Barack Obama is going to be awesome

123457

Comments

  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Gee, another un-cited and basically lame rant...meanwhile, a woman vomits shit live on network television.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    trumpt - you and the other people jumping up to find fault with Obama at this early stage are becoming the boy who cried wolf.



    Wouldn't it be a more successful strategy to embrace him now and then jump on him when he actually does something wrong?



    First, noting that the news creators are reporting propaganda instead of news isn't really an attempt to knock Obama down. So when Bush ran three miles or when Obama runs three miles, it isn't an attempt to knock one down and build the other up. I don't and didn't think Bush a better president or Obama a worse president for running, swimming or hooping it up a certain number of hours per day.



    Is is really crying wolf to note that glistening abs won't bring peace to the middle east? Maybe my standards are too high I guess.



    The second part is justifiable though which is that when you run as an agent of change and reform, you can't engage in business as usual.



    So as part of this two prong approach, let's look at some of the stuff I have posted here. There was a thread called "How Obama was Elected" and the presumption was that Obama voters were ignorant. I actually challenged that and noted it wasn't that they were ignorant but were fully informed about what the media had reported. The problem wasn't with Obama or the voters but with the media. If they knew that Palin's daughter was pregnant, that she saw Russia from her front porch, but didn't know that Biden's son had been indicted and that Obama had gaffed about 57 states, it was because they were informed by the media who reported things in a one sided fashion.



    Many media outlets are soon going to be in need of a bailout of their own due to reporting propaganda instead of news. The ones that do it the most are the ones suffering the most. In particular the NY Times is out of cash and is selling of assets and mortgaging out the building they own. Newsweek just altered their circulations expectations and the rates they charge for it. CBSNews, and MSNBC are dead last in ratings and revenue in their respective categories.



    Some will say this is just about newspapers dying but it is about news agencies that don't report news. Polls and studies show it and the people who get their news from those sources know it as well.



    I've examined this from a generational angle as well. I've noted things like there are generational blind spots that not just Bush, but Obama and boomers in general suffer from that will limit the effectiveness of any solutions they put forward. That isn't a party thing. Obama isn't bad because he has done something wrong but if what he is advocating doesn't make sense, why help him do it. You can't generate wealth with the stroke of a pen. Running deficits creates inflation and is a stealth tax increase and that is true when Bush is doing it or when Obama is proposing to do it. Printing dollars doesn't create wealth be it banks, governments, or derivatives doing it.



    We don't need to have a pendulum swinging from one non-solution to another. We need something that works. When people turn off their brains simply declaring it is crying over spilled milk because the pendulum has swung one way and the other end doesn't like it, that isn't true in the case of me and won't be true much longer for us as a nation.



    You are old enough to remember Ross Perot attacking the deficit and the screaming about $40 billion dollar bailouts. We can't just keep saying it didn't die or crash yet so it can't be broken. People are linng up multiple bills of half a trillion to a trillion dollars a piece. The numbers are insane and it doesn't matter whether Republicans want $700 billion and Democrats want $800 billion. Neither is sustainable or workable. They are both terrible solutions and the media won't report on it and the parties aren't attacking it in part because they all belong to the same influential group in the same age bracket.



    Obama is supposed to be change. The only change so far is the same generation telling the bigger lies, running the printing presses even more and spending the most money ever.



    Fool me once, shame you you, fool me twice, shame on me. That is the way it should be for the second go around here. Skepticism should be what we raise when a reformer appoints the same old guard and begins engaging in the same old actions.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    trumpt - you and the other people jumping up to find fault with Obama at this early stage are becoming the boy who cried wolf.



    Wouldn't it be a more successful strategy to embrace him now and then jump on him when he actually does something wrong?





    Nah that's not the Redmajority way! You know that clubhouse for bad boys that no one wanted to play with.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Nah that's not the Redmajority way! You know that clubhouse for bad boys that no one wanted to play with.



    No, not The Vanishing (1993, 1988), but The Great PO Conservative Vanishing (2008).



    10-20-2008

    11-21-2008



    What is the sound of one hand clapping?
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    No, not The Vanishing (1993, 1988), but The Great PO Conservative Vanishing (2008).



    10-20-2008

    11-21-2008



    What is the sound of one hand clapping?



    Quote:

    What is the sound of one hand clapping?



    Someone from the right waving bye, bye!
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    In every single thread, Trumptman is going on, and on, and on, about Obama being exactly the same thing as Bush and the republicans. He's trying to attack Obama by saying that his "change" isn't change at all, or isn't enough change, or something like that...



    I'd really like Trumptman to explain how not lying to start a multi-billion dollar war is the same as lying to start a multi-billion dollar war. I'd really like Trumptman to explain how not cutting taxes overwhelmingly benefitting the rich is the same as cutting taxes overwhelmingly benefitting the rich. I'd really like Trumptman to explain how supporting socialized health care reform is the same as opposing socialized healthcare reform. I'd really like Trumptman to explain how not deregulating into a culture of corruption is the same thing as deregulating into a culture of corruption.



    Oh, but Obama works out. Bush worked out. So WHERE'S THE CHANGE?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    In every single thread, Trumptman is going on, and on, and on, about Obama being exactly the same thing as Bush and the republicans. He's trying to attack Obama by saying that his "change" isn't change at all, or isn't enough change, or something like that...



    Or something like that?!?!?!



    Bush helped the Republicans trash themselves by by leading the way to Republicans become Democrat-lite. The party that shut down the government to stop deficit spending now feels conservative if they get a few billion whittled off bills of half a trillion dollars.



    The claim is that Obama will "fix" what Bush did by simply being better and different but most of what Obama is proposing or has discussed is actual the same actions Bush took but full scale, not the lite version.



    Quote:

    I'd really like Trumptman to explain how not lying to start a multi-billion dollar war is the same as lying to start a multi-billion dollar war.



    First on the lying bit. Gore or Obama would have had the same intelligence gathered from the same agencies as Bush did. It is fun to believe they would have acted differently but Obama has kept Gates and has appointed many Democrats who voted for the war or publicly supported it via statements to his cabinet. Rahm, stated he would have voted for it. Clinton, Daschle, and Biden did vote for it. In other words, supporting war including the Iraq war still gets you a slot in the cabinet.



    Obama has not declared that preemptive war is wrong. Quite the opposite, he has declared that it is acceptable and that he will just do it better than Bush. Thus he wouldn't have us in Iraq but still would have attacked and supports pouring more troops and money into Afghanistan. He has not declared he will stop us from being the cop of the world via Pax Americana, rather again, the opposite. His speech in Germany declared that we should double down on this policy. The claim is that American has not properly been a force for good in the world and has acted in a questionable way with regard to applying force. The real question shouldn't be are we applying force properly, but rather why should we be wandering the globe applying force at all.



    Obama claims he will apply that force properly and commits to applying it more than ever before. In other words he will do preemptive war right, but not get us out of the war and global cop business.



    So Obama will be a "change" in this regard, but not really because he simply declares we will be a better cop and use his judgment for a preemptive war done right. We should be out of the cop and war business in my view.



    Quote:

    I'd really like Trumptman to explain how not cutting taxes overwhelmingly benefitting the rich is the same as cutting taxes overwhelmingly benefitting the rich.



    The math for Obama's tax cut doesn't add up and I have explained this. The rich do not have their money come to them primarily through income. When Warren Buffet complained that he secretary paid a higher tax rate than him, it is because he gets his income from stock and dividends and she gets hers from income.



    Guys like Steve Jobs, the founders of Google, etc. all work for "income" of a dollar a year. It is stock options that they exercise that gives them their money. Declaring that you will raise taxes on upper income while providing a tax cut for lower income doesn't address this at all. The numbers won't add up and it will add to the deficit. Obama has mentioned that he might not limit it to income but if the rate are confiscatory, then the investment and dollars just dry up and printing more of them won't solve that problem.



    Quote:

    I'd really like Trumptman to explain how supporting socialized health care reform is the same as opposing socialized healthcare reform.



    Obama doesn't fully support socialized healthcare reform. He has stated that if health care were "affordable" then people would buy it. The non-mandatory nature of his plan as argued quite vigorously throughout the Democratic primary. He claims that cutting paper work and more preventative care will lead to enough savings to cover more people. Finally the big kicker is that he has the federal government assume the costs for "catastrophic" patients so insurance doesn't have to cover them and thus can lower their premiums. Obama is not supporting single payer health care.



    Quote:

    I'd really like Trumptman to explain how not deregulating into a culture of corruption is the same thing as deregulating into a culture of corruption.



    Oh, but Obama works out. Bush worked out. So WHERE'S THE CHANGE?



    I'll address this only briefly but this could easily be a book or two until itself. One of the reasons "deregulation" has caused problems is because you have government measures that claim to remove risk from the system and make it safe to play with fewer rules. Thus we don't need as many rules for creating mortgages because Fanny and Freddie (GSE's) will be buying the loans anyway. I'd suggest a ton of reading in this area but I can say up front that Obama has loads of Clinton people on board and Rubin, the former treasury secretary didn't do anything different from Bush and supported the same proposals. Geithner has been working with Paulson and helped design the policies Bush is pushing through right now. He is described as well known to and friendly to Wall Street interests. I don't think you'll see many changes there and it will likely be more of the same.



    Quote:

    Oh, but Obama works out. Bush worked out. So WHERE'S THE CHANGE?



    Claiming you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic isn't a real change. Claiming you will arrange them better isn't either. Claiming you will redistribute or print up "income" isn't the same as generating it.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    What are you talking about, Nick? What is this "Democrat lite" bull? Bush did exactly what every Republican urged him to do. You cheered him along every step of the way, calling us treasonous (yes i realize the treason spiel was mostly SDW's) for saying he was doing the wrong thing.



    Now that what he did, what you urged him to do, what you cheered him for doing, what we criticized him for -- now that that has been proven a complete and utter failure, you're saying that his policies were too close to those of the Democrats!????



    This is unreal.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Hey Tonton, I did spend sometime addressing what you asked above. Maybe you could quote your issues with the explanation rather than saying it is unreal and what am I talking about?
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Hey Tonton, I did spend sometime addressing what you asked above. Maybe you could quote your issues with the explanation rather than saying it is unreal and what am I talking about?



    Does he need to write it in 200 words or more? The explanation is simple, the response concise. What more do you need? More words? More filler? More rhetoric? That's your forte.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Maybe some more pretty off-topic pictures would help.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Well this is still on track.



    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28410058/



    Quote:

    Axelrod: Slowing economy won't deter tax cuts

    New administration considers $1,000 tax cut for couples, $500 for singles







    It seems Obama is trying to keep on track dispite the bad conditions.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Maybe some more pretty off-topic pictures would help.



    Sorry, I don't want to back up the toilet any more than you have.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    First on the lying bit. Gore or Obama would have had the same intelligence gathered from the same agencies as Bush did. It is fun to believe they would have acted differently but Obama has kept Gates and has appointed many Democrats who voted for the war or publicly supported it via statements to his cabinet. Rahm, stated he would have voted for it. Clinton, Daschle, and Biden did vote for it. In other words, supporting war including the Iraq war still gets you a slot in the cabinet.



    First off, Gates was a brilliant choice. One doesn't want to upset the industrial complex that is the Defense Department during war time. And especially the fact that Gates has been doing the job far better than his counterpart.



    The Iraq war was voted in, yes. There's a lot of Democrats and a whole lot of Republicans. All swayed by the Bush Administration's (you know, the people BUSH CHOSE to gather evidence) intelligence.



    United States House of Representatives



    Republican \t215 Ayes \t6 Nays\t0 PRES\t2 No Vote



    Democratic \t82 Ayes \t126 Nays\t0 PRES\t1 No Vote

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



    United States Senate



    Republican \t48 Ayes \t1 Nays\t0 PRES



    Democratic \t29 Ayes \t21 Nays\t0 PRES



    After the realization had set in, and the war dragged into a quagmire, all were faced with the dilemma of supporting THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S war and the troops.



    Stalemate...because the buck (and the executive orders) stopped here.



    Now, you are trying to convince us that Obama's choice's don't represent change. Since the Obama presidential term hasn't started we can only speculate why he chose them. My speculation is that whether the chosen ones voted for it and supported it, they realize their mistake and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S false evidence points to that.



    The same faces, correct, the same actions for the Obama administration? Same policies? We shall see.



    I wonder what "Old Boys" McCain would have chosen. I just wonder...



    But you keep forgetting who screwed us, the congress, the senate, and the world on this whole war...this whole 8 years...



    How many more fucking days left?
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Sorry, I don't want to back up the toilet any more than you have.





    He, he!
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    First off, Gates was a brilliant choice. One doesn't want to upset the industrial complex that is the Defense Department during war time. And especially the fact that Gates has been doing the job far better than his counterpart.



    The Iraq war was voted in, yes. There's a lot of Democrats and a whole lot of Republicans. All swayed by the Bush Administration's (you know, the people BUSH CHOSE to gather evidence) intelligence.



    United States House of Representatives



    Republican \t215 Ayes \t6 Nays\t0 PRES\t2 No Vote



    Democratic \t82 Ayes \t126 Nays\t0 PRES\t1 No Vote

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



    United States Senate



    Republican \t48 Ayes \t1 Nays\t0 PRES



    Democratic \t29 Ayes \t21 Nays\t0 PRES



    After the realization had set in, and the war dragged into a quagmire, all were faced with the dilemma of supporting THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S war and the troops.



    Stalemate...because the buck (and the executive orders) stopped here.



    Now, you are trying to convince us that Obama's choice's don't represent change. Since the Obama presidential term hasn't started we can only speculate why he chose them. My speculation is that whether the chosen ones voted for it and supported it, they realize their mistake and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S false evidence points to that.



    The same faces, correct, the same actions for the Obama administration? Same policies? We shall see.



    I wonder what "Old Boys" McCain would have chosen. I just wonder...



    But you keep forgetting who screwed us, the congress, the senate, and the world on this whole war...this whole 8 years...



    How many more fucking days left?



    Show me how that realization by noting how many of those NAYS are in his cabinet.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Show me how that realization by noting how many of those NAYS are in his cabinet.



    I don't have to. Whomever did say NAY probably has a better use on the floor of the house, such as Dennis Kucinich, who organized the 126 NAYS in the first place. Just proves that he may be a better legislator than a president or an Obama appointee.



    I don't have time to parse out the other 126, read their resumes and have a sit-down with them. They deserve credit, how do I know who'd be chosen for a position they were either given or never offered? I don't know because I am not part of the vetting process.



    You... Hands + Straws = Grasping
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Good reasoning. I'll be happy to let it speak for you. Obama change = peace by picking all the guys that vote for war!
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Good reasoning. I'll be happy to let it speak for you. Obama change = peace by picking all the guys that vote for war!



    Under false pretenses. Keep forgetting that won't you?



    Why don't you fantasize whom McCain would have chosen. The AYEs would have had it too. Except they'd be the delusional ones.
  • hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Good reasoning. I'll be happy to let it speak for you. Obama change = peace by picking all the guys that vote for war!



    So conservative thought has been reduced to a game of knifey-spoony... Well, I guess that just proves I was wrong to hold out hope for an appearance of the elusive conservative thinker.
Sign In or Register to comment.