PDA

View Full Version : Obama First lady Michelle Obama cites 'remarkable progress' on the economy


Pages : [1] 2

petegz28
02-01-2012, 01:00 PM
First Lady Michelle Obama cited "remarkable progress" on the economy during a speech for a small crowd of high-profile Hollywood names in Los Angeles on Tuesday evening.

"In the last three years, we've worked hard to get out of this mess and we've made some remarkable progress," the first lady told a group of about 135 supporters at a private campaign event for her husband. She listed President Obama's accomplishments on healthcare reform, the removal of troops from Iraq and the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" among other items on the list of "promises kept" touted by Obama's reelection campaign.

"We know there are people still suffering and there is a long road left to travel," she continued, citing unfinished work as another reason to reelect Obama.

According to pool reports, the Beverly Hills event included some high-profile names from Hollywood, such as top Obama donors Jeffrey Katzenberg and Harvey Weinstein. Singer-songwriter Joshua Radin performed before Obama spoke. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, music industry representatives Quincy Jones, Berry Gordy and Jerry Ross, film producer Steve Bing, Rob and Michele Reiner and Will Ferrell's wife, Vivica, were also in attendance.

"You’re here because you know that we stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country," Michelle Obama told them. "You’re here because you know that in less than a year from now, we are going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come."


She spoke about the struggles of the middle class and of hearing their stories as she traveled the country. She said Obama's "toughness and fight" comes from hearing the stories of struggling Americans.

"I hear the passion and the determination in [Obama's] voice," she said. "He says, 'You won’t believe what folks are still going through.' That’s what he tells me. He says, 'Michelle, this ain’t right, and we have to fix this. We have so much more work to do.' "

She added that her husband is "very cute and he can sing, go figure." The line was a reference to the moment last month when Obama broke into the song "Let's Stay Together" at a campaign event.

Obama urged the crowd to get involved in the campaign in order to keep "fighting the good fight."


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/207885-michele-obama-cites-remarkable-progress-on-the-economy-

petegz28
02-01-2012, 01:02 PM
See, this is my problem with politicians these days...

According to pool reports, the Beverly Hills event included some high-profile names from Hollywood, such as top Obama donors Jeffrey Katzenberg and Harvey Weinstein. Singer-songwriter Joshua Radin performed before Obama spoke. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, music industry representatives Quincy Jones, Berry Gordy and Jerry Ross, film producer Steve Bing, Rob and Michele Reiner and Will Ferrell's wife, Vivica, were also in attendance.

She spoke about the struggles of the middle class and of hearing their stories as she traveled the country. She said Obama's "toughness and fight" comes from hearing the stories of struggling Americans.


Rich people talking to other rich people about the plight of the middle class. It's a fucking joke.

Amnorix
02-01-2012, 01:10 PM
See, this is my problem with politicians these days...

Rich people talking to other rich people about the plight of the middle class. It's a fucking joke.

So when George Washington (richest President ever by percentage of nation's GDP), Thomas Jefferson (chronically cash-poor but very land/slave rich), John Adams (highly successful lawyer and farmer), Richard Henry Lee (part of Virginia's "First Family"), John Hancock (Harvard graduate, slave owner, one of the wealthiest men in America), etc. got together, which one do you think had a really good insight on the "plight of the middle class"?

What drives me crazy about the complaints about modern politicians isn't the complaints themselves, it's the suggestion that these problems are NEW, or somehow dramatically different from what has largely always been the case.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 01:23 PM
So when George Washington (richest President ever by percentage of nation's GDP), Thomas Jefferson (chronically cash-poor but very land/slave rich), John Adams (highly successful lawyer and farmer), Richard Henry Lee (part of Virginia's "First Family"), John Hancock (Harvard graduate, slave owner, one of the wealthiest men in America), etc. got together, which one do you think had a really good insight on the "plight of the middle class"?

What drives me crazy about the complaints about modern politicians isn't the complaints themselves, it's the suggestion that these problems are NEW, or somehow dramatically different from what has largely always been the case.

Fair enough point.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 01:26 PM
Is she finally proud of her country now that we've arrived at her husband's new normal?

FD
02-01-2012, 01:27 PM
See, this is my problem with politicians these days...

Rich people talking to other rich people about the plight of the middle class. It's a ****ing joke.

Why do you feel so much resentment towards the wealthy? When has a poor person ever given you a job?

mlyonsd
02-01-2012, 01:32 PM
Is she finally proud of her country now that we've arrived at her husband's new normal?Certainly doesn't appear to be an angry black woman.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 01:38 PM
Why do you feel so much resentment towards the wealthy? When has a poor person ever given you a job?

I don't have a resentment towards the wealthy at all. It's politicians.

blaise
02-01-2012, 01:41 PM
I really don't care much what she says. She does seem to love being in the news, though. But maybe they're shoving her out there.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 01:45 PM
"You’re here because you know that we stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country," Michelle Obama told them. "You’re here because you know that in less than a year from now, we are going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come."

More like, "you're here tonight because we need your money!"

petegz28
02-01-2012, 01:49 PM
The bottom line is neither side has done really jack squat to help the middle-class. While one side is supporting bailouts and offshoring jobs, the other side is killing the middle class with excessive regulation and a nanny state. I am not picking on Michelle specifically but moreso how you have rich politicians preaching to rich people about the middle class struggles when in reality it's rich politicians preaching to rich people because said rich politican wants said rich person's money so they can stay a rich politician.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 01:57 PM
I really don't care much what she says. She does seem to love being in the news, though. But maybe they're shoving her out there.

Yes, they are. They know she's popular, is a trend-setter, and has quite a favorable image.

I have no idea why we would start a thread about her obvious promotion of the Obama administration, however.

alpha_omega
02-01-2012, 02:02 PM
.....

I have no idea why we would start a thread about her obvious promotion of the Obama administration, however.

Uhhh, how 'bout this sub-forum is called Washington D.C and the Holy Land.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 02:04 PM
Uhhh, how 'bout this sub-forum is called Washington D.C and the Holy Land.

That doesn't mean we can't set personal standards for legitimate threads and criticize those that fall below it.

blaise
02-01-2012, 02:06 PM
Yes, they are. They know she's popular, is a trend-setter, and has quite a favorable image.

I have no idea why we would start a thread about her obvious promotion of the Obama administration, however.

You just said she's a person of note and a trendsetter.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 02:10 PM
You just said she's a person of note and a trendsetter.

Not when it comes to her political campaigning, which run the gamut from her husband Barack to not a single other person.

She's a person of note in her positive vibe and energy and fashion.

blaise
02-01-2012, 02:18 PM
Not when it comes to her political campaigning, which run the gamut from her husband Barack to not a single other person.

She's a person of note in her positive vibe and energy and fashion.

So, we shouldn't take her political opinions seriously.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 02:23 PM
Not when it comes to her political campaigning, which run the gamut from her husband Barack to not a single other person.

She's a person of note in her positive vibe and energy and fashion.

It's hard to tell the difference between the first lady and a super model!

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/electionnightdress.jpg

petegz28
02-01-2012, 02:25 PM
It's hard to tell the difference between the first lady and a super model!

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/electionnightdress.jpg

That's rather irrelevant. I am sure as First Lady she has designers fawning over her because she is in the public eye.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 02:29 PM
So, we shouldn't take her political opinions seriously.

Take her opinions seriously, if you like. I just can't get too excited about her endorsing her husband. Maybe that's crazy, but I expect nothing but rainbows and butterflies from a family member on the campaign trail.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 02:36 PM
That's rather irrelevant.

No, it's immensely important!

alpha_omega
02-01-2012, 02:42 PM
That doesn't mean we can't set personal standards for legitimate threads and criticize those that fall below it.

I agree with you...but.....personal standards...:ROFL, legitimate threads...:ROFL. This is CP.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 03:01 PM
I agree with you...but.....personal standards...:ROFL, legitimate threads...:ROFL. This is CP.

Yes, but bitching about things, including threads and other posters, has long been a great tradition here.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:02 PM
So when George Washington (richest President ever by percentage of nation's GDP), Thomas Jefferson (chronically cash-poor but very land/slave rich), John Adams (highly successful lawyer and farmer), Richard Henry Lee (part of Virginia's "First Family"), John Hancock (Harvard graduate, slave owner, one of the wealthiest men in America), etc. got together, which one do you think had a really good insight on the "plight of the middle class"?

What drives me crazy about the complaints about modern politicians isn't the complaints themselves, it's the suggestion that these problems are NEW, or somehow dramatically different from what has largely always been the case.

Seriously, none of those guys discussed the economic conditions of the middle-class. They just felt govt should be out of the way....which meant you make it on your own not with govt help. The type of govt they proposed didn't do anything for the poor or middle-class—the latter didn't rise until the Industrial Revolution.


LOL

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:05 PM
The bottom line is neither side has done really jack squat to help the middle-class. While one side is supporting bailouts and offshoring jobs, the other side is killing the middle class with excessive regulation and a nanny state.

Yup, too much govt involvement and interference stemming from can-do politicians.

stevieray
02-01-2012, 06:27 PM
So when George Washington (richest President ever by percentage of nation's GDP), Thomas Jefferson (chronically cash-poor but very land/slave rich), John Adams (highly successful lawyer and farmer), Richard Henry Lee (part of Virginia's "First Family"), John Hancock (Harvard graduate, slave owner, one of the wealthiest men in America), etc. got together, which one do you think had a really good insight on the "plight of the middle class"?

What drives me crazy about the complaints about modern politicians isn't the complaints themselves, it's the suggestion that these problems are NEW, or somehow dramatically different from what has largely always been the case.
wow..Now we are deflecting back to Washington to prove anything the Obamas say or do is unassailable? reeks of dishonesty

Sam Adams? ya, he was loaded. Most lost the fortunes they pledged to the founding...todays politicians? multi millionaires who have made a "career" out of public "service".

'fundamental crossroads'....pretty sure that doesn't mean what she is pretending it does.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:34 PM
wow..Now we are deflecting back to Washington to prove anything the Obamas say or do is unassailable? reeks of dishonesty

Sam Adams? ya, he was loaded. Most lost the fortunes they pledged to the founding...todays politicians? multi millionaires who have made a "career" out of public "service".

'fundamental crossroads'....pretty sure that doesn't mean what she is pretending it does.

I find no fault in Michelle for supporting her husband. I would expect nothing less. What I would point out is the details of the scenario. For example, Nancy Reagan had 3 assistants. Michelle has 40. So you have a First Lady with 40 assistants preaching to the Hollywood elite about the plight of the middle class. That just smacks of the out-of-touch preaching to the out-of-touch.

The Obama's would get a lot more slack had they made some more humble and symbolic gestures during their time in office. Like opting for cheaper vacations or less vacations. Michelle taking the same flight with her husband instead of separate, etc. Regardless of what Preidents past have done it would at least have sent a message that they understand the condition of the country, economically speaking.

I don't expect them to not take vacations and I don't expect the First Lady to not have assistants. But they could have exercised a little more class and humility in it all.

stevieray
02-01-2012, 06:37 PM
I find no fault in Michelle for supporting her husband. I would expect nothing less. What I would point out is the details of the scenario. For example, Nancy Reagan had 3 assistants. Michelle has 40. So you have a First Lady with 40 assistants preaching to the Hollywood elite about the plight of the middle class. That just smacks of the out-of-touch preaching to the out-of-touch.

The Obama's would get a lot more slack had they made some more humble and symbolic gestures during their time in office. Like opting for cheaper vacations or less vacations. Michelle taking the same flight with her husband instead of separate, etc. Regardless of what Preidents past have done it would at least have sent a message that they understand the condition of the country, economically speaking.

I don't expect them to not take vacations and I don't expect the First Lady to not have assistants. But they could have exercised a little more class and humility in it all.

who is saying she shouldn't support her husband? that doesn't even make sense.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:38 PM
who is saying she shouldn't support her husband? that doesn't even make sense.

I was just stating a point.

mlyonsd
02-01-2012, 06:39 PM
Very simple really, if you're going to give a speech to donors at a campaign event fully expect your dumb ass comments to become cannon fodder.

stevieray
02-01-2012, 06:45 PM
Very simple really, if you're going to give a speech to donors at a campaign event fully expect your dumb ass comments to become cannon fodder.
fashion! trendy! gollywood!

La literatura
02-01-2012, 07:05 PM
I find no fault in Michelle for supporting her husband. I would expect nothing less. What I would point out is the details of the scenario. For example, Nancy Reagan had 3 assistants. Michelle has 40. So you have a First Lady with 40 assistants preaching to the Hollywood elite about the plight of the middle class. That just smacks of the out-of-touch preaching to the out-of-touch.

The Obama's would get a lot more slack had they made some more humble and symbolic gestures during their time in office. Like opting for cheaper vacations or less vacations. Michelle taking the same flight with her husband instead of separate, etc. Regardless of what Preidents past have done it would at least have sent a message that they understand the condition of the country, economically speaking.

I don't expect them to not take vacations and I don't expect the First Lady to not have assistants. But they could have exercised a little more class and humility in it all.

Michelle has slightly more than Laura Bush and Mrs. Clinton. Here's the Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff, which lists every assistant that works for the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011

petegz28
02-01-2012, 07:08 PM
Michelle has slightly more than Laura Bush and Mrs. Clinton. Here's the Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff, which lists every assistant that works for the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011

And it's outrageous. It's like one has to continually outdo the other. HTF did Nancy Reagan ever get by with 3?

La literatura
02-01-2012, 07:14 PM
And it's outrageous. It's like one has to continually outdo the other. HTF did Nancy Reagan ever get by with 3?

Answer: she probably had more than 3, especially with the Just Say No campaign.

Plus, Nancy had the astrologer/psychic, one of the most bizarre asides in White House history.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2012, 07:36 PM
The woman is a pig. The fact is she appeals to a base TNT fawns over anything she does and the rest see her as a huge phony.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 07:44 PM
The woman is a pig. The fact is she appeals to a base TNT fawns over anything she does and the rest see her as a huge phony.

Wanna know how I know you're messed up?

HonestChieffan
02-01-2012, 07:48 PM
Wanna know how I know you're messed up?

No.

vailpass
02-02-2012, 07:01 AM
Weezy needs to stfu.

Velvet_Jones
02-02-2012, 09:03 AM
Yes, they are. They know she's popular, is a trend-setter, and has quite a favorable image.

I have no idea why we would start a thread about her obvious promotion of the Obama administration, however.

She is a dumb-assed sasquatch.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 09:23 AM
She is a dumb-assed sasquatch.

Bathe in that irrational hate.

vailpass
02-02-2012, 09:27 AM
Bath in that irrational hate.

Bathe.

Gypsum,your failure to share in my dislike for the First Sasquatch does not make that dislike irrational.
If you choose to tell yourself she has not, through word or deed, presented anyone with rational reasons for which to dislike her that is certainly your choice albeit an irrational choice. Please though, don't think your irrationality spills over on to me.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 09:32 AM
Bathe.

Gypsum,your failure to share in my dislike for the First Sasquatch does not make that dislike irrational.
If you choose to tell yourself she has not, through word or deed, presented anyone with rational reasons for which to dislike her that is certainly your choice albeit an irrational choice. Please though, don't think your irrationality spills over on to me.

Dislike is one thing. The hatred, demonstrated by the over-the-top insults, names, and quips, some on the far right has for her is another. It's hatred, and it's unwarranted, because she has done nothing to deserve it. It's irrational.

vailpass
02-02-2012, 09:36 AM
Dislike is one thing. The hatred, demonstrated by the over-the-top insults, names, and quips, some on the far right has for her is another. It's hatred, and it's unwarranted, because she has done nothing to deserve it. It's irrational.

Your insistence on labeling that with which you disagree as irrational, in the face of widely known reasons for which she is disliked, is juvenile and willfully ignorant.
Your use of the word "hatred" is intentionally inflammatory; it is an example of that left-loved term "dog whistle". You'll be embarrassed by your actions when you get a little older and your balls finally drop.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 09:58 AM
"dumb-assed Sasquatch," "pig," "huge phony," are inflammatory words themselves. They indicate a passion, far more than mere dislike, that is quite reasonably labeled hateful.

It's irrational because she's done nothing to deserve that level of passion, not because I disagree with it (though I do indeed disagree that she's stupid, or a pig, or a phony). She's a successful, smart, and sophisticated wife who is a fine speaker, seemingly-excellent mother, and heads a quite innocent anti-child obesity program.

Makes no sense the level of discourse raised upon her. Because she's on magazines? Because she supports her husband and campaigns for him? Because she said an alarming phrase in 2008 that she later clarified and explained?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 10:16 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/michelle-obama-joins-twitter-rants-begin/2012/01/13/gIQAQOjxwP_blog.html

First Lady Michelle Obama joined Twitter on Friday, and the Internet exploded. Obama supporters and Michelle Obama fans, alike, were excited to subscribe to the FLOTUS’ tweets.

However, some tweeters weren’t pleased about this development. So what did they do about it? Bombard the First Lady’s account with some of the harshest comments they could make in 140 characters or less, of course.

Buzzfeed compiled a list of the tweets, aptly named The 25 Most Offensive Tweets At Michelle Obama. Here’s a quick synopsis: The First Lady, or “Moochelle” is an “angry black woman” who “hates white people.”

For example, @cheshirecat0025 tweeted “@michelleobama is on twitter great! We can all tell her how much we hate her! #America is not proud of you” – a snarky reference to a comment the First Lady made back in 2008 .

And according to @iyestogody “the next most hateful woman in America is Michelle Obama. She hates everyone and everything. To bad for her. Sorry.”

Every public figure has critics, but there is a palpable hatred behind some of the things said about Mrs. O in this list. It’s especially upsetting because they don’t seem to be based on anything other than her race. I may be a bit biased, because I desperately want to be Michelle Obama when I grow up, but I’m confused.

She’s black, so she’s angry? OK, got it. I can’t recall even seeing the First Lady frown, but whatever. Let’s go with what we know. Black women are angry from birth.

And of course, people have a problem with Michelle Obama fighting to protect children from what the CDC calls a “dramatic increase in obesity”

There’s nothing wrong with the fact that only 18 percent of American children got the recommended amount of daily exercise in 2007. Nothing at all.

I’m not alone in being unable to wrap my mind around this intense hatred some Americans seem to have for the First Lady. Most of my friends almost idolize Michelle Obama. The majority of them are still in college, and she represents the lifestyle they want: a successful and educated black woman, married to a successful and educated black man, with two really cute kids. Even if they criticize the President’s decisions on occasion, they all love the First Lady.

Actually, I can’t wait to discuss this with my mom. She thinks “twittering” is a waste of time, but she’ll probably start an account just to voice her outrage. She has leapt through all sorts of technological hoops in her support of the Obamas. She taught herself how to text just so she could respond to President Obama’s campaign tweets back in 2008.

The anger she’ll feel is understandable. I just can’t imagine anyone criticizing Abigail Adams’ “posterior.” No one got upset when Nancy Reagan went sleeveless. And no matter how many feet her husband put in his mouth, no one ever booed Laura Bush at an event.

Until any of these overzealous Michelle Obama critics are able to give me some concrete reason as to why they hate the First Lady so, I’m going to file it all as racist drivel and forget it as soon as possible.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 10:19 AM
Americans getting involved with politics: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-most-offensive-tweets-at-michelle-obama

blaise
02-02-2012, 10:22 AM
Americans getting involved with politics: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-most-offensive-tweets-at-michelle-obama

Those are the 25 most offensive? Seems pretty tame.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 10:23 AM
Be sure to check out the comments http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mrs-obama-let-them-eat-steak-and-arugula

blaise
02-02-2012, 10:25 AM
Be sure to check out the comments http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mrs-obama-let-them-eat-steak-and-arugula

You're making a point that there's stupid comments after a news story?

Thanks.

patteeu
02-02-2012, 10:27 AM
"dumb-assed Sasquatch," "pig," "huge phony," are inflammatory words themselves. They indicate a passion, far more than mere dislike, that is quite reasonably labeled hateful.

It's irrational because she's done nothing to deserve that level of passion, not because I disagree with it (though I do indeed disagree that she's stupid, or a pig, or a phony). She's a successful, smart, and sophisticated wife who is a fine speaker, seemingly-excellent mother, and heads a quite innocent anti-child obesity program.

Makes no sense the level of discourse raised upon her. Because she's on magazines? Because she supports her husband and campaigns for him? Because she said an alarming phrase in 2008 that she later clarified and explained?

I'll announce it to the world the first time she makes me proud of her.

blaise
02-02-2012, 10:29 AM
They never made nasty comments about Martha Washington in the comments section of internet news stories, or on twitter.

vailpass
02-02-2012, 10:39 AM
Americans getting involved with politics: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-most-offensive-tweets-at-michelle-obama

LMAO "This is the first time she's been proud of Twitter"

Was moochelle babymama really disbarred?

InChiefsHell
02-02-2012, 10:49 AM
When people couldn't stand Hillary, it's because they were sexist...even if they were women. Now people can't stand Michelle, so of course they must be racist.

I have a problem with Michelle. She is really showy, which is probably her personality, but taking lavish vacations to Europe and having huge entourages go with her, she has a very stuck up demeanor and it's not all about the comment from 2008, though that was the first time I looked at her funny. She doesn't behave the way I think a first lady should behave, but neither did Hillary.

Nancy Reagen was not all out in everyone's face, even though she had the Just Say No thing going, she was not a bloody celebrity. Hillary got involved in actual policy with her health care initiative. That was ridiculous. Laura Bush was a classy lady, of course she campaigned for her husband, but other than that, she had a literacy campaign going and it was quiet. She was not on a million fashion magazines sucking up all the attention. Michelle looks and acts more like a Hollywood star than she does a first lady.

Just my opinion. And it has nothing to do with her being black. She is just NOT my kind of person.

patteeu
02-02-2012, 11:19 AM
When people couldn't stand Hillary, it's because they were sexist...even if they were women. Now people can't stand Michelle, so of course they must be racist.

I have a problem with Michelle. She is really showy, which is probably her personality, but taking lavish vacations to Europe and having huge entourages go with her, she has a very stuck up demeanor and it's not all about the comment from 2008, though that was the first time I looked at her funny. She doesn't behave the way I think a first lady should behave, but neither did Hillary.

Nancy Reagen was not all out in everyone's face, even though she had the Just Say No thing going, she was not a bloody celebrity. Hillary got involved in actual policy with her health care initiative. That was ridiculous. Laura Bush was a classy lady, of course she campaigned for her husband, but other than that, she had a literacy campaign going and it was quiet. She was not on a million fashion magazines sucking up all the attention. Michelle looks and acts more like a Hollywood star than she does a first lady.

Just my opinion. And it has nothing to do with her being black. She is just NOT my kind of person.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I_oZbwR4aV0/TGgT4dHDPhI/AAAAAAAAAe8/dy35Sqpc16E/s1600/MichelleAntoinette.jpg

La literatura
02-02-2012, 11:35 AM
You're making a point that there's stupid comments after a news story?

Thanks.

I'm making a point that there's an irrational hatred of Michelle Obama. The comments after the news story go to prove that point.

You're welcome.

blaise
02-02-2012, 11:37 AM
I'm making a point that there's an irrational hatred of Michelle Obama. The comments after the news story go to prove that point.

You're welcome.

There's irrational hatred of everything and anything in the comments section of almost every news story.

Thanks for alerting everyone.

vailpass
02-02-2012, 11:44 AM
I'm making a point that there's an irrational hatred of Michelle Obama. The comments after the news story go to prove that point.

You're welcome.

LMAO Gypsum you are funny.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 11:46 AM
There's irrational hatred of everything and anything in the comments section of almost every news story.

Thanks for alerting everyone.

Do you realize I had an argument with vailpass in this very thread who disputed my claim that there is an irrational hatred existing for Michelle Obama?

Consider this quote: "Your insistence on labeling that with which you disagree as irrational, in the face of widely known reasons for which she is disliked, is juvenile and willfully ignorant.
Your use of the word 'hatred' is intentionally inflammatory; it is an example of that left-loved term 'dog whistle'."

I'm glad you understand the existing irrational hatred of Michelle Obama. But it's pretty clear that this isn't recognized by some.

blaise
02-02-2012, 11:46 AM
LMAO Gypsum you are funny.

Michelle should be immune from all the angry people that fill thousands of comments sections with garbage every day.

blaise
02-02-2012, 11:49 AM
Do you realize I had an argument with vailpass in this very thread who disputed my claim that there is an irrational hatred existing for Michelle Obama?

Consider this quote: "Your insistence on labeling that with which you disagree as irrational, in the face of widely known reasons for which she is disliked, is juvenile and willfully ignorant.
Your use of the word 'hatred' is intentionally inflammatory; it is an example of that left-loved term 'dog whistle'."

I'm glad you understand the existing irrational hatred of Michelle Obama. But it's pretty clear that this isn't recognized by some.

Ok, great. Then there's irrational hatred of just about everything under the sun. It's a shame she's singled out along with thousands of other people and businesses every day in the comments section.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 11:50 AM
Literature: "There's a lot of irrational hatred."

Poster 1: "No, there's not."

Literature: "Yes, see here, here, here, and here."

Poster 2: "Well, of course there's irrational hatred."

Literature: "Okay."

Poster 2: "See how little your point was?"

Literature: "Not really. Where is Poster 1?"

Poster 1: *blank stare with plastered smirk*

La literatura
02-02-2012, 11:52 AM
Ok, great. Then there's irrational hatred of just about everything under the sun. It's a shame she's singled out along with thousands of other people and businesses every day in the comments section.

So you disagree with vailpass's dispute of my statement that there is irrational hatred of Michelle Obama.

patteeu
02-02-2012, 11:55 AM
Literature: "There's a lot of irrational hatred."

Poster 1: "No, there's not."

Literature: "Yes, see here, here, here, and here."

Poster 2: "Well, of course there's irrational hatred."

Literature: "Okay."

Poster 2: "See how little your point was?"

Literature: "Not really. Where is Poster 1?"

Poster 1: *blank stare with plastered smirk*

I think this started with you suggesting that Velvet Jones is guilty of irrational hatred, not that irrational hatred exists somewhere.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:05 PM
Literature: "There's a lot of irrational hatred."

Poster 1: "No, there's not."

Literature: "Yes, see here, here, here, and here."

Poster 2: "Well, of course there's irrational hatred."

Literature: "Okay."

Poster 2: "See how little your point was?"

Literature: "Not really. Where is Poster 1?"

Poster 1: *blank stare with plastered smirk*

J: Hatred of Michelle is irrational. This is proven by comments on internet comments sections. It's unfair

Me: There's irrational hatred of everything on internet comments sections.

J: Right, that proves Michelle is unfairly treated.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:14 PM
J: Hatred of Michelle is irrational. This is proven by comments on internet comments sections. It's unfair

Me: There's irrational hatred of everything on internet comments sections.

J: Right, that proves Michelle is unfairly treated.

You're really bad at this. I've never said, nor does it follow, that the third comment proves the second comment. The third comment is a restatement of the first comment.

I can observe that there exists irrational hatred of Michelle Obama because comments in this thread, in other threads, on her own twitter page, and comments following articles show irrational hatred.

My argument isn't that she and only she alone is treated with irrational hatred, no matter how hard you want to strain my argument into that. My argument has been that there is irrational hatred towards her. One poster disputed that, saying my suggesting it as so was irrational itself; that people merely dislike her and I'm trying to inflame emotions. I argue back that comments go beyond dislike to irrational hate. You agree, and then you argue that I have no point, although it's clear that if you agree with me, you must disagree with the argument posed by vailpass.

blaise, is there irrational hatred for Michelle Obama? [Yes, you must say]. blaise, how do you know that? [Because we can see that in comments on the internet, you have said.]

There's still a value judgment on whether me pointing this out is juvenile, intentionally inflammatory, and willfully ignorant. But in my opinion, the posts in this thread were a reasonable trigger to that pointing out. It didn't come out of nowhere. It came within this very thread, by posters demonstrating actual irrational hatred of Michelle Obama.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:22 PM
You're really bad at this. I've never said, nor does it follow, that the third comment proves the second comment. The third comment is a restatement of the first comment.

I can observe that there exists irrational hatred of Michelle Obama because comments in this thread, in other threads, on her own twitter page, and comments following articles show irrational hatred.

My argument isn't that she and only she alone is treated with irrational hatred, no matter how hard you want to strain my argument into that. My argument has been that there is irrational hatred towards her. One poster disputed that, saying my suggesting it as so was irrational itself; that people merely dislike her and I'm trying to inflame emotions. I argue back that comments go beyond dislike to irrational hate. You agree, and then you argue that I have no point, although it's clear that if you agree with me, you must disagree with the argument posed by vailpass.

So, your grand point is that people in the public eye sometimes suffer from irrational hatred.
Hooray.

Velvet_Jones
02-02-2012, 12:22 PM
"dumb-assed Sasquatch," "pig," "huge phony," are inflammatory words themselves. They indicate a passion, far more than mere dislike, that is quite reasonably labeled hateful.

It's irrational because she's done nothing to deserve that level of passion, not because I disagree with it (though I do indeed disagree that she's stupid, or a pig, or a phony). She's a successful, smart, and sophisticated wife who is a fine speaker, seemingly-excellent mother, and heads a quite innocent anti-child obesity program.

Makes no sense the level of discourse raised upon her. Because she's on magazines? Because she supports her husband and campaigns for him? Because she said an alarming phrase in 2008 that she later clarified and explained?

Hehehe. Typically, you have added nothing to the argument. You need to think back when any conservative person was attacked for just breathing. And BTW - she is not sophisticated or she would understand she has a lot to be proud of this nation other that electing her asshole husband. Get a clue dipshit.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Everyone listen up, J's onto something here- people with a lot of exposure, like celebrities, athletes, and other famous people sometimes get negative reactions on the internet.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:30 PM
So, your grand point is that people in the public eye sometimes suffer from irrational hatred.
Hooray.

And Michelle Obama is a target of irrational hatred, and a reasonable person can see irrational hatred towards her in this very thread.

Let's compare that point to your grand point in this thread: "Literature is making an obvious point." I appreciate the support, blaise, but perhaps your point would be better realized if you directed it to the person who suggests that there isn't irrational hatred towards Michelle Obama.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:32 PM
And Michelle Obama is a target of irrational hatred, and a reasonable person can see irrational hatred towards her in this very thread.

Let's compare that point to your grand point in this thread: "Literature is making an obvious point." I appreciate the support, blaise, but perhaps your point would be better realized if you directed it to the person who suggests that there isn't irrational hatred towards Michelle Obama.

Can't a woman just go on Jay Leno, and Ellen and do Hollywood fundraisers, and have a story on yahoo's front page just live her life! I ask you, would anyone else doing these things suffer from backlash?
Poor Michelle.

Donger
02-02-2012, 12:32 PM
Jeez, Jenson, just state it already and move on:

People hate her because she's Black.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:35 PM
Hehehe. Typically, you have added nothing to the argument. You need to think back when any conservative person was attacked for just breathing. And BTW - she is not sophisticated or she would understand she has a lot to be proud of this nation other that electing her asshole husband. Get a clue dipshit.

I'm comfortable knowing that I don't hate any person who disagrees with me politically, or is married to someone I disagree with politically, or has said something stupid, to the point where I join a choir of hatred on that person who, by all indications, is in reality a decent human being.

But if I did some time indicate a hatred of that person, I think I would be owed the decency of a reminder that I'm being irrational and hateful and reconsider my perspective.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Jeez, Jenson, just state it already and move on:

People hate her because she's Black.

Right wing irrational hatred.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Everyone listen up, J's onto something here- people with a lot of exposure, like celebrities, athletes, and other famous people sometimes get negative reactions on the internet.

blaise, you're onto something here, yourself: Literature is onto something. You should just follow me around from thread to thread with a bell. "Attention, Literature is making a point." That would be a great point to make. Certainly I have no objections to your support of my positions. I just think you would be more effective if you also directly addressed the opposition to my points, instead of this puzzling maze you would rather undertake. Someone might confuse your motives and think that you are disagreeing with me.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:40 PM
blaise, you're onto something here, yourself: Literature is onto something. You should just follow me around from thread to thread with a bell. "Attention, Literature is making a point." That would be a great point to make. Certainly I have no objections to your support of my positions. I just think you would be more effective if you also directly addressed the opposition to my points, instead of this puzzling maze you would rather undertake. Someone might confuse your motives and think that you are disagreeing with me.

This seems like you have some irrational hatred in your heart.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:40 PM
Can't a woman just go on Jay Leno, and Ellen and do Hollywood fundraisers, and have a story on yahoo's front page just live her life! I ask you, would anyone else doing these things suffer from backlash?
Poor Michelle.

What is your point, blaise? That she deserves irrational hatred, or that we shouldn't point out that irrational hatred exists, and some people relish in it?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:41 PM
This seems like you have some irrational hatred in your heart.

I don't think so. Do you think I have an irrational hatred towards you?

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:41 PM
I propose this- people should only celebrate Michelle as she travels the country in an Obama re-election media campaign.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:42 PM
What is your point, blaise? That she deserves irrational hatred, or that we shouldn't point out that irrational hatred exists, and some people relish in it?

People in the public eye almost always experience backlash. I guess Michelle just holds a special place in your heart that makes you rush to her defense.

If you think about it it's heroic on your part.

mlyonsd
02-02-2012, 12:43 PM
I don't think so. Do you think I have an irrational hatred towards you?Is calling into question statements she makes irrational hate?

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:44 PM
I don't think so. Do you think I have an irrational hatred towards you?

I really don't know. Sometimes you do get a bit moody.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:44 PM
I propose this- people should only celebrate Michelle as she travels the country in an Obama re-election media campaign.

I propose this - it's okay to point out when someone is acting or saying something that indicates an irrational hatred towards another person.

Between 1) the person who points out the irrational hatred or 2) the person who says or acts in a manner indicating an irrational hatred towards another person, I further propose this - the person deserving more scorn from blaise should be the latter person, not the former person.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:45 PM
I propose this - it's okay to point out when someone is acting or saying something that indicates an irrational hatred towards another person.

Between 1) the person who points out the irrational hatred or 2) the person who says or acts in a manner indicating an irrational hatred towards another person, I further propose this - the person deserving more scorn from blaise should be the latter person, not the former person.

I reject your proposal on the basis that I didn't bother reading it.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:46 PM
People in the public eye almost always experience backlash. I guess Michelle just holds a special place in your heart that makes you rush to her defense.

If you think about it it's heroic on your part.

If by rushing to her defense, you mean pointing out irrational hatred on a message board thread that I am already participating in by doing so in a 5 sentence post that took less than 10 seconds to publish, then by all means, consider me her pro-bowl left tackle.

blaise
02-02-2012, 12:47 PM
If by rushing to her defense, you mean pointing out irrational hatred on a message board thread that I am already participating in by doing so in a 5 sentence post that took less than 10 seconds to publish, then by all means, consider me her pro-bowl left tackle.

Let's all agree that Michelle should be immune from the type of backlash that people in the public eye often experience.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:48 PM
Is calling into question statements she makes irrational hate?

Not at all. Is calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," a "pig," and a "huge phony" calling into question statements she makes, or does it seem to indicate something else, perhaps irrational hatred?

Donger
02-02-2012, 12:49 PM
Jenson, perhaps you've already answered this, but why do you label dislike of Michele Obama as hatred? Where do you draw the line between the two?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:49 PM
I really don't know. Sometimes you do get a bit moody.

I think you think you're a little more clever than you really are. And I think you have no argument in this thread. I think you're more hypocritical and sarcastic than my level of acceptance can comfortably bear. But I don't think I have an irrational hatred towards you.

Donger
02-02-2012, 12:49 PM
Not at all. Is calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," a "pig," and a "huge phony" calling into question statements she makes, or does it seem to indicate something else, perhaps irrational hatred?

No, not automatically.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:51 PM
I reject your proposal on the basis that I didn't bother reading it.

I think it would serve you well to read the conversation I am having in order to place my posts into context, rather than spending the time debating my thoughts out of context. I don't think it's that time-consuming.

stevieray
02-02-2012, 12:53 PM
...somebody needs a hug.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:53 PM
Let's all agree that Michelle should be immune from the type of backlash that people in the public eye often experience.

I think all people should be immune from irrational hatred, whether they are in the public eye or not. I don't see any good reason for irrational hatred.

Maybe we should also agree that people shouldn't be immune from the type of backlash that people who make irrationally hateful comments receive. But that would seem to require a change of operation for you.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:55 PM
why do you label dislike of Michele Obama as hatred? Where do you draw the line between the two?

Hmm, Donger, I can only speak to Literature's opinion, and confidently say that this is not actually my position. I don't think dislike of Michelle Obama is hatred. I think hatred of Michelle Obama is hatred. I think dislike of Michelle Obama is only dislike. I hope that helps understand my position.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:58 PM
No, not automatically.

I agree that is does not automatically mean hatred. It could be a joke, or sarcasm. I think, if one were to demand a category, that such comments could be considered "irrational hatred as applied" rather than "irrational hatred on its face."

Donger
02-02-2012, 12:58 PM
Hmm, Donger, I can only speak to Literature's opinion, and confidently say that this is not actually my position. I don't think dislike of Michelle Obama is hatred. I think hatred of Michelle Obama is hatred. I hope that helps understand my position.

Not really. How do you ascertain the difference between someone's dislike and someone's hate?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 12:59 PM
Not really. How do you ascertain the difference between someone's dislike and someone's hate?

Good question. I think the best way to do this is by judging the things that people say or write. If you would like me to get more detailed, I would be happy to do so, using examples from this thread.

Donger
02-02-2012, 01:01 PM
Good question. I think the best way to do this is by judging the things that people say or write.

May I suggest that you may not be as good a judge as you apparently think you are?

headsnap
02-02-2012, 01:02 PM
One man's hate is another man's dislike...

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:02 PM
May I suggest that you may not be as good a judge as you apparently think you are?

You may certainly suggest that. I think a suggestion would be better viewed, however, if reasons that support the suggestion are provided.

Donger
02-02-2012, 01:03 PM
You may certainly suggest that. I think a suggestion would be better viewed, however, if reasons that support the suggestion are provided.

You've already kindly done that. See #86.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:05 PM
I think you think you're a little more clever than you really are. And I think you have no argument in this thread. I think you're more hypocritical and sarcastic than my level of acceptance can comfortably bear. But I don't think I have an irrational hatred towards you.

Yes, we all know you're above hypocrisy, right?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:07 PM
You've already kindly done that. See #86.

I don't think that satisfies the "reasons-supporting" suggestion. I don't think post 86 has been directly disputed, nor even answered.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:07 PM
I think it would serve you well to read the conversation I am having in order to place my posts into context, rather than spending the time debating my thoughts out of context. I don't think it's that time-consuming.

Your posts in the conversation are only mildly interesting. I'm not sure it would serve me well to spend much time reading them. I would consider it more of an unproductive use of time.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:08 PM
Yes, we all know you're above hypocrisy, right?

That's not really relevant to my feelings towards you.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:09 PM
That's not really relevant to my feelings towards you.

Yes, I can understand why one hypocrite would become upset over another's hypocrisy.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:11 PM
Your posts in the conversation are only mildly interesting. I'm not sure it would serve me well to spend much time reading them. I would consider it more of an unproductive use of time.

Oh, I think you're wrong. If you read my comments from the start, in the context of the conversation, it will probably take much less time than if you immediately respond to my comments out of context, and spend the next hour or so attempting to belittle the point you take out of context.

Obviously, the whole thing is quite unproductive. But reading and understanding what I've said right from the start is much more productive than your conversation with me in this thread (in which you essentially agreed with my initial point disputing vailpass) turned out to be.

Cheers!

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Yes, I can understand why one hypocrite would become upset over another's hypocrisy.

I don't think all hypocrisy is equal, personally. There are different views on that, and reasonable people can disagree there.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:14 PM
Oh, I think you're wrong. If you read my comments from the start, in the context of the conversation, it will probably take much less time than if you immediately respond to my comments out of context, and spend the next hour or so attempting to belittle the point you take out of context.

Obviously, the whole thing is quite unproductive. But reading and understanding what I've said right from the start is much more productive than your conversation with me in this thread (in which you essentially agreed with my initial point disputing vailpass) turned out to be.

Cheers!

No, I'm still satisfied that your posts weren't interesting enough to go back and read. I'd rather do it this way.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:15 PM
I don't think all hypocrisy is equal, personally. There are different views on that, and reasonable people can disagree there.

Yes, I see. It is easier to tolerate one's own hypocrisy.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:15 PM
No, I'm still satisfied that your posts weren't interesting enough to go back and read. I'd rather do it this way.

That's completely fine with me. I'm not too entirely concerned with how you spend your time or how you come across after doing so.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:16 PM
Yes, I see. It is easier to tolerate one's own hypocrisy.

That is probably most often true.

Donger
02-02-2012, 01:17 PM
I don't think that satisfies the "reasons-supporting" suggestion. I don't think post 86 has been directly disputed, nor even answered.

I just answered it. You don't know that someone calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," a "pig," and a "huge phony" is doing so based on hatred. Therefore, you are a poor judge by labeling them as such.

Pretty basic stuff, Jenson.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:17 PM
That's completely fine with me. I'm not too entirely concerned with how you spend your time or how you come across after doing so.

Well, good. I wish you the best in your defense of Michelle.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:21 PM
I just answered it. You don't know that someone calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," a "pig," and a "huge phony" is doing so based on hatred. Therefore, you are a poor judge by labeling them as such.

That's right, and I don't either. If you read Post 86 again, you will say that I said it "indicates" something else, perhaps irrational hatred. That's why I reject the "irrational hatred on its face" standard for the "irrational hatred as applied" standard.

mlyonsd
02-02-2012, 01:23 PM
Not at all. Is calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," a "pig," and a "huge phony" calling into question statements she makes, or does it seem to indicate something else, perhaps irrational hatred?If you consider all the things Cassel has been called on this board do you think the posters actually 'hate' him?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:24 PM
Well, good. I wish you the best in your defense of Michelle.

Do you? It seems that wish has been quite contrary to your actions so far in this thread. The best, I think, would be everyone agreeing with me, and attacking my opponents.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:27 PM
If you consider all the things Cassel has been called on this board do you think the posters actually 'hate' him?

I think the criticism towards Cassel has been as the Chiefs starting quarterback, not towards him as a person (as far as I can tell). I think people hate the idea of him as our starting quarterback, and I think that hate is quite rational: it's based on his talent level.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:30 PM
Do you? It seems that wish has been quite contrary to your actions so far in this thread. The best, I think, would be everyone agreeing with me, and attacking my opponents.

I can't wish you the best in your defense of Michelle?

Donger
02-02-2012, 01:31 PM
That's right, and I don't either. If you read Post 86 again, you will say that I said it "indicates" something else, perhaps irrational hatred. That's why I reject the "irrational hatred on its face" standard for the "irrational hatred as applied" standard.

Good. I'm glad that you don't yet claim infallibility.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:33 PM
I can't wish you the best in your defense of Michelle?

You can, absolutely. I'm just pointing out that it seems insincere based on your conversation in this thread.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:34 PM
Good. I'm glad that you don't yet claim infallibility.

No, no, I don't claim it. However, it often claims me.

mlyonsd
02-02-2012, 01:37 PM
I think the criticism towards Cassel has been as the Chiefs starting quarterback, not towards him as a person (as far as I can tell). I think people hate the idea of him as our starting quarterback, and I think that hate is quite rational: it's based on his talent level.I will give you credit, you've single handedly turned the conversation from something stupid she said into whether or not she is irrationally hated. :thumb:

patteeu
02-02-2012, 01:37 PM
I think the criticism towards Cassel has been as the Chiefs starting quarterback, not towards him as a person (as far as I can tell). I think people hate the idea of him as our starting quarterback, and I think that hate is quite rational: it's based on his talent level.

Perhaps the hate aimed at Michelle Obama isn't so much targeting her as a person, but instead as a shill for her failure of a husband and as an America-hating, let-them-eat-cake elitist who tells the little people to eat bran and vegetables while she inhales slabs of ribs and wagyu steak. But I don't think it's personal.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:38 PM
You can, absolutely. I'm just pointing out that it seems insincere based on your conversation in this thread.

I haven't demonstrated any ill will toward Michelle.

blaise
02-02-2012, 01:39 PM
I think the criticism towards Cassel has been as the Chiefs starting quarterback, not towards him as a person (as far as I can tell). I think people hate the idea of him as our starting quarterback, and I think that hate is quite rational: it's based on his talent level.

Michelle's talent being marketed seems to be her personality and persona. You yourself say that she's a compelling figure. So, maybe the criticisms about her as a person are not that irrational after all.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:45 PM
I will give you credit, you've single handedly turned the conversation from something stupid she said into whether or not she is irrationally hated. :thumb:

I wish I could say it came from nowhere, but it was a response from posters in the thread.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Perhaps the hate aimed at Michelle Obama isn't so much targeting her as a person, but instead as a shill for her failure of a husband and as an America-hating, let-them-eat-cake elitist who tells the little people to eat bran and vegetables while she inhales slabs of ribs and wagyu steak. But I don't think it's personal.

Okay, that is certainly something to ponder over.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:48 PM
I haven't demonstrated any ill will toward Michelle.

Right, but you have demonstrated ill will towards my defense of Michelle Obama, which conflicts with you wishing me the best in my defense of Michelle Obama.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 01:50 PM
Michelle's talent being marketed seems to be her personality and persona. You yourself say that she's a compelling figure. So, maybe the criticisms about her as a person are not that irrational after all.

Being marketed is not an inherent personality or personal trait. It's more like a byproduct of a personality.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:07 PM
Being marketed is not an inherent personality or personal trait. It's more like a byproduct of a personality.

I didn't say being marketed was a trait. I said her talent is her personality and her persona. You're saying Cassel is being criticized because people dislike the use of his talents. If Michelle's talent is her personality and persona, right? Why else is she getting on Ellen and Leno?

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:08 PM
Right, but you have demonstrated ill will towards my defense of Michelle Obama, which conflicts with you wishing me the best in my defense of Michelle Obama.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as ill will. Ridicule doesn't always mean ill will. I might ridicule Norv Turner, but it doesn't mean I hope he loses.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:18 PM
I didn't say being marketed was a trait. I said her talent is her personality and her persona. You're saying Cassel is being criticized because people dislike the use of his talents. If Michelle's talent is her personality and persona, right? Why else is she getting on Ellen and Leno?

The hatred shown towards Michelle Obama that I'm referring to is directly aimed at her person, not at what she does with her person. Calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch" is not even remotely similar to saying "I hate how she is going on Ellen all the time."

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:20 PM
I'm not sure I'd classify it as ill will. Ridicule doesn't always mean ill will. I might ridicule Norv Turner, but it doesn't mean I hope he loses.

I think an intentional conflict can be classified as ill will. You might not say you hope he loses, but lining up against his team and putting effort into beating his team indicates you do hope he loses.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:23 PM
The hatred shown towards Michelle Obama that I'm referring to is directly aimed at her person, not at what she does with her person. Calling her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch" is not even remotely similar to saying "I hate how she is going on Ellen all the time."

How do you know the criticism doesn't come from people seeing her in the news all the time?
People don't just say, 'I hate how Matt Cassel throws a football," either. They say far worse than that.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:27 PM
I think an intentional conflict can be classified as ill will. You might not say you hope he loses, but lining up against his team and putting effort into beating his team indicates you do hope he loses.

No, I wish you the best.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:29 PM
How do you know the criticism doesn't come from people seeing her in the news all the time?

Because there's a necessary linking premise between (A) seeing a person in the news frequently and (B) calling the person a "dumb-ass Sasquatch." There are people we see everyday, in the media or in person, who don't inspire us to feel that the person is a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," or "a pig," or "a huge phoney."

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:30 PM
No, I wish you the best.

Then you're at conflict with yourself.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:34 PM
Then you're at conflict with yourself.

No, I'm not. I just like arguing with you sometimes because you're kind of a persnickety old woman.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:40 PM
Because there's a necessary linking premise between (A) seeing a person in the news frequently and (B) calling the person a "dumb-ass Sasquatch." There are people we see everyday, in the media or in person, who don't inspire us to feel that the person is a "dumb-ass Sasquatch," or "a pig," or "a huge phoney."

You don't believe her appearances on TV and in the news have created more animosity toward her?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:42 PM
No, I'm not. I just like arguing with you sometimes because you're kind of a persnickety old woman.

Arguing with me in this matter conflicts with "the best" in terms of my defense of Michelle Obama. I have a strong suspicion that you don't wish me "the best" in my defense of Michelle Obama, but rather, tried to portray my defense as something really pointless and stupid. In fact, that's really the only reasonable explanation of what you did in this thread.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:45 PM
Arguing with me in this matter conflicts with "the best" in terms of my defense of Michelle Obama. I have a strong suspicion that you don't wish me "the best" in my defense of Michelle Obama, but rather, tried to portray my defense as something really pointless and stupid. In fact, that's really the only reasonable explanation of what you did in this thread.

I think everything on this board is pointless, so yes I do think it was pointless.
And I think it was lame. I don't know that it was stupid.
But that doesn't mean I can't wish you the best. I don't really have much emotion about it one way or the other, so I feel comfortable wishing you the best.
Best wishes.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:49 PM
You don't believe her appearances on TV and in the news have created more animosity toward her?

That's a complex, almost loaded, question. You have a really poor way of re-phrasing a statement or crafting a quality, logical follow-up question.

Let me ask you something akin to it, and see how you feel in answering it. "You don't believe Michelle Obama's black skin, coupled with her success in life, is a primary branch of some people's animosity toward her?"

petegz28
02-02-2012, 02:52 PM
That's a complex, almost loaded, question. You have a really poor way of re-phrasing a statement or crafting a quality, logical follow-up question.

Let me ask you something akin to it, and see how you feel in answering it. "You don't believe Michelle Obama's black skin, coupled with her success in life, is a primary branch of some people's animosity toward her?"

Some people? Sure. But to immediately start taking the racist tactic because people tweeted they don't like her is pure bullshit. This is exactly what I stated about Obama being elected. The media was quick to call anyone who didn't like him or agree with him a racist.

blaise
02-02-2012, 02:54 PM
That's a complex, almost loaded, question. You have a really poor way of re-phrasing a statement or crafting a quality, logical follow-up question.

Let me ask you something akin to it, and see how you feel in answering it. "You don't believe Michelle Obama's black skin, coupled with her success in life, is a primary branch of some people's animosity toward her?"

In other words, yes, Michelle's appearances on TV add to the animosity.
So, Matt Cassel performs his talent on TV to some people's dissatisfaction, and they post about that animosity on message boards. This, you decide, is rational.
Michelle performs her talents on TV and in the news to some people's dissatisfaction, and they post about that on message boards. This, you decide, is irrational.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:58 PM
I think everything on this board is pointless, so yes I do think it was pointless.
And I think it was lame. I don't know that it was stupid.
But that doesn't mean I can't wish you the best. I don't really have much emotion about it one way or the other, so I feel comfortable wishing you the best.
Best wishes.

I don't think we're seeing eye to eye on what our conversation was like in this thread.

Literature: Shows X
You: Attempts to discredit showing X
Literature: Shows X irrefutably
You: "I wish you the best on showing X."
Literature: "Well, that is weird. Earlier, you tried to discredit showing X, but now you are hoping for the best in my continuing to show X. That seems inconsistent."
You: "No, it's consistent. I wish you the best on showing X."
Literature: "Then why did you attempt to discredit showing X?"
You: "No, I just thought showing X was lame and pointless."
Literature: "Clearly, you did more than think it, as you posted back and forth with me on it for quite some time, in a manner that attempted to discredit the showing of X."
You: "Best wishes on the showing of X."

La literatura
02-02-2012, 02:59 PM
Some people? Sure. But to immediately start taking the racist tactic because people tweeted they don't like her is pure bullshit. This is exactly what I stated about Obama being elected. The media was quick to call anyone who didn't like him or agree with him a racist.

I'm not taking the racist tactic. I'm taking the "There are a lot of people with an irrational hatred of Michelle Obama" tactic.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:02 PM
I don't think we're seeing eye to eye on what our conversation was like in this thread.

Literature: Shows X
You: Attempts to discredit showing X
Literature: Shows X irrefutably
You: "I wish you the best on showing X."
Literature: "Well, that is weird. Earlier, you tried to discredit showing X, but now you are hoping for the best in my continuing to show X. That seems inconsistent."
You: "No, it's consistent. I wish you the best on showing X."
Literature: "Then why did you attempt to discredit showing X?"
You: "No, I just thought showing X was lame and pointless."
Literature: "Clearly, you did more than think it, as you posted back and forth with me on it for quite some time, in a manner that attempted to discredit the showing of X."
You: "Best wishes on the showing of X."

Define X

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:06 PM
In other words, yes, Michelle's appearances on TV add to the animosity.
So, Matt Cassel performs his talent on TV to some people's dissatisfaction, and they post about that animosity on message boards. This, you decide, is rational.
Michelle performs her talents on TV and in the news to some people's dissatisfaction, and they post about that on message boards. This, you decide, is irrational.

Yes, Michelle's appearances in the media inflame (add to) people's previously-held irrational hatred of her. I have no problem stating so, so long as we acknowledge that there's a missing premise or two or three in there that you don't care to mention.

Matt Cassel performs his talent on TV to some people's dissatisfaction, and they post about their dislike on message boards. This is rational. Rationality: He's not good enough to be the starting quarterback. If he gained skills enough to be good enough, we would want him to be starting quarterback.

Michelle Obama goes on TV and is in the media frequently. People call her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch." This is likely irrational hatred.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:07 PM
Bust just to clarify- no, I don't think Michelle gets an abnormal amount of animosity for a public figure. She's in the public eye, she gets backlash. If that's what you're saying is true, that she gets backlash, then I'm not sure where you're saying I disputed that.
If you are a fan or hers, and you feel the need to defend her because she's some sort of personal favorite of yours, I wish you the best with that endeavor.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:08 PM
Define X

The existence of irrational hatred towards Michelle Obama in the defense of Michelle Obama against irrational hatred.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:09 PM
Yes, Michelle's appearances in the media inflame (add to) people's previously-held irrational hatred of her. I have no problem stating so, so long as we acknowledge that there's a missing premise or two or three in there that you don't care to mention.

Matt Cassel performs his talent on TV to some people's dissatisfaction, and they post about their dislike on message boards. This is rational. Rationality: He's not good enough to be the starting quarterback. If he gained skills enough to be good enough, we would want him to be starting quarterback.

Michelle Obama goes on TV and is in the media frequently. People call her a "dumb-ass Sasquatch." This is likely irrational hatred.


Some people aren't satisfied with Cassel's performance, some are.
Some people aren't satisfied with Michelle's performance, some are.
Positive and negative feelings are expressed on message boards and in comments sections.
I don't really see the difference.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:09 PM
The existence of irrational hatred towards Michelle Obama in the defense of Michelle Obama against irrational hatred.

I denied the existence of irrational hatred?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:12 PM
Bust just to clarify- no, I don't think Michelle gets an abnormal amount of animosity for a public figure. She's in the public eye, she gets backlash. If that's what you're saying is true, that she gets backlash, then I'm not sure where you're saying I disputed that.
If you are a fan or hers, and you feel the need to defend her because she's some sort of personal favorite of yours, I wish you the best with that endeavor.

The question was never about the amount of animosity for her or any other public figure.

I'm saying she is met with indefensible irrational hatred. You try to point out that this is pointless, because every public figure is met to some degree of indefensible irrational hatred. I try to remind you that that's not the point. You still don't get it, and continue to look at other issues.

I'm pretty neutral towards her. I think she's respectable. And I think she's met with indefensible irrational hatred that can legitimately be resisted.

stevieray
02-02-2012, 03:14 PM
Some people? Sure. But to immediately start taking the racist tactic because people tweeted they don't like her is pure bullshit. This is exactly what I stated about Obama being elected. The media was quick to call anyone who didn't like him or agree with him a racist.

...racists see things through a racial lens first and foremost...sadly it manifests itself in a way that doesn't really serve anyone but the racist...it continues the racism through applied victimization, or an inherent belief that people of color are less than, and deserve a pass and or defense on their character and subsequent accountability..and this usually is applied by politcal party/correctness...it's designed to divide...it is a tenant of marxism...just like the class warfare mantra.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:14 PM
Some people aren't satisfied with Cassel's performance, some are.
Some people aren't satisfied with Michelle's performance, some are.
Positive and negative feelings are expressed on message boards and in comments sections.
I don't really see the difference.

LMAO

Of course there's no difference when you put it that way. But this little structure of sentences does nothing to address the issue we're arguing over.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:16 PM
The question was never about the amount of animosity for her or any other public figure.

I'm saying she is met with indefensible irrational hatred. You try to point out that this is pointless, because every public figure is met to some degree of indefensible irrational hatred. I try to remind you that that's not the point. You still don't get it, and continue to look at other issues.

I'm pretty neutral towards her. I think she's respectable. And I think she's met with indefensible irrational hatred that can legitimately be resisted.

So, because I believe many public figures deal with the same type of animosity, that prohibits me from wishing you the best in your defense of her?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:16 PM
I denied the existence of irrational hatred?

LMAO It seems you did not put the entire X= clause where there was an X.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:17 PM
LMAO

Of course there's no difference when you put it that way. But this little structure of sentences does nothing to address the issue we're arguing over.

Of course it does, just not to your satisfaction.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:17 PM
...racists see things through a racial lens first and foremost...sadly it manifests itself in a way that doesn't really serve anyone but the racist...it continues the racism through applied victimization, or an inherent belief that people of color are less than, and deserve a pass and or defense on their character and subsequent accountability.

I take it I'm the racist here?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:19 PM
So, because I believe many public figures deal with the same type of animosity, that prohibits me from wishing you the best in your defense of her?

No, attempting to discredit my showing of irrational hatred in defense of her against irrational hatred prohibits you from sincerely wishing me the best in my use of showing of irrational hatred in defense of her against irrational hatred.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:20 PM
LMAO It seems you did not put the entire X= clause where there was an X.

Your X doesn't seem to be consistent throughout the equation.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:21 PM
No, attempting to discredit my showing of irrational hatred in defense of her against irrational hatred prohibits you from sincerely wishing me the best in my use of showing of irrational hatred in defense of her against irrational hatred.

That implies that I stated there is no irrational hatred. Maybe rephrase that.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:24 PM
Of course it does, just not to your satisfaction.

No, that really was a weird example of a strawman argument.

"Some people aren't satisfied with Cassel's performance, some are.
Some people aren't satisfied with Michelle's performance, some are.
Positive and negative feelings are expressed on message boards and in comments sections.
I don't really see the difference."

I'm not denying the existence of irrational hatred against Matt Cassel. For all I know and care, there does exist irrational hatred. I'm simply saying that the standard criticism of Matt Cassel as our starting quarterback is not based on hatred of the person, and not based on something irrational.

And I'm not denying the existence of dislike of Michelle Obama, or dislike of her actions not based on hatred of her person, nor based on irrationality.

What I am saying is that there exists irrational hatred of Michelle Obama, as demonstrated and indicated by numerous comments on the internet.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:26 PM
Your X doesn't seem to be consistent throughout the equation.

Plug in the phrase I provided you into anywhere X is in the dialogue. X is set. It only equals one thing = the phrase I provided.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:27 PM
No, that really was a weird example of a strawman argument.

"Some people aren't satisfied with Cassel's performance, some are.
Some people aren't satisfied with Michelle's performance, some are.
Positive and negative feelings are expressed on message boards and in comments sections.
I don't really see the difference."

I'm not denying the existence of irrational hatred against Matt Cassel. For all I know and care, there does exist irrational hatred. I'm simply saying that the standard criticism of Matt Cassel as our starting quarterback is not based on hatred of the person, and not based on something irrational.

And I'm not denying the existence of dislike of Michelle Obama, or dislike of her actions not based on hatred of her person, nor based on irrationality.

What I am saying is that there exists irrational hatred of Michelle Obama, as demonstrated and indicated by numerous comments on the internet.

In other words, she, like any public figure, suffers from irrational hatred. But you seem more eager to defend her. So, I wish you the best with that.
Obviously you care more about her than other public figures who suffer from irrational hatred.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:28 PM
That implies that I stated there is no irrational hatred. Maybe rephrase that.

No, it really doesn't imply at all that you ever stated there is no irrational hatred. I know you did say that there was irrational hatred. I appreciated that.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:28 PM
Plug in the phrase I provided you into anywhere X is in the dialogue. X is set. It only equals one thing = the phrase I provided.

I said, "I wish you the best on showing the existence of irrational hatred towards Michelle Obama"?

Maybe I did. I don't remember that. I thought I said I wished you the best in your defense of her.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:29 PM
In other words, she, like any public figure, suffers from irrational hatred. But you seem more eager to defend her. So, I wish you the best with that.
Obviously you care more about her than other public figures who suffer from irrational hatred.

Obviously you care a lot about arguing with people who resist irrational hatred. I don't wish you the best on that.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:30 PM
No, it really doesn't imply at all that you ever stated there is no irrational hatred. I know you did say that there was irrational hatred. I appreciated that.

So, then I'm not sure why you wouldn't comprehend that I could wish you the best. Like I said, you obviously have a soft spot for her.

alpha_omega
02-02-2012, 03:30 PM
I have a problem with Michelle. She is really showy, which is probably her personality, but taking lavish vacations to Europe and having huge entourages go with her, she has a very stuck up demeanor and it's not all about the comment from 2008, though that was the first time I looked at her funny. She doesn't behave the way I think a first lady should behave, but neither did Hillary.

Nancy Reagen was not all out in everyone's face, even though she had the Just Say No thing going, she was not a bloody celebrity. Hillary got involved in actual policy with her health care initiative. That was ridiculous. Laura Bush was a classy lady, of course she campaigned for her husband, but other than that, she had a literacy campaign going and it was quiet. She was not on a million fashion magazines sucking up all the attention. Michelle looks and acts more like a Hollywood star than she does a first lady.

Just my opinion. And it has nothing to do with her being black. She is just NOT my kind of person.

Sounds pretty rational to me. What do you think Lit?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:31 PM
I said, "I wish you the best on showing the existence of irrational hatred towards Michelle Obama"?

Maybe I did. I don't remember that. I thought I said I wished you the best in your defense of her.

Good Lord. I thought I was bad at algebra. If the formula designer tells you X=32, don't plug in a mere 3 when you come across X.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:32 PM
Sounds pretty rational to me. What do you think Lit?

Sounds completely rational and not hateful to me. I can't possibly have a problem with that criticism. However, calling Michelle Obama a "dumb-ass Sasquatch" or "a pig" or a "huge phoney" is entirely different, and entirely where my criticism is directed towards.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:34 PM
Obviously you care a lot about arguing with people who resist irrational hatred. I don't wish you the best on that.

Best wishes.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:36 PM
Good Lord. I thought I was bad at algebra. If the formula designer tells you X=32, don't plug in a mere 3 when you come across X.

I never said what you claim I said using your X, did I?

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:37 PM
Sounds completely rational and not hateful to me. I can't possibly have a problem with that criticism. However, calling Michelle Obama a "dumb-ass Sasquatch" or "a pig" or a "huge phoney" is entirely different, and entirely where my criticism is directed towards.

"huge phoney" is hate? Seriously?

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:38 PM
Best wishes.

I do, however, wish you the best on developing your language and logic skills, if you do choose to pursue that. I have a long way to go on that myself, and it's not an easy skill to pick up, like vomiting out irrational hatred is.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:39 PM
I never said what you claim I said using your X, did I?

Right, that was a paraphrase. I made up that dialogue, in case that threw you for a loop, as well.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:40 PM
"huge phoney" is hate? Seriously?

All things in their context, blaise. Just like "a pig," that wonderful old farm animal and creator of bacon and pork ribs.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:41 PM
Right, that was a paraphrase. I made up that dialogue, in case that threw you for a loop, as well.

So, then x was variable after all.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:42 PM
All things in their context, blaise. Just like "a pig," that wonderful old farm animal and creator of bacon and pork ribs.

I struggle to find the context where, "huge phoney" is hate speech. Unless, of course, you want it to be.

blaise
02-02-2012, 03:42 PM
I do, however, wish you the best on developing your language and logic skills, if you do choose to pursue that. I have a long way to go on that myself, and it's not an easy skill to pick up, like vomiting out irrational hatred is.

Thank you, and I wish you the best on developing a personality.

La literatura
02-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Thank you, and I wish you the best on developing a personality.

Thank you mutual message board arguer.

Stewie
02-02-2012, 04:00 PM
She should listen to Ben Bernanke rather than her husband or some pollster on where this economy is headed.

The Fed keeping negative interest rates for as far as they can see is the #1 sign shit has hit the fan.

Ben stating that it's necessary to keep rates low because we're in a shitload of hurt due to the big five banks holding billion$ in debt that will return a few pennies on the dollar is another sign. That return is being negotiated even lower day by day.

When you read the headlines about Greece and others coming close to a resolution it means the banks have agreed to take even bigger losses. It's funny there's always someone/something that stands in the way of a resolution happening. Kick the can a little further.

Dumbasses!

KCTitus
02-02-2012, 08:56 PM
meh...13 pages...Im sorry if someone has already made this point, but I dont think this is rhetorical political flourish by Michelle.

Im sure she believes it and by all standards from her perspective, she's right. They have made remarkable progress on this economy. The key point is what kind of economy are they shooting for...

Real unemployment over 10%, half the country not paying any income taxes, 1 in 7 citizens on food stamps and a majority of citizens on some kind of federal aid. On top of that, the Fed holds the most federal debt and they continue to print money and buy debt.

By any measure, Im sure they would see that as remarkable. I know I do...I dont think this country can survive another 4 years and a national debt that reaches 200% of GDP. By that point, it's over, and I think that's what she (and he) are shooting for.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 08:04 AM
I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if it's repetitive.

But the January jobs report came out, and nearly a quarter million jobs were added.

Unemployment is at 8.3% and falling.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen31F0AEC6-F3E6-4882-67C1-1CF2F7957109.jpg&width=600

I'm sure it's all in spite of the Obama's administration's efforts to tank the economy, right?

patteeu
02-03-2012, 08:24 AM
I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if it's repetitive.

But the January jobs report came out, and nearly a quarter million jobs were added.

Unemployment is at 8.3% and falling.

I'm sure it's all in spite of the Obama's administration's efforts to tank the economy, right?

My how times have changed. I remember a time not too long ago when 8% unemployment seemed scary high. Now we're supposed to cheer when enough people leave the job force to get the number down to 8.3%.

Let me know when Obama finally hits the target his administration told us to expect:

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/stimulus_unemployment_chart_2011.jpg

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 08:26 AM
My how times have changed. I remember a time not too long ago when 8% unemployment seemed scary high. Now we're supposed to cheer when enough people leave the job force to get the number down to 8.3%.

Let me know when Obama finally hits the target his administration told us to expect:

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/stimulus_unemployment_chart_2011.jpg

That Democratic projection was from Obama's transitional team, and was the general consensus of the economic community, that GDP was shrinking at 3%.

It turns out the shrinking was occuring at 9%, three times what most economists and the Obama transitional team estimated.

Your chart is outdated.

As is your spin.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 08:27 AM
And that line is outdated. Christ. It stops before the third quarter of 2011.

Basically, you're doing everything wrong.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 08:38 AM
And that line is outdated. Christ. It stops before the third quarter of 2011.

Basically, you're doing everything wrong.

The chart is accurate. Today we have a new data point. You're welcome to extend the disappointing "actual" line if you want. As we can see, Obama's team told us we'd be down below 6% unemployment by now.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 08:40 AM
That Democratic projection was from Obama's transitional team, and was the general consensus of the economic community, that GDP was shrinking at 3%.

It turns out the shrinking was occuring at 9%, three times what most economists and the Obama transitional team estimated.

Your chart is outdated.

As is your spin.

Old news is still damning news.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 08:44 AM
The chart is accurate. Today we have a new data point. You're welcome to extend the disappointing "actual" line if you want. As we can see, Obama's team told us we'd be down below 6% unemployment by now.

I see you've just completely ignored the facts I presented you with.

They told us that based on an assumption of 3% GDP shrinkage, which was a reasonable assumption when they made it in the final days of 2008. The recession was basically just underway still.

It turns out that virtually all economists underestimated the shrinkage, which was actually 9%.

Truth be told, we are recovering, we are doing so slowly but steadily, unemployment dropped by .2% and 250,000 jobs.

I'll take that.

But I guess I'm just hypnotized by Obama's voodoo.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 08:46 AM
Old news is still damning news.

There's a difference between "outdated" and "old."

The chart you're using is outdated.

The spin tactics you're using are old. And, yes, damning.

Cave Johnson
02-03-2012, 08:47 AM
My how times have changed. I remember a time not too long ago when 8% unemployment seemed scary high. Now we're supposed to cheer when enough people leave the job force to get the number down to 8.3%.

Let me know when Obama finally hits the target his administration told us to expect:

My guess, sometime during his 2nd term. ;)

patteeu
02-03-2012, 09:02 AM
I see you've just completely ignored the facts I presented you with.

They told us that based on an assumption of 3% GDP shrinkage, which was a reasonable assumption when they made it in the final days of 2008. The recession was basically just underway still.

It turns out that virtually all economists underestimated the shrinkage, which was actually 9%.

Truth be told, we are recovering, we are doing so slowly but steadily, unemployment dropped by .2% and 250,000 jobs.

I'll take that.

But I guess I'm just hypnotized by Obama's voodoo.

So I guess we can't blame GWBush for the bad economy either since no one really had any idea what was going on, right? Sorry, but when a politician runs on a platform of understanding our problems and having the answers, he ought to be held accountable for it.

Your so-called recovery is very slow and very unsteady. I'm ready for a new repairman and I don't think I'm alone.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 09:06 AM
My how times have changed. I remember a time not too long ago when 8% unemployment seemed scary high. Now we're supposed to cheer when enough people leave the job force to get the number down to 8.3%.

Let me know when Obama finally hits the target his administration told us to expect:

Can we use a mulligan and go with 'no stimulus' and an unemployment rate of around 6.75% right now? ROFL

We're supposed to take what this administration says seriously why? They have done nothing to fix anything.

The spin is entertaining though.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 09:21 AM
Can we use a mulligan and go with 'no stimulus' and an unemployment rate of around 6.75% right now? ROFL

We're supposed to take what this administration says seriously why? They have done nothing to fix anything.

The spin is entertaining though.

"None of the economists knew the economy was as bad as it was" is apparently an excuse for Barack Obama, but not for George W. Bush.

And if everyone including the Obama campaign thought the economy was only shrinking at 3%, were they lying when they told us that it was the worst economy since the Great Depression?

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 09:41 AM
Can we use a mulligan and go with 'no stimulus' and an unemployment rate of around 6.75% right now? ROFL

We're supposed to take what this administration says seriously why? They have done nothing to fix anything.

The spin is entertaining though.

hmmm...when Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%, the next month it went to 8.1%

blaise
02-03-2012, 09:45 AM
hmmm...when Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%, the next month it went to 8.1%

His responsibility for the % seems to depend on whether it goes up or down.

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 10:00 AM
His responsibility for the % seems to depend on whether it goes up or down.

That is probably true for any politician. My point was that he wasn't even in office and it was almost 8%.

petegz28
02-03-2012, 10:02 AM
I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if it's repetitive.

But the January jobs report came out, and nearly a quarter million jobs were added.

Unemployment is at 8.3% and falling.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen31F0AEC6-F3E6-4882-67C1-1CF2F7957109.jpg&width=600

I'm sure it's all in spite of the Obama's administration's efforts to tank the economy, right?

And a record 1.2 mil people dropped out of the workforce thus aiding the drop in the rate.

Cave Johnson
02-03-2012, 10:04 AM
And a record 1.2 mil people dropped out of the workforce thus aiding the drop in the rate.

1.2M workers dropped out in January???

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 10:06 AM
So I guess we can't blame GWBush for the bad economy either since no one really had any idea what was going on, right?

I wouldn't blame Bush for the dot-com bubble popping at the start of his Presidency. That's a fire that was stoked under the Clinton administration, and he inherited it.

I will, however, lay the uneasy recovery and the subsequent subprime mortgage crisis that cratered the economy at his feet, since it festered for eight years under his watch.

The Obama transition team can perhaps be criticized for not seeing the 9% shrinkage in GDP. (At least you're acknowledging your data is outdated, now.) But it's hard for that accusation to be damning when his transition's team's assumption of 3% was in line with the majority of economists.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 10:07 AM
Can we use a mulligan and go with 'no stimulus' and an unemployment rate of around 6.75% right now? ROFL

We're supposed to take what this administration says seriously why? They have done nothing to fix anything.

The spin is entertaining though.

You're overplaying your hand.

If you wanted to argue that the recovery has been weak, you got a point.

If you wanted to argue that Obama's "done nothing to fix anything," you're demonstrably wrong.

petegz28
02-03-2012, 10:10 AM
1.2M workers dropped out in January???

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 10:12 AM
hmmm...when Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%, the next month it went to 8.1%Has the economy made remarkable progress?

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 10:25 AM
Has the economy made remarkable progress?

remarkable? no

Was unemployment at 6.75% when he took office?

Cave Johnson
02-03-2012, 10:32 AM
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

Yeah, I'd like to see that from a source not named Tyler Durden. From what I've read, the total number of discouraged workers jumped from 950K in December to 1.1M.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 10:33 AM
remarkable? no

Was unemployment at 6.75% when he took office?You aren't reading that graph correctly. We're supposed to be at 6.75% now. Right now. With no stimulus.

The one thing that graph makes perfectly clear is the administration has no clue on the issue of the economy.

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 10:40 AM
You aren't reading that graph correctly. We're supposed to be at 6.75% now. Right now. With no stimulus.

The one thing that graph makes perfectly clear is the administration has no clue on the issue of the economy.

My bad I misunderstood your post.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 10:52 AM
eh you guys are just jealous that the big o has such a hot wife...

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 10:59 AM
His responsibility for the % seems to depend on whether it goes up or down.

His responsibility is for the unemployment rate and economy created by his own actions or lack of actions within a reasonable degree, the same as any other President.

Since he's been President, you've seen the figures. I'd say he's made plenty of progress.

Unless you want to make the truly assinine argument that the economy has started to progress and right itself despite every effort the President's made.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 10:59 AM
That is probably true for any politician. My point was that he wasn't even in office and it was almost 8%.

When a President's first day in office was his best day in terms of unemployment, it seems premature to declare him successful at creating jobs.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 11:01 AM
I wouldn't blame Bush for the dot-com bubble popping at the start of his Presidency. That's a fire that was stoked under the Clinton administration, and he inherited it.

I will, however, lay the uneasy recovery and the subsequent subprime mortgage crisis that cratered the economy at his feet, since it festered for eight years under his watch.

The Obama transition team can perhaps be criticized for not seeing the 9% shrinkage in GDP. (At least you're acknowledging your data is outdated, now.) But it's hard for that accusation to be damning when his transition's team's assumption of 3% was in line with the majority of economists.

My data isn't outdated. History doesn't get outdated, it just gets older. And like I said before, old damning news is still damning.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 11:01 AM
You aren't reading that graph correctly. We're supposed to be at 6.75% now. Right now. With no stimulus.

Assuming a 3% shrinkage in GDP. Which is inaccurate information.

The one thing that graph makes perfectly clear is the administration has no clue on the issue of the economy.

And yet we're recovering. At a smoother rate than the recovery from a SMALLER recession under George W. Bush.

Go fig.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 11:04 AM
You're overplaying your hand.

If you wanted to argue that the recovery has been weak, you got a point.

If you wanted to argue that Obama's "done nothing to fix anything," you're demonstrably wrong.

He's not demonstrably wrong unless you have some way of proving that doing nothing wouldn't have led to a similar or better recovery. This recovery is weak in the same way an ICU patient is weak.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 11:04 AM
My data isn't outdated.

Yep. It is.

You are basing it on a premise that is outdated. You've already admitted it, so save the Orwellian bullshit for your next sterling defense of Herman Cain.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 11:05 AM
When a President's first day in office was his best day in terms of unemployment, it seems premature to declare him successful at creating jobs.

do president's "create" jobs?

given all the factors that contribute to high unemployment like global competition and financial disasters like the housing bubble and the banking crisis, do presidents really have much control over jobs?

the notion that president's are responsible for jobs, or the larger economy, has always struck me as little more than fodder for political attacks...

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 11:06 AM
He's not demonstrably wrong unless you have some way of proving that doing nothing wouldn't have led to a similar or better recovery.

The general consensus of the economic community is that doing nothing would have led to a Second Depression.

The stimulus helped prevent it. It's not rocket science.

So the idea that "Obama ain't done nothin' fer nobody" is prima facie wrong.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 11:08 AM
My data isn't outdated. History doesn't get outdated, it just gets older. And like I said before, old damning news is still damning.

old news still damning?

sounds like romney may be in trouble... :Poke:

patteeu
02-03-2012, 11:15 AM
Yep. It is.

You are basing it on a premise that is outdated. You've already admitted it, so save the Orwellian bullshit for your next sterling defense of Herman Cain.

I haven't admitted anything of the sort. If Obama's economic braintrust got their data wrong, that's their fault. How can we ever trust their economic forecasts or their prescriptions if they butchered this one so magnificently?

Let's face it. Your guy and his team have proven to be incompetent and the sooner we turn the reins over to someone who knows what they're doing, like Mitt Romney, the better. No one would have been patting Romney on the back if the Salt Lake games had failed because his initial assumptions turned out to be wrong. The mental contortions you have to go through to pretend that Obama has had economic success demonstrate a mental agility unbound by reason that would have made Timothy Leary proud.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 11:18 AM
The general consensus of the economic community is that doing nothing would have led to a Second Depression.

The stimulus helped prevent it. It's not rocket science.

So the idea that "Obama ain't done nothin' fer nobody" is prima facie wrong.

This is conjecture, not proof.

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 11:21 AM
This is conjecture, not proof.

The only proof you'd likely accept is spying in on a parallel universe.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 11:24 AM
The only proof you'd likely accept is spying in on a parallel universe.

i dunno, maybe you're too generous... :D :D :D

Direckshun
02-03-2012, 11:25 AM
I haven't admitted anything of the sort. If Obama's economic braintrust got their data wrong, that's their fault. How can we ever trust their economic forecasts or their prescriptions if they butchered this one so magnificently?

Let's face it. Your guy and his team have proven to be incompetent and the sooner we turn the reins over to someone who knows what they're doing, like Mitt Romney, the better. No one would have been patting Romney on the back if the Salt Lake games had failed because his initial assumptions turned out to be wrong. The mental contortions you have to go through to pretend that Obama has had economic success demonstrate a mental agility unbound by reason that would have made Timothy Leary proud.

Your constant attempts to careen this conversation off topic are so telling. I sense that your intellectual dishonesty is starting to wear you out.

I do agree, by the way -- Obama's braintrust underestimated the severity of the recession. And they deserve blame for that. But I don't think it's particularly damning because virtually everybody else did, either. So I don't feel like flunking a guy over missing the same question everybody else did.

Regardless, it's pretty dumb to compare Obama's performance in the actual recession versus one that didn't happen and would have been one-third as bad. That's like blaming a special needs child for losing the tip-off to Shaq. "Well, why wasn't the kid a seven foot tall athlete?!?"

Because he wasn't, stupid. And it's stupid to bitch about losing the tip off as if he was.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 11:33 AM
The only proof you'd likely accept is spying in on a parallel universe.

You just got done telling me that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for his team's prediction that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8% because of a huge misunderstanding of the economy by a consensus of economists. Now you're telling me that Obama's actions have prevented a Great Depression because that's the conclusion of a consensus of economists? Do you see anything wrong with your story?

Cave Johnson
02-03-2012, 11:36 AM
Your constant attempts to careen this conversation off topic are so telling. I sense that your intellectual dishonesty is starting to wear you out.

Are you kidding? Dude's the Energizer Bunny of intellectual dishonesty.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 12:26 PM
You just got done telling me that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for his team's prediction that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8% because of a huge misunderstanding of the economy by a consensus of economists. Now you're telling me that Obama's actions have prevented a Great Depression because that's the conclusion of a consensus of economists? Do you see anything wrong with your story?Funny isn't it. It's like a card trick.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 12:54 PM
The general consensus of the economic community is that doing nothing would have led to a Second Depression.

The stimulus helped prevent it. It's not rocket science.

So the idea that "Obama ain't done nothin' fer nobody" is prima facie wrong.A general consensus of Obama's economic team maybe.

Inspector
02-03-2012, 02:36 PM
"you know that we stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country," Michelle Obama told them. "You’re here because you know that in less than a year from now, we are going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come."

I think she is correct with this. I hope everyone understands the importance of this election coming up. This may be our last decent chance to save our country.

IMO.

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 02:46 PM
Assuming a 3% shrinkage in GDP. Which is inaccurate information.



And yet we're recovering. At a smoother rate than the recovery from a SMALLER recession under George W. Bush.

Go fig.And one more thing. If Obama is going to throw numbers out there in an attempt to sell a boondoggle almost trillion dollar stimulus plan you better be sure he's going to be held accountable to that data.

At least by the adults in the room.

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 02:53 PM
A general consensus of Obama's economic team maybe.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Gooz-News/2012/01/23/Most-Economists-Told-Obama-to-Pursue-Bigger-Stimulus.aspx#page1

The New Yorker magazine today released the 57-page memo that former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers handed Barack Obama in December 2008 as the President-elect grappled with the daunting reality that he was taking office just as the U.S. was entering the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The memo informed an 11,000-word article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza) that describes the novice president’s shift “from idealism to pragmatism.”

One of the juicier tidbits in the long memo from the former Treasury Secretary was a recitation of the range of advice on how large a stimulus package to submit to Congress. The eventual number: $789 billion over two years.

But it turns out that the number – driven by political consideration and too low to rapidly pull the economy out of its downward spiral – was significantly below what most economists from both sides of the political spectrum thought necessary. Summers, who would head the National Economic Council, also warned about a “debt” backlash in the memo.

Left-of-center economists pushed for significantly larger packages, as expected. University of Texas economist “Jamie” Galbraith wanted $900 billion in a single year. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called for $1.2 trillion over two years. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University said a trillion.

Notably, Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, called for a humble $600 billion in one year, which was less than “Larry” Lindsey wanted. The former Federal Reserve governor and National Economic Council director under President George W. Bush wanted at least $800 billion to $1 trillion.

Among other Republicans consulted, Harvard’s “Marty” Feldstein, President Ronald Reagan’s top economic adviser, suggested a $400 billion package – about what the administration sought in the first year.

Other notables: Ken Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund who had just written a history of financial crises throughout history, advised $1 trillion over two years. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics and an adviser to defeated Republican John McCain, wanted at least $600 billion in the first year. The memo also said that “senior federal reserve officials” (unnamed) wanted a plan that “well exceeds $600 billion.”

Nearly every economist consulted by the administration, it turns out, called for as large or larger stimulus package than was eventually submitted to Congress. But there was one outlier. Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, who is now advising former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, “refused to name a number and was generally skeptical about stimulus,” the memo said.

Cave Johnson
02-03-2012, 04:08 PM
Which is why W and the 2001-2008 Congresses were dead wrong in borrowing during good times to pay for 2 wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and a prescription drug benefit. There was no way the stimulus could be large enough in light of the deficit when the cheap money bubble burst.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 04:56 PM
A general consensus of Obama's economic team maybe.

hey, who you listen'n to?

fucking ron paul? :p

go bowe
02-03-2012, 04:57 PM
And one more thing. If Obama is going to throw numbers out there in an attempt to sell a boondoggle almost trillion dollar stimulus plan you better be sure he's going to be held accountable to that data.

At least by the adults in the room.

oh poop...

only adults? :(

mlyonsd
02-03-2012, 04:59 PM
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Gooz-News/2012/01/23/Most-Economists-Told-Obama-to-Pursue-Bigger-Stimulus.aspx#page1

The New Yorker magazine today released the 57-page memo that former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers handed Barack Obama in December 2008 as the President-elect grappled with the daunting reality that he was taking office just as the U.S. was entering the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The memo informed an 11,000-word article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza) that describes the novice president’s shift “from idealism to pragmatism.”

One of the juicier tidbits in the long memo from the former Treasury Secretary was a recitation of the range of advice on how large a stimulus package to submit to Congress. The eventual number: $789 billion over two years.

But it turns out that the number – driven by political consideration and too low to rapidly pull the economy out of its downward spiral – was significantly below what most economists from both sides of the political spectrum thought necessary. Summers, who would head the National Economic Council, also warned about a “debt” backlash in the memo.

Left-of-center economists pushed for significantly larger packages, as expected. University of Texas economist “Jamie” Galbraith wanted $900 billion in a single year. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called for $1.2 trillion over two years. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University said a trillion.

Notably, Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, called for a humble $600 billion in one year, which was less than “Larry” Lindsey wanted. The former Federal Reserve governor and National Economic Council director under President George W. Bush wanted at least $800 billion to $1 trillion.

Among other Republicans consulted, Harvard’s “Marty” Feldstein, President Ronald Reagan’s top economic adviser, suggested a $400 billion package – about what the administration sought in the first year.

Other notables: Ken Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund who had just written a history of financial crises throughout history, advised $1 trillion over two years. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics and an adviser to defeated Republican John McCain, wanted at least $600 billion in the first year. The memo also said that “senior federal reserve officials” (unnamed) wanted a plan that “well exceeds $600 billion.”

Nearly every economist consulted by the administration, it turns out, called for as large or larger stimulus package than was eventually submitted to Congress. But there was one outlier. Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, who is now advising former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, “refused to name a number and was generally skeptical about stimulus,” the memo said. You know who Lawrence Summers is right? Yes, thanks for confirming what I posted.

The recession ended in June 2009. Long before the stimulus money was handed out to Obama's bundlers and his constituents. When was this depression supposed to happen? The Fourth of July?

So if anything, using Obama campaign rhetoric, the argument could be made Bush's TARP stimulus is what saved us from a depression. :p

Chief Faithful
02-03-2012, 05:07 PM
If things keep improving things will be as bad as when he took office with only 5 trillion more in debt. Based on his policies I agree that is remarkable.

go bowe
02-03-2012, 05:18 PM
If things keep improving things will be as bad as when he took office with only 5 trillion more in debt. Based on his policies I agree that is remarkable.

LMAO

good one... :BLVD:

FD
02-03-2012, 05:39 PM
I haven't admitted anything of the sort. If Obama's economic braintrust got their data wrong, that's their fault. How can we ever trust their economic forecasts or their prescriptions if they butchered this one so magnificently?

Let's face it. Your guy and his team have proven to be incompetent and the sooner we turn the reins over to someone who knows what they're doing, like Mitt Romney, the better. No one would have been patting Romney on the back if the Salt Lake games had failed because his initial assumptions turned out to be wrong. The mental contortions you have to go through to pretend that Obama has had economic success demonstrate a mental agility unbound by reason that would have made Timothy Leary proud.

Bernstein and Romer's forecast was off because it was based on the data at the time, which was subsequently revised downward severely. If you update their forecast to include the revision, its pretty accurate. You cant fault Bernstein and Romer for a poor forecast because the inputs turned out to be wrong, they have no control over that.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 05:53 PM
Which is why W and the 2001-2008 Congresses were dead wrong in borrowing during good times to pay for 2 wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and a prescription drug benefit. There was no way the stimulus could be large enough in light of the deficit when the cheap money bubble burst.

That's why there should have been no stimulus. Stimulus just creates another cheap money bubble that will bust later. Rinse and repeat.

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 06:34 PM
You know who Lawrence Summers is right? Yes, thanks for confirming what I posted.

The recession ended in June 2009. Long before the stimulus money was handed out to Obama's bundlers and his constituents. When was this depression supposed to happen? The Fourth of July?

So if anything, using Obama campaign rhetoric, the argument could be made Bush's TARP stimulus is what saved us from a depression. :p

I was just pointing out that the general consensus of the economic community was to have a stimulus package.

HonestChieffan
02-03-2012, 08:52 PM
I was just pointing out that the general consensus of the economic community was to have a stimulus package.

And it was a complete failure. Wake up. The economic community is more than Summers and that moron Krugman. Try thinking on your own for a change.

dirk digler
02-03-2012, 09:19 PM
And it was a complete failure. Wake up. The economic community is more than Summers and that moron Krugman. Try thinking on your own for a change.

:spock:

Do you even know how to read? It was more than just Krugman and Summers. JFC it is like talking to a retard

patteeu
02-04-2012, 10:43 AM
Bernstein and Romer's forecast was off because it was based on the data at the time, which was subsequently revised downward severely. If you update their forecast to include the revision, its pretty accurate. You cant fault Bernstein and Romer for a poor forecast because the inputs turned out to be wrong, they have no control over that.

That's not the issue. If we just need someone who can take inputs and mindlessly plug them into a model to come up with a prescription, anyone could do the job. These guys claimed to know what our problems were and that they had the solutions. It turns out that they were wrong. I don't care if it's because they didn't know any better than to rely on bad data. They failed us.

I don't hear Obama and his economics team giving GWBush a pass because they failed to anticipate the sharp downturn on the basis of the same data sources.

dirk digler
02-04-2012, 11:24 AM
That's not the issue. If we just need someone who can take inputs and mindlessly plug them into a model to come up with a prescription, anyone could do the job. These guys claimed to know what our problems were and that they had the solutions. It turns out that they were wrong. I don't care if it's because they didn't know any better than to rely on bad data. They failed us.

I don't hear Obama and his economics team giving GWBush a pass because they failed to anticipate the sharp downturn on the basis of the same data sources.

No one is going to give Bush a pass when the guy was in charge when he burned down the house while telling everyone the house really wasn't burning down.

patteeu
02-04-2012, 11:38 AM
No one is going to give Bush a pass when the guy was in charge when he burned down the house while telling everyone the house really wasn't burning down.

How could he have possibly anticipated what was going to happen if Obama and his crack team of economic experts couldn't even recognize it while it was happening?

No, if you want to blame Bush for getting us into a bad economy, you have to also blame Obama for failing to initiate the recovery he promised. "Recovery Summer" is so far in the past now that it's probably popping up in highschool history books just like the "War to End All Wars". Fail.

HonestChieffan
02-04-2012, 11:45 AM
How could he have possibly anticipated what was going to happen if Obama and his crack team of economic experts couldn't even recognize it while it was happening?

No, if you want to blame Bush for getting us into a bad economy, you have to also blame Obama for failing to initiate the recovery he promised. "Recovery Summer" is so far in the past now that it's probably popping up in highschool history books just like the "War to End All Wars". Fail.


No No No

Obama cannot be held accountable for anything. That would ruin the entire campaign.

KC native
02-04-2012, 11:46 AM
How could he have possibly anticipated what was going to happen if Obama and his crack team of economic experts couldn't even recognize it while it was happening?

No, if you want to blame Bush for getting us into a bad economy, you have to also blame Obama for failing to initiate the recovery he promised. "Recovery Summer" is so far in the past now that it's probably popping up in highschool history books just like the "War to End All Wars". Fail.

Wow. When you put people who believe the government is the problem into regulatory positions, you should anticipate some foul shit will result.

You are really becoming more and more BEP-esque in your posting. You should loosen up or you're going to have stroke when Obama is re-elected.

Chiefshrink
02-04-2012, 01:18 PM
No one is going to give Bush a pass when the guy was in charge when he burned down the house while telling everyone the house really wasn't burning down.

I actually agree with you Dirk:thumb: because you are correct that the house wasn't really burning down.

The 2008 financial crisis was manufactured "plain and simple". Do you realize we still have not spent damn near half of that so called rescue $$ 300bil? Yes 300bil still has not been spent of that 787 bil and we were supposed to be toast if we did not get all that $$ spent within a month. And all this just HAD TO BE DONE WITHIN 2 weeks or we were fried economically and our leaders and economic advisors had no forewarning of this to come prior? Seriously? That is what is not believable!!!! Whether Bush and the RINOs truly bought into this crisis or not who knows but what was truly known and evident was that BUSH/RINOs were more afraid the super majority of Dems/Marxist Media "Alinskyizing" them in the press than doing what was right for "We The People" if they didn't go along with this so-called crisis.

When all this came down in such a short period of time and we had to act NOW, I immediately smelled a political rat !!! Why? Look at the timeframe of when it was announced. By August of 2008 the novelty of Obama was beginning to crest/flatten out, not drop but just flatten out and McCain was beginning to gain ground in the polls in some states. As soon as Palin was announced as his running mate, Palin literally knocked OMarxist off the front page of most newspapers/TV media/internet sites for the next 2weeks and most significantly McCain was now tied if not ahead of Obama in most states.

This had the Marxist Dems highly worried and in panic mode of now what was to be a shoe in victory to now be in jeopardy of losing. So they not only went after Palin "skewering her as a ditz"(because she is Reagan in a dress that is a true conservative outsider) but the Marxist Dems knew they had super majority in the House and Senate. The Marxist Dems already know they want to spend trillions once OMarxist gets into office and will be able to do this easily with a super majority.

However, in addition to "Alinskyizing Palin" to deal with this sudden surge of McCain/Palin, the Marxist Dems must now also apply an overdose of the "perception is reality" principle to the GOP by conjuring up a manufactured false financial crisis that if bought by the RINOs and most of "We The People" will surely brand the GOP as the cause of this crisis because this happened under BUSH you know and surely justifies a change in the WH. And with a Marxist Press in the back pocket of OMarxist this was easily done.

By manufacturing this false financial crisis it ensures several things for the Marxist Dems.

1)Ensuring victory for Obama

2)Falsely branding the GOP

3)Much easier to pass a bill now(so-called crisis time) to spend billions/trillions now with little resistance from "We The People", thus the OMarxist WH can hit the ground running as they take office in their spending spree of melting the Chinese Credit card.

4) Makes it much easier for the OMarxist WH to "Alinskyize the GOP" and play the class warfare card while continuing to spend more billions/trillions until the next election 2012. Which is what they are doing now:thumb:

5) Expedites the deconstruction/destruction of America.

dirk digler
02-04-2012, 04:24 PM
How could he have possibly anticipated what was going to happen if Obama and his crack team of economic experts couldn't even recognize it while it was happening?

No, if you want to blame Bush for getting us into a bad economy, you have to also blame Obama for failing to initiate the recovery he promised. "Recovery Summer" is so far in the past now that it's probably popping up in highschool history books just like the "War to End All Wars". Fail.

:spock:

The recession started in 2007 and everyone was talking about it except Bush who kept telling everyone the economy was strong.

He had the same dumb found look on his face that he did when he let terrorists hit the Trade Centers

KC native
02-04-2012, 04:29 PM
:spock:

The recession started in 2007 and everyone was talking about it except Bush who kept telling everyone the economy was strong.

He had the same dumb found look on his face that he did when he let terrorists hit the Trade Centers

Housing started to crack in 2005. Everything else started to deteriorate after that.

Pat is married to his talking points and historical revisionism.