patrick.net

Nomograph, I was going to reply with all the bitter, off topic comments you've made, but the website brought up a message saying to please select a smaller portion of text...

bob2356 says

My feeling is still that Obama squandered his opportunity to make a substantial difference in the governance of the US.

I agree completely. He could have said a few things clearly, but didn't. For example:

* Insurance companies do not want you to have a public health insurance option.
* The war in Iraq was a huge mistake.
* Republicans always side with the 1%, no matter how much it hurts the 99%.
* The "free market" seems to have gone out the window the moment Wall Street got in trouble.

* Laws are made by lobbyists, not by Congressmen. Congressmen just take the money and sign where they're told.

I hate Obama for several reasons.
First, he is a snarky, nasty, mean,narcissistic, egotistical jerk.
Second, he is anti-American business, success, wealth, achievement, production, energy.
Third, he abuses his power constantly.
Fourth, he bows to foreign kings, emperors, communist dictators while apologizing for the USA at the same time.
If you want EXAMPLES of the above, you may google for some yourself. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Fifth, he's a clueless clown. Today he said he was in Asia when in fact he was in Hawaii which is in Polynesia.

No, I disagree there. Obama is anything BUT clueless. He knows what he's doing and he's very sharp. It's very hard to find any video of him saying anything stupid.

He's completely on the opposite site of the mental spectrum from Bush, whose stupidity was spectacular and well-recorded.

I just think Obama either sold out or just hasn't got any real fire in him.

clambo says

First, he is a snarky, nasty, mean,narcissistic, egotistical jerk.

You're believing what you want to believe and nothing more. I never saw anything like that about Obama. But then, I avoid Fox "News".

You can't give any example that checks out.

You probably think Obama is pushing homosexual education of kindergarteners too.

Please ask yourself (and this is what the whole thread is about) why you NEED to believe that.

What are you afraid of? You are very obviously afraid.

clambo says

If you want EXAMPLES of the above, you may google for some yourself. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

BTW, it's not "homework", it's basic evidence, which you do not have.

If you're going to make accusations, you are responsible for backing them up.

Has Obama stopped having sex with kindergarteners yet?

He sold out.

Kevin says

Has Obama stopped having sex with kindergarteners yet?

Haters gonna hate

Because there is nothing to like about Obama. I do mean everything except how he handled US support for Libya and his insistance on increasing MPG requirements for cars (so everyone else can drive a slow car like I already do) absolutely everything else he has done has been absolutely wrong. He has extreme marxist views, and he doesn't give a shit about taxpayers or the unemployed.

First of all, I think there are a lot of loonies on Patrick.net that have their heads up their asses with regard to Obama. IE everyone who claims he's a socialist = you people really need to get some education, you should not stop at learning to read!!

That said - so I'm not associated with these nutjobs (or paid shills) - I hate Obama because he promised a whole lot of great changes and, more than anything else, he seemed to have integrity. As it turns out, he did have integrity, as his efforts to allow gay people to serve openly and his failed attempts to improve health care demonstrate. He handled Libya very well, too.

Unfortunately it seems that his integrity had a price, and there just happened to be a few super-rich people who had some spare change of that exact amount.

I will probably vote for him again ... the whole lesser of two evils ... depending upon who is the republican candidate. Partly because he did some good and I desperately hope that he has a grand plan for his second term - during which he will have much less incentive to please his campaign contributors.

If only he had run on the slogan - I'm not what you want but way better than them! - I would love the guy.

Matt.BayArea says

If only he had run on the slogan - I'm not what you want but way better than them! - I would love the guy.

Kinky Friedman the Texas jewish cowboy comedian ran for gov of texas in 2004 on a slogans of "I couldn't do worse" "How Hard Could It Be?", "Why The Hell Not?" and got something like 15"% of the vote. That's a man I would vote for.

I just think Obama either sold out or just hasn't got any real fire in him.

Obama has caved in on every issue ever since he replaced Rahm Emanuel with "former" JP Morgan Chase executive Bill Daley. He needs a new chief of staff ASAP. He needs a Democratic version of Karl Rove.

mdovell says

No president has won reelection with unemployment above 7.5% at the time of reelection.

Except FDR.

zzyzzx says

He has extreme marxist views

That's just so wrong it's comical.

Do you even know what Marxism is? Look it up. Obama has never advocated anything remotely like that. Find a quote, please.

You shouldn't embarass yourself in public. Unless you enjoy that sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

You hoped that Obama would do a bunch of things that are either beyond his sole control or that he never argued in favor of during his election?

Well, I hoped Obama would give everyone a Pony, but now I hate him because I do not have a Pony.

True, Bush was probably blowing the Saudis too.

These images are famous and NOT photoshopped:

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+kissing+saudi&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=32D&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BlTJTtFMhaqJApfHocQP&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=573

What I really hate is that I cannot vote for my candidate in the election. 'Primaries' are just a bullshit way to place a corporate shill into the government, while eliminating candidates that are representing some portion of the poulation. If the candidate is not popular, then let them lose with 0.5% of the vote- in the GENERAL election

You're right. That's why I sort-of like Ron Paul. At least he doesn't seem to be too much of a corporate shill.

Though he would let you die in the street begging for medical attention if you can't pay.

But on the same level so did FDR, Carter, Clinton, JFK etc
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9sqPDdk5XCg

Getting back to Obama
http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-gone-matthews-turns-on-obama-i-hear-stories-that-you-would-not-believe/

Chris Matthews even slammed Obama.. saying there is no reason given for a 2nd term. No Apollo program, no Peace core, no bridge to the 21st century...

OBL is dead and we're pulling out of Iraq...the health care debate is in the courts..

Matthews also said that Obama doesn't talk to congress (even democrats). There's no real sense that he even likes the job (and that clinton loved ever minute of it)

Maybe this might play out like '92 all over again. Say if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd and siphons off 20% of the vote..combines tea party with ows base...then romney or whoever wins 43% or so and wins... It's been done before..Wilson won with only 40% of the vote..

zzyzzx says

People like Obama make things like this possible:

If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!

Oh yes, because somebody somewhere CLAIMS to have found $140 of what you judge misuse of food stamps LYNCH OBAMA LYNCH HIM! This is hardly news, for many decades you'd have someone get food stamps then decide to sell them for cash so they could buy booze. Whatever! If you think a poor person is eating like this every day while you eat Mac & cheese you are deranged.

This is classic GOP, obsessing over piddly bullshit like this. Meanwhile trillion dollars of corruption and bailouts is just "water under the bridge" and it is UNSEEMLY to talk about it.

From a recent Taibbi article, we clearly DO deal harshly with food stamp fraud when caught, sometimes we swat a fly with a sledgehammer to "make an example":

"Last week, a federal judge in Mississippi sentenced a mother of two named Anita McLemore to three years in federal prison for lying on a government application in order to obtain food stamps."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/woman-gets-jail-for-food-stamp-fraud-wall-street-fraudsters-get-bailouts-20111117#ixzz1eS0QEaUs

zzyzzx says

People like Obama make things like this possible:

[probably fake image from republican fantasy land]

Oh really? Exactly what laws/regulations has Obama changed with regard to food stamps?

Many food stamp programs are actually on the state level not federal level.

Most of the time they have changed from actual paper to EBT cards (google mr ebt for more on that)

By switching to EBT the process of controlling them is much easier. In Mass loopholes allowed people to buy nearly anything with them. It doesn't take that much code to reject purchases.

One reason for the EBT switch is some would get change from paper purchases. So if they paid $10 for a $2 jar of peanut butter they'd get $8 in cash..now that's impossible.

Also nothing can prevent people from buying food and simply reselling it on a black market.

It is clear that all of the supporters of obama on this site have a couple of things in common.1 They have never been in business for themselves and 2 a complete lack of understanding of economics. Sorry there is one more , a total break from reality. We are in a whole lot of trouble in this country if we don't get rid of the loony left and do it quick. To say this man is bright because he talks like a car salesman is laughable. Please point to the section in the constitution where obamacare is allowed,i can't find it. And don't use the commerce clause. you will embarrass yourself. It is a direct reflection on our government schooling that we have this kind of thinking

adultsupervision says

1 They have never been in business for themselves

wrong-o. I've worked for myself much more than I've worked for others.

a complete lack of understanding of economics

LOL. Nice value-add here, typical unfounded smearing.

You think this is adding quality to the discussion?

You know what your post really is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

Has your number.

Which reminds me, you fit very well with your republican friends:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/why_its_going_to_be_a_long_yea033690.php

We are in a whole lot of trouble in this country if we don't get rid of the loony left and do it quick

Because the sane right has been a font of winning ideas?

What about a two trillion dollar war that has NOT been paid for don't you understand?

The accumulated ~$3T trade deficit with China since 1995?

The national credit card hitting the wall in Q408, after being run up in the 1980s and 00s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3v8

Please point to the section in the constitution where obamacare is allowed

That's not how the constitution works. Hamilton won that argument 200+ years ago.

And don't use the commerce clause. you will embarrass yourself

Commerce clause is perfectly reasonable argument.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

It is a direct reflection on our government schooling that we have this kind of thinking

yet more vague unfounded smears.

For a conservative dude you sure come with a lot of attitude and no actual value.

Welcome to ignore, have fun with the other conservative pinheads here.

adultsupervision says

It is clear that all of the supporters of obama on this site have a couple of things in common.1 They have never been in business for themselves

I started my first businesses when I was 22 years old (and sold it when I was 24).

and 2 a complete lack of understanding of economics.

Please explain what "Obama supporters" don't understand about Economics. Last time I checked, every living nobel prize winning economist*, and 8 of the 10 richest American CEOs are on the record as Obama supporters.

* Yes, I know the Nobel Prize in economics is bullshit, but you're the one who brought up "economics".

Sorry there is one more , a total break from reality. We are in a whole lot of trouble in this country if we don't get rid of the loony left and do it quick.

In what way is the "loony left" (and please, define "loony for me) causing trouble in this country? This country has been steadily moving to the right for the last 30+ years, and getting worse and worse in the process.

To say this man is bright because he talks like a car salesman is laughable.

I'd call him bright because he knows how to properly punctuate his sentences and break writings into paragraphs.

Please point to the section in the constitution where obamacare is allowed,i can't find it. And don't use the commerce clause. you will embarrass yourself. It is a direct reflection on our government schooling that we have this kind of thinking

If you had actually studied the constitution and the history of government, you'd already have your answer.

There is a very weak constitutional argument specifically about the insurance mandate, which the supreme court will have to rule on relatively soon. It's a hairy issue and not something that there's much precedent for one way or another.

But, well, I can just about guarantee that you have no idea what "obamacare" is. Please name 5 items from the legislation that you specifically think are unconstitutional, and on what basis.

Your entire approach to "constitutionality" is fundamentally backwards. The supreme court is the final word on constitutionality, and they have repeatedly refused to rule on any matters of constitutionality before actual legislation is created. That's how our government works!

Bellingham Bill says

That's not how the constitution works. Hamilton won that argument 200+ years ago.

And don't use the commerce clause. you will embarrass yourself

Commerce clause is perfectly reasonable argument.

There's nothing within the constitution that says anything with regards to health care. "General welfare" can be debated but that can be so open ended.

There's nothing within the constitution within over 200 years of case law that mandates that the federal government can mandate that anyone buy anything (or boycott for that matter). We are not a command economy.

On the state level they can experiment with anything. States still control the number of doctors as there is no national doctors license (maybe there is something to treat military staff but that's just for them)

One could argue that under Roe Vs Wade that health care is considered a private right. By that it means that the government should not go into a market and prevent any form of procedure (abortion). With national care the federal government would then have direct records on everyone going well beyond just medicare. So how would this be legal in light of HIPAA?

If one argues the car insurance argument well not everyone has to drive and there are no mandates to have insurance when using public transport..heck buses for the most part don't have seatbelts!

I would argue it is unconstitution simply because the government cannot command anyone to buy anything.

If the democrats want to really bring healthcare to masses then simply make an amendment to the constitution of a single payer system. Then nothing would touch it. Health care within the obamacare context is not a right but rather a government program. Government programs can be cut and modified at any time. Rights cannot.

It is a weak argument to suggest that it is constitutional.

Commerce clause can be suggested to allow nearly anything but we have seen backlashes over the past 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Also keep in mind that in 2009 the democrats courted republicans on the obama care vote? Why? They had plenty of support and a majority...unless...

You want to court support if this thing is overturned by the courts. If it is then the democrats are caught holding the bag.

Let's say that someone voted against this and it is overturned in 2012. They'll be sitting pretty just like Obama was with the Iraq war.

The other sad aspect of it is if President Obama really believed in the system of this why are there so many organizations asking AND receiving exemptions to it? Either he wants it or he doesn't.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=1&ref=business

At Thanksgiving:

Obama is a communist.

But he worked for Kissinger and Associates.

Obama was hanging out with Bill Ayers, and who paid for his schooling?

So Kissinger is a Communist who hires Communists?

Obama's schooling was paid for by rich Indonesian Communists.

etc. etc. etc.

mdovell says

I would argue it is unconstitution simply because the government cannot command anyone to buy anything.

I'm sorry, which article (or amendment) states that the government can't command citizens to buy something?

The basis of most federal power (outside of the clearly enumerated stuff) is in the necessary and proper clause. The supreme court has ruled on these issues numerous times in the last 200+ years. They're the ones who get to decide if something is constitutional or not, not some random guy on an internet forum.

Kevin says

I'm sorry, which article (or amendment) states that the government can't command citizens to buy something?

The basis of most federal power (outside of the clearly enumerated stuff) is in the necessary and proper clause. The supreme court has ruled on these issues numerous times in the last 200+ years. They're the ones who get to decide if something is constitutional or not, not some random guy on an internet forum.

Huh? Can't?

The Constitution has to say what powers the government has. Logically you cannot disprove a negative..that's like saying (like southpark said) that there was no evidence that there were no aliens at Thanksgiving so that means there were.

Obviously the supreme court makes the decisions. But necessary and proper have limits. To have something be open ended frankly won't make sense.

More importantly the obamacare system (it is really romneycare..I've lived in mass all my life) makes a bit of an assumption that people will pay.

If they don't pay what's the recourse? Jail? A fine? it is one thing to suggest that the payment of taxes requires someone to keep records..ok fine since the government collects it as a source of revenue. But with this what is the argument...there are plenty of people that cannot legally work so how does that work for them? Children under 18, people in jail, people that are mentally disabled etc.

It isn't that hard to see as to how this would work out given how some have ruled in the past. I'd bet this just doesn't pass. There is nothing within the context of the plan (or in mass) that increase the number of nurses and doctors so waiting times will increase. That's what happened in Mass.

Has Obama ever had a real job in private industry?

I didn't think so.

Obama couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Did Bush?

Most presidents seem to have had mostly political careers.

So why do you hate Obama so much? It definitely has nothing to do with whether he worked in private industry, and you know it.

Tell the truth, please.

mdovell says

Logically you cannot disprove a negative

Actually, the common claim is "you cannot prove a negative". Obviously, one can disprove a negative. For example, I can disprove the statement "There are no dogs in Philadelphia." simply by going to Philly and seeing one of the many dogs there.

James Randi has a nice lecture on why you cannot prove a negative. However, he is incorrect. Go watch the video, and then continue reading this post.

Randi claims that is impossible to prove a negative statement and then he uses a flying reindeer example to demonstrate why. The negative statement he tries to prove is "There are no flying reindeer.".

Of course, the noun reindeer is not special. If Randi is correct and it is logically impossible to prove any negative statement, then I should be able to substitute the noun "reindeer" with any other noun. So let's do that.

Consider the statement, "There are no perpetual motion machines.". I can easily disprove this by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease and as a result, any system loses usable energy as it performs any motion. This means that a perpetual motion machine must have an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible. With only a finite amount of energy, the machine will eventually lose all usable energy and cease functioning.

I have proven the statement "There are no perpetual motion machines." using only logic and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now I have assumed the correctness of a well-established law of physics, but if you want to verify that law, take a class in advance physics. For this subject matter, I have shown that it is possible to use existing accepted laws plus logic to prove a negative statement.

Although there are many patents for perpetual motion machines, this proof of their non-existence isn't very interesting since no one believes in such machines. However, I could replace "perpetual motion machines" with "god" and try to prove the negative statement, "There are no gods." This is a bit more interesting to people, because so many people believe in a god. Actually, I've already done that in other threads.

So I've proven the negative statements:
There are no perpetual motion machines.
There are no gods.

I can do the same for "There are no flying reindeer.", at least in principle. Now I'm not doing to do through the whole process since it would be a costly adventure. I'm just going to show you what the process would be.

First we have to define exactly what constitutes a reindeer. We'll need to consult biologists and geneticists to do that. With this information, we can model both the standard reindeer as well as all possible variations that would still meet our definition. I.e., we'll understand how significant the genetic differences among reindeer are for the purpose of flying, as well as the contribution of environment.

Unlike Randi, I see no need to push reindeer off the World Trade Center or any equivalent skyscraper after 2001. (The video was from 1992.) As Randi concluded, doing so would not prove that they cannot fly. However, I think we can at least assume that magic shit doesn't randomly happen in the universe. I.e., the well-known laws of physics are obeyed by reindeer as well as any other object. Otherwise, we could claim that reindeers are the only objects that can travel faster than light or other such ridiculousness.

OK, so I know what a reindeer is and what physical variations it can take. Consulting with physicists and aerodynamic engineers, I can easily verify whether or not reindeer can fly. After all, the laws of aerodynamics are very, very well known. We need to know these things to make ultrasonic fighters, stealth bombers, and even bullets (which need to be aerodynamically neutral).

So we apply our knowledge of aerodynamics to reindeer by asking what are all the possible ways to fly in an Earthlike atmosphere. No, there aren't an infinite number of ways to fly. It turns out that given about 4 billion years of evolution, life itself has come up with only a couple of ways to either fly or swim (both of which are essentially movement in fluids). With all the trillions upon trillions of creatures in the oceans and air, all of evolution converges to a handful of solutions. It turns out that the physics allows for multiple solutions to the problem of locomotion in fluids, but only a relatively small number of solutions.

So we can go through the possible types of flight and see if the reindeer, given the restrictions of its physical form, could possible accommodate just one of the types of flight. We do this by asking questions like, "Are there any air foils on the reindeer?" and "Are there any control surfaces?" and "How fast would the reindeer's muscles have to move to generate sufficient thrust and lift?". We can measure the aerodynamic properties of the reindeer in a wind tunnel, or better yet, calculate those properties for all possible reindeers given the genetic restriction on what constitutes a reindeer. Using Computer Assistant Design (CAD) or even traditional pencil and paper analysis, we can say with quite certainty that no reindeer could every fly.

And we can do all of these in real life for probably under $3 million. If anybody could get me this grant money, I'd be willing to hire the necessary scientists and engineers and spearhead the project.

In conclusion, I've now proven three negative statements. Since I've done that, it must be possible. Now I will say that it is not necessarily true that you can prove any given negative statement. And this is what Randi should have said.

But I would argue that any negative statement that cannot be proven and has never been disproved despite having many advocates, is probably the negative of a statement that is complete bullshit and that's why it cannot be proven.

zzyzzx says

People like Obama make things like this possible:

Still better than letting people use food stamps at McDonalds. At least I don't have to pay for their quadruple bypass and supersize it.

TMAC54 says

I beg to differ.

Funny how the Obama haters can't say exactly why they hate him

Although, I don't think Patrick was addressing the question to me, I'll give my two cents.

Well, I've now read through all the postings, and it seems Patrick is right. I haven't read a single decent reason to hate Obama from all his opposers except mdovell. This is utterly pathetic since I've posted ten good reasons to hate Obama back in this old thread. Funny, how I never got a response from any conservatives admitting that Bush ever fucked up.

In any case, I've repeatedly stated reasons why Obama is bad, really bad. Here's a great example provided by a wonderful Rachel Maddow video with clear and accurate analysis. Yet, no responses from either Obama supporters or detractors.

In fact, I've notice that whenever I say exactly what evil actions or even non-evil but bad economic/political action that Obama has taken, everyone seems to shut up. No Obama supporter dares objects to what I've said because it's so easy to verify. Yet, no Obama detractor speaks up in agreement either because Bush/Cheney and all the current and previous Republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul also are in favor of the very evil policies or economically foolish policies that Obama sponsors.

Everything I've read on this site confirms my belief in the following graph I originally posted in this thread.

Bush got 4000+ US servicepeople killed in Iraq, plus destroyed thousands of servicemember families, all over a neocon adventure. Obama has not made any mistakes as egregious as that.

Bush appointed Scalito and Roberts, two first-class apparatchik shitheads. Obama has appointed two lesbians.

Bush stood by while the country went $25T further into debt.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDO

Total systemic debt has actually DECLINED $200B since Obama took over.

Debt leverage has actually reversed since 2009:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3x6

Now, I agree that anyone who loves Obama is an uncritical moron. And anyone who hates him is just an ideological idiot.

But I certainly could not have done a better job as president. The situation is fucked all to hell.

While Obama is certainly no FDR, FDR had 70%+ majorities in Congress, which makes it easier to bang on the bully pulpit to get shit done.

economically foolish policies that Obama sponsors

Obama has not "sponsored" any economically foolish policies (TMK).

Bellingham Bill says

Now, I agree that anyone who loves Obama is an uncritical moron. And anyone who hates him is just an ideological idiot.

Can't entirely agree with that. I hate Obama, and the only ideology that is based on is respect for human life. To quote the reasons I stated earlier on this old thread (see old thread for links to references):

1. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he took office. He kept it open. This makes him as responsible for the atrocities committed there as Bush is.

2. When Obama finally ended torture at Gitmo, he continued international extradition, which is just code for outsourcing torture. He should be tried as a war criminal for this, too.

3. Obama has ordered the assignation of U.S. citizens. Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. Article No matter what you think of al-Alwaki, every person especially a U.S. citizen is entitled to a fair trial before execution. Obama is guilty of attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. What is even scarier is that our government now has a list of citizens it wants to execute. We don't know who's on the list, but we know it's more than just one person.

4. Obama failed to bring charges against the Bush/Cheney administration, thereby condoning the crimes against humanity committed by that administration. At least Kucinich had the balls to say he would do that if elected.

5. Obama has murdered hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks including children accomplishing only deteriorations of relationships with Pakistan and other Middle Eastern nations.

Scary stuff.

So, I'd like to modify your statement to:

And anyone who hates Obama but loves Bush is just an ideological idiot.

Hmmm, just like my multi-color table above.