Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
Imagine forty years went by and it's the same shit only worse.
President Obama's Congressional Republican Townhall Meeting
- Thread starter RobDownSouth
- Start date
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
OK, I'm going to try to work through this here. This is how I read your post:
Lehman Brothers, TARP, all that stuff we remember from September 2008--when, by the way, it was by no means obvious Obama would be elected president--none of that had any impact on economic conditions in late 2008-early 2009, when the recession bottomed out. It was all pre-emptive economic sucking caused by Wall Street and the business community believing Obama would be bad for business. Obama's polices would lead to economic disaster and increased unemployment anyway; therefore, they figured they might as well get it out of the way, and even before Obama took office, they stopped producing and laid people off, thereby leading to economic disaster and increased unemployment. It might have happened before Obama became president, but make no mistake, it was his fault all the same.
This place has plenty of half-wits and willful ignoramuses, but seriously, you are a complete and total hack. I can always tell when busybody and AJ are just spinning, but I think you actually believe this shit. Compared with you, Sean Hannity is a dangerously wobbly moderate. Can you actually be proud of having put such a patently stupid argument down in print under your name? Do you think anyone outside a mental ward will find this the least bit persuasive?
It takes a lot to get me this worked up these days.
Back on topic: Obama pretty much killed, which is why even if he does this kind of thing again, there's not a chance in hell the Republicans will ever allow cameras in the next time. My favorite part was when Rep. Hensarling came at him with some obvious bullshit spin about tripling the deficit, and Obama swatted him away like Muggsy Bogues driving the lane on Shaq. If the House GOP has anyone in its caucus who is the least bit serious about public policy, it might be a good idea to push him or her front and center next time, because Obama isn't a fucking pushover like the Sunday show dorks.
Pookie
Chop!! Chop!!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 58,778
Everyone needs to get naked for it to work. In bed with photographers helps too.
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
Maybe it's just you and I that need to get naked for it all to work.
I was never big on the post-coital pillow-talk thing before Obama.
But with you, I can see us going on for hours.
By the way, I don't quit.
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
ohhh...mother jones...right up there with the wall street journal op/ed page
Obama eschewing his trusty T'prompter was a first but tell me how can he teleprompt answers to direct questions in real time...?
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
How about you address the argument instead of shooting the messenger? I'm sure you can find someone's opinion to mimic.
I'm watching the full video now.. No teleprompter and yet the President fucking slaughtered the place. The House GOP got schooled.
Want to lay odds that the GOP won't allow cameras the next time the President comes to do a Q&A session?
Last edited:
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
Are you such a cock-blocker?
I'm trying to woo Pookie here.
Stop being a fence-post.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
If I thought you had a chance in hell I'd step aside.
Lord knows I have no interest in your coital ambitions.
But there are probably better places and ways to woo a Liberal terrorist chica.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
The Spin Doctor Obamarang
All politicians fudge on their promises. But this president manages to transcend the normal political exaggeration and dissimulation. Whereas past executives shaded the truth, Barack Obama trumps that: on almost every key issue, what Obama says he will do, and what he says is true, is a clear guide to what he will not do, and what is not true. It is as if “truth” is a mere problem of lesser mortals.
1. Obama now rails against a pernicious Washington and its insiders: ergo, Obama controls Washington through both houses of Congress and the White House, and wants to expand Washington’s control over the auto industry, health care, energy, student loans, transportation, etc.
2. Obama bashes the Supreme Court on weakening public efforts to curb campaign contributions. Therefore, we know Obama has done more than any other president in destroying public campaign financing by being the first presidential candidate in a general election to refuse public funds — in confidence that he could raise a record $1 billion, much of it from big moneyed interests on Wall Street.
3. Obama calls for a freeze on government spending and deplores deficits. Hence, we know that the possible $15 billion savings in some discretionary spending will not affect the Obama record budget deficits that will continue to grow well over an annual $1.5 trillion a year — as Obama piles up the greatest budgetary shortfalls in any four-year presidential term in history.
4. The president calls for the Guantanamo Bay detention center to be closed within a year of his inauguration, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, to be tried in New York. Accordingly, we know that Guantanamo won’t be closed within a year and KSM won’t be tried in New York.
5. Obama issues four serial deadlines in autumn 2009 for Iran to comply with non-proliferation accords. Presto — we know that Iran will get the bomb unimpeded by U.S. opinion.
6. Obama promised an end to earmarks and lobbyists in government — of course, we assume, then, that lobbyists will be ubiquitous among his presidential appointments, and there will be thousands of earmarks.
7. Obama announces that he will end the war in Iraq by removing all combat brigades by August 2010. As a result, we understand that George Bush long ago signed an agreement with the Iraqis for a joint agreement on removing U.S. combat forces by August 2010.
8. Obama laments that his fall in popularity resulted from a failure to communicate directly with the American people. We conclude as a result that Obama has given more interviews, radio and TV appearances, and stump speeches than any first-year president in history.
9. Obama reiterates that “this is not about me.” That reflects the fact that he has employed the first-person pronouns “I,” “me,” and “my” more than any prior president.
10. Obama assures on eight occasions he will televise all health-care deliberations on C-SPAN. This is clear proof that nothing will be televised as debate occurs behind closed doors, punctuated by votes purchased through $300 million bribes and state exemptions from federal statutes.
11. Obama promises to be a tax-cutter. So we know that vast new taxes will come through revised income tax rates, caps lifted off payroll taxes, Cadillac health care charges, and a variety of surcharges.
12. Obama warned that if another stimulus were not passed, unemployment would reach double-digits; hence, we were assured that the jobless rate would reach 10%.
13. Obama calls for bipartisanship and an end to finger-pointing. Of course, then, he will begin and end nearly every speech with attacks on George Bush and the prior administration.
I could continue ad nauseam, but you get the picture. So why does Obama serially tell untruths, mislead, and do the opposite of what he promises?
Here are four brief reasons. They are complementary, rather than mutually exclusive.
1) He does this because he can.
Obama, from college at Occidental to Chicago organizing, has never been called to account. He was always assured that his charm, his ancestry, or his rhetoric alone mattered, while his record, actions, and accomplishments were mere footnotes. He channels our hopes and dreams and need not traffic in reality. We, the people, like the media, have tingly legs and believe the president is “some god,” and therefore need not question the charismatic face on the screen.
2) Obama is a reflection of an era of liberal academic postmodernism.
There are no absolute facts; truth is only an illusion in the eye of the beholder. Reality instead is relative, and predicated on the basis of power. Ergo, what others say is true is simply a reflection of their race/class/gender/religion/cultural privileges. Speaking “truth” to power means simply opposing those who, you deem, have more advantages than you and yours.
3) Obama is a neo-socialist who believes the ends of social justice justify most means necessary to achieve them.
As a philosopher-king who knows what is best for ignorant lesser folk, who can’t possibly appreciate all the ways in which he works and suffers on our behalf (Cf. Michelle’s “deigns to run”), Obama reluctantly must employ Platonic “noble lies” to achieve the common good: OK, we don’t understand ObamaCare and therefore fear it and the way it is packaged and sold; but once it is forced down our throat, we will come to love — what is good for us.
4) Obama is a narcissist, who believes that his reality is our reality, that his rules are our rules.
If the king, the autocrat, the heart-throb, the prophet, or the messiah says something is true, then facts and reality adjust accordingly. Facts and corrections are boring. And if confronted with contrary evidence, the self-infatuated simply smiles with the assurance that the problem is others’, not his.
And it is, sort of.
However, the pattern has continued long enough that it is readily apparent that this man has little credibility. During his getogether with the GOP, he lambasted them for their lack of cooperation, ignoring all of their attempts to debate and how they were locked out of participation. Basically, it is a clear showing of philosophical differences that the policies he articulates so well will devastate the country if they are ever enacted. Whether he knows he is facing an opposition with ideas, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said: "I think we tried to make it clear our ideas are alive and well since President Obama took office. And he shouldn't refer to us as the 'party of no' again."
All politicians fudge on their promises. But this president manages to transcend the normal political exaggeration and dissimulation. Whereas past executives shaded the truth, Barack Obama trumps that: on almost every key issue, what Obama says he will do, and what he says is true, is a clear guide to what he will not do, and what is not true. It is as if “truth” is a mere problem of lesser mortals.
1. Obama now rails against a pernicious Washington and its insiders: ergo, Obama controls Washington through both houses of Congress and the White House, and wants to expand Washington’s control over the auto industry, health care, energy, student loans, transportation, etc.
2. Obama bashes the Supreme Court on weakening public efforts to curb campaign contributions. Therefore, we know Obama has done more than any other president in destroying public campaign financing by being the first presidential candidate in a general election to refuse public funds — in confidence that he could raise a record $1 billion, much of it from big moneyed interests on Wall Street.
3. Obama calls for a freeze on government spending and deplores deficits. Hence, we know that the possible $15 billion savings in some discretionary spending will not affect the Obama record budget deficits that will continue to grow well over an annual $1.5 trillion a year — as Obama piles up the greatest budgetary shortfalls in any four-year presidential term in history.
4. The president calls for the Guantanamo Bay detention center to be closed within a year of his inauguration, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, to be tried in New York. Accordingly, we know that Guantanamo won’t be closed within a year and KSM won’t be tried in New York.
5. Obama issues four serial deadlines in autumn 2009 for Iran to comply with non-proliferation accords. Presto — we know that Iran will get the bomb unimpeded by U.S. opinion.
6. Obama promised an end to earmarks and lobbyists in government — of course, we assume, then, that lobbyists will be ubiquitous among his presidential appointments, and there will be thousands of earmarks.
7. Obama announces that he will end the war in Iraq by removing all combat brigades by August 2010. As a result, we understand that George Bush long ago signed an agreement with the Iraqis for a joint agreement on removing U.S. combat forces by August 2010.
8. Obama laments that his fall in popularity resulted from a failure to communicate directly with the American people. We conclude as a result that Obama has given more interviews, radio and TV appearances, and stump speeches than any first-year president in history.
9. Obama reiterates that “this is not about me.” That reflects the fact that he has employed the first-person pronouns “I,” “me,” and “my” more than any prior president.
10. Obama assures on eight occasions he will televise all health-care deliberations on C-SPAN. This is clear proof that nothing will be televised as debate occurs behind closed doors, punctuated by votes purchased through $300 million bribes and state exemptions from federal statutes.
11. Obama promises to be a tax-cutter. So we know that vast new taxes will come through revised income tax rates, caps lifted off payroll taxes, Cadillac health care charges, and a variety of surcharges.
12. Obama warned that if another stimulus were not passed, unemployment would reach double-digits; hence, we were assured that the jobless rate would reach 10%.
13. Obama calls for bipartisanship and an end to finger-pointing. Of course, then, he will begin and end nearly every speech with attacks on George Bush and the prior administration.
I could continue ad nauseam, but you get the picture. So why does Obama serially tell untruths, mislead, and do the opposite of what he promises?
Here are four brief reasons. They are complementary, rather than mutually exclusive.
1) He does this because he can.
Obama, from college at Occidental to Chicago organizing, has never been called to account. He was always assured that his charm, his ancestry, or his rhetoric alone mattered, while his record, actions, and accomplishments were mere footnotes. He channels our hopes and dreams and need not traffic in reality. We, the people, like the media, have tingly legs and believe the president is “some god,” and therefore need not question the charismatic face on the screen.
2) Obama is a reflection of an era of liberal academic postmodernism.
There are no absolute facts; truth is only an illusion in the eye of the beholder. Reality instead is relative, and predicated on the basis of power. Ergo, what others say is true is simply a reflection of their race/class/gender/religion/cultural privileges. Speaking “truth” to power means simply opposing those who, you deem, have more advantages than you and yours.
3) Obama is a neo-socialist who believes the ends of social justice justify most means necessary to achieve them.
As a philosopher-king who knows what is best for ignorant lesser folk, who can’t possibly appreciate all the ways in which he works and suffers on our behalf (Cf. Michelle’s “deigns to run”), Obama reluctantly must employ Platonic “noble lies” to achieve the common good: OK, we don’t understand ObamaCare and therefore fear it and the way it is packaged and sold; but once it is forced down our throat, we will come to love — what is good for us.
4) Obama is a narcissist, who believes that his reality is our reality, that his rules are our rules.
If the king, the autocrat, the heart-throb, the prophet, or the messiah says something is true, then facts and reality adjust accordingly. Facts and corrections are boring. And if confronted with contrary evidence, the self-infatuated simply smiles with the assurance that the problem is others’, not his.
And it is, sort of.
However, the pattern has continued long enough that it is readily apparent that this man has little credibility. During his getogether with the GOP, he lambasted them for their lack of cooperation, ignoring all of their attempts to debate and how they were locked out of participation. Basically, it is a clear showing of philosophical differences that the policies he articulates so well will devastate the country if they are ever enacted. Whether he knows he is facing an opposition with ideas, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said: "I think we tried to make it clear our ideas are alive and well since President Obama took office. And he shouldn't refer to us as the 'party of no' again."
tinylittlegnat
aggressive progressive
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Posts
- 8,411
An approval rating? Every president has a high approval rating when they first get sworn it. Obama never had any bipartisan report. On what did he have support on besides the bank bailout? Where did he get any kind of biprtisan support on healthcare?
That wasnt leadership. Leaving Iraq was never an over night thing. Nor was it meant to be.
BTW you didnt answer my question.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,871
I am surprised to hear you watched it, because your criticisms are of the "one-size-fits-all" generic complaints we've heard here for over a year.
What specifically did you like or dislike about the meeting?
tinylittlegnat
aggressive progressive
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Posts
- 8,411
He disliked Obama and liked the Republicans
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 61,821
I'm preparing a rant for why this question isn't being answered.
Myself, I'm glad he accepted a hit on the C-SPAN stuff. I'm also glad he stood his ground re: job losses.
Pookie
Chop!! Chop!!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 58,778
A camp fire and a Chinese bamboo flute. Talk of massacres and such ...
You had me at "Do you find me sadistic?"
*swoon*
Pookie
Chop!! Chop!!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 58,778
Love is a battlefield, baby. There's nothing like the smell of slaughter and politics mixed together. I'm a little weird like that.
Wok
Over compressed
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Posts
- 39,889
I saw parts of it, and I will put the political wrangling aside for now. What I saw is the shift in sentiments is forcing President Obama to start looking to the other side for some compromise. I have no idea how much mileage he will get from that, but I wish him the best of luck.
Wok
Over compressed
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Posts
- 39,889
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
Lehman brothers had a lot of bad real estate loans and other highly leveraged assets made up of bundled packaged loans designed to spread risk, but there was just too much risk and it all came crashing down on them....(bad loans largely based on the democrat desire to make loan practices "fair" and that everyone should be able to buy a house whether they could afford it or not).
GM got killed by the combination of its union wage/benefit structure and the bad economic times.
These were not killed by Obama, but by democrat supported policies and groups (like the UAW) that were beholden to the dems and supported by them.
Layoffs usually come as a result of anticipation. If you have revenues of $10m and labor associated costs of $8m (say 60 people) and fixed costs of $1m, then the following year the market looks bad and you anticipate sales of only $8m, you have to adjust your expenses. If your expected revenue is $8m and your expenses are $9m, you have to trim significantly. You can't really touch your fixed expenses (stop paying rent) so you have to trim labor (and other variable costs) and in this case, something like a 20% reduction....so you schedule layoffs.
Some companies do not pay close attention and find themselves in a massive loss in a quarter and then try to trim costs if they don't think it was an anomaly, but it always happens based on the revenue/cost ratio and NO ONE anticipated a growing economy or one that would bounce back quickly due to Obama's policies except maybe Krugman, but he believes that the USSR had the right economic model (some exaggeration on my part, but not too much), but just didn't execute it well.
Anything else you want to know? Do you feel like the only way to make your point is to try to ridicule me? Or was that just thrown in for good measure...sort of a "stir the crowd up" type thing....you know, incite the mob?
Last edited:
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
Of course the economy is in shambles, healthcare reform is stalling and failing, and the election of Scott Brown caused a tremor throughout the political landscape....so what do the democrats decide to do?
They retrench, they decide to take on only the most important issues of the day, programs that have implications for everyone:
Would you consider this "Fiddling while Rome burns?"
They retrench, they decide to take on only the most important issues of the day, programs that have implications for everyone:
Would you consider this "Fiddling while Rome burns?"
Pookie
Chop!! Chop!!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 58,778
I thought you wanted the Government to leave Rome alone.
Sheesh, you guys want it both ways.
Wok
Over compressed
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Posts
- 39,889
Mmm, both ways.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
No, we just wanted him to keep the faux foam Roman columns that he used in his pre-election rally at Denver. Did he have eagle standards there also?
BigGator5
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 4,830
I liked that Obama came and answered direct questions of House Republicans. I liked that it was televised.
How well Obama translates this into actual policy (working with Republicans), is what I look forward to.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
I'm not holding my hopes out there, it would be great if it happened, but chances are that it will be the same shit, different day.
His arguments sounded a lot like....you guys are the problem, if you'd just go along with what I say then we'd have happy bipartisanship.
