What's the big deal?

[j2k4]

This has Obama fans upset, I guess.

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/2009/08/07/Politics/poster-outrage

[clocker]

You'd guess wrong.
Then again, ignoring the bile and lies from the right has become second nature to me.

Why look, I even clicked on a FauxNews link, so see?

[j2k4]

Ah - then my concern is assuaged.

Good to see B.O.'s fans are made of sturdier stuff.

I wonder, then, why B.O. is urging his big tough senators and representatives to "punch back, twice as hard", and his societal cohort to rat out those who make "fishy" statements.

What does he take you for, a bunch of pussies?

[clocker]

I wonder, then, why B.O. is urging his big tough senators and representatives to "punch back, twice as hard", and his societal cohort to rat out those who make "fishy" statements.


Since the entire Republican platform since Obama has been in office consists of deflecting attention from substantive issues- see "Tea Party", and "Birthers"- or simply obfuscating debate about major goals with outright lies and distortions- reference Sarah Palin's screed against health care reform in today's news- it became necessary to step up the efforts to actually present the facts.

In essence, bitch slap the noisy morons who are slowing down progress.

So, politics as usual.

[j2k4]

I wonder, then, why B.O. is urging his big tough senators and representatives to "punch back, twice as hard", and his societal cohort to rat out those who make "fishy" statements.


Since the entire Republican platform since Obama has been in office consists of deflecting attention from substantive issues- see "Tea Party", and "Birthers"- or simply obfuscating debate about major goals with outright lies and distortions- reference Sarah Palin's screed against health care reform in today's news- it became necessary to step up the efforts to actually present the facts.

In essence, bitch slap the noisy morons who are slowing down progress.

So, politics as usual.

Delete "republican" and "Obama" and insert democrat and Bush.

Exactly right - politics as usual.

[clocker]

There is no comparison.

[j2k4]

There is no comparison.

Quite right, the democrat overstep dwarfs the republican one.

One might cynically say that what you all claim has been an ongoing U.S. jihad against the rest of the planet (only under republicans, mind) has..."come home to roost", in the form of a slavering band of repressive and progressive wing-nuts with a nose for opportunity.

Yes...and quite simple, as well.

Perhaps too simple - we shall see.

[j2k4]

You know, we really ought to take our little two-man show to Broadway, or (at least) try to swing a deal with PBS/NPR.

I will handle any monies/remuneration involved, in order to keep your ideology and motivations pure...mine, too, I suppose.

[MaxOverlord]

You know, we really ought to take our little two-man show to Broadway, or (at least) try to swing a deal with PBS/NPR.

I will handle any monies/remuneration involved, in order to keep your ideology and motivations pure...mine, too, I suppose.

the bottom line is obama is black...thats why its a big deal.
take that however you want.

[j2k4]

You mean this "post-racial" stuff isn't true?

Uh-oh.

[MaxOverlord]

You mean this "post-racial" stuff isn't true?

Uh-oh.

What I mean is racism never fails for some...it never allows for discussion of motives and/or failures other than the color of skin as the only and major determining factor. If it weren't for people's lack of attention and downright disgust for the relentless pursuit of falsities perpetuated by those who are left to decide for all of us what does and does not constitute racism...this would be an attack bordering of perfection....find me someone who doesn't know the story of the boy who cried wolf...people stop believing you for all of your lies.

[j2k4]

Ah.

I'd prefer to say "quite right" at this juncture, but I don't feel anyone new (lib/progressive/media) is inclined to apply the lesson of the boy who cried wolf, as it does not suit, strategically.

They aim to outlaw conservatism and to kill capitalism, both of these as defined by the B.O./Alinsky axis.

[clocker]

They aim to outlaw conservatism and to kill capitalism, both of these as defined by the B.O./Alinsky axis.
A sterling example of "crying wolf".
Well done, Kev.

[j2k4]

Am I wrong at all (at all).

[clocker]

Oh no, not at all.

We actually do want to herd ya'll into camps and harvest your organs to give to the poor.
For free.
After killing your grandmother.

Got a problem with that?

[j2k4]

Oh no, not at all.

We actually do want to herd ya'll into camps and harvest your organs to give to the poor.
For free.
After killing your grandmother.

Got a problem with that?

Oooooooooh, you're eeeeeeeeeeevil.




On a related note:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,538789,00.html?test=latestnews

[clocker]

Interesting story but it fails to make clear how this was Obama's fault.

Fox is getting sloppy.

[j2k4]

Interesting story but it fails to make clear how this was Obama's fault.

Not his fault, agreed, but the association is easy:

Obama=Communism.


Fox is getting sloppy.

Wasn't Fox.

Was me.

[lynx]

Hope you are checking under your bed regularly these days. :yup:

[bigboab]

Not his fault, agreed, but the association is easy:

Obama=Communism.


Fox is getting sloppy.

Wasn't Fox.

Was me.

I think that you have taken this too far Kev.:yup:

In Communism you win elections even if you lose the vote. Why did Florida suddenly come to mind. Sorry that's Fascism. Something completely different, or is it?:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Not his fault, agreed, but the association is easy:

Obama=Communism.



Wasn't Fox.

Was me.

I think that you have taken this too far Kev.:yup:

In Communism you win elections even if you lose the vote. Why did Florida suddenly come to mind. Sorry that's Fascism. Something completely different, or is it?:rolleyes:

Once and for all, Bob, Bush won Florida in 2000, and the Dems even admitted it (after completing the count denied by the Supremes), though on like page 18 of that rag USA Today, and about eight months after the fact.

If even they got it, why won't you?

[bigboab]

I think that you have taken this too far Kev.:yup:

In Communism you win elections even if you lose the vote. Why did Florida suddenly come to mind. Sorry that's Fascism. Something completely different, or is it?:rolleyes:

Once and for all, Bob, Bush won Florida in 2000, and the Dems even admitted it (after completing the count denied by the Supremes), though on like page 18 of that rag USA Today, and about eight months after the fact.

If even they got it, why won't you?

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are extreme right wing to me. The nearest thing we have in this country is The British National Party. Though you haven't gone that far right, yet!
When we think about it there is very little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left in politics. None of them represent the people unless you count 'First past the post' as democracy.:whistling

[j2k4]

Okay, okay.

Try it this way (relative to the last few posts):

Two different things going on, different dynamics, altogether.

1

B.O. is pushing (Dear God, how he is pushing) for sweeping (read: SWEEPING) changes, the results of which reasonable people are forecasting will resemble the communist example.

B

The two dominant parties are in turn dominated by incompetents and extremists.

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...


(break necessitated by run-on sentence)


.., because they make for more sympathetic or outrageous news leads to be interpreted for us by our lousy media.

That about sum it up for you?

[bigboab]

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

Exactly my sentiments. You need a Proportional Representation voting system. So do does the U.K. Under the present system you end up with two main parties who do nothing but nitpick. Under PR they would have to come and go in order to stay in power. The wee man/woman would have a say.

[j2k4]

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

Exactly my sentiments. You need a Proportional Representation voting system. So do does the U.K. Under the present system you end up with two main parties who do nothing but nitpick. Under PR they would have to come and go in order to stay in power. The wee man/woman would have a say.

So...you agree with me.

Isn't that something.

Well, that makes one of you.

[clocker]

B.O. is pushing (Dear God, how he is pushing) for sweeping (read: SWEEPING) changes, the results of which reasonable people are forecasting will resemble the communist example.
Oh pish and nonsense.
Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not reasonable people and no one else of sound mind thinks we're going to end up like the Soviet Union.





Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...



The "true middle class" of this country have actually done quite well over the past few decades and will probably continue to do so.
Compared to the extremely wealthy who, thanks to unceasing Republican pandering have done extremely well, the middle class might seem disadvantaged but compared to the rest of the world, we sit quite fat and happy.

[j2k4]

Oh pish and nonsense.
Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not reasonable people and no one else of sound mind thinks we're going to end up like the Soviet Union.

If polls were taken over that precise question (you should give thanks they are not), I believe you'd find you were wrong, but that's just a difference of opinion.



Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...



The "true middle class" of this country have actually done quite well over the past few decades and will probably continue to do so.
Compared to the extremely wealthy who, thanks to unceasing Republican pandering have done extremely well, the middle class might seem disadvantaged but compared to the rest of the world, we sit quite fat and happy.

"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.

The intended recipients of Obama's largesse - vis a vis health care - are the middle class...the people whose gripes about taxes have actual merit.

As an aside, apart from the insularity from economic suffering sought by the unionized auto workers, and taking into account the agenda-driven elasticity of statistics defining the middle-class, the auto-workers (who cry poverty at the drop of a hat) are hard-put to squeak in on the extreme statistical upper end of the class they claim as their own.

Hypocrites.

[bigboab]

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

Exactly my sentiments. You need a Proportional Representation voting system. So do does the U.K. Under the present system you end up with two main parties who do nothing but nitpick. Under PR they would have to come and go in order to stay in power. The wee man/woman would have a say.

So...you agree with me.

Isn't that something.

Well, that makes one of you.

It's all about being a Mugwumper. I can see both sides of the fence I am sitting on.:whistling

[clocker]

If polls were taken over that precise question (you should give thanks they are not), I believe you'd find you were wrong, but that's just a difference of opinion.
Why should I give thanks?
Just because Fox piledrives a nonstop tsunami of Teabaggers, Birthers and Death Panelers through the airwaves doesn't mean that anyone who's learned to breathe through their nose believes any of that crap.






"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.



Hypocrites.
"Not good enough"?
You want guarantees?
Tell me one thing in life that's guaranteed...besides death.
Anyone who promises unconditionally that things will continue as they have been- or even get better- is just flat out lying to you.
You want "your America" back?
As Larry Wilmore said, "Tell that to the Indians".

Your obsession with the "fleecing of the rich" is completely inexplicable.
First of all, you're not rich, so why do you care?
Secondly, the Obama tax plan has planned to increase the taxes on those making over $250k a year by what, 3 or 4 percent?
Oh geez, that's brutal...totally a "fleecejob" if I ever heard of one.
My God, one less dinner party in the Hamptons, whatever will we do?
This whole "Obama is going to force the wealthy to support the lazy poor" has absolutely no basis in fact...and you know it.
So just stop with the crocodile tears for the "wealthy", I'm sure they'll manage.

[j2k4]

Why should I give thanks?
Just because Fox piledrives a nonstop tsunami of Teabaggers, Birthers and Death Panelers through the airwaves doesn't mean that anyone who's learned to breathe through their nose believes any of that crap.

Do you intend that^^^ to suffice as something other than a screed.

I am disappointed you have nothing to offer but insults.



"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.



Hypocrites.



"Not good enough"?
You want guarantees?
Tell me one thing in life that's guaranteed...besides death.

The answer to that is nothing - nothing at all...and we both know that's not the point.


Anyone who promises unconditionally that things will continue as they have been- or even get better- is just flat out lying to you.

So I guess we're just supposed to sit back and acquiesce to the B.O. machine...now, you want rich, that's rich, coming from a 60's, east coast, educated liberal.

When did you or your cohort begin to advocate staying home and letting the government roll over it's citizens...or have you come to prefer the government buyout?

What are you so afraid of?

We don't get too excited when you demonstrate or criticize, so why this animus from rank-and-file libs like you?

Unless your view is that such liberties are for liberals only to exercise?

Gee whiz, that's censorship you're advocating now.


You want "your America" back?
As Larry Wilmore said, "Tell that to the Indians".

After hauling out that stale old saw, you'd better never mention Bush in any context with the words Florida, election, or the number 2000 ever again.


Your obsession with the "fleecing of the rich" is completely inexplicable.
First of all, you're not rich, so why do you care?

That you continue to overlook the obvious is stunning.

I want to earn more than 250K, without being fettered by more onerous regulation and tax than already exists.


Secondly, the Obama tax plan has planned to increase the taxes on those making over $250k a year by what, 3 or 4 percent?
Oh geez, that's brutal...totally a "fleecejob" if I ever heard of one.

Do you also have exclusive rights to the term "slippery slope"?

Or the supplemental fact that less slope is required to go downhill when additional efforts are being expended in aid of "icing" the runway so comprehensively that disaster is all but assured?

Again, you assert I don't know what I'm talking about - why so one-note and shrill?

I mean, gee whiz...is it because I laughed at Hillary.


My God, one less dinner party in the Hamptons, whatever will we do?

YOU CAN VACATION IN THE HAMPTONS ON AN INCOME OF LESS THAN 250K A YEAR?!??

WHY WASN'T I INFORMED!!!


This whole "Obama is going to force the wealthy to support the lazy poor" has absolutely no basis in fact...and you know it.

No basis in fact?

I offer you the following, from the American Enterprise Institute:

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

I think that means it is already happening, and has been happening for a really good long while now.


So just stop with the crocodile tears for the "wealthy", I'm sure they'll manage.

Oh, they'll manage, I agree with you 100%.

But they'll pull in their financial horns, and put much less of their capital at risk to spur growth, which is what is needed.

What you and yours propose is confiscation by tax so the government can (with the attendent bureaucratic drainage) put that money in the pockets of the, uhm....let's see, what to call them...governmentally-defined needy, which will enable them to live better.

Right?

Your and Obama's solution, though, is not growth, it is what I called it - confiscation, followed by re-distribution.

That is by definition unsustainable, so what do you do then?

Take it all, I guess.

[clocker]

Do you intend that^^^ to suffice as something other than a screed.

I am disappointed you have nothing to offer but insults.
That wasn't an insult, it was an observation and if you're insulted it's because you recognize the truth.



So I guess we're just supposed to sit back and acquiesce to the B.O. machine...now, you want rich, that's rich, coming from a 60's, east coast, educated liberal.

When did you or your cohort begin to advocate staying home and letting the government roll over it's citizens...or have you come to prefer the government buyout?

What are you so afraid of?
Afraid of?
Now that we've finally elected a leader who knows his head from his ass, my thinking is to let him do what I elected him for, which, as a sidenote, I don't consider to be getting "rolled over".


We don't get too excited when you demonstrate or criticize, so why this animus from rank-and-file libs like you?

Unless your view is that such liberties are for liberals only to exercise?

Gee whiz, that's censorship you're advocating now.
No idea what this means.
I just assume it was a brain fart and ignore it.

You're welcome.


That you continue to overlook the obvious is stunning.

I want to earn more than 250K, without being fettered by more onerous regulation and tax than already exists.
I'm overlooking the obvious?
You're the one who is against initiatives that would directly benefit you right now instead opting to whine about theoretical "burdens" for a future that may or may not come to pass.


Do you also have exclusive rights to the term "slippery slope"?

Or the supplemental fact that less slope is required to go downhill when additional efforts are being expended in aid of "icing" the runway so comprehensively that disaster is all but assured?
Sorry, I forgot...you don't believe in government, at least not one that functions as intended.
Always wondered why someone so opposed to government is so interested in politics.


I offer you the following, from the American Enterprise Institute:...
Gee, a right wing think tank, stocked with ex-Bushies...what a surprise.


Your and Obama's solution, though, is not growth, it is what I called it - confiscation, followed by re-distribution.

That is by definition unsustainable, so what do you do then?

Take it all, I guess.
Poor Kev's worst paranoid nightmare.
Interesting that for nearly 7 years you didn't worry about how Bush was funding his inane holy war- apparently squandering trillions in the effort to destroy Gog and Magog is an acceptable use of public money- but let a Democrat try to actually aid millions of Americans and you go apeshit.

Telling, that.

[j2k4]

So, in other words, you have no response.

BTW-

Is B.O.'s version of the war in Afghanistan being fought for free?

[clocker]

So, in other words, you have no response.
I do, you just didn't understand it.


BTW-

Is B.O.'s version of the war in Afghanistan being fought for free?
I assume not.
Why do you ask?

[sez]

The scintillating part about this health care debate is that no matter how many people these right wing hooligans are going to kidnap the bill is eventually going to pass.
Its high time people understood that a president always gets his way.

[clocker]

The point however is not just to get a bill passed, we need a good one passed.
One not gutted by lobbyists, without extraneous riders.

In other words, not another "No Child Left Behind" POS.

[j2k4]

Why should I give thanks?
Just because Fox piledrives a nonstop tsunami of Teabaggers, Birthers and Death Panelers through the airwaves doesn't mean that anyone who's learned to breathe through their nose believes any of that crap.



"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.

Hypocrites.

"Not good enough"?
You want guarantees?
Tell me one thing in life that's guaranteed...besides death.
Anyone who promises unconditionally that things will continue as they have been- or even get better- is just flat out lying to you.
You want "your America" back?
As Larry Wilmore said, "Tell that to the Indians".

Your obsession with the "fleecing of the rich" is completely inexplicable.
First of all, you're not rich, so why do you care?
Secondly, the Obama tax plan has planned to increase the taxes on those making over $250k a year by what, 3 or 4 percent?
Oh geez, that's brutal...totally a "fleecejob" if I ever heard of one.
My God, one less dinner party in the Hamptons, whatever will we do?
This whole "Obama is going to force the wealthy to support the lazy poor" has absolutely no basis in fact...and you know it.
So just stop with the crocodile tears for the "wealthy", I'm sure they'll manage.


So, in other words, you have no response.


I do, you just didn't understand it.

I didn't understand what, precisely?

Apart from the expected and anticipated insults, there isn't much there.


BTW-

Is B.O.'s version of the war in Afghanistan being fought for free?


I assume not.
Why do you ask?

Obama is the one "pouring cash" into the effort now.

What are we to think of this?

Why doesn't he just pull out, as you would prefer?

After all, there is no terrorist threat when the dems are in charge, right?

And dems aren't expansionist empire-builders, right?

What's B.O.'d justification for being in Afghanistan?

As opposed to Bush's, I mean.

[j2k4]

One more thing-

Does this qualify as a cheap-shot at Obama, in light of his statements about 'keeping your current health-care plan if you like it'?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

[clocker]

I didn't understand what, precisely?

Apart from the expected and anticipated insults, there isn't much there.
You mean there "isn't much there" that aligns with your right wing agenda, hence you can ignore it.




Obama is the one "pouring cash" into the effort now.

What are we to think of this?

Why doesn't he just pull out, as you would prefer?

After all, there is no terrorist threat when the dems are in charge, right?

And dems aren't expansionist empire-builders, right?

What's B.O.'d justification for being in Afghanistan?

As opposed to Bush's, I mean.
Obama is a politician and therefore as shackled by political reality as any other leader.

You're right, I would prefer a complete and abrupt withdrawal since the reasoning behind the original incursions were so flimsy and false.
In fact, I would prefer that Obama quit pandering to the right and just get on with the agenda he espoused but I'm not a politician and don't have to deal with the realities of Capitol Hill.

Even so, a "watered down" Obama is far preferable to the alternative.
Had McCain been elected, I'd expect that Palin would be just about ready to resign her position, the better to be all "mavericky" in another arena.