patrick.net

JH says

I wonder what the poll said in 2006.

We'll find out in four more years. - Sarah Palin

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3701685439001/gutfeld-obama-fans-writhe-as-the-dream-dies/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

zzyzzx says

Americans are so down on President Obama at the moment

No, actually I've been sour on him since he took office on 1/20/2009.

mmmarvel says

No, actually I've been sour on him since he took office on 1/20/2009.

You liked him before he took office?

Nice to hear Maher admitting he or his party have no idea what to do about the economy. It is a step up from most of the blather.

indigenous says

who caused the wars over the last century...

We didn't "cause" WWI or WWII... sort of an important factoid wouldn't you say?

I would have no problem with this.
That is the main reason obama is legislating through presidential decree.
In the olden daze laws were negotiated and passed.
Today it's all or nothing.
Obama is partially responsible for this, as he promised transparency in government, which he has not delivered.
Imagine a law being negotiated by the parties on cspan. Not the shit they broadcast now, but the behind the scenes stuff.
It would become obvious to the average voter if either party and/or congressman were not negotiating with sincerity. And they would have to take the consequences come election time.

edvard2 says

A: From the second a Republican gets elected make sure and gather up the entire Democratic party and tell them to sit on their hands and no matter what the GOP wants... to go against it and even if its legislation the Democrats formerly approved of or even came up with.

edvard2 says

We didn't "cause" WWI or WWII... sort of an important factoid wouldn't you say?

The fact is it happened on a democrat's watch.

The fact is that the policy of the US democrats is always to instigate the war so it looks like the other side started it.

The fact is that this country would be vastly different if we never fought WW1

If I were a federal judge, I'd shake my head back and forth...utterting "tsk" after "tsk", until finally blurting out...."This is Damning Evidence!"

indigenous says

edvard2 says

We didn't "cause" WWI or WWII... sort of an important factoid wouldn't you say?

The fact is it happened on a democrat's watch.

indigenous says

The fact is it happened on a democrat's watch.

The fact is that the policy of the US democrats is always to instigate the war so it looks like the other side started it.

The fact is that this country would be vastly different if we never fought WW1

That's silly. So it happened when a Democrat was president. So what? What is your point? You previously said they "caused" it and now its simply that they were president "during" that time? Like what the hell?

You really, really need to study your history because in both cases of WW1 and WW2 we did not want to get involved period. Both WW1 and 2 had been going on literally for years before we got involved. In both instances the country was completely pacifist because the wars were seen as European problems.

Yes- you would be correct that if the United States had not intervened in WW2 the country would be a totally different place: The Germans has plans in the works that after the defeat of Europe, we were next.

SoftShell says

I would have no problem with this.

That is the main reason obama is legislating through presidential decree.

In the olden daze laws were negotiated and passed.

Today it's all or nothing.

Obama is partially responsible for this, as he promised transparency in government, which he has not delivered.

Well at least you are showing some of the folks here why the president is having to use executive powers to get crap done because half of the people he works with decided to do nuttin'. Funny that now the people not doing their jobs are all in a tussy about him doing the job for them.

edvard2 says

That's stupid. So it happened when a Democrat was president. So what?

That is the point you dumb ass

edvard2 says

You previously said they "caused" it

Both

edvard2 says

You really, really need to study your history because in both cases of WW1 and WW2 we did not want to get involved period. Both WW1 and 2 had been going on literally for years before we got involved.

Yup that is what the press releases stated, but you have to look at the facts of this issue.

edvard2 says

Yes- you would be correct that if the United States had not intervened in WW2

No dumb fuck I said WW1

You need to educate yourself about the real causes of both wars, not the perfunctory crap they put in history books. E.G. the real Abe Lincoln, or look at the effects of Wilson and what he has done, much of it was possible because of WW1.

I'm not your nanny so if you are interested in the facts go looking.

Most recessions happened on a republicans watch...just sayin

JH says

Most recessions happened on a republicans watch...just sayin

Hmm that was a pretty big one on FDR's watch?

Bush should have never done the TARP, but O would have made FDR proud in how he has extended this one.

Recessions happen no matter what it is how the hubris gets involved and extends it that matters.

indigenous says

That is the point you dumb ass

No... you didn't have a point. The only points you seem to be making is your own made-up history.indigenous says

You need to educate yourself about the real causes of both wars, not the perfunctory crap they put in history books. E.G. the real Abe Lincoln, or look at the effects of Wilson and what he has done, much of it was possible because of WW1.

I'm not your nanny so if you are interested in the facts go looking.

Listen up dude, I don't need to go "educate" myself on right-wing revisionist history. I had relatives who actually fought in those wars and were there and didn't need some bullshit nonsense to tell them what it was all about. I also have quite a few relatives, some in their 90's, who VERY much know all about WW2 and so on because they had to actually live through it.

And yes- I have no problem admitting that I mis-read your comment in the end about WW1, but the same would have been true had we as a country not intervened.

I am rather tired of this seemingly incredulous pattern of people, particularly on the right, trying to re-write history so that it better fits their precious ideologies. I can definitely assure you that none of my Grandfathers, Uncles and other relatives who fought in those wars would give one flying fuck about some made-up nonsense in wars they had to fight in.

And lastly.... Calling people names online is lame.

indigenous says

Hmm that was a pretty big one on FDR's watch?

Uhh... no. The depression started under the watch of Hoover who was in office for a full 4 years of the depression

edvard2 says

Uhh... no. The depression started under the watch of Hoover who was in office for a full 4 years of the depression

So FDR had nothing to do with extending it?

You are clueless...

indigenous says

So FDR had nothing to do with extending it?

You are clueless...

Let's go back and see exactly what you said before:indigenous says

Hmm that was a pretty big one on FDR's watch?

So yes- you basically said it "happened" under his watch. As I correctly pointed out.... wrong. The cause and the amplification happened under Hoover. One of the biggest reasons the depression was as bad as it was is because Hoover decided that it would be a good idea to setup protective barriers from imports which in turn caused a devastating trade war between the US and Europe. This was a knee-jerk reaction the initial crash. Seeing as how we were a very large manufacturing-based economy this further crippled the entire economy. Had the protective barriers not been put in place the depression would most likely have abated within a few years, not the decade-long debacle it turned into.

So as a result the depression became much more severe. Frankly I am less concerned about "Who" was President when historical events happened. But when I see a response that is historically inaccurate I will make a response to correct that claim...

Still clueless

indigenous says

Still clueless

Oh- just because you say so? If I'm so clueless then how is it that you're not really backing up any of your claims? Its really easy to just type "You're clueless". Ok... two can play at that game....

You are clueless. There. I guess I must be right. Rather than have a debate, let's just say me/you are wrong. Yes... that's very constructive.

No I just don't have the time to waste on something you will not hear. But you are less than ignorant on the subject

indigenous says

No I just don't have the time to waste on something you will not hear. But you are less than ignorant on the subject

Why not? We've spent a large quantity of time on the subject at hand already. I've stated my historical observations on both the depression and the subsequent war following it. That period was the most transformational period in our history due to the collusion of several major factors:

A: The US went from being a minor to major superpower
B: The US economy experienced an economic boom that had never been experienced before.
C: There were few protections for financial firms, consumers and banks.
D: Europe was heating up in regards to the causes of WW2

So the economy crashed, there was a run on the banks, people lost their money, banks and financial firms closed shop, we threw up protective barriers and at the same time our depression caused more economic calamity in Europe, further exacerbating the lack of stability which it had not fully recovered from WW1 yet.

So putting all of that together was the perfect storm. No president would have been able of making much of an impact on the initial severity of the depression. But scholars and economists have long maintained that putting up trade barriers was perhaps the single cause which made the then recession into a depression. Was it the fault of "The GOP"? Not necessarily. There were too many factors ranging from the lack of financial protections, lack of oversight, and lack of even basic understanding of how the system worked from the everyday citizen.

Let me just put it this way: The depression and WW2 were the two most tumultuous periods in the last century. The level of poverty and outright devastation of the depression were as such that nobody who didn't live through it would understand. I've only heard from my Grandparents what it was like... and it was truly awful. For example their fridges were always full of food and they stockpiled food in pantries too. A direct result of their experiences and the desire to never be hungry again.

Likewise WW2 was the absolute horror of horrors. The relatives of mine who fought in it would never talk about it. As in one was in Iwo Jima. I can't imagine what he went through.

I feel passionate about the history of these events because of the sacrifice my family and millions of others made. What would I do if I were in those situations? I can't even imagine. But they deserve my utmost respect.

indigenous says

The fact is that this country would be vastly different if we never fought WW1

It would indeed be vastly different.

The classic Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever" covered this ground in a mildly entertaining way. Your speculation reminds me more of the Sad Sacks who fantasize about what would have happened if the South won the Civil War. Different is not necessarily better.

Captain happy pants golf pro isn't popular? Who saw that coming...

FortWayne says

Captain happy pants golf pro isn't popular? Who saw that coming...

The same right wingers post the same drivel daily? Gee-wizz. I didn't expect that...

edvard2 says

FortWayne says

Captain happy pants golf pro isn't popular? Who saw that coming...

The same right wingers post the same drivel daily? Gee-wizz. I didn't expect that...

You call me a right winger, yet I've never supported a war. Nor I'm the one who lives in mentality of "you are either with us or against us". That's all you Ed, the only right winger here is you!

edvard2 says

The same right wingers post the same drivel daily? Gee-wizz. I didn't expect that...

6 years of radical liberal policies. It hasn't worked for any other country, what makes you left wing nut jobs it will work here?

FortWayne says

You call me a right winger, yet I've never supported a war. Nor I'm the one who lives in mentality of "you are either with us or against us". That's all you Ed, the only right winger here is you!

Note that I didn't specifically say you, right? But given your previous statements which are all predictably right-leaning I can only assume that your views are exclusively right-leaning. Correct me if I am wrong.zzyzzx says

6 years of radical liberal policies. It hasn't worked for any other country, what makes you left wing nut jobs it will work here?

Obama's admin has been far from "radical". In fact if anything, many have actually compared his admin to the Reagan admin. You see, the situation isn't that then left has gotten more radical but rather the right has drifted so far right that what used to be considered conservative is now liberal.

He would have let the housing market 'hit the bottom'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/05/kamala-harris/Kamala-Harris-Romney-favors-letting-foreclosures/

http://www.zillow.com/blog/romneys-stance-on-housing-let-it-run-its-course-95778/

edvard2 says

Obama's admin has been far from "radical"

That's laughable!

David9 says

He would have let the housing market 'hit the bottom'.

Romney would have let the banks foreclose, including by robosigning and violating the law, but he would not have made the banks put the houses on market. In other words, he doesn't believe in free markets. A market in which all the banks collude to artificially keep the supply of houses low IS NOT a free market. It's a controlled market.

Under Romney, more people would be kicked out of houses, but those houses would not go on the market. Instead, it would just increase the demand for housing, pushing up prices of houses and rents. This would further decrease the effeciency of the economy, starving other businesses of customers who can't afford to buy things, and creating more unemployment. This vicious cycle would keep housing and other goods unaffordable and increase people's reliance on welfare and food stamps.

Housing costs compete with all other businesses for revenue. What a family spends on housing, they can't spend on cars, plane tickets, restaurants, electronics, vacations, starting businesses, etc.

zzyzzx says

That's laughable!

Please tell us all what his admin has done that is oh-soooo radical. curious minds want to know...

zzyzzx says

6 years of radical liberal policies.

Just came back from Canada.

"Radical liberal"? Anybody you could name here except Bernie Sanders would be moderate-right just about anywhere else on the planet.

If you live in that echo chamber long enough though, you believe it don't you.

David9 says

He would have let the housing market 'hit the bottom'.

Riiight, so his private equity pals could pick over the rubble for the gems. All these vulture capitalists clothe their insatiable greed in guff about it being a useful cleansing for everyone.

Vicente says

Riiight, so his private equity pals could pick over the rubble for the gems.

That is exactly what I saw happen here in Southern California.

Dan8267 says

A market in which all the banks collude to artificially keep the supply of houses low IS NOT a free market.

That is exactly what I see happening here in Southern California.

Social issues are a different subject. If I may name one, Florida does not have a State Law prohibiting discrimination based on Sexual orientation, only a few counties do.

Vicente says

so his private equity pals could pick over the rubble for the gems

I was reading the wikipedia version of the history of Wards just now, and was surprised to see it passed through Bain's hands in the early 1990s, between its initial LBO and eventual disposition.

Towards the end of its life, the company essentially seized the employee pension fund, cashing them out, and that struck me as profitable business model, as all these 20th century corporations had cash-loaded pension funds ripe for the plucking by big-money operators like Romney.

Of course, the 1980s movie Wall Street had this as a plot point.

sbh says

You're correct. He's a religious nut-job.

Isolationism is a sub-strain of right-wingerism, of course. Buchanan, and the 1930s pro-German version of it, too.

Plus the midwest conservatism has always been pretty isolationist. They just want to sell their wheat and corn, they don't care who buys it.

sbh says

You're correct. He's a religious nut-job

Just a nut-job.

His antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.

If his brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate.

They say that you stand really close to him, you can hear the sea.

edvard2 says

Please tell us all what his admin has done that is oh-soooo radical. curious minds want to know...

For one thing, illegal aliens are more important to Obama than American citizens.

sbh says

Wreck America because it's wreckable.

I think it's more because they BELIEVE in creative destruction so strongly. Perhaps this is related to all the nutso preachers infesting GOP these days, carrying with them the philosophy that Judgement Day is something to look forward to to. Anything they can do to hurry it along is just grand. Supporting Israel in anything they care to do, is one facet of that mindset. At the end of it course, the righteous GOP will end up in heaven or their own private planet with their wives, so they win.