State of Obama's Economy

[DC Tom]

Many of the criticisms of President Bush tick me off. Yes, his decision to go to war without raising taxes to pay for it was a bad one (and the two sides could discuss many of the war, ad nauseum). But the attack on 9/11 was going to hurt our economy one way or another. THAT ISN'T HIS FAULT! We had to respond in some manner, and that would further damage the economy- that isn't his fault either.

 

 

His presidency opened with 9/11, featured Katrina in the middle, and closed with the CMO meltdown and near-collapse of the entire financial system.

 

His must be the most snakebit presidency in history.

[Adam]

His presidency opened with 9/11, featured Katrina in the middle, and closed with the CMO meltdown and near-collapse of the entire financial system.

 

His must be the most snakebit presidency in history.

You aren't wrong at all. And despite what many on the left say, the bureaucracy of our government tied his hands on Katrina- he can't just snap his fingers and send help. That makes me wonder why there is so much more hoopla over the presidential election than the congressional elections.

[IDBillzFan]

I'll do this one time, and hope that it's enough to curtail what appears to be an attempt to redirect a request for erudite discussion into a microchasm of domestic partisan political debate.

 

I REALLY want to believe that your tempermental stomach can tolerate articles posted on here that are not vitriolic and critical of the Administration (even though I didn't post the article, but rather a criticism piece from a conservative blog that I frequent). I really want to believe that you can argue a point without innuendo. I really want to believe that the extent of your political understanding is not limited to what you picked up from diatribes by some bigot articulating pre-menstrual neo-Orwellian theory while liquored up on Grundy, VA potato moonshine.

 

I WANT TO BELIEVE IT.

 

But when you introduce innuendo into an otherwise antiseptic convo, I question you LA. I. Question. You.

 

And in doing so, I necessarily question myself. Like "negligent entrustment" question. And both questions have a dearth of answers.

 

I don't want that for either of us: the dearth; the innuendo; the negligence; the potato moonshine.

 

Are we in a better place now?

See, here's the problem: you start a thread titled "State of Obama's Economy...let's discuss." There are few people paying attention to the political world who would see your topic title, see the content of your original post, and assume it was any sort of "request for erudite discussion." You refer to an article by a hard-core partisan liberal (Andrew Sullivan) by linking to an article by a hard-core partisan conservative (Noel Shepphard), and after it's pointed out that Sullivan's article is nothing BUT hard-core partisan posturing, you start Typing. One. Word. Sentences. Like. A. Drama. Queen.

 

It would explain how, five pages later, no one is discussing what you wanted to discuss. But I'm sure it's not you. It's us. We're just too stoopid to know what you really meant at the beginning of the thread.

 

Lighten. Up. Francis.

[Juror#8]

See, here's the problem: you start a thread titled "State of Obama's Economy...let's discuss." There are few people paying attention to the political world who would see your topic title, see the content of your original post, and assume it was any sort of "request for erudite discussion." You refer to an article by a hard-core partisan liberal (Andrew Sullivan) by linking to an article by a hard-core partisan conservative (Noel Shepphard), and after it's pointed out that Sullivan's article is nothing BUT hard-core partisan posturing, you start Typing. One. Word. Sentences. Like. A. Drama. Queen.

 

It would explain how, five pages later, no one is discussing what you wanted to discuss. But I'm sure it's not you. It's us. We're just too stoopid to know what you really meant at the beginning of the thread.

 

Lighten. Up. Francis.

 

Apropos the underlined sentence above, you are correct and I respect your self-effacing candor.

 

And the one word sentences are so that you can better understand my point since it's evident that complex sentence arrangements and poly-syballic words confound you.

 

Please. Keep. Up. Cupcake.

[Jauronimo]

I also mentioned the unfair criticism of Bush that were the product of "open opinions."

 

The email was only relevant insofar as it concerned (what I believe to be) racist carictures.

 

The point that we've been focusing our discussion on is individuals saying that "_______ doesn't care about _______ people."

 

You're conflating two things to make a single point.

 

So as I mentioned before: Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?

Wrong. The point of the discussion was whether or not the nature and intensity of the criticism aimed at Obama was above and beyond that directed at his predecessors or other politicians. I provided examples as to Bush's character being questioned. An elected member of our government questioned in national media whether or not Bush was letting innocent Americans die due to his bigotry. You've dismissed this and I'm sure you'll now provide some loose explanation of how this can actually be considered political in nature. I've also given you examples of other politicians who were and are heavily scrutinized for their religious views.

 

How is questioning whether someone is a US citizen not an entirely political tactic? Those with presidential aspirations would certainly leverage that angle if it gave them a shot at the oval office. Romney's ties to Mexico are now being discussed and his citizenship has been questioned as well. So we are now left with the racial aspects of your original argument which really only prove that Obama is this nations first black president born of a Kenyan and that some Americans are racists. As far as bigoted cartoons and caricatures, ask Condoleeza Rice.

 

As you can see, it is my opinion that the criticisms of Obama are no different than those aimed at members of the Bush administration and many politicians before him. In order to continue this discussion you'll have to provide color to the nameless "they": the media personalities and outlets which have reported that Obama is anti-American, a terrorist, and a watermelon/chicken fiend, and include the context in which these allegations were reported.

[IDBillzFan]

Apropos the underlined sentence above, you are correct and I respect your self-effacing candor.

 

And the one word sentences are so that you can better understand my point since it's evident that complex sentence arrangements and poly-syballic words confound you.

 

Please. Keep. Up. Cupcake.

Thank you in advance for your clarification.We will make every attempt at being less stupid if you will make every attempt to avoid using words no one outside your "Hooked On Phonics" inner circle has seen before so we don't divert to a "microchasm (sic) of domestic partisan political debate." In turn, we expect this will allow us to better discuss a topic you created that featured links to articles that have nothing to do with the reality of the topic you created.

Edited January 18, 2012 by LABillzFan

[3rdnlng]

Apropos the underlined sentence above, you are correct and I respect your self-effacing candor.

 

And the one word sentences are so that you can better understand my point since it's evident that complex sentence arrangements and poly-syballic words confound you.

 

Please. Keep. Up. Cupcake.

 

 

So, what's your opinion on Obama's economy?

[Juror#8]

Wrong. The point of the discussion was whether or not the nature and intensity of the criticism aimed at Obama was above and beyond that directed at his predecessors or other politicians. I provided examples as to Bush's character being questioned. An elected member of our government questioned in national media whether or not Bush was letting innocent Americans die due to his bigotry. You've dismissed this and I'm sure you'll now provide some loose explanation of how this can actually be considered political in nature. I've also given you examples of other politicians who were and are heavily scrutinized for their religious views.

 

How is questioning whether someone is a US citizen not an entirely political tactic? Those with presidential aspirations would certainly leverage that angle if it gave them a shot at the oval office. Romney's ties to Mexico are now being discussed and his citizenship has been questioned as well. So we are now left with the racial aspects of your original argument which really only prove that Obama is this nations first black president born of a Kenyan and that some Americans are racists. As far as bigoted cartoons and caricatures, ask Condoleeza Rice.

 

As you can see, it is my opinion that the criticisms of Obama are no different than those aimed at members of the Bush administration and many politicians before him. In order to continue this discussion you'll have to provide color to the nameless "they": the media personalities and outlets which have reported that Obama is anti-American, a terrorist, and a watermelon/chicken fiend, and include the context in which these allegations were reported.

 

I do this with OC all the time and now I'll extend the same coutesy to you.

 

1. You mentioned a bunch of points and in you second to last point mentioned the "Kanye issue." (Post#24)

 

2. I responded to your post in turn. (Post#26)

 

3. YOU ignored everything else that I said in post#26 and just responded to the "Kanye issue." (Post#27)

 

4. I responded to your comment that Jesse Jackson And Elijah Cummings said that Bush didn't care about black people (because my point was that it was national media and their pundits who were making those comments about Obama not unaffiliated politicians or activists):

 

 

(Aside: If you didn't know before, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Joe Blow making that comment and an affiliated media personality making the comment to a national audience - that you continue to try to distinguish that is unfortunate).

 

5. You made some idiotic comment about "list of approved political and media figures." (Post#33)

 

6. I mentioned to you that I never said anything about "political figures," yet those are the folks who you referenced (Post#35)

 

7. Then you said that " asked for examples of such criticisms of Bush," and elaborated on that point. (Post#37)

 

Your response in Post #37 completely ignores points 1-6. I didn't ask for those "examples of such criticisms of Bush" in that context. The origins of our conversation was your point in post #27 since you ignored everything else I mentioned in post #26. So we stuck with the Kanye point and elaborated on that.

 

Can't you follow a !@#$ing train of thought?

 

You've conflated points, posts, ideas, and assertions in a weird way that suggests that your mind doesn't allow for any organization of thought.

 

LA wanted to know why the topic has gone so much off course. Here is the answer. It's dolts like you who deviate a thought into the nethersphere and then try to bring it back abruptly as if one !@#$ing post 9 posts removed is in response to something that wasn't discussed in full bredth for the last 7 hours.

 

Can you !@#$ing follow that?

 

!@#$ing. Dolt.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Juror#8

[GG]

It's not you. It's us.

 

I guess every liberal that I know who railed on Bush after the Florida elections did so on political grounds, yet every conservative I know who rails on Obama is doing it out of personal animosity?

 

There's no denying that race plays a larger role among Obama's detractors. There's also no denying the stupefying lunacy of your second original point:

 

"I criticized folks on the left for unfairly criticizing Bush. It is happening amongst Republicans towards Obama in a way worse than what what was done to Bush."

 

Again, your words.

 

And yes, the Obama Economy. I think that it should take hold in the Recovery Summer - any day now it's ready to start kicking into high gear.

Edited January 18, 2012 by GG

[erynthered]

I do this with OC all the time and now I'll extend the same coutesy to you.

 

1. You mentioned a bunch of points and in you second to last point mentioned the "Kanye issue." (Post#24)

 

2. I responded to your post in turn. (Post#26)

 

3. YOU ignored everything else that I said in post#26 and just responded to the "Kanye issue." (Post#27)

 

4. I responded to your comment that Jesse Jackson And Elijah Cummings said that Bush didn't care about black people (because my point was that it was national media and their pundits who were making those comments about Obama not unaffiliated politicians or activists):

 

youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA

 

(Aside: If you didn't know before, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Joe Blow making that comment and an affiliated media personality making the comment to a national audience - that you continue to try to distinguish that is unfortunate).

 

5. You made some idiotic comment about "list of approved political and media figures." (Post#33)

 

6. I mentioned to you that I never said anything about "political figures," yet those are the folks who you referenced (Post#35)

 

7. Then you said that " asked for examples of such criticisms of Bush," and elaborated on that point. (Post#37)

 

Your response in Post #37 completely ignores points 1-6. I didn't ask for those "examples of such criticisms of Bush" in that context. The origins of our conversation was your point in post #27 since you ignored everything else I mentioned in post #26. So we stuck with the Kanye point and elaborated on that.

 

Can't you follow a !@#$ing train of thought?

 

You've conflated points, posts, ideas, and assertions in a weird way that suggests that your mind doesn't allow for any organization of thought.

 

LA wanted to know why the topic has gone so much off course. Here is the answer. It's dolts like you who deviate a thought into the nethersphere and then try to bring it back abruptly as if one !@#$ing post 9 posts removed is in response to something that wasn't discussed in full bredth for the last 7 hours.

 

Can you !@#$ing follow that?

 

!@#$ing. Dolt.

 

 

Dude..........

 

anal.

retentive.

much?

 

A term used to refer to a person who feels a need to be in control of all aspects of his or her surroundings. Or, in other words, an anal retentive person "can't let go of Shiit"

[Juror#8]

So, what's your opinion on Obama's economy?

 

The stimulus was poorly conceived but it put some people to work.

 

People were put to work on the backs of taxpayers who are already over-burdened though. I don't like the idea of substantially cutting corporate tax rates either because I don't think that there is a necessary correlation between that and job creation.

 

I'm not sure of the best in-between to accomplish one without imposing the other.

 

The economy appears to be bouncing back. I'm not just talking about graphs. The indicators seem to be falling in line to suggest a recovery. That's good. I think that Obama's long term vision seems to be bearing some fruit. I think that he took the scenic route, and other Administrations could have facilitated this sooner, but hey, can't complain too much.

 

Overall, I think that Bush left the economy in absolute disarray and Obama wasn't the person to fix it. His vision was too utopic and altruistic to tackle the challenges of an economy in crises and his large-scale initiaves, prioritization, and the slow recovery seem to substantiate that.

 

I can't blame him for the **** can way the economy was left, but I will for the snail's pace that the economy is in now.

 

I'm not an economist so I can only judge by "seat of the pants" analysis. With that said, I give the economy a "C-" and the Administration a "D."

 

The difference between myself and others here is that there seems to be a personal thing with appraising the man. That is foul and odious. It's as if some here feel that ideological disagreement with the Administration necessarily entails some personal dislike. If I defend him in one instance, or take exception with an unfair characterization, I somehow support him ideologically.

 

Dude..........

 

anal.

retentive.

much?

 

A term used to refer to a person who feels a need to be in control of all aspects of his or her surroundings. Or, in other words, an anal retentive person "can't let go of Shiit"

 

Yeah...well...sort of. I'm described by colleagues as "fastidious" but...well ok.

[Jauronimo]

I do this with OC all the time and now I'll extend the same coutesy to you.

 

1. You mentioned a bunch of points and in you second to last point mentioned the "Kanye issue." (Post#24)

 

2. I responded to your post in turn. (Post#26)

 

3. YOU ignored everything else that I said in post#26 and just responded to the "Kanye issue." (Post#27)

 

4. I responded to your comment that Jesse Jackson And Elijah Cummings said that Bush didn't care about black people (because my point was that it was national media and their pundits who were making those comments about Obama not unaffiliated politicians or activists):

 

youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA

 

(Aside: If you didn't know before, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Joe Blow making that comment and an affiliated media personality making the comment to a national audience - that you continue to try to distinguish that is unfortunate).

 

5. You made some idiotic comment about "list of approved political and media figures." (Post#33)

 

6. I mentioned to you that I never said anything about "political figures," yet those are the folks who you referenced (Post#35)

 

7. Then you said that " asked for examples of such criticisms of Bush," and elaborated on that point. (Post#37)

 

Your response in Post #37 completely ignores points 1-6. I didn't ask for those "examples of such criticisms of Bush" in that context. The origins of our conversation was your point in post #27 since you ignored everything else I mentioned in post #26. So we stuck with the Kanye point and elaborated on that.

 

Can't you follow a !@#$ing train of thought?

 

You've conflated points, posts, ideas, and assertions in a weird way that suggests that your mind doesn't allow for any organization of thought.

 

LA wanted to know why the topic has gone so much off course. Here is the answer. It's dolts like you who deviate a thought into the nethersphere and then try to bring it back abruptly as if one !@#$ing post 9 posts removed is in response to something that wasn't discussed in full bredth for the last 7 hours.

 

Can you !@#$ing follow that?

 

!@#$ing. Dolt.

So you derailed your own thread regarding the interpretation of economic metrics with your assertion that the "criticism toward Obama is way worse" (post #15) expanded on this claim (post #23), and concluded that my post (#24) was the one that led the discussion away from the original topic?

 

Fine work, gumshoe. I'd love to get into the total contradiction and hypocrisy which runs rampant through this post, but now you're just wasting my time.

[Juror#8]

So you derailed your own thread regarding the interpretation of economic metrics with your assertion that the "criticism toward Obama is way worse" (post #15) expanded on this claim (post #23), and concluded that my post (#24) was the one that led the discussion away from the original topic?

 

Fine work, gumshoe. I'd love to get into the total contradiction and hypocrisy which runs rampant through this post, but now you're just wasting my time.

 

Again, you just don't get it. You ignore the substantive aspect of this post and every other one today so that you can make, what you believe to be , a witty closing.

 

You've been wasting my time for 4 posts now.

 

Gotcha.

[IDBillzFan]

LA wanted to know why the topic has gone so much off course.

I didn't ask why the topic has gone so much off course. I was explaining that it never had a course to begin with.

 

You're like the boss who calls a staff meeting with the lone agenda item titled "discuss the new building we plan to move into" and when the discussion moves from office assignments to furniture to lighting to landscaping to fire hazards to phone lines to electrical requirements to who will be required to clean the place every night, you stand at the front of the table yelling "All I wanted to do was discuss the new building. Why are you people so stupid?!"

[Juror#8]

Thank you in advance for your clarification.We will make every attempt at being less stupid if you will make every attempt to avoid using words no one outside your "Hooked On Phonics" inner circle has seen before so we don't divert to a "microchasm (sic) of domestic partisan political debate." In turn, we expect this will allow us to better discuss a topic you created that featured links to articles that have nothing to do with the reality of the topic you created.

 

Since we're on the topic, please keep your "sic" in brackets. Example: [sic]. Maybe the "groups" that you frequent, at night, and illuminated by the moon, can discuss that amongst yourselves, so as not to confuse other folks.

 

For a variety of reasons unrelated to anything that you've displayed intellectually, I think it's best that you don't respond to my posts. You can, of course, as it's your right; I just don't want you to waste your time addressing me since I won't respond to you.

 

That will allow 15-20 minutes that you can more valuably utilize doing many other things - like reading the "Turner Diaries."

[/dev/null]

I think it's best that you don't respond to my posts. You can, of course, as it's your right; I just don't want you to waste your time addressing me since I won't respond to you.

 

I have a better idea. You could just put him on your ignore list. It's this neat little feature that TSW uses, just like most modern Intartube Massege Boreds. You put somebody on your Ignore List and BAM! You don't see their posts.

 

But that would require you doing something. Much easier to have other people modify their behavior for your beneifit. Typical Entitlement Mentality.

[IDBillzFan]

Since we're on the topic, please keep your "sic" in brackets. Example: [sic]. Maybe the "groups" that you frequent, at night, and illuminated by the moon, can discuss that amongst yourselves, so as not to confuse other folks.

 

For a variety of reasons unrelated to anything that you've displayed intellectually, I think it's best that you don't respond to my posts. You can, of course, as it's your right; I just don't want you to waste your time addressing me since I won't respond to you.

 

That will allow 15-20 minutes that you can more valuably utilize doing many other things - like reading the "Turner Diaries."

Yeah, you're a moderate conservative all right.

[Jauronimo]

Yeah, you're a moderate conservative all right.

Not only are Obama's detractors racially motivated, but now disagreeing with J8 is pure bigotry. Notice how we came full circle?

[C.Biscuit97]

LIBERAL!!! CONSERVATIVE!!! MY SIDE IS BETTER THAN YOURS, RAH!!!

[IDBillzFan]

Not only are Obama's detractors racially motivated, but now disagreeing with J8 is pure bigotry. Notice how we came full circle?

All the makings of a die-hard Obamabot. Can't lead a discussion, can't convey a clear message, decides the reason for all of this this is because everyone else is stupid, and when the schitt hits the fan, "You must hate black people."