MERGED: The Politics Thread

[3deroticer]

Hmmm.......talking to myself or talking to Shara??

I'm going to go with talking to myself! Yeah!..... I think I like that better.

[notty]

When I saw a photo of the Supreme Court nominee, all I could think was, "Damn, you're ugly."

[gOOber]

 

[SwitcherX]

Hmmm.......talking to myself or talking to Shara??

I'm going to go with talking to myself! Yeah!..... I think I like that better.

More Shara for me then! 

[solvegas]

When I saw a photo of the Supreme Court nominee, all I could think was, "Damn, you're ugly."

She is still nowhere as ugly as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Justice Janet Reno. She truly was spectacularly ugly. 

[SwitcherX]

She is still nowhere as ugly as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Justice Janet Reno. She truly was spectacularly ugly. 

I remember reading online somewhere that middle-aged men in Japan thought she was hot.

[solvegas]

I remember reading online somewhere that middle-aged men in Japan thought she was hot.

Now you know why the japanese lost World War 2. 

[JJ]

Sign seen on back of RV during reign of the great one, Lord Obama, 2010.   

[3deroticer]

Thank god "We the people voted for him by a landslide!"

Ouch!

[SamV]

Wait a second JJ -- how do we know that photo wasn't taken sometime during the reign of his high lordship Dubya?

Sam "checked the license plate for a dat but can't clearly see one" V   

[SwitcherX]

Thank god "We the people voted for him by a landslide!"

Ouch!

53% to 47% isn't a landslide.

[Galidan]

53% to 47% isn't a landslide.

It isn't literally a landslide, but Obama did receive the greatest percentage of votes of any presidential candidate in the last twenty years.

[solvegas]

Yes, he was the first Democrat since LBJ in 1964 to get over 50%.

[3deroticer]

Really?

Obama 278, McCain 132

That looks like a fucking landslide to me!

[gOOber]

When I saw a photo of the Supreme Court nominee, all I could think was, "Damn, you're ugly."

Spitzer denies paying Kagan for sex.

http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwonkette.com%2F415376%2Felliot-spitzer-i-did-not-pay-elena-kagan-for-sex

[SwitcherX]

Really?

Obama 278, McCain 132

That looks like a fucking landslide to me!

That's the electoral vote.  It's not "the people voted for him by a landslide".  The people is the popular vote.

[3deroticer]

Won majority of the electoral vote! Those are the rules that "we the people" agreed to!

[JJ]

Found on the Internet - easy does it on the black, er, make that "man of color" President................................

[SamV]

WHAT!!  - you post the welcome logo for this great Obama political joke site, and you don't include a link to it.  

For shame JJ - are you trying to keep all the jokes for yourself?  

[Real]

his problem is sadly he's just not very smart.

neither is thinking that responding to his one note bulletin board spam and vapid selective responses constitutes any sort of discussion...

[notty]

his problem is sadly he's just not very smart.

neither is thinking that responding to his one note bulletin board spam and vapid selective responses constitutes any sort of discussion...

Or:

How Not to Respond to a Political Thread in Off-Topic Forum on a Titty Board

by Real

Oops, I mean,

how not to respond to a political thread in off-topic forum on a titty board

by real

W   W !

C'mon, man. Don't leave us hanging on the first sentence of the first chapter. We want more! We want to be dazzled, mesmerized even, by your keen and facile mind.

Oh, wait. This post doesn't constitute a discussion. Whups! My bad!

However, I am somewhat mollified by your recent contributions, which consist of:

1. Replying to a "vapid selective response" with a vapid general response
2. Halfheartedly acknowledging the hypocrisy of the pro-drilling Obama administration in regard to the oil spill
3. Being the 8,704,963rd person to a draw a parallel between Obamacare and Romneycare
4. Implying that the underlying motive of the Tea Party is racism

Holy shit, man! You really cracked the case on that last one. Why didn't anyone else think of that? I'm glad we have your massive brainpower at our disposal. And your razor-sharp deductive reasoning.

BTW,

[Real]

lol

i do what i can

 

[JJ]

Even more vapidity and politically correct spam from the whirling swirling world of - the 'Bama Man,he of the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party of America.......................

[JJ]

Obama is constantly mouthing off to the American Socialist masses about the evils of "making too much money".  Of course it's fine while he and wife Michelle Ma Belle are raking in profits from books and other ventures on the side.  But it's not fine for anyone else to make too much?
======================================================
Thomas Sowell sets the record straight with this column today.

======================================================
May 18, 2010
"Enough Money"
By Thomas Sowell

One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough money."

The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.


Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters.

Are we really so eaten up with envy, or so mesmerized by rhetoric, that we are willing to sacrifice our own freedom by giving politicians the power to decide how much money anybody can make or keep? Of course, that will start only with "the rich," but surely history tells us that it will not end there.

The French Revolution began arbitrary executions among the hereditary aristocracy, but ended up arbitrarily executing all sorts of other people, including eventually even leaders of the Revolution itself, such as Robespierre.

Very similar patterns appeared in the Bolshevik Revolution, in the rise of the Nazis and in numerous other times and places, where expanded and arbitrary powers were put into the hands of politicians-- and were used against the population as a whole.

Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go.

The moral bankruptcy of the notion that third parties can decide when somebody else has "enough" money is matched by its economic illiteracy. The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago.

Both men were selling a product that others were also selling, but more people chose to buy theirs. Those people would not have voluntarily continued to pay their hard-earned money for Rockefeller's oil or Gates' software if what they received was not worth more to them than what they paid.

The fortunes that the sellers amassed were not a deduction from the buyers' wealth. Buyers and sellers both gained from these transactions or the transactions wouldn't have continued.

Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom-- if ever-- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.

Would the public have been better off if older and more costly methods of producing, processing and shipping oil had continued to be used, leading to prices far higher than necessary?

Apparently Rockefeller himself decided at some point that he had enough money, and then donated enough of it to create a world-class university from day one-- the University of Chicago-- as well as donating to innumerable other philanthropic projects.

But that is wholly different from having politicians make such decisions for other people. Politicians who take on that role stifle economic progress and drain away other people's money, in order to hand out goodies that will help get themselves re-elected. Some people call that "social justice," even when it is anti-social politics.

[3deroticer]

Ha ha ha!!

Defending the french aristocracy of the french revolution, Nazi, and the robber baron monopoly practice of big business. That's an incredible feat to try to pull off.

[SamV]

I don't know why this author had to go to and cite the French & Bolshevik (Russian) Revolutions for some point he was trying to make.  

If he wanted to talk about revolutionary atrocities then one doesn't have to go to Europe for examples when they were plenty of examples during and after the American Revolution. Lots of American citizens, who didn't believe in ending ties with Britain by revolutionary means were forced to migrate to Canada, and sometimes at the end of a musket, usually with just the clothes on their back and a few personal possessions.  Any land or other property they owned was confiscated by the local authorities and sold off with none of the money from the sale going to the rightful owners.

Then their were the Indian tribes who happened to side with the British who usually didn't even have the opportunity to migrate to another land. They were simple attacked by local militias and killed.

But that kind of "truth" about our own revolution is simple unthinkable.

----
BTW - BRR (that's Before Ronnie Regan) the majority of Americans when asked believed that a tax rate of between 40 and 50 percent was a fair level of taxation for the "wealthiest" (like top 5%) income class under our progressive income tax system. Today the top 5% of Americans pay a marginal rate that is less than most middle class Americans pay. So why does everyone think that this is in any way fair?

-----
BTW2 -- One reason the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany was due to the fact that the Germany economy was bankrupt, mainly due to losing the first World War and needing to pay war reparations, but also to other disastrous financial decisions made by the Wermer Republic. The Nazis stressed the failures of communism, liberalism, and democracy, and promised to restore Germany to be the economic powerhouse it was prior to WWI by not cuddling those "people who were unworthy of life" who they believed were behind these failures and were preventing the "pure" (Aryan) German People from achieving the greatness due them. That included the Jews, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, Slavs, Roma (Gypsies), Communists, so-called crossbreeds (those who were not thought to have "pure" Aryan blood) along with others. So the NSDAP was swept in to power in the 1932 election because of more than a decade of national economic problems like high unemployment, hyperinflation, huge governmental debts. etc.

And while those on the extreme far right, like the Tea party movement, have a tendency to make Obama out as Hitler, and tar others in the federal government as Nazi's, at times their political viewpoints seems to came across to me as an "American style nationalism" that appears to me to have more in common with the ideology of the National Socialist Party of Germany than anything the founding fathers contemplated for this country.  

[Real]

wow.  youre going to have to start calling me re"q-be"al the way im breaking my own rules about leaving certain threads for good.

but this really is it.  living through 8 years of the bush administration, i can only conclude after his last post that JJ is literally retarded.

and its not nice to snap on those types, especially the ones with no ability to competently defend themselves.

truth is, outside this backward one man regurgi-blog becoming the focal point of this thread, im generally more and more disappointed with barack obama each passing day.  and its not because the most generally right wing country on the face of the planet has decided to re-define the term "socialism".

open discrimination against gays as far as marriage and the military remains.  no balls to pass a healthcare bill that was anything but an exact copy of a republican plan.  still the only inductrialized nation in the world with no public option.  still no control over wall street and exectutive bonuses.  still trying to "nation build" in freaking afghanistan of all places.  still no real push for oil alternatives. 

if only this guy was as liberal as the radicals who oppose him need to pretend he is.  then you all would have gotten change instead of another center-right bill clinton.

but in politics more than anything; the lesser of two evils always matters.

pce.

[3deroticer]

Amen!       Real!!!

Those are my sentiment! Tea Party scream for less tax, and Obama give them the lower tax percentage than Bush did for 95% of Americans. So all the Tea Party have is to feel sympathy for the extreme wealthy, that they have to organize a small protest over their demise! BooHoo Paris Hilton and Jon Voight  !! Cry me a river!!

One of my favorite rebuttal that I get often is "you scare me that you favor socialism over capitalism" just because I mention that I like having highways and public education available for all people.

What I don't like is have our military be used to funnel oil from the middle east by corporation(Exxon) that doesn't spend a dime to support the military by way of TAXES. Same for outsourcing govt jobs to over seas company such as Haliburton that moved their headquarters to Dubai in order to avoid tax. Trillions of dollar out the window of the USA!

[JJ]

Obama...............

[DruulEmpire]

(Ohhh, how perfectly he sets me up ... )

This Off-Topic section continues to need a proper political section, or even a proper Barack Obama thread that is actually about Barack Obama, rather than being a "the sheer existence of Barack Obama is my license to argue as haphazardly as I please that the Democratic Party should have been subatomically annihilated at least seventy years ago" thread or a "random rumors and reactions surrounding Barack Obama" thread.  Me, I'm old-fashioned, I'd rather prefer to discuss something that Obama did not "symbolize" or "suggest" but actually did or said -- and what's more, I, like Real, reserve my own right to point out something he said that wound up putting him in the wrong.  So while we're sitting here inventing our own politics, let's take a look at what is actually going on in the real live grownup world of politics --

Once upon a time there was a Senator named Arlen Specter.  He came over from the Republicans to the Democrats and was very warmly embraced.  He went into the 2010 election loaded for bear.  His old Philadelphia machinery was still with him.  The Democratic Governor was with him.  The unions were with him.  The newspapers were with him.  And in his own TV ad, he showed and quoted President Obama himself declaring "I love you and I love Arlen Specter!"

So you'd figure that would have it all locked up, right?  All us mindless dupe Dems, chanting "We hear and obey, O Great Chairman Obama" -- you would sort of expect that, wouldn't you?  But that didn't happen.  Instead, we went out and elected Joe Sestak, and not in the name of "tea party anger" or anything like that, because for all the hype and machinery and Presidential testimony we wanted someone who was MORE progressive than Specter.  And the lovely thing was, no one had to particularly hate Specter or wish him ill or any of that crap.  It was simply time.

Meanwhile --

[DruulEmpire]

There was once a district in Pennsylvania that riveted national attention by swinging from John Kerry in 2004 to support John McCain -- over Barack Obama, I feel constrained to specify -- in 2008.  So you'd figure, that's it, that's ground that was lost to the inevitable GOP resurrection, right?  But the GOP ran a guy named Tim Burns.  Handsome, a millionaire, said pretty much the right things, no scandals -- what more could you really ask, right?  But I got to see the ads for that race, and the Burns ads aimed big, going national in scope.  One computer-animated farce, which would surely have tickled some souls here, showed Obama as a kind of Dr. Frankenstein turning Nancy Pelosi into a rampaging fifty foot woman, and only the power beams from Tim Burns buttons could stop her.  In good Crimson Tide style, this left Mark Critz open to play his own ads Denzel-cool, nice and quiet and sensible and local, to the Burns Hackman-stridency.  Critz won.  So much for ground claimed in 2008.

But wait, you may object, surely the victory of Rand Paul is a victory for the tea parties!  I'm not seeing that at all.  With Trey Grayson the GOP establishment lobbed a softball -- the way they lobbed a certain other softball named Alan Keyes, which a certain up-and-coming politician named Barack Obama had little choice but to beat -- and the unique Rand Paul, son of the no less unique Ron Paul, handily cleaned up.  I may never agree with Rand Paul on much, but even I can recognize that the man has more brains in his little finger than Sarah Palin has in ... well ... wherever it is she keeps hers.  (First Paul Ryan, and now Rand Paul -- could this be a bid to confuse us?)  So let the tea parties claim him, because I doubt they'll ever luck out much better.

Oh, and Obama has secured an international agreement, including Russia and China, to sanction Iran, and this on the heels of Iran scrambling to dump half of its nuclear fuel in Turkey precisely to duck such sanctions.  Boring, I know, but not for any of us who are seriously interested in national security.

Sorry about that -- back to the cartoons and the editorial clippings --

[SamV]

Tim Burns and the Repub party blew a ton of money making a case against Nancy Pelosi and Obama, while forgetting that neither of those two had their names on the ballot when we went in to vote yesterday. And then Burns offered up almost nothing in the way of what should be done in lieu of those hated "liberal" solutions to problems like health care, energy, etc. that would benefit those in the 12th. The only thing is will Burns want to use those same tactics, and will the Repubs want to bankroll it, come the sequel during the general election in November.

At least yesterday the "Land of PA" (not "P-A") inhabitants proved they had more smarts than those two gave them credit for.

And we can all be glad the slugfest of TV ads, along with all the robo-phone calls, and overstuffed mailbox is over for a little while.

Sam "I'm SamV and I approve this message" V

[JJ]

DE said.............................

There was once a district in Pennsylvania that riveted national attention by swinging from John Kerry in 2004 to support John McCain -- over Barack Obama, I feel constrained to specify -- in 2008.  So you'd figure, that's it, that's ground that was lost to the inevitable GOP resurrection, right?  But the GOP ran a guy named Tim Burns.  Handsome, a millionaire, said pretty much the right things, no scandals -- what more could you really ask, right?  But I got to see the ads for that race, and the Burns ads aimed big, going national in scope.  One computer-animated farce, which would surely have tickled some souls here, showed Obama as a kind of Dr. Frankenstein turning Nancy Pelosi into a rampaging fifty foot woman, and only the power beams from Tim Burns buttons could stop her.  In good Crimson Tide style, this left Mark Critz open to play his own ads Denzel-cool, nice and quiet and sensible and local, to the Burns Hackman-stridency.  Critz won.  So much for ground claimed in 2008.
==============================================================

Truly amazing although I'm not surprised that you left out one teensy weensie little fact about that race in Pennsylvania - the Democrat who ran did so was even more CONSERVATIVE than his Republican opponent!   Ah shucks, that ruins all the nice theories about May 18th elections doesn't it?

Why is it that in order to win back home, a Democrat has to RUN AWAY from far left & liberal Obama policies (as well as those of Pelosi, Reid and other Dem leaders in Congress)?   Why can't he run on all the things accomplished and things to be done by Obama and his hordes in Congress?  Answer:  because he could never get elected that way.

Now Critz will go to Washington and vote with Pelosi down the line on every issue.  After all, he doesn't have to appear to be a blue dog until the General Election in the Fall, when he runs again.  
========================================================================
Oops, one more small inconvenient truth you left out.  This district is TWO TO ONE Democrat registration!  Who in their right minds would ever believe it would go Republican?  Critz should have won, 2-1, but didn't?
========================================================================

we now resume our regularly scheduled programme of strangely believe it cartoons reflecting the life and times of Barack Husein Obama.......................................................
========================================================================

Sign found in Detroit, Michigan Burger King restaurant, a reflection of the billions wasted by the Department of Education under President Barack Husein Obama.

On this toon, you have the option of laughing OR crying, whichever comes first.  

[DruulEmpire]

Critz never had time to "run away" -- he was busy enough answering Burns' accusations.

But by all means, let's not mention any Senate seats or Governorships.

And by the way, just admit you hate the existence of the Department of Education, period, under anyone, George W. Bush or whoever -- for all we know, the writer of the sign left school under Bush.  So ... not one of the 300 million citizens of your America would ever inspire your sobbing by ever writing "out of meet" ...

This thread is dead.  Maybe seven years from now there will be a Republican President and instantly this thread will become all hearts and flowers.  So maybe I'll check then.  Goodbye and good luck.

[3deroticer]

Critz never had time to "run away" -- he was busy enough answering Burns' accusations.

But by all means, let's not mention any Senate seats or Governorships.

And by the way, just admit you hate the existence of the Department of Education, period, under anyone, George W. Bush or whoever -- for all we know, the writer of the sign left school under Bush.  So ... not one of the 300 million citizens of your America would ever inspire your sobbing by ever writing "out of meet" ...

This thread is dead.  Maybe seven years from now there will be a Republican President and instantly this thread will become all hearts and flowers.  So maybe I'll check then.  Goodbye and good luck.

I didn't get it, that the sign on the door is proof that public education has some flaw in it, I thought all of JJ posting was enough proof. Those who don't like education would get the least out of it, and more likely end up working at fast food joint.