AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 11

post #401 of 886
1/29/12 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I swear I get dumber with every one of jimmac's posts I read.

No. You just sound that way.

By the way hows that Ron Paul doing? You know of the three he really makes the most sense ( except he's fundimentally wrong on certain things of course ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #402 of 886
1/29/12 at 4:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It would be really great if you could say something relevent. You're a master at saying something that sounds like it's proof of something when it's not.

You are absolutely welcome to prove that you have an existent consensus or majority. You keep claiming you are right because "most people" say what you are saying with no proof of such claims. Quite the opposite is true and the election results have proven this out. Be snippy and ticked but it is reality.

Quote:
And about Krugman :

And yet everything he's predicted about this downturn ( calling it just a recession at this stage seems really unrealistic ) has come to pass. Do you really think that if we followed the GOP or Libertarian line and just stepped back and watched things would fix themselves? If you do you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. If there's a blind partisan here it's you and SDW.

Actually several parties including him predicted the downturn as did I. The point is you can find Krugman arguing both sides of the same coin depending upon who is in office. If you don't want to see that then it is you who are the blind partisan.

Take a look and ANSWER to this Jimmac.

You know what that is right there, that is Paul Krugman calling for a housing bubble.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Please feel free to pick your jaw up off the floor and do something with it. The point is that the Keynesian moves are the same is three card monte.
If you had read the article you could clearly see it doesn't even come close to saying that.
Quote:
The truth here is all you have is your very subjective opinion and barbs. You have nothing except your venom. Sad really.

The truth is you are projecting and I have lots more than nothing because instead of watching the cards, I play a different game.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #403 of 886
1/29/12 at 10:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know I'm not suggesting we should start a war. And yet you jump to really stupid conclusions in order to shore up your nonstatement. The point is we moved in the right direction by at least trying to avert the worst of this BY DOING SOMTHING. The doing nothing had already previously been tried during most of the Bush years ( letting lending institutions run amok ) and look where it got us. Can you say the same of Krugman the Nobel Laureate who preaches the same thing only more so? If you can I'd call you ridiculous.

I wasn't saying you were saying we should start a war. I was answering your claim that WW2 ended the great depression. It did, if you use figures like GDP and unemployment, but if you look past the figures at what people are actually doing, they're dying, and not better off at all. If that's your killer unanswerable example of how big government can solve economic problems then I say, give me the marketplace anyway.

What really ended the depression (and by that I mean, actually got people's living standards rising again, as opposed to just making the numbers change) was that after WW2 a lot of the regulations that were put in place to "solve" the great depression were repealed, because the people realised they had made a mistake. Even though some people today still worship those moves, the actual people who made them knew better.

As for "DOING SOMETHING," is it possible to extend a recession by doing something, it's not the case that anything you do will make it shorter. So you have to be careful. And I think in this case Obama is extending it. As I said, government does not create wealth it only moves it from one place to another. And typically in to a less efficient allocation. Therefore the bigger the "stimulus" the bigger the inefficiency being introduced, and the longer the recession will go on. And of course Krugman agrees with Obama, he is a Keynesian, but there are also Nobel Prize winning economists who disagree with Keynes (such as Milton Friedman).
Reply
Reply
post #404 of 886
1/30/12 at 6:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know I'm not suggesting we should start a war. And yet you jump to really stupid conclusions in order to shore up your nonstatement. The point is we moved in the right direction by at least trying to avert the worst of this BY DOING SOMTHING. The doing nothing had already previously been tried during most of the Bush years ( letting lending institutions run amok ) and look where it got us. Can you say the same of Krugman the Nobel Laureate who preaches the same thing only more so? If you can I'd call you ridiculous.

Yes, yes. We DID SOMETHING. Just like we did on healthcare. Because you see...it doesn't matter what we did, only that we tried.

And as for Bush: You portray the Bush years as some kind of Wild, Wild West with no regulation or oversight. Any honest person knows that regulation increased under Bush, particularly after the Enron and Worldcom meltdowns. That is to say nothing of the fact that the GOP and Admin were warning on Fannie and Freddie several years before stuff hit the fan. What was the response from the DEMOCRATS in charge? Everything is fine at Fannie at Freddie! Republicans are racists!
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #405 of 886
1/30/12 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are absolutely welcome to prove that you have an existent consensus or majority. You keep claiming you are right because "most people" say what you are saying with no proof of such claims. Quite the opposite is true and the election results have proven this out. Be snippy and ticked but it is reality.



Actually several parties including him predicted the downturn as did I. The point is you can find Krugman arguing both sides of the same coin depending upon who is in office. If you don't want to see that then it is you who are the blind partisan.

Take a look and ANSWER to this Jimmac.

You know what that is right there, that is Paul Krugman calling for a housing bubble.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Please feel free to pick your jaw up off the floor and do something with it. The point is that the Keynesian moves are the same is three card monte.
If you had read the article you could clearly see it doesn't even come close to saying that.


The truth is you are projecting and I have lots more than nothing because instead of watching the cards, I play a different game.

Quote:
You keep claiming you are right because "most people" say what you are saying with no proof of such claims. Quite the opposite is true and the election results have proven this out. Be snippy and ticked but it is reality.

Ok trumpy show me your " Proof " ( not an election because people can make a mistake and it's drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence ).

Quote:
Actually several parties including him predicted the downturn as did I. The point is you can find Krugman arguing both sides of the same coin depending upon who is in office. If you don't want to see that then it is you who are the blind partisan.

He not only predicted the downturn but how it would go ( and this didn't include what Obama's done but rather what he and others didn't do and it didn't include standing back and doing nothing ). Did you do this?

Quote:
I play a different game

Uh huh. Yeah sure you betcha.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #406 of 886
1/30/12 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, yes. We DID SOMETHING. Just like we did on healthcare. Because you see...it doesn't matter what we did, only that we tried.

And as for Bush: You portray the Bush years as some kind of Wild, Wild West with no regulation or oversight. Any honest person knows that regulation increased under Bush, particularly after the Enron and Worldcom meltdowns. That is to say nothing of the fact that the GOP and Admin were warning on Fannie and Freddie several years before stuff hit the fan. What was the response from the DEMOCRATS in charge? Everything is fine at Fannie at Freddie! Republicans are racists!

[QUOTEYou portray the Bush years as some kind of Wild, Wild West with no regulation or oversight. Any honest person knows that regulation ][/QUOTE]

That was a quote by someone concerning the nature of morgage lending during the Bush years.

Quote:
Bucha, the Cuyahoga County chief magistrate, has seen it for years.

"How many millions of loans do some of these banks have?" Bucha asked. "All of these loans were generated at a time when it was the Wild West" -- a time when almost anyone with a heartbeat could get a mortgage and there was almost no regulation. "Anytime you have a gigantic bureaucracy like this, you're going to have mistakes."

This is what no regulation does SDW.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...uproar_sw.html

You just don't get it and are probably not capable of getting it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #407 of 886
1/30/12 at 7:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok trumpy show me your " Proof " ( not an election because people can make a mistake and it's drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence ).

Show you proof that you speak only for yourself instead of some undefined and unproven mass mob you keep referring to? Um, you've cracked. Go look in a mirror. See the one person in it, that is for whom you speak.

Quote:
He not only predicted the downturn but how it would go ( and this didn't include what Obama's done but rather what he and others didn't do and it didn't include standing back and doing nothing ). Did you do this?

I've absolutely stated clearly that the stimulus wouldn't have a positive effect. I'd gladly put up what I've typed against Krugman.

Quote:
Uh huh. Yeah sure you betcha.

I see you "conveniently" ignored that direct quote of his saying the way you fix the tech bubble is with a housing bubble. How typical of you.....

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #408 of 886
1/31/12 at 6:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

[QUOTEYou portray the Bush years as some kind of Wild, Wild West with no regulation or oversight. Any honest person knows that regulation ]

That was a quote by someone concerning the nature of morgage lending during the Bush years.

Thios is what no regulation does SDW.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...uproar_sw.html

You just don't get it and are probably not capable of getting it.

I know the quote..and it's simply based on falsehoods. If anything, the government had been pushing banks to make bad loans since at least the 1990s, and to a certain extent the Carter Admin. It wasn't as if the banks were running around screaming YEEHAW and firing off their six shooters as they sold granny down the river because there was no sheriff. In fact, the sheriff was the one holding the gun to their heads, telling them to give Joe Blow a $300,000 mortgage when he only made $29,000 a year.

You can keep pretending that it was lack of government involvement that caused the problem, jimmac. The rest of us realize that government caused the problem.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #409 of 886
2/1/12 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I know the quote..and it's simply based on falsehoods. If anything, the government had been pushing banks to make bad loans since at least the 1990s, and to a certain extent the Carter Admin. It wasn't as if the banks were running around screaming YEEHAW and firing off their six shooters as they sold granny down the river because there was no sheriff. In fact, the sheriff was the one holding the gun to their heads, telling them to give Joe Blow a $300,000 mortgage when he only made $29,000 a year.

You can keep pretending that it was lack of government involvement that caused the problem, jimmac. The rest of us realize that government caused the problem.

Quote:
I know the quote..and it's simply based on falsehoods.

Of course! SDW says it's based on flasehoods so it must be true! Why didn't I think of that!

I wish it was that easy to rewrite history SDW but most of us don't go to the church of " SDW's always right! ".

Someone's pretending here alright. Pretending to be trhe all seeing eye and we should just accept. Just like accepting that were WMD in Iraq when we invaded right?

Come back to earth SDW.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #410 of 886
2/1/12 at 6:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Of course! SDW says it's based on flasehoods so it must be true! Why didn't I think of that!

I wish it was that easy to rewrite history SDW but most of us don't go to the church of " SDW's always right! ".

Someone's pretending here alright. Pretending to be trhe all seeing eye and we should just accept. Just like accepting that were WMD in Iraq when we invaded right?

Come back to earth SDW.

This is such a classic jimmac response. You don't actually argue a point. You just toss out vague notions of "rewriting history" and "pretending" and the like. But, I've seen this movie before, and you're not going to get away with playing out the same old script. Answer this question:

Is it your position that lack of government involvement caused the financial crisis?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #411 of 886
2/1/12 at 12:19pm
Thread Starter 
Obama is starting with a huge mountain to climb.

Quote:
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

Let's look forward to a Fall campaign full of "everyone knows" and "they say this, but I do this instead."

False consensus and strawmen aren't going to get it done.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #412 of 886
2/1/12 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Obama is starting with a huge mountain to climb.



Let's look forward to a Fall campaign full of "everyone knows" and "they say this, but I do this instead."

False consensus and strawmen aren't going to get it done.


I'm surprised his approval numbers are as high as they are. I actually think that the numbers aren't reflective of his national support. If his approval is at 44% now, I'd say it's more like 37-40%. In fact, given his gap between strongly approve/strongly disapprove, I'd say that's likely.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #413 of 886
2/1/12 at 12:36pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I actually think that the numbers aren't reflective of his national support. If his approval is at 44% now, I'd say it's more like 37-40%. In fact, given his gap between strongly approve/strongly disapprove, I'd say that's likely.

Evidence for this assertion?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #414 of 886
2/1/12 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Evidence for this assertion?

Just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Nothing more in this case.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #415 of 886
2/1/12 at 2:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm surprised his approval numbers are as high as they are. I actually think that the numbers aren't reflective of his national support. If his approval is at 44% now, I'd say it's more like 37-40%. In fact, given his gap between strongly approve/strongly disapprove, I'd say that's likely.

Well it is pretty clear that the media is carrying massive water for the man and there isn't really anybody out there spending millions to call him out on his record.

I'm of the opinion this should be the first commercial out of the gate for the Republican nominee. There are an easy dozen similar examples. They can just run them with the real numbers and not have to say a negative word.

The poll numbers out there are already terrible for him. They are historically low and it is clear that without the media accomplices and fears of being labeled a racist, they would be dramatically lower. When people are given real reasoning that can firm up their thinking about the man and his performance, it will be over for him.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #416 of 886
2/1/12 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is such a classic jimmac response. You don't actually argue a point. You just toss out vague notions of "rewriting history" and "pretending" and the like. But, I've seen this movie before, and you're not going to get away with playing out the same old script. Answer this question:

Is it your position that lack of government involvement caused the financial crisis?

Yes. That and greed from the lending institutions.

Quote:
This is such a classic jimmac response. You don't actually argue a point.

That's because as a response you gave your opinion. Everyone has one of those. It doesn't make it right.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #417 of 886
2/1/12 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Nothing more in this case.

Like I was just saying.........
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #418 of 886
2/2/12 at 4:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes. That and greed from the lending institutions.

That's simply false. Government caused most of the problem with the loose money supply (deliberate) and ruthless enforcement/bullying tactics of the CRA (making loans to those who could not afford them).

Quote:



That's because as a response you gave your opinion. Everyone has one of those. It doesn't make it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I was just saying.........

That was one occasion where I clearly stated what my opinion was based upon. Most of my opinions are based on a lot more than anecdotal evidence. When they are, I state that...especially if asked. There is nothing wrong with expressing a feeling or "hunch," if you will, so long as you don't pretend it's more than that.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #419 of 886
2/2/12 at 10:24am
Thread Starter 
Obama Economic Approval

Quote:
In another indication of the difficulty President Obama's reelection campaign faces, only 36 percent of likely voters grade the administration's handling of the economy at good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

In a national survey of 1,000 likely voters January 31-February 1, a whopping 62 percent grade the president at fair to poor, with poor collecting the largest number: 45 percent.

Still, Democratic officials say that they see a positive trend built on slightly better unemployment and housing numbers that could end up helping Obama in his reelection.

Look at all those racists.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #420 of 886
2/2/12 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Obama Economic Approval



Look at all those racists.

No, it's racial coding. You said "economic approval" as if it's the white man's right to judge him. You're no better than a slave master!
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #421 of 886
2/2/12 at 12:02pm
Thread Starter 
I'm using those dog whistles as well because I talk about things like employment, economic growth, sound currency, etc.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #422 of 886
2/3/12 at 6:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's simply false. Government caused most of the problem with the loose money supply (deliberate) and ruthless enforcement/bullying tactics of the CRA (making loans to those who could not afford them).





That was one occasion where I clearly stated what my opinion was based upon. Most of my opinions are based on a lot more than anecdotal evidence. When they are, I state that...especially if asked. There is nothing wrong with expressing a feeling or "hunch," if you will, so long as you don't pretend it's more than that.

Quote:
That's simply false

In your opinion. Myself and many others don't agree with your take on the whole thing.

Quote:
so long as you don't pretend it's more than that

You've got that one right. Please keep it in mind.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #423 of 886
2/4/12 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In your opinion. Myself and many others don't agree with your take on the whole thing.

Let's see those opinions then. Show me credible persons who claim that "greedy banks" were the primary cause of the problem. By "credible," I don't mean Michael Moore.

Quote:

You've got that one right. Please keep it in mind.

I suggest you look in the mirror. You make statements based on anecdotal evidence all the time (if that), and then present them as well-documented, demonstrable assertions.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #424 of 886
2/4/12 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's see those opinions then. Show me credible persons who claim that "greedy banks" were the primary cause of the problem. By "credible," I don't mean Michael Moore.



I suggest you look in the mirror. You make statements based on anecdotal evidence all the time (if that), and then present them as well-documented, demonstrable assertions.

Quote:
Show me credible persons who claim that "greedy banks" were the primary cause of the problem.

Oh Jesus Christ SDW! I know you ignore things you see on the news or hear from everyday people now because you'd have to be that way to ask such a silly question.

Just type in greedy banks recession : http://www.google.com/search?q=Greed...4&bih=882&bs=1

And see what you get! I know any source I pick you won't like so you pick one!

You have an absolute talent for ignoring what's out there otherwise you wouldn't have the beliefs you do. Do us all a favor and pull your head out of the sand once and awhile ok?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #425 of 886
2/6/12 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh Jesus Christ SDW! I know you ignore things you see on the news or hear from everyday people now because you'd have to be that way to ask such a silly question.

Just type in greedy banks recession : http://www.google.com/search?q=Greed...4&bih=882&bs=1

And see what you get! I know any source I pick you won't like so you pick one!

You have an absolute talent for ignoring what's out there otherwise you wouldn't have the beliefs you do. Do us all a favor and pull your head out of the sand once and awhile ok?

One of the "sources" in the results is THIS THREAD. You show me the sources. Link to the specific, credible and non-biased articles that support your fucking stupid opinion.

By the way, here are several of the other top "sources" from your Google search.

1. telegraph.uk: Article that talks about "greedy banks" hurting economic recovery by raising rates. In other words, another topic.

2. retireby40.org: Sounds great. Multi-national organization, clearly.

3. This thread.

4. Random youtube video

5. Creditscorequick.com

6. Facebook

7. us economy.about.com
Quote:
Irrational exuberance in the housing market led many people to buy houses they couldn't afford, because everyone thought housing prices could only go up. In 2006, the bubble burst as housing prices started to decline. This caught many homeowners off guard, who had taken loans with little money down. As they realized they would lose money by selling the house for less than their mortgage, they foreclosed. An escalating foreclosure rate panicked many banks and hedge funds, who had bought mortgage-backed securities on the secondary market and now realized they were facing huge losses.

8. A random blog

9. Another random blog

10. Yahoo answers.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #426 of 886
2/7/12 at 4:02pm
I haven't personally seen it yet, but the Christian blogosphere is abuzz about the speech given by Eric Metaxas at the National Prayer Breakfast (in advance of Obama's speech.)

Metaxas isn't well known, but his book on Bonhoeffer (a German pastor who decided to participate in an assassination plot against Hitler) is quite well done.

National Review points out the awkwardness that followed with Obama speech. The word they use is 'devastating'.

Here's a link to the speech. It starts about 35 mins in. I hope to get time to sit down and watch it this week.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #427 of 886
2/7/12 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I haven't personally seen it yet, but the Christian blogosphere is abuzz about the speech given by Eric Metaxas at the National Prayer Breakfast (in advance of Obama's speech.)

Metaxas isn't well known, but his book on Bonhoeffer (a German pastor who decided to participate in an assassination plot against Hitler) is quite well done.

National Review points out the awkwardness that followed with Obama speech. The word they use is 'devastating'.

Here's a link to the speech. It starts about 35 mins in. I hope to get time to sit down and watch it this week.

Wow. Just...wow.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #428 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:00pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Why do we have a national prayer breakfast? The entire idea seems ridiculous.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #429 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Why do we have a national prayer breakfast? The entire idea seems ridiculous.

Because we do. Because it's still a (semi) free country and this is one of the ways some people exercise their freedom.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #430 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:05pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Because we do. Because it's still a (semi) free country and this is one of the ways some people exercise their freedom.

Hey, it's totally cool if we do have one...as long as the government isn't footing a single penny of the cost.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #431 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Hey, it's totally cool if we do have one...as long as the government isn't footing a single penny of the cost.

I agree. I don't think it is, but I don't know for sure. However, even if it was it would probably one of the least offensive ways in which the government is currently spending money.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #432 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:11pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
You are correct that the government does spend money in many offensive ways. However, I would hesitate to call violating the 1st amendment "one of the least offensive." Now imagine if the demographics shifted and your religion was no longer in the majority.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #433 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are correct that the government does spend money in many offensive ways. However, I would hesitate to call violating the 1st amendment "one of the least offensive." Now imagine if the demographics shifted and your religion was no longer in the majority.

While I'm not sure I'd agree it would be a violation of the 1st amendment it appears to be irrelevant. It looks like the National Prayer Breakfast is privately sponsored. So you can rest easy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #434 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

One of the "sources" in the results is THIS THREAD. You show me the sources. Link to the specific, credible and non-biased articles that support your fucking stupid opinion.

By the way, here are several of the other top "sources" from your Google search.

1. telegraph.uk: Article that talks about "greedy banks" hurting economic recovery by raising rates. In other words, another topic.

2. retireby40.org: Sounds great. Multi-national organization, clearly.

3. This thread.

4. Random youtube video

5. Creditscorequick.com

6. Facebook

7. us economy.about.com

8. A random blog

9. Another random blog

10. Yahoo answers.

Do I really need to list the one's that apply directly?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #435 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:33pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Well, MJ, I could rest easy if they weren't inappropriately using official congressional seals on their literature, implying it's an officially sponsored event.

http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/WALead...ecofSenate.pdf

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #436 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, MJ, I could rest easy if they weren't inappropriately using official congressional seals on their literature, implying it's an officially sponsored event.

http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/WALead...ecofSenate.pdf

Then do something about it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #437 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:44pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Where do you stand on using official government seals on National Prayer Breakfast literature?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #438 of 886
2/7/12 at 5:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Where do you stand on using official government seals on National Prayer Breakfast literature?

Never really thought about it.

But...I think there ought to be a lot less official government seals and lot fewer people in the government...and a lot less to worry about it all of that.

In the end I don't approve but it's really the least of my concerns. There are so many bigger fish to fry.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #439 of 886
2/7/12 at 9:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are correct that the government does spend money in many offensive ways. However, I would hesitate to call violating the 1st amendment "one of the least offensive." Now imagine if the demographics shifted and your religion was no longer in the majority.

You're telling me AI's resident Atheist-General doesn't know the Breakfast is sponsored by a certain dark and shadowy group bent on a government takeover?
Metaxas even makes light of that silly idea in his opening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, MJ, I could rest easy if they weren't inappropriately using official congressional seals on their literature, implying it's an officially sponsored event.

http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/WALead...ecofSenate.pdf

Looks to me that they are using the seals not to imply endorsement, but to promote the idea that the event engages with government leaders.
Where do you see the "implying it's an officially sponsored event" part?

I decided to throw work aside and watch the speech tonight anyway. It wasn't that long.

Amazingly well done. And actually castigates both left and right, just the way it should be done.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #440 of 886
2/7/12 at 9:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Looks to me that they are using the seals not to imply endorsement, but to promote the idea that the event engages with government leaders.
Where do you see the "implying it's an officially sponsored event" part?

Oh, don't be so obtuse.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.