Forum: pol
Page 3688
Subject: President Barack Obama take 5, his second term


  Posted by: Seattle Zen - [3603123] Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 12:44

As soon as the confrontation over fiscal policy winds down, the Obama administration will begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, according to officials briefed on the plans.
While key tactical decisions are still being made, President Barack Obama wants a catch-all bill that would also bolster border security measures, ratchet up penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it easier to bring in foreign workers under special visas, among other elements. Democratic strategists believe there is only a narrow window at the beginning of the year to get an initiative launched in Congress, before lawmakers begin to turn their attention to the next election cycle and are less likely to take a risky vote on a controversial bill.
 
1Seattle Zen
      ID: 3603123
      Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 12:47
Obama’s approval rating stands at 57 percent, the highest since May 2011
almost 7 in 10 say he will be able to implement the health care law passed in March 2010 and remove most troops from Afghanistan. And most think he’ll be able to improve the economy and boost race relations in his final term
 
2Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 15:42
not bad for a guy who's a hyphenated American.
 
6Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 22:52
Right wing FOX viewers have been demonstrably full of factual errors about issues of the day. Fresh from getting spanked in an election, this probably isn't a good time for the dwindling number of right wingers to blame the majority for having the problems they have been demonstrating all along.

Of course, according to the PPP poll among Republicans, 49% believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama, an organization which doesn't exist anymore...
 
7Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Mon, Dec 10, 2012, 10:24
49% believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama, an organization which doesn't exist anymore...


which goes to show you what a fantastic job the GOP did in lying to their "base". they believed whatever they were fed.

unfortunately for the GOP,their gullible base was a minority of voters in this nation.
 
8Boldwin
      ID: 1511411012
      Mon, Dec 10, 2012, 13:55
All the people working for Acorn just migrated to identical organizations with identical MO's and identical funding.

They are just like the euthanzia lobby, so depised that they have to change their name every decade to stay under the radar.
 
9sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Dec 10, 2012, 14:08
evidence
 
10Tree
      ID: 1311231015
      Mon, Dec 10, 2012, 16:30
They are just like the euthanzia lobby, so depised that they have to change their name every decade to stay under the radar.

how do you feel about religions that change their names with a relative frequency, and also reject the teachings of not only their founder, but their founder's successor?
 
11Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 11:23
On the issue of presidential mandates, 50% of Republicans thing Obama has one to raise taxes.
 
12Tree
      ID: 4911231211
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 12:28
i'm no political scientist, but i think some saw Obama's win as decisive and a mandate. and that it is time to acquiesce, and do things differently.

i do believe it was Einstein who said "The definition of insanity isdoing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," and i'm wondering if some Republicans now have taken heed of that, and are looking for, well, change.
 
13Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 12:47
The problem is that the GOP thinks they have a mandate, too, as their majority in the House was re-affirmed.

I'm not going to argue the point, but I think we can see how the GOP might get the idea.

That all said, the beauty of the fiscal cliff is that this is entirely of the GOP's making since they assumed the Administration would cave a long time ago. And, if we go off the cliff, this will hurt the GOP even more than the Administration.

The House Republicans are going to do something they probably forgot how to do: Negotiate a deal in which some "core" value of theirs gets compromised in some way.
 
14boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 12:47
Mandate for what? This argument makes no sense. A mandate would be if my local congressman ran on the Obama platform had won, but he didn't. The problem is the country is not ran by one person if it was we would not bother having a congressional races. And until that day, the idea of a presidential mandate is kind of silly
 
15Tree
      ID: 4911231211
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 13:41
Mandate for what? This argument makes no sense.

no offense, but it seems to me that you don't understand the word "mandate" here. in a political sense, a mandate is pretty much a core principle of the entire democratic process. when you win by democratic majority, you essentially have a mandate.
 
16PV in GJ
      ID: 1010151016
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 14:00
I'm not concerned with the semantics. Obama promised a balanced approach, but, much like Romney's mysterious approach to closing loopholes, Obama hasn't given any specifics on spending cuts. He hasn't given any real indication that he needs to make spending part of the discussion. I can understand the GOP frustration on that level.
 
18Boldwin
      ID: 3211181118
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 14:08
Let all those Obama swing states and blue states and big cities have their own tax chart and let them pay the tax rate they vote for.
 
19Tree
      ID: 4911231211
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 14:20
Let all those Obama swing states and blue states and big cities have their own tax chart and let them pay the tax rate they vote for.

so they can pay even more for the red states that get the majority of federal aid?

 
20Tree
      ID: 4911231211
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 14:21
btw, it's the United States. we're one nation - if you believe otherwise, there's always that promise to relocate yourself to Costa Rica.
 
21boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 14:42
Re 15: Like I said before, this debate seems kind of silly because my local congress man won by a larger % then Obama did so clearly he has larger mandate for him to follow through on his promises then supporting those he did not campaign on. Do you not get the contradiction.
 
22Mith
      ID: 98342014
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 14:55
Personally I'm not sure that I necessarily believe in the concept, either. #11 just makes a political point about what people think.
 
23Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 15:06
#21: I can see that, but it also depends upon what they campaigned on. And perhaps there are some GOP Congress members who campaigned on not giving a single inch to Obama (at least, they act that way)--nevertheless, the realities of divided government require some negotiation and compromise on each side.

I know of many people who have no problem with a divided government, reasoning that a divided government would force the different sides into negotiation. Those people seem to not have heard of the current GOP House members or the Tea Party in general...
 
24Tree
      ID: 4911231211
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 15:41
Do you not get the contradiction.

i don't see the contradiction. two different election winners, two different mandates.

it doesn't mean that compromise is not part of the bigger picture.
 
25boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 15:49
I don't disagree with that, but I think idea being put out is that because Obama won that is the only mandate and that people who want something else should just follow along because their mandate is not actually important. There seems to be a disconnect between the idea that just because you won the highest office that your mandate trumps all others and ow wait maybe these people also have their own mandates, maybe we should meet somewhere in the middle.

It should also be noted that mandate and what is best or what is correct thing to not necessarily the same so just saying I have a mandate does not necessarily make best, makes it just most popular.
 
26Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 21:23
This strikes me as more of a Romney kind of initiative, but the Death Star petition crosses the threshhold required for a White House response.
 
27Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 20:32
Swiftboaters are fuming
 
28Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 00:00
Imagine that! A decent pick, IMO.
 
29Boldwin
      ID: 3113225
      Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 04:15
Yeah *roll*. A guy who has enuff friends in the senate to get confirmed and hasn't kicked Netenyahu in the balls recently.

He was in Viet Nam you know.

And came home to be the bookend to Jane Fonda.
 
30Boldwin
      ID: 3113225
      Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 04:17
Can't wait to see the youtubes of him visiting the troops.
 
31Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 09:15
And came home to be the bookend to Jane Fonda.

Like I said, swiftboaters are fuming. The rest of the country moved past such immature rantings long ago, and recognize a long and distinguished career that will likely culminate in almost 100% Senate approval.

It has nothing to do with having enough friends in the Senate and everything to do with exemplary qualifications.
 
32Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 21:51
How Obama won the Internet.

Interesting behind-the-scenes story.

30,000 people registered to vote from one online interview. Amazing!
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 22:30
Obama says he won't go there (on the debt ceiling "debate"). Money quote in bold:


To even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It’s absurd. As the speaker said two years ago, it would be -- and I’m quoting Speaker Boehner now -- "a financial disaster not only for us but for the worldwide economy." So we got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here: They can act responsibly and pay America’s bills or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis.

But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial well-being of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip.

And they’d better choose quickly because time is running short. The last time Republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our triple-A credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history, our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.
 
34Boldwin
      ID: 270551422
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 00:05
1) Bogus strawman to say bills won't be paid. Priorities will be made and bills will be paid by priority.

At least the SEIU and teachers will get paid on time, I guess that means.

2) Since Obama is by that threat, indicating he will not be moved in his position even if it means passing the deadline, he is 'holding a gun to America's head' every bit as much as people who believe unlimited borrowing will destroy America, cuts must be made to unsustainable spending levels and Obama must not be given a blank check.

In fact he'd love to go past the deadline and join in with the liberal press' firestorm against responsible people.
 
35sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 00:52
14th Amendment, makes clear, that Congress CAN NOT hold the debts hostage. Only the genuinely stupid, think that such a thing is the right thing to try and do.
 
36Boldwin
      ID: 270551422
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 01:03
How did that work at home anyway, Sarge?

"Honey, those shoes you bought bounced our checking account."

"No problem dear, I'll solve that by heading out to the store and buying lots more."
 
37sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 01:16
As I have explained to many of "conservatives", a household and a national economy, are not comparable. That you fail/refuse to acknowledge that simple truth, renders you unfit for discussing the topic.
 
38sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 01:18
further, that isnt an accurate comparison anyway. You know that, but the truth doesnt fit your agenda, so you have to dance around it.
 
39Boldwin
      ID: 270551422
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 01:20
You can't buy an infinite number of shoes even if you have a printing press in the basement.
 
40sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 01:26
that isnt what the debt ceiling is. It is not authorization for further debt or additional spending. It is authorization to the pay the bills for what Congress has ALREADY spent.

Here's the scenario:

You are a shipper. You have been for weeks, moving tons of cargo for the Govt from the Eastern seaboard to Afghanistan. Now you want to be paid.

NOW, where do you stand on the debt ceiling?



You delivered 50 vehicles to the Govt Motor Pool. Now you need to be paid, so you can pay for them.

Where do you stand on the debt ceiling now?



You are a defense contractor, employing 500 people. You've had people in the field, training troops on the new equipment you were contracted to provide. They need to be paid, and so do you.

Where do think that company stands on the debt ceiling?
 
41sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 01:51
or, if you want it at the family level...you and your wife, are having dinner with some potential clients of yours. You neglected to bring your wallet with you, and your wife has her CC and checkbook in her purse. You've all eaten dinner, had a couple of drinks, and now your wife wont give you the CC to pay.

THAT, is what the House GOP is trying to pull.
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 11020158
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 10:22
"Yes, I know we're bouncing. Sign this blank check or else, and no, I won't cancel the order for those 50 shoes."

Liberals, gotta love them.
 
43Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 10:34
You have already received and worn all the shoes.
 
44boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 10:59
What is point in 40 and 41? these things happen everyday. People refuse to pay bills all the time even ones with money. you are correct there is difference between the household budget and a government budget, a family has fixed period that it can pay back it debts while the governments is infinite. The problem is that it is not really infinite eventually all governments come to in end. The questions is, is now the time to say hey lets do something about this or is it ok to say you know this is our futures problems.

How about this analogy, I don't need to work Ill just have my kids work 80 hours a week and Ill just live off of half the money they earn and as soon as there kids are old enough to work Ill make sure to take a cut of that too. People complain daily on here about the rich stealing from the poor but a completely fine with everyone stealing from there children.
 
45Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 11:29
a family has fixed period that it can pay back it debts while the governments is infinite

This is not true.
 
46sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 11:30
really boikin? The debt ceiling foes not increase the debt. It pays some bills. We are ALREADY in debt for that amount.

And yes, people refuse to pay a bill every day. And in the case of the shoes, it is called shoplifting, and they go to jail.

 
47boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 11:59
re 45: which part is not true? because I clearly say in the next sentence I say governments are not infinite.

re 46: actually it does, if you refuse to pay your bills you debt does not go up, now if you are saying we own the money whether or not the ceiling is increased or not then. Well if that is case the debate of over the ceiling is mute and maybe Obama should make that argument that debt ceiling or not the government will pay its bills. Our Credit card is maxed out but don't worry we can apply for another so you will get paid just maybe not today, kind of argument.

It is interesting that neither of you seem to have a problem with everyone stealing from their children.
 
48Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 12:11
which part is not true

If a family does not pay it's bills when they come due they default on their debts.

If the government does not pay it's bills when they come due it will default on it's debts.

Refusal to raise the debt ceiling really means a refusal to borrow additional money necessary to pay debts that the government has already incurred.

 
49Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 12:12
Our children are the ones with the most to gain by our not crashing the economy. They are the ones who need continued funding for our k-12 and higher education, which are currently being cut to the bone. And they are the ones who are in need of jobs out of school, which aren't available because the GOP is strangling the economy.
 
50Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 12:13
Or are you saying we would just devalue to the dollar sufficiently to cover our debts without borrowing further?

If so, the resulting economic consequences are still basically the same. Confidence in our markets and in the dollar will be trashed, we'd probably see some serious inflation and almost certainly another recession.
 
51sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 12:18
The theft is you insist on calling it that, HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. Its done. You've eaten the food, worn the shoes, driven the car. Now its time to pay the bill.

Prior to there even BEING a debt ceiling, the Treasury had to secure Congressional approval and then sell T-Bills to cover EVERY SPENDING APPROPRIATION Congress passed. The debt ceiling, simply made life administratively easier, by granting blanket permission to borrow while the T-Blls were put up for sale.

It does not increase the debt, it does not impact the debt, it impacts ONLY...our paying or not paying the bills and THAT impacts directly, our credit rating.

Want to send this nation right back into a recession and potentially a depression just to fkn score political points?!?!?!? Then keep fighting over the debt ceiling and cause another credit downgrade.
 
52Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 12:58
This is a completely manufactured crisis, indended to allow the House GOP to both approve a budget and then refuse to pay for it until additional demands are met.

Trashing the credit of the United States isn't a negotiating tactic of someone in good faith. Obama is right to call them on it.

You don't want to have a big budget? Then don't approve one.
 
53Building 7
      ID: 87592712
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 13:32
It is interesting that neither of you seem to have a problem with everyone stealing from their children.

I agree with you boiken. Maybe they don't have children.
 
54sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 13:34
OK, we now know for an absolute fact...boikin and B7, are in favor of trashing the national economy.

I suggest, we deport both of them.
 
55Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 14:11
I don't think either are in favor of that at all. I think they are simply trying to solve a different problem, and the credit worthiness of the US is an acceptable hostage.
 
56sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 14:54
They are in favor of holding the debt ceiling hostage. Last time that happened, it cost the country dearly. In terms of $$, in terms of stalling the recovery, in terms of our national credit rating. Doing the same thing again will...guess what...likely have the same result. (Funny how that works.) So if one is in favor of doing that, it logically follows, that one is in favor of he predictable result.
 
57Boldwin
      ID: 11020158
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 15:43
Let's sum up.

1) Obama refused to make any compromise whatsoever on spending cuts. Boehner made tax concessions and asked Obama What do we get for that and Obama said, literally, word for word, "You get nothing", “I get that for free.”
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

"You get nothing", “I get that for free.”
Whereupon PD makes the absurd announcement that Obama was the one doing all the compromising.

2) Now Obama says he isn't going to make any concessions on spending whatsoever at the debt ceiling.

3) Dems float the trial balloon that Obama should just ignore the debt ceiling by presidential fiat. Forget about that constitutional requirement that the House has the power of the purse.

4) Despite Obama's claim, "I've signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts" in actuality
The budget submitted by Obama in early 2012 for FY2013 proposed $3.8 trillion in new spending, an increase of 31 percent over the final Bush-Democratic Congress budget, and a 9 percent increase over the budget Obama signed two months into his term. So where exactly has spending been "cut"?

...the federal government [is] on track for a fifth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits under Obama. As these deficits show, Obama hasn't done anything to bring the government in line with its revenues.
Even Obama's Jack Lew, OMB Director said,
"... it was, I think, critically important at the beginning of this administration to actually increase the deficit. That was the exception to the rule. That was the way to stimulate the economy. It cannot become the normal rule. If it becomes the normal rule, we are on a path that goes nowhere good.”
But no, Obama isn't gonna cut spending, not now, not ever, if he can help it.

5) Obama is not asking that we pay the restaurant tab we already incurred.
we're not paying our bills; we're adding to the running tab and borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to make it look like we're covering our obligations.
Were Dems willing to specify that debt limit raise X specifically be used to pay x-sized bill Y, they would be in a slightly better position to make that claim. They will not.

6) Reid has deliberately and illegally not introduced a budget for years for an esoteric reason that doing it this way freezes baseline spending where it was set by a Dem House of Representatives. Further he doesn't want Ms America to worry her pretty little head about the budget. Let's not even mention it around her.

7) Dems had no problem themselves threatening to use the debt ceiling to prevent Republican objectives. Obama himself voted to block a debt-ceiling increase in 2006 and Dems threatened to do the same thing in 2009.

8) Of course the Dems likening failure to raise the ceiling to terrorism is ridiculous and we can hear that explained in the words of Dems doing it themselves.



Obama's words, in fact.
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 11020158
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 15:47
One of the sources for that.

Also the best suggestions for Rep strategy on the debt ceiling that I have seen.
 
59sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 15:50
3) Dems float the trial balloon that Obama should just ignore the debt ceiling by presidential fiat. Forget about that constitutional requirement that the House has the power of the purse.

Yes, the House appropriates money. But that has already been done. Now its time to write the check.
 
60Boldwin
      ID: 11020158
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 15:52
But "we're not paying our bills; we're adding to the running tab and borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to make it look like we're covering our obligations."
 
61sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 15:55
no..not adding to the tab. PAYING the tab. The adding (spending) was already approved and executed.
 
62Boldwin
      ID: 11020158
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 15:57
And you can have the checkbook back when you agree to use it responsibly. In writing.
 
63Frick
      ID: 2193319
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 16:03
I'm not sure how many of you are accountants, but does the Federal government operate under the cash or accrual accounting system.

Bonus points if you can explain why this relevant to the ongoing discussion.
 
64sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 16:08
no way to can be under the cash system. Has to be accrual.

 
65Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 16:13
I was just reading this GAO piece on that question, Frick!
 
66weykool
      ID: 54011222
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 16:16
I'm not sure how many of you are accountants, but does the Federal government operate under the cash or accrual accounting system.
Neither.
It uses something called Fund Accounting which is a modified accrual basis of accounting.
From Wiki:
Governmental funds, which are not concerned about profitability, usually rely on a modified accrual basis. This involves recognizing revenue when it becomes both available and measurable, rather than when it is earned. Expenditures, a term preferred over expenses for modified accrual accounting, are recognized when the related liability is incurred.
 
67Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 19:03
Does the announced earlier exit from Afghanistan count as a spending cut?
 
68Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 19:19
For Grover Nordquist it would count as a tax increase, I believe.
 
69sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 01:51
The debt ceiling, explained.

Congress created the debt ceiling crisis almost entirely on its own. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress what’s known as the “the power of the purse”: Congress alone can authorize spending, collect taxes, borrow money, or print money. The president can propose a budget, but it’s Congress that ultimately decides how much money the government spends.

So here’s the problem: Congress has told the president to spend more money than it has given him, but it hasn’t authorized him to borrow the extra money. Instead, Congress has set a limit on how much he can borrow—the debt ceiling—that is actually lower than the amount of money than he needs for the things it has already bought or told him to buy.
 
70sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 08:41
ROI...Dems or GOP?

Had you put $10,000 into a mutual fund on Nov 7, 2000 and that fund reflected perfectly the Dow Jones; on Nov 6, 2008 your $10,000 would have been: $7939.78 As the Dow fell from 10,952.18 on 11/7/2000 to 8695.79 on 11/6/2008.

Now, had you put that same $10,000 into that same fund on Nov6, 2008...it would have been worth $15,564.87 yesterday, as the Dow has since climbed to 13,584.39.

So, tell me again...precisely HOW, is Obama "bad for business"?
 
71Boldwin
      ID: 15057166
      Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 09:22
If you are Imelt, he's great for business.

If you are trying to compete with him it's a disastrous business climate.
 
72Mith
      ID: 1311443016
      Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 08:55
Politifact's assessment of Obama's first-term campaign promises
 
73sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 23:25
Obama and his anti-oil stance

“U.S. oil production grew more in 2012 than in any year in the history of the domestic industry”

As much as Republicans would like to decry President Obama as the 2nd coming of Liberal Satan whose sole mission is to wreck the U.S. economy via some sort of socialist Jihad, the reality is that on some issues President Obama is actually more inline with that of a moderate Republican. Granted moderate Republicans rarely exist anymore and in some parts of the country you’re more likely to find a unicorn from Narnia than a moderate Republican. If you fancy yourself a conservative … this next part might hurt your brain.

President Obama has overseen the largest production of domestic oil in one year than at any time in American history. Stop. Re-read that and make sure that it sinks in. I know that’s not what they said on Fox News; according to Fox – the Obama administration is overseeing an assault on oil production in America because he’s so beholden to the very powerful green lobby . Unlike his precessors – President Obama has actually engaged in the closest thing to an all encompassing, comprehensive energy policy for the first time since the 70′s. His policies are working and it’s about time his critics stopped whining like incessant children because they didn’t get their way. My message to those conservatives: Just shut up – really; the grownups are talking.


 
74Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 23:54
A right wing which acts as though they can say anything because they will soon be taken away en masse into heaven is continually surprised at how bad they are at this prediction and prophet thing.
 
75Boldwin
      ID: 130112618
      Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 19:44
The Community Reinvestment Act destroyed America once. Let's make it even worse.

More pressure than ever to make bad loans. Merely having Eric Holder looking into your bank prevents it from making new business decisions.
 
76Boldwin
      ID: 130112618
      Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 19:48
President Obama has overseen the largest production of domestic oil in one year than at any time in American history.

As I have often pointed out and this has happened despite the EPA, and other agencies doing everything in their power to prevent it. Even now Obama's good buddies in the enviro and Saudi direction are trying to create an anti-fracking hysteria. Fracking being the whole reason Obama failed to destroy the oil industry.
 
77sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 19:49
Your continued waving of the CRA as a bogeyman, has been debunked, disproven and countered time and time again. the ONLY people who still buy that ine of BS, are ignorant far right wingnuts who wouldnt acknowledge the truth if Christ himself hit you in the face with it.

QUIT with the CRA garbage.
 
78Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 20:39
The Community Reinvestment Act destroyed America

Obama failed to destroy the oil industry


You should google the word "destroy." It's obvious you have no idea what the word means.
 
79Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Feb 05, 2013, 21:31
It all comes down to race.

A very interesting story.
 
82boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 11:51
Obama's death squads protected, says DOJ. So much for due process.
 
83Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 11:58
They've been leaning that way for some time, and I recall reading recently where the government lawyer was being coy even with the judge overseeing a case about this (essentially, the government was claiming not only that this has to do with national security, but that their reasons for claiming it is national security is also classified).

Greenwald has been all over this for some time.
 
84Frick
      ID: 2193319
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 12:00
I'll admit that I don't watch many news shows, but why do I feel that I would have heard about this much, much more if this story had happened under our prior President? Regardless, it is a very, very scary step in the wrong direction.
 
85Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 12:15
I don't doubt that the tools for this were put into place and used by Bush. But I agree with those who think that Obama came into office under the promise that this is the kind of crap that would end under an Obama Administration.
 
86Seattle Zen
      ID: 3603123
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 12:53
Yes, this is the Obama administration's biggest disappointment.
 
87Tree
      ID: 39151614
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 15:51
Yes, this is the Obama administration's biggest disappointment.

pretty much anything tied to the wars from our previous administration applies here.
 
88Frick
      ID: 2193319
      Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 10:58
So the general consensus is, just blame Bush? I don't care for the Patriot Act, but I can see the reasoning behind it, as much as I dislike parts of it. The left (in general) made it sound like Stalin was taking over the country. I understand the reasons why this policy was put into place, but I dislike them even more. We have a right to due process, this judgement takes that entirely away, without recourse (since the person will be dead). But, since Obama is in charge, its ok, just blame it on Bush? I can't decide if that is the laziest or most dishonest stand I've ever seen.
 
89sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 22:27
I dont see where anyone here Frick, said "blame Bush". Rather, I see folks saying they are HUGELY disappointed in Obama over this. I for one, find t deplorable, that a US citizens rights to due process, would be simply tossed aside. I have said before, and I will say again...we should never have gone into Iraq. Terrorism, is a crime, not an act of war. US citizens terror suspects, are just that. SUSPECTS, in a criminal action. They are entitled, to due process. Subjugation of that process, leads to tyranny. Whether administered by the left or by the right, it is in either case...tyranny.
 
90biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 22:42
Yeah, I don't wanna get blowed-up, whether it's from a blue missile or a red.

Fcuk Obama on this one.
 
91Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 11:28
So the general consensus is, just blame Bush?

um. did you READ any of the previous posts?

Obama supporters are disappointed in Obama. and yea, much of that is tied to things that are related to wars started under Bush.

that's not blaming Bush for Obama's failures - we're blaming Obama for those. But it's entirely factual to say "Wars begun under Bush," because that's the truth.
 
92Frick
      ID: 2193319
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 11:46
Looking back at your post, I believe that I misread it the first time after reading PD's post. His does indicate that at least partially, he blames Bush.

"I don't doubt that the tools for this were put into place and used by Bush."

I don't doubt that most of the people who were against Bush's techniques are also upset at Obama. But, the vitriol, protests, and demands don't seem to be happening. Has this been a major story on news outlets? I feel like it would have it had happened under Bush. That is why some people believe that the media is very left leaning. Obama seems to almost be getting a pass on the issue. And this seems like a much larger leap than what Bush did.
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 12:26
I think the yelling has been tamped down on the left because in many other areas they are happy with Obama. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be upset (and I can link to a lot of progressive sites where they are just as mad at Obama about this as they were for Bush).

The difference here isn't that the left isn't concerned about this. It is that the Republicans are completely silent (which stems from Bush's use of his executive powers). A GOP/Progressive coalition against drones would be quite effective, I think.
 
94Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 18:55
Torture is easier for the media to report and opine upon. Extrajudicial summary executions on foreign lands via drones is more complex, hence less coverage. I disagree with left leaving media silence, however. Outlets like Democracy Now and other true progressive media have been complaining about this for the past three years, once they realized that this administration actually increased these missions.

A ‘profoundly disturbing’ memo? DOJ white paper outlines legal basis for targeted killings
 
95Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Tue, Feb 12, 2013, 23:15
That was an impressive SOTU speech tonight, more style than substance, but still impressive. Rubio gave an impressive response. A rising star.
 
96Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Wed, Feb 13, 2013, 11:12
Immigration comments during the SoTU speech.

I didn't listen to the speech, just read this article so far, but I have to say, I agree with whats presented in this article.

1. Learn the language of the land
2. If you tried to force your way in illegally, get back in line, behind the ones trying to do it legally
4. Pay taxes and act like a citizen.
3. We'll work on changing the process to make it more friendly and streamlined because the current process does stink.
 
97Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Feb 15, 2013, 01:16
I complete agree, Khahan.


Meanwhile, let's keep in mind some of the 26 ways Obama has ruined the country.
 
98Boldwin
      ID: 32131159
      Fri, Feb 15, 2013, 12:13


Not really sure they are all firsts buuut...
 
99Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Tue, Feb 19, 2013, 21:12
watching Rachel Maddow blast Obama and the US government for keeping Guantanamo open lets me know that it's not always poli-porn on MSNBC.

it also goes to show people like Baldwin that we on the left are not afraid to criticize our own. unlike he who praises all manner of criminals, because he agrees with their politics.
 
100sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Feb 19, 2013, 21:18
In fairness though to Obama re Gitmo...the GOP led House refused any funds, for the transfer of the detainees, to any other facility.
 
101sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Feb 19, 2013, 21:36
link

forgot link for 100
 
102sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 00:07
Its too bad really, Obama is such a marxist-socialist anti-business President. What?

Dow and S&P close at new 5-year highs
 
103Boldwin
      ID: 511322113
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 15:21
The Navy’s active carrier fleet already has been reduced to 10 vessels because of the retirement of the USS Enterprise in November.

The U.S. Navy plans to shut down four of its active aircraft carriers in one of the worst-case scenarios presented to Congress...
Just in time for WW3.
 
104Tree
      ID: 51432111
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 15:42
World War 3 - The War of the Tin Foil Hats
 
105Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 15:50
Part of their plan to say that the sequester was Obama's idea (it wasn't--just the latest in a long line of failed "stop me before I shoot myself in the head! I mean it this time!" acts)
 
106Boldwin
      ID: 511322113
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 18:27
The impasse is not with themselves.
 
107Boldwin
      ID: 7228416
      Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 19:30
Results start coming in from the 'War On Coal'.

Results from the first auctions to account for new Regs [well timed, eh?]:
Last week PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.
Is there any state that deserves it more? Put SE Ohio out of work and then raise the cost of their electricity by a ratio of 357/16.

Wow, imagine an unemployed coal miner paying that new bill. Yeouch.

On the plus side, my father's NICOR pension fund is lookin like the Rock of Gibraltar.
 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 10:07
Dow closes at an all-time high.
 
109Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 14:45
The other day, in a FB exchange, I was reminded again of the myths that the Right continue to exchange amongst themselves like Conservative Bitcoins, such as "the deficit has doubled under Obama!" and "liberals throw money at poverty only to increase dependence and the government!" and other crank comments.

Reality, however, intrudes: Remember that the 2009 bar (you know, the highest one) is Bush's last budget.
 
110Tree
      ID: 33591113
      Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 15:03
thanks PD - nice stuff.
 
111Frick
      ID: 432501512
      Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 16:34
Business Insider

Great read regarding our "Spending Problem".
 
112Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 21:06
Again: Worst. Socialist. Ever.

Wall Street stocks today, closing high. That dip? A hacked AP twitter feet which said that Obama had been injured in an explosion at the White House:

 
113Boldwin
      ID: 25332317
      Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 22:58
That was the 'Crap, Biden might be president' moment. Has it ever gone up with news a president was seriously attacked? What was your point?
 
114sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 23:08
his point? That you have none.
 
115Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 23:14
That actually isn't my point. I genuinely don't care about Boldwin's points, and haven't for some time.

My point has been consistent: That Obama is a pro-business president, has been for some time, and the actual business people know this. Profits have never been higher, nor has the stock market.
 
116Tree
      ID: 38322228
      Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 00:57
baldwin missing the point. boy, that's shocking. /sarcasm.

there are moments - like this one - where i genuinely feel bad for Baldwin, for being so out of touch, for being so clueless, and for being so blinded by hit hate that he really has no clue what is going on.
 
117Boldwin
      ID: 13444718
      Tue, May 07, 2013, 20:26
 
118sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, May 07, 2013, 21:27
nice bit of photo-shop. But this pic has been debunked already
 
119Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, May 07, 2013, 22:07
Actually, it isn't debunked at all. The problem comes from a misunderstanding of what that book is about. That would involve "reading" and, well, that's just not gonna happen.

The fact that this picture is almost 5 years old seems to point to a slow news day in the conservative media meme machine.

Snopes article.
 
120sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, May 07, 2013, 22:10
my bad. Its been a few years since I saw that. True, the photo is genuine. The debunking, was the email it was with, misrepresenting Fareeds book.
 
121Tree
      ID: 38322228
      Wed, May 08, 2013, 09:58
real conversation on facebook, when a conservative "friend" posted a meme containing a quote "from Thomas Jefferson" and a quote from Barack Obama, with the headline "Mr Obama, you are no Thomas Jefferson!"

me: and in this case, Thomas Jefferson is no Thomas Jefferson, since he never said what is being attributed to him in the above meme.

conservative: Then Reagan probably said it. Obama is not Reagan either!

me: no. Reagan didn't say it either. John Basil Barnhill did. and Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn is the man who tried to attribute it to Jefferson in 1994.

neither man is terribly famous. but it's always funny to see conservatives take a quote and lie about who actually said it, and instead try to tie it to someone famous.

conservative: It may not be conservatives that falsely attributed it, just look at all the stuff that liberals do and say about conservatives that is not true.

the meme came from a Tea Party Facebook page.

there just isn't any interest in honesty from many of these people. it's astonishing.
 
122Frick
      ID: 432501512
      Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 08:47
Bolivian President's Plane

So many questions to be answered about grounding/search of Bolivia's equivalent of Air Force One last night.

I don't believe there is precedent for this. And when China pulls the same thing on us? Obama warned of retaliation for any nation aiding Snowden. But today, South America is pissed. Pres of Argentina calls emergency summit.

If this really was a US directive and ordered by Obama, this might the biggest misstep in foreign policy in decades.
 
123Mith
      ID: 412561115
      Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 08:58
Agreed a lot of questions and sounds like a possible terrible mistake on the US government's part but for the record the plane was not grounded.
 
124Boldwin
      ID: 463545
      Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 09:06
I believe he was not planning on staying in Moscow, but the USA has been threatening potential havens that the USA would cut off foreign aid...

...which suggests another useful mission for our caped crusader...'fly around the globe turning off the open spigots, please', if you receive this bat signal.

Eric Snowden...is there anything this man cannot do?
 
127Perm Dude
      ID: 41661813
      Sat, Aug 10, 2013, 12:53
What trillion dollar deficit?
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 41661813
      Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 16:40
"Obama was photoshopped in!"

 
129Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 17:28
Of course this could have gone in the Marijuana thread, but I placed it here because it is a historic step by this administration.

WA and CO are free to implement a legal and regulated cannabis marketplace
The Obama administration on Thursday said it will not stand in the way of Colorado, Washington and other states where voters have supported legalizing marijuana either for medical or recreational use, as long as those states maintain strict rules involving distribution of the drug. In a memo sent Thursday to U.S. attorneys in all 50 states, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole detailed the administration’s new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.
 
130Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 18:29
Kleiman's take

This is the "muddle through" option.

The very loosely regulated medical pot is intel untenable. The state must reconcile the medical with the non-medical.

My opinion is the minors and interstate priorities still give them justification to go after anyone they feel like.

His point about the all-cash aspect of the business making robbery the greatest danger is a good one.
 
131Perm Dude
      ID: 417342923
      Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 18:16
Going to enjoy digging into this new site I found. As for now, enjoy reading about the "big march on Washington" today. Wait, you didn't hear about it? The one where they were going to "Demand!" the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama?
 
132Frick
      ID: 432501512
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 08:54
Interesting "conspiracy theory" I heard recently. Nice that we suddenly have outrage over Syria, it does a great job of distracting us from the NSA issue.
 
133Boldwin
      ID: 58331110
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 11:36
It also takes some wind out the defund Obamacare movement, and we know he cares about that.

I don't think you need look for a conspiracy beyond all the muslim brotherhood representatives in his own administration to understand why he is carrying MB's water in Syria.
 
134boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 14:39
It would appear that dispite Obama's assurance the NSA also handed over data on US citizens to foreign countries in this case Israel.
 
135biliruben
      ID: 208491113
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 14:49
"It also takes some wind out the defund Obamacare movement"

Yeah, instead of a pinwheel's worth, it's down to a the power of getting a feather off the sidewalk.

Reality calling: There was no hope for defunding Obamacare. None.

Time to pick up the phone and take the message.

Move on to more fruitful and compassionate pursuits, like knocking quadriplegics out of wheelchairs and raising speed limits in school zones.
 
136Boldwin
      ID: 58331110
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 15:47
bili

Because who has changed their mind and is now in favor of it in the House?
 
137sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 16:03
it doesnt matter who is in favor of it in the House. It wont pass the Senate, and Obama sure as hell isnt going to sign such a bill if it did land on his desk.
 
138biliruben
      ID: 208491113
      Wed, Sep 11, 2013, 16:04
I'm not saying there aren't people in the house crazy enough to crash the economy and default on our bills. I'm saying that's not gonna change danky regarding Obamacare.

Embrace the Heritage foundation created monster in your closet. Cuddle up with it. Face your fears. Fear is the mind-killer.
 
139Arminius
      ID: 19850212
      Sat, Sep 21, 2013, 03:59
Banks bailout vs. Auto Industry bailout

BARNEY FRANK, FORMER CONGRESSMAN (D-MASSACHUSETTS): First of all, many of the banks didn't want this money. It’s not that we did it for them. But secondly, the federal government made money on the advances to the banks. What cost us money was the automobile industry bailout. But we made money on the banks.

HENRY PAULSON, FORMER BUSH TREASURY SECRETARY: We got all the money back plus $32 billion.


Newsbusters - Meet the Press
 
140Perm Dude
      ID: 417342923
      Sat, Sep 21, 2013, 10:57
I realize that it is a very small piece on a throwaway line of Frank;s, I'm not sure why that article insists on tagging Obama for the auto bailout which began under an agreement between the Big 3 and Bush before Obama even took office. Neither does it count the savings we realized by doing the bailout and not tanking a huge portion of the economy.

But it isn't even really true. Most all of the direct money to GM has been paid back--what we don't have back yet is the money we invested in stock (we still own over 7% of GM). Nobody knows whether we'll get all that back, though GM stock is up 50% from a year ago.

Even if we lose money, the bailout was necessary. And, frankly, given how the economy was tanked by some of those same people who want to pin the bailout on Obama and rant about how we "lost" money on Obama's bailout but not Bush's, I'd take anything these people say with a grain of salt. There wouldn't have to have been any bailouts at all if we didn't have such idiots at the helm for 8 years of the Bush Administration.
 
141Boldwin
      ID: 22840223
      Sun, Sep 22, 2013, 04:45
It continually amazes me that we have otherwise intelligent people on this website who still have not managed to integrate the fundamental reality that 'The House controls the purse strings' into their vision of reality after all these years.
 
142sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Sun, Sep 22, 2013, 12:35
Well B, maybe the House needs to start paying attention to what they hell they are doing:

GOP House reminded, their "budget" includes massive savings projection FROM Obamacare

WASHINGTON -- Days after House Republicans voted nearly unanimously for a measure to defund Obamacare, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) reminded them of one little detail: Their own budget relies on savings from President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law.

During an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Republicans owe the public an explanation for how they can regularly vote to get rid of the Affordable Care Act -- they have now voted 42 times to repeal or defund it -- when they passed a budget that balances in part because of Obamacare savings.

Republicans "have to explain to the American people how they voted for a budget that includes all of the Medicare savings from Obamacare, that includes the same level of revenue generated from Obamacare and, in fact, would not even balance in 10 years, if not for the Affordable Care Act," Van Hollen said.
 
143Perm Dude
      ID: 417342923
      Sun, Sep 22, 2013, 12:44
"The House controls the purse strings" is found nowhere in the Constitution...
 
144Boldwin
      ID: 118492315
      Tue, Sep 24, 2013, 04:21
Remember that the next time you try and find an appropriated dollar.
 
145Boldwin
      ID: 118492315
      Tue, Sep 24, 2013, 04:24
And you will eventually wind up where the constitution placed the only power to introduce an appropriation bill.

Any other government funds being unconstitutional, apparently.

 
146Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Tue, Sep 24, 2013, 12:49
And you will eventually wind up...

i had missed these posts of predictions. they provide the most amusement.
 
147sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 12:41
 
148Pancho Villa
      ID: 40610217
      Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 18:37
Kind of a surprise coming from CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

The Obama administration should "accept the advice that a lot of Republicans are giving " and delay healthcare reform for another year, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said. GOP leaders seized on the comment.

The "Situation Room" host made his comment during a report from correspondent Brian Todd discussing failures of the government website Healthcare.gov launched to handle inquires and signups for state healthcare exchanges, The New York Times reports.

Other government websites, such as one for Social Security, function well, Blitzer said, but the government didn't get the Obamacare site ready on time.

"Maybe fix the problem, make sure people don't have to worry about it," the longtime anchor suggested.


I think this makes sense for Obama, though I would suggest delaying the individual mandate for 6 months, not a year. It will look like somewhat of a concession to Republicans, which will allow the moderates to gain some semblance of control over the party. Cruz and Hill are already battered from their part in the shutdown, and the only thing keeping more Republicans from responsibly dealing with budget issues is the need to "save face."

By delaying the mandate, Obama allows them that minor victory, weakens the party radicals, and allows time to fix what appear to be numerous bugs in the system.




 
149Perm Dude
      ID: 417342923
      Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 20:06
I would agree if, in fact, the GOP is committed to fixing the bugs in the system. There is no indication that they are willing to do so, however, and everything I've seen about the delay from the GOP is that they simply want more time to marshal their forces to overturn it.

I don't think, on Obamacare, that the GOP is dealing in good faith. Blitzer's analysis requires that, which has been Obama's mistake more than once.

As for the website, it should be pointed out that Romneycare had the exact same issues when they rolled out, and despite Obamacare having to handle many times the original numbers as a result of so many states opting out of their own, there is no indication that the bugs won't be sorted out. And none of the policies that would be covered by the exchanges are starting before January 1st anyway, so we do, in fact, have the time.
 
150sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 14:21
DISCLAIMER: satirical article/source "Obama Rejects Debt Ceiling Deal Requiring Him To “Just Let Ted Cruz Be President”"

“It’s really not that much to ask and a reasonable suggestion to get things within the government functioning again,” said Speaker Boehner in an interview to Free Wood Post. “I mean come on we’re gonna give the president everything he wants. All he needs to do is quit and just let Ted Cruz be president. I really see it as a win-win for everyone. I mean if we’re going to hold the nation hostage for getting rid of laws we can’t get rid of legally, why not raise the stakes and just get rid of the president illegally. It’s our time, really, and Teddy will make a great addition to the Oval Office.”
 
151biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 06:39


Government spending is out of control!!
 
152Boldwin
      ID: 5924240
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 01:14
POWER LOVES A VACUUM



"Power loves a vacuum" - Vladimir Putin
"Power loves a vacuum" - Muslim Brotherhood
"Power loves a vacuum" - WWIII

This is to give him more credit than he deserves considering... He filled his administration with Muslim Brotherhood operatives and the father he is most proud of went to a Russian university and advocated the party line.
 
153Boldwin
      ID: 5924240
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 01:27
Inappropriate smirks: Who smirks as if he had Putin's number?

Answer: Depends on who he is smirking at.
 
154Boldwin
      ID: 5924240
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 02:03
Dominoes: Trans-Dniester
 
155bibA
      ID: 19101289
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 09:37
Well, I must say that life under a Muslim administration is not any basic difference than life under preceding presidents. At least here in Cali.
 
156biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 09:58
Dubya sure had Putin's number, that's for sure.
 
157Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 12:04
He looked into his soul. Glad we had a president who could do that.
 
158Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 17:37
Much like Boldwin failed to understand the relationship between Georgia and the non-Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, he appears to either be unaware, or purposely excluding the relationship between Transnistria(Trans-Dniester) and Moldova, Romania, Russia and the Ukraine.
Transnistria never wanted to be part of Moldova, just as South Ossetia and Abkhazia never wanted to be part of Georgia. They wanted either autonomy or to remain in a union with Russia.

Because of the Russian military contingent present in Transnistria, the European Court of Human Rights considers Transnistria "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". link

So, how does the Domino theory apply to Transnistria, except in an effort to fan the flames for those thirsty to renew the Cold War?
 
159Boldwin
      ID: 332202419
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 20:20
Pointing out how naive liberals are so soft they invite WWIII is entirely the opposite of fanning the flames, or being thirsty for WWIII.

Is that really going to be your excuse when you bring it on our heads? "Yeah, well you were thirsty for it."?

Pathetic.
 
160Boldwin
      ID: 332202419
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 21:29
Sending a community organizer up against a KGB leader is not a fair fight.

Maybe O'B will send groupies to take over Putin's faculty lounge or picket his lawn.
 
161Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 23:15
That's a non-response. Not one coherent word about the conditions in the region. Not even an incoherent word about conditions in the region.
 
162Boldwin
      ID: 332202419
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 23:16
If not for the usual suspects, Putin would at least be facing a man and a realist.
Remember in the final presidential debate of 2012 when the smug incumbent reminded Mitt Romney the Cold War was over?

“A few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. Not al Qaeda. You said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” - IBD
People who think it would be a good idea to knock America down a peg.

Obama and Putin.
 
163Boldwin
      ID: 332202419
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 23:17
Pray Putin stops at just one peg.
 
164Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 23:40
Let me know when Putin's missles are being delivered to Havana, because trying to make Transnistria a case for the domino theory is like predicting a jellyfish attack on Omaha.
 
165sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Tue, Mar 25, 2014, 02:42
Pointing out how naive liberals are so soft ...

Pointing out how an ultra-rightwing chickenhawk, really doesnt have much basis for comments on these lines. Pretty easy to beat the drums of war, when you wont have to face the results of your choices.
 
166Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Tue, Mar 25, 2014, 08:58
well, this has been productive.
 
167Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, Mar 25, 2014, 09:53
They used to call Patton 'Ol Blood and Guts...the troops would always remark "yeah, our blood, his guts"
 
168Boldwin
      ID: 572142516
      Tue, Mar 25, 2014, 19:20
In case you had any doubt whose side Obama was on...just ahead of the World War Obama is creating, his administration is seeking to kill the three most cost effective and successful, truly indispensable weapon systems in America's arsenal.

Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

A-10 Warthog Budget Cuts: Scrapping Tank Killing Aircraft a ‘Serious Mistake’

Remember that when WWIII breaks out. Look in the mirror when it does.

 
169Boldwin
      ID: 572142516
      Tue, Mar 25, 2014, 19:21
I am not beating any war drums. You guys made it inevitable.
 
170Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 01:13
i play kickball with two Marines and a guy who works for Lockheed. all three of them laughed at the hand-wringing over this stuff, as there is much better technology out there, and rapidly being put into use.

(note, the two marines are definitely not fans of Obama, and leap at opportunities to bash him. this, however, isn't one of them)
 
171sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 02:11
The A-10, is 40 years old. The P-51 Mustang, appeared in what 1944? Can you imagine arguing for its continued front line use in 1980? The A-10 Boldwin, was designed to combat a conventional armored opponent. We face neither today, and the likelihood of facing any large such force within the next 25 years, is minimal. At that point, the platform would be 60+ year old technology.

You really need to not try and argue military. You dot know anything at all about it.
 
172Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 08:31
Given how much Obama has expanded the military, it is a joke of how some on the Right want to take him to task for replacing older systems. This reminds me of the Clinton Administration a bit (who at least had the balls to shrink the military when we didn't need a bloated one): Clinton made the mistake of taking the suggestions of the Pentagon as to what systems they wanted.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Free Beacon killed the first story linked in #168.

Anyone want to guess as to whether we get some kind of apology? The Right never apologizes for an anti-Obama story, of course. They just stop talking about it and move on the the next talking point.
 
173Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 09:14
Apology? From someone who tries to make "us guys" feel guilty for making World War III an inevitability?

In order to even mention World War III, a coherent synopsis is required outlining the conditions that must exist in order for the world's superpowers to engage in armed conflict with each other. Instead we get:

"Power loves a vacuum" - Vladimir Putin
"Power loves a vacuum" - Muslim Brotherhood
"Power loves a vacuum" - WWIII


Anyone convinced? Of course not, which makes this statement:

just ahead of the World War Obama is creating

so illuminating. Obama is creating World War III. The entire series of posts is clownish and beneath what used to be the high standards expected in this forum.


 
174Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 10:42
<168> Tree and sarge addressed the issue with A-10's age, so I wont go on about that, we dont fly F-4s anymore either. The article gives you info about missile acquisition and usage, but does not give stockpile figures. Without those numbers you cannot discern whether or not stopping production is an issue. The article is no longer available, wonder why.

Technology is moving quickly and electronics makes things become obsolete in no time, I am guessing there is a classified program that replaces these missile systems in the works, and therefore makes increasing stockpiles a bit foolish.

I will echo sarge's concern that your fear-mongering here is unfounded nonsense....do you work for Fox?

You should really not engage in discussions about things you know nothing of. Regurgitating what you read, then adding an alarmist spice to it doesn't make it any more palateable.

Bean, Major, USAF, Retired
Electrical Engineer
 
175GO
      ID: 292502110
      Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 12:54
Boldwin, please tell these military guys you know more about this than they do.
 
176biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 09:07
You haven't been paying attention. All we can expect is silence or a change of subject after a thorough smackdown from those firmly based in reality. SOP.
 
177sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 00:32
but 175 was still hilarious.
 
178Boldwin
      ID: 542222717
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 04:44
One leg of the three sided World War coming is a hoard of suicidal muslims, for which lots of A-10's will be far superior to 1 trillion dollar F-35, no matter how much your friends at Lockheed would like to sell us one, and no matter how justifiably proud they are of state-of-the-art technology.
 
179Boldwin
      ID: 542222717
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 04:48
I don't have time to calculate how many A-10's you can buy for the price of one F-35 but it makes for illuminating this discussion.

At the rate China and Russia are catching up, I don't begrudge the F-35's either.
 
180Tree
      ID: 521101115
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 20:57
This is so fascinating.
 
181sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 22:02
Pretty sure you could buy/build a literal boatload of Ju-87s for less than 1 A-10. Why not do that? Hell, lets just give the Civil Air Patrol guys ea a .22 LR and turn them loose with their Piper Cubs.

Seriously B.......SERIOUSLY????????
 
182Boldwin
      ID: 17272821
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 22:07
Bean #174

You have no doubt heard the advice 'Don't plan on fighting the last war'?

Imagine fighting a third of the world who are using the tactics of say, Iran in the Iran vs Iraq war. I think it's even more likely they will be already in place doing guerrilla activities.

Please tell me how your F-35 prevents three clean-cut muslim boys living next door from driving down to the electrical sub-station and cutting off the power to Chicago?

We might even try thinking of functional borders as useful, instead of one more F-35.

I know, I know...winning one more election cycle is more important than the survival of the country. Heck, you didn't even like America anyway. It was always America's fault.

The longer this inevitable WW delays, the worse the threat from Russia/China becomes as they are in a hole yet they are gaining at breakneck speed. It won't be long before China not only equals and begins surpassing us in high-tech weapon stockpiles, but remember they retain a monumental population advantage and the willingness to throw them at us in ridiculous waves.

So we face the difficult situation of not being able to choose between defending low-tech or high tech enemies. Will we need it? Yes in all cases.

 
183sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 22:09
You know, post 175 was hilarious, until posts 178,179 and 182 changed it from comedy to an accurate prediction.
 
184Boldwin
      ID: 17272821
      Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 22:12
Sarge#181

Try and think back to Viet Nam where all kinds of supposedly outdated airframes found extremely useful new lives. Fighting guerrilla wars and low tech enemies creates all kinds of opportunities for that sort of thing.

I really can't imagine a veteran of Desert Storm dissing the value of A-10's. Unless they were being dishonest to win a debate here.
 
186Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Mar 29, 2014, 00:37
Imagine fighting a third of the world who are using the tactics of say, Iran in the Iran vs Iraq war. I think it's even more likely they will be already in place doing guerrilla activities.

Imagine the tactics Americans would use if a third of the world suddenly started showing up on the shores of Jersey with scimitars and the occasional AK 47.
I suppose when you've convinced yourself that every Muslim on the planet is a deranged murderer committed to establishing Sharia law worldwide by force of arms, you can convince yourself of any scenario, regardless how preposterous. When you're thinking they're already in place doing guerilla activities, what percentage of the world's Muslims qualifies as "they?" Apparently it's 100%.

Is it possible that when over a billion Muslims abandon their homes, farms, businesses, universities and mosques and begin to march(drive; ride horseback, camel or goat; swim) toward Washington, D.C., Moscow, Beijing, Mexico City, Berlin, Buenos Aires and Sydney that it might draw some attention from the world's powers?

There's no unification in the Muslim world that could even begin to organize, arm and effectively lead a conquering force.

As for China, when did they show the willingness to throw their population at us in ridiculous waves? Korea, when we were at their doorstep? Or maybe you meant willing to throw their population into factories in ridiculous waves making products for Walmart.


 
187 Boldwin
      ID: 162273015
      Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 16:35
PV

1) Remember all those Iranians who refused to fight the Iraqis in their war? That percentage will manage to refuse their new orders. Zero.

Is it possible...

Well duh. Who suggested they wouldn't notice a world war breaking out?

There's no unification in the Muslim world that could even begin to organize

YOUR government, with the guidance of useful idiots like that whore, John McCain and his master George Soros are even now aiding the muslim brotherhood to unite the muslim world in the very unifying caliphate their koran predicts.

Just ask the legitimate government of Syria.
 
188Boldwin
      ID: 162273015
      Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 16:46
As for China, when did they show the willingness to throw their population at us in ridiculous waves?

The power elite all over the world are malthusians. That's one of the reasons there are world wars. You can find them admitting 'the need' to reduce the world's population anywhere from 50% to 80%.
 
189Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 19:02
The Georgia Guidestones are an interesting Malthusian initiative. Here are the rules the financer thought worthy of engraving in granite:

1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2.Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3.Unite humanity with a living new language.
4.Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5.Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6.Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7.Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8.Balance personal rights with social duties.
9.Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
 
190Boldwin
      ID: 542463020
      Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 21:46
Let's not forget the founder of WWF I think it was who plans on coming back as a virulent virus and wiping most of us off the face of the earth.

Friendly bunch, those elites.
 
191Boldwin
      ID: 542463020
      Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 00:24
Food for thot.
 
192Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 01:44
I think that most people in Colorado Springs, are more concerned with pot legality than a HEMP burst. Fortunately, a few are conscious of the need for protecting our critical systems from this very real threat in a nuclear environment.

Amongst the many titles I've had in my career were Chief, Survivability Section US Air Force Space Command (i.e. Cheyenne Mountain and associated sites) and Chief of Communications for the 20th Air Force, which amongst other things, made me the Y2K lead for the nation's ICBM force.

I've spent many sleepless nights worried about these things, and no I was not in Times Square when the millenium was ushered in.

Wasn't aware that Gingrich was interested in this specifically. Could be a very expensive endeavor to protect the entire power grid and all the electronics in the country. Would be a great government contract to have for someone's favorite company or constituent should we decide to do so as a nation.

Loss of your power and internet connection will be the least of your worries in the event of such a scenario in any case. Anyone own a generator?
 
193Boldwin
      ID: 13333121
      Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 22:33
I have seen so many critical facilities, so poorly hardened it just makes me cold inside thinking how vulnerable we are.
 
194Boldwin
      ID: 53342110
      Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 15:54
An Israeli doctor says: "In Israel, medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man's testicles, put them onanother man and in 6 weeks, he is looking for work". The German doctor says: "that's nothing, in Germany we take part of a brain, put it in another man, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work".

The Russian doctor says: "gentlemen, we take half a heart from a man, put it in another's chest and in 2 weeks he is looking for work".

The United States doctor laughs: "You all are behind us. Five years ago, we took a man with no brains, no heart and no balls and made him President. Now, the whole country is looking for work!"
 
195Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 16:12
well, if nothing else, at least you're capable of recycling old GW Bush jokes. :: golf clap ::
 
196Boldwin
      ID: 29358203
      Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 05:42
Carville and Greenberg are warning Dem candidates to steer clear of the word ''recovery' because Dems get trounced by public opinion which is well aware that Obama's recovery hasn't reached anyone outside the 'one percent' Wallstreet who are actually benefiting from Fed manipulations.

Obama's war on the middle class continues. Even middle class women.
 
197Boldwin
      ID: 29358203
      Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 05:42
Heck, his war on the working poor continues. Even working poor women.
 
198Boldwin
      ID: 4041015
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 06:59
Birds of a feather.
 
199Seattle Zen
      ID: 205591110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2014, 18:35
These are some fun, time-killing interactive charts.

Nail salons and pet boarding-grooming... who knew?

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts
 
200Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 09:07
John Boehner’s lawsuit is nothing more than political theater and a further Republican waste of taxpayer dollars.
 
201Boldwin
      ID: 26648912
      Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 13:56
If he won't initiate impeachment proceedings, it's his last hope of getting a lawless president to obey the law.
 
202sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 15:33
You statement of a lawless President", proves only that you do not know the law.
 
203Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 18:50
Actually suing Obama is about the only thing left to do, and would actually shut up people who constantly complain about Obama's "lawlessness" (which, in most cases, they can't actually point to).

The proper course of action if the Executive is breaking the law is for the legislative branch to convince the judicial branch that this is going on. Until now, the GOP has enjoyed the freedom to call Obama "lawless" without having the balls to take it to court and prove their case. Until they do, I'll continue to call them, essentially, dickless.
 
204Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 20:19
Here's the latest comedy to hit the streets.

National embarrassment Sarah Palin demands impeachment proceedings against Obama. Boehner's detailed response?

"I disagree"
 
205Boldwin
      ID: 6653916
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 02:00
Where to even start when faced with such a lawless rampage?

He is legally obligated to enforce the borders and immigration laws. Instead he designs and implements an immigration crisis that he as a seasoned radical activist knows how to exploit.

Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Instead he refuses to enforce laws he disagrees with and encourages state AG's to do the same.

Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Instead he writes over the clear intent of congress with contrary regulations which carry the weight of law.

He has rewritten the ACA so many times you can't shake a stick at them all, including handing out exemptions to the law for his friends.

He violated the bankruptcy laws stealing from GM bond holders and illegally paid off union allies with other people's money.

He politically targeted car dealerships for closure.

He ignored two federal rulings that his oil drilling moratoriums were unlawful.

He instructed the Justice department to drop entire classes of prosecutions in cases where the perps had the right skin color.

Deliberate disenfranchisement of the military.

Illegal 'recess appointments' while congress was in session.

Tore up the Freedom of Information Act.

Got people killed in Mexico to facilitate gun confiscation here.

Too many illegal takings of private property to name.
 
206bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 12:00
What about falsely imprisoning thousands upon thousands for his labor camps?
 
207Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 13:10
Completely outweighed by "Got people killed in Mexico to facilitate gun confiscation here," bibA.

The fact that neither has occurred doesn't matter! Only that they are pissed at Obama, and so this is, definitionally, Obama's fault! And there is nothing else to do but impeach!

[Since they were unable to make the argument at the voting booth].
 
208biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 15:45
Wait. I thought his 100s of thousands of jackboot (greyshirt? Chatruese shirt? I can't remember) thugs were currently going door to door strangling elderly as they turned 80.

That's what the lawsuit's about, I hope.

If it's about car dealerships and drilling moratoriums, I'm not tuning in.
 
209Boldwin
      ID: 54641010
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 16:02
President Obama visited Denver this week, was offered marijuana, and laughed.
 
210biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 17:06
Did he laugh after saying yes?

The tebaggerati can't demonize him any more than they already have, right? Should have hit that bong.
 
211biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 17:08
"... and then Putin sends a full barrage of nukes straight toward Baldwin, Illinois!"
 
212Boldwin
      ID: 54641010
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 19:41
...as far as Obama knows. He'll read about it in the paper tomorrow.
 
213Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 18:11
Better or Worse?

An objective look at the numbers.

 
214Boldwin
      ID: 216341110
      Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 18:35
Ever notice when there's a Dem president and a Republican House of Representatives, the MSM gives the president the credit for frugally not wasting our money on all the spending plans the president suggested?
 
215Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 19:30
Ever notice this sentence from the article?

Reasonable minds can disagree how much of that economic improvement is due to Obama

Ever notice that partisan hacks and reasonable minds are an oxymoron?

 
216Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 07:07
PV, don't be so hard on yourself, you may be a partisan hack but you are not completely unreasonable, just mostly.
 
217Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 10:24
Looks like we'll have to add 'partisan hack' to the list of terms Gator doesn't understand. I suggest googling the term, or, for quicker results, look in a mirror.

As for discussing how much credit Obama deserves for the improved economy during his presidency(a fact partisan hacks on the far right won't even admit), it's my position that Obama has one large positive and one large negative. The positive is the stimulus package, which, at the very least, stopped the bleeding and gave the private sector some breathing room which allowed it to recover.
The negative is Obamacare, a bureaucratic nightmare that doesn't begin to address the problems with health care in this country, while costing a lot more than proponents care to admit.

The stock market and small business would have likely rebounded regardless of who was elected in 2008 and 2012, but does anyone believe the excessive wage gap would have improved under Republican administrations?

The Tea Party should get some credit for focusing national attention on the libertarian concept of limited government intrusion and responsible federal spending. It's too bad they were hijacked by the far right partisans who abandoned the initial concept in favor of embracing whatever nonsense Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin are promoting this week. Since they are entertainers and not serious analysts, it's beneficial for them to paint gloomy pictures of national destruction in order to keep their flock distracted from the fact that their net worth has dramatically inflated during Obama's presidency. It's almost as absurd as Hilary claiming poverty when she and Bill left the White House, but at least Hilary had the balls to put herself out in front of voters instead of just hiding behind a microphone.



 
218Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 14:08
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the socialist programs of FDR keeping the country in a recession for over a decade until WWII pulled us out, the socialist programs of Jimmy Carter close to putting the country in a depression, the socialist programs of Obama stagnating the economy for 6 year and the socialist programs of Mexico completely destroying that country's economy? How do you explain Reagan turning the country from near depression to a booming economy in 2 years?
 
219Mith
      ID: 21130811
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 14:18
Putting aside the question of just how much the president impacts GDP, the recession ended shortly after FDR took office.

Gator, whoever told you otherwise is lying to you. I suggest you look into new sources for your historical information.
 
220Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 14:22
Good to see you back!
 
221Mith
      ID: 21130811
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 14:32
Thanks. I'd have to know more about how you think Carter caused the recession before offering further opinion. It's highly likely that Obama's stimulus effort pulled us out of the recession. Many economists believe it would have taken a much larger package to stimulate a robust recovery. But I think most will agree that Obama got the largest stimulus deal that he could have.

And of course the recession FDR did not last 10 years, but actually ended shortly after he took office.
 
222Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 15:24
The Great Depression lasted till about 1941. There was slow growth in most of those years but it was still considered part of the Great Depression. Carter, FDR and Obama did not completely eradicate capitalism, so of course there is coming to be some growth after a major economic crash as long as capitalism exists, but their policies slowed the recoveries. The stimulus package would have been better with less pork, but I have no problem with it, the first year It is the large deficit spending that is continuing that concerns me. This is a bastardization of Keynesian economics. Keynes sent an open letter to FDR and here is part of it..
"Keynes’ argument for his proposed technique of recovery ran as follows:
1. “The object of recovery is to increase the national output and put more men to Work.”
2. “In the economic system of the modern world, output is primarily produced for sale; and the volume of output depends on the amount of purchasing power, compared with the prime cost of production, which is expected to come on the market.”
3. “Broadly speaking, therefore, an increase of output cannot occur unless by the operation of one or other of three factors. Individuals must be induced to spend more out of their existing incomes; or the business world must be induced, either by increased confidence in the prospects or by a lower rate of interest, to create additional current incomes in the hands of their employees, which is what happens when either the working or the fixed capital of the country is being increased; or public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money.

The core of this is individuals need to be induced to spend more of their existing income or we need increased confidence of businesses and few capitalist will have confidence in Obama.

I will ask again. Why did the economy boom under Reagan?
 
223sarge33rd
      ID: 386251216
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 17:28
Supply-side, is an utter failure. No one with any integrity at all, still relies on the trickle down theory.

The economy did well under Reagan, in large part due to the 11 tax increases heaped upon the middle class. The middle class until then, was robust and could shoulder the burden. Reagan began its death knell, and Bush II secured it. Thats no small part of why this recovery is so slow. The middle class isnt there, to shoulder the burden anymore.
 
224Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 11:40
<218> Everything that has ever happened to destroy this country's economy in the last 40 years can be attributed to corruption, collusion and greed. Plenty of fingers to go around for everyone.
 
225Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 13:37
Every president enters office with a different set of conditions. The simplistic accusation

the socialist programs of Jimmy Carter close to putting the country in a depression

without mentioning one program, much less the numerous policies required to be put in place that would result in a depression, displays an astounding lack of actual research which would support the claim.

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

It can probably be stated that Ben Bernanke's policies have had more effect on the economy since 2009than Obama's.
Further, the claim that Carter promoted socialist programs is simply not true. According to the book by
W Carl Biven's " Jimmy Carter's Economy"

Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. Inflation had been on the rise since the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems. The resulting anti-inflation policy that was forced on Carter included controlling public spending, limiting the expansion of the welfare state, and postponing popular tax cuts. Moreover, according to Biven, Carter argued that the ambitious policies of the Great Society were no longer possible in an age of limits and that the Democratic Party must by economic necessity become more centrist.

The main reason Ted Kennedy decided to run against Carter in 1980 was that Carter did not embrace the socialist policies that the left wing of the Democratic Party wanted promoted.

LBJ's socialist programs can be traced as contributing to national economic instability far beyond anything Carter proposed(much less passed Congress).


 
226Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 17:31
Carter's solution to the oil crisis and inflation was to tax gas more! I don't need to Google it because I remember at the time thinking this was the stupidest policy ever and started my journey as anti-liberal on economic matters.
So, the recession was intentional and the boom to the economy was due to Carter? Spin like that will make you dizzy.
I don't know what to say. How do you debate logic like this? How old are you PV? I am just wondering if you are a sleeper for the old Soviet Union. Propaganda like this takes training unless you are just a savant.
 
227Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 19:41
Carter's solution to the oil crisis and inflation was to tax gas more!

You really should google it, since your memory is apparently clouded.

Here's a good start.

You might want to skip down to the Reagan part.

The House passed the legislation by a vote of 180 to 87.51 The only fly in the ointment for Reagan and other backers of the gas tax increase was the filibuster in the Senate by three conservative stalwarts. With the Christmas holiday fast approaching, Republicans Jesse Helms, Don Nickles, and Gordon Humphrey frustrated the president and infuriated their colleagues by stalling the bill on the Senate floor. In vain, they argued that the tax increase hurt working people and would harm the economy already in the midst of a recession.52 The trio finally relented, and the Senate quickly passed the bill with a 54-33 vote. The president signed the bill on January 5, 1983, and the tax increase took effect on April 1, 1983.53

Passage of the bill marked a sharp turnaround in gas tax politics. Over a six-year period, Democrats -- first Ullman and then Carter -- tried to enact increases in the gas tax and were overwhelmed with bipartisan opposition. In less than two months, Reagan more than doubled the tax with broad bipartisan support
.

 
228sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 20:24
<---trying to figure out how, Reagans raising taxes caused Gator to hate "liberalism".
 
229Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 21:03
To be fair, Carter did propose a gas tax, but that was never enacted (never passed either house, if I recall correctly). And, of course, gas prices rose as a result of OPEC's restriction of the oil market (not Carter's fault--that can be blamed entirely on Nixon and Israel, but that's another thread).
 
230Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 22:21
So, the recession was intentional and the boom to the economy was due to Carter? Spin like that will make you dizzy

I can see why you'd be dizzy, since you've spun it every which way from Sunday. Where did you get that the boom to the economy was due to Carter? Can you point exactly in one of my posts where that was stated or inferred?


Why it's called the Volker recession,

The Fed began raising interest rates in 1977, and the American economy tipped into recession in 1980, at which point the central bank took its foot off the brakes. But inflation rates continued to rise, and so shortly after the economy recovered (briefly) in July of 1980, Mr Volcker orchestrated a series of interest rate increases that took the federal funds target from around 10% to near 20%.

What followed was an extraordinarily painful recession. Unemployment rose to near 11%. Manufacturing states were battered by the downturn; the near 17% unemployment rate in Michigan was worse than the state sustained in this latest recession. Mortgage lenders were devastated by high interest rates. The banking system was pushed to the point of insolvency. Things were quite bad. And while growth snapped back to trend rather quickly after the Fed took its foot off the brake for good, there was considerable suffering through the recession, and the effects of unemployment, on health and earnings of sacked workers, persisted for years.



 
231Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 22:49
PD, I know Carter only proposed it, but to even propose it during an oil shortage is crazy.

Sarge, timing is everything, to increase gas tax has merit but not during a recession.

PV, This quote was part of your thread.."Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years."
 
232Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 23:22
I suppose #231 is as close as it gets to an admission that he doesn't know what the F#*@% he's talking about.
 
233Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 23:25
What are you talking about? I ain't admitted nuttin'.
 
234Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Jul 14, 2014, 01:18
That's OK. I realize it wasn't intentional.
 
235Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Mon, Jul 14, 2014, 22:56
Comments look familiar...
 
236Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Mon, Jul 14, 2014, 23:18
Palin is a wacko but so is every economic plan by every liberal in America. I am using an absolute because if a person had a clue on the economy they would not be defined as a liberal.
 
237Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Mon, Jul 14, 2014, 23:30
Here is the beauty of liberal logic. Volcker wants to cause a recession to lower inflation, while Carter wants to increase gas prices which increases inflation.
 
238Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 02:14
After 236 you decide a lecture on "logic" is in order? Do you even read your own posts?
 
239Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 06:52
No
 
240Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 09:57
You've got a future as a FOX news reader. Never apologize nor read your own stuff.
 
241sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 23:32
from that leftwing rag FORBES, errr....Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing



Not that B was ever accurate with his post 204 in this thread....


but watching him dance to deny the reality now endorsed by FORBES, should be interesting.

This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history

Deitrick – “President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”




 
242biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Sep 08, 2014, 16:44
 
243biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Sep 08, 2014, 17:00
The previous graph seems to show a good, but not great picture of the recovery.

Until you look at public sector employment.

Every president and Congress until the current one knows only morons slash government spending and hiring during a downturn.

But the current Congress detests Obama with such a white-hot passion, they are willing to devastate the economy and ruin millions of lives in any effort to destroy him.

 
244Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 10:49
Something you won't hear about on FOX: The disappearing deficit.
 
245Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 15:16
Before anyone leaps to their feet and yells Halelujah, let me make sure we all understand things the same way.

The deficit is how much the federal government has spent in excess of how much tax revenue they project to have taken in, correct? Therefore ANY deficit is a sign of us spending beyond our means as a people.

The cumulative deficit or surplus over time is the National debt, correct? So as long as our debt is increasing, this is not a positive result.

So, is the fact that we have yet another year of deficit spending a good thing, just because we haven't spent beyond our means as bad as we did in the recent past?

Let's temper our enthusiasm, please.
 
246biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 16:12
Enthusiasm tempered.

Now let's raise taxes and solve the problem.
 
247Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 16:29
Works for me
 
248Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 22:22
#245: The fact that we have a deficit this year to service doesn't mean the overall debt is increasing. Remember that debt is serviced by the issuing of t-bills, this are paid upon maturity. So the fact that X dollars are added to the debt is only part of the equation--the other part is how much has been paid off on the other side. X dollars paid off means no increase in the debt, in other words.

I get your point, but a smaller deficit than anticipated is us going in the right direction. After the federal government basically had to take over the economy in 2008-2009 to keep the whole place from going off the rails, this is good news.

So let's raise the minimum wage and get this economy going again.
 
249Mith
      ID: 21130811
      Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 08:06
Also, as the economy grows dollar amounts of debt become far less significant. As Bill Clinton and Dick Chaney and others have noted during their respective times in the executive branch it is much easier to grow ourselves out of debt than to pay it off with surpluses. Notably, Clinton was the only president to preside over a budget surplus in the 20th century.

Shortly after WW2, our national debt as a percentage of GDP peaked at around 110%. It declined steeply from there over the next several decades, bottoming out in the early 1970s at around 27%. During the time in between, the US ran a budget deficit every year.
 
250Mith
      ID: 21130811
      Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 08:17
That said, yes, let's raise some taxes on high incomes and capital gains.
 
251biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 12:06
And gasoline. And oil. And coal.

 
252Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 15:31
If you are looking to tax, sure there is room for taxing the rich more, but that's not as good a fix as taxing imports. NAFTA didn't help our economy as we incurred nearly $100B of trade imbalance from it. Erase our trade deficits and you'll encourage investment inside our borders.

Search for other ways to tax US dollars held abroad and you'll see a significant re-investment in America. Drive out alien labor and you'll see improvements in US employment figures too.

Let's quit fooling ourselves about this BS, we dont need the world for our economy, they need us. It's stupid for us to continue this one way support of a world economy, especially for nations who refuse to impose population control and prefer to just send us their surplus (eg. Mexico).

Meanwhile all of us are forced to work for tips and hold out our hands for government aid, while all of Europe, Austrailia and Japan are taking long vacations every summer and have jobs with dignity. We are not a third world country, we need to quit accepting a third world existence. It's just plain STUPID.
 
253Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Sep 26, 2014, 15:26
(will have to adjust this later) Wanted to put up my take on the latest tempest in a teapot. So to speak:

 
254GO
      ID: 344132921
      Sat, Sep 27, 2014, 11:45
 
255GO
      ID: 344132921
      Sat, Sep 27, 2014, 11:48
Latte starts at 3 minutes...
 
256Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 12:26
Unemployment down to 5.9%. Just sayin'.
 
257Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 12:58
Back in the 60s and 70s we looked for 4% or less, and that was before Saint Ronnie adjusted the calculation to add military as employed vs no count to make himself look better. This was also before people who just stopped looking were no longer considered unemployed. The roles of welfare and workman's comp have also swelled since the late 60s. Why have we set the bar so low?

No sense getting a warm fuzzy over this $hit, cause its just $hit. Stop foreign imports and illegal alien labor now! Reduce the issuance of green cards too.
 
258Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 18:23
It is better than at any time during this Administration. It is headed in the right direction.

Now, if we can get a minimum wage hike passed, we can start to see this economy take off instead of puttering along.
 
259Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 11:59
Obama proclaims San Gabriel Mountains a National Monument

I grew up in the foothills of these mountains, and it's refreshing to see Obama display some leadership since Congress is apparently incapable of doing much of anything. Of course, there is a contingency of critics who oppose the designation. You can sum up the validity of their opposition with this money quote:

“The environmentalists won’t stop until the mountains are off limits to humans.”
 
260Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 18:23
Nature doesn't just schedule record cold snaps and blizzards for Global Warming conferences...

Blizzard warnings as Obama visits Hawaii.

Which I suppose he will interpret as more proof of GW.
 
261Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 19:38
Yeah, blizzards at the peaks of Mauna Kea(13,803 ft) and Mauna Loa(13,679 ft) on the Big Island, hundreds of miles from where Obama is on Oahu. Both peaks are taller than the highest point in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah and New Mexico, and Mauna Kea taller than any peak in Wyoming.

Snow is common on these peaks, especially Mauna Kea, where friends of mine run Ski Hawaii USA.



 
262Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 20:00
Stupid science "facts." Conservatives hate them because they make their positions look silly.
 
263Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 20:29
Ask them how many blizzard warnings they get.
 
264Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Dec 25, 2014, 11:30
I don't have to ask them. I lived in Kamuela for a while at the base of Mauna Kea, which means "white mountain" in Hawaiian because it is often snow-capped.
It's often snow-capped because it is susceptible to blizzards.
You're welcome.
 
265Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Thu, Dec 25, 2014, 13:04
Mahalo
 
266Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 08:34
these last few posts made my morning.

when science speaks, conservatives put their head in the sand. because science is scaaaaaaaaary....
 
267Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 10:45
Science is merely another political talking point for the Far Right these days.

It isn't that they are anti-science. They just don't care about science which doesn't advance their political aims.
 
268weykool
      ID: 21012423
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 10:52
266 and 267 extremely ignorant statements.
Its not science conservative fear its junk science that is the fear.
If you want to believe the world is flat nobody cares.
But when you want to use taxpayer money to nut up a guardrail so we dont fall off now we have a problem.
 
269Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 11:08
"Junk science" is merely the science that doesn't fit the conservative narrative.

And in order to determine "junk science" one needs to at least have an understanding of how science works.
 
270Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 11:34
But #260 wasn't posted in a science or global warming thread. It's posted in a an Obama presidency thread, as if a not so uncommon weather occurrence is somehow an indictment of Obama's presidency.

If Obama was visiting San Francisco and there was a blizzard warning in Lake Tahoe, hey, they're both in California! Ignore the fact that San Francisco is 50 miles closer to Lake Tahoe than Honolulu is to Hilo.
Now, if there was a blizzard warning in Honolulu, whether Obama was visiting at the time or not, that would be real news. But, here's the final sentence of the Gateway Pundit excuse for an article:

Of course, Barack Obama was out golfing again today. He was joined by staffers and the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The president is vacationing in Hawaii for seventeen days.

This from Gateway Pundit, which bills itself as

Where Hope Finally Made a Comeback

Apparently they're hoping their readership is as void of a coherent thought process as their pundits. Of course.

 
271weykool
      ID: 21012423
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 12:14
Speaking of junk science does PD have anything to back up his ignorant statement?
Maybe a scientific poll or something along those lines or is it based on anecdotal evidence with a misapplied conclusion?
Can he even name one conservative who has stated, "Geez, I really fear science".
I dont fear science I fear those who use junk science to further their own liberal agenda.
 
272Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 12:54
I fear those who use junk science to further their own liberal agenda

But you don't fear those, like Gateway Pundit and Boldwin, who intentionally distort science to further their own(what passes as conservative these days, even though it has nothing to do with conservatism)agenda?

Beyond that, what are your qualifications to dictate what's real science and junk science?
 
273Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 13:05
I am pretty sure that power only rests with the pre-Renaissance Catholic Church. Otherwise, its a market commodity, with some government regulation.
 
274Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 13:28
"PD is ignorant for calling my calling science I don't like 'junk science' without proof!"

You would think that Far Right Conservatives would have gotten better at dodging the point, what with all the times they do it.

Ironically, weykool proves my point: "Junk science" is merely the science that doesn't fit the conservative narrative."
 
275sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Dec 31, 2014, 18:05
268 is so unintentionally funny, as to warrant consideration for comic routine of the year.

The GOP in Congress, while quick to say "I am not a scientist", was equally quick to prohibit scientists from having input, on scientific issues. The party intending to make legislation regarding science, and base that legislation on those whose economic policies agree with their own, ARE the purveyors of "junk science".

Then you close the post, with the meaningless catch phrase "liberal agenda". I dare you, to name one time in American history, where history has shown the conservative POV to have been correct, vs the progressive POV of the time. (I will give you a hint; there isnt one.) The conservative philosophy has been wrong for 240 years in this country alone.

Tell me WK, what do you call one who tenaciously hangs onto a philosophy which has over 2 centuries of historic data to disprove it?
 
276Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 31, 2014, 21:26
A Marxist.
 
277sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Dec 31, 2014, 22:09
You dont know what a marxist is Boldwin.
 
278Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 31, 2014, 22:39
Someone who believes in the mantra: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Someone who believes in 'the collective', not in 'the individual' and his rights.

Someone who thinks central planning produces satisfactory results and markets don't.

Someone who thinks he knows what you need better than you do, and that you should be coerced if you disagree.
 
279sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Dec 31, 2014, 22:54
So, Lincoln was a Marxist? He did after all, preserve the power of the FEDERAL Govt.

The last of your definitions, fits the American right wing Christian conservatives to a "t".

Nr 1, doesnt fit any American mainstream politician that I am aware of.

Nr 2, actually most of us believe in a balance between those two and hold neither in absolute priority.

Like I said, you dont know what a marxist is.
 
280Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 11:46
1 Someone who believes in the mantra: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Nr 1, doesnt fit any American mainstream politician that I am aware of.

You and your pols want my taxes to pay for your social experiments and your preferred special interests. This exactly defines you and your preferred pols and marxism. Marxist's all...maybe not consciously gulag building despots, but Marxists of whatever patience level.

Someone who believes in 'the collective', not in 'the individual' and his rights.

Nr 2, actually most of us believe in a balance between those two and hold neither in absolute priority.

Until your special interest asks you to ignore my rights. At which time we learn that my rights only exist at your convenience and at the mercy of your tender [/sarc] mercies.

4 Someone who thinks he knows what you need better than you do, and that you should be coerced if you disagree.

So, Lincoln was a Marxist? He did after all, preserve the power of the FEDERAL Govt.

Non-responsive. Irrelevant. Stalin's constitution was VERY similarly worded to ours, but his conception and their interpretation of federal powers resembles your big government, overweening power and not our founder's 'enumerated powers' limits, which Lincoln did not violate by my lights.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...pretty basic stuff Lincoln was insisting on. Basic, limited police powers.

The last of your definitions, fits the American right wing Christian conservatives to a "t".

What am I suggesting you be coerced to do?

Stop killing babies? Police protect life.

What else? In what terrible way am I twisting your arm?

 
281sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 11:54
Just face it B, you are wrong...again or still is hard to say. But you are wrong, all the same.

On another note, since this is the Obama thread:



$$ finishes best year in more than a decade

The WSJ Dollar index, which compares the greenback against a basket of widely traded currencies, rose more than 12% in 2014, reaching 83.04 Wednesday, the highest since September 2003.


Do I even need to mention the stratospheric Dow Jones? The unemployment under 6%, or the sub $2/gal gas that some are enjoying? (Oh I know Obama had next to nothing to do with the gas prices, but that didnt slow down you RWNJs from blaming him when they were high. SO where are you now, failing to sing his praises with them so low?)
 
282Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 11:50
Just face it B, you are wrong

As usual, when liberals say the debate is over that is code for, 'they've been defeated and now all they've got left is bullying'.

Note Sarge didn't even try countering the fundamental point...he shares the central doctrine of Marxism, namely, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Ipso facto, he and those who share this view are Marxists. Plain and simple. Undeniably. He doesn't even attempt to deny that he and Marxism share a central tenet.

----
Let's address the dollar.

Yes, it is doing better than the yen. Japan has been in a depression lasting decades.

Yes it is doing better than the ruble atm. Russia is fighting a run on it's banks and it's primary export is falling like a rock.

I'm not going to comment on the yuan until i research china's currency/trade strategy but i will point out their shadow banking system is near collapse.

The euro is bailing out greece, ireland, portugal, italy, etc, etc, etc.

Don't be amazed if the dollar now and again heads this pack of cripples.

-------

The only people making money are the elite financial manipulators. Adjusting chairs on the Titanic. Mergers. Slashing costs. People who restructure things. Job exporters. Company Headquarter movers in tax flight.

If normal safe investments weren't paying ridiculous interest rates in the 1's and 2's you wouldn't see this riskier investment into stocks. Business is decidedly NOT investing and roaring ahead and will not do so until RTO becomes more predictable, ie government regulation and policy becomes safe and predictable.

----

The true unemployment rate is at least 18% and the only jobs out there are part-time and poor quality.

-----

Obama's stated policy was to blow up the hydrocarbon energy prices to benefit his own premature vision of a green energy future. It was never to see gas at $2 a gallon.

Figures in his own administration have bemoaned low gas prices and stated the wish that we had European gas prices.

Obama is not pro-drilling anywhere. Liberals are not pro-fracking. He had nothing positive to contribute to low gas prices.
 
283Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 18:34
You forgot your exclamation points:

Unskewed numbers say Romney won! And we're paying for bread with wheelbarrows of currency! Immigrants took all the new jobs for 15 the last 15 years! The drilling approvals Obama gave didn't happen! And even if they did it didn't matter, but they didn't happen!

Hey, you want to stop the elite money manipulators from getting all the cash, and knock down the unemployment numbers? Get behind a rise in the minimum wage. Stop sucking at the teat of news crafted for you by those elite money manipulators.
 
284Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 19:11
Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment, cutting off the lowest rung.

Obama was reticent to say the least wrt drilling permits.

Over 95% of offshore drilling occurs in the 55% of the Gulf of Mexico which Obama placed a moratorium on.

After 2010 Obama cut offshore Gulf production by one third.

Under Obama the rate of onshore leasing was cut in half. The total number of acres under lease fell by over 18 percent.
The Obama Administration issued almost 40 percent fewer permits and took twice the time to do it. Since fiscal year 2008, the amount of time that industry needs to take to “resolve any deficiencies” in an application has tripled.
Obama's offshore moratorium lost when it was challenged in court and Obama was later held in contempt of court for not relenting in his stubborn illegal anti-drilling administration even after he had lost in court.

It's a mystery how anyone can believe that the guy who appointed Van Jones and Steven Chu who called for 9-10 dollar a gallon gas, has the slightest desire to increase USA oil production. Every penny in consumer savings on hydrocarbons takes wind out of the sails of Obama's Quixotic green boondoggles like Solyndra.
 
285Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 19:42
In the wake of the disastrous performance by British Petroleum. Who in their right mind and not guided by greed would increase oil production in the Gulf of Mexico? Give us all a break and argue something that actually resembles credible intelligent thought.

Destroy the ecology of an entire region and you are not given a pass.
 
286Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Sat, Jan 03, 2015, 11:14
The ecology is doing just fine. It has been absorbing hydrocarbon releases for billions of years.
 
287Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Sat, Jan 03, 2015, 11:40
From the Book 'The Death of Money' written by the guy the CIA hired to teach them about risks to the system:
Despite cheerleading in late 2013 about the creation of 200,000 new jobs per month and a declining unemployment rate, the reality behind the headline data is grim. As analyst Dan Albert points out, almost 60 percent of jobs created in the first half of 2013 were in the lowest-wage sectors of the U.S. economy. These sectors normally account for one third of total jobs, meaning that new job creation was disproportionately low wage by a factor of two to one...all work has dignity but not all work has pay that can ignite a self-sustaining economic recovery.

About 50 percent of jobs created in the first half of 2013 were part time, defined as jobs with 35 hours of work per week or less. Some...as little as one hour per week. If the unemployment rate were calculated by counting those working part-time who want full-time work, and those who want a job but have given up looking, the unemployment rate in mid-2013 would be 14.3 percent instead of the officially reported 7.1 percent. The 14.3 percent figure is comparable to levels reached during the Great Depression...

Albert also shows that even the supposed "good news" of a declining unemployment rate reflects those workers dropping out of the workforce entirely rather than new job creation in an expanding labor pool. The percentage of Americans counted in the labor force has dropped from a high of 66.1 percent before the new depression to 63.5 percent by mid-2013.
 
288Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Sat, Jan 03, 2015, 13:50
<286> Tell that to Bubba Gump my friend. Life is like a box of chocolates, great until you get the one with the sludge in it.
 
289Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Sat, Jan 03, 2015, 14:03
<287> Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

Restrictive tarriffs is the answer. Of course free marketeers (not to be confused with three musketeers...all for one, one for all) would tell you that although this answer seems intuitively obvious, the economy of a nation defies that logic, and that the appropriate answer is actually counter intuitive. Umm there's a reason their logic is counter intuitive.

The failure of the government to apply import taxes in the 60s and 70s is what led to the elimination of the power of unionized labor, the demise of the middle class and ultimately the creation of our current welfare state. The democratic party is no longer the spokesperson of the working man. Its current platform is that of protector of the weak, dumb and lazy.

There is no longer a party for the working man. There is just a party for the poor freeloaders and a party for the rich free loaders.
 
290Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Sat, Jan 03, 2015, 20:33
Of course restrictive tariffs are all but impossible in a NAFTA and WTO world. Globalism. I knew it was highway to hell when they let China into the WTO. How anyone in any party in this country thot that was a good idea is beyond me.
 
294biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 17:15
Obama on pace for best private sector job growth ever.

In the history of these great United States of America.

If the Republicans hadn't done everything possible to crush the public sector into a tiny whimpering pulp, we'd be at 4% unemployment.

Wait, who hates America?
 
295Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 11:15
I blame Obama for ruining the Republican's consistent meme that he has been horrible for our country. Didn't he come into office saying that he would pull people together? He did not.

He's shown respect for everyone from terrorists to illegals but nowhere has he shown an ounce of sympathy for his domestic political enemies.
 
296Action Figure
      ID: 3610522610
      Wed, Mar 11, 2015, 19:58
I thought this Cartoon was amusing.

 
297Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Mar 11, 2015, 22:44
Ha!
 
298Boldwin
      ID: 22230229
      Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 11:32
Accident or 'smart diplomacy'?

The last US special forces have been withdrawn from Yemen without exciting much notice from the US press. Max Boot tweets: “All US SOF evacuating Yemen. Huge win for AQAP, huge defeat for US. How many foreign policy disasters can we handle?” Reuters reports, “the United States has evacuated its remaining personnel, including about 100 special operations forces, from Yemen because of the deteriorating security situation there, U.S. officials said on Saturday.” This means that the last vestiges of what the Obama administration only recently touted as their model counter-insurgency operation are gone. The collapse has flown largely under the media radar.

Last week Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post reported that $500 million dollars in American supplied weapons are now in the hands of “Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda”. The Islamist blitzkrieg is living off huge quantities of captured US materiel.
 
299Bean
      ID: 14147911
      Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 11:38
WWBD?
 
300Boldwin
      ID: 162252420
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 05:46
This explains Obama's diffidant composure in the face of WWIII.

In his mind all he is doing is handing the shia their natural boundaries in a single state. A condition that was denied them when western powers created the unnatural boundaries after WWI.

With one important balancing factor. Since the shia are only one tenth the size of the sunni, he is handing them the bomb advantage.

~~~

I think we can learn something about Obama from this. Despite his early sunni madrassa training wherein it was said he was a serious student, he truly is not a heartfelt muslim if he does not care which faction comes out superior, or if he does it would be rather odd that a sunni would be handing the nuclear advantage to the shia.

[While it's not preposterous on it's face to let the sunni and the shia draw their own natural boundaries, it does also accelerate the two competing attempts to unite the world under one caliphate. We are in effect helping them concentrate efforts. Eliminating some of the steps. *scene from Highlander, 'There can only be one'.]

I think Dinesh D'Souza has hit the nail on the head about Obama, that his apparent obsession with empowering Islam springs entirely from an anti-colonialism obsession to bring America down to an equal level of power with any other power in the world.

Of course this is the worst possible policy you could have in the era when Islamic activists are intent on taking over the world and see it as a religious imperative to do so at this precise time. People will look back and shudder at the absurdity of deliberately handing over our advantages right before WWIII. The cost in lives of this blunder are going to be staggering.
 
301biliruben
      ID: 5222418
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:28
Batshit crazy. If you start with those suppositions, I suppose you can expect your final analysis to be something that might get you locked in the loony bin
 
302Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 13:53
Yes yes, everyone on the right is bat***** and the more they irritate you, the more crazy they must be.

Of course American Thinker is one of the more cerebral online outlets on the net and Dinesh D'Souza is on a par with W.F. Buckley and You will be too mindblown to apologize to me when WWIII rears up on it's hind legs just like I told you.

You and Neville Chamberlain can just go fade off shaking your heads wondering how the world could be so crazy. And here you thot it made sense.
 
303biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 14:28
Dude. Speculating on on what sort of Muslim Obama is, and using that as a basic for diplomatic motivations?

I reiterate. Batshit crazy.
 
304Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 16:01
I didn't say he was muslim. I'm pointing out his his background flavored his peculiar anti-American POV. It colors, even poisons the way he looks at things. Anti-colonialism is exactly how he himself described his own motor in his Dreams of My Father. He's finishing his father's unfinished business.
 
305biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 16:12
So, you are pro-coloniaism? Almost any rational person a meet is "anto-colonialist".
 
306Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 16:18
Frankly he's done so much to promote the caliphate, and benefited the muslim faction over the Israeli and chosen muslim interests over the West, and over American interests that you really have to struggle to find out what the real motivation is.

It's not purely marxism tho there's tons of that. Even Jeremiah Wright doesn't have his exact bent. Stick Saul Alinski, Wright and Farrakhan in a blender and you might just recreate the flavor.
 
307biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 16:22
I'm sure he'd appreciate the free psychoanalysis.

But let's get you back on the couch.

You think subjugating entire other societies to the will of the us is good foreign policy?
 
308Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 18:10
I think laying down and letting ISIS run over us is bad foreign policy.

I think handing Libya over to ISIS was bad foreign policy.

I think tempting ISIS to repeat their act when the US pulls out of Afghanistan by repeatedly suggesting pullout dates is bad foreign policy.

I think pulling out of Iraq was bad foreign policy.

I think starting a war against Syria was bad foreign policy.

I think withholding support from Nigeria was bad foreign policy.

I think supporting the MB and hating on Mubarak and Morsi was bad foreign policy.

I think leaving half a billion dollars of military hardware for ISIS in Yemen was bad foreign policy.

I think you are beyond nuts, suicidally nuts voting for Obama twice.



 
309biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 18:42
So basically, you oppose anything that Obama ever did, or more specifically, anything your the little voices in your head imagine he has done. And I'm certain you would feel EXACTLY the same if the policy was enacted by lord Reagan.

Got it.

 
310Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 19:15
I think lying about the president is anti-American.
 
311biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 19:19
It's not him. It's the voices.
 
312Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 20:43
Yes yes, everyone on the right is bat***** and the more they irritate you, the more crazy they must be.

not everyone on the right. but people sharing the views that you do - yea, that's pretty loony.

as for me, i'm not irritated by the loons on the right - i have pity for them.
 
313Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 21:13
I understand you guys are so nervous you have to make light of very serious issues.

Get used to it.

Reality is coming for you like a dark rain.
 
314biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 21:22
You have been have been sharing your apocalyptic wet dreams for more than a decade now. Exactly none of them have come true. You may have to wait for your next life as a weasel for you to earn your 190 virgin weasels.
 
315Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 21:29
you have to make light of very serious issues

Your approach to these issues is childish. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation as long as you insist on advancing such nonsense as

I think laying down and letting ISIS run over us is bad foreign policy

Do you know what laying down and running over us means?

Reality is coming for you like a dark rain.

You have no credibility to talk about reality. You just make stuff up. If not, please lay out how in real-life terms exactly how we are laying down and letting ISIS run over us. Here's your chance to sound like an adult.






 
316Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 21:31
I understand you guys are so nervous you have to make light of very serious issues.

please, what are we nervous about? do tell.

and you're right. mental illness is a very serious issue. we probably shouldn't make light of it.
 
317Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 21:56
I've been listening to people like Rachel Maddow on the radio and it's just amazing the ratio of snark over countering the actual points the opposition is making is nearly infinite.

Their admission of bankruptcy.
 
318biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 21:59
What actual points? All I hear is fact free doomsaying nonsense.
 
319Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 22:03
I can't expect Boldwin to actually provide anything other than cosmic musings, so allow me to provide some reality.

U.S. raids in support of a ground offensive on the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit were underway Wednesday, a senior U.S. official said, after Washington gave the green light to airstrikes to assist Iranian-backed Iraqi forces attempting to wrest the city from fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

"These strikes are intended to destroy ISIL strongholds with precision, thereby saving innocent Iraqi lives while minimizing collateral damage to infrastructure," said Lt. Gen. James Terry, commanding general of the U.S.-led operation. He added: "This will further enable Iraqi forces under Iraqi command to maneuver and defeat ISIL in the vicinity of Tikrit."

Prior to the airstrikes being confirmed, the Pentagon said the United States had started intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights over the besieged city.

Washington and Baghdad had been discussing possible American raids for days in a bid to revive a push against the extremists that had seemingly stalled.


Laying down for ISIS? Letting ISIS run over us?

It's a complicated and sensitive issue, with Iranian-backed Shia militias involved with the Tikrit mission. It's probably been good foreign policy for the US to stand back and allow the Sunni/Shia coalition an opportunity to take the city. Had the Shia militias conducted large scale revenge killings against the locals, with what would have been seen as complicit US support, the task of convincing local Sunnis in the northern and western provinces to abandon the caliphate would be much more difficult. With Mosul to follow after Tikrit, cooperation from the citizenry will be imperative in driving ISIS into the desert.
 
320Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 22:06
ISIS would be a fantasy in the mind of a prisoner in Guantanamo if not for Obama.
 
321Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 22:12
#320
Still insisting on juvenile say-nothing posts. You should retire. You have nothing intelligent to add.
 
322Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 22:18
I think pulling out of Iraq was bad foreign policy.

How convenient. Can you provide a post at the time of the withdrawl to support this position, because I don't remember you ever whimpering a protest. Prove me wrong.

 
323Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 22:23
I have at no time supported pulling out. Don't ask a guy who has 2/3 of his posts deleted by the censors to produce posts.

Or for me to go on a wild goose chase to prove a negative.
 
324Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:26
Or ask you to explain the anti-American position:

I think laying down and letting ISIS run over us is bad foreign policy

 
325Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 08:56
See points 2-7.
 
326Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 09:12
BTW if you actually believe the USA has a coherent strategy to stop ISIS from rolling over us...

Today planes are taking off from SA to bomb the Iran backed Houtis in Yemen in support of ISIS...

While US planes are taking off [some I presume from the US base in SA] to support Iran backed forces in Iraq attacking ISIS.

Yeah, it's perfectly coherent.
 
327Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 09:17
Meanwhile liberals loathe Chris Kyle and love Bowe Bergdahl.

Because loyalty and firm opposition to Islamists I guess.

It all makes coherent sense to me.

Libs are suicidally crazy.
 
328Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 09:27
And they even hate US police more than ISIS so you know their priorities are sound.

Batsh*t crazy.

 
329Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 11:02
if you actually believe the USA has a coherent strategy to stop ISIS from rolling over us...

When you say "us," what exactly do you mean? You live in Illinois. I live in Utah. We don't live in Mosul, or Aden or Tripoli. If you actually believe ISIS is about to roll over you, then batsh*t crazy is a moderate description of your mental state.

Last week, ISIS posted online members of the US armed forces that it wanted eliminated by domestic followers. The number of US servicemen killed by ISIS followers in the US? Zero.
Last month the call went out from Islamist loser-clowns in Somalia to blow up US and Canadian malls, even identifying specific ones. The number of malls in the US and Canada blown up? Zero.
In fact,

Canadian imams issued a fatwa against ISIS.

So, no, ISIS isn't rolling over us and has no ability to roll over us. They're in the process of getting their butts kicked in Iraq.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
330Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 13:22
They could be knocking on your door and you still wouldn't apologize to me. You'd already have three excuses ready for why I was wrong and you were right all along.
 
331Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 15:48
Obama pushing Nigeria into the lap of the Islamists.
 
332Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 18:38
In Obama's never ending quest to ensure no ally ever trusts the USA ever again, Obama today revealed Israel's nuclear secrets to the world.

Because it favored his real allies to do so.
 
333Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 23:38
Obama today revealed Israel's nuclear secrets to the world.

is Thou Shalt Lie one of the commandments you adhere to.

the Pentagon (not Obama) declassified (not revealed) a document from 1987.

if israel hasn't advanced its nuclear program in 28 years, they're definitely in a lot of trouble, and not because the Pentagon released a document.
 
334Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 06:01
Technicality without a difference. The Pentagon would never do such a thing accidentally. That was a deliberate act of anti-diplomacy.
 
335Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 09:56
Because it can't happen here. - PV

Only 50 miles away from me, but not here, certainly not here.

Once upon a time the FBI managed to stop an Abu Nidal hit team on their way to kill Ollie North and his family.

Later libs tried to make political hay over the 'outrageous' gall of Ollie North to put in a security system on the dime of 'The Enterprise'.

Cause 'it's not like we're actually at risk'. No, that stuff only happens to other people.
 
336biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 11:18
If you somehow figured out how to live a risk-free life, you would not like it. Nobody would.
 
337Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 11:25
#335
Right. That proves ISIS is rolling over us. Obama has made us helpless.
 
338Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:33
Alfred E. Neuman liberals...tsk, tsk,tsk...you would think I could at least look forward to an apology when you're waist deep in sh*t, but no. You'll still be in denial and flipping me the finger.
 
339biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:40
Cars nuke the equivalent of a 100 Baldwin, Illinois every year, and cripple the equivalent of the state of New Mexico.

Every year.

If you want a risk free life, start with that.
 
340Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:55
No one who is self-employed is a risk adverse person.
 
341biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 13:10
Why are you blowing the small risk from ISIS to levels where you think they will be conquering the US next month then?

Is it your biblical blinders, your fantasies of the coming apocalypse completely skewing your judgement?
 
342Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 13:43
Yeah, and Germany was a bankrupt and broken nation, already beaten down in one prior world war.

"What, me worry?" - Neville Chamberlain

The world situation is like a bull being led by a ring in it's nose deeper and deeper into an inevitable confrontation.

The muslim guiding lights have been planning for this moment for a hundred years at least.

This is what the MB was exactly planning all along.

The MB are deeply embedded in the Obama administration. The deputy chief of staff of the secretary of state:
Huma Abedin "worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaida financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef." That would be for at least seven years (1996-2003), by the way, during which Abedin also worked for Hillary Clinton.

Let this sink in for just a moment. The journal that Huma worked for -- which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization -- is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma's father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, "the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel."

Given these alarming professional and family associations, it is hard to imagine how Huma Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work closely with the secretary of state. But she did, and from her powerful post, she undoubtedly exerted influence over U.S. policy-making.
Exactly why would any country be safe when their enemies are actually in place running the government?
 
343biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 14:06
Hitler reference alert!!

No, really. Fonzi really is going to jump over that shark. Really.

Talk about risky!
 
344Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 14:47
Destined to repeat.

The relationship between between Hitler and the MB is long thick deep undeniable historic.

More of the same on tap.
 
345biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:12
Are you intentionally trying to parody an idiot?
 
346Boldwin
      ID: 412132511
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:15
Neville Chamberlain?
 
347Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 18:19
Say what you will about Neville Chamberlain...He at least got a piece of paper to wave around. - Iowahawkblog on twitter
 
348Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 22:53
The MB are deeply embedded in the Obama administration

And your example is ..Huma Abedin? It was a bad joke when Michelle Bachmann suggested it a few years ago and remains a bad joke today. As it was so succinctly put by former assistant to President Reagan and Bachmann's presidential campaign chief, Edward Rollins:

I have been a practitioner of tough politics for many decades. There is little that amazes me and even less that shocks me. I have to say that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s outrageous and false charges against a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin reaches that threshold.

Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest.

Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious..

I can assure Mrs. Bachmann, that Ms. Abedin has been thru every top clearance available and would never have been given her position with any questions of her loyalty to this country.

As a member of Congress, with a seat on the House Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Bachmann you know better. Shame on you, Michele! You should stand on the floor of the House and apologize to Huma Abedin and to Secretary Clinton and to the millions of hard working,loyal, Muslim Americans for your wild and unsubstantiated charges. As a devoted Christian, you need to ask forgiveness for this grievous lack of judgment and reckless behavior.


Of course it's hard to be embedded when you've basically attained celebrity status. Unfortunately for her, that celebrity status stems from her marriage to serial pervert and former congressman Anthony Weiner, who also happens to be Jewish. So we're told this and that about her mother and father, their associations and such, but what about her husband?

In May 2006, Weiner attempted to bar entry by the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations. Weiner added that the delegation "should start packing their little Palestinian terrorist bags", and went on to claim that Human Rights Watch, The New York Times, and Amnesty International are all biased against Israel.[33]

On July 29, 2007, Weiner and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) objected to a $20-billion arms deal that the Bush Administration had negotiated with Saudi Arabia because they do not want to provide "sophisticated weapons to a country that they believe has not done enough to stop terrorism," also noting that 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia. Weiner made the announcement outside of the Saudi Arabian consulate in Washington, stating that "We need to send a crystal clear message to the Saudi Arabian government that their tacit approval of terrorism can't go unpunished." Weiner and Nadler intended to use a provision of the Arms Export Control Act to review the deal and pass a Joint Resolution of Disapproval.[34] Weiner and several other members of Congress later criticized the Obama administration proposal to sell over $60 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia. He said: "Saudi Arabia is not deserving of our aid, and by arming them with advanced American weaponry we are sending the wrong message", and described Saudi Arabia as having a "history of financing terrorism" and teaching "hatred of Christians and Jews" to its schoolchildren.










 
349Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 23:11
And it's a sad message that Boldwin promotes teaching hatred of Muslims to American schoolchildren.
 
350Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 00:21
he's a Christian!
 
351Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 09:14
I see. Working for a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaida financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef...

...while at the same time working as the deputy chief of staff for the secretary of state...

...makes perfect sense.

...is an innocent, harmless and meaningless coincidence...

Anyone who finds those two things to me incompatible is ungenerous, unchristian, paranoid and contrary to the received wisdom...

...of the party organs of the Democratic party.

Which must be accepted with blind credulity, religious awe and gratitude.

PBUH

[Peace be upon her]
 
352Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 09:15
And she's an MB princess! Everybody loves a story with a princess in it!
 
353Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Mar 28, 2015, 09:45
And of course it doesn't say anything about why this administration seems to make everything turn up roses for islamists, that Hillary was the chairman of the first year's 'Istanbul Process' wherein the islamists made their all-star attempt to stamp out freedom of speech world-wide.

A legal and diplomatic attack on Charlie Hebdo.

Which explains why the last thing this administration wanted to do was march against that attack. Unlike all the civilized people.
 
354Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:10
#342 is a really good example of the dishonesty that lives in today's political and cultural world.

It's one thing to look at Huma Abedin's former employment and her parents' associations and loyalties and go hmmmmm?

But Boldwin completely bypasses the cognizant thinking process and goes right to

The MB are deeply embedded in the Obama administration

indicating that she is an active agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, an enemy in place running the government.
This isn't analysis, opinion or some kind of stab at investigative journalism. Facts that dispute the claim are simply ignored, such as:

> Huma Abedin has not been part of the Obama administration for 2 years, so she's not an embedded agent provocateur

> She married a Jew who very publicly denounced the Palestinians and arms deals with the Saudis

You(and WorldNetDaily where you got the context) offer not one shred of evidence that Abedin is or ever has been a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time, because dishonesty has become a standard in your posts, and you seem to be fine with that.

Carry on.
 
355Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:26
1) She worked for the Islamist...
The journal that Huma worked for -- which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization -- is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma's father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, "the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel."
...while she was working for Hillary Clinton.

When Hillary left the state department Huma Abedin went on to manage Hillary's transition out of the office...and presumably to continue on as ~deputy chief of staff, deeply embedded in the administration of the USA president. That's the plan. Having the MB bend the President Hillary to their will to the extent she can get away with it.
 
356Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:34
BTW Valerie Jarrett was running at least 6 separate investigations into Clinton's SoS office. You see the only reason Hillary was there was to keep his enemies pissing out the tent and not into the tent.

"Keep your enemies even closer".

Now they are leaking scandal hints and sandbagging Hillary's campaign...because they feel she is not radical enuff.

Losing Abedin didn't mean they were getting less MB friendly.
 
357Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:58
Even the Rachel Maddow show gets how incoherent it is.
 
358Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Mon, Mar 30, 2015, 18:34
Liberals. Just anti-war enuff to really get a world war going strong.
 
359Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Mon, Mar 30, 2015, 18:42
Revenge of Sarah Palin:
Remember her chant, “Drill, baby, drill”? Well, how about that:

Back when gas topped $4 a gallon, Republicans chanted “drill, baby, drill” at rallies across the country — arguing more domestic drilling would increase supplies, reduce dependence on foreign oil and boost the U.S. economy. Democrats, almost universally, mocked the GOP plan. In 2012, President Obama called it “a slogan, a gimmick, and a bumper sticker … not a strategy.”

“They were waving their three-point plans for $2-a-gallon gas,” Obama told a laughing audience during an energy speech in Washington. “You remember that? Drill, baby, drill. We were going through all that. And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem.”
Being liberal means you can be BassAckwards all the time and never have to say you're sorry.

Oh, but now Obama wants to take credit for it. Sheesh. He's the problem blocking every solution the best he can.
 
360Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Mon, Mar 30, 2015, 23:03
Iran defector spills beans. Obama's negotiators basically are there to sell the Iran negotiating position to the other western powers.

Kerry reflecting the mood: Allah Willing

With friends like these...
 
361Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Mon, Mar 30, 2015, 23:26
No word on whether he brought James Taylor along this time.

 
362Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 05:18
Dems: the party more in favor of sanctions on Indiana than on Iran.
 
363Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 17:13
Say a prayer for Nigeria.

Obama's Islamists won the election.
 
364Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 17:52
As is usually the case, dishonesty is at the heart of post #363, especially the headline in the link:

Did Boko Haram win Nigeria's election for Muhammadu Buhari?

The question revolves around the fact that Buhari convinced the electorate that he will be tougher on Boko Haram than Jonathon.

Security has been the major issue of the election campaign. According to NOI Polls, security topped the list of issues Nigerians wanted the president to address in 2015.
Buhari, the former military ruler, has been seen as a strong leader who could tackle Boko Haram. He has previously vowed to defeat Boko Haram and made security a key plank of his election campaign.


Yes, we should say a prayer for Nigeria, but Boldwin wants us to pray for all the wrong reasons. In his eyes, where Christians versus Muslims is a basic tenet of his world view, Nigeria will now be a bloodbath of persecution for the Christian population, and, of course, it's perfectly moral to blame Obama(Obama's Islamists)before Buhari's first day in office. He's already blamed Obama for the birth of Boko Harum, which, to him, represents the average Muslim in Nigeria, as opposed to the huge majority of their victims.

 
365Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 18:21
The reason Goodluck Jonathan couldn't secure Nigeria from Boko Haram was because he was forced to share his government with Buhari's muslim operatives, even tho they had lost the last election. Something Buhari inspired deadly muslim riots made necessary.

Like Buhari is going to slow BH.
 
366Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 18:33
Acting like you know the nuances in Nigeria is laughable. Just admit your dishonesty and hope Stasburg can give you in the neighborhood of 100 innings this year.
 
367Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 19:27
Just admit Nigeria is just one more example around the world where Obama is doing everything he can to promote the best possible outcome for the Islamists without being too obvious about it.
 
368biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 19:31
And Terry Schiavo was the tip of the iceberg, and now Rahm's bro has freedom to kill anyone he wants.

And the Iraqi's are marching across Jordan to attack Israel. They will be there any year now.

And our schools are teaching our kids Satanism, and all the 3rd graders now drink blood and scrawl pentagrams.

It's hard not to mention your untreated mental illness when you blather such complete nonsense.
 
369Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 19:43
Obama now has the sunni's preparing to launch a combined military excersize in Yemen against the Shia.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

The sunni's unite and sweep thru the middle east. Hmmm...wonder what the mullahs make of that development?

Have you no clue what the koran says about the last days? Get a clue.

Or

Just plant your face in the sand. Maybe you'll make it thru WWIII oblivious and safe. Sure. It could happen.
 
370Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 20:04
It has been a wetdream of every muslim leader in every muslim country to be the one who unites the muslim world into one unified military front.

And Obama has already accomplished it.

Obama is not a failure if you understand his intentions. If you assume he is pro-American he's a baffling failure.
 
371Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 20:13
Obama now has the sunni's preparing to launch a combined military excersize in Yemen against the Shia.

Then I guess you believe Obama was responsible for the coup that ousted the Muslim Brotherhood from Egyptian rule, so he could prepare the current military rulers to launch in Yemen. And all this time you've been saying Obama backed the MB in Egypt.

A day after Saudi Arabia and a coalition of nine other states began hammering the Houthis with airstrikes and blockading the Yemeni coast, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt said in a statement that the country’s navy and air force would join the campaign. The Egyptian Army, the largest in the Arab world, was ready to send ground troops “if necessary,” Mr. Sisi said

Hard to keep your story straight when spewing so much BS.

 
372Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 20:25
It's all a part of the chaos he has unleashed.

I am the one who called the MB takeover of Egypt when Obama so disasterously backed the Arab Spring movement. I said at the time, maybe the USA trained military could hold it together.

I was right on both counts.
 
373Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 21:21
Remember back when liberals on this board thot Arab Spring was fantastic blossoming of liberal fellow travellers certain to lead to a wonderful revolution, Obama's speech in Cairo was brilliant, the MB wasn't a realistic threat to take over.

Back when I called exactly what happened? Remember back when I told you that as bad as Kadafi was, what would come next in Libya was far worse? And I was dead on correct?

Back when I told you Obama's war on Syria was gonna be a disaster?

I've been right every time and every time you raise your head from the sand the situation is even worse.
 
374Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 10:49
Meet
the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF),

Established in 2008 by Abon'go Malik Obama, President Obama's half-brother, a Kenyan-born Muslim with twelve wives. Abon'go Malik Obama is:

Overseer of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international investments;

Executive secretary of the Sudan-based Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), an organization primarily focused on expanding Wahhabist Islam on the African subcontinent;

Closely associated with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, a jihadist tyrant responsible for [Darfur] the deaths of more than three million people, all in the name of Jihad and war against Christians.There you have it. Obama's half brother intimately involved in the atrocities in Darfur and Nigeria in particular and Islamist efforts all over Africa.

This of course is 'just a coincidence'.


 
375Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 11:03
Source
 
376Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 10:10
Al Qaeda takes over major Syrian city. Lamestream media paints it as a victory over the 'Regime'.

Thousand flee the beheading bloodthirsty savages.



Naturally lamestream media explain their flight as them fleeing the Syria aerial counter-strikes.

So why is your president and your media celebrating Al Qaeda victories?
 
377Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 08:43
At a time when Putin is testing NATO like never before, Obama is snubbing NATO and other leaders in Europe left and right.
Mr. Obama delivered what can only be regarded as an extraordinary slight to Jens Stoltenberg, who became the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization six months ago. Obama is one of the few Western leaders who has not yet met with Stoltenberg and in fact deliberately passed up an opportunity to see him last week when Stoltenberg was in Washington. Rogin noted that the NATO chief was finally able to secure a last-minute meeting with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, but that Stoltenberg requested a meeting with Obama well in advance of the visit but never heard back from the White House.

The upshot is that Obama missed a good opportunity to demonstrate NATO solidarity in the face of Moscow’s on-going depredations against Ukraine. As Rogin concluded, “the message Russian President Vladimir Putin will take away is that the White House-NATO relationship is rocky, and he will be right.” Moreover, given that Stoltenberg is a two-time prime minister of Norway, a meeting would have sent a useful message to Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark that are facing increased Russian provocations (here, here and here).

Mr. Obama’s disinterest in America’s European allies is a long-standing story, however. In September 2009, as part of his “reset” of relations with Moscow, he abruptly shelved plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses in eastern Europe that Poland and the Czech Republic had signed on to at considerable political risk. As a Washington Post assessment notes, administration officials “failed to give a heads-up to the Poles and the Czechs, making it appear like a diplomatic snub at their expense.” Characterizing the U.S. consultation process, a senior national security official in Warsaw lamented that “we heard through the media.”

Obama then skipped out on a November 2009 meeting with European Union leaders at the White House, conspicuously assigning the hosting duties to Vice President Joe Biden. Reports (examples here, here and here) were soon circulating that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy – the latter being the most pro-American leader in Paris in decades – felt they were being ignored.
It's not just that he hates Netanyahu. He's alienating all America's allies and attempting to realign America with the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
378Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 06:09
The charismatic community organizer drew massive throngs of fainting cheering devotees into the Everglades to celebrate Vladmir Illich Lenin Day.

 
379Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 06:20
Didyouknow? Vladimir means earth lord.
 
380Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 09:37
Or, clueless despot?

Meanwhile, Steven Seagal, wait by your phone.
 
381Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 10:00
Putin proposed Steven Seagal as Russian envoy to US

Or just about any Hollywood actor or MSM anchorman.
 
382Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 10:52
Putin, I don't think, wasn't kidding. But hey--he's a guy who projects strength and for many on the Right that is far more important than competence...
 
386sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 22:53
how about mocking christians who pretend to be christians?
 
387Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 22:55
See, sarge--he mocks people without religion as well, so it is OK for him to mock people with religions other than his. Because Obama.
 
388sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 01:18
personally, I find it hilarious, that he is dead certain I am a secret mason. Anyone I know who IS a Mason, would never ever deny being so. It just boggles the mind, he is so sure he knows SO much, about someone he has never ever met. (and about whom, history has and will record, virtually nothing at all.Which is true, for 99.99% or more, of the population.)
 
389Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 05:07
Oh, I'm sure by the time you get to the 33rd degree you know a few who actually obey the rules and walk out of the room when they get asked that question.
 
390sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 10:30
the 'rules'???? What precisely, would you know about the rules of an organization, in which you have zero involvement?
 
391Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 13:22
He's implying that you know the rules, sarge.
 
392Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 19:12
What precisely, would you know about the rules of an organization, in which you have zero involvement? - 33'rd degree non-mason

I've read their book. Every page. And written the rebuttal.



 
393sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 22:18
391, yeah I know lol. But he is wrong again, still, something like that. consistent bugger though, isnt he?
 
394sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 22:19
392..yeah, you've read the Bible too. Doesnt preclude your misapplying much of it.
 
395Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 10:56
The great diplomat is sooo respected and his smart diplomacy, soooo impressive.

Saudi TV is reporting that Iran just seized a U.S. cargo ship and directed it to Iranian port city
 
396Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 11:33


Obama knew what he was doing.



Behold the caliphate.
 
397Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 12:09


Obama's gesture - ISIS' gesture







Togo's president Gnassingbe, 2 hours away from Boko Haram and not so thrilled with Obama's ISIS salute as the Islamist politicians are.
 
398Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 12:16
Recently Obama traded away the Kurds for Incirlik airbase.

Turkey just bombed the Kurds to save ISIS stronghold Raqqa under Kurdish attack.
 
399Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 17:07
you are a fucking idiot.
 
400WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 09:18


Colt Mcoy secret support of ISIS



These cheerleaders too !!
 
401Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 17:32
Context is everything.
 
402Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 17:33
You don't give the ISIS salute in a roomful of Arab leaders without repercussions.
 
403Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 17:41
Here's some context for you.

Now, doesn't his salute look a lil more significant than celebrating cheerleaders? Sheesh.

Look at the faces of the muslim leaders reading it exactly the way I am.
 
404Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 22:03
Context is everything.

it has never, ever, ever mattered to you.

now it suddenly does!?!?
 
405WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 09:47
Wow that link opened my eyes !! How did I not see it before !!

Is there anything online that you don't believe ? I can find links online to back up ANYTHING.
 
406bibA
      ID: 275441414
      Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 10:59
LOL, that was like someone citing as their source a rotoguru poster stating that the UN and Obama are actively conspiring to enslave all Americans.

Although no one around here would make such claims, I'm sure.
 
407Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 11:41
bibA

You will absolutely love 'Agenda 21 on steriods' also known as "The 2030 Agenda" a “new universal Agenda” for humanity launching Sept. 25, 2025.
 
408Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 11:45
WiddleAvi

There is nothing outside of the 'official version of reality' AKA the zeitgeist that you could be persuaded of no matter how hard it bit you in the @$$.
 
409WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 17:19
Boldwin - I can say the same thing about you. There is nothing anti Obama that you would not believe. I could find a website saying that Obama is satan and you would be here posting a link saying "yup, knew that all along".
 
410Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 18:31
Good thing you qualified that, because there is no way in hell I could be convinced that he is pro-American.
 
411Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 21:29
 
412Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 08:43
never mind the fact that my colon has more reputable stuff coming out of it than WND, this bit of hatred has been debunked countless times.

the folly of someone who claims to be a Christian and claims to be persecuted for his Christianity persecuting another Christian is rich.

here's a better shot of the ring, in question.



nothing here folks, except good ol' Baldwin hate.
 
413Khahan
      ID: 477322612
      Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 13:36
So is he Muslim for a wearing a ring with Islamic script on it or is he an American hating Christian for following Jeremiah Wright?
 
414biliruben
      ID: 137281811
      Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 14:23
Don't tread on me.

Snakes on a motherfckin' plane!!
 
415Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 16:36
When Obama accuses detractors of his Iran deal of dual loyalties, he is demonstrating the one of the world's best examples of projection.

He holds communist beliefs. He builds the Islamic Caliphate he believes is destined to take over the world and he holds true to the virulent anti-Americanism of Wright. That's all he gets from that moment in his life.

That perfectly describes the enemy we will be facing in WWIII. A combination of America's enemies in the world.

I'd be interested if his mother's Subud cult has re-eminence.

Google the death of Loretta Fuddy for some fun.
 
416Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 22:42
 
417Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 12:50
it is so awesome when Baldwin's research consists of copying a meme on the internet, without and regard to truth, honesty, and what someone actually said.

(for example, #1 in 416 above was part of a larger speech that also included "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons...")

no one here actually expects honesty from you, but you should be called out every single time you are dishonest.
 
418Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 13:09
If you believe islam in any way advances justice, progress, tolerance and dignity for all, you are beyond the pale of civilization.

 
419Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 17:28
i'm really not sure if it's possible to be more ignorant than you are, at least when you make a statement like that.

seriously. you have absolutely no clue here.
 
420Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 17:36
I'd love it if you'd explain to a Yazidi woman who saw her husband murdered in front of her, separated from her children and has been sold into slavery 5 times to various sex abusing bastards who believe raping her brings them closer to allah...

...exactly how islam brings advances in justice, progress, tolerance, and dignity...

...you moron.
 
421WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 18:20
I wonder how Priests molesting little kids is following the Christian faith ?

Oh you mean that not all Priests molest kids and the majority of them are great people ?

 
422Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 20:29
The difference is that the Quran actually recommends forced sexual slavery, multiple sex concubines, raping, pillaging and mayhem and their ideal role model had a six or seven year old wife.

Their social dynamic prevents interaction with women and extreme elevation of men which leads to rampant repressed homosexuality. Their frequent polygamous marriages and backward impoverished societies produce large numbers of hopeless 'lost boys' who end up with explosives strapped around their chests.

Propelled by gay panic and useless lives without place or purpose and lots missing.

 
423Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 20:33
To which I'll add that the requirement of celibacy is anti-biblical and anti-biblical things don't work out well.
 
424Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 21:50
there have been so many Muslims who have been instrumental in advances in technology, medicine, and so forth.

you are so blinded by your hatred, you've become ignorant to what's going on around you.

not everything was invented by white, christian men. well, murdering in the name of God - that may very well have been a Christian invention.

 
425Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 22:56
You obviously have not read current islamic 'scientific' beliefs such as the flat earth. Quran 13:3, 15:19, 50:7, 79:30, 88:20,
 
426WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 10:28
Boldwin - Have you read the old testament ? How many wives did King solomon have ? The old testament will have you beheaded for being gay. The bible advocates plenty of murder. How old was Rivka when Isaac took her for a wife ?
 
427Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 12:46
Widdle

I wasn't focusing on polygamy as a sin. I was pointing out the societal result of lots of boys left out in the game of musical chairs.

Same problem you guys went nuts over when I was defending the Mormon offshoot getting harassed in Texas.

Not such a problem in an age of frequent warfare and an oversupply of widows.

----
Just researched...

"In the midrashic telling, Rebekah was born at the same time that Isaac, who was then twenty-six years old, was bound on the altar...

Issac was at least 40 when he married so she was at least 14, maybe 15 depending on travel time and had full family approval. Not a problem for me in the slightest. You think that is comparable to a nine year old?

I understand there is a matter of cultural differences and he waited a few years to consumate but nine...NINE?
 
428Tree
      ID: 161036918
      Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 19:25
you do understand that a "midrashic telling" is a completely man-made version of things, right?
 
429Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 21:44
Find anything else on the matter?
 
430WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 22:03
You can pick an choose your midrash. Rashi (The main midrash on the old testament) says that she was 3. How about beheading gay people ? Or stoning people ? I can go on and on. The fact is that the Koran is not much different than the bible. The bible condones murder. There are plenty of Jewish people who feel they are carrying out the word of god when they stab people at a gay pride parade.
 
431Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Tue, Sep 01, 2015, 06:35
In God's Kingdom there will be no moral rebels allowed.

This isn't Israel of old when it actually was God's Kingdom and it isn't post-armageddon. So I don't know why you bring it up.
 
432biliruben
      ID: 137281811
      Tue, Sep 01, 2015, 11:20
In God's Kingdom there will be no moral rebels allowed.

i.e. Tyranny=freedom.

 
433Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Tue, Sep 01, 2015, 11:31
No such thing as absolute freedom. God himself will establish GK without human hands. So if you think it's fantasy why are you worrying? Everyone who survives A will agree God is the only rightful arbiter of right and wrong. Things in satan's system will crater at the end so badly there will be no other possible conclusion.
 
434biliruben
      ID: 137281811
      Tue, Sep 01, 2015, 11:47
That's the spirit (so to speak)!

Way to keep a positive attitude.
 
435Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Tue, Sep 01, 2015, 11:53
Paradise awaits!
 
436Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Mon, Sep 28, 2015, 19:27