Perception is reality: Does Obama look like a President?

by editor on August 17, 2011

President Obama plumbed the depths of Jimmy Carter popularity Sunday when Gallup measured his approval rating at just 39%.

It occurs to us that more people might approve of Obama as president if he actually attempted to look presidential. Has any occupant of the Oval Office ever done more to look unpresidential?

The only time you saw Ronald Reagan out of a suit was when he was chopping wood or riding horses at the Western White House. He never took off his suit coat while in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, often seems to be auditioning for the next Abercrombie & Fitch catalog.

obama-fashion-1

obama-fashion-2
obama-fashion-3

obama-fashion-4

obama-fashion-5

obama-fashion-6

obama-fashion-7

obama-fashion-8

obama-fashion-9

obama-fashion-10

obama-fashion-11

obama-fashion-12

Even when he’s in the Oval Office, Obama manages to look unpresidential, feet thrown up on priceless desk as if it’s a footstool in a cheap hotel.

obama-fashion-13

Leave a Reply

755 Comments on "Perception is reality: Does Obama look like a President?"

Notify of
Olivia
Member

Repeatedly we have patiently explained that we hate obama because he is an incompetent ill prepared ass whose policies thus far have sent the economy and the country as a whole in the crapper
*******************
Translation: “We hate him because we’ve been programmed to hate him, that’s why! And we’ve been programmed to hate him, despite the fact that the economy is recovering, he’s gotten us out of the unwinnable quagmire that Bush pushed us into, and that our tattered reputation abroad is finally improving. That’s why we won’t heed any media except right wing propaganda—-those are the only outlets that can be counted on to tell us what we want to hear, whether or not it’s true.”

As the saying goes: the first thing a cult tells its followers is that “everyone else is lying to you.”

ooddballz
Member

Actually his post was quite clear and to the point.
As for your “translations”, all they are is a lame attempt to put other words(YOUR WORDS) into other peoples mouths to create some demented liberal babble that you can then spout drivel to.

Olivia
Member

Nah, his post was just a bunch of tired insults he was fed by the right wing media. And it’s hardly “demented” to recognize them as such. ;>)

sa_rose
Member

And this post bears out exactly what I said in the first place. The only people who have told me everyone is lying to me is you. Are YOU the cult leader I am supposed to follow? No Thank you!

Olivia
Member

Not true, Rose, and you know it. Many times, I’ve posted a source to back up an argument, only to be told that you righties don’t believe it because it came from the “MSM” (or, as your hero Sarah Palin loves to call it, the “lame stream media”).

I’ve also seen evidence that many posters here can’t tell the difference between a news account and an opinion piece—-which means they tend to believe any opinion piece that agrees with modern far right wing prejudices and values, and to discount documented facts that challenge their assumptions.

I regularly see tirades on this board that the “MSM” does nothing but lie and distort, but that right wing sources like Moon’s Washington Times, FOX News and the Heritage Foundation are “fair and balanced.”

The very fact that posters here are arguing that there’s “no evidence” that Cain sexually harassed anyone, while insisting that Clinton WAS guilty of sexual harassment and should therefore have been removed from office, shows just how brainwashed they are. Either that, or they’re compulsive liars. Take your pick.

flashingscotsman
Member

Last turd of the morning.

BritM
Guest

had to throw that out there just to prove YOU’RE not racist, i’ve just seen a lot of pigs on this site.. not one for the race card getting thrown out all the time but god damn on this site it’s hard for it not to get thrown out because of what people say, it’s just silly.

sa_rose
Member

Watch your language. Not all of us are heathens here.

flashingscotsman
Member

Nope, just me.

Yet, somehow, I still manage to agree with the Conservatives most of the time. Go figure.

BritM
Guest

I hate racists pigs..
(i’m a white girl)
Which is the majority of you. I bet the only reason you don’t like Obama is because he is black (and you think all poor/less fortunate people are of a different color).. give me another reason because yes there are some other points you could make but the white-trash on here probably can’t make them. I hope Satan comes and smacks you in the face with his dick and rams it up your asses.

ooddballz
Member

Get over yourself. The RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE card has been so over played in the last 4 years that the spots wore off. We hate the America destroying policies of his WHITE half too.
Oh, btw, many here have stated that they would LOVE to see Herman Cain run.

Olivia
Member

Get over yourself. The RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE card has been so over played in the last 4 years that the spots wore off. We hate the America destroying policies of his WHITE half too.
Oh, btw, many here have stated that they would LOVE to see Herman Cain run.
********************
“Playing the race card” is right wing doublespeak for “bringing up the issue of racism when WE aren’t comfortable talking about it.”

As for Herman Cain: I remember some of the posters here practically wetting themselves with joy at the prospect of Herman Cain being the GOP presidential candidate. But, whenever I asked them why, specifically, they thought he would make such a good president, the only answer I ever got was, “Now, if the libs say they don’t like him, we can call them racist!”

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

To be fair, the Republicans must have loved his stance on women too.

sa_rose
Member

Repeatedly we have patiently explained that we hate obama because he is an incompetent ill prepared ass whose policies thus far have sent the economy and the country as a whole in the crapper. (that’s a loo for you BritM.) I understand that you are all in love with him, and cannot fathom how awful he is but there you are. He is no more Black than white, but he surely is red. BritM since your country is struggling right now, it occurs to me your time might be better spent learning how to reverse the downward spiral instead of judging America, about which you know nothing. Olivia know better, she is just incapable of admitting she is wrong. And the dark dumbass isn’t even worth resonding to.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Explain WHY and HOW his policies are bad.

Sidekick
Member

Your posts are infantile to the extreme.

sa_rose
Member

And repetitive.

flashingscotsman
Member

I only had to read one post from Brit to decide that TD,………..MO, is the proper response.

poppajoe49
Member

As for Herman Cain: I remember some of the posters here practically wetting themselves with joy at the prospect of Herman Cain being the GOP presidential candidate. But, whenever I asked them why, specifically, they thought he would make such a good president, the only answer I ever got was, “Now, if the libs say they don’t like him, we can call them racist!”

Which proves once again that you only read the stuff you want to, because we have said over and over again that we liked him because he had tons of business experience, was not a career politician, had interesting ideas about how to handle the economy, wasn’t a leftist, debated well, was very intelligent, and had great likability. But all you heard was “he’s black”.
Just like when we listed the reasons we didn’t like Obama, EVERY ONE had to do with his policies, his voting record, his association with radical leftists and communists, but all you heard was “he’s black”.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Don’t forget all the sexual harassment. You guys must have really loved that.

sa_rose
Member

Actually due to the timeing, et, I am not sure that was even true. I mean I know he was sued, but I have personally seen abuse of the sexual harrassment laws, so I am not at all sure he was as bad as the left made him out to be. It was a red herring to throw his supporters off track. I did not think he had a solid enough international plan to be President. Might have made a pretty good Vice president, but the Left could NOT have him in office, no matter what it took.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Suuuure.

Olivia
Member

Seeing that you can’t even spell “harassment” properly, I suspect that you’re not as familiar with those laws as you pretend to be.

There IS evidence that two women accused Cain of sexual harassment some years ago, Rose. There IS evidence that the NRA paid out some $80,000 in total—the equivalent of a year’s salary for each—to them, in exchange for keeping their mouths shut about it. And there IS evidence that he kept changing his account of those incidents, for two days after the story broke.

I loved your gross understatement, “I did not think he had a solid enough international plan to be President.” Rose, the man was thoroughly stumped when merely asked if he agreed with Obama’s handling of Libya. What’s more, when questioned about it afterward, he tried to defend himself by arguing “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy!” Is that what you want and expect to hear from either a president OR a vice president? If so, then you have low standards indeed—at least for the far right.

I’m sorry. I know the GOP was eager to get a black man on the ticket (just as they’d been eager, 3 years earlier, to have a physically attractive woman on it), but Cain was not a good choice, any more than Palin was.

poppajoe49
Member

Ah, is attacking the spelling of someone that has admitted to being a chronic typo violator the only thing you have?
Aren’t you the same one that complains when it’s done to someone you agree with?
Glass houses.

Olivia
Member

Ah, is attacking the spelling of someone that has admitted to being a chronic typo violator the only thing you have?
*************
No, it isn’t. Didn’t you read the rest of the post?
*************
Aren’t you the same one that complains when it’s done to someone you agree with?
*************
No.

poppajoe49
Member

Liar

flashingscotsman
Member

Two turds.

sa_rose
Member

I would be stumped if someone asked me what I thought about Obama’s “handling” of Libya. I would. have to stop and carefully consider my words so as not to be bleeped off the air. And why are you ragging on Cains foreign policy goofs? I SAID he was not prepared for foreign policy decisions. And I STILL say, typos aside, that I have seen gross abuse of sexual harassment laws and many women paid a boatload of money to shut them up for false or misleading claims, rather than waiste MORE money on a trial. And these women violated the terms of their agreements by speaking about it to ANYONE much less the press and later the public in interviews. That makes me suspect them as gold diggers instead of victims even more.

Olivia
Member

I would be stumped if someone asked me what I thought about Obama’s “handling” of Libya. I would. have to stop and carefully consider my words so as not to be bleeped off the air.
*******************
Oh? Tell us, please. What did you find obscene about the way Obama handled Libya? How do you think it should have been handled?
********************
And why are you ragging on Cains foreign policy goofs? I SAID he was not prepared for foreign policy decisions.
*******************
It was apparently worse than that, Rose. No one asked Cain to make a “decision” about Libya—just to state whether or not he agreed with Obama’s handling of the situation. He couldn’t even manage that. What’s worse, he couldn’t admit that he didn’t have an opinion—-instead, he behaved like a kid who hadn’t done his homework, and was trying to BS his way through an oral exam.

That’s what’s so revealing about the way you righties enthusiastically flocked around him. Do you truly think that someone who’s running for PRESIDENT need not know ANYTHING about foreign policy? Not even enough to have an opinion on how a major incident was handled by the incumbent?

That makes about as much sense as it would for my own employer to hire a nurse who doesn’t know what CPR is. Why would Republicans set their standards that low? Was it because the GOP was anxious to have a black candidate, and didn’t much care whether that candidate was knowledgeable on the issues? Did they not learn anything from the disaster of tapping Sarah Palin for the vice presidency?
*******************
And I STILL say, typos aside, that I have seen gross abuse of sexual harassment laws and many women paid a boatload of money to shut them up for false or misleading claims, rather than waiste MORE money on a trial.
***************
And you were uniquely familiar with ALL the details of “many” women’s accusations, because…..? And your evidence that ALL of them were actually lying is……?
***************
And these women violated the terms of their agreements by speaking about it to ANYONE much less the press and later the public in interviews.
*****************
Do you think it’s right to require a sexual harassment victim to keep her mouth shut for all eternity, even if doing so is likely to perpetuate the cycle of abuse?
****************
That makes me suspect them as gold diggers instead of victims even more.
***************
I see. Do you regard rape or abuse victims who speak out as “gold diggers,” too?

Despite your skeptical attitude toward women who claim to have been sexually harassed, it never occurred to you that Paula Jones could have been lying about Clinton, did it? Or that Monica Lewinsky could have been telling the truth, when she said that she’d been a willing participant in those Oval Office shenanigans with Clinton? No, of course not—-you had Clinton pegged as a rapist from the start, and never questioned the motives of those who accused him—even though they had a great deal more to gain than the women who accused Cain of the same thing.

You seem to take a very elastic approach to this issue, depending on whether the accused is a Republican or a Democrat. ;>)

Sidekick
Member

He “went into” Libya without the consent of Congress. While that was an illegal act that no-one in Washington did anything about, it should take the pins out of the left wing accusations of the lawlessness of the previous administration as it relates to Iraq.

poppajoe49
Member

And you were uniquely familiar with ALL the details of “many” women’s accusations, because…..? And your evidence that ALL of them were actually lying is……?

And you’re unique familiarity with ALL the details of these accusations is…………?

And your evidence that ALL of them were actually truthful is……?

That makes me suspect them as gold diggers instead of victims even more.
***************
I see. Do you regard rape or abuse victims who speak out as “gold diggers,” too?

Comparing cherries nd pumpkins doesn’t further your argument dumbass.
If they were concerned with the harassment and not the payday, they would have had it handled without a civil suit. It’s the preponderance of women suing for money that makes the entire process appear suspect. Whether they were actually harassed or not remains the sub issue, the money they sue for is the primary issue. I feel bad for any woman that is sexually harassed. I have seen it in the corporate world. I used to be a supervisor in a government contract electronic manufacturing plant, and I saw quite a bit of it. But it was a female doing the harassing of other females! The victims went to their union rep for arbitration because the abuser was a VP in the company, and they had no other choice of how to handle it. The point being, that they wanted it to stop, no cash payouts were requested or given. THAT is the way someone that is actually harassed handles things.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Wait, are you seriously saying any rape victim who sues is just in it for the money? What the fuck, dude? Then again, it’s not surprising for a guy who I have previously nicknamed “Rapist”. Go back to prison, Rapist.

Sidekick
Member

Wait, are you seriously saying any rape victim who sues is just in it for the money?

You dumbass! Olivia introduced rape as a red herring. The topic is allegations of sexual harassment. You walked right into Olivia’s false analogy and equivalency. I see that a lot with people like you.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Stop ignoring that your friend is a rapist.

Sidekick
Member

Eric, you are a disgrace. You probably should find another site. I hope the others will stop responding to you. I know I am. Disgusting little weasel.

drb
Member

Hopefully not just him…

Kip Hooker
Member

I for one will not be responding to this person, unless it is to post the following youtube link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlyAxdvBfo

poppajoe49
Member

Darkshitstain, perhaps you forgot, in your glee of seeing a black man discredited, that no actual proof of misdeeds on the part of Herman Cain were ever brought to light.
It was a hatchet job on the frontrunner, pure and simple.

Olivia
Member

No, Poopajoe, even the right wing media agrees that solid evidence exists of Cain’s history of sexual harassment, and that he tried to change his story several times when questioned about it:

Herman Cain Only Has Himself to Blame | The Iowa Republican

So, in fact, do at least two British publications, including the tabloid Daily Mail that you righties are so fond of citing:
Herman Cain recalls new details as sexual harassment story shifts again | World news | guardian.co.uk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056305/Herman-Cains-sexual-harassment-accuser-paid-FULL-YEARS-salary-settlement.html

But the biggest “misdeed” of Cain’s, in my opinion, was his utter ignorance on foreign policy, as well as his lame attempt to hide it when asked a simple question point blank about Obama’s handling of Libya.

No matter how much you extol the man’s virtues (and, so far, I haven’t seen ANY of you extol a virtue of Cain’s, other than that he’s black, and could therefore serve as an excuse to “play the race card” whenever opponents criticized him), he clearly wasn’t ready for prime time.

poppajoe49
Member

It is common practice for companies to pay off sexual harassment accusers because it’s cheaper than the legal fees to fight it. Accusers know this, and see it as an easy payday. If you had ever been in a management position in any business in the USA, you would know this too. So all these veiled accusations that suddenly went away when he left the race hold no water.

Don’t even go there on the foreign policy/experience thing, Obama was as well prepared for the Presidency as a whale is prepared to fly. He surrounded himself with people that know such things, which is exactly what Cain would have done.

Olivia
Member

It is common practice for companies to pay off sexual harassment accusers because it’s cheaper than the legal fees to fight it. Accusers know this, and see it as an easy payday.
***************
Yet you didn’t seem to think so when it was Bill Clinton being accused by Paula Jones.

Kind of an elastic morality you have there, isn’t it?

poppajoe49
Member

Paula Jones went public, was clearly available for the media to question. She gave specific testimony. There were literally hundreds of women coming out of the woodwork admitting to affairs with Clinton, even famous women.

flashingscotsman
Member

Two more turds. Time for me to get to work.

Olivia
Member

Don’t even go there on the foreign policy/experience thing, Obama was as well prepared for the Presidency as a whale is prepared to fly. He surrounded himself with people that know such things, which is exactly what Cain would have done.
***************
Give me an example of Obama displaying a deer-in-the-headlights look when asked a simple question about a well known recent international incident, Poopajoe.

Give me an example of Obama being struck speechless with confusion, and muttering something about “thing twirling around in my head,” when unable to answer a simple question.

Obama had political experience, which Cain did not. Cain was a businessman, which makes him about as qualified to be a statesman as being a nurse qualifies me to be a professional dancer. Granted, it’s possible for a businessman to become knowledgeable about statesmanship or foreign policy if he works at it, but, clearly, Cain had NOT worked at it.

Why are you lowering the bar so much, when it comes to Republican candidates? Why do you spend so much time arguing that they don’t need to be knowledgeable or competent, since they can just get a bunch of advisors to tell them how to do their job? Has it not occurred to you that someone who has that little understanding of foreign affairs would probably not be very competent at choosing reliable advisors, either?

But, of course, it hadn’t. You’re so busy trying to justify and downplay Cain’s shortcomings that you’ve done no thinking at all.

poppajoe49
Member

Simple, there are tons of video on youtube of Obama without his teleprompter. I don’t have the inclination to wade through all the proof that is there, just to give you proof that you have no intention of accepting.

Olivia
Member

Don’t even go there on the foreign policy/experience thing, Obama was as well prepared for the Presidency as a whale is prepared to fly.
****************
And your evidence that Obama was as egregiously ignorant about foreign policy as Cain was would be……?

(NOTE: “Well, because Rush seems to think…..” doesn’t constitute evidence.)

Sidekick
Member

And your evidence that Obama was as egregiously ignorant about foreign policy as Cain was would be……?

Three and half years of foreign policy gaffes sell-outs, give aways, and public humiliation.

What in BHO’s background could you possibly cling to that highlights his foreign policy competency? Especially when the results speak for themselves. Living in Indonesia as a child hardly counts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-foreign-initiatives-have-faltered/2012/01/05/gIQAeCqAkP_story.html

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=251505

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/25/obama_foreign_policy_coming_up_empty

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/27/morning-bell-obama-doctrine-failure/

Obama’s foreign policies are nothing short of an abject failure, especially in the Middle East where appeasement is the rule rather than the exception.

Here are his failures:
1) Our decaying relationship with Pakistan.

2) His prediction that the “Arab Spring” would result in a Democratic transformation. The reality is that the Muslim Brotherhood (as those of us on the Right predicted) would gain control of Egypt.

3) His determination to expedite foreign aid to Egypt, vis a vis the Muslim Brotherhood.

4) His calls that Israel should return to their pre-1967 borders which jeopardizes their security- Most friendly Administration towards Israel?

5) His determination to release 5 Talabani officials from Gitmo as a show of goodwill for peace talks with the Taliban. Our enemies are laughing at the sheer stupidity of our leaders.

6) Iran

(a) Disrupting oil by blockading the
Straits of Hormuz- Obama
called off a joint military
exercise with Israel as to not
provoke Iran.

(b) Attempting to assassinate
foreign dignitaries on US soil

(c) Continually rattling their sabers
threatening to “wipe Israel off
the map”

(d) Attempting to develop nuclear
weapons that they could
supply to terrorists or “wipe
Israel off the map”

(e) Known to have built IEDs that
have killed soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan

(f) Have been waging a proxy war
against the US and Israel
through their surrogates
Hezbollah and Hamas for many
years

(g) Failing to stand behind the
Iranian people when they
attempted to overthrow the
government in 2009

Other than that he has done well?? This is just the Middle East. He caved to the Russians with the missile defesne shield. Putin probably does not take his calls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/mar/27/obama-medvedev-mic-nuclear-video

Who does he even work for?

poppajoe49
Member

Who does he even work for?

Kick, you answered that question earlier in your post:

the Muslim Brotherhood
Hezbollah
Hamas
the Russians

Sidekick
Member

I have to admit that Cain never did it for me mostly for his role as the governor of the Kansas City Federal Reserve. That makes him a monetary policy insider. The lack of foreign policy was also a problem. The rest of it? I don’t know. Where there is smoke there is fire but I have seen sexual harassment alleged as retribution for not getting a promotion or other perceived slights. It was a frequent occurrence when I worked at Honda in the 1990s. Many good managers had their careers ruined.

Olivia
Member

Where there is smoke there is fire but I have seen sexual harassment alleged as retribution for not getting a promotion or other perceived slights. It was a frequent occurrence when I worked at Honda in the 1990s. Many good managers had their careers ruined.

And you know for a FACT that their accusers were all lying, because……?

poppajoe49
Member

And you know for a FACT that the charges were legitimate because………….?

Sidekick
Member

Exactly. The allegation is all that is needed to ruin a career.

Olivia
Member

As for Herman Cain: I remember some of the posters here practically wetting themselves with joy at the prospect of Herman Cain being the GOP presidential candidate. But, whenever I asked them why, specifically, they thought he would make such a good president, the only answer I ever got was, “Now, if the libs say they don’t like him, we can call them racist!”

Which proves once again that you only read the stuff you want to, because we have said over and over again that we liked him because he had tons of business experience, was not a career politician, had interesting ideas about how to handle the economy, wasn’t a leftist, debated well, was very intelligent, and had great likability. But all you heard was “he’s black”.
**********************
No, I heard—and refuted—the other arguments.

The fact that he has “tons of business experience” (even though he hasn’t worked in business for 10 years) is irrelevant, because the United States isn’t a business. Business executives can hire and fire at will; statesmen have to learn to get along with the ones that are elected. Business executives are focused on The Bottom Line; statesmen are focused on what’s right for the country.

I know the right has been programmed to worship Business, but that doesn’t mean that “is it the best thing for business?” should be the deciding factor in all or most governmental decisions. Nowhere in the Constitution, or in president’s inaugural oath, does it say that a president must pledge to support business, or be a member of the business community.

The fact that he “was not a career politician” isn’t necessarily an asset, although it’s become popular to think so. When a demanding and highly responsible position needs to be filled, whether in the public or private sector, it just makes sense to hire someone with at least some experience in that field. Most business managers understand that very well: they won’t hire a complete newbie unless they’re prepared to take lots of extra time orienting him to the position. And, since Cain had never held any kind of elective office, he would have been absolutely green. Is that the best the Republicans could do—to sponsor a completely inexperienced, untried newcomer with no background whatsover in government?

You say he “had interesting ideas about how to handle the economy.” Unfortunately, many economists regarded his plan as unworkable (as you’d expect of an economic model apparently inspired by a video game), as did many Republicans. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/18/news/la-pn-vegas-debate-open-20111018

You say he isn’t “a leftist.” That, I grant you, is true, but not necessarily a good thing. ;>)

You also say he “debates well.” He didn’t do so well, as I recall, when talk turned to Obama’s handling of Libya, or past allegations of sexual harassment.

In fact, I can’t think of a single reason you would have thought this man would make a great president. Unless you were hoping that he’d cater to Big Business, at the expense of the taxpayers. That sounds very possible, given your tendency to extol the virtues of a business controlled government, but it beats me why a peon like you would be so willing to bend over for greedy business moguls.

poppajoe49
Member

You say he isn’t “a leftist.” That, I grant you, is true, but not necessarily a good thing.

We finally agree on something, it’s not a good thing, it’s a GREAT thing!

You also say he “debates well.” He didn’t do so well, as I recall, when talk turned to Obama’s handling of Libya, or past allegations of sexual harassment.

That’s an interesting thought process you have there, I don’t recall either of those points being part of the debates. Could it be you are confused? 😀

Olivia
Member

You also say he “debates well.” He didn’t do so well, as I recall, when talk turned to Obama’s handling of Libya, or past allegations of sexual harassment.

That’s an interesting thought process you have there, I don’t recall either of those points being part of the debates. Could it be you are confused?
****************
Irrelevant, Poopajoe. If Cain can’t even handle softball questions in an interview, there’s NO way he’d be able to debate the same issues against the incumbent.

Sounds to me as if you’re saying he LOOKS good when he debates. Because you surely aren’t considering the fact that, in order to debate well, one must be thoroughly familiar with the issue in question, not just with one’s own side, but with all possible sides. And, I’m sorry, but thinking a candidate LOOKS good at a lectern isn’t a good enough reason to think he’s well qualified to be a head of state. Did you righties learn nothing from the Sarah Palin disaster? As I recall, you thought SHE looked good at a lectern, too. :>P

Of course, that question is irrelevant, because the GOP never seriously believed that Cain had the makings of a president. They were merely trying to convince the public that they’re no longer just a party for old white men, by trotting out a black candidate and a female candidate, neither of whom were likely to pose a threat to the “real” candidates.

Kip Hooker
Member

>i>”Of course, that question is irrelevant, because the GOP never seriously believed that Cain had the makings of a president. They were merely trying to convince the public that they’re no longer just a party for old white men, by trotting out a black candidate and a female candidate, neither of whom were likely to pose a threat to the “real” candidates.”

This is a good point. It is so good that these women and people of color, so long as they were GOPeepees could be stopped. We must be very thankful for the double standard. It would have been unfortunate indeed if our glorious dear leader Obama had been held to the same standards as these two, or any standards at all.

Sidekick
Member

Left wing racism….keep “them” on the plantation. Shameful.

flashingscotsman
Member

Sexism, also. It would seem.

BritM
Guest

ARE YOU KIDDING ME.
i guess a suit makes or breaks the man..wow. What kind of site am i on RIGHT WINGED REPUBLICAN ONE I IMAGINE. GOD DAMN.. and btw Regan sold weapons to Iran (Iran-Contra Affair).. But he wore a suit so it’s cool.

Olivia
Member

To a group that’s been programmed to value the slick packaging more than the product inside, it stands to reason that a former movie actor would make the best possible presidential candidate.

Unless, of course, it’s a former beauty pageant contestant.

poppajoe49
Member

Funny that you think that. Obama was the most slick packaged candidate to come down the pike in my lifetime. What with the whole deal with him throwing out cool buzzwords that mean nothing, and having no plan except to spend money we don’t have, to give away free stuff to people so he could get votes, he was the worst candidate for the time and situation.

Sidekick
Member

Her post was more of the same projection that we see from her. Remember BHO’s DNC acceptance speech in Denver? You know the at one Mile High Stadium and with the Greek pillars? The TV show apprearences? All this from a man who accomplished virtually nothing prior to the 2008 campaign. He is the first celebrity president and I hope the last.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Ah, Contra. “Ollie North, dadada, Ollie North…”

Olivia
Member

She is only following the example of her idol. She accuses Bush of totally unsubstantiated comments, quotes and thoughts (?)
********************
Such as……?
******************** but I’m the wicked witch oif the west for calling her idol on one of his stupid, verifiable comments because I paraphrased, rather than got out a tape recorder (like I would ever record something Obama had to say-the LSM does it for me.)
********************
No, I didn’t call you “wicked” for doing that—-just dishonest. And gullible, since paraphrasing for their own purposes is a favorite trick of the far right.

Another sign that you’re gullible is your trick of parroting Sarah Palin’s stupid and childish nickname for the segment of the media that she doesn’t like.

poppajoe49
Member

Oh WAAAAHHHH, Rose used a term that Sarah Palin used! Boo frickin Hoo, go to work scrunt.

sa_rose
Member

I speak English too. Does that make me awful? Palin speaks a sort of English! Oh! And I believe in God, and have children, and love America. OMG I had no idea how EVIL I was! Help me~

poppajoe49
Member

You’re going to hell Rose!

flashingscotsman
Member

A nice evening turd.

sa_rose
Member

I know! And all this time I thought I was doing the right thing! Satan is sneaky!

Olivia
Member

Who said you were “evil,” Rose? I just thought it was silly to parrot Sarah Palin’s childish putdown of the media.

And, by the way, the far right doesn’t have a lock on theology, parenthood, or love of country. In fact, I’d say that we liberals might love this country MORE than you do, since we’re willing to invest in its future, and most right wingers aren’t.

sa_rose
Member

Seeing as how everythign you just said about Conservatives is a lie, I would have to say you are wrong. And I never said we had a lock on theology. Contary to what the liberals think, conservatives include a great variety of people, lifestyles, education and religious belief. It is Left wing propaganda that says we are all stupid, backwoods hillbillies without 3 brain cells to rub together.

Olivia
Member

Author: poppajoe49
Comment:
Holy Crap! Your post is so full of shit, there is no good place to start!
Spending money that you don’t have isn’t doing anyone any good. Create an atmosphere where business will thrive and you create jobs. It’s worked for centuries. Creating a Socialist Utopia hasn’t ever worked. Eventually you run out of other peoples money and everything comes crashing down around you, reference Greece.
******************
No one but you has proposed creating a “utopia,” socialist or otherwise, Poopajoe. You’ve been so brainwashed by Rush and FAUX News that you think a social program equals communism. That’s nonsense, of course, but people who have been programmed to swallow nonsense rarely recognize it as such.

As for spending money we don’t have—-what do you think Bush was doing for eight years?? Not one of you righties can bring yourselves to criticize him, or to admit that maybe we should consider a different course of action, since that one failed so badly—–but you keep holding up his failed policies as the Holy Grail of Responsible Government.

It’s time you realized that the money we wasted on his useless Iraq war alone would have paid for quality education and health care for every American who needs it—-and at least then we would have had something to show for our pains. Instead, you pull a poor mouth and whine “We can’t afford it!”—and, right in the same breath, demand that we hand out tax cuts to make the deficit even bigger.

Still waiting, by the way, for one of you righties to tell all about the millions of new jobs that were created as a direct result of giving big tax cuts to billionaires. I’m just not seeing them, unless you’re talking about the ones in China and Mexico.

poppajoe49
Member

We have all had our problems with Bush spending money we didn’t have on the Iraq war, in fact Billo has done quite a few segments on it. However, what was spent on the Iraq war from beginning to end is nothing compared to what Obama has spent on, um, we don’t really know what he has spent the money on yet, but it’s 5x the cost of the Iraq war, not counting Obamacare, and he’s done it in only 3 years!

Not so silent
Member

Turds X 4 for Oblivious, and notice how it’s all Bush’s fault again? There’s no arguing with a brick poppa….I wonder where she will vacation when the land of hairy armpits, cheap cigarettes, and moldy cheese collapses under it’s own weight?

How long before they start selling off their military piece by piece? Selling paintings at the Louvre? If we thought Greece was a mess, wait till her hero, Hollandaise sause kills France? It’s gonna be a third world country. Everyone gets free shit but nobody is left to pay for it. Sounds familial doesn’t it?

Olivia
Member

Not true, Poopajoe. Obama’s stimulus package was very costly, I grant you, but it was necessary to prevent the economy from sinking into a colossal depression. It wouldn’t have BEEN necessary if he hadn’t been handed the worst economy in over 70 years, courtesy of “Deficits don’t matter” Dick Cheney and “I’m a war preznit” George W. Bush.

You’re in the exact same position as the patient who smokes, eats a high fat diet, sits on his rear all day and doesn’t take his medications, who then turns around and blames his doctor when he has a heart attack. It always costs much more to fix a disaster than it does to create on, and you sat by and let Bush create the mother of all modern economic disasters—-while waging two wars and cutting taxes simultaneously.

And it never even occurred to you that that was a bad idea until after he’d safely left office, did it?

Sidekick
Member

“Obama’s stimulus package was very costly, I grant you, but it was necessary to prevent the economy from sinking into a colossal depression”.

Back that up with some hard evidence. The Stimulus choked private investment because it took so much money and borrowing capability out of the markets. Of course you know that the Stimulus was a pay-off to the unions and to keep state and local public sector jobs from being eliminated. Unemployment was not going to fall below 8% if the Stimulus was passed….remember that claim? BHO joked publicly that they could not find any shovel ready jobs. We were fleeced. Is there any left wing propaganda that you do not believe?

Sidekick
Member

“…you sat by and let Bush create the mother of all modern economic disasters—-while waging two wars and cutting taxes simultaneously.”

What did Bush do to create the financial collapse of 2008? I’m dying to know specifically what action(s) he took.

sa_rose
Member

SURPRISE!!!! The Country DID sink into a collossal depression, despite the stimulus. Just because they use happier sounding semantics (its a recession, not a depression) it was, and is a depression from which the country is struggling to recover. Yet nothing the Great O has promised would “fix it” in 3 years (his time frame, not mine) has failed miserable. Well educated and extensively trained people can’t get a job in their field, and are sucking up jobs requiring less education and training, leaving thsoe with low education and training out in the cold. THe welfare systems are overwhelmed by the scammers so that those who really need the help can’t get it. And if you think there aren’t big time scammers, then explan to me why applying for food stamps, nothing else, is a 10 page application, with the need for pages and pages of supporting documentation? Obama ran for election, ws elected based (theoretically) on his promises of hope and change, and he has failed miserably. Let him go home and have someone else give it a go. I’m not sure they could do any worse.

Olivia
Member

SURPRISE!!!! The Country DID sink into a collossal depression, despite the stimulus.
******************
Wrong, It was already in a deep recession when the stimulus was applied. It was in that deep recession, in fact, while your hero Bush was still in office.
*****************
Just because they use happier sounding semantics (its a recession, not a depression) it was, and is a depression from which the country is struggling to recover.
*******************
Wrong again, Rose. “Recession” is not just a “happier sounding” synonym for “depression.” In any case, if it WERE a full fledged depression, don’t you think Bush’s political opponents would have used that term instead of “recession,” for the severe economic downturn that occurred on his watch?
******************
Yet nothing the Great O has promised would “fix it” in 3 years (his time frame, not mine) has failed miserable.
******************
You know, I’ve corrected you and several others on that misquote at least 10 times, but you keep parroting it anyway. Who’s feeding it to you? Rush? Or some other Obamaphobic pundit? Obama never said he would “fix it” in 3 years. He pledged to TURN IT AROUND, which he has done, despite dogged, make-him-fail-at-all-costs steamrolling efforts by Republicans in Congress.

How odd that you claim to think it’s actually a depression, not a recession—-but that you also expected it could be cured, at no cost or inconvenience to yourself within three years. You must think Obama has supernatural powers. Certainly, you righties didn’t expect such superhuman feats from Bush. You didn’t even expect competence from him, much less taking responsibility for his bad policies.
*****************
Well educated and extensively trained people can’t get a job in their field, and are sucking up jobs requiring less education and training, leaving thsoe with low education and training out in the cold.
***************
Got some statistics on that, Rose? Including statistics comparing occupational outlooks for professional and skilled technical positions in 2008, to those of 2012?

I know that my employer is hiring again. We had a hiring freeze for quite a while, but it’s gone now. New graduate nurses are finding jobs promptly, when, just a couple of years ago, it might take them a year or more to find a job (and not necessarily one in the area they wanted to work in). My husband’s company is hiring, too. So are many of the businesses around here. I grant you that there still aren’t enough jobs to go around. But it’s a myth that the problem has remained unchanged, or that it’s gotten worse.
**********************
THe welfare systems are overwhelmed by the scammers so that those who really need the help can’t get it.
***********************
They’re overwhelmed by large case loads, Rose (isn’t that what you righties wanted, when you demanded across-the-board government budget cuts)? You choose to think it’s all and only about “scammers,” because you’re used to treating those phantom “welfare queens” as a scapegoat for everything that’s wrong with our economy.
****************
And if you think there aren’t big time scammers, then explan to me why applying for food stamps, nothing else, is a 10 page application, with the need for pages and pages of supporting documentation?
*******************
Because evaluating someone’s financial status is a complicated process, Rose. It’s not something that can be achieved just by asking three or four questions. And, yes, they need to guard against scammers, just as businesses need to watch those in the financial department to make sure they don’t embezzle the company’s assets—-but that’s not the only reason they have so much red tape.
***********************
Obama ran for election, ws elected based (theoretically) on his promises of hope and change, and he has failed miserably.
************************
Actually, he hasn’t. The economy IS turned around, although it has a long ways to go before economists will say the recession is gone. We KNEW it would take many years before we’d be completely over this recession—-at least, those of us with a handle on reality did.
*****************
Let him go home and have someone else give it a go. I’m not sure they could do any worse.
*****************
I am. Mitt Romney is parroting the failed policies of the Bush administration. Why in the name of heaven would you support a man who wants to repeat the same policies that BROUGHT us into the recession, yet expect them, this time, to have opposite results.

That makes no sense. And neither does your argument “it wasn’t a recession; it was a DEPRESSION; and why didn’t Obama cure it all by himself within 3 years?”

Kip Hooker
Member

I am tired of all these failed policies of the war criminal Georges Bush III. That is what the neo conmen don’t understand. Bush handed Obama a world that was broke. That is why Obama has had to do the opposite of those failed policies. Like how Bush gave his corporate buddies taxpayer money. Obama never did that. And like how Bush went to war in Labia without consulting congress. Well Obama would never do something like that. And like how Bush wanted to spy on those foreign guys and listen to their telephone calls. Well Obama had to deal with that problem too. He did it by making it more equal. So now not only terrorists get their phones bugged and tortured but in this more egalitarian era of the Obama citizens can get molested and tortured at the airport while the feds suppose they have the authority to read our emails and track our locations through our cell phones.

sa_rose
Member

OBAMA stated that if he didn’t “fix the economy” in 3 years,he would be a one term president. We are only giving him what he asked for. If he couldn’t do it (which was probably impossible for anyone) then he shouldn’t have said it. He set up expectations that he could not meet and its time to pay the piper.

Olivia
Member

Show me the direct quote, Rose.

(HINT: You won’t be able to find it, because that isn’t what Obama said. Once again, you’re repeating paraphrasings from right wing propaganda.)

Sidekick
Member
poppajoe49
Member

Damn you Kick, you beat me to it.

“If I don’t have this done in 3 years, then it’s going to be a one term proposition”

That’s what you get when you don’t watch TV and count on left wing blogs for your “News”.

Olivia
Member

Damn you Kick, you beat me to it.

“If I don’t have this done in 3 years, then it’s going to be a one term proposition”

That’s what you get when you don’t watch TV and count on left wing blogs for your “News”.
*********************
I seldom visit left wing blogs, Poopajoe. When I do, I use the same critical eye as I use with right wing blogs.

Interesting that you taunt me for supposedly being uninformed; yet failed to notice that Rose misquoted Obama.

As I’ve said here several dozen times: if you have to lie, misquote, paraphrase or otherwise spin his words to make your point, how valid could your point be?

poppajoe49
Member

We wonder that about you all the time.

Olivia
Member

Sorry, Kick, but that is not what Rose claimed Obama said. He said, “If I don’t have this thing done in 3 years,” NOT “If I don’t fix the economy in 3 years,” or, as the guy who posted the Youtube video (falsely) claimed, “if the economy doesn’t recover in 3 years.”

Well, he HAS “done” it. The economy is no longer in freefall, and has started to change direction. Bailing out the car companies has started to bear fruit. More jobs are appearing. The stock market is doing better.

Does that mean the recession is over? Of course not. It took time and effort to get us into this mess; it will take much more of both to get us completely out of it.

poppajoe49
Member

The question posed to him was

“At some point will you say wait a minute, we’ve spent this amount of money, we’re not seeing the results, we’ve got to change course dramatically”

What about that question makes you think he wasn’t talking about the economy?

Sidekick
Member

“He said, “If I don’t have this thing done in 3 years,” NOT “If I don’t fix the economy in 3 years,”

Semantics

sa_rose
Member

Desperation

Olivia
Member

I agree, Rose. You must be pretty desperate to misquote him—-and even to put your manufactured version in quotes, to pretend you’d gotten it directly from him.

That’s pretty pathetic.

Sidekick
Member

Rose’s quotations marks aside, BHO is very clear in his response to Lauer. Generally, when one finds herself in a hole, she does not keep digging to get out of it.

sa_rose
Member

She is only following the example of her idol. She accuses Bush of totally unsubstantiated comments, quotes and thoughts (?) but I’m the wicked witch oif the west for calling her idol on one of his stupid, verifiable comments because I paraphrased, rather than got out a tape recorder (like I would ever record something Obama had to say-the LSM does it for me.) The fact remains that what I paraphrased and what he ACTUALLY word for word said, contain the same information is irrelevant. Moron.

poppajoe49
Member

The stock market is doing better.

The market is still more than 1000 points below where it was in 2007, and that was way before printing billions of dollars and devaluing the currency, which by definition makes the value of stocks LOOK better than they actually are.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#symbol=^dji;range=5y;compare=;indicator=split+volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Olivia
Member

The stock market is doing better.

The market is still more than 1000 points below where it was in 2007
***************
Well, duh, Poopajoe. Did you seriously think ANY president could magically cure the recession, plus the ripple effect FROM the recession, within three years, and in the face of Obama-must-fail-at-all-costs Republican opposition?

As I said earlier, I’m still wondering where all those jobs are, that were supposed to be created by Bush’s have-mores when he awarded them big tax cuts. It’s been how many years now?

Sidekick
Member

“Well, duh, Poopajoe. Did you seriously think ANY president could magically cure the recession, plus the ripple effect FROM the recession, within three years, and in the face of Obama-must-fail-at-all-costs Republican opposition? ”

Obama did. He gambled his credibility on it by saying if he could not fix this thing in three years it would be a one-term proposition. 🙂

sa_rose
Member

Careful Kick. By using the word “fix” in your comment, yu have erased the entire interview from ever having taken place and therefore Obama COULDN’T have said anything of the sort. Erased. Just like that.

poppajoe49
Member

I’m still wondering where all those jobs are, that were supposed to be created by Bush’s have-mores when he awarded them big tax cuts.

Once again, you fail to pay attention. NOBODY wants to hire unless they absolutely have to because of the uncertainty of what Obamacare is going to do to the bottom line.

However, the biggest problem with your post is how you completely sidestepped the devaluation of the dollar. Obama has done more damage to the currency than all other Presidents combined. He printed untold billions/trillions of dollars to put into circulation, creating terrible inflation that he refuses to acknowlege by removing the cost of food, fuel, heating oil, and electric from the inflation index. If he were honest about it, inflation would be double digit. He’s lying to us and to himself about the economy.

sa_rose
Member

Thanks Kick. I was on my way to get this clip when I saw you had already posted it. Of course, this was na NBC interview, andwe all know Olivia doesn’t watch TV. Oh, and the moon is made of green cheese. Here’s another failed pledge from the Greatest President EVER.

http://youtu.be/SaQUU2ZL6D8

poppajoe49
Member

Youtube video is a real bitch, ain’t it?

(Hint: You can’t run from the video clip of him talking with Matt Lauer, the NBC sycophant.)

sa_rose
Member

Do I hear an apology Olivia? For calling us ALL liars when it was YOU who hadn’t a clue? For accusing us of false information, and claiming this quote didn’t even exist? Hello? Hello?

Sidekick
Member

“Do I hear an apology Olivia? For calling us ALL liars when it was YOU who hadn’t a clue?”

She crawled under her rock and has been hiding all day.

Olivia
Member

I was sleeping, Kick. I work nights, remember? Sorry, but I’m not going to stay up all day after working all night, just to cater to your demands for attention.

Just so we understand each other, I’m also working tonight, so I won’t be able to dance attendance on you this evening, either. Why don’t you converse with Poopajoe, instead? He never seems to have much to do during his (wink, wink) work hours, either.

sa_rose
Member

You also told us you worked every other weekend. Today is Tuesday I believe. Still, I don’t care if you sleep 24/7 and NEVER come back to this site.

Olivia
Member

Rose, just because I work every other weekend, it doesn’t mean I don’t work during the week as well. ;>)

You seem to have a tendency to look for untruths in everything I say. But, really, if I were going to misrepresent myself on this board, don’t you think I’d come up with a more interesting bunch of lies? ;>)

sa_rose
Member

And again, Olivia, I don’t care if you are working, sleeping counting clouds or hanging upside down in your closet. Whatever floats your boat. Just go away and stop annoying us.

Sidekick
Member

No-one cares what you do but you sure are shrill when you are caught bs-ing

Kip Hooker
Member

Just so we understand each other, I’m also working tonight,

Oh yeah, she’ll be working . . . working it with me. In what I like to call the Khan Cave! So if this commune’s a’rockin’ . . . don’t come a’knockin’!

drb
Member

I won’t be able to dance attendance on you this evening…

Sorry, Kick…Olivia says no lap dance for you. LOL. 😉

poppajoe49
Member

Hey drb, would you give me a lap dance? 😛

drb
Member

*slap*

poppajoe49
Member

Hurt me baby! LMAO!!

sa_rose
Member

Gross.

poppajoe49
Member

Oh come on Rose, I’m just teasing drb.

sa_rose
Member

The gross was aimed a Olivia giving Kick a lap dance. EEEEEWWWWWW~

poppajoe49
Member

OK, that’s easier to understand.

flashingscotsman
Member

I bet Kick’s leg comes down in a hurry if My Dear Sweet Olivia started shaking her money maker in his face.

Alien
Member

c’mon this isn’t exactly instant messaging. Its hit-or-miss if a thread and its participants can maintain an even pace. If the site permitted one to view replies, that’d help. I know I’ve lost track of many interesting discussions in here

Olivia
Member

But it doesn’t exist, Rose. You misquoted him, just as your favorite anti-Obama sources are wont to do.

Mind you, I don’t expect an apology from you, but I would appreciate it if you’d take responsibility for spinning his words.

Sidekick
Member

Go back under your rock and and think about what an absolute trolling knucklehead you are.

sa_rose
Member

The operative word there was THINK. Unlikely to happen.

sa_rose
Member

I have no apology. I may have paraphrased, but the content and cncept were the same in both quotes. wuit trying to weasel out of the embarrassing position you have put yourself in by trying to blame me, or kick, or anyone else. I appreciate youare following your Idol’s lead, but you really hae to take responsibility for YOURSELF,, nt blame everything on someone else.

sa_rose
Member

At least SOME of the citizens of Iraq might take issue with your description of the Iraq war as useless. And no, it would NOT have paid for quality education and healthcare for every American who needs it. If you feel that it is too difficult to get quality educaton, then perhaps you could explain to me why a private University charges tuition in excess of twice that for a public University? And why do the elite of academis think if your haen’t been educated at an IVY league or Seven Sisters school, you education is inadequate? Snobism is everywhere, even on the left!

Olivia
Member

At least SOME of the citizens of Iraq might take issue with your description of the Iraq war as useless.
******************
Oh, sure. It’s always possible to find people who can find something positive to say about a disaster. Some Germans, for example, defended Hitler long after the end of WW2, arguing, “Well, he did build the Autobahn.” But the fact remains that the war was supposedly about weapons of mass destruction (even though Bush couldn’t wait for the UN inspectors to do their job before barging in there). It wasn’t a humanitarian mission, although he tried to reinvent it as one, when it became obvious that there WERE no weapons of mass destruction.
****************
And no, it would NOT have paid for quality education and healthcare for every American who needs it. If you feel that it is too difficult to get quality educaton, then perhaps you could explain to me why a private University charges tuition in excess of twice that for a public University?
*****************
I was referring to quality elementary and secondary education, Rose, not universities. But, since you asked, one very big reason is that
public universities are subsidized by the local or state government, so residents within that state or district can attend for a lower rate. Out-of-district residents often pay much higher rates.
*****************
And why do the elite of academis think if your haen’t been educated at an IVY league or Seven Sisters school, you education is inadequate? Snobism is everywhere, even on the left!
******************
Some universities ARE better than others, Rose—-and it’s not snobbery that makes me say that. I attended a mediocre university, myself—–I couldn’t have afforded a first rate one. (I’m talking about my original degree here, not nursing school, which I attended several years later.) But it was certainly not hard to see where my school had made budget cuts, or how those cuts had had an adverse effect on my education overall.

By the way, not all “academia” (how you love those antiintellectual putdowns!) claim that all college education other than Ivy League or “seven sisters” schools is inadequate. But most know better than to assume that one college education is indistinguishable from another, despite the fact that some cost much more, and have much higher qualifications for acceptance.

CO2Insanity
Admin

Anyone want to bet whose going to be defending the Obama disaster long after he’s gone? (clue her name starts with the letter “O”)

Olivia
Member

Well, it all depends, CO2. In order for me to “defend the Obama disaster,” he’d first have to cause one.

And look! The economy is doing better; Bin Laden is no longer a threat; jobs are starting to come back, and Americans are no longer the pariahs of the world. That’s why the right wing media focuses so hard on stupid stuff like Michelle Obama’s shoes, the president’s jeans (Rose, I’m still waiting for you to explain what distinguishes “mom jeans” from well fitted men’s jeans) and golf games once every two weeks—-because they KNOW they can’t discredit him on his professional performance.

poppajoe49
Member

Jobs aren’t coming back. There were just 130,000 added last month, (Before the usual downgrading of the original numbers), and more people are leaving the workforce due to no longer looking for work, which means they aren’t counted as unemployed.
The actual number of EMPLOYED in this country are just now getting back to 2000 levels.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2001-2003-2011/

Alien
Member

Why is the low point on this graph labeled Feb 2010.. clearly the graph is much closer to Feb 2009

poppajoe49
Member

I don’t know, I just posted the link. But even so, the numbers are recovering much more slowly than in the past.

Alien
Member

shenanigans, i say.. someone wanted that low-point to seem more deeply part of Obama’s administration. Such tricks mottle otherwise sound arguments

Sidekick
Member

“The actual number of EMPLOYED in this country are just now getting back to 2000 levels.”

Which is a still a net loss as the population has gown and there are now more eligible workers than there were in 2000.

Sidekick
Member

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577311470997904292.html

If you are going to lay the recession at W’s feet, then I will lay the failed recovery at BHO’s.

Alien
Member

the article doesn’t appear to focus at all on the flatter growth that occurred in the years leading up to the recession, most of which was fueled by housing bubble equity extraction. Bush didn’t log 6% average growth or even 3% during his time in office–not even in the good months–and it looks more like 1% growth if you remove the trillions in free credit/money people pulled out of their bubbly homes. Seems to me that we are simply resuming that lurching pace. Comparing to Reagan era, which involved entirely different structural changes, as we altered growth engine to rely on credit instead of inflation, appears misguided to me.

Recessions occur for different reasons.. boom/bust, bubbles burst, OPEC, currency movements, Volcker slaying inflation, etc.. They inevitably take different shapes.

Sidekick
Member

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

You can manipulate this chart to cover a specific time frame. Your analysis of the Bush years isn’t quite right. Using your rationale Clinton’s boom years were a mirage because it was fueled with the dotcom bubble and the massive cuts in defense spending.

Alien
Member

Hmm.. Clinton’s boom was a lotta bubble.. not just bubble, but the hand-off of Internet from governments to private industry, and I suppose some peace dividend (but base cuts hurt localities too). But yeah, a lot of it was bubble-fueled in my view. I remember some of the yokels getting IT jobs back then. They don’t work in IT anymore after the purges…

I don’t view Clinton as having worked any particular policy magic at the time. The credit-fueling, inflation-fighting policies of the Fed more or less proceeded with the strategy laid out in the 80s. Deficit discipline was effective too.

I’ll check out the graphs.. i confess my earlier analysis was mostly pulled out of ass

Alien
Member

I’d say looking at Bush’s good years doesn’t impress as much as looking at either Reagan’s or Clinton’s. This is even so when taking into account the housing bubble, which uniquely enabled participants to purchase trillions in cheap credit (i don’t think the tech bubble offered the same opportunity to as many people).

Something was slowing down our economy, even with bubble, even in good years, when compared to previous decades. In this, I see a variety of free market forces at odds with national economy. Giant sucking sound and all that.

I know there’s War and continuing actions of the Fed to take into account. Its all rather complex

Sidekick
Member

I agree that Bush II’s GDP record was choppy and not as consistent as other president’s. I think that is where context comes into play. Reagan came in on the heals of an economically lost decade. He simply had the government mostly get out of the way of the recovery and let the markets work. You are right about Volcker taming inflation. Inflation caused by the jolt of coming off of the gold standard and the massive increase in the money supply.

Clinton benefited from the Reagan years too as the 1990-1991 recession was very shallow. Then of course he rode the dotcom wave. Bush came in just as the wave broke on the beach and then got hit with 9/11. Tough stuff, yet the economy grew and more importantly there was low unemployment by any measure.

Obama squandered what normally is a slam dunk historical trend…and that is the deeper the recession the greater the recovery. Obamacare, over regulation / meddling in the private sector, and disastrous fiscal and monetary policies all prevented the recovery from being what it should have been according to history.

Alien
Member

I’ve been wondering about recessionary contexts, in particular recessions that occur after a bubble.

Volcker’s didn’t (i guess, unless one finds the bubbly in inflation or interest rates). GWB’s early recession (which predates his administration) did, as did the 2008.

The dotcom bubble certainly employed a number of people who wouldn’t otherwise have been in that market (aforementioned yokels among them). Also we had a ton of H1B foreigners. Many of the CIS yokels moved on to other industries when the whole thing deflated, and many of the foreigners went home.

Anecdotally I can attest to 2 IT guys who couldn’t cut it and got their real estate licenses, but this is an aside. However, it places them squarely into the next bubble.

The Housing Bubble certainly employed a number of people too, that otherwise couldn’t have gotten into that market. With that now shattered, what is there in place to reabsorb them into the labor pool? More particularly, what set of industries existed or might have existed that would reallocate those lost jobs as quickly as they were lost? In order to have symmetry between crash and growth, these labor markets would have to be in place. If they “might have existed”, except for Obama’s interference, what are they and how would, say, McCain, have acted differently?

another aside, I’m reminded that the original use of the term “creative destruction” didn’t ignore the “creative” aspect. It was meant to illustrate the destruction of an old industry as a result of the creation of a better one (e.g. railroads killing canals). It wasn’t simply meant to be “lets destroy this job sector and hope something comes along to replace it”

Sidekick
Member

@Alien, business is always going through its boom and bust periods. One industry (as you mentioned with RRs and canals) replaces another. Workers are displaced in one industry but usually find work in another. Henry Hazlett discusses these cycles in great detail. He does concede that workers who are displaced when their industry/job vanishes often do suffer during the transition but in the long run this form of business evolution is good for the economy.

I would imagine that more Americans are involved in IT today than there ever were manufacturing typewriters or operating typewriter repair shops. Does that mean the guy who worked on the line at Royal Typewriter had an easy time after his job was eliminated? No, he probably did not (at first). It does mean that nothing stays the same and not advancing is far worse than embracing a Luddite mentality.

Alien
Member

@sidekick i agree with everything you say here.. I don’t have a problem with the notion of technological advances creatively destroying whole industries. Its the natural course of things

Continuing my aside, i don’t feel that Romney is quite using the term correctly when he describes his activities at Bain.

My overall point is that I don’t understand how we can expect the recovery from housing crash and Great Recession to look like most other recessions. No new industry has arisen to naturally replace the frothy layer of additional Housing jobs that the bubble enabled. This was not a normal boom/bust cycle, as you describe above. The bubble was fueled, in part, by investment agents spanning the globe who’d been hoodwinked by false AAA security ratings (german banks, pension funds in Ohio, men on the moon). The whole thing was spun out of illusory vaporous credit and naive risk assessments by a myriad of players (buyers, sellers, brokers, and investors). Ron Paul made dire warnings a decade ago. It looked so good on paper and diverted so much capital and credit that trillions of dollars worth of other opportunities were lost (i don’t believe that only government can inflict opportunity costs on markets.. fraud, irrational exuberance, and misunderstood risk can do the same)

We’ve scaled down our manufacturing sector massively during these years, and simply had nothing in place to absorb the loss housing bubble jobs. Not quickly, anyways. I don’t think any single President would’ve made a dent in this thing this quickly

Sidekick
Member

308 million people here all with various ideas and capabilities will determine the next great “thing” economically. If the markets (all markets) are allowed to work without the overly burdensome and punitive regulations that have plagued the private sector over the past three years I believe that whole new previously unimagined industries will emerge. That taken with the trend of manufacturing returning to the US, I see a likely transition path that will take us from the ethereal economy that you mentioned to hard assets, real products, and real versus paper profits.

Still, while I try to be optimistic, I worry greatly about the debt and the drain on capital that servicing that debt will cause. Our currency’s future viability is the wild card.

sa_rose
Member

And drb already gave you extensive information on MOM jeans, and I do not intend to repost it so that my screen name shows up with it. The information is there, if your would just bother reading it. Oh, and he HAS no performance to speak of, so. . . .

Kip Hooker
Member

Reminds me of the last time I was in France. I was having a conversation with my friend the Marcel Marceau impersonator and we were eating French Fries and Frog Legs in a caffeteria along the seine while this girl strode buying selling bread, cheese and edith piaf records from a bicycle. Now it was the winter and my hands were very cold. So she knitted me a pair of gloves from her armpit hair. They were very warm but they smelled of Jackes Chrirac’s sanitary napkins. So I quickly disposed of them. Suddenly an arguent erupted between my friend and another man. Immediately I feared we were being robbed so I hid my money in the last place that any frenchman would look . . . under a bar of soap I just happened to have on me. It turns out that the fellow that instigated the argument was a German. My friend immediately raised his hands along with a white flag he had been given as standard issue when he served in the french military. Good times, good times.

Viva la emile zoltar

Khan out!

CO2Insanity
Admin

Viva Pepe le Phew!

Major Hochstetter
Guest

Klink! who is this Khan? he is a danger to the Reich! Thirty days in the Kooler!

Kip Hooker
Member

Klink knows nothing!

SGT Schultz
Guest

I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing! Send Klink to the Russian Front, not me!

sa_rose
Member

Change the subject. Your most favoritist argument!

Kip Hooker
Member

Screw the tax cuts for the billionaires and millionaires! I think we should show all these bastards that we’re not going to take it. We sure petition the government for a hundred percent tax rate for the middle class. That way the rich people won’t be able to steal our money no more.

Olivia
Member

By the way, did you hear the French just elected a Socialist President while saying things like this afterwards:

Another Paris voter highlighted this anti-Sarkozy vote, saying she’s backing Hollande, even though his program is “suicidal.””He’ll raise the minimum wage, increase civil servants. But France is already in debt,” said Florence Macrez. His fiscal reform project will only increase the pressure especially on the middle class, she added.

Stunning, sounds irritatingly familiar. (and just to kick one of your fav crutches, that’s from msnbc and ap)
******************
I wasn’t going to say anything about the source, Ghost. But it’s rather odd that you’d take one French person’s comment, and assume that the other 59,999,999 French citizens feel exactly the same way. ;>)

Lump categorizing again….which is a favorite crutch of the far right.

CO2Insanity
Admin

Idiot

Sidekick
Member

Double plus idiot. The French rejected the pain it will take to solve their entitlement and debt problems and just kicked the can down the road. Not surprised.

Olivia
Member

And you know this for a fact, because…….?

(NOTE: “Well, that’s what Rush seems to think” is not a valid rationale for pretending to recognize French citizens’ motives for choosing a socialist president.)

Sidekick
Member

From CBS news:

Hollande wants to renegotiate a hard-won European treaty on budget cuts that Germany’s Angela Merkel and Sarkozy had championed. He wants more government stimulus, and more government spending in general despite concerns from markets that France needs to urgently trim its huge debts.

France is screwed. If you followed the news you would not appear to be so ignorant about the country you claim to have visited and admire.

Olivia
Member

The information you provided is merely that European leaders disagree on the way to handle economic concerns. Your analysis of that information (“France is screwed”) is pure right wing Francophobic tommyrot.

Like any other major nation (ours included) France is feeling the effects of the recession right now. Even so, they’re maintaining their infrastructure, and making sure that every French citizen has access to quality health care (at a fraction of our per capita cost) and a decent public education. They can do this, because most French workers don’t whine and cry at the idea of having to pay taxes, or demand that the government get them cheap gas so they can drive gas guzzlers and be careless of natural resources.

As usual, your rant is rooted in pure ignorance, plus a whole lot of prejudice and mean-spirited assumptions.

Sidekick
Member

LMAO at your post. Read the news.

sa_rose
Member

If its not in her Marxist notebook, she’s not reading it. And this would never show up in her notebook except to say its all a lie, becaue Marxism and Socialism will save the world.

Sidekick
Member

Yes, Just ask the 150 million souls who perished during the 20th century at the hands of leftists who promised free health care.

Olivia
Member

What 150 million souls are you referring to, Kick? And who, specifically, had “promised free health care” to them?

CO2Insanity
Admin

Oblivia like a child who continually ask why no matter what you tell them.

Sidekick
Member

“What 150 million souls are you referring to, Kick? And who, specifically, had “promised free health care” to them?”

Look it up, genius.

Olivia
Member

“What 150 million souls are you referring to, Kick? And who, specifically, had “promised free health care” to them?”

Look it up, genius.
*************
No, I won’t do your research for you: if you thought it was important enough to post here, you should have stated your point clearly.

I’m guessing you were beating about the bush because you’re referring to abortion (which, by the way, isn’t “free”), and wanted to avoid being challenged on it.

Let me remind you once more: women have a right to terminate their own pregnancies. That has nothing to do with “leftists,” and everything to do with right to privacy in making one’s own medical decisions. The only reason abortion is tied to “leftism” is that “leftists” have been called on to fight the antichoice extremists, who are doing everything humanly possible to coerce, threaten, wheedle, humilate, frustrate and shame women into surrendering that LEGAL right.

I’m sorry you don’t like abortion, Kick. I don’t, either, but that still doesn’t give either of us license to go prying into women’s uteruses. If you want that badly to control a uterus, I’m afraid you’ll have to grow your own.

Now, get over your misconception that we liberals were pushing for “free” abortion. That notion might play well with the Drudge and Newsmax crowd, but it’s not what the abortion debate was about.

poppajoe49
Member

Bla, Bla, bla!

Olivia
Member

Somebody’s been listening to Rush Limbaugh (and swallowing his bait whole) again.

I can smell Rush, whenever a far righter starts muttering about
__Marxism (they’re never exactly sure what it is, but it sounds more sinister than “socialism,” so they use the terms interchangeably).
__Saul Alinsky and his “playbook”
__socialism (usually mistakenly assuming that it’s the same thing as a government social program, and also the same thing as a totalitarian government)
__”free health care”
__confusing the concepts of health care and emergency treatment

Sidekick
Member

Since you can’t refute what is actually common knowledge, I will just assume you completely agree with me.

sa_rose
Member

And clearly rather than look something up and educate yourself, you have fallen back on your usual drivel. Maybe you can smell Rush because the scent is all over you and travels with you wherever you go. Since the rest of us are not rabid Rush fans (nay, for the most part I don’t think anyone here even LISTENS to Rush, and if they do it is certainly not a majority) the smell is not coming from us. Grow up, do some research (not just parrot Huffpo) and try to LEARN something instead of stagnating in your ridiculous unsupportable claims.

Sidekick
Member

The woman is insane. How the hell did abortion come up?

poppajoe49
Member

As I said before, since she’s too stupid to read time and date stamps on the posts, how can she understand economics?

Alien
Member

@Sidekick she is guessing the 150 million exterminated souls is due to abortion

As i’m possibly more familiar with some other views of history proposed here, I myself believed you were talking about a sum total of deaths attributable to leftist athiest regimes, and it may not be obvious to her that the 3rd Reich would be included in this, or that progressivism is responsible for Stalin’s pogroms and purges.

I’ve been in that debate before.. I don’t think its clear-cut that Hitler is purely a creature of the left or the right (idiotic terms anyway). Nor do i believe he was an Athiest (also i realize you didn’t make claims about athiesm.. i’m just recalling the shape the debate took before.)

Sidekick
Member

@Alien, Her post was a glimpse into forbidding dark space that I guess passes for a mind. Hitler and National Socialism are Stalin and Soviet Communism with private property rights. Otherwise not really a dime’s worth of difference between the two.

poppajoe49
Member

@Alien,
It would be tough to make the case that Hitler was an atheist when you consider he went to seminary.

Alien
Member

@poppajoe49 some here really strived to convince me that Hitler was an Athiest. For a man that spoke of Providence so clearly and often, i would suggest he had more of a messiah-complex. The whole debate panned out of some cheap discussion of who was responsible for more deaths, Christians/Atheists/Muslims. (for the record, i would never attribute Hitler’s murderous rampage to Christianity, like some have attempted)

poppajoe49
Member

No, Hitlers murderous rampage would be best attributed to insanity.

poppajoe49
Member

Holy shit, you’re delusional!

Olivia
Member

@Alien, Her post was a glimpse into forbidding dark space that I guess passes for a mind. Hitler and National Socialism are Stalin and Soviet Communism with private property rights. Otherwise not really a dime’s worth of difference between the two.
****************
My boy, you need to reflect that:
___ultranationalism
___glorification of the military
___relegating women to kinder, kuche und kirche (children, kitchen and church)
___outlawing abortion
___sanctioning torture and the death penalty
___withholding civil rights and liberties from selected ethnic groups, on the grounds that their culture is inherently inferior to your own
___adopting “papers, please” legislation, in order to restrict the free movement of individuals
___creating a model of What A Family Must Look Like, and expecting all citizens to follow it (right down to dictating how young girls must arrange their hair)
___invading other nations
___outlawing art forms that aren’t traditional, and are therefore unpalatable to you personally
___disdaining intellectuals
___valuing conformity and obedience over creativity
….are not LIBERAL tactics, and never have been.

In fact, the only evidence the right seems to be able to come up with, that Hitler was a liberal, is “But his party is called National Socialists, and everyone knows that socialism is liberal!” In other words, they think Hitler was a liberal because he said so. ;>)

poppajoe49
Member

Thank you for helping make our point.
Are you saying the Russians, Chinese, and Cubans aren’t guilty of many of those same things?

Sidekick
Member

Actually, all of them. Don’t forget North Korea either.

Sidekick
Member

We’ve covered this ground. I’m not going to revisit it other than to suggest that you read this….

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1200h.asp

http://mises.org/daily/1937

The Left has tried to distance itself from National Socialism for 70 years.

sa_rose
Member

Since 100% of your post is a delusion, cranked up out of your own insecurites and ignorance, we don’t have to reflect on any of it. Conservatives are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, various mixes, married, single, young old, parents or not. They may have a stay at home mom, or they may have a Mom who works outside the home and never darlens the door of a kitchen, or some combination of those. There ARE straight, gay, transgendered, though I will concede they are few in number. They are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Bhuddist and more. You cannot make sweeping generalization about us based on your perception of exptreme right, and/or tea party candidates. Hitler WAS a liberal. He based Mein Kampf on Marx’s Communist manifesto, then tweaked it to suit his own insanity. And as usual, once he got in power, he abused, murdered and denigrated huge groups of people. Some of it was insanity, some of it was a power trip. He got back at every one he felt was ugly to him in his past.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Yeah, there are TOTALLY Muslim Republicans. Now, about the Marx thing…did you yourself not just say he tweaked it? e

Alien
Member

Hitler was Hitler, not a liberal

Neither left or right, just batshit insane. Left and Right are stupid labels that came out of the French Revolution anyhow

Since he spends so much time discussing the twin evils of Judaism and Communism within the work itself, I don’t see how he simply tweaked Marx to come up with it.

Sidekick
Member

@alien, I swear I am not stalking you. Hitler was a progressive in the sense of the word as it was used in his time. The Nazi platform was a hybrid of Hobbes, Moore, Marx, Nietzsche and even the eugenics movement.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.asp

drb
Member

I think you are both right…he was bat-shit crazy(my opinion is that he was schizophenic) and a progressive of the day.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

He liked animals and the Nazis banned smoking in doors. That’s pretty much it. He fucking hated communism. Remember how he, you know, went to war with Russia over that?

CO2Insanity
Admin

Eric, read up on National Socialism (AKA Communism). Hitler only ragged on Stalin’s version, not his version. You need to read up on why he went to war with the USSR, (it wasn’t Russia back then). Communism had nothing to do with it. Don’t you find it kind of idiotic to mention his love of animals when he killed millions of Jews, gays, slavs, etc.? Also isn’t it laughable he was so concerned about everyone’s health (not smoking) when he was a mass murderer.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

I said animal care and smoking limitations were the only things that he had in relation to the modern American Left Wing. I wasn’t implying it made him good, or that it meant those two things were bad. Who do you think I am, a member of the Heartland Institute?

Sidekick
Member

I said animal care and smoking limitations were the only things that he had in relation to the modern American Left Wing.

You are still wrong.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Prove it to me, then. Tell me how Hitler was a communist. Or for that matter, how the Left is communist.

drb
Member

Do your own homework…try reading “Liberal Fascism” Nazi socialiam and communism are two sides of the same coin.

Kip Hooker
Member

I have been to Paris. I was there trying to buy a painting from the Louve. I made a mistake and went to the loo instead. Afterwards I felt gross and disgusting. I needed to take a shower badly but my english to french dictionary did not have any words for shower, bath or soap. I went all across the country trying to find a place to wash up. But no one there seemed to be able to help. Finally I found a wet wipe. It had been left in that country accidentally by a tourist from Spain. I made do.

Viva la Jeffy Lewis.

Khan out!

Olivia
Member

Khan, I realize that you’re trying to sound witty and urbane, but, if you’re going to try to use French phrases, would you at least learn not to butcher them?

If you want to praise Jerry Lewis (and, by the way, it’s a myth that everybody in France adores him), you would say “Vive” (not “viva,” which is a brand of paper towel, not a French word) “Jerry Lewis” (no “la”).

You’ve repeated that same mistake half a dozen times here, and it looks fully as ignorant as your circa-WWII stereotype that French people have poor hygiene. http://www.112gripes.com/45.html
http://www.112gripes.com/46.html

poppajoe49
Member

Only you would try to correct a spoof.

Olivia
Member

Author: poppajoe49
Comment:
Only you would try to correct a spoof.
*****************
Spoofs rooted in faulty information aren’t clever, Poopajoe. They’re just lame attempts to sound witty.

Kip Hooker
Member

I am saddened by your bourgeouis attachment to the grammar of the French. This is all counter revolutionary. They had the chance to stand with my Red Brothers but they sold out to the capitalists. That is what is wrong with them to this day. They are all the bitches of Amerika! They should have fought against the invasion at Normandy and assisted the Germans until the Soviets could have arrived and set all things to right.

I also do not know of this witty or urbane of which you speak. These concepts are counter revolutionary. I despise them. I reject them. I wish you would stop using them in relation to me. You are breaking my heart because now it is clear that you are just another right winger. I am so saddened that you to must now parrot the Rush.

And the french people do have the poor hygeine. I was there I know. If you didn’t notice it it is probably because you stink every bit as much as they do. So if we are ever to make love you had better scrub up.

Viva la Geraldine DeGaule

Khan out!

sa_rose
Member

Well, he knows that for a fact because. . . it is a fact. By electing a socialist candidate, the problems thy have with high levels of enntitilement s killing the economy is not only not goin to change,but will likely increase and get worse. THey have kicked that can down the road for the NEXT guy (or 2 or 3) to have to deal with . Sort of like Congress keeps doig with Social Security. THey created the problem, and refuse to do anything to fix it because it might affect their ability to keep their do nothing jobs.

poppajoe49
Member

Ghost, you should know better than to criticize Obliviousidiot’s favorite Socialist paradise. She will come out, guns blazing, and use everything in her arsenal of leftist blog posts to attack you.

Sidekick
Member

Let her, I just checked over at cnbc.com and the Asian markets, the Euro, and US stock futures are all tanking. France just telegraphed to the rest of the world that the Euro zone is not serious about their debt or their spending. France is Greece on a larger scale.

Olivia
Member

No, France just recognizes that gutting social programs for the poor and infirm to pile more money and power into the arms of the rich and powerful DOESN’T WORK.

They’re looking at long term consequences, whereas you, like your hero Bush, are looking for instant fixes. How well did Bush’s instant fixes work for us, Kick? Do you really think that gutting social programs will cause all the people who need them just to keel over and die so you don’t have to be bothered with their needs?

poppajoe49
Member

Yea, France’s plan to pile more money into the welfare system and kill industry is much better, because as we all know, only government can create wealth.
Dipshit!

Olivia
Member

Well, Poopajoe, when France has a larger percentage of children born into poverty than we have here in the U.S.; when their health care cost per capita starts to exceed ours; when they have a lower average life expectancy than we do, and a higher illiteracy rate—–then you can start preaching about how useless social programs are. Until then, best look at OUR statistics, and figure out how (other than sitting on our butts and bitching about the poor) we can improve them.

As long as you’re so sure that right wing policies create more industry, how about showing me all the new jobs that were created by Bush’s “have more” buddies when he awarded them fat tax cuts. While you’re at it, how about explaining why any savvy business owner would hire personnel his business doesn’t need, just to get a tax cut?

poppajoe49
Member

Holy Crap! Your post is so full of shit, there is no good place to start!
Spending money that you don’t have isn’t doing anyone any good. Create an atmosphere where business will thrive and you create jobs. It’s worked for centuries. Creating a Socialist Utopia hasn’t ever worked. Eventually you run out of other peoples money and everything comes crashing down around you, reference Greece.

Sidekick
Member

Spoken like a pure socialist. So explain how spending more money that they don’t have will improve their economy? Who will lend them that money and at what price? What tried and true socialist economic policies will Hollande employ to reign in debt and save the Euro zone? I would appreciate some examples of where those socialist policies have led to economic growth and prosperity in other countries. You called me ignorant above. Enlighten me. I will want some sources too.
Maybe you could link a book that explains the history of the socialist economic miracle. Good luck!

Given the current state of affairs in the EU, I do not have to defend my position, those countries especially, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Portugal make my case for me.

Olivia
Member

Spoken like a pure socialist. So explain how spending more money that they don’t have will improve their economy?
**********************
One concept that’s utterly foreign to you righties is investing for long term benefits, instead of clamoring for immediate gratification.

France has done this for decades. As a result, they have a lower percentage of people living in poverty; they have much more fuel efficient cars and better roads; quality education from age 2 through college is affordable for most; people can afford to take care of their health; and losing a job doesn’t necessarily lead to economic disaster, the way it so often does here in the U.S. All of those things work together to enhance productivity.

You can sneer all you like about their perceived economic instability. But we, too, have some serious economic instability plus a job shortage. We also have a greater gap between the rich and poor, thanks to right wing fiscal policies.

No matter which way you slice it, working as a team to achieve a goal is usually much more effective than the “I’ve got mine, screw you” mentality so dear to the hearts of the far right. You’re assuming you know better than French voters what’s best for them, without ever having actually seen their economy in action. And that’s pure arrogance.

poppajoe49
Member

France Unemployment RateThe unemployment rate in France was last reported at 9.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011. From 1983 until 2010, France’s Unemployment Rate averaged 9.54 percent reaching an historical high of 11.80 percent in March of 1994 and a record low of 7.30 percent in February of 1983. The labour force is defined as the number of people employed plus the number unemployed but seeking work. The nonlabour force includes those who are not looking for work, those who are institutionalised and those serving in the military.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/unemployment-rate

You want to know why France is in such dire financial straits?
If you have worked a minimum of 4 months in the previous 28 months, you are eligible for 24 months of unemployment benefits if you are under 50 years old, if over 50, it is 4 months in the last 30 months to get 30 months of benefits!!
http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/unemployment_benefits_entitlement/

Who the hell gets 2 to 2-1/2 years of unemployment for only working 4 months? It’s insane!

poppajoe49
Member

*crickets*

Alien
Member

that formulation is definitely screwy

poppajoe49
Member

Hey, it’s France.

Sidekick
Member

Spoken like a pure socialist. So explain how spending more money that they don’t have will improve their economy?
**********************
”One concept that’s utterly foreign to you righties is investing for long term benefits, instead of clamoring for immediate gratification.”

Investing? You mean spending on entitlements and sweetheart public sector union benefits. Investing is what happens when you put money into a security or enterprise with the expectation of realizing a profit or gain. Pouring money into welfare schemes or paying off unions for votes is wealth transfer not investing.

“France has done this for decades. As a result, they have a lower percentage of people living in poverty; they have much more fuel efficient cars and better roads; quality education from age 2 through college is affordable for most; people can afford to take care of their health; and losing a job doesn’t necessarily lead to economic disaster, the way it so often does here in the U.S. All of those things work together to enhance productivity. “

Olivia, I’m not going to research to see if any of those clams are valid but I do know that France is broke and the electorate just made it clear that they are not interested in solving the financial problems facing their country. The mandate is to spend more. Unsustainable.

“You can sneer all you like about their perceived economic instability. But we, too, have some serious economic instability plus a job shortage. We also have a greater gap between the rich and poor, thanks to right wing fiscal policies.”

There has been far too much government spending, entitlements, transfer payments, and a misguided monetary policy that prints money and purchases our treasury debt, which makes our currency worth less. Real inflation is over 10% (adding back energy and food) BHO will have added $6T to the national debt by January 2013. The lack of job creation is directly related to the massive amount of public money in the economy that has squeezed out the private sector. Which right-wing policies have led to a greater gap between the rich and the poor?

“No matter which way you slice it, working as a team to achieve a goal is usually much more effective than the “I’ve got mine, screw you” mentality so dear to the hearts of the far right. You’re assuming you know better than French voters what’s best for them, without ever having actually seen their economy in action. And that’s pure arrogance.”

Liberal nonsense. I see a platitude followed by an opinion based on left wing propaganda. The French made a choice austerity to get out of debt versus the same tax and spend policies that broke them. They opted for the policies that broke them. No different than what the Greeks did. As I said before, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland set the example. France is no exception. It isn’t arrogance it is an understanding of economics. You do not possess that knowledge otherwise you would not have written that last paragraph. Well, a Socialist would have.

Olivia
Member

(And he accuses ME of writing overly long posts….)

When have I ever claimed to support “sweetheart public sector union benefits,” Kick? Answer: I haven’t. I merely think, like many others do, that public sector workers deserve to be paid decently for their services. I think private sector workers deserve this, too, although I realize that far right wingers, and many of the business owners they support, would much rather see workers kept in near poverty, to enhance profits and executive bonuses.

So tell me again why you don’t think public sector workers should receive decent pay, safe working conditions or benefits? I’ve never really understood why the far right wants to shoot itself in the foot that way.

Second, your reaction to France’s election is pure knee jerk right wing American. You claim that they’re “broke,” even though you admit that you don’t know much of anything about the nature or extent of their government programs—and you claim that they’re “not interested in solving financial problems.” That, again, is nonsense. France, unlike Rush and his dittoheads, merely has a different philosophy when it comes to solving financial problems. Unlike you, they’re not trying to squeeze a quick buck out of an ailing system (through tax cuts), or neglect their infrastructure and resources (one of which is people) in favor of short term bandaid solutions. They address financial problems much as a responsible homeowner would: they do what’s necessary to keep people in good working order; they take care of their infrastructure; they avoid getting into costly wars unless it’s absolutely necessary; and they make sure that today’s youth is educated to cope with tomorrow’s problems.

In contrast, what you propose is about as IRresponsible as it’s possible to get: get rid of health care plans (private OR public) and replace them with expensive damage control policies; ignore the self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, addiction, illiteracy and joblessness, in favor of bribing rich company owners for more job creation; pump trillions into warmongering and unlimited military bases all over the world; and let Big Business run the country, instead of “we the people” and our elected representatives.

Sidekick
Member

Where did I ever say public sector workers aren’t entitled to decent pay or benefits? I used the word “lavish”.

Your second paragraph is hilarious in its abject ignorance and fealty to left wing propaganda.

Where did I propose to get rid of benefits? Please cut and paste.

Despite all of your blather, you still have not reconciled the fact that France is broke and the electorate have voted to make it worse through more government spending.

And you accuse me of being a poor debater?

poppajoe49
Member

And she is complaining about the one post you made that barely competed for length with her regular blithering idiot tomes.

Olivia
Member

Where did I ever say public sector workers aren’t entitled to decent pay or benefits? I used the word “lavish”.

Your second paragraph is hilarious in its abject ignorance and fealty to left wing propaganda.

Where did I propose to get rid of benefits? Please cut and paste.

Despite all of your blather, you still have not reconciled the fact that France is broke and the electorate have voted to make it worse through more government spending.

And you accuse me of being a poor debater?
***************
My boy, every one of your above claims is purely subjective and unsubstantiated. Consequently, there’s nothing to “debate.”

If you want to accuse public workers of being “lavishly” paid, you’ll have to produce some evidence of WHAT those in a given job are paid per hour (or annually), and also show that that pay is far beyond the going rate in the private sector.

Your blanket accusation that “France is broke” is as meaningless as the right wing insistence that “we’re broke” whenever they want to balk at paying for social programs (even though they want to continue lavish spending for the military).

If you’re going to gripe about public workers’ benefits, and then turn around denying that you want to “get rid of benefits,” then you need to specify exactly what benefits you don’t think they should have, and why.

You won’t do any of this, of course, because (like the good little dittohead you are), you’d rather accuse and call names and ridicule than actually back up your statements.

sa_rose
Member

They can have the bestest programs on the Continent, streets paved with gold, and a hospital on every corner. When the money runs out, all that will be GONE in a heartbeat. Then the rioting, and looting will start. Oh wait, it already has. I appreciate tht most of your drivel is simple posted to get a rise out of the brighter posters here than on your liberal sites. But seriously, do you actually BELIEVE that shit? Jesus once said the poor will always be with us. That isn’t because he hates the poor, or doesn’t think we should help where possible. He is making an observation of human nature. Put 10 people to work in similar jobs, and some will do fantastically well, some will get by and some will bottom out. Its just the way it is. Many social programs were originally developed to help the truly poor and ill. Unfortunately, the programs have been coopted by lazy ass scam artists, who would rather get a stipend from the government, free food and housing rather than work at a boring job. And you kow that is true as well. You are creating unrealistic scenarios to fit your arguments. As little as I have financially I have bought food for people who claimed to need money for food. The legitimate ones are thankful. The rest only want cash because what they REALLY want is booze, cigarettes, lotto tickets, and in some case drugs. And no, I should not have to pay for that. I don’t drink or do drugs. Why should I pay for them to?

Olivia
Member

They can have the bestest programs on the Continent, streets paved with gold, and a hospital on every corner. When the money runs out, all that will be GONE in a heartbeat. Then the rioting, and looting will start. Oh wait, it already has.
*********************
You’ve been misled, Rose. I’m not sure where you’re getting your news (although I can make some pretty good guesses) but it sounds to me as if you’re parroting a stereotype, based on an unrelated incident a few years ago.
******************
Jesus once said the poor will always be with us. That isn’t because he hates the poor, or doesn’t think we should help where possible. He is making an observation of human nature.
*****************
Not necessarily true, Rose. WHen Jesus made that remark, there’s no evidence that He was waxing philosophic about human nature. or trying to make excuses for selfishness. He was merely addressing Judas’s hypocrisy.
*******************
Put 10 people to work in similar jobs, and some will do fantastically well, some will get by and some will bottom out. Its just the way it is.
*********************
And, without knowing anything about the situation or the individuals, you jump to the conclusion that those who “bottom out” are just lazy and shiftless.

You’re being lazy yourself, Rose. Snap judgments are the hallmark of a lazy mind. There are a great many reasons (along with contributing factors) that people fail in this complex modern world, and laziness is only one of them.
********************
Many social programs were originally developed to help the truly poor and ill. Unfortunately, the programs have been coopted by lazy ass scam artists, who would rather get a stipend from the government, free food and housing rather than work at a boring job.
*****************
Yet another bigoted assumption, based on let’s-blame-the-poor propaganda.

It interests me that, on the one hand, you constantly rail against Obama for not “fixing” the recession quickly and painlessly enough; but then turn around and blame those who have been hurt most by it, because (in your opinion) they’re a bunch of lazy scammers.

You need to make up your mind, Rose. Are the nation’s poor in that predicament because there aren’t enough jobs, or are they poor because most or all won’t work? You can’t have it both ways. Like Sidekick, you’re fond of using stereotypes to defend the right wing position (refusing to take social responsibility). But, if you’re going to do that, you need to produce evidence that there are enough jobs with decent pay to go around, and that they’re logistically available to those who are currently receiving government benefits.

Failing that, why not admit the truth—-that you’ll go with whatever story will justify minimum responsibility, and maximum comfort and convenience, for yourself?

sa_rose
Member

Ok. Becasue I really TRY to be a decent person, I will try this one more time!

1) Approximately 2 years ago, when France tried to reform the current pension program becauseit was to expensive to maintain, the French people rioted for weeks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322441/France-riots-Demonstrations-pension-reform… –

2) In Matthew 26, Jesus was annointed with a very expensive ointment and the disciples ( no one particular named) argued that the cost of the ointment could have been better spent on the poor (kind of like you think we should do) Jesus pointed out that she had done a beautiful thing, and had treated him as an honored guest in the home, which the host had not. And he said the poor would always be with them, but he wouldn’t. I still say he spoke a truth about human nature.

3) You are correct that I did not set all the parameters. I was (in my mind) thinking they would all have similar skills, education and ability. The fact is, that is how it works out all the time. Cream rises to the top. Plasma and cells separate. Even in Fcition, the Alphas run evrything, while the deltas sweep up (though in that case there is a vast difference in ability.)

4)Talk to anyone who does the work of sorting through the applications, who do the interviews, who investigate the false claims. PEOPLE LIE! I understand that may be shocking to you, but a lot of people LIE about their level of need. We have all said we have no problem with helping the truly poor, the ill, infirm, children, elderly, etc. It is ONLY the lazy ass scammers e have a problem with. And frankly I think you do too, but simply refuse to acknowledge it because it would knock the props out from under all your so called arguments.

5) you live in a clear cut, black and white world. Lovely. The rest of us live in the REAL world, which has a multitude of shades of grey. Many of the people on long term unemployment have turned down jobs because they don’t pay as mch as the job they used to have. Hey, that job is gone. Adapt to the reality and move on. No matter how much money is available, some will have more, some will have less. The guy who works 60 hours a week at a job requiring yearsof training dESERVES more money that the dolt on the corner who dropped out of school and lives with his crack whore girlfriend. Or for that matter, thatn the person who is a great person, but whose job is simple, few hours and doesn’t require a bunch of pizzazz to complete. Otherwise, what is the motivation to DO those better paying, but harder to get jobs? We have deluded people into thinking everyone wil grow up to live in a $500K house, drive a ferrari and worked 2 hours a weeek at a job that pays 6 figures minimum. No one want s to work, or sacrifice, or dleay gratification long enough toprepare for the tougher jobs and positions. And people like you want to enable that behaviour. Not me.

sa_rose
Member

Seeing as how Democrats have run Congress for the better part of the last 100 years, regardless of who was President, how do you figure Right wing fiscal policies policies have led us into economic instability and job shortages?

sa_rose
Member

Tell me Olivia, when there is no money at all, who will care for the poor and infirm? Keep inmind that if the “rich and powerful” do nothave any money, then for sure no one else does. And they have NOONE to turn to for help-not government, not privat charity, not begging on the street because NO ONE has money. Then what?

Olivia
Member

Tell me Olivia, when there is no money at all, who will care for the poor and infirm? Keep inmind that if the “rich and powerful” do nothave any money, then for sure no one else does. And they have NOONE to turn to for help-not government, not privat charity, not begging on the street because NO ONE has money. Then what?
******************
When no one in the entire country has any money, theoretically everyone will die of starvation, disease and/or dehydration.

That’s not the issue here in the U.S—-not by any stretch of the imagination. We’re still a very wealthy nation, but the bulk of our wealth is in fewer hands than it used to be, and there are more on the bottom than there used to be.

Even if you choose to believe that this nation is about to collapse into bankruptcy and mass poverty any day—-and I don’t—-it hardly makes sense for us to toady to the ultrawealthy, in hopes that they’ll throw us a few crumbs. They got rich because they know how to keep money flowing toward THEMSELVES—-not because they have a hankering to give it away to beggars.

No matter how you try to spin it, the point remains the same: We are a society as well as a nation, and, if we want to remain great, we must take care of our society and nation—–not by trying to bribe rich people into giving us stuff, but by each doing our part.

That, by the way, includes the poor, but it’s ridiculous to whine about people not paying income taxes, when their gross income is barely enough (if that) to put food on the table.

Kip Hooker
Member

Right on Olivvya! You tell the greedy neo-conmen. We are a society and we are a nation and we are the world, we are the people. We are the ones that make a better day . . . so lets start giving. There’s a choice we’re making. We’re saving our own lives. We’re the ones that are going to make a better world for you and I.

That is if only we can stop the greedy people from being greedy. I see it everyday. I run into people all the time that are so greedy and upset. They think that just because they worked hard and went to school and sacrificed that they should somehow benefit from from all that they did. They’re so greedy that they’re not happy with the forty percent of their income that the government gives them. And like these people are rich. Some of these folks I know are making as much as 200 grand a year! It is enough to make you sick. Especially when you think about the income disparity in this country. There are some people that don’t make all this money. And they have to accept the oppression of being taken care of by the greedy tax payers.

It is time everybody started doing their part. Some peoples part is to pay for other people. And some peoples part is to vote the right way. That is how freedom works. And of course living in a free country is not free.

And as far as these uber rich people go! Ughh it disgusts me. But I think Obama is on the right path. He is surely teaching them a lesson they won’t soon forget with the bailouts and the regulations forcing their competition out of business and the laws that force people to buy their products. This man Obama understands the people. And he rules mightily and justly. I just wish we could get rid of these rediculous elections all together. That isn’t what democracy is all about. And I’m glad I’ve finally found someone that understands that.

I love you.

Khan out!

sa_rose
Member

And how do you think thosse people will be helped by Obamacare? If it is not “free healthcare” as you keep assuring us, the poor will have to come up with monthly premiums, annual deductibles and coinsurance of some kind for every visit, procedure and test. How are the very poor going to pay that if they can’t put food on the table? They won’t. And we will all be paying out the ass for a program that is NOT helping the truly poor and infirm, and will be mostly be supporting the salaries of those who run it. Free education is available EVERYWHERE in the nation. But with families who do not hold education important in their personal values, or who are not willing to do the work involved nor to manage their children to ensure homewok is done, material is studied, etc you could have Daniel Webster teaching the class and no one would learn anything. Public schools have become giant government babysitting facilites, and they have trouble keeping decent staff because the staff don’t want to risk getting beatup or shot because one of the homies didn’t like being in school. And teachers are no longer allowed to teach. Every move they make is dictatated, the administration backs kids and parents against teachers whether it is appropriate or not. There are jobs out there vacant for years-either because applicants don’t think they are cool enough to fill, or because they slept through high school and are not trained for the position. I don’t think every poor person out there is a sleaze. But I can certainly show a number who ARE sleaze bags, who chose drug dealing/using over school and education or training for a job. Who insisted on getting 5 women pregnant, then walking away claiming the kids couldn’t possible be their’s, or sleeping with multiple men and not being abe to even identify WHO the father is. There are societal woes that will NEVER be solved with money. Lefties in particular think if they throw enough money at something, it will resolve itself, or the people will change their societal mores, or upgrade their moral standards. And you know what? They won’t.

Sidekick
Member

You’re rolling. Well said as you sum up nicely that Obamacare solves nothing in particular as it relates to the poor. That of course is why OC is just phase one of the single-payer fiscal apocalypse.

poppajoe49
Member

Not only is Rose making great points, but trollivia can’t say she doesn’t know what she’s talking about because she’s never worked in a hospital!
Really takes the hot air out of her balloon!

Olivia
Member

Not only is Rose making great points, but trollivia can’t say she doesn’t know what she’s talking about because she’s never worked in a hospital!
***********
Sure, I can—-because virtually every one of Rose’s arguments is based on a stereotype fed to her by the right wing media.
For example, her accusation that “a number” (that conveniently vague term) of poor people “who ARE sleaze bags, who chose drug dealing/using over school and education or training for a job.” Yes, some poor people turn to drugs and drug dealing. In some cases, that’s all they know. In some neighborhoods, the only people who are prospering are those who turn to crime for a living. Does that mean that those who follow their example are inherently “sleazebags,” or does it mean that they fell into an all too familiar pattern among the chronically poor?

If she were honest or knowledgeable, she’d admit that she really doesn’t know, without talking to the individual. She’s merely making a sweeping accusation, that’s designed to absolve her of taking any social responsibility.

sa_rose
Member

No olivia, my beliefs and “stereo types” are based on my own experience, study, and work experience in a variety of settings for some 40 years. Maybe you need the LSM to tell you what to think. I can think for myself, thank you.

And yeah, you can SAY anything you like, but its not like we should listen to you anymore than you feel you should listen to us. And we have more resources and documentation to back us up.

poppajoe49
Member

Rose, you should know better than to use your own experience, study, and work experience, to make a point here. Those are only valid when Olivia posts them.

sa_rose
Member

Except she doesn’t really seem to have any to post!

flashingscotsman
Member

“Who insisted on getting 5 women pregnant, then walking away claiming the kids couldn’t possible be their’s, or sleeping with multiple men and not being abe to even identify WHO the father is.”

Gotta keep Maury in business somehow, don’t we?

sa_rose
Member

Agan, false. Money is a fairly recent development in history. People will bargain with goods and services when cash runs out. And there will be NO government bailout. Those who can barter services or goods will survive and those who can’t rightly or wrongly will die.

sa_rose
Member

Is the dingleberry trying to get some sort of award for being booted off internet sites? So far he is banned from YouTube, facebook, moonbattery, TV tropes, and otherkin.com, just to name a few. In every case, he was booted for 1) bringin drama to the site, 2) insisting on discussing his predilection for little girls. This is prettymuch the only site where he still posts. Mr. Editor, should we add to his conquests and boot him out of here too?

GhostntheMachine
Member

I still like the anagram of TheDarkEricDraven better; Rich, retarded knave.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

1. I am not banned from YouTube or Facebook.

2. I was banned from Moonbattery for laughing at another troll’s joke about Palin or something.

3. I’m not the one who insists on talking about lolicon. It is almost always you, Poppajoe, or Flamingsctosman.

sa_rose
Member

One is not banned from ANY site based on one joke, even one in poor taste. Maybe your clone buddies at school buy into that. Not a soul here will.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

“The last straw was his recent comment extolling the humorousness of vile sexual attacks on Sarah Palin. “

FormerlyDeanH
Guest

Someone must have reported your sorry ass to the web watchers by now. You are the admitted pedophile. People like you require vigilant oversight. Pedophilia is an unacceptable illness which must be monitored until it is eradicated from our global society. Report to the nearest child rapist eradication center.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Whatever. I’m gonna stop coming here. It’s clear none of you can actually back up anything you say. You’re all a bunch of ignorant idiots.

Sidekick
Member

Says the idiot who says taxes are the government’s money and not ours. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Olivia
Member

Says the idiot who says taxes are the government’s money and not ours. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
****************
They are “ours” in that WE are the government.

You’ve swallowed so much antigovernment twaddle from the far right that you’ve gotten used to regarding yourself as a hapless victim every April 15, instead of part of the system.

In fact, you need to get over your entitlement mentality, and recognize that there are no free lunches. Virtually the only way to get out of paying income tax is to become poor….and I don’t see many aspiring to poverty.

Sidekick
Member

Being a useful idiot must be so easy. Just work and hand over your money to the government without a thought. Let me explain something to you: you are paid a salary, that is a gross payment. What you get deposited into your account is what the government did not confiscate. The government spends our money. It has none of its own.

The advocate for “free” health care says I need to get over my entitlement mentality. As a tax payer, I fund the whole thing. 50% of us pay nothing to run the federal government but I’m the selfish one. Riiiiiight. You are so full of it.

Olivia
Member

Being a useful idiot must be so easy. Just work and hand over your money to the government without a thought. Let me explain something to you: you are paid a salary, that is a gross payment. What you get deposited into your account is what the government did not confiscate. The government spends our money. It has none of its own.
********************
And, again, it costs money to maintain a great nation, and keep it great. If you have a problem with that, there’s any number of third world nations with weak governments, where you could live much more cheaply. Assuming, of course, you didn’t end up on the lower end of the food chain, so to speak.

Why are you still here, if you’re so violently opposed to taking social responsibility?
********************
The advocate for “free” health care says I need to get over my entitlement mentality. As a tax payer, I fund the whole thing. 50% of us pay nothing to run the federal government but I’m the selfish one. Riiiiiight. You are so full of it.
********************
And, again, when did I say I thought health care should be “free”?

In response to your other (trite) argument: yes, you ARE “the selfish one,” and yes, you DO have an entitlement mentality, because you think you owe nothing to the country that has given you so much.

Interesting that not one of you has had the guts to respond to another question I’ve asked numerous times: do you think it makes our country’s productivity stronger, or weaker, to allow its poorest residents to walk around with untreated medical and psychiatric disorders?

And a third question, that’s often asked but invariably meets with dead silence: what makes you so sure that Big Business will always serve the public altruistically (even if it cuts into their profits), but the government will not?

Not so silent
Member

Brilliant comment, are you 5 years old? Hey I know ya missed me the past couple days..I was working so you and your 12 year old girlfriend could get your EBT card re filled and you could get some near beer and take her out for a date at the petting zoo, or the playground or where ever pedophiles go on dates. Since Olivia is now madly in love with and touching herself thinking of the scotsman, I guess you go no shot with anyone else here..So sad (NOT) to hear your leaving..If all else fails, get a copy of Doctor Kevorkian’s self help suicide book….Feel free to try any of the helpful ways of doing yourself in….Goodbye dark Dingledildo….

flashingscotsman
Member

TD,…………MO.

Turd.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Also, this is NOT the only site I post on. I’m also active on The Escapist, three different Otherkin sites, and I comment off and on on different Internet reviewer’s videos.

CO2Insanity
Admin

So basically you have no life.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Lots of people are active on multiple forums.

Not so silent
Member

Liar…I knew you wouldn’t leave….You got nothing else to do since your girlfriends mommy made her go home to be with kids her own age…

Olivia
Member

If that’s true of him, it’s also true of many other posters on this board, CO2. Several have told me that they post on liberal boards as well as this one. Would you say that they, too, have “no life”?

Sidekick
Member

Clearly you don’t. What are you up to now? 96 straight hours on this site?

I’ve been to Tallahassee and back since yesterday to attend FSU’s graduation and I twice checked in during the trip and your posts were littering this board like confetti at a pretty prodigious rate. Do you ever go outside, Olivia, or are you just paid by the word?

GhostntheMachine
Member
Olivia
Member

Clearly you don’t. What are you up to now? 96 straight hours on this site?

I’ve been to Tallahassee and back since yesterday to attend FSU’s graduation and I twice checked in during the trip and your posts were littering this board like confetti at a pretty prodigious rate. Do you ever go outside, Olivia, or are you just paid by the word?
*************
Actually, I haven’t spent much time on this website during the last two days. But it doesn’t take much time or effort to knock down some of these arguments, because they’re the very same ones you always advance. Like most Republicans, you just keep pushing the same pat solutions, hoping that they will somehow magically yield different results next time.

But they never do, do they?

Sidekick
Member

Please, Olivia. You are all over the place on multiple threads and yet you are going to try to convince us that you don’t spend much time here.

Spare us the knocking down threads crazy talk. You are a joke here with your strawmen arguments, propaganda, and clliches. Thinking you are winning any sort of debate is a far cry from actually doing so. No-one bludgeons a thread to death with a higher word count and yet still says so little like you do. One sign of a well-organized mind is the ability to communicate clearly and succinctly. You lack that ability.

To your last sentence, Desr, you just described your party’s economic strategy and political ideology. Quit projecting, you embarrass yourself when you do.

Olivia
Member

Still posting generic putdowns, I see.

The fact that you still can’t answer my question, and keep trying to deflect by attacking me, is very telling, Kick. The far right, I’ve observed, is taught to attack and deflect, but not how to defend their opinions. And you’re doing a bang-up job of demonstrating just that.

Sidekick
Member

I have given you my rationale for why state-run health care is a terrible idea as evidenced by its failure globally to deliver care efficiently and cost effectively. I have discussed far more than I ever intended why I think free market and other ideas can effectively reform some of the health insurance issues. It is you who has FAILED to explain how Obamacare will reduce costs, improve access, and increase efficiencies. Why is that?

The rest of your post is projection, I see that a lot with you.

Sidekick
Member

BTW, nothing generic about my put downs. They are tailored made to your particular brand of trolling idiocy.

Olivia
Member

I have given you my rationale for why state-run health care is a terrible idea as evidenced by its failure globally to deliver care efficiently and cost effectively.
***************
Why, no, you haven’t. I’ve produced plenty of evidence that many nations with socialized medicine deliver affordable health care to ALL at a fraction of our cost, and have better general outcomes (in terms of life expectancy, perinatal and neonatal survival and complication rates, etc.)

You’ve merely recited those favorite right wing talking points that deliberately mislead: “But we have more MRIs than Canada has!” “But we have better results for breast and prostate cancer than Canada has!” “But-if-our-system-is-so-bad-why-do-foreigners-come-here-for-surgery?” and “But my neighbor’s hairdresser’s niece’s brother-in-law knows someone from Sweden who claims that their health care system is crap!”
*********************
I have discussed far more than I ever intended why I think free market and other ideas can effectively reform some of the health insurance issues.
**********************
And failed to produce a single working example of such a system working successfully in the world today.

And shown your true colors, by repeatedly blaming the poor for their own poverty, and inability to afford regular health care.
*************************
It is you who has FAILED to explain how Obamacare will reduce costs, improve access, and increase efficiencies. Why is that?
************************
Obviously, it’s going to “improve access” if it allows 30 million uninsured people to access affordable insurance, Kick.

Obviously, someone who has affordable health care, and can afford to go to the doctor when he gets sick, is going to be less likely to run to the emergency room with minor problems, as so many currently uninsured people are obliged to do—–which costs us all.

Obviously, someone who depends on the emergency room for health care is going to receive NO follow-up for longterm disorders: diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, COPD, CHF, angina, atherosclerosis, renal insufficiency, depression, hypothyroidism and so on. Those situations MUST have regular, ongoing management by a physician, or they can lead to some very ugly and dangerous complications. Yet you still haven’t shown how for-profit-only health care will address these ongoing and very costly public health issues. Damage control is much, much more expensive (and much more likely to lead to disabling conditions) than prevention. Yet you seem to think that ignoring the needs of uninsured Americans will somehow magically keep health care costs down. That’s an extremely naive and egocentric way to look at it.
*********************
The rest of your post is projection, I see that a lot with you.
**********************
My boy, I’m not the one who’s flinging insults and calling names. That would be YOU—and, therefore, YOU are the one who’s projecting.

I’m just handing you a reality check—-one which you’ve been totally unable to refute.

Olivia
Member

Obviously, someone who has affordable health care, and can afford to go to the doctor when he gets sick, is going to be less likely to run to the emergency room with minor problems, as so many currently uninsured people are obliged to do—–which costs us all.

Obviously, someone who depends on the emergency room for health care is going to receive NO follow-up for longterm disorders: diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, COPD, CHF, angina, atherosclerosis, renal insufficiency, depression, hypothyroidism and so on. Those situations MUST have regular, ongoing management by a physician, or they can lead to some very ugly and dangerous complications. Yet you still haven’t shown how for-profit-only health care will address these ongoing and very costly public health issues. Damage control is much, much more expensive (and much more likely to lead to disabling conditions) than prevention. Yet you seem to think that ignoring the needs of uninsured Americans will somehow magically keep health care costs down. That’s an extremely naive and egocentric way to look at it.
*************
No response. What a surprise, huh?

By the way, did you all hear that France just elected a socialist president? Guess they’re not chomping at the bit to copy our health care system. In fact, can you name any nation that is?

GhostntheMachine
Member

By the way, did you hear the French just elected a Socialist President while saying things like this afterwards:

Another Paris voter highlighted this anti-Sarkozy vote, saying she’s backing Hollande, even though his program is “suicidal.””He’ll raise the minimum wage, increase civil servants. But France is already in debt,” said Florence Macrez. His fiscal reform project will only increase the pressure especially on the middle class, she added.

Stunning, sounds irritatingly familiar. (and just to kick one of your fav crutches, that’s from msnbc and ap)

Sidekick
Member

Your post is a fantasy. As I said to you on a different thread, there is no example of a free market medical system anywhere on Earth. The US system is completely influenced by Medicare. The insurance companies, for example, set their own reimbursement rates by the Medicare reimbursement rate. Doctors are not free to set their own rates so long as they accept insurance. Please do not try to argue that the US system is a for profit system. Misnomer. There may be a motive (profit or managing the losses) at a hospital or doctor’s group but their revenue is not market based even though their expenses are it is a difficult business model.

Alien
Member

maybe Somalia has free market healthcare?

Seems to me i can only imagine 4th world countries

sa_rose
Member

You have NEVER “knocked downa an argument here” except in your own fantasies! And if we keep repeating the same arguements and solutions, you nearly copy and paste yours they are so similar. I sugget you not throw rocks while living in that lovely glass house!

sa_rose
Member

Escapist is a fantasy magazine and game site. Otherklin has banned you for bitching about being banned from the TV tropes site, and because you kept whining about your pedophilia, which no one wanted to hear, much less discuss. They also did not believe your claims of remorse, and desire to change, because what you posted there. Nearly every recent comment has been on a thread for IHTM, and that covers over 10 pages of comments.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

The Otherkin site I was banned from was Otherkin Alliance. I am currently on Otherkinsight, Otherkin Community, and Otherkin.com.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

And wait, you think I was banned from an Otherkin sight for talking about TV Tropes? Wtf? Do you work for Fox News, Rose, because your research skills are shitty.

sa_rose
Member

Read posts from your fellow commenters about you being banned. Since you are banned, you have obviously never seen those posts. My research is just fine.

FormerlyDeanH
Guest

Oh shit. I thumbed ya poorly, rose. I promise to try harder to stop that.

sa_rose
Member

Hey, it happens. I’d rather you thumb me down than accidentally thumb the idiots up.

CO2Insanity
Admin

Having more than one libtard here is tuff on my TD thumb.

Olivia
Member

Author: Sidekick
Comment:
“Could you be more specific?”
******************
No.
******************
That’s what I figured you’d say. Obviously, you haven’t thought it through very well—you’re just parroting the Approved Republican/Libertarian stance.

Sidekick
Member

Maybe. Or I more likely I have no interest in explaining my comments to you. To thinking people the context of the thread and what I wrote are understandable. Obviously you are the exception that proves the rule.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

In other words, you just CAN’T explain.

Sidekick
Member

Really, Eric? Is that it?

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Prove me wrong.

drb
Member

Why?

sa_rose
Member

Such a childish retort!

sa_rose
Member

Quick login before school? Does your teacher know you are trashing the internet instead of doing your work?

Olivia
Member

What you write is “understandable” to like minded people, only because they’ve bought into the same propaganda you have.

Does it not tell you something about the fallibility of your convictions, if you’re capable of preaching them only to the choir?

sa_rose
Member

He discussed the legalization of Marijuana in other posts. Keep up. And I don’t think even the most rabid supporter of decriminalization wants cocaine and heroin sold OTC. But they are right that the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure. Just say no doesn’t work. And until the underlying problems that keep users from developing better psychological coping skills than “disappearing” via a drug induced haze, the problem will continue.

poppajoe49
Member

I’m so glad I didn’t subscribe to this thread, and am now sad that I stumbled across it.
More inanities from the Oblivious one, and more inbox clogging avoided.
Thank God for small favors!

Olivia
Member

Texans routinely wear formal cowboy boots at formal affairs. You are simply too uninformed to get it.
******************
Wrong. If you’re going to be hard nosed about what Obama wears in public, you need to stop making excuses for Bush. Cowboy boots are not a part of formal attire, any more than it would be appropriate for Nicolas Sarkozy to wear a beret to a state dinner, or for Angela Merkel to wear a peasant dirndl and braids to an international summit.
**********************
And actually just as the left voted for Obama against Bush (who wasn’t running, remember)
***********************
We voted for Obama against Sarah Palin—-oops, I mean against McCain, Rose.
************************
yes a lot of us will hold our noses and vote for nearly ANYONE to get Obama out of office before he does anymore damage. I appreciate that you can’t possibly understand that, but there it is.
**********************
Oh, but I DO understand, Rose. I understand that you’ve been duped by the right wing propaganda machine to regard Obama as everything evil and incompetent all rolled into one. I also understand that you have no opinion of Romney, because no one—including GOP operatives—-knows what he’s going to say and do from one week to the next.

In other words, you’ve been programmed to trash Obama nonstop (often for the same things you thought were just fine and dandy when Bush did them), but haven’t the foggiest idea why you support Romney. But support him you do, because that’s what the right wing pundits are directing you to do. When are they going to start telling you what you like about him? Because this blanket “I hate everything about Obama, and I support anyone but him for president” routine is getting old. It’s also rather dangerous, since it conditions you to have very low standards, and to accept whatever the GOP chooses to force on you.

Kip Hooker
Member

These people don’t understand that Obama knows all about the proper etiquette. He would never drink the french wine at the english dinner. He would never talk in the middle of the other nations national anthem. He would never admit to being half white anytime past labor day. And he would never bow to saudi kings or try and when an election based on the fact that the SEALs are bad ass and he is just an ass.

Viva la scott pilgrim

Khan out!

flashingscotsman
Member

And he would NEVER, NEVER I SAY, drink a beer with a racist without extending his pinkie.

Olivia
Member

All you macho wannabes out there look awfully silly (dare I say effeminate?) when you carefully scrutinize pictures of Obama holding a drink, to see if his pinky is touching the glass—-and then make a big noisy fuss about it if it is.

No, effeminate isn’t quite the word I’m looking for, because most women aren’t that silly and petty. Maybe more like gossipy old biddies.
comment image

GUNBOAT
Member

no, he doesn’t look like a president. sloppy t-shirt, and blue jeans!? i mean come on. this is the president! wear that shit at home,but when you step out in public its gotta be suit and tie man! geezuz…

Olivia
Member

What makes you so sure that he was “stepping out in public” when these pictures were taken?

Presidents are regular people, not kings or princes or semidivine tsars. There’s a reason, you know, that we address our heads of state as “Mr. President,” and not “your majesty” or “your imperial grace.” And, let’s be honest, real people dress casually for casual activities.

The president lives, in effect, in a goldfish bowl. He’s photographed all the time, no matter where he’s going or what he’s doing. That means that, at times, he’s going to be photographed wearing (gasp!) CASUAL garments, just like the rest of us wear from time to time. Probably just like you’re wearing right now, as you’re reading this.

I would think he was rather foolish if he wore a suit and tie to go golfing, or to take his family on a picnic. This isn’t 1880, and he isn’t the Prince of Wales.

Sidekick
Member

Such a weak argument. Why did you even bother? Is BHO a public figure? Holder of the most powerful office in the world? Yes to both, right? So when he steps out of the White House there should be no expectation of privacy and he ought to be cognizant of that when he dresses.

Olivia
Member

Nonsense, my boy. The president of the United States is not the Emperor of Japan; he’s a regular citizen; he puts his pants on one leg at a time like any of the rest of us; and it only makes sense that he will wear casual clothes for casual activities. I don’t think it’s likely to cause anyone to faint in genteel outrage to see the president dressed like an ordinary guy when he’s getting some exercise or taking his family on a picnic.

But I think it’s too funny for words that you’re pompously denouncing Obama for not wearing a suit and tie 24/7…but had nothing to say about a red-faced and disheveled Bush lurching around in the bleachers at the Beijing Olympics. Or wearing cowboy boots (despite the fact that he doesn’t ride horses) with a tuxedo on a formal occasion.

Face it: you’re grasping at straws here. The right doesn’t seem to be able to defend their own candidate, so they spend all their time bitching about Obama’s jeans, the shape of his legs, the elementary school he attended, his magna cum laude JD, his work as a community organizer, his ethnic background, his shirttail relations, his wife’s clothes, his church attendance record…..anything under the sun, as long as it’s something stupid and petty and childish.

Instead of acting like a fidgety old maid, bitching about Obama’s pants, maybe you ought to start thinking of ways to defend Romney. So far, I’ve yet to see any of you state why you think he deserves to be our president. Not one….except the usual evasive “he isn’t Obama” BS.

Sidekick
Member

Alas, we disagree.

sa_rose
Member

Texans routinely wear formal cowboy boots at formal affairs. You are simply too uninformed to get it. And actually just as the left voted for Obama against Bush (who wasn’t running, remember) yes a lot of us will hold our noses and vote for nearly ANYONE to get Obama out of office before he does anymore damage. I appreciate that you can’t possibly understand that, but there it is.

sa_rose
Member

I don’t think he needs to live in a suit, but nice slacks and a decent shirt that doesn’t look like he slept in it is not asking too much!

Olivia
Member

Got an example of Obama making a public appearance in pants that aren’t nice, and a rumpled shirt?

Didn’t think so.

flashingscotsman
Member

My Dear Sweet Olivia is fantasizing about seeing me in my rumpled pants and shirt after a rousing night of passion. Again.

Turd.

sa_rose
Member

Refer to the above pictures of Obama in cargo shorts and a nasty undershirt looking t-shirt. Or a seat suit. Mom Jeans. And I did not say at a “Public appearance.” As the President, he should maintain a llttle dressier appearance at all times. He knew the drill when he ran. I never, for instance, had a problem with he and the FLOTUS wearing shorts while on vacation at the Grand Canyon. But I don’t think he should be strolling around the White House in that state of dress. He is, after all, never “off.”

Olivia
Member

Refer to the above pictures of Obama in cargo shorts and a nasty undershirt looking t-shirt. Or a seat suit. Mom Jeans. And I did not say at a “Public appearance.” As the President, he should maintain a llttle dressier appearance at all times. He knew the drill when he ran. I never, for instance, had a problem with he and the FLOTUS wearing shorts while on vacation at the Grand Canyon. But I don’t think he should be strolling around the White House in that state of dress. He is, after all, never “off.”
***************
Where’s the evidence that Obama was “strolling around the White House” in all of these pictures?

sa_rose
Member

3rd up from, the bottom appears to be in the Rose Garden. Worse, there is one that appears to be in a school or daycare, out in public on the roadways in Mom jeans and a poorly adjusted bicycle, another where he is wrinting in a file-also looks like the Rose garden. Really, Olivia, tryto pick your battles, and quit trying to say everything out of everyone else’s mouth is wrong.

Olivia
Member

What do you mean by “Mom jeans,” Rose? I see several of you using that term—which Obamaphobic pundit fed it to you, and what is the difference between Obama’s jeans, and what YOU think proper for a man to wear?

As for your comment “looks like the Rose Garden,” I think your imagination is running away with you, powered by a whole lot of wishful thinking. I also think you sound rather arrogant, presuming to dictate what the president of the United States should be wearing on his own time.

Looking forward to your definition of “Mom jeans”…..

drb
Member

“Mom Jeans” is a term that came from the fashion industry back in the 90’s. Generally high waisted and unflattering jeans/pants. (typically worn by women who resently gave birth and where trying to cover a flabby belly but ended up making it look worse)
comment image

sa_rose
Member

Thanks drb. You saved me some time. And oh, Olivia? The President doesn’t HAVE any of his “own time” until he is replaced in office by someone else. Then he can have all th e “own tme he would like. And once again, we provided reasonable answers to all your challenges and your keep trying to change the challege to prove yourself right. Let’s get somethng straight. Other than morons like th edark dickwad, NO ONE on this board is EVER going to agree with you, much less change their point of view based on the lame comments you make. So what is your point in BEIGN here? Most of teh posters here don’t even READ your posts anymore. Are yousimply trying to annoy people? what are you, 12? Since no one reads you post, and no mindchanging will ever happen, it seems your entire presence here is like beating your head against a brick wall. With about the same result-injury ot the skull and brain. Remember, doing the same thin over and over and expecting a different result is the definition if insanity, not to metion terminal stupidity.

Olivia
Member

“Mom Jeans” is a term that came from the fashion industry back in the 90′s. Generally high waisted and unflattering jeans/pants. (typically worn by women who resently gave birth and where trying to cover a flabby belly but ended up making it look worse)

comment image
*******************
Well, since Obama hasn’t given birth and doesn’t have a flabby belly by any stretch of the imagination, it would seem that the term is being incorrectly used here, don’t you think?

poppajoe49
Member

No, there is no requirement that you have given birth or have a flabby belly in order to wear mom jeans, as evidenced by the fact that O wears them.

Olivia
Member

No, there is no requirement that you have given birth or have a flabby belly in order to wear mom jeans, as evidenced by the fact that O wears them.
********************
In other words, none of you can find anything wrong with the jeans that Obama wears—-you just wanted to find an excuse to accuse him of not “looking like a president.”

Which begins more and more to sound like a euphemism for “he isn’t white enough for me.”

sa_rose
Member

Its an ugly, ill fitting style. Most guys wouldn’t be caught dead in anything even similar, from couch potato simians to metrosexuals. They are UGLY. and are fine for I don’t know, pulling weeds, but NOT for the President of the United States. When was the last time you saw Queen Elizabeth in a photograph wearing anything but a conservatively styled dress? Angela Markel’s lowest point was a pantsuit. Leaders of nations don’t dress like the local college kids.

drb
Member

Well, since Obama hasn’t given birth and doesn’t have a flabby belly by any stretch of the imagination, it would seem that the term is being incorrectly used here, don’t you think?

No, I said they were typically worn by women who had just given birth. Not that it had to be a woman who just gave birth. They just need to be ill fitting and unflattering. they got their name becaus of who was wearing them most often. They also tend to make the buttocks look flat rather than nicely rounded.

Alien
Member

i always wanted to see Yulia Tymoshenko in a little black cocktail dress

(or maybe its prison garb now, don’t recall)

Olivia
Member

Its an ugly, ill fitting style. Most guys wouldn’t be caught dead in anything even similar, from couch potato simians to metrosexuals. They are UGLY. and are fine for I don’t know, pulling weeds, but NOT for the President of the United States.
*************************
Gosh, Rose, you’re changing your story again. Before, you expressed agreement with DRB’s description of “mom jeans” as being high waisted jeans that women who’d recently given birth wore to conceal a “flabby belly.”

NOw that it’s been pointed out to you that Obama hasn’t given birth and doesn’t have a flabby belly, all of a sudden you’re claiming that “Mom jeans” are ugly, although you don’t seem to be able to articulate what defines them, what differentiates them from other kinds of jeans, or why it’s inappropriate for Obama to wear them.
********************
When was the last time you saw Queen Elizabeth in a photograph wearing anything but a conservatively styled dress?
********************
Queen Elizabeth is 86 years old, Rose. What’s more, she’s a queen, not an elected president, and as such tends to personify a traditional British look. Her prime minister, however, DOES wear jeans in public, even when paying official visits to other heads of state:comment image
*********************
Angela Markel’s lowest point was a pantsuit. Leaders of nations don’t dress like the local college kids.
********************
Again, you’re awfully naive if you don’t think leaders of nations ever put on jeans. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal knows better than that!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574501463104873016.html

Then there’s the sainted Bush and his ventriloquist, on one of those Crawford trips at which you assured me he was usually hard at work. So, if that’s the case, why are they both wearing jeans in this picture, while meeting with the media?
comment image

Face it, Rose, you’re doing some floundering and backpedaling here. Obama’s jeans aren’t any uglier than anyone else’s, nor does he dress any less appropriately than any other president. You’re just determined to bad-mouth him, and are snatching at straws in order to do so.

drb
Member

Gosh, Rose, you’re changing your story again. Before, you expressed agreement with DRB’s description of “mom jeans” as being high waisted jeans that women who’d recently given birth wore to conceal a “flabby belly.”

Nice misquote.

sa_rose
Member

Its the best she can do drb. She accuses us of changing the subject becaue she does it all the time. If we alter one word (being as we aren’t reading from a pre prepared script) we are “changing the discussion” and Floundering and backpedalling.” She’s hopeless. WE aren’t theones defending the indefensible. And of course, making a stab at Bush’ s jeans are ok, even though they actually FIT. And have you ever been to Crawford, Texas? I can assure you it is in the middle of nowhere. Likely EVERYONE was wearing jeans, even the reporters. But I never saw Bush out working a handshake line in jeans in the middle of a city.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

“Simians”?

sa_rose
Member

Yeah. Look it up.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

So, you called Obama a monkey?

sa_rose
Member

Reading comprehension! Hooked on Phoinics MAY work for you, but I doubt it. Please c&p the lines where I called Obama a monkey! ?

Olivia
Member

Its the best she can do drb. She accuses us of changing the subject becaue she does it all the time. If we alter one word (being as we aren’t reading from a pre prepared script) we are “changing the discussion” and Floundering and backpedalling.” *****************
When you put quotes around a sentence or phrase, I expect the quote to be accurate, Rose, rather than right wing spin. Call me a crank, but I will continue to call you on it every time you try to spin Obama’s words.
******************
She’s hopeless.
*******************
If you’re referring to my unwillingness to accept deliberate inaccuracies on your part, you’re right.
****************
WE aren’t theones defending the indefensible. And of course, making a stab at Bush’ s jeans are ok, even though they actually FIT.
**************
Oh, but I DIDN’T “make a stab at Bush’s jeans,” Rose. I merely pointed out to you that your argument—that heads of state don’t wear jeans—was a lie.
***************
And have you ever been to Crawford, Texas? I can assure you it is in the middle of nowhere. Likely EVERYONE was wearing jeans, even the reporters. But I never saw Bush out working a handshake line in jeans in the middle of a city.
*****************
Irrelevant, Rose. You argued that the president is on duty at all times, and should therefore never leave his house wearing jeans or casual clothes. But I produced evidence that heads of state DO wear jeans, and that both Bush and Cheney had worn jeans WHILE BEING INTERVIEWED AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE MEDIA.

Once again, you’re struggling to come up with elaborate excuses that will work for Bush, but not for Obama:
___”Oh, but it’s OK for Bush, because he’s in Crawford.” (Even though you just got done explaining that Bush is never really off duty, even on his trips to Crawford.)
___”Oh, but it’s OK for Bush, because his pants FIT.”
Obama’s pants fit, too, Rose—you just don’t happen to like the style he was wearing in one picture.
__”Oh, but it’s OK for Bush, because his jeans aren’t ‘mom jeans.'” Except that you keep changing your definition for “mom jeans,” every time I call you on a falsehood about them.
__”Oh, but it’s OK for Bush, because he’s not ‘working a handshake line’ in the city.” Neither was Obama, in any of those pictures. But, as the WSJ article I provided indicated, it’s becoming more and more acceptable for high level executives and statesmen to wear jeans on certain occasions—including, but not limited to, “working handshake lines.”

Face it, Rose, where Obama and other presidents are concerned, you have a double standard. I hadn’t really thought of you as a racist, but the more you demand that Obama kowtow to YOUR expectations; and the more you insist that he isn’t entitled to any recreation or down time, the more it sounds as if you’re living an antebellum fantasy, with yourself (the taxpayer) as the plantation boss, and Obama the field hand.

You’ve already proved that, when it comes to men’s fashion, you’re rather behind the times. (Seriously, did you really think that modern heads of state spend all their waking hours in business suits and tuxedos??)
So maybe it would be best just to tell the truth—that Obama can’t possibly earn your approval, no matter what he does or doesn’t do—and stop trying to feign sartorial outrage.

sa_rose
Member

This is so inaccurate and has taken one workd and run so far that I am not going to begin to respond. And the translation to that is “olivia is on a crazy run again, and I have lost patience with even trying to communicate with a brick wall.”

Olivia
Member

This is so inaccurate and has taken one workd and run so far that I am not going to begin to respond. And the translation to that is “olivia is on a crazy run again, and I have lost patience with even trying to communicate with a brick wall.”
********************
Wrong. The translation is actually: “Faced with photographic evidence that I was dead wrong in my assumptions, I lack the integrity to admit my error and move on. I’d rather pretend that my opponent is being unreasonable.”

That’s okay, Rose—-I understand perfectly, and hardly expected a more honest response. But I’ll leave you with one more picture, that gives the lie to this ridiculously titled “perception is reality” attempt to depict Obama as unfit for the presidency:

comment image

poppajoe49
Member

That’s okay, Rose—-I understand perfectly

You don’t understand shit. Your delusion has far exceeded your capability of making the distinction between fact and fiction, you now have them backwards and will require years, if not decades, of therapy to become a useful member of society. Useful idiot doesn’t count.

sa_rose
Member

Besides, looking at the posted photos, they ALL seem to have been snapped outdoors. I don’t see any couches, easy chairs or fireplaces that would indicate he’s kickin’ back with the kids on Saturday night!

Olivia
Member

Besides, looking at the posted photos, they ALL seem to have been snapped outdoors. I don’t see any couches, easy chairs or fireplaces that would indicate he’s kickin’ back with the kids on Saturday night!
*******************
Haven’t you ever participated in any family activities outdoors, or at any time other than a Saturday night?

That’s rather curious.

CO2Insanity
Admin
sa_rose
Member

And the picture of him shaking hands with a line of people? Isthat a day in the park with the family? I hardly think so. Adnit it Olivia,m once again, you are WRONG. We have provided more than enough to back what we are saying and you just refuse to see it. Oh, and as to your reply to this? TD MO

Olivia
Member

Thanks drb. You saved me some time. And oh, Olivia? The President doesn’t HAVE any of his “own time” until he is replaced in office by someone else.
****************
No, Rose, you seem to be confusing the office of the president of the United States with antebellum slavery. The president, like any other high level executive, most certainly DOES have time of his own, to spend as he pleases.

We know that, because Bush spent lots and lots and lots of his time in office pursuing his own interests—-and apparently that was just peachy with you.

sa_rose
Member

No, he didn’t. He worked at the White House, and when he went to the ranch, he had a complete office there and was in touch with and still working at running the government. Unlike Obama, who plays basketball and golf, then jets off for a “speech” which is really a fundraiser for his campaign. Again, we aren’t EVER going to buy your bull shit. WHY oh WHY are you even here?

Olivia
Member

No, he didn’t. He worked at the White House, and when he went to the ranch, he had a complete office there and was in touch with and still working at running the government. Unlike Obama, who plays basketball and golf, then jets off for a “speech” which is really a fundraiser for his campaign. Again, we aren’t EVER going to buy your bull shit. WHY oh WHY are you even here?
*******************
To point out to YOU what a sucker you are for right wing propaganda, that’s why.

Do you seriously think Bush did no fundraising for his own campaigns?

Do you seriously think Bush was “still working at running the government” when everyone in the U.S. EXCEPT the president knew the extent of the Katrina disaster in 2005? Do you think he was “still working at running the government” when he was jetting to a round of photo-ops while New Orleans drowned?

Do you seriously think that Obama’s once-every-twelve-days (on average) round of golf makes him LESS aware of what’s going on with the government than Bush’s five-week vacations and frequent trips out of Washington to clear brush and play bicycle cowboy?

Do you seriously think that Obama would have won the respect of foreign heads of state if he were the superficial Charlie Good Time you’re trying to make him out to be?

By the way: if it’s really true, as you want so badly to believe, that Bush was working so hard during his frequent trips to Crawford, then why didn’t he just stay in Washington, and save us taxpayers the expense of all that Air Force One junketing back and forth?

Let’s face it: either he was taking it easy far more often than any other president in history, or he was stiffing the taxpayers for an awful lot of travel expenses.

You like to bitch about the Obamas traveling to Europe “on our dime,” but the fact is that Washington DC is about 1400 miles from Crawford—which means that three of Bush’s frequent (total 77) trips there equaled, in expense, one trip to Europe. And that doesn’t include the frequent Air Force One junketing DURING, BEFORE and AFTER those trips.

You’ve been had, Rose. You’ve been sold a boatload of racially charged stereotypes about Obama, and, because you wanted so badly to believe them, you bought right into them.

That’s why I keep coming back here—-because, once in a while, it’s a good thing to have a dissenting voice in this Republican echo chamber. Otherwise, you never hear the opposition’s side of the story, until after it’s been carefully spun for you by the right wing media.

sa_rose
Member

Except you can’t back ANY of the bullshit you drool out of yor pathetic mouth, so no, you haven’t caught me at anythign. I realize ALL Presidents fundraise. Just some are more open about CALLING it fundraising. Obama has indeed traveled all over Hell’s half acre, but that is NOT what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the REST of the family traveling the globe on the taxpayer’s dime. I will retract every complaint if you can show me 1 document that shows the FLOTUS and family reimbursed the governemnt for ANY of their trips! He may HAVE to travel. She does not. Nor does her Mother, or her 2 school age daughters.

Kip Hooker
Member

I must dissagree. Obama is more powerful than any king. He is our dear leader. It is insulting to suggest that he is just a normal person.

Although I still love you. I am hoping to hit you up on ichat sometime. ASL!

Khan out!

Federalist
Guest

There is a picture of Bush having his feet on the desk.

FormerlyDeanH
Guest

Have you seen the one with Reagan defiling our desk? Me neither.

KimmyQueen
Guest

Can you find it? I don’t think it is appropriate to do it. It is bad form.

Federalist
Guest
Alien
Member

This has been posted here before. Some posters here think Snopes is funded by Soros, so they won’t bother reading it. I asked for smoking gun evidence behind the allegation that Soros funds them, but I can’t find it. It would be interesting news, but otherwise I suspect Snopes is well-trafficked enough that it is self-funding

Federalist
Guest
Olivia
Member

In all three presidents’ pictures, they merely have their feet perched on the edge of the desk—which is hardly “desecrating” it.

I’m not big on people putting their feet up in the workplace, but it’s hardly the outrageous scandal that the original piece makes it out to be. Most of those ranting “pass-this-on-to-everyone-you-know” e mails are at least somewhat fact challenged, or an outright pack of lies.

sa_rose
Member

Who cranked up this ancient thread?

flashingscotsman
Member

My Dear Sweet Olivia. She couldn’t come up with anything stupid to say on any current topics.

Olivia
Member

I notice you didn’t waste any time charging forth to participate, though, once I did. ;>)

flashingscotsman
Member

Got to leave my mark, honey.

KimmyQueen
Guest

I was surprised as well when I saw the date. I mean for real Obama still does not look like the President, but still…

PsychoDad
Guest

Hello, Livvy? Whose silence is deafening now?

Olivia
Member

What a silly question. You know as well as I do that, if Obama hadn’t gotten anything accomplished, you righties wouldn’t detest him so much. ;>)

First off, he wound down the mess in Iraq that Bush got us into.

Second, he did much to repair our international reputation. If you traveled abroad at any time between 2003 and 2009, you know just how much the rest of the world distrusted and detested Bush and Cheney. Today, it’s possible to go into another country and say, “I’m an American” without having people assume you’re a fascist.

Third, he saw to it that millions of Americans, whose only health insurance was a bottle of Tylenol and a package of bandaids in the medicine cabinet, could afford to go to the doctor.

Fourth, he kept U.S. automotive companies from going belly-up (taking most of their suppliers with them), despite the fact that you righties kicked and screamed in protest.

Fifth, he served as a great role model to nonwhite Americans, reminding them that the American dream is possible for anyone, provided they have the tools they need, and the opportunity to make use of them.

Sixth, he was the one who authorized the successful mission to get Osama bin Laden. You know, the guy that Bush pledged to hunt down, and then a few months later said he really wasn’t much worried about him? And it was done in such a way that no one could turn his grave into a shrine, or complain that his body had been desecrated by nonbelievers.

Those are some of the highlights; there are many others. Now, suppose you tell us what Bush accomplished during his first 3 1/4 years in office, other than failing to heed warnings about bin Laden, getting us into a fruitless war, and creating a lot of enemies overseas.

Not so silent
Member

Translation, he spent trillions on his buddies, gave us health care that will kill us and pretty much vacationed the rest of the time with a wookie. Oh yea and he wound down the economy to depression levels…

Olivia
Member

Translation: “Not only am I immature, but I can’t express an opinion without relying on propaganda and trendy catch phrases.”

I’ll pass over your threadbare “wookie” comment, recognizing that that’s just a racist’s code word for “black woman.” But I’d like to see your evidence that the economy is worse now than it was in January, 2009.

While you’re at it, suppose you show me your statistics indicating that Americans are being “killed” by modern health care. (NOTE: Statistics, not “I’d be willing to bet” predictions by freshman dropout Limbaugh.) And, oh, yes!—-your evidence that “he spent trillions on his buddies.”

(watching Not-So-Silent run like a hare, trying to avoid producing evidence for his blatherings…….)

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

Isn’t “Obamacare” free? How does that kill anyone?

Sidekick
Member

No, Eric, it is not free. Nothing is free. I imagine Notsosilent used the term “kill us” in a financial sense.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

We pay for it by way of taxes. Taxes is not our money. We give it to the government so they can use it.

Sidekick
Member

Really? Taxes are not our money. Maybe for a loser like you who pays no federal income taxes but it damn sure is real to me. You need to STFU with an asinine comment like that.

TheDarkEricDraven
Guest

And you should stop being a greedy asshole.

Sidekick
Member

I should continue to work my ass off yet deny my family the fruits of my labor so I can hand it over to the federal government instead? Only a tax recipient would say something like that. So, really, who is the greedy asshole? Me who pays his taxes or someone like you who CONSUMES other people’s taxes?