patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,259,719 comments by 15,039 users - FarmersWon, HeadSet online now
invite responseComments 1 - 29 of 29 Search these comments
This just in: B. Hussain al-Obama blames Bush for Chicago teachers strike. In a prepared speech, al-Obama used first person pronouns "I" and "me" 82 times read from a teleprompter to place the blame squarely on Bush's sholders.
Additionally al-Obama made the case for abolishing the traditional racist report card grading system in favor of guaranteed equality of results, wherein everyone passes and the world becomes a happy place.
Yes- we are all well-aware of Obama's full name. No need to spell it out. Secondly.... the really outdated McCarthy-era diatribes are not effective. Find some other fictitious boogeyman...
"ooooohhh! XXX said this.... must surely be one of them thar' Commies!"
Tenpoundbass
2012 Sep 11, 5:17am
He he he, At first I thought Romney was dropping the ball not campaigning and volleying back and forth the tit for tat pettiness that the Democrats keep dishing out. But as the weeks ware on, the method is growing more apparent.
In a time of childish petty political noise. The biggest adult in the room will win this election. Romney is going to win, purely on the unanswered Liberal bias Romney fatigue.
Like Politifact and HRHmedia it's these social media schils that are going to make very evident that the effectiveness of "Social Media" 11 minutes are up. Going forward politicians are going to have to win the old fashioned way, vs getting many robo likes on Facebook.
I think McCain getting sucked into the Liberal nonsense in 2008 cost him the election. He felt compelled to answer every petty assbag word the Liberals uttered. He even addressed the cast of SNL and Kattie Couric's interview.
This time around, I bet silence proves golden. The bigger noise Liberals make the bigger the silent majority will grow. The silent majority will follow those just keeping their cool.
He he he, At first I thought Romney was dropping the ball not campaigning and volleying back and forth the tit for tat pettiness that the Democrats keep dishing out. But as the weeks ware on, the method is growing more apparent.
The only thing apparent to me and a lot of other people ( as demonstrated in the latest polls) is that Romney doesn't actually have a plan. He just has a series of repetitive statements- especially his favorite about " Obama's failed policies" at which point he gives no real concrete plans or policies of his own other that to re-hash old Reaganomic plans which of course aren't even his own idea.
Romney I think thought he could just sit back and do absolutely nothing and let the bad economy work for him. The automatic assumption was that the economy is bad and surely Americans will just vote for him- jest becuz'.
That's been tried in the past and its not a good tactic.
finehoe
2012 Sep 11, 5:45am
politicians are going to have to win the old fashioned way
By having the Supreme Court select them?
Tenpoundbass
2012 Sep 11, 5:54am
especially his favorite about " Obama's failed policies"
The automatic assumption was that the economy is bad and surely Americans will just vote for him- jest becuz'.
That's been tried in the past and its not a good tactic.
You have no idea, that alone is enough.
It would have won Kerry the election, if the Liberals weren't so militant in your face dictating who everyone should vote for. Then more people would have voted for Kerry.
Even though it's apparent. The republicans aren't running the same argument. Well because people are smart enough to figure out on their own. That Romney is the lesser of the two evils. Obama has had his 4 years of screw ups and ruination. The republicans aren't running this shit, because they realize "Vote for (X) because He isn't (Y)" does more harm than good.
People will figure that out by them selves. But if you get in their face all militant and call them stupid over it, and threaten fisticuffs over the mention of Ralph Nader, then you're not going to get very far.
That sentiment alone cost Kerry the election in 2004.
Had the Liberals kept their mouth shut, I probably would have voted for Kerry. The Liberals fervor was far more scarier than the prospect of 4 more years of Bush.
Hell I would have taken a 3rd term of Bush over Obama.
You have no idea, that alone is enough.
It would have won Kerry the election, if the Liberals weren't so militant in your face dictating who everyone should vote for. Then more people would have voted for Kerry.Even though it's apparent. The republicans aren't running the same argument. Well because people are smart enough to figure out on their own. That Romney is the lesser of the two evils. Obama has had his 4 years of screw ups and ruination. The republicans aren't running this shit, because they realize "Vote for (X) because He isn't (Y)" does more harm than good.
I can assure you I most definitely have an idea because I am highly interested and well-informed about economics and with that said, what Romney is proposing is basically a completely static economic model for his so-called " Plan". Anyone that knows even the absolutely infinitesimally small amount about economics is that the economy changes by the minute and the last thing that will work to fix an economy would be to present a static economic plan. I stay "static" because for all of the blustering I've seen from the Republicans they are basically all saying the exact same thing over and over again, which is to try and force Reaganomics onto the American people again and again and again only because in theory- in some weird economically illogical way- might sound good to those who don't know anything about economics.
Hence why Republicans have absolutely nothing to give and no plans to divulge. They never had one to start with because the only thing that concerned them from the very first minute that Obama was elected was how to get themselves back into the White House.
This has nothing to do with Liberals versus Conservatives. Its about old-fashioned economics and had Republicans had an actual plan that didn't rely on 30+ year old ideas- ideas that by the way didn't work- then perhaps I would have given them a second thought.
Oh- and by the way- the economy- though not fantastic is by far in a MUCH better condition than it was when Obama first took office. So to state that Obama screwed up the economy- meaning he messed it up more- is a total oxymoron.
That tactic worked for your current boy in the W.H.........
You mean the current President. No- sorry, but the conditions and situation in 08' were completely different then than now. Back then voters had a choice of voting for the same party that presided over the failure of the economy and the other party to have a crack at it.
FAIL!!!
Nope. sorry. the fact is that the economy was in way worse shape than it is now. That's not even an argument. Its simple mathematics thus no need to debate that point further.
Edvard, Comrade - gas prices were $1.65 when Hussain al-Obama took office, now plus or minus $4.00. Millions more indentured voters on food stamps. Millions more unemployed. Millions more have given up even looking for a job. Virtually every possible measurement of the economy is worse.
Are you outta your mind, or what?
Yea, I guess you're right...... simple math.... just like this list..
Making a cherry-picked list of items doesn't really prove anything. I could just as easily make my own list and say- oh yeah? well there!
By any measure, the economy is overall- OVERALL being the operative word here- is far better than it was in 2008. The economy was in a virtual freefall, and if there was one measure to basically negate that entire list, it was that the stock market- which is the broadest measure of the state of the economy- was down well over 50% from where it is currently.
But the list was entertaining nonetheless...
Edvard, Comrade - gas prices were $1.65 when Hussain al-Obama took office, now plus or minus $4.00
Again..... using 1950's era "tactics" ooohhhh! Communists! isn't really making any sort of argument other than perhaps an interesting historical holdover from the McCarthy era. Might as well start claiming that Martians will land at any minute because that's about how that sounds.
Right, and al-Obama's regulation reduction Czar concludes the Constitution is to far outdated to properly regulate official government business and has recommended dismantling it in its entirety.
It was suggested that a living, breathing, "evolving" framework is far more stable way to energize the economy, and a way of getting more taxes enacted to penalize the wealthy fat cats.
After all, as long as there is someone to shake down, the country is NOT broke.
Well, go ahead and give us YOUR list of BETTER economic measures,
Already did. The stock market was valued at 50% less than it is today. That's about as broad as it gets. Thanks for waiting.
Right, 50% higher, artificially propped up with trillions of stimulus dollars, price fixed interest rates and a manipulated market. And when interest rates go back up, inflation goes into overdrive, and the house of cards falls down, where will the stock market be then, smart guy?
Your mentality is the same as those who said real estate prices will go up forever. Uh, no they won't.
Unfortunately, when TSHTF, saying "I told you so" will give me no comfort.
eDvArD - and where are all these shovel ready jobs?
We'll need them after the stock market plummets.
Thanks for waiting.
You have nine more to go....
I can hardly wait........
This isn't a contest who can come up with the longest list. A "List" has nothing to do with this debate.
Perhaps it would be enlightening to define what the stock market is for those playing at home: Its the single largest representation of the US economy because basically all things related to it- such as the rate of unemployment, the housing market, manufacturing, energy, and the many, many other industries that compile the list on the stock market are all processed and then dispensed as a value that represents the overall health of the market and hence US economy. As previously mentioned, the stock market was at one time down well over 50% from where it is now.
Now- the debate was not- as also earlier stated whether the economy was in "good" shape because it isn't. But nobody ( that is except for those wanting Romney to win) would say that it is worse.
Right, 50% higher, artificially propped up with trillions of stimulus dollars, price fixed interest rates and a manipulated market. And when interest rates go back up, inflation goes into overdrive, and the house of cards falls down, where will the stock market be then, smart guy?
Guess what? The market goes up and it goes down for countless reasons. It is in a constant state of flux. The defining characteristic is that it by the action of compounding has always gone up. So much so that it beats real estate by a large margin- as hard as that is to believe. Long story short- eventually anyone saying the stock market will eventually fall in value will at some point be correct... sometimes on an hourly basis.
Future stock market performance had nothing to do with this debate. We were talking about what it has done since the recession started and hence the two are unrelated. Future performance is nothing more than a guess.
And thanks for calling me smart. I take that as a compliment.
ed, you're right about the original intent of the post. It was to point out that our worst enemies are not foreign enemies.
Its more about the insidious, creeping tyranny, which is undermining our freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty is something millions have fought and died for, and now they are being legislated away. Kinda sad, don't you think?
ts more about the insidious, creeping tyranny, which is undermining our freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty is something millions have fought and died for, and now they are being legislated away. Kinda sad, don't you think?
Changing the subject doesn't advance the debate...
If you are referring to the DOW - hardly..... it's a group of 30 corporations... hardly a "representation" of the tens of thousands of companies in the US doing business...
No.... that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the OVERALL stock market, which was as mentioned now for about the 10th time down overall by 50%. So once more, just to make my point as clear as possible and as easy to understand, the overall market represents the overall economy because it is constructed of all of the industries and companies within those industries. Thus it alone is the single greatest measure of the state of the economy and hence why there is no need to provide some sort of list.
Right, the debate is based on YOUR comments was that it is BETTER!! I'm still waiting on your other nine "cherry-picked" facts showing that the economy is BETTER.....
please read above. The fact that the economy is now better than in 2008 has already been proven.
Typical liberal response... plenty of comments but no facts to back them up..
Ah yes.... when the going gets tough, pull the ole' "liberal" card.
This has nothing to do with politics. This is simple math.
Not sure how much more clearly the facts could have been stated. To further prove it, answer this simple question:
Is the stock market now higher or lower than it was in 2008-2009?
Yes. Or no.
Not cherry picking. A list wouldn't prove anything. Fine- if we want to play the list game then I could make a long list showing the many ten's of thousands of companies who are doing better than they were a few years ago.
But I can see the question isn't going to be answered because doing so more or less reinforces what I said- which is that the stock market is the single largest indicator of the state of the economy. It accounts for the good and the bad elements currently in the market.
So I'll go ahead and answer it because its so obvious- as all anyone has to do is pull a chart. yes. Its higher and by a huge margin than it was at the start of the recession.
Anyway, this has been fun but I'm growing a bit bored so someone else will have to continue this debate.
edvard...Call it Crazy is right, IMHO. HE provided about 40 specific items where the economy has cratered. YOU provided one generalized item, the stock market (which is artificially supported) and nothing else.
Why not take the Call it Crazy challenge and come up with a good faith list of reasons the economy is BETTER now than when obama took office. Seems like a simple request, why not go for it?
http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/the-food-stamp-president-t7488.html
The Food Stamp President - proudly redistrubuiting wealth to 44 million government dependent indentured voters.
Thanks for playing the liberal game "When challenged for facts, liberals go running"....
Not a game. It never was. Just simply stating the obvious and thus no need to carry the conversation further. Talking about it further isn't going to make the point any more clear. Its only apparent that those who want to think that things are worse aren't doing so because they actually want to believe it but more because they are seeking reasons for having Romney elected. Even if that means denying facts. Simple as that. Like I said- this is boring.
The Food Stamp President - proudly redistrubuiting wealth to 44 million government dependent indentured voters.
Spell check is such a wonderful tool....
The road to hell is paved with "good intentions" (but complete disregard to the unintended consequences).
Go Green! Order your new Government Motors Volt today! Everyone is entitled to a new car, right? Don't worry if you can't afford it, your neighbor and his children will be sent the bill - it's only fair!
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/poster-we-will-barry-you-nikita-khrushchev-1956-t9626.html
Its not foreign enemies we have to worry about after all, it appears to be an inside job.