sex marriage.

Posted by GORDON on May 09 2012,16:13
Finally, the man tells you what he really thinks.


Posted by thibodeaux on May 13 2012,17:19
< ROFLMFAO >

Literally. I have NO ass left.

Posted by TheCatt on May 13 2012,17:55
LOL

I accidentally subscribed (for free) to Newsweek several weeks ago, at least I can enjoy this.

Posted by GORDON on May 13 2012,18:00

(thibodeaux @ May 13 2012,20:19)
QUOTE
< ROFLMFAO >

Literally. I have NO ass left.

Page no longer exists.  Splain?
Posted by TheCatt on May 13 2012,18:39
Long URL, remove the
tags

Posted by GORDON on May 13 2012,19:37
AHhh


Posted by TPRJones on May 14 2012,05:53
What are they, 12?

"Ewww, you don't have fags so YOU must be a fag!"

Posted by Leisher on May 15 2012,07:26
< Gay Marriage hurting Obama. >

The majority of voters think he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but did this as a political move. Ouch.

Of those folks who believe this move will affect their vote, 16% said this will make them more likely to vote for him, while 26% said this will make them more likely to vote against him.

Also, Romney apparently is leading by 3 points in the latest polls.

Posted by TPRJones on May 15 2012,08:35
I guarantee this wasn't a political move.  After all, most the folks in favor of equal rights on this issue were already pretty likely to vote for him, and all the bigots opposed to gay marriage were already pretty likely to vote for anyone else available.  This whole thing is a political mess for him.

Yet it's still the only good thing I've seen any President do since at least Reagan.  Biden may have pushed him into it, but he's taken a stand on an important issue in the Oval Office and isn't backing down even in the face of demagoguery from the homo-hating right and black so-called "Christian" preachers that despise the idea of some fags having equal rights.  Good on him.

Still not voting for him, of course.



Posted by Leisher on May 15 2012,12:34
QUOTE
I guarantee this wasn't a political move.


I guarantee it was a political move.

This announcement wasn't coming. This was Biden's big mouth forcing Obama to take a stance.

(On a side note, Biden is proof that the MSM has a bias towards Democrats. If they didn't, this guy would constantly be getting the Dan Quail treatment.)

First of all, as I've said, I don't think Obama likes women, but he's ok with gay folk? Bullshit.

Secondly, why now right before his second election? Why not put it on front street way back in 2008?

Third, why isn't he pushing to make a federal case out of it < like this guy. >

This was all about pandering to the left and appease them for all the other promises to them he's broken. Who has been most outspoken about gay rights? Hollywood. Who isn't there to support Obama this election like they were the first election? Hollywood.

I honestly look at all the people who buy into Obama's bullshit and think, "Barnum was right". I don't understand how anyone takes him seriously. The lies are right there on his face. Maybe it's a poker thing?

Posted by thibodeaux on May 15 2012,13:03
Maybe I'm biased, but I frequently see Republican/right-wingers do the "he's an SOB, but he's our SOB" stuff, like with Bush: not really thrilled with him, but he's better than the OTHER guy.

Democrats, on the other hand, seem to really believe in the awesomeness of their guy. Even with Bill Clinton (if you can believe that), but with Obama, it's on a completely different level. People really do act like he farts rainbows.

Posted by TPRJones on May 15 2012,13:14
Most of the stuff I've seen in the past year or so about Obama has been more along the lines of "he's an SOB, but he's our SOB".  There are exceptions, of course.  Mostly in the African American community.

QUOTE
This announcement wasn't coming. This was Biden's big mouth forcing Obama to take a stance.


Here I totally agree with you.  He couldn't just leave it hanging there unanswered after that.  But then he took that stance, even though half of the country will have him for it.  It seems just as potentially damaging politically than beneficial, if not more so.  That's why I think it was an honest stance.  It would have been pretty easy to shove it back into the closet until after the election.



Posted by TheCatt on May 15 2012,14:40
QUOTE
Rep. James Clyburn, the House Democrats’ third-ranking leader, said on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown Monday that the question of legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples should not be left to state laws, but instead ought to be decided at the national level, a position that puts him at odds with President Barack Obama.

Agreed, Mr. Clyburn.

Posted by thibodeaux on May 16 2012,12:37
< Romney hater predicts Romney in November >
Posted by GORDON on May 16 2012,16:42
Obama's budget defeated 99-0 in Senate.

< http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog....-senate >

Wow, maybe Obama really is ushering in a new era of political cooperation.  Everyone hates him equally.

Yeah, I know.

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2012,06:24
< Article with latest Gallup poll. >
Posted by GORDON on May 17 2012,14:20
There is documentation that claims Obama was born in Kenya.

< http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Gov....-Hawaii >

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2012,14:22
And his literary agent was using that documentation until 2007.

< http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Gov....se-2007 >

Posted by thibodeaux on May 17 2012,18:30
Racist.
Posted by GORDON on May 17 2012,18:42
Typically the agent gets that sort of info from the author.  Yet, we have a picture of a birth certificate from Hawaii.  Both can not be correct.

I said after the Bush Nat'l Guard memo that the next leftie photoshop would be flawless.

Posted by thibodeaux on May 18 2012,04:01
I have heard people say (on the internet, so it must be true) that the birth certificate is a 'shop job.
Posted by TheCatt on May 18 2012,04:12
The article you linked pretty much says: Obama was born in Hawaii, but probably bent the story this way to make himself seem more dramatic or something.  Then accuses him of constantly bending the truth, etc.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 18 2012,05:22

(TheCatt @ May 18 2012,07:12)
QUOTE
The article you linked pretty much says: Obama was born in Hawaii, but probably bent the story this way to make himself seem more dramatic or something.  Then accuses him of constantly bending the truth, etc.

In all seriousness, that seems like an extremely likely explanation. Sort of like how this blond-haired-blue-eyed Elizabeth Warren person is a Cherokee Indian.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 18 2012,05:24
Of course, there's < this >.  And < this >.


Posted by TheCatt on May 18 2012,05:26
QUOTE
According to a Boston-area genealogist's report, Warren is 1/32nd Cherokee.

LOL.  I'm 1/64th.

Posted by GORDON on May 20 2012,15:27
Teacher yells at a student for asking if Obama had ever been a bully.

Relevant question at 1:00.  Screaming starts about 1:30.  Stopped listening about 2:30.  

Granted, the classroom seems pretty unruly.



Teacher sounded German.



Posted by thibodeaux on May 20 2012,16:02
That one kid was pretty back-talky. I wouldn't want my kid to act like this.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want my kid to be in a class "taught" by this moron.

I wonder how much she defended Bush from "disrespect."

Posted by GORDON on May 21 2012,12:43
Teacher suspended with pay..... for the next 10 minutes before everyone forgets.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....r-obama >

Posted by Leisher on May 21 2012,12:50
I wish I could get suspended with pay.
Posted by GORDON on May 21 2012,13:46
You need a better union.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 24 2012,05:26
< O. M. GAWD. >
Posted by GORDON on May 24 2012,06:00
Haaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 24 2012,06:37
Personally, I don't allow anybody to disrespect the President of the United States in my presence.
Posted by Leisher on May 24 2012,07:40
< My favorite news story of the day. >

Why?

Because yesterday on Yahoo or possibly even MSN they ran a story about how Romney had a 6 point lead in Florida.

It always amazes me how NBC run polls seem to show Obama doing good, yet all the other polls have him losing or in a virtual dead heat.

Who does NBC poll, only Democrats?

Posted by GORDON on May 24 2012,08:44

(thibodeaux @ May 24 2012,09:37)
QUOTE
Personally, I don't allow anybody to disrespect the President of the United States in my presence.

I heard it was illegal.
Posted by GORDON on May 24 2012,08:45

(Leisher @ May 24 2012,10:40)
QUOTE
< My favorite news story of the day. >

Why?

Because yesterday on Yahoo or possibly even MSN they ran a story about how Romney had a 6 point lead in Florida.

It always amazes me how NBC run polls seem to show Obama doing good, yet all the other polls have him losing or in a virtual dead heat.

Who does NBC poll, only Democrats?

Did I hear that MSNBC had a permanent office in the White House, or was that a joke?
Posted by thibodeaux on May 24 2012,11:10
< I almost miss this guy >
Posted by TheCatt on May 27 2012,10:17
< Truth >

First it attacks the "Obama didn't increase spending" bullshit... then there's this part

QUOTE
Cutter also hammers Romney on classroom size, saying, “Mitt Romney made some more ridiculous claims and assertions this week, this time on education policy. He even had the nerve to tell a group of educators that: ‘It’s not the classroom size that’s driving the success of those school systems.’”

The problem is that Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, has also suggested classroom size isn’t as important as some necessarily think.

“We spent billions of dollars to reduce class size. As a parent, we all love small class size,” Duncan told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “But the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher. So other countries have higher class sizes but extraordinary talent in those rooms.”

Leonie Haimson, the executive director of Class Size Matters, recently wrote an open letter to President Obama that appeared in the Washington Post, saying, “If you disagree with what Romney said, you should rein in your own education secretary and ask him to take back his erroneous statements on the subject.”


Here's a bit from Superfreakonomics about the impact of women entering the workforce, and not just being teachers.

QUOTE
As a consequence, the schoolteacher corps began to experience a brain drain. In 1960, about 40 percent of female teachers scored in the top quintile of IQ and other aptitude tests, with only 8 percent in the bottom. Twenty years later, fewer than half as many were in the top quintile, more than twice as many in the bottom. It hardly helped that teachers' wages were falling significantly in relation to those of other jobs. "The quality of teachers has been declining for decades," the chancellor of New York City's public schools declared in 2000, "and no one wants to talk about it."

Posted by thibodeaux on May 27 2012,11:03
You know what nobody really wants to talk about? The quality of the students. The fact is, 50% of students are below average...AND ALWAYS WILL BE. It doesn't matter how much money we shovel into the rathole of "education."
Posted by GORDON on May 27 2012,11:03
I would suggest another logic problem: wage stagnation may not be the only factor.  I would suggest that lawsuits and inability to get rid of/discipline problem children would also have an effect on the teacher applicant pool.

And let's not even get started on why being a male teacher is asking for life-destroying trouble.



Posted by TheCatt on May 27 2012,18:17
So... what do you do with discipline problem children?
Posted by GORDON on May 27 2012,21:26

(TheCatt @ May 27 2012,21:17)
QUOTE
So... what do you do with discipline problem children?

Do not allow them to keep the kids who want to be there from getting an education.
Posted by TPRJones on May 28 2012,06:08
Schools should have an open door policy.  As in if a kid doesn't want to be there they are welcome to leave at any time.  They shouldn't have to be run like prisons.

Does that put bad kids on the streets doing bad things?  Sure, but that shouldn't be the school's problem to deal with.  Does that mean that parents might have to raise their kids better so that they actually want to be at school - or at the very least are afraid to leave?  Yes, yes it does.  That's the whole point.

Posted by GORDON on May 29 2012,13:32
Department of Justice to brief hundreds of black pastors on how to campaign for Obama without getting in trouble with the IRS.

< http://weaselzippers.us/2012....r-obama >

Posted by thibodeaux on May 29 2012,14:34
Did you watch the MSNBC clip? The Congressional Black Caucus is doing this to "combat the rise in voter ID laws." WTF?
Posted by TPRJones on May 29 2012,14:52
Because it's a "Jim Crow poll tax".  I guess since you have to pay for your state-issued ID?
Posted by GORDON on May 29 2012,14:58

(TPRJones @ May 29 2012,17:52)
QUOTE
Because it's a "Jim Crow poll tax".  I guess since you have to pay for your state-issued ID?

Last i heard the basic state IDs were free.
Posted by TPRJones on May 29 2012,16:17
Then it must be because you have to pay for gas or bus fare to go get those IDs.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 01 2012,06:01
Have you signed up for the "Do Not Kill" list, yet?

< http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012....st.html >

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 01 2012,17:08
I cannot criticize him for having a kill list.

Economy's tanking... waiting for conspiracy theorists on companies not hiring cuz they want the economy to look worse and Obama to lose election.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 01 2012,17:10
It isn't a conspiracy theory when it is true.  All intelligent people know that republicans run big business, and they will do anything to make the black man lose.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 04 2012,11:05
< MSN giving free promotion for Barrack fund raiser. >

It seems to me that this might be breaking all sorts of election laws. Not just the ad or the coverage of it, but also the televised event itself. Doesn't MTV have to give Romney equal time? Doesn't MSN.com now have to promote a Romney fund raiser?

And seriously?
QUOTE
"OK, the guy who ended the war in Iraq; the guy who says you should be able to marry anyone you want; and the guy who created 4 million new jobs. That guy -- President Obama -- and Michelle are coming to my house for dinner on June 14. And I want you to be there, too,"


Let me fix that for you Jessica:
QUOTE
"OK, the guy who claims to have ended the war in Iraq even though the actual war part ended during Bush's tenure, and the violence afterwards has been nothing but terrorists and extremists. You know, the terrorists and extremists who are still causing problems there, but we're leaving anyway. Why? Political capital and because the Iraqis asked us to leave now, which is when Bush said we would. Oh, and ignore what's going on in Afghanistan. And for that matter, ignore that Guantanamo Bay is still open...; the guy who was forced into saying you should be able to marry anyone you want, even though he doesn't really believe it; and the guy who created 4 million temporary and/or government jobs which actually don't equal good things in the long run. Oh, and you probably shouldn't pay attention to the unemployment rate that's climbing. That guy -- President Obama -- and Michelle are coming to my house for dinner on June 14. And I want you to be there, too,"

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 05 2012,03:01
< If this is true, it's likely the first time it's ever happened: >

QUOTE
You never know who is going to be president four years from now," Mr Obama is said to have told aides during a discussion about whether he should be able to detain terror suspects indefinitely. "I have to think about how Mitt Romney would use that power."


If only EVERYBODY thought like that.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 05 2012,06:07
< California regrets bullet train. >

Really? They regret a $70 billion dollar project connecting only two of their cities and saving them only 4 1/2 hours of drive time? Maybe it's because IF it ever gets done, it won't be for another 20+ years?

I put this in the Obama thread because he wants to build one spanning the entire country...

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 05 2012,06:36
QUOTE
You never know who is going to be president four years from now," Mr Obama is said to have told aides during a discussion about whether he should be able to detain terror suspects indefinitely. "I have to think about how Mitt Romney would use that power."

Fucking hell, that one statement alone makes him the smartest President we've had in nearly 200 years.



Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2012,12:22
He has no problem with the precedent of a Kill List, but worries about the "Lock Them Up Forever" list?

I didn't read the article.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 05 2012,17:47

(GORDON @ Jun. 05 2012,15:22)
QUOTE
He has no problem with the precedent of a Kill List, but worries about the "Lock Them Up Forever" list?

Well, like I said, "IF" it's true. Clearly his actions are speaking louder than his words.
Posted by unkbill on Jun. 05 2012,18:25
Really? They regret a $70 billion dollar project connecting only two of their cities and saving them only 4 1/2 hours of drive time? Maybe it's because IF it ever gets done, it won't be for another 20+ years?

I put this in the Obama thread because he wants to build one spanning the entire country

Because I talked to people. Vegas people want it, Los Angles people want it. Disney wants the train to start there. Where other places in LA are a much better strarting place. Money talks. But because 1 person can't have it fuck you all.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2012,18:29
I can think of a lot better uses for SEVENTY BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS than a train for a bunch of fuckers on the west coast, where a small portion of the country will get to use it.

I hate it for that reason alone.

But, California is a blue state.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 05 2012,21:18

(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2012,09:07)
QUOTE
< California regrets bullet train. >

Really? They regret a $70 billion dollar project connecting only two of their cities and saving them only 4 1/2 hours of drive time? Maybe it's because IF it ever gets done, it won't be for another 20+ years?

I put this in the Obama thread because he wants to build one spanning the entire country...

The current state of flying makes trains at least slightly more appealing.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 06 2012,05:53
Does that mean we can blame the necessity of the $70 billion in costs on the TSA?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 12 2012,09:21

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 15 2012,11:41
< Obama stops deporting young illegal immigrants. >

Doesn't this prove Arizona is right?

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 15 2012,15:25
I'm fine with that.  As long as they aren't allowed to suckle on the government teat until after they become full citizens.  Which they shouldn't be allowed to do unless they are holding down a good job for a long time first.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 16 2012,04:23
< Hah >
Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 21 2012,14:49
< Fast and Furious >. A lot of people are hoping this will "bring down" the Obama admin.

I dunno. When I read about it, I just think "Ho-Hum. ATF up to shenanigans. Dog bites man." Seems like wishful thinking to me.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 21 2012,14:55
I hate the cognitive dissonance happening.  For a lot of people, Obama is still the Second Coming, and they claim his "Executive Order" that sealed the ATF documents Congress has demanded stinks of coverup, but in the past other evil Presidents have done the same thing, so that means Obama is still the Second Coming.

Makes you want to smack somebody for the raw stupidity of that.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 21 2012,19:24
Same shit, different president.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2012,14:25

(TheCatt @ Jun. 21 2012,22:24)
QUOTE
Same shit, different president.

< http://pjmedia.com/rogerki....tration >

QUOTE
The end hasn’t come yet, not quite. But you can feel it coming, a dull, oppressive presence like the heaviness of the air before a storm or the quickly widening fissures that consumed the House of Usher. Future historians, looking back on the wreck of the Obama administration, will mark with wonder the president’s darkly frivolous assertion of executive privilege this week. It was then, they will say, that his administration, that the President himself, officially entered the Period of Panic and Flailing.

It’s not going to be pretty. Expect a season of recriminations, grandiosities, and sudden reversals. The usual narrative holds that Obama asserted executive privilege, denying Congress the documents it requested in the murderous case of gunwalking called “Fast and Furious” in order to save his Attorney General Eric Holder. Perhaps. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, at the end of the day, this spectacular piece of recklessness wasn’t regarded as the beginning of the end for Eric Holder, who will likely face a Contempt of Congress citation next week.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 22 2012,17:08
Still think it's wishful thinking.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2012,17:24
Yeah, I still think he's bulletproof.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 24 2012,12:25
I cannot stress the next words enough...

< What. The. Fuck. >

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 24 2012,12:36
GOT TO COUNTER THE GOP SUPER PACS!

Ignore the Democrat Super Pacs, and the fact Obama outspent McCain in 2008.  As of this year, money is evil and evil Republicans who are evil are trying to buy the election, evilly.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 24 2012,13:43

(Leisher @ Jun. 24 2012,15:25)
QUOTE
I cannot stress the next words enough...

< What. The. Fuck. >

I didn't read all the comments, but it looked like they were all mocking this. I almost wondered if it was a parody site.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 24 2012,15:02

(thibodeaux @ Jun. 24 2012,16:43)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Jun. 24 2012,15:25)
QUOTE
I cannot stress the next words enough...

< What. The. Fuck. >

I didn't read all the comments, but it looked like they were all mocking this. I almost wondered if it was a parody site.

From the home page of that site:

QUOTE
For the first time in modern American history, the incumbent (that's us) will get outspent in a re-election campaign—by some estimates as much as 3-to-1.

Over the last 10 days of this month alone, GOP outside groups will spend $20 million attacking President Obama on TV.

Think about that, then think about what they'll spend over the last 10 days in October.

We have to take this seriously. Four months to go in this election, and we have a huge fundraising deadline coming up in less than a week—any day we're not chipping away at that disadvantage, we're falling behind.

Please make a donation today.

We don't have billionaires writing $10 million checks, and right now, we can't change the laws that allow the hijacking of our democracy by private money.

What we do have is more than 2 million grassroots donors giving an average donation of $51. Every day between now and November we can combat the huge spending advantage that our opponent and his allies have over regular people.


Wow, republicans invented spending money to win an election.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 25 2012,06:36
Just got the following message in my Twitter feed:
QUOTE
Michelle Obama ‏@MichelleObama

Fair pay for women means a stronger middle class. #Women2012 < http://pic.twitter.com/FibZKlpy >
Promoted by Barack Obama


Here's the problem, I don't follow Michelle or Barack. It wasn't retweeted by anyone I do follow. When I highlighted the "Promoted by Barack Obama" part it said "Paid for by Obama for America".

So is it an ad, and if so, since when does Twitter throw paid ads into it's feed? If it's not an ad, is Twitter breaking election laws by allowing this message to go out to people who didn't sign up to receive it? Don't they have to give equal time to Romney? And why can't I hit the "Dismiss" button to remove it like I can with other messages?

I did click it so I could report Michelle for spam.  :D

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 25 2012,07:44
Yes, it's an ad.  Twitter has been doing this for a while.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 25 2012,08:25
I've never noticed one before.

It's bullshit that I can't hide/delete it from my feed.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 25 2012,09:42
Well, that's how they provide you the service.

< Promoted tweets >

QUOTE
Are Promoted Tweets like other online ads?

   Since all Promoted Tweets start out as regular Tweets, there is not a single “ad” in our Promoted Tweets platform that isn’t already an organic part of Twitter.

LOL

So I can say "Buy Coke!" and promote it, but that's not an "ad"



Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 26 2012,09:47
< Dinner with "Barack and Michelle" >

Posted on FB by a friend.

FB is kind of depressing sometimes. I pretty much have two camps of "friends": yuppie white urban liberals and rural jesus freaks.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 26 2012,09:54
QUOTE
approximate retail value of all prizes $4,800

Really?  For two plane tickets, a night in a hotel and a dinner?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2012,10:15
Does one have to pay taxes for that "prize?"
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 26 2012,12:52
< Obama gets booed in Boston, MSN spins it. >

I realize he was kidding, and all, but fuck me. I wonder if was tough to type that article with Obama's dick in the writer's mouth.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,07:09
QUOTE
The Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate for health care.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,07:12
Wait... now im reading this
QUOTE
The individual mandate survives as a tax.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,07:13
QUOTE
The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,07:16
QUOTE
Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 28 2012,07:49
This is our current politicians taking a steaming shit in the mouths of our founding fathers.

A huge win for all the lazy fucks living in this country who want everything handed to them.

It will be interesting to see the fallout from this ruling. The right is going to be livid, and I guarantee you that you'll see record numbers from them at the polls in November.

Also, a majority of American citizens, 51-76% depending on which poll, wanted the ACA repealed. A lot of folks are going to feel like their government doesn't serve them anymore, but rather rules them.

I just don't understand how anyone can defend Obama's presidency. It's been a disaster. Economy is the toilet? Use the Obama plan:
-Raise taxes on the folks who already pay the most in taxes. Make sure you use PR to make these people seem evil. Completely ignore the fact that these people create the most jobs.
-Raise costs and taxes on private industry.
-Hire more government workers.
-Increase government spending to record levels.
-Increase handouts to the people.
-Model your government on the European governments. You know, the ones that are all going bankrupt...

I can't wait until we have the ask China to bail us out.



Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,07:51
Yeah, we're on our way to Italy.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,07:58
Obama: it isn't a tax.



Roberts: it is legal because it is a tax.

QUOTE
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote about the individual mandate, citing the taxing clause:

“It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without insurance.  Such legislation is within Congress’ power to tax."

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,07:59

(TheCatt @ Jun. 28 2012,10:51)
QUOTE
Yeah, we're on our way to Italy.

Greece?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,08:04
I wonder how many senators who voted for that piece of shit... who thought there was no way in hell the Supreme Court would let it stand... are now shitting themselves because now they have to own it.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,08:32
Just buying more votes, why would they care?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,08:57
Because this could end up being a disaster.

The problem with the health care industry is the health "insurance" providers.  Obamacare props up and increases what is wrong.  This could be bad.

Then, there is going to be a massive cost to most citizens, either through their existing premiums rising to cover 25 year old children, or people like me who don't have insurance because they can't justify the expense vs. the risk ($500/month when you don't get it through an employer), or small business owners, or whatever.

This is a massive, massive across-the-board tax.  Last I looked the debt was already at 104% of our GDP.... this has the makings of a disaster.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,09:06
DNC: < It's constitutional, bitches. >


Posted by Troy on Jun. 28 2012,10:25
Fuck the socialist agenda, i'm moving to Canada Mexico.


Posted by Leisher on Jun. 28 2012,10:32
Facebook is oddly quiet regarding the decision.

The lefties I know aren't celebrating, and the right wing nuts aren't declaring war.

I just see subtle posts about anger.

If the Republicans take the White House and get control of Congress, this ruling is going to be a big reason why.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2012,10:44
Mine's been pretty quiet about it, too.  A few "Yay!"s

QUOTE
America is 36% obese. Supreme Court ruled Obama Care is constitutional. It's really a win win situation.





Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 28 2012,11:51

(GORDON @ Jun. 28 2012,10:57)
QUOTE
The problem with the health care industry is the health "insurance" providers.  Obamacare props up and increases what is wrong.

So far his entire administration has been about exactly that, propping up the failures so they can keep failing.  See google results for "bailouts" for further examples.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,13:52
Well at least now that we are all forced to have health "insurance," no one will ever get sick again and we can all live forever, no matter what.

I feel motivated to go find my local republican party office and volunteer, for some reason.



Posted by Leisher on Jun. 28 2012,14:31
Best thing I saw all day, and even posted it to my Facebook:

The Supreme Court also legalized slavery.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,15:23
Welp, I am done making predictions, because everything I have predicted since Obama has been wrong.

I figured the American people would never be dumb enough to elect a guy with absolutely no executive experience, and was never in charge of anything... wrong.

I figured a health care plan that was drafted in secret and so big it hadn't even been read by the people voted on it would never pass... it did.

I figured the supreme court would never uphold a law require people to buy a service.... wrong.

So now I figure this will galvanize the majority of people to vote obama out, but I aint putting a dog in that hunt.  I think I am jinxing things.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 28 2012,16:37
Dummy, why don't you predict an Obama landslide and be wrong about that?

Personally, I think the best solution is an Obama win in 2012. Romney is a RINO; no sense trying to fool ourselves he's any different from, oh, I dunno, John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy. Of course it'd be nice having an R in the white house to appoint conservative SCOTUS judges...oh wait.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2012,16:44
Here's some mirroring of the past events and present day:

The country hated Nixon... we ended up with Carter.  The people hated Bush, we ended up with Obama.

The economy tanked under Carter, people were miserable, and he was a one-termer and we ended up with Reagan.  The economy is tanking under Obama, people are miserable, November is coming, and Romney vaguely resembles 1980's Reagan in physical appearance.

Just as we couldn't have a Carter without a Nixon, and couldn't get a Reagan without a Carter, maybe....



Posted by Leisher on Jun. 29 2012,08:00
QUOTE
Albert Brooks ‏@AlbertBrooks

Damn it. Just got an email from the government. They're making me eat broccoli tonight.


QUOTE
TomZ10000 ‏@TomZ10000

@AlbertBrooks nah, just pay the penalty, er, I mean broccoli tax

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2012,20:16
DHS instructs armed Border Patrol agents to "run away, hide, and as a last resort, throw things" if they are confronted by someone with a gun.

Can't make this shit up.

< http://www.foxnews.com/us....CzQ5itp >

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 06 2012,12:47
< Morgan Freeman thinks Obama's got too much cracker in him. >

In related news, Morgan Freeman is apparently a huge racist.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 06 2012,13:01
Well, he has a point. What does Obama have in common with the majority of American blacks? Seriously.

* His father is Kenyan---i.e., EAST African. East Africans are quite different from West Africans, which is what American blacks are, genetically.
* His mother is white.

So genetically, he is closer to white people than American blacks.

* He lived for a while with his mother and her 2nd husband, an Indonesian, in Indonesia.
* He lived most of the rest of his life, until adulthood, with his white grandparents in Hawaii.

Again, this is NOTHING like the experience of most Americans in general, let alone blacks.

Do you remember that bit on the Chappele Show?
"Negrodamus, why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?"
"White people love Wayne Brady because he makes...Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X."

That's how we wound up with Barack Obama. He makes Wayne Brady look like Malcolm X.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2012,05:54

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 12 2012,05:55
< Anti-Obama documentary being made starring George Obama. >
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 12 2012,08:06

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 12 2012,12:32

(Leisher @ Jul. 12 2012,08:55)
QUOTE
< Anti-Obama documentary being made starring George Obama. >

If anyone "questions the timing," remind them how Fahrenheit 911 came out right before the election in 2004.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 13 2012,08:26
< The economy is fucked, and Obama can't save it. >

I think the most interesting part of that article is of the three guys, two are Dems. They're essentially saying that the biggest obstacle to our country getting back on track is the Dems. Not because of ignorance or anything, but because they can't make the changes that really need to be made without cutting their own throats politically.

How can you reform entitlements when your core base of voters lives off of them?

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 14 2012,09:39
Stupid Obama ads all over Youtube. I wonder if they even charge him anything for it.

Anyway, the ad says Romney will "overturn" Roe v. Wade.  Apparently that's something the President can do now: overturn Supreme Court rulings.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2012,13:49
< Sununu attacks Obama. >

Here's my favorite part:
QUOTE
In response, Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said the Romney campaign "has officially gone off the deep end."

"The question is what else they'll pull to avoid answering serious questions about Romney's tenure at Bain Capital and investments in foreign tax havens and offshore accounts," she said in an email to reporters. "This meltdown and over-the-top rhetoric won't make things better. It only calls attention to how desperate they are to change the conversation."


Is that so, Ms. Smith? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to look back upon Obama's run for office, and his first term, and explain to us why he's spent millions covering up his past?

Why is it ok to look into Romney's past, but not Obama's?

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 18 2012,10:35
I guess you've all heard about "somebody else made that happen." Well:
< http://twitchy.com/2012....rn-that >

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 18 2012,10:44
Awesome.  And I always loved The Critic.

It is literally the only TV show I've ever owned/bought.



Posted by Leisher on Jul. 19 2012,06:25


Seriously, that speech could honestly be the worst speech ever given by any politician. Ever.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 19 2012,07:49

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 19 2012,09:33

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 19 2012,13:00
Obama is entering the realm of "dangerously insane."
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 22 2012,16:08
< Chavez supports Obama >

QUOTE
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has signaled a preference in the U.S. presidential campaign by comparing Mitt Romney to his own challenger.

Chavez, who is up for re-election a month before U.S. President Barack Obama, has in recent weeks expressed a clear preference for the man currently in the White House.

In a campaign speech Saturday night, Chavez equated the agenda of his challenger, Henrique Capriles, with that of Romney, saying both men represent the callously selfish capitalist elite.
...
"In the end, it's the same project," Chavez said, referring to Obama as "a good guy."

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 22 2012,17:08
< Obama's statement about the Batman shootings: >
QUOTE
I'm sure that many of you who are parents here had the same reaction that I did when I heard this news. You know, my daughters go to the movies. What if Malia and Sasha had been at the theater, as so many of our kids do every day?

Yeah, I know when my daughter goes to the movie, I'm always worried if her Secret Service detail's 10mm handguns will be sufficient to penetrate the body armor of any possible armed assailants. Maybe they should also have some MP5s handy?



Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 23 2012,06:09
< Oh snap >
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 23 2012,06:49
Hilarious!
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 24 2012,21:25
Pat Sajak has an "Oh no you d'int" moment.

< http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....nts.php >

Regarding the "You didn't build it" comment:

QUOTE
It’s as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled “potato” and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 27 2012,07:39
< Obama playing defense on "you didn't build that." >

Don't know why anybody really bothers anyway. Is there really anybody who doesn't simply hate the other side and refuse to vote for a candidate for Party X?

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 30 2012,06:26
The thing is, what he meant to say was reasonable.  Add in the context from the rest of that part of his speech, and what he meant to say was "You didn't build it (alone).  Someone else (helped you make) that happen."  This could refer to anything from getting a small business loan to simply having roads and bridges and schools in place to help you move your goods and hire trained employees.  Not an unreasonable statement when taken in context, IMO (although I do disagree with some of the fundamental philosophy behind the scenes here, but that's not for this post).

Now, is the difference just a matter of poorly chosen words, or was it more Freudian than that?  There I don't know, but I suspect his personal feelings are more in line with exactly what he ended up saying and is accused of meaning.  But it's not as cut-and-dried as his detractors would have you think.

On the whole the Republicans are acting a bit like children who tricked someone into saying something stupid and are now running around chanting it back at them gleefully.  While the Democrats sulk and start to tear up, getting ready to throw a total hissy-fit tantrum.



Posted by GORDON on Jul. 30 2012,07:07
Yes, the context has always been there and is obvious... he meant to say "all the infrastructure upon which you built your business... you didn't build that..." but even that isn't entirely accurate, is it.  Where does the money come from to pay for that infrastructure?  Taxes.  Businesses supply just about ALL tax  money... even personal income tax comes from income probably earned at some business.

The problem Obama is facing with that quote is that it is so fucking unamerican.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 30 2012,08:49
Plus, the implicit conclusion behind this notion that "you didn't build that" is "therefore, you can't say you earned anything, and therefore can't object to us taking as much of it as we like."

The idea is that since you use those roads, comrade, you can't complain about taxes.

Also, since there are lots of smart and/or hard-working people who aren't as well off as you, well, clearly you don't deserve to be better off than them.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 30 2012,09:09
Agreed.  That is what I was referring to by what he seemed to mean versus what he actually said.  And beyond that what he really thinks.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 04 2012,11:29
Obama/Democrats: military members don't get extra time to vote in Ohio.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ilitary >

They claim it has nothing to do with the fact the military skews republican.  I totally believe them.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 05 2012,10:25

(GORDON @ Aug. 04 2012,14:29)
QUOTE
Obama/Democrats: military members don't get extra time to vote in Ohio.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ilitary >

They claim it has nothing to do with the fact the military skews republican.  I totally believe them.

Obama Administration's response to this attack is... pretty lame.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....hameful >

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 06 2012,08:14
If the law they were trying to block was one that was restricting a longer time frame for regular voters but leaving military voters the same longer time, then the Obama groups statements would make sense.  But it's not.  The law in question only serves to lengthen military voters time.  So saying blocking it is an action that is intended to help everyone is a lie.  All it is intended to do is limit time for military votes to come in.

What I'm saying is this time Obama's people are full of shit.  They've gotten caught playing politics with the early military voting rules.  Suck it up and take it like a man, Mr. President.



Posted by GORDON on Aug. 08 2012,12:37
Obama SuperPAC: Romney killed a chick, once.


Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 08 2012,15:16
They have to know that ad is going to backfire on them.

Heck, maybe the SuperPAC behind it is really in favor of Romney, and just did it to make Obama look bad.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 08 2012,15:26
SO, I am learning new things about SuperPACs today...

I guess it is illegal for the actual Obama campaign to coordinate ads and shit with the SuperPAC?

So I guess there is an Obama campaign ad and a SuperPAC ad that has Obama in the same clothes.  Also, the same actor has been spotted in ads between the 2 entities.

< https://mobile.twitter.com/meredithdake >

Like I said, they don't really give much of a shit about obeying the law in that Executive Branch.

Speaking of which, can foreign donors still donate money on Obama's website?

edit - Correction: the original article I read was poorly phrased... here's a clarified one.  The "Romney killed my wife" guy was in 2 different ads, wearing the same clothes.

< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/331756.php >

White House: "We don't know the medical details of the guy whose wife we accused Romney of killing."

< http://www.politico.com/politic....62.html >


QUOTE
Asked about the Priorities spot on MSNBC Wednesday morning, Robert Gibbs said he doesn’t “know the specifics” while Stephanie Cutter said on CNN: “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”

And Jen Psaki told reporters on Air Force One that “we don't' have any knowledge of the story of the family,” according to Yahoo! News.

But Cutter hosted an Obama campaign conference call in May in which Soptic told reporters the very story featured in the Priorities spot.

Both the campaign and the Priorities USA Action said there was no coordination about Soptic’s appearances. In the campaign’s ad, Soptic speaks only about the plant. In the Priorities spot, he tells the personal story he relayed during the Obama campaign conference call.

“We have no idea when Priorities shot their spot,” an Obama campaign official said. “We’re not allowed to coordinate with them – but we can tell you it wasn’t when we shot ours.”



Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 08 2012,15:46
I still think he'll manage to get reelected.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 08 2012,15:58

(Malcolm @ Aug. 08 2012,18:46)
QUOTE
I still think he'll manage to get reelected.

My gut tells me that if Romney wins by less than 1%, that is within the margin of cheating and Obama will win.



Posted by GORDON on Aug. 09 2012,14:04
"America's Finest News Source" straight-up says Romney killed Jon Benet Ramsey.

< http://www.theonion.com/article....n,29114 >

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 09 2012,15:02
Surprised they didn't add on more missing white girls for emphasis.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 09 2012,15:33
I'm surprised the Onion is totally on Obama's jock.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 09 2012,16:25

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 09 2012,18:33)
QUOTE
I'm surprised the Onion is totally on Obama's jock.

Same occurred to me.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 09 2012,18:05

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 09 2012,17:33)
QUOTE
I'm surprised the Onion is totally on Obama's jock.

I think I've posted this here before ... but ...

< True now as it was four years ago >.

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 11 2012,15:23
Just saw some anti-Romney tv commercial about how maybe he doesn't pay income taxes or something. This strategy only works when you have the press dick-riding you, and you don't have to worry about them bringing up < inconvenient truths >.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2012,16:01
I saw an anti-Romney commercial today that specifically said he only paid 14% in 2010 on his $20mil income (i think those were the numbers)... WHICH IS A LOWER TAX RATE THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA PAID.  THAT JUST AINT RIGHT.

I wonder if anyone in middle america will do the math on how much 14% is of $20mil.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 11 2012,16:11

(GORDON @ Aug. 11 2012,19:01)
QUOTE
I saw an anti-Romney commercial today that specifically said he only paid 14% in 2010 on his $20mil income (i think those were the numbers)... WHICH IS A LOWER TAX RATE THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA PAID.  THAT JUST AINT RIGHT.

I wonder if anyone in middle america will do the math on how much 14% is of $20mil.

Not enough for Romney to do me.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 14 2012,13:51
< Biden tells audience GOP would put them "back in chains". >

He said this in a city that's 48% black. The MSM doesn't seem to mind.

Seriously? Put the media bias aside, and make no mistake if a Republican had said that there would be hell to pay, and focus on the policies of the two parties.

One wants you to stop getting handouts, and instead work and earn your own way.

The other wants you to sit at home and let the government run your life.

Somehow Biden thinks the first one sounds like slavery.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2012,14:00
They already straight-up said Romney killed a girl... why would suggesting he wants to re-enslave black people be a step down?  They are already in the sewer and wallowing and gargling with piss and shit and spitting it everywhere to see where it sticks.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 15 2012,06:12
Funny

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2012,16:56
Veterans and Navy Seals openly slam the Obama Administration for all the intelligence leaks coming out of the White House.



Get past the "he redeployed to heaven" at about the 1:30 mark, it gets better after that.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 16 2012,06:43
Good video.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 16 2012,07:51
< Bakery tells Biden to go elsewhere. >

The owner politely declined to have Biden stop in because he disagrees with Obama's "you didn't build that" speech.

Watch the video, and stick around until the reporter tells you what the secret service did in response. Hilarious.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2012,08:05
"That is a big fat 10-4."  Professional.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 16 2012,10:30
It just occurred to me that the U.S. is about to put a major drug kingpin on trial.

His defense should be, "I didn't do that. Other people did that."

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 16 2012,11:24

(Leisher @ Aug. 16 2012,13:30)
QUOTE
His defense should be, "I didn't do that. Other people did that."

This is a good insight, because we all know it's true. Criminals are never responsible for their actions (unless it's like, Enron or something). Nuh uh; there's always some kind of "root cause" that means the government needs to spend more money. So, just as no person is responsible for his own success, neither is a person responsible for his failures.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2012,11:38
One thing is for sure... using "You didn't build that!" as an attack drives liberals insane.  THE RIGHT WING SPIN MACHINE IS TAKING THAT OUT OF CONTEXT !!!!!!!!
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 16 2012,12:10
I know; the fact that they're playing defense HEAVILY on that is a good sign for Romney.

Not that I care anymore.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2012,17:43
Bake shop owner declines a visit from Biden.

Publicity is great, is getting lots of business.

I give him 3 months before the press "vets" him so hard he goes out of business, ala Joe the Plumber.

< http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/312876 >

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 16 2012,19:23
Nah, I think they'll forget about this guy before they get to the point where they do that.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 17 2012,14:29
< hah >
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 17 2012,14:32

(thibodeaux @ Aug. 17 2012,17:29)
QUOTE
< hah >

That's... sexist.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 18 2012,22:16
Obama peeps: we are keeping the venues at our rallies partially filled, on purpose.

< http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog....owd-siz >

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 22 2012,22:24
I'm sure you heard about the SEALs and other agencies making an ad bashing Obama's administration for leaking national secrets for political gain.

Some asshat called them cowards.

Cowards. He called the SEALs cowards.

If they're cowards for calling out the president's administration for putting American lives at risk, and the lives of their allies, just to give Obama a boost in the polls, then what does that say about Obama's administration?

Anyway, < the SEALs responded. >

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 23 2012,13:46
< Romney wins the election in a landslide. >

According to this election model, which hasn't been wrong since 1980.

Sadly, this will probably be the year it's wrong.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 23 2012,13:50
You know who typically don't get polled?  Attractive and successful people.  And they are going 95% Obama, and whatever ACORN is calling themselves these days will make sure they get to the polls to vote, at least once.


Posted by Leisher on Aug. 23 2012,13:54
You know who else doesn't get polled? Republicans.


Posted by GORDON on Aug. 23 2012,14:24

(Leisher @ Aug. 23 2012,16:54)
QUOTE
You know who else don't get polled? Republicans.

I'm getting 2 damned calls a day, either for polling, or Romney wanting more money.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 23 2012,14:31
I don't get poled, but my wife does.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 23 2012,14:36

(TheCatt @ Aug. 23 2012,17:31)
QUOTE
I don't get poled, but my wife does.

I know.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 23 2012,15:20

(Leisher @ Aug. 23 2012,15:46)
QUOTE
< Romney wins the election in a landslide. >

According to this election model, which hasn't been wrong since 1980.

Sadly, this will probably be the year it's wrong.

I just can't see him running a less stupid campaign than his opponent.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 24 2012,11:23
< Zero percent of black people support Romney. >

Odd that the MSM hasn't run with this and drafted all sorts of side articles about how racism is still alive in America, and how ignorance reigns supreme in these voters' hearts.

Way to support the party that wanted to keep you enslaved black people.



Posted by Leisher on Aug. 27 2012,18:20
< I hate shit like this... >

I know both sides do it.

Taking a hero of not just Americans, but human beings and turning his death into a political ad is beyond fucking disgusting.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,06:28
< Obama's administration to ban recreational fishing? >
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 28 2012,06:37
QUOTE
If the ban is ordered, it would likely come via executive order rather than an attempt to have Congress pass legislation.

Thank God we got rid of those Kings.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 28 2012,07:02
QUOTE
If a ban on recreational fishing were to take hold, one would suspect that a ban on recreational hunting would not be far behind. Environmental groups have been trying to stop hunting for decades and now seem to have an administration willing to do their bidding.


1.  If they banned hunting, large chunks of the United States are going to have a serious deer overpopulation problem.

2.  If they ban hunting and fishing, all of a sudden whatever funds that exist that pay for preservation of wetlands/whatever are going to be seriously devoid of funds... a lot of land stewardship is paid for by those fees and licenses... but I guess that is nothing that another executive order tax can't fix.


If you ever want to read a nightmarish book novel about what happens when the Greens finally get control of the country, read "Fallen Angels" by... Niven?  Pournelle?  I forget which.  Because of that book whenever I see a picture of the St. Louis Arch I can't help but picture physicists being hanged from it.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,08:11

(GORDON @ Aug. 28 2012,09:02)
QUOTE
"Fallen Angels" by... Niven?  Pournelle?  I forget which.

Both.  And I keep being reminded of that book constantly these days.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 28 2012,08:28

(TPRJones @ Aug. 28 2012,11:11)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Aug. 28 2012,09:02)
QUOTE
"Fallen Angels" by... Niven?  Pournelle?  I forget which.

Both.  And I keep being reminded of that book constantly these days.

It is also why I don't trust "smart" electricity meters.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 28 2012,09:25
Hey... smart meters pay my bills.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 29 2012,05:56

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 29 2012,06:45
Yeah, I just watched that and went to post it on Facebook to upset my family, then I saw you beat me to it and I just shared yours.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 29 2012,13:03
Victoria Jackson interviews a RNC protester.


Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 29 2012,13:55
Whoa, Victoria Jackson is still alive?  Surprising.

And what you are sort of describing isn't "Corporatism" Mr Protester, it's "Cronyism".  And Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans on that count.

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 29 2012,13:59
That guy doesn't seem real.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 29 2012,18:10
Someone on my facebook was reposting something about Paul Ryan saying rape was a form of conception, and people getting all upset that he would say something like that.  

Um... war on facts much?

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 29 2012,18:14
No holds barred in DC.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 30 2012,18:32

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 31 2012,05:47
< I am shocked...SHOCKED! >
QUOTE
The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 02 2012,08:45
< Fact Checking Eastwood's Speech >
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 02 2012,17:25
The best parts seem to be the Biden slams.

QUOTE
“And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.”

To cite just one example which refutes this outlandish claim, before becoming vice president Joe Biden was a United States Senator for 36 years.



Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 04 2012,06:46
I'm really looking forward to a vigorous fact-checking of all the speeches THIS week.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 04 2012,06:50
< Chinese people hate Hillary Clinton. >

I don't get it. She seems so warm and friendly...

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2012,07:25
They're just all uppity over those islands they gave away decades ago to the Japanese that they're trying to weasel back.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 05 2012,18:12
< Fact checking. >
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 05 2012,18:44
Wow, they actually address the "77 cents" myth. Ballsy.

of course, a lot of these so-called "facts" are the sort of "Romney claims he won't raise taxes on the middle class." Well, who cares what any politician claims he is or isn't going to do? It's not like the President actually controls the tax rates anyway. This is part of why I can't stand to listen to these goober-gobblers.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 06 2012,06:06
MSN.com's headline today:
"Clinton Makes a Strong Case for Pres. Obama"

Way to be unbiased MSN.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 06 2012,06:31
CNN's headline yesterday was about Democract exceeding expectations...

This article is buried in CNN:
QUOTE
PolitiFact evaluated 508 promises and concluded that the president has kept 37% of them, compromised on 14% of them, has broken 16% of them, has gotten stalled on 10% of them and 22% are still "in the works."

< Link >

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 06 2012,07:26
< ABC News fact check front page >
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 06 2012,08:08
Posting this because it's funny, and I really don't get this woman:


Why is she a credible speaker? Because she likes to fuck and expects free birth control? Really?

It's amazing how this woman has been made into a hero by the totally unbiased MSM, but Joe the Plumber was vilified by the same totally unbiased MSM for simply asking a question.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 06 2012,10:06
< Crazy Cat Lady >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 06 2012,13:29
One of CNN's opinion pages:

< http://www.cnn.com/2012....ex.html >

QUOTE
As Bill Clinton walked out onto the stage of the Democratic National Convention last night, there was love in the air. Television cameras scanned the faces in the crowd and it was as if each man and each woman, regardless of their ages or where they came from, was seeing again the person who first stole their hearts. But however deep their affections, however dizzying their passion, it was clear that it was at least equaled by the love of the speaker for the crowd he faced, for the role he was playing and for the limelight he once again commanded.

Throughout Clinton's 49-minute address, at turns both masterful and meandering, the intensity of the love affair grew. At times, it was almost too much to watch. One woman on whom the cameras lingered for a moment was so close to a swoon that I thought she would topple over at any minute and that, in any event, she would never again look at her husband or lover again in the same away. They would always be second best.



Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 07 2012,07:56
< http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_obama.html >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2012,10:35
NBC: Weak Job Growth is Beyond Government's Control.

< http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news....twitter >

I remember when Bush was a terrible President because unemployment was 5.5%.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 11 2012,05:49
< John Cusack asks: >
Is Obama Just Another Ivy League A--hole?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2012,05:58

(thibodeaux @ Sep. 11 2012,08:49)
QUOTE
< John Cusack asks: >
Is Obama Just Another Ivy League A--hole?

No, John, there is a Santa Claus.  You're voting for him again in 2012.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 11 2012,15:52


These stats are interesting, but I can't give them full support since no sources are cited:

Posted by Cakedaddy on Sep. 11 2012,16:52
At least one of those stats is wrong.  The debt is $550 Trillion.  A guy in a gas station said so today.  He said we need to get Bill Clinton back in office.  His record speaks for itself.

Also, Mitt Romney and some doctor said it's impossible for a woman to get pregnant while being raped because her body shuts down and prevents it.  Is that the kind of man you want to put in office?

And the news paper said that NO ONE could have repaired everything in 4 years.  So you can't hold that stuff against Obama.  No one could have done any better.

It was a really smart gas station crowd.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 11 2012,19:14
< Gas station crowd? >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 12 2012,07:11
IRS says they will not be enforcing the Obamacare tax/mandate.

< http://www.cnbc.com/id/48990224 >

1.  Most likely, I bet yes, they will... if Obama wins a second term.

2.  Worst case scenario, and not entirely implausible in today's America: The brand new  Department of Health Care Enforcement.  Answerable directly to the White House.  1.5k Health Care Enforcement Officers in every state.  5k Health Care Enforcement Administrators in DC.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 12 2012,07:25

(GORDON @ Sep. 12 2012,09:11)
QUOTE
2.  Worst case scenario, and not entirely implausible in today's America: The brand new  Department of Health Care Enforcement.  Answerable directly to the White House.  1.5k Health Care Enforcement Officers in every state.  5k Health Care Enforcement Administrators in DC.

Really?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 12 2012,07:29
I made that up.  But I was alive for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, so I can believe anything, now.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 12 2012,07:44

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 12 2012,08:32
We've got two positions at the place I work, and we haven't been able to give those away for months now.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 12 2012,09:18

(Malcolm @ Sep. 12 2012,11:32)
QUOTE
We've got two positions at the place I work, and we haven't been able to give those away for months now.

Yeah, I'm trying to hire people and it's absolutely painful.

Some Obama advisor, who clearly failed economics, was saying in the WSJ that there was no structural unemployment.  Absolute bullshit.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 12 2012,09:27
I am sure if you were looking for someone with a Masters Degree in Hispanic Transgender Studies you would have no problem finding people.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 12 2012,13:14
< ROFLMAO >
QUOTE
On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.


To me, one of the lamest parts of that godawful Pearl Harbor movie (besides the absurd love triangle) was the big square-looking Aegis cruisers getting bombed by the CGI Zeroes. LAAAAME!

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 12 2012,13:23

(GORDON @ Sep. 12 2012,11:27)
QUOTE
I am sure if you were looking for someone with a Masters Degree in Hispanic Transgender Studies you would have no problem finding people.

Had to shoot down another candidate today.  Do no schools teach fucking object-oriented programming anymore?  Or SQL of any depth?
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 12 2012,18:26
Obama wins a shocking endorsement:

< The Communist Party. >

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 12 2012,18:53
QUOTE
What if 100% of eligible voters exercised their right to vote? It would be possible to elect officials committed to rebuild the social and physical infrastructure, create millions of good, green jobs that will also reduce federal deficits.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 12 2012,19:15

(Malcolm @ Sep. 12 2012,16:23)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 12 2012,11:27)
QUOTE
I am sure if you were looking for someone with a Masters Degree in Hispanic Transgender Studies you would have no problem finding people.

Had to shoot down another candidate today.  Do no schools teach fucking object-oriented programming anymore?  Or SQL of any depth?

No, they do not teach SQL.  I'm trying to hire DB people.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2012,04:58
Sorry kid, you didn't build that.


Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 13 2012,05:23

(Malcolm @ Sep. 12 2012,21:53)
QUOTE
QUOTE
What if 100% of eligible voters exercised their right to vote? It would be possible to elect officials committed to rebuild the social and physical infrastructure, create millions of good, green jobs that will also reduce federal deficits.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I wonder what kind of mind it takes to imagine that the ONLY thing preventing "millions of good green jobs" is the lack of voters, or the wrong politicians. As if the ONLY government can create "good green jobs."

If this "green" stuff was any good, then by God it would be unstoppable.

Oh...wait, I get it. They think the government will FORCE us to be "green." Ok. Yeah that makes sense.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 13 2012,06:53
Clearly that was written by some moron who's never been outside of the inner city in which he was born.  Probably has never bothered to learn to drive a car and thinks food just appears on the shelves at the grocery store.

Anyone who's actually been around a bit knows that outside the big cities the vast majority of people would rather shoot a commie than vote for one.  And overall they outnumber those big city folk by quite a wide margin.

If we had 100% voter turnout we'd be reelecting the corpse of Ronald Reagan.  Because even dead he'd be a hell of a lot better as President than anyone since.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2012,07:05
It never ceases to astound me the "we are overpopulated/not enough farmland to grow new crops!" crowd just seems to persist.

Have these people never driven anywhere west of Chicago and east of Denver?  Good lord.

I guess people need to believe in something, and if they are too sophisticated for christianity, they join the Church of Gore.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 13 2012,07:07

(TheCatt @ Sep. 12 2012,21:15)
QUOTE
No, they do not teach SQL.

We have five AA degrees in our IT program, and none of them require a class where SQL is taught although three of them have one as an elective.  Of the many certificates we offer, only two (Database Design and Game Design) have a class involving SQL as a requirement.

Yeah.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 13 2012,07:21
Game Design?  Is there an entire course on "cleaning up the graphics on level 3" or other nonsense?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 13 2012,08:23
No, it's actually a pretty legit program.  Lots of hands-on projects and solid fundamentals of design philosophies and whatnot.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2012,15:07
Obviously harsh, but facts is facts and I like the flowery prose.

< http://www.redstate.com/2012....urdered >

QUOTE
Marc Thiessen provides a shocker in his Washington Post column: the day after America’s embassy in Cairo was assaulted and the consulate in Benghazi, Libya fell victim to an armed attack that killed four, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the president once again skipped his intelligence briefing, choosing instead to fly off to Las Vegas to fundraise while the world continued to burn.

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 13 2012,15:58
MY PET GOAT!
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2012,18:23
< Romney Totally at fault for the embassy attacks. >


QUOTE
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.


Is anyone in DC taking their jobs seriously?



Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,05:41
HILARIOUS.

< http://www.cnn.com/2012....t=hp_c1 >

QUOTE
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday there should be no debate that bloodshed in response to speech is not acceptable.

"Any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line," she said.


Like Romney did, and Obama didn't.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 14 2012,13:00
< Obama learns about the First Amendment. >

This is your president.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,13:20

(Leisher @ Sep. 14 2012,16:00)
QUOTE
< Obama learns about the First Amendment. >

This is your president.

QUOTE
President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop today, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya.

“We believe in the First Amendment....I guess,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.


I may have added the bolded part.

I am glad they came around to decided free speech might be more important that upsetting the barbarians.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,13:50
QUOTE
...Obama had used a Rose Garden event to restate his opposition to criticism of Islam. “Since our founding, the U.S. has been a nation that respects all faiths and rejects all effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,”

You fail history.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,14:24
Dear Mr. President:

Fuck your respect, and fuck your beliefs.  And I can say that without going to prison because this is the United States of America.  Next time maybe you should actually read the document you are swearing to uphold, please?

I bet you didn't read the iTunes terms of service before clicking accept, either, did you.



Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 14 2012,17:07
< Onion weighs in >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,17:19

(TheCatt @ Sep. 14 2012,20:07)
QUOTE
< Onion weighs in >

Oh snap. Liberals love the onion because it used to make fun of Bush. This will be the day they say, "the onion used to be funny."
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 14 2012,17:54
Both my liberal and conservative friends have linked it on FB.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,17:58

(TheCatt @ Sep. 14 2012,20:54)
QUOTE
Both my liberal and conservative friends have linked it on FB.

I would have linked it but I have a bunch of young relatives with access to my updates.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,18:10
Now, having the gall to run against Obama is just straight-up arrogant.  Some might even say... uppity.

< http://www.therightscoop.com/chris-m....r-obama >

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 14 2012,18:20

(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,20:58)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Sep. 14 2012,20:54)
QUOTE
Both my liberal and conservative friends have linked it on FB.

I would have linked it but I have a bunch of young relatives with access to my updates.

Ditto.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2012,13:35
Libya says they warned the US State Department 3 days before the attack.

< http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012....-attack >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2012,16:04
Film maker apparently arrested.

< http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150781/ >

America!

And, Obama 2012.



Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2012,20:58
Gas prices have never been higher.

< http://www.zerohedge.com/news....igher-0 >

Media all over it trying to embarrass the Democratic incumbent.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 16 2012,17:40



Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2012,19:40
Media peeps admit they have fucked up in covering the riots in those islamic countries.  They blame Mit Romney.

< http://www.nationalreview.com/corner....-steyn# >

If only he'd shut up and stop being so uppity, the media would be able to do their jobs.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2012,04:33
< Libyan President: attack was preplanned, and we warned you. >

< Obama administration: No it wasn't, shut up. >

Yeah, election year.

Obama 2012.



Posted by Leisher on Sep. 17 2012,13:23

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 20 2012,07:38


(Thanks Malcolm.)

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,07:43

(Leisher @ Sep. 20 2012,10:38)
QUOTE


(Thanks Malcolm.)

Too bad I have been chastising (and blocking) people for being political on facebook.  Now I can't post that.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,08:14
"The middle class will not see one dime of new taxes." ~ Obama, 2008

"Fuck you, pay me." ~ Obama 2012

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....estnews >

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,12:21
Who the fuck believed him in the first place?
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 21 2012,12:33
The Libertarian message on the federal budget:


Posted by GORDON on Sep. 23 2012,21:29
So far, everything the White House has said about the Libyan Embassy has been a lie.

< http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012....ut.html >

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 24 2012,07:03
< Even the Onion notices the media has Obama love >
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 27 2012,10:15
< Romney hates everybody >
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2012,13:10

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2012,13:10
< Liberal refuses to vote for Obama. >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 27 2012,13:17

(GORDON @ Sep. 24 2012,00:29)
QUOTE
So far, everything the White House has said about the Libyan Embassy has been a lie.

< http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012....ut.html >

And they knew they were lying, which is kind of an oxymoron, because otherwise they are just mistaken.  But, liars.  

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....confirm >

Obama 2012.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 27 2012,14:29

(GORDON @ Sep. 27 2012,16:17)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 24 2012,00:29)
QUOTE
So far, everything the White House has said about the Libyan Embassy has been a lie.

< http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012....ut.html >

And they knew they were lying, which is kind of an oxymoron, because otherwise they are just mistaken.  But, liars.  

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....confirm >

Obama 2012.

Fox, of course, asks, "What are they hiding?" And that's appropriate.

But I think it is just trying to cover up bad news and incompetence in the run-up to the election.  Besides, did you HEAR what Romney SAID after it happened?  Totally sunk his election.  It's over.  That's what really matters.  What Romney said.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....details >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 27 2012,15:10
So we get at least 1 political survey call a day, sometimes 2.

90% of the time I hang up on them, 50% of the time my wife hangs up on them.  Depends on how busy we are.

Mine and my wife's answers would all be in the Obama sucks/prefer conservatives-area.

Obama is currently leading in most polls by 1 or 2 points.

So I wonder... which political side is more likely to sit through all these polls?  I don't answer most of them, so they are getting that many fewer answers against Obama.  Do lefties make more of an effort to answer polls and show their Obama love?  Is it the reverse, and conservatives are more likely to sit through polls to show racismObama hate?  Is there no statistical difference?

Not that it matters.  Peeps have been saying that Jimmy Carter was leading in all the polls right up to Reagan's landslide, and Obama gets compared to Carter a lot.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2012,15:21
The MSM polls show Obama winning. Their respondents, by their own admission, skew left.

The more unbiased polls show either a tie or Romney winning.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 27 2012,15:29
I still call it for Obama, provided he avoids fucking up badly in October, which is always a possibility.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 27 2012,15:47
A fuckup wont matter if it doesn't get reported.  I consider this embassy-thing a major fuckup, but it is being generally ignored.

Bush's fault.  Did you hear that when the first WTC tower got hit, he finished reading that book to those kids instead of running out of the room immediately in a panic?



Posted by Leisher on Sep. 27 2012,15:54
QUOTE
Bush's fault.  Did you hear that when the first WTC tower got hit, he finished reading that book to those kids instead of running out of the room immediately in a panic?


And if he had run out in a panic, they would have called him a coward and bad leader...

QUOTE
A fuckup wont matter if it doesn't get reported.  I consider this embassy-thing a major fuckup, but it is being generally ignored.


People who say the MSM isn't biased or is biased to the right are either lying or the stupidest human beings alive.

The MSM is ignoring a LOT from Obama's past. They're ignoring this whole gun thing with Eric Holder. They're ignoring Libya.

QUOTE
I still call it for Obama, provided he avoids fucking up badly in October, which is always a possibility.


I fully expect Obama to win despite that thing I posted previously that has never been wrong and predicts Romney wins in a landslide.

I don't know that the Republicans could have put up a worse candidate or run a worse campaign.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 27 2012,16:09
There's plenty of worse candidates.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 27 2012,16:49
People who answer surveys tend to skew female and left (I used to work at one of the largest polling companies in US).  Numbers are then "corrected" based on respondents and how they represent the actual population.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 28 2012,22:12
Timeline of the events and lies from the White House, with video.

< http://www.therightscoop.com/special....-to-now >

Can you imagine if Bush had been caught doing this?

Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 29 2012,04:29
< Yeah, but Obama gave me a phone >
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 30 2012,18:31
< Obama gets another huge endorsement. >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 30 2012,18:40
Lefties love chaves.  Remember Danny Glover?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 01 2012,16:26
White House tells contractors to break federal law and not inform employees ahead of time of layoffs, prior to the election.

< http://money.cnn.com/2012....ex.html >

And promises to pay their legal bills when they get sued.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 01 2012,18:12
South Park repeat was on yesterday.  It was the one where they had to choose the new school mascot from two equally shitty candidates.  Stan refuses to vote because of that fact and spends the entire episode having his will beaten down before finally succumbing to the ballot.  Except for the ending, it sums up my feelings nicely.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 01 2012,18:46
Was it shit sandwich and giant douche?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 01 2012,18:50
Turd sandwich.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 01 2012,18:55

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 01 2012,20:46)
QUOTE
Was it shit sandwich and giant douche?

Yeah.  The Manbearpig episode was before that.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 02 2012,04:28
I wonder if the media stories about tomorrow night's debate are already written.  No matter how badly he tanks, Obama will still be the second coming.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 02 2012,07:23

(GORDON @ Oct. 02 2012,06:28)
QUOTE
I wonder if the media stories about tomorrow night's debate are already written.  No matter how badly he tanks, Obama will still be the second coming.

People still pay attention to the debates?  How quaint.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 02 2012,07:23
Obama is expected to do poorly.  He needs a teleprompter to be a genius.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 02 2012,07:34
He's going up against Romney.  Shit, I think I could win a debate with Romney.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 02 2012,07:36
Why do they still bother to call these "debates?"
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 02 2012,07:56

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 02 2012,09:36)
QUOTE
Why do they still bother to call these "debates?"

Because "pageant" makes them sound pussier than they already are.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 02 2012,08:11

(Malcolm @ Oct. 02 2012,10:56)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 02 2012,09:36)
QUOTE
Why do they still bother to call these "debates?"

Because "pageant" makes them sound pussier than they already are.

LOL, I think that's the best word I've heard for them yet
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 02 2012,08:39
Both sides are working hard to lower expectations.  According to some reports, it will be declared a victory for Romney if he doesn't pass out, and it will be a victory for Obama if he can keep his dick in his pants.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 02 2012,09:11

(TPRJones @ Oct. 02 2012,10:39)
QUOTE
Both sides are working hard to lower expectations.  According to some reports, it will be declared a victory for Romney if he doesn't pass out, and it will be a victory for Obama if he can keep his dick in his pants.

Reminds me of that time Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton were talking.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 02 2012,18:45
Wisconsin sent out absentee ballots to military members late.

< http://www.humanevents.com/2012....eadline >

I am shocked that would happen.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 02 2012,19:20

(Malcolm @ Oct. 02 2012,12:11)
QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Oct. 02 2012,10:39)
QUOTE
Both sides are working hard to lower expectations.  According to some reports, it will be declared a victory for Romney if he doesn't pass out, and it will be a victory for Obama if he can keep his dick in his pants.

Reminds me of that time Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton were talking.

FTW.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 02 2012,21:42

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2012,06:48
Can you believe gas is up to almost $3.50 a gallon now?  Bah.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,07:09

(GORDON @ Oct. 02 2012,20:45)
QUOTE
Wisconsin sent out absentee ballots to military members late.

< http://www.humanevents.com/2012....eadline >

I am shocked that would happen.

They actually fucked up twice.

QUOTE
“At least 30 Wisconsin municipalities failed to send absentee ballots to military voters before the 45 day deadline...


QUOTE
Furthermore, the Federal Voting Assistance Program gave Wisconsin service members an incorrect deadline for submission of their absentee ballots on its website, listing the return date as seven days after the actual deadline...


This entire article has people bitching about violating regulations.  What the fuck is the penalty for doing so?  Seems like less than a fucking speeding ticket.



Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,07:49
But don't forget: it is the republicans who are trying to suppress voting rights.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,08:03

(GORDON @ Oct. 02 2012,23:42)
QUOTE

If the majority of gas stations in this country pulled that, I think it'd put a serious dent in Obama's support.  The American public always, always, always votes how their wallet says.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,08:04

(GORDON @ Oct. 03 2012,09:49)
QUOTE
But don't forget: it is the republicans who are trying to suppress voting rights.

If only they'd change the Federal Voting Assistance Program name to something like Voting Assistance Program In Democracy.  The acronym is more appropriate.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,10:11

(Malcolm @ Oct. 03 2012,11:04)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Oct. 03 2012,09:49)
QUOTE
But don't forget: it is the republicans who are trying to suppress voting rights.

If only they'd change the Federal Voting Assistance Program name to something like Voting Assistance Program In Democracy.  The acronym is more appropriate.

Here in Ohio, the "republicans" attempted to extend the amount of time military peeps had to absentee vote by a few weeks.  Democrats can't risk having more military peeps voting, so the entire issue was spun as, "This means that regular, non-military people don't have as much time to vote... therefor, republicans are trying to suppress voting rights!"  My liberal relatives had this all over their facebook walls... it is what prompted me to do a blanket "ignore" of most of my family.

There is a lot of shit I can overlook, but when a person or a group twists an issue that much, I can't tolerate it any more.

In fact, it motivates me to expend as much energy as is convenient to oppose those people in any way I can, even if it means implicit support for religious issues, the limiting of marriage rights, etc.  Fuck these lying liars... at least the religious maniacs are sincere.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,10:16
QUOTE
In fact, it motivates me to expend as much energy as is convenient to oppose those people in any way I can, even if it means implicit support for religious issues, the limiting of marriage rights, etc.  Fuck these lying liars... at least the religious maniacs are sincere.

Maniacal behaviour is still maniacal.  There's no amount of insanity from the donkeys that could make me support the pachyderms and vice versa.

QUOTE
Here in Ohio, the "republicans" attempted to extend the amount of time military peeps had to absentee vote by a few weeks.

I'd shoot this down in favour of "send out absentee ballots a few weeks early."  Course, that means the bureaucrats would actually have to have their shit in order.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,10:20

(Malcolm @ Oct. 03 2012,13:16)
QUOTE
QUOTE
In fact, it motivates me to expend as much energy as is convenient to oppose those people in any way I can, even if it means implicit support for religious issues, the limiting of marriage rights, etc.  Fuck these lying liars... at least the religious maniacs are sincere.

Maniacal behaviour is still maniacal.  There's no amount of insanity from the donkeys that could make me support the pachyderms and vice versa.

It is a matter of taste.  Some are bothered more by religious dogma and restriction of liberty via environmentalists or nanny staters, but my buttons are liars, and hypocrites.  In my opinion, those are the things the left excel at producing.  In my opinion, the greens and religious fundies are, like I said, generally sincere.

I can respect someone who sticks to their principles, even if I do think they are loons.  But I can't stand liars.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,10:33
I do not find sincerity to be a necessarily endearing trait.  I find lying to be a vital part of the human psyche and its function.  People who don't/won't/can't lie when the situation calls for it find their genes culled by natural selection.  The more I lie, the better I get at it and the better I get at recognizing other liars when they're lying.  Lying's not inherently bad if you've cause to do so.  Most people are spectacular at convincing themselves to make exceptions in that area when convenient.

As for hypocrites, hell, that defines most religious folk for me.  Once you figure out the double standards in any moral philosophy, it's easier to understand.  That applies to non-religious philosophy as well.  For instance, I see little difference between PETA and the Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps, the dude that maintains "God Hates Fags" website).  They both believe in their causes, and they're both batshit insane.



Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,10:43
< Bull the fuck shit you would have >.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2012,11:31
Uh...Obama gave the kill order*, and I thought bin Laden was unarmed and died like a bitch trying to hide behind women?

How does that equate to "we would have tried him had he survived"?

*After MUCH prodding from the military, and Hillary...



Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,11:38
See, lying liars.  I fucking hate that.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 03 2012,11:59
A couple of weeks back, a friend posted this on facebook:
QUOTE
To my republican friends. Your party is engaged in unprecedented obstruction and lies. And it's not a case of "well both parties are bad". Don't give me that crap. You're either oblivious to it, or you don't care.


Along with it, he posted this link:
< http://www.politifact.com/ohio....nge-ran >

My response:
TL;DR. Is the gist that while the actual debt IS $16 trillion, it's not all Obama's fault? Is that it? Wow, those lying liars!

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,12:18
Someone had a facebook picture the other day, something to the effect of, "My friends are making it hard to be friends with them after the election."

Seems like the closet dicks are becoming bold.  The dude starts a post, "To my republican friends..." and closes the statement calling them either stupid, or evil.  Yep, that's a good friend, right there.



Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,12:40

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 03 2012,13:59)
QUOTE
A couple of weeks back, a friend posted this on facebook:
QUOTE
To my republican friends. Your party is engaged in unprecedented obstruction and lies. And it's not a case of "well both parties are bad". Don't give me that crap. You're either oblivious to it, or you don't care.


Along with it, he posted this link:
< http://www.politifact.com/ohio....nge-ran >

My response:
TL;DR. Is the gist that while the actual debt IS $16 trillion, it's not all Obama's fault? Is that it? Wow, those lying liars!

Towards the end, he admits they're only responsible for a third of it or so.  Granted, that's still FIVE TRILLION dollars, a number even scientists and mathematicians are too lazy to write out fully most of the time and instead elect to abbreviate with scientific notation.
QUOTE
The stimulus package came with a $787 billion price tag. If you include all growth in the national debt under the Obama administration, it’s roughly $5.4 trillion, not $16 trillion. The administration inherited a national debt of more than $10 trillion when it came into office.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 03 2012,13:01
Exactly! It's not ALL Obama's fault! Bush did it!
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,13:06

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 03 2012,16:01)
QUOTE
Exactly! It's not ALL Obama's fault! Bush did it!

You're either oblivious or you just don't care.

~ A "friend."

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,13:42

(GORDON @ Oct. 03 2012,15:06)
QUOTE

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 03 2012,16:01)
QUOTE
Exactly! It's not ALL Obama's fault! Bush did it!

You're either oblivious or you just don't care.

~ A "friend."

I'm in the second of those two categories.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 03 2012,14:32
At least when I post libertarian stuff, people just don't care.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2012,14:46
I'm so glad I don't book face.


Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,14:56

(TPRJones @ Oct. 03 2012,17:46)
QUOTE
I'm so glad I don't book face.

You're probably missing a ton of gatherings.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,17:51

(GORDON @ Oct. 01 2012,19:26)
QUOTE
White House tells contractors to break federal law and not inform employees ahead of time of layoffs, prior to the election.

< http://money.cnn.com/2012....ex.html >

And promises to pay their legal bills when they get sued.

This guy liken it to a "mini-coup," since the rule of law no longer applies to the White House.  Says this is the act of an "imperial presidency."

< http://www.nationalreview.com/corner....w-cooke >

QUOTE
Graham is deeply concerned about the move, and about the lack of attention it is receiving — within and without Congress. The manouvre is “incredibly disturbing,” he told me. How disturbing? “It is exhibit A in the march toward an imperial presidency.” The “statute is clear,” Graham continued, “the WARN Act is the law of the land.” Here, “we have a White House saying, ‘we don’t care what the law we signed says.’” The OMB analysis — which holds that as the law might change, there is no need for businesses to comply with it — is “absurd on its face,” the senator told me, and the Department of Labor’s advisory opinion “a political move.” It is “patently illegal for the federal government to absorb the financial cost of a private company for not following the law. Never have we put the taxpayer on the hook for a private company failing to follow the law.”



Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,18:36
QUOTE
Never have we put the taxpayer on the hook for a private company failing to follow the law.

The fuck you haven't, you lying son-of-a-goat-fucking-whore-bitch.



Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2012,21:17

(GORDON @ Oct. 03 2012,16:56)
QUOTE
You're probably missing a ton of gatherings.

Another good reason!
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,21:18

(TPRJones @ Oct. 04 2012,00:17)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Oct. 03 2012,16:56)
QUOTE
You're probably missing a ton of gatherings.

Another good reason!

I used to miss a ton of gatherings, but then I would get a bunch of shit about not showing up.  So I had to join facebook to get on the invite lists.

Sigh.

Someday this war will end.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,21:18
So who won the debate?  The facebook posts stopped, so i assume romney did well.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 04 2012,05:52
< Rmoney wins. >

Sure, why not... CNN and ABC aren't saying who won, so I guess romney did.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 04 2012,05:56

(TheCatt @ Oct. 04 2012,07:52)
QUOTE
< Rmoney wins. >

Is that his rapper name?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2012,07:29
The commentary I have been seeing today from the left is, generally, ROMNEY JUST LIED ALL NIGHT WHY DIDN'T OBAMA CALL HIM ON IT?

I guess that's the crux of the problem.  Romney lists a string of facts about Obama's 4 years that make Obama look really bad, and half the country doesn't believe it could possibly be true.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 04 2012,08:00
Left wing The Slate says < Obama got his ass kicked. >
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 04 2012,08:21
Eh, in 1 month, we still get turd sandwich.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2012,08:30

(TheCatt @ Oct. 04 2012,11:21)
QUOTE
Eh, in 1 month, we still get turd sandwich.

I'm hoping for the turd sandwich who said he would repeal Obamacare.  I can't afford it.  Most people will find out the same thing.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 04 2012,08:37

(Leisher @ Oct. 04 2012,10:00)
QUOTE
Left wing The Slate says < Obama got his ass kicked. >

Page not found.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 04 2012,08:37

(GORDON @ Oct. 04 2012,10:30)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Oct. 04 2012,11:21)
QUOTE
Eh, in 1 month, we still get turd sandwich.

I'm hoping for the turd sandwich who said he would repeal Obamacare.  I can't afford it.  Most people will find out the same thing.

That will take FOREVER to happen.  I'm still calling the election for B-Rock, too.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 04 2012,08:49

(Malcolm @ Oct. 04 2012,11:37)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Oct. 04 2012,10:00)
QUOTE
Left wing The Slate says < Obama got his ass kicked. >

Page not found.

Look for the
CODE
<BR>

in long urls.

Then remove it.



Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2012,09:36
< BOB WOODWARD: SOMETHING HAPPENED, PERHAPS IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE, TO DISTRACT PRESIDENT OBAMA BEFORE LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE! >

That's their story, and they're sticking to it.  ANYTHING to not admit maybe he isn't divine.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2012,13:05
< Al Gore says Obama failed because the air is too thin for him in Denver. >
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2012,13:30
The inevitable Taiwanese animation: There's a real LOL moment near the end.




Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 04 2012,13:31
QUOTE
"I can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter," comedian and Obama supporter Bill Maher tweeted.

Fox News quoting Bill Maher.  Wow.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 04 2012,13:32
< Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate >
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 04 2012,14:31

(GORDON @ Oct. 04 2012,16:32)
QUOTE
< Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate >

LOL
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 05 2012,11:16
< The new story they are trying out is that Obama only lost because Romney CHEATED. >


Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 05 2012,11:30
You know...I kinda don't know now if Obama can win this thing. And I kinda think maybe we'd be better off if he won. Because really, how different is Romney from a Democrat, in his heart? At least with Obama, the Republican Congress MIGHT fight some of his liberalism.

On the other hand, it would make me smile to think of all the sad hippies if Obama lost.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 05 2012,11:40
The crying hippies is the second-most thing I would look forward to.

The first being the repeal of Obamacare.

VERY close second, though.

Obamacare repeal would be a relief... but the lamentations of the hippies would be a joy.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 05 2012,11:59

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 05 2012,13:30)
QUOTE
You know...I kinda don't know now if Obama can win this thing. And I kinda think maybe we'd be better off if he won. Because really, how different is Romney from a Democrat, in his heart? At least with Obama, the Republican Congress MIGHT fight some of his liberalism.

On the other hand, it would make me smile to think of all the sad hippies if Obama lost.

The presidential election has been nothing more than a popularity contest since the first televised debate.  Romney's got a bit to go before I'll give him a real shot at winning.  If the election were tomorrow, I might give him 30-40% chance of winning.  He's got a few weeks to fuck up, B-Rock has a few weeks to improve.  If all the debates went like I hear the most recent one went, then I'd give Mitt straight 50/50 odds.

EDIT: Hstorically, donkey president + pachyderm Congress has proven to be the best economic bet.



Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 05 2012,14:18

(GORDON @ Oct. 05 2012,14:40)
QUOTE
The first being the repeal of Obamacare.

Never happen. TSA is WAY more unpopular, and nobody in the .gov even talks about maybe possibly considering someday even cutting FUNDING a little bit perhaps.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 05 2012,14:31
Well not with THAT attitude.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 05 2012,14:47

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 05 2012,16:18)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Oct. 05 2012,14:40)
QUOTE
The first being the repeal of Obamacare.

Never happen. TSA is WAY more unpopular, and nobody in the .gov even talks about maybe possibly considering someday even cutting FUNDING a little bit perhaps.

I believe the TSA has surpassed the IRS as the most hated gov't agency.  The fact that...

1) it's been over a decade since that shit went down
2) we killed many people responsible for it
3) we have crippled that particular terrorist network
4) the agency has proven incompetent, ineffective, and antagonistic to several of the ten bullet points included in that Bill of Rights thing
5) the only thing they've backed down on was disposable lighters, not one fucking inch has been given back on anything else
6) the main legacy of the agency will be making it mandatory for all air passengers to remove shoes and unpack/repack half their luggage at the fucking security checkpoints as they're going through

... and, yeah, not raising funding would be unthinkable for them.  Because they do such a kick-ass job.  They are, simply put, the new insanity standard.  I call all legislators fucktards because they aren't stampeding to get the TSA rolled back like a shitty term paper hastily thrown together on the last night of the semester.  Can you imagine anyone not being instantly popular for wanting to gut that organization?  Would any single person ever subjected to their bullshittery have a fucking shred of sympathy for them?  If there were a "should we dismantle the TSA" measure put forth, I'd go vote at that bitch.  People would turn out in droves.



Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 05 2012,16:31
Adolph Hitler could run for President on the platform of: "I will dismantle the TSA, and kick every American man in the nuts," and probably get like 80% of the vote of people who fly.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 05 2012,16:43

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 05 2012,19:31)
QUOTE
Adolph Hitler could run for President on the platform of: "I will dismantle the TSA, and kick every American man in the nuts," and probably get like 80% of the vote of people who fly.

He had me at "Dismantle the TSA."  I'd vote for Hitler.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 05 2012,17:11

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 05 2012,17:14
Who the fuck pays $6 for the New Yorker anymore?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2012,08:22
Bill Maher: He took my million dollars and spent it on weed.

< http://www.jammiewf.com/2012....on-weed >

So yep, Obama did poorly, and even the leftest of the left admit it... but now he has nowhere to go but up for the next debate, and Romney can only do worse.

Or stay the same.

Whatever.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2012,13:07
Obama still taking donations from overseas, in spite of the fact that it is against the law.

< His website allowed foreign donations as far back as 2008, > but they "fixed the glitch."  STrangly, the glitch was < put back in before the 2010 elections, > but there still wasn't much press about it.

And now he is still taking foreign donations, and there is supposedly going to be a big story about it broken, but I don't expect to MSM to do much with it, so I predict no effect.  We've been here before, twice.  Everyone who already knew he was a lying, dishonest shithead just has their opinion confirmed yet again, and those who want to see republican lies will continue to see republican lies.

< http://townhall.com/tipshee....ndal_be >

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2012,13:52
QUOTE
... a lying, dishonest shithead...

Describes everyone in D.C.  Maybe that's why he's still there.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2012,17:50
< The Latest Shoe to Drop: Obama Regime Withdrew 16 Member Special Forces Team From Libya One Month Before Attack >
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2012,20:56
QUOTE
Is this whole thing part of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda aided by Barack Obama and his administration? Did you know that the terrorists were upset before July when the YouTube clip originally aired and that is one of the reasons Obama was meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi?

I'm going to assume you can order tinfoil hats from their website, too?

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 08 2012,10:39
QUOTE
I'm going to assume you can order tinfoil hats from their website, too?


Sometimes I see legit reports/opinions that are strong cases against Obama or the insane left, but can't post them because something ruins the credibility of the site.

For example, it'll be a dozen paragraphs of well written opinion citing multiple legit sources, and then the last paragraph will talk about the vast left wing conspiracy to put conservatives into internment camps within one month of Obama's election or some shit.

The biggest problem with the right wingers is that they make themselves look crazy.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 08 2012,10:41
< Blatantly pandering for more Latino votes >.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 10 2012,08:28

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 10 2012,08:50
Sesame Street: "Mr. Obama, we're non-partisan. Please stop using Big Bird in your campaign."

Obama campaign:
< "Go Fuck Yourselves." >

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 10 2012,09:15
There's not much PBS can do about it.  At least in the video in the article, that there is fair use under the law.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 10 2012,10:29
I wasn't implying anything about the legalities of it. I was simply pointing out that the Obama campaign has no ethics or morals.

Using Big Bird like they own him, breaking campaign contribution laws, breaking federal laws by asking companies not to announce upcoming layoffs until after the election, suggesting Barrack Obama is a good candidate to be president, etc.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 10 2012,12:00
Not a banner day for Obama...

< Volt Battery plant struggling. >

QUOTE
President Obama touted it in 2010 as evidence "manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States,” but two years later, a Michigan hybrid battery plant built with $150 million in taxpayer funds is putting workers on furlough before a single battery has been produced.


< New attack ad about Libya and TV appearances. >

Pollster says Romney has < Florida, Virginia, and NC in the bag. >

But Big Bird!!!

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 10 2012,12:20
QUOTE
Speaking to a crowd of 15,000 in Columbus, OH the President said, “Today (Romney) decided we’re going after Big Bird. Elmo’s making a run for the border and Oscar is hiding out in a trash can.”

Emphasizing the Sesame Street theme, recording artist will-i-am kicked off his performance at the Ohio event by playing the Sesame Street theme song.  

The Obama campaign has also dispatched Big Bird mascots to stand outside Romney campaign

I can't believe this isn't from the Onion or SNL or something.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 11 2012,12:44

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 11 2012,15:59
403 Forbidden
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 11 2012,17:28

(TPRJones @ Oct. 11 2012,17:59)
QUOTE
403 Forbidden

I had that problem, too, but it actually loaded for me after I had the graphic cached by going to the link.  As to why it works, fuck if I know.  Using FF, by the by, if it matters.



Posted by GORDON on Oct. 11 2012,17:47
DNC staffer caught on camera promoting voter fraud.

< http://dailycaller.com/2012....attempt >

Her crime?  Getting caught.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 15 2012,07:47

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 15 2012,21:06
< Obama mad at pollsters who dare suggest he's losing in swing states. >


Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 16 2012,10:49
< Hilary jumps on the grenade >.  I swear I remember Janet Reno doing the same thing for Clin-ton during the Elian Gonzalez debacle.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 16 2012,10:52
And Waco, if you'll recall. Assuming you were born...
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 16 2012,12:26

(thibodeaux @ Oct. 16 2012,12:52)
QUOTE
And Waco, if you'll recall. Assuming you were born...

Yeah, but I've got significantly less sympathy for religious fundie psychos.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 16 2012,13:57

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 18 2012,09:29
< "It's not my fault" >

Good article on Obama's attitude.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 18 2012,12:09

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 18 2012,17:15

(TheCatt @ Oct. 18 2012,11:29)
QUOTE
< "It's not my fault" >

The thing is, he's mostly right.  There are some extreme things a President can do to make an economy crash.  But barring that, the President has about as much effect on the economy as pissing on a forest fire.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 18 2012,17:47

(TPRJones @ Oct. 18 2012,20:15)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Oct. 18 2012,11:29)
QUOTE
< "It's not my fault" >

The thing is, he's mostly right.  There are some extreme things a President can do to make an economy crash.  But barring that, the President has about as much effect on the economy as pissing on a forest fire.

I imagine "I am going to compel you to buy insurance for your employees even though your margins won't support it" may have had a bit of a chilling effect on hiring.

< The government stopped granter waivers for Obamacare after it crossed 1400 companies. >

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 18 2012,19:13

(TPRJones @ Oct. 18 2012,20:15)
QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Oct. 18 2012,11:29)
QUOTE
< "It's not my fault" >

The thing is, he's mostly right.  There are some extreme things a President can do to make an economy crash.  But barring that, the President has about as much effect on the economy as pissing on a forest fire.

Then, it wasn't Bush's fault either.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 18 2012,20:51
Nope.  I don't think it was.  The wars didn't help, but they were minor compared to the housing bubble and other factors not related to the Presidency.

Oh, and the flip side of that is Clinton didn't cause the boom he takes credit for, either.  He was just in office at the right time.

But people want easy answers.  They want to be able to point to one guy and say "he did it."



Posted by Leisher on Oct. 19 2012,06:29
< Romney picks up key MEM endorsements. >

I did a quick Google search this morning and this is the first article I found on the subject.

The fact that these left leaning papers are endorsing Romney is interesting, but the big one is The Tennessean because that's apparently "Al Gore's paper".

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 19 2012,07:50
QUOTE
The system has produced not a demagogue but a manager, a candidate whose experience is rooted in the pragmatism of the business world rather than the ideology of partisan politics.

No, it hasn't.  Not in many years.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 22 2012,06:40
< No way this is real... >

Sadly, while that video seems fake, I could easily see it being true.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 22 2012,07:54
I'm surprised this guy hasn't been arrested:
< http://www.businessweek.com/article....-romney >

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 22 2012,09:23
< Free ice cream >
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 22 2012,12:27
< Election is over and Obama won. >


Posted by GORDON on Oct. 22 2012,12:31

(Leisher @ Oct. 22 2012,15:27)
QUOTE
< Election is over and Obama won. >

They are getting their stories straight, that's all.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 22 2012,12:36
FYI, that film maker is still in jail.

Court date is set for 3 days after the election.

< http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog....t-month >

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 22 2012,13:08
Just practicing, or planning out the results they plan to give us?  Hmmmmm?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 22 2012,13:51
Romney won't win.  < Will give 3:2 to anyone who wants to take Romney. >
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 22 2012,14:52

(TheCatt @ Oct. 22 2012,16:51)
QUOTE
Romney won't win.  < Will give 3:2 to anyone who wants to take Romney. >

BIG BIRD.  BIG BIRD, YO.  BIG BIRD.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 24 2012,14:18
GM's new commercial.

"Self respect is the last thing we're worried about."


Posted by GORDON on Oct. 24 2012,14:24
Democrat staffer, and VA representative's son, caught telling reporter how to successfully vote numerous times illegally and get away with it.

< http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012....r-fraud >

But, like every other time voter fraud comes to light, it is absolutely an isolated incident.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 24 2012,18:16

(GORDON @ Oct. 24 2012,17:24)
QUOTE
Democrat staffer, and VA representative's son, caught telling reporter how to successfully vote numerous times illegally and get away with it.

< http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012....r-fraud >

But, like every other time voter fraud comes to light, it is absolutely an isolated incident.

He has resigned, so no harm done, ha ha ha, and oh yeah requiring ID to vote is still racist, just so you know.  So don't try it.  And still an isolated incident.  So don't suspect anything about that about that or you're racist.

< http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012....resigns >

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 24 2012,19:17
And Obama's website, darn it, is still allowing those darned pesky foreign donations.

< http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....nce.php >

No fraud here, move along.  Racist.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 25 2012,06:11
Republican voters being sent letters telling them they are ineligible to vote.  FBI investigating.  

< http://www.clickorlando.com/news....ex.html >

Isolated incident, nothing to see here.  Racist.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 25 2012,06:38
I hear Republicans are doing it all so Romney can sue after the election and the Supreme Court can make him President.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 25 2012,13:48
< Jeep may move to China. >

I feel like creating bumper stickers that say, "Out of a job yet? Keep voting Democrat!"

Anyone get that or is that just a local thing?

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 25 2012,14:08

(Leisher @ Oct. 25 2012,16:48)
QUOTE
< Jeep may move to China. >

I feel like creating bumper stickers that say, "Out of a job yet? Keep voting Democrat!"

Anyone get that or is that just a local thing?

Oh snap, that would indeed "crash the economy of Toledo."

But, I see Toledo city counsel making all kinds of tax incentives to keep them here.

There's a definite schadenfreude feeling, though, thinking of a bunch of union workers getting shitcanned and there's nothing their precious union can do about it.

Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 30 2012,06:28
< The Tears of Sad Hippies >
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 30 2012,16:38
Wow, I just blocked my own mother on facebook because she couldn't resist making a "romney lies" post.  I told her I was blocking her, then I blocked her.

Thanks, Obama.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 30 2012,17:21
Then my aunt chimed in with a sarcastic, "Block away," so then I had to tell her that I've already had her blocked for a long time.

Thanks, Obama.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 30 2012,17:44
Facebook: Turning every day into that awkward family Thanksgiving gathering since 2006.


Posted by GORDON on Oct. 30 2012,17:47
They are all ordinarily so nice... I don't know why they turn into such insulting assholes over this meaningless bullshit.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 31 2012,06:38
Everybody has some topic that turns them into an asshole.  At least with your family since it's politics it only gets really bad every four years.

Maybe just make a policy that every four years in July you don't talk to them again until December.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 31 2012,12:31

(TPRJones @ Oct. 31 2012,08:38)
QUOTE
Everybody has some topic that turns them into an asshole.  At least with your family since it's politics it only gets really bad every four years.

Least until a pachyderm gets elected, then they descend on him like vultures.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 01 2012,20:45
< 4 more years >
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2012,17:21

(TPRJones @ Oct. 31 2012,09:38)
QUOTE
Everybody has some topic that turns them into an asshole.  At least with your family since it's politics it only gets really bad every four years.

Maybe just make a policy that every four years in July you don't talk to them again until December.

Walked up to her tonight while wearing my mask, I said, "I am Guy Fawkes and I am here to overthrow your fascist government."  She laughed, not knowing who I was.  About a second and a half later she recognized my voice.


Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2012,22:41

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 04 2012,16:29
New tax form in 2014 that will be collecting your health care information, or you write them a check.

< http://www.atr.org/new-obamacare-tax-form-mandates-americans-a7285 >

The paperwork thing sounds legit, but I really doubt they made a form that says "Obamacare" on it.

edit - Ah, I read the fine print, the form is bogus.



Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 04 2012,17:44
I keep seeing on FB stuff like "set your clocks back an hour but don't set the clock back 50 years." From Obama-lovers, of course.

Anyway, I want to retort something like: "50 years ago we had a Democrat President and a Democrat-controlled Congress. Also, the top income tax rate was like 90%. I agree: let's not go back to that."

Feel free to embellish.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 04 2012,17:50
WHY DO THEY HATE KENNEDY?
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 04 2012,18:30
New York state is going to have a second day of voting if Romney wins the state on Tuesday.

< http://www.cnn.com/2012....t=hp_t2 >

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2012,04:34
Daughter: Mommy, who are you voting for?
Wife: Well, I haven't quite decided yet.
Daughter: I'm voting for Obama.
Me: Why are you voting for Obama?
Daughter: I don't really know.
Wife: Just like half of his voters.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2012,07:32
Malcolm X telling black folk that if they vote Democrat they're "political chumps" and "traitors to their race".

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2012,07:52
I know Catt's a Skins fan, but there might be a bright side to their loss yesterday:

< Their loss means a Romney victory? >

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2012,09:23

(Leisher @ Nov. 05 2012,10:52)
QUOTE
I know Catt's a Skins fan, but there might be a bright side to their loss yesterday:

< Their loss means a Romney victory? >

It didn't really work for McCain.

Apparently it only works when both candidates are white.



Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2012,09:27
I thought it was 18/19 with only Kerry getting the shaft?
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2012,11:03
Ah, for some reason thought it was 08... ok.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2012,19:25
A friend just posted "No bigots vote Democrat"

I had to respond.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 06 2012,05:40
Two Words:

Robert. Byrd.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 06 2012,05:57
Gordo is bitching on his FB about people mocking other voters. Since it's him posting it I assume it's Dems mocking Repubs, so I posted this:

QUOTE
Being hateful towards someone because of their political affiliation is different from being hateful towards someone because of their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. HOW?


The behavior of those on the left side of the political spectrum towards their opponents on the right, don't seem to match their politics of tolerance very well.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,06:13
Bitching? I.was just calling out my relatives who.forgot to not be assholes lately.

Sometimes i find myself having an overwhelming urge to stop being nice, and strart being an asshole... but I honestly think civilization would.unravel if I did. Yeah, I should put THAT on facebook.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2012,06:50

(Leisher @ Nov. 06 2012,07:57)
QUOTE
Being hateful towards someone because of their political affiliation is different from being hateful towards someone because of their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. HOW?

Race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc are an accident of birth.  Being a whiny "liberal*" Democrat or an ignorant "conservative**" Republican is a choice.


*DISCLAIMER: whiny "liberal" Democrats are in fact not liberal but have abused the word until it cries for mercy.

**DISCLAIMER: ignorant "conservative" Republicans are in fact not conservative but have abused the word until it cries for mercy.



Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2012,07:09

(TPRJones @ Nov. 06 2012,08:50)
QUOTE

(Leisher @ Nov. 06 2012,07:57)
QUOTE
Being hateful towards someone because of their political affiliation is different from being hateful towards someone because of their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. HOW?

Race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc are an accident of birth.  Being a whiny "liberal*" Democrat or an ignorant "conservative**" Republican is a choice.

I was going to point out something similar.  You surrender to your ideology of choice.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,07:11
Like Islam?
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 06 2012,07:17
So?
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2012,07:25

(GORDON @ Nov. 06 2012,09:11)
QUOTE
Like Islam?

Or whatever else you tell yourself so you can get to sleep at night.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,07:49
My point being, if it is biased and ignorant to hate muslims, then it needs to be biased and ignorant to hate republicans.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 06 2012,07:55
Overheard at the polling place:
Person1: I didn't realize there was a back to the ballot, who do I vote for?
Person2: I just voted for the person with the coolest name.  Except the women, I don't want them to be in charge of too many things.
(Person2 then realizes that Person2 is standing next to my wife, who is just staring at Person2)
Person2: Sorry.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 06 2012,08:00
*** SPOILER ALERT ***

Both Person 1 and person 2 were women.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 06 2012,08:05

(TPRJones @ Nov. 06 2012,09:50)
QUOTE
Race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc are an accident of birth.  Being a whiny "liberal*" Democrat or an ignorant "conservative**" Republican is a choice.

I hear this whole "choice" thing sometimes, mostly from people trying to justify why communists weren't as evil as nazis.

But here's the thing: I know a lot of racists. And not one of them dislikes black people because they're black. They dislike them because of stereotypical black behavior---i.e., for choices they make. Does every single black person fit the stereotype? Of course not. But this IS the same as hating Republicans.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2012,08:27

(GORDON @ Nov. 06 2012,09:49)
QUOTE
My point being, if it is biased and ignorant to hate muslims, then it needs to be biased and ignorant to hate republicans.

I disagree with your premise.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,08:28
I dont understand what you mean.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2012,08:33

(GORDON @ Nov. 06 2012,10:28)
QUOTE
I dont understand what you mean.

You said "if A then B."  I think he may be arguing A is invalid to begin with?
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2012,08:35

(thibodeaux @ Nov. 06 2012,10:05)
QUOTE
But here's the thing: I know a lot of racists. And not one of them dislikes black people because they're black. They dislike them because of stereotypical black behavior---i.e., for choices they make. Does every single black person fit the stereotype? Of course not. But this IS the same as hating Republicans.

It's okay to hate someone for their choices and how they behave.  It's lumping them all together based on the color of their skin - something they have no control over - and presuming that they will make those choices and behave badly that makes a modern racist.

This is not the same as hating Republicans.  No one is forced to be Republican.  Perhaps the specific Republican in question does not deserve to be hated because they haven't personally made bad choices one may dislike Republicans for, but they have decided to align themselves with bad people who do and it's perfectly fair to judge them for that choice.

That's like people crying that Islam is a religion of peace and it's unfair to judge the religion based on those who blow people up.  But that's bullshit.  This is not some small minority on the global scale, it's a huge minority or possibly even a small majority.  At this point they are aligning with them at least in name and shouldn't be surprised if they are judged as such.  It is no longer possible reclaim the good name of the religion, if they really want to remove themselves from the terrorists it's time to suck it up and have a schism and take a new name.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,08:40
Yeah, but what if you were raised by your actual parents, a male and a female, and you were indoctrinated from birth to believe that you deserve no more than you earn, to steal from others is wrong, and it is important to follow the rules? This is no different from saying black people cant help being thugs because that is the environment from which they came. In my opinion.
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2012,08:44
Wait, what?  So it's racist to assume that someone with a solidly positive background might make good choices?  Where is the race part in that?

Besides, it's not completely accurate.  Some people raised in a good environment grow up to be downright evil.  And some people growing up in a bad environment are good people.  Environment plays a part, yes, but ultimately we all choose how much we let environment effect us in the end.



Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,08:47
I am saying it is a valid comparison to compare bias against muslims to that against republicans, or jews.
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2012,08:47
Oh, well sure!  That's exactly what I said!  

And those are all completely valid forms of bias, IMO, since they are based on choices people make and how they choose to describe themselves.

EDIT: Well, as long as we are talking about "jew" in terms of chosen religion.  If we are talking about "jew" in terms of genetic inheritance, then that's a different story.  That's one of those terms that - due to the insular nature of the group and it's mostly closed genetic pool - that has been a bit muddied and can sometimes be about race and sometimes not.



Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,10:00
But y'all know hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine... it bugs me that a liberal will tell you that hating muslims makes you a bigot, but hating republicans makes you enlightened.
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2012,10:11
If you are going to get worked every time you encounter a hypocritical "liberal" or "conservative", I think you might need to get away from all of them if you expect to ever be happy.

Hell, the very basis of modern "liberal" and "conservative" thought is founded on the same basic hypocrisy.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2012,10:18
I carry the burden of maintaining civilization on my shoulders and i am never happy.
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard