President Crybaby?

I’m not sure I understand the wisdom in responding. President Obama ought not to have made the comment, however true it was, and Bill-o responding seems prickly and foolish.

The Real Royal King said:
I’m not sure I understand the wisdom in responding. President Obama ought not to have made the comment, however true it was, and Bill-o responding seems prickly and foolish.

I would say it is closer to Bill’s job description than it is the POTUS…

Not a feud . It’s one-sided , on the Chicago Con Man ‘s part . He’s got to have a villain , whether it ‘s Rush , or doctors , or Wall Street , or banks , or insurance companies , or Beck , or Fox (again) or Boehner , etc . Why not do the job you were hired to do , Mr. Obama ?

Someone needs to tell Billo that Christine O’donnell would be seriously displeased with what he allegedly done to himself while he was speaking with her on the phone.

In keeping with the spirit of this article, that’s a feud we can believe in.

* Should have said, speaking with his staffer on the phone. Not Christine.

First word out of Monica’s mouth: “Barack Obama is a radical progressive…”

OK, thanks, nothing to see here.

Obama, much like his pals here at Mediaite, don’t take too kindly to being challenged.

ps, If you guys don’t here from me again after that statement, you’ll know what happened.

Bill O’ The Bigot is angry again maybe Obama wants some Social Justice. Conservative code words as if there no hard working minorities but that’s a conservative for you (I am venting from comments he made a few months ago).

soccermom said:
Obama, much like his pals here at Mediaite, don’t take too kindly to being challenged. ps, If you guys don’t here from me again after that statement, you’ll know what happened.

I’m sure you’ll come back to us. Don’t know as whom, don’t know when, but you’ll pop back up. And, we’ll know it’s you. Auf Wiedersehen, Schatzi.

Is it funny or sad to watch soccermom nail herself to a non-existent cross? Bit of both, really.

Yes, soccermom. There are some scary people out there. If you don’t believe it, just look at Patrick Henry’s new avatar.

Paul Westlake said:
Is it funny or sad to watch soccermom nail herself to a non-existent cross? Bit of both, really.

O, Payl, Michelle-in-Utah loves it. I’m sure she prays for painless stigmata.

Writer, I try not to look at his head-on!

The Real Royal King said:
O, Payl, Michelle-in-Utah loves it. I’m sure she prays for painless stigmata.

Sorry, I seem to have “Randized” your name, Paul.

Or I try not to look at IT head on. Which ever you prefer!

That wild-eyed, Charles Manson look. Really deranged and frightening.

Paul Westlake said:
First word out of Monica’s mouth: “Barack Obama is a radical progressive…”

Paul, since you’re a socialist, do you plan on attending the Socialist/Commie rally in DC on Oct 2?

soccermom said:
Obama, much like his pals here at Mediaite, don’t take too kindly to being challenged.

ps, If you guys don’t here from me again after that statement, you’ll know what happened.

After watching conversations with your alter ego Michelle,

We’ll know

Azarkhan said:
Paul, since you’re a socialist, do you plan on attending the Socialist/Commie rally in DC on Oct 2?

No, but I will be there on the 30th! ;-)

I know recognizing the socialist aspects of American life is uncomfortable for you, but like I said last time, if you think the free market can handle everything, put your own fires out, build your own roads to drive on, fix the broken water main yourself, and you can also go fight in the next war for oil, since you prefer to stay on the oil standard. OK, rugged individualist, now, get to it.

Paul Westlake said:
I know recognizing the socialist aspects of American life is uncomfortable for you, but like I said last time, if you think the free market can handle everything, put your own fires out, build your own roads to drive on, fix the broken water main yourself, and you can also go fight in the next war for oil, since you prefer to stay on the oil standard. OK, rugged individualist, now, get to it.

LOL.

The thing I found most amusing about this segment was O’Reilly questioning Obama’s wisdom in granting Rolling Stone an interview, wondering if he was taking a risk in doing so. He mentioned General McChrystal and what happened to him, forgetting that Rolling Stone is an extremely liberal magazine with an anti-military, anti-war history. To think that Rolling Stone would in any way treat Obama as they did McChrystal is silly. Rolling Stone spent 8 years playing “6 degrees of George Bush”, leaving only Typhoon Chanchu that hit the Philippines in 2006 as something that wasn’t old GW’s fault. Rolling Stone is right in Obama’s wheelhouse. Rumor has it Tiger Beat is next on his interview list.

O’Reilly has gone soft on Obama lately. Last year, Bill was stressed that Obama was going to take all his money for taxes, but this year seems ready to give it alln to Obama. I don’t mind, personally, if Bill has a mancrush on Obama, now, but he needs to keep his crushes to himself. Too much information.

<fb:name class=" FB_name" linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1085325013">Andy Lamb</fb:name> said:
the Philippines in 2006 as something that wasn’t old GW’s fault.

Who said it wasn’t?

<fb:name class=" FB_name" linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1085325013">Andy Lamb</fb:name> said:
Rumor has it Tiger Beat is next on his interview list.

Yaaaah! JUSTIN BIEBER!!! YAAAHHH!!

all, not alln.

newzmaker said:
O’Reilly has gone soft on Obama lately. Last year, Bill was stressed that Obama was going to take all his money for taxes, but this year seems ready to give it alln to Obama. I don’t mind, personally, if Bill has a mancrush on Obama, now, but he needs to keep his crushes to himself. Too much information.

Using your brain BILLO was NOT in your contract.

Back to the talking points memo, NOW!!!

I still keep up with O’Reilly, but I do keep a vomit bag nearby, whenever O’Reilly feels the need to ‘stroke’ Obama’s ego. Gag.

‘Red Eye’ Host Gutfeld Rips ‘Crybaby-in-Chief’ Obama for Rebuke of Fox News

“So President Obama was just interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine — that thinning pamphlet for our country’s dwindling supply of pony-tailed pensioners,” Gutfeld said. “When asked about Fox News, this is what our Commander-in-Chief had to say.”

“OK let me get this straight — you’re the President of the United States, with both Houses [of Congress] under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the history of the universe and yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a thrill up its leg?” he continued. “Obama’s like a sports team who owns the ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play until the kid in the tenth row stops chewing gum.”

And as Gutfeld explained, it wasn’t Fox News Channel that has rallied the biggest thorn in the side of this administration, the Tea Party movement. Instead, it was Chicago CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli, who works for a competitor of Fox News.

“So let’s indulge his fantasy and imagine if Fox News didn’t exist – the good old days, when the only media was a liberal one,” Gutfeld said. “Well, Obama would still be in trouble. See, it wasn’t Fox who started the tea parties. It was CNBC’s Rick Santelli – and then America went crazy with it.”

And what would happen if there were no Fox News? This White House, which seems to want to take a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and give its political opponents as label, would have to go after someone or something else. Gutfeld suggested it would be the American people.

“In fact, it would be far worse for Obama if there was no Fox News, because then he’d only have the American people to get mad at,” Gutfeld said. “There is no Republican adversary right now, and without Fox News – who’s left? You. And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying ‘those Americans.’ He can just say Fox News instead. And I don’t mind. We’re happy to help. And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic, taurophobe.”

Greg, you’d better check yourself buddy of you’ll end up in witness protection!

The left is always saying there are no funny guys on the right. But of course, with the things Greg says, I’m sure they don’t consider that funny at all.

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”- Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, 4/29/2006

writer said:
The left is always saying there are no funny guys on the right. But of course, with the things Greg says, I’m sure they don’t consider that funny at all.

Greg who?

Just keep wondering, right-is-wrong. It would only upset you.

writer said:
The left is always saying there are no funny guys on the right. But of course, with the things Greg says, I’m sure they don’t consider that funny at all.

Well, he’s not the comedic genius Patricia Heaton is.

Paul Westlake said:
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”- Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, 4/29/2006

Reality = 18% unemployment, terrible economy, and massive debt = Democratic Leadership since 2006.

Yeah, Robert. And the Frasier show was a complete failure. Never got any ratings. But humor is subjective, so of course you wouldn’t think Greg is funny. He pokes fun at pompous, arrogant snobs such as yourself.

Obama is SUCH a pansy ass little bitch.

Most of these people responding negatively towards the president are
criminals for instance the t**d who commented on obamas lack of spine.
You are attacking the president of the freest country in the world and
you only have the nads to do it while sitting behind the comfort of
your computer and your calling obama spineless, who are you make
yourself known. you appear to be a sissy liberal to me aren;t they the
ones usually whining please respond like a grownup. Obama has more
spine the all right wingers combined your the one who supported a
president and vp almost convicted of war crimes in several well
respected countries maybe you should go get educated before you
discuss things any smart 9 year old could understand but somehow
repubs aren;t that bright. Guess you think palin and limbaugh are
geniouses must I say more

do you guys forget are you truly a republican this guy oreilly your supporting is gay remember he was caught with the lip stick and miniskirt back in the nineties trying to entice boys for sex get your rhetoric consistant will you

Please, say no more.

Of course, responding negatively to the president when Bush was in office was the highest form of patriotism.

boy that was hurtful a two yo calling obama names pansy come on dude are you that lame make up something true will ya bush was the one who backed down from russia right after russia invaded ukraine russia told bush chooses sides and then he went on air condeeleeza said ih we don’t want war, and they woldn’t even stand up to putin what a scared texas idiot he is cheney the one who gave military secrets involving valerie plame a cia agent and a;lmost got here killed but no obamas the criminal you are 100 dum with 0 facts

Period.

soccermom is a reily lover hope you aint teaching those transvestite values to your kids someone call cps

soccermom oh we love you you ralmost as good as the tea party movement at giving dems a long lasting domination of american politics thank god the right is now speaking their mind and intelligent people everywhere are becoming devoted obama followers. republicans had to change their names to tea partyers a lot like corrupt corporations do all the time hoping people will forget who they are. Quit hiding repubs your stil basically nazis with another new new name heil hitler!

Dang, the Democrats control all of the news networks except one. And it rankles them that they can’t silence that one outlier.

royal king writer and br what hppened where you at . what happened your slack jaw kick in or maybe you took some good advice and went an reenrolled in the third gwade
you guys are silly and funny and you are programmed by right wing and there ass kissing of the corporations who are the same one steeling your jobs. repubs are on wall streets side look at boehmer he didn’t want any chenge even with people like madoff steeling retirees hard earned money this is who oreilly an limbaugh abd beck love obamas the one standing up to them
please respond i’m getting stupider just listening to you right wing nuts

gojam1, trying to read your posts is giving me a headache. Do us a favor and take a course on using the English language properly when writing and get back to us.

dont confuse rankling with truth felix.
Ex felix the cat an imaginary cat with no brain who does not even exist of course the truth confuses you

i told you already im getting stupidier just listening to you

Does anyone have an Excedrin?

musiccityvic said:
Reality = 18% unemployment, terrible economy, and massive debt = Democratic Leadership since 2006.

Ordinarily, if a liberal had quoted an 18% figure that obviously includes unofficial unemployment statistics, it would send the righties in here into a tizzy. But I’ll be an adult an assume you meant to include underemployed, and out-of-work contract and freelance workers, a figure that is derived through sampling. And that’s OK, because it’s all true… just disingenuously presented… as usual.

But then you go off the rails completely with this “Democratic Leadership since 2006″ routine. We all know the Democratic majority was impotent in the Bush years, and rendered mostly impotent by the GOP’s extreme abuse of the filibuster, which has become a perfunctory matter of course in the Senate with the GOP in opposition – the same party, I’ll remind you, that was prepared to use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster altogether when they had what Rove had convinced them would be a permanent majority.

And you’re nowhere near the tracks when it comes to the root causes of America’s deepest, longest-lasting recession since the Great Depression – the 30-year decline of the manufacturing sector, the 30-year decline of unions (lowest membership since WW II), the 30-year assault on wages and the middle class. Even one of your over-the-top libertine heroes, Lou Dobbs, was complaining about the “war on the middle class” DURING the Bush administration. The American workforce is resilient and resourceful, but it can only take so much. It started to buckle under the strain of carrying scores of welfare corporations on its back when the full effects of Bush’s reckless fiscal policies finally reverberated through the entire system, contributing to the final trigger for the housing crisis (low wages, higher core costs, increasing unemployment, etc, all led to the onset of foreclosures and the cascading devaluation of residential real estate across the board).

All of these outcomes are easily traced back to their origins in the Reagan administration, which only implemented some of these policies – more were implemented under Bush Sr, mixed bag under Clinton, and then pedal to the metal under Bush Jr. – tax cuts for the wealthy already sitting on idle cash, allowances for off-shore tax havens, reward for outsourcing American jobs, hyper deregulation, and castration of anti-trust enforcement. Meanwhile, every graph shows improvement under Obama’s policies, though the impact of the neo-con decades still reverberates powerfully in the economy and we’re far from out of the woods. It took thirty years to nearly destroy America’s middle class. It won’t take nearly that long to rebuild it, but it’ll take more than two years facing an obstructionist opposition putting all its chips on a failed economy bringing them back to power.

Paul Westlake said:
First word out of Monica’s mouth: “Barack Obama is a radical progressive…”

Paul, you disagree with that view?

gojam1 said:
Most of these people responding negatively towards the president are
criminals for instance the t**d who commented on obamas lack of spine.
You are attacking the president of the freest country in the world and
you only have the nads to do it while sitting behind the comfort of
your computer and your calling obama spineless, who are you make
yourself known. you appear to be a sissy liberal to me aren;t they the
ones usually whining please respond like a grownup. Obama has more
spine the all right wingers combined your the one who supported a
president and vp almost convicted of war crimes in several well
respected countries maybe you should go get educated before you
discuss things any smart 9 year old could understand but somehow
repubs aren;t that bright. Guess you think palin and limbaugh are
geniouses must I say more

Thanks for the laugh! :)

Breathe! Breathe!

Gojam, you write the longest sentences I have ever seen. Amazing!

Like reading War and Peace, without the coherence.

Patrick Henry said:
Paul, you disagree with that view?

It doesn’t matter. It’s irresponsible to go on TV and use buzzword labels without defining the labels and justifying their use. Now, sure, people are going to accuse me of a double standard, since I use labels all the time. One, I’m not on TV. Two, I actually have explained my use of the labels “conservative,” “neo-con,” and “reactionary” in several threads, clearly defining what I think they are and who I believe those people are in public life. For the most part, reactionary and neo-con are interchangeable to me, but I think of reactionaries as more the rank-and-file, while the leadership are the true neo-cons. I have never hidden the way I use those labels. But again, I’m not on TV, and I don’t really have to, but I do out of the respect I still have for a small number of my right-wing brethren. ;-)

gojam1 said:
i told you already im getting stupidier just listening to you

Are you sure?

Paul Westlake said:
I have never hidden the way I use those labels. But again, I’m not on TV, and I don’t really have to, but I do out of the respect I still have for a small number of my right-wing brethren. ;-)

[I was going to rearrange that penultimate sentence and forgot, but you get the gist.]

Paul Westlake said:
Ordinarily, if a liberal had quoted an 18% figure that obviously includes unofficial unemployment statistics, it would send the righties in here into a tizzy. But I’ll be an adult an assume you meant to include underemployed, and out-of-work contract and freelance workers, a figure that is derived through sampling. And that’s OK, because it’s all true… just disingenuously presented… as usual. But then you go off the rails completely with this “Democratic Leadership since 2006″ routine. We all know the Democratic majority was impotent in the Bush years, and rendered mostly impotent by the GOP’s extreme abuse of the filibuster, which has become a perfunctory matter of course in the Senate with the GOP in opposition – the same party, I’ll remind you, that was prepared to use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster altogether when they had what Rove had convinced them would be a permanent majority. And you’re nowhere near the tracks when it comes to the root causes of America’s deepest, longest-lasting recession since the Great Depression – the 30-year decline of the manufacturing sector, the 30-year decline of unions (lowest membership since WW II), the 30-year assault on wages and the middle class. Even one of your over-the-top libertine heroes, Lou Dobbs, was complaining about the “war on the middle class” DURING the Bush administration. The American workforce is resilient and resourceful, but it can only take so much. It started to buckle under the strain of carrying scores of welfare corporations on its back when the full effects of Bush’s reckless fiscal policies finally reverberated through the entire system, contributing to the final trigger for the housing crisis (low wages, higher core costs, increasing unemployment, etc, all led to the onset of foreclosures and the cascading devaluation of residential real estate across the board). All of these outcomes are easily traced back to their origins in the Reagan administration, which only implemented some of these policies – more were implemented under Bush Sr, mixed bag under Clinton, and then pedal to the metal under Bush Jr. – tax cuts for the wealthy already sitting on idle cash, allowances for off-shore tax havens, reward for outsourcing American jobs, hyper deregulation, and castration of anti-trust enforcement. Meanwhile, every graph shows improvement under Obama’s policies, though the impact of the neo-con decades still reverberates powerfully in the economy and we’re far from out of the woods. It took thirty years to nearly destroy America’s middle class. It won’t take nearly that long to rebuild it, but it’ll take more than two years facing an obstructionist opposition putting all its chips on a failed economy bringing them back to power.

Paul, again I disagree but I like the fact that you actually have a position. I was talking about real unemployment and not the cooked numbers that are out there now. I don’t think Unions are good for the country. That is my opinion. We are pretty near opposite in what we believe in most part, though I agree that there should be some reforms on both healthcare and financial markets, just not the total power grab that the bills passed are. You can’t hate business, and make no mistake about it, the constant demonizing of business is not good for the economy and it is proved out now.

At least you mentioned the housing crisis. Most Libs act like it has nothing to do with anything going on. If you force banks to loan money to people who they normally wouldn’t lend to you get what we have now. Did businesses take advantage of it, you bet. That was government intervention that was based on redistribution instead of sound business practice. Bush tried, albeit feebly to address the fannie/freddie crisis and was stonewalled by Frank, Waters and the rest of the gang with the chants of racism. So there is plenty of blame to go around. You may have a point from 06-08 but there was a super majority in both houses for much of this term. You can’t obstruct something you can’t stop. I don’ t think the fillibuster should be removed for either the dems or the repubs.

The public is hoping for a deadlocked congress for 10-12. You will see it in November. They want the super sizing of the government to stop. Do I believe in no government, of course not. But growing the size of government by 25% and adding a giant entitlement program during this time is simply irresponsible. Now I have to hear from Obama how irresponsible the citizens are for wanting the government to leave the tax rates where they are, after the spending frenzy of the last 2 years. But what do I know. I’m just one of those crazy, non progressives who isn’t enlightened enough to see how great a global government would be.

writer said:
The left is always saying there are no funny guys on the right.

The Real Royal King said:
Well, he’s not the comedic genius Patricia Heaton is.

And, he’s certainly no Larry the Cable Guy.

musiccityvic said:
I was talking about real unemployment and not the cooked numbers that are out there now.

Then you need to state that and support it with real numbers.

musiccityvic said:
I don’t think Unions are good for the country. That is my opinion.

But again, based on what? I gave you reasons. Don’t see any coming from you.

musiccityvic said:
I agree that there should be some reforms on both healthcare and financial markets, just not the total power grab that the bills passed are.

They are nowhere near a total power grab, and I don’t have to disprove that meme, you have to prove it. When the entire left wing is ready to pull their hair out over loopholes for big pharma, big banks, big hedge funds, etc, there is nothing close to a total power grab going on.

musiccityvic said:
the constant demonizing of business is not good for the economy and it is proved out now.

Nobody is demonizing business, but there sure are a lot of people CLAIMING that Dems are demonizing business, and most of THAT stems from the utterly preposterous defense of BP by the GOP. There’s a big difference between Main Street and Wall Street. Americans love Main St. and loathe Wall St., so there has been demonizing, but not of all business and all capitalism – that’s the sophist hysterical defense offered up by neo-cons.

musiccityvic said:
At least you mentioned the housing crisis. Most Libs act like it has nothing to do with anything going on. If you force banks to loan money to people who they normally wouldn’t lend to you get what we have now. Did businesses take advantage of it, you bet. That was government intervention that was based on redistribution instead of sound business practice. Bush tried, albeit feebly to address the fannie/freddie crisis and was stonewalled by Frank, Waters and the rest of the gang with the chants of racism.

No, most liberals do NOT act like it has nothing to do with the economy, we’re just not blaming the scapegoats presented by the right wing. Fannie and Freddie worked exactly according to design until Wall Street got their hands on the paper and started carving it up into derivatives, then CDOs, then synthetic CDOs, then REIT shorts, then massive insurance coverage, then the intentional bursting of the bubble, and the windfall collected from the taxpayers who had to bail out AIG (and more) to cover the payouts. It was a scheme hatched and executed by Goldman and their cohorts. Did some homeowners take advantage? Probably just as many as were straight duped. And the main difference is that borrowers were risking their own credit, their own primary residence, their own down payments (except the rare zero down-payment loans). The hucksters on the loan side weren’t risking anything, no personal liability, no personal responsibility at all. It’s utterly insane to hold one half of the equation personally accountable and let the other off scott free. Really tired of that BS line.

musiccityvic said:
The public is hoping for a deadlocked congress for 10-12. You will see it in November. They want the super sizing of the government to stop. Do I believe in no government, of course not. But growing the size of government by 25% and adding a giant entitlement program during this time is simply irresponsible. Now I have to hear from Obama how irresponsible the citizens are for wanting the government to leave the tax rates where they are, after the spending frenzy of the last 2 years. But what do I know. I’m just one of those crazy, non progressives who isn’t enlightened enough to see how great a global government would be.

How many strawmen can you squeeze into that clown car? Good grief. First of all, you have NO IDEA what the “American people” want – polls have been off by ten points all year, pollsters have no clue what they’re looking at anymore, and survey after survey comes out stating that close to 40% of the country think Obama hasn’t gone far enough, and THAT’S why they’re pissed! Even with bad polling, that’s nothing to sneeze at. So no, the country does not seem to want a deadlock so the GOP can sweep on a record obstructionism in 2012. But we won’t REALLY know until November, you know the only polls that count (which doesn’t mean anything when conservatives are on the losing side, I guess).

The spending “frenzy” was all Bush. Even at this moment, 75% of the debt is totally Bush’s. And if the Bush tax cuts are extended, that will rise to 90% of the debt within five years. Big spending? One war that was extended for a decade by mismanagement and by another war that shouldn’t have been fought, two massive rounds of tax cuts for people with idle cash as it is, prescription drug benefit, homeland security department, and more, MOST of it unaccounted for in the budget. Obama at least has the guts to put most of his spending on the actual budget, unlike the smoke-and-mirrors, pie-in-the-sky GOP.

And gee, thanks for giving me credit for “actually” having a position. I would be thankful for your “recognition” if it wasn’t so obviously a condescending lie. Charming.

Paul Westlake said:
The spending “frenzy” was all Bush.

C’mon Paul. A trillion (with a T) in ‘stimulus’ …. straight deficit spending…. and you really wanna start that “Bush’s Fault” bullshit?

btw… we DO have an ‘IDEA’ of what the American people want. A pretty good one in fact.

Paul Westlake said:
But we won’t REALLY know until November, you know the only polls that count (which doesn’t mean anything when conservatives are on the losing side, I guess).

Does that mean that next time a (R) is POTUS you will play nice? Or is it just ‘the right’ who is supposed to STFU even though we voted for the other guy?

Obozo had 70+% approval when he took office. Let’s just see how long it takes for a (R) to get such numbers right off the bat.

You know and I know IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Can you name JUST ONE (R)… alive or dead… who would enjoy that much support from ‘the left’ when they take over in 2012?

As for ‘obstructionism’…… we learned it from the best.

felixw said:
Dang, the Democrats control all of the news networks except one. And it rankles them that they can’t silence that one outlier.

The Democrats don’t seem to have control over any news networks unless you count Weekend Update on SNL, but it is without question that the Republicans have absolute control over one. Since Fox is in the political arena, and they use their resources to actively campaign for various Republican candidates, it is not only fair but expected that he comment on them.

After all we’ve been through together, FM, you throw “Obozo” at me? How do you expect me to have a serious discussion with you if that’s your opening salvo? Yeah, no. Try again, in proper English, with respectful language and proper salutations, if used. Then, and only then, will I tear your thesis to shreds. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
After all we’ve been through together, FM, you throw “Obozo” at me? How do you expect me to have a serious discussion with you if that’s your opening salvo? Yeah, no. Try again, in proper English, with respectful language and proper salutations, if used. Then, and only then, will I tear your thesis to shreds. ;-)

I must say, I am impressed. When I first remember you was on the Grayson thread and you really came in guns-a-blazin’. I appreciate the civil tone and reasoned arguments but I don’t know much about ‘proper English, with respectful language and proper salutations’. I am what I am, chief…. just like Popeye.

As for ‘shredding’ my post…. have at it if you wish. Not much there to dispute IMO unless you wanna try to blame $1,000,000,000,000 in (wasted) deficit STIMULUS spending on Dubya. Go for it.

Sorry about the Obozo but but but….. it IS rather clownish for the POTUS to kvetch and moan so much about the ONE news organization that doesn’t cheerlead for him unconditionally, dontcha think?

FearMonger said:
I must say, I am impressed. When I first remember you was on the Grayson thread and you really came in guns-a-blazin’. I appreciate the civil tone and reasoned arguments but I don’t know much about ‘proper English, with respectful language and proper salutations’. I am what I am, chief…. just like Popeye.

As for ’shredding’ my post…. have at it if you wish. Not much there to dispute IMO unless you wanna try to blame $1,000,000,000,000 in (wasted) deficit STIMULUS spending on Dubya. Go for it.

Sorry about the Obozo but but but….. it IS rather clownish for the POTUS to kvetch and moan so much about the ONE news organization that doesn’t cheerlead for him unconditionally, dontcha think?

or Bow in respect?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Much better, FM. Thanks. ;-)

A trillion is just around a couple hundred billion dollars more than the actual number, but let’s not split hairs. And no, we really don’t know what the American people really want because the numbers keep being interpreted incorrectly, imo – right track/wrong track shows a majority in the negative, but Obama health reform numbers show 40% of people dissatisfied with the legislation believe it didn’t go far enough, which, in a pool of about 70% of the country, means 30% of the country is pissed that the GOP stood in the way, at a bare minimum. On any given Sunday, the GOP can count 25% of the country in their base, most of whom are currently self-identified Tea Party supporters. And those Democrats that have figured out that social spending policies, from social security to medicare, are popular with a majority of the people, are beginning to tie the Tea Party to their opponents as a bad word in itself. And we’re already beginning to see cracks in the leads from these candidates’ initial honeymoons with the voters. I think you’ll see some dramatic shifts in coming weeks. Some Tea Partiers will do just fine, much better than expected, but others will simply vanish without a trace and wind up a lesson for any GOP strategist who wants to plan better for 2012.

Quick facts:
The stimulus was too small, if anything. The CBO says the stimulus kept official unemployment from topping 14%, the Keystone Research Center says between 12%-15%, and on it way to 20% – http://keystoneresearch.org/media-center/op-eds/how-stimulus-rescued-america

The right made no bones about shouting the left down, first, when Bush came into office, with the usual “quit whining, you lost” meme, then with the newly relevant “stop hurting America” mantra after 9/11. They did it so much and so often, it became the automatic response to any criticism of W – and it became the punchline for a one-liner:
A: No, we can’t have pizza tonight.
Q: Why do you hate America?
So, sorry, the original double standard bearers are the GOP and their apologists.

No session of the Senate has come close to the level of obstructionism it has under this GOP minority:
- http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
- http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php

I never argued that Obama didn’t squander opportunities. But the GOP is hip-deep in the economic problems this country is experiencing, both short-term and long-term.

OK, my shredder is beginning to overheat. Later. ;-)

One last burst, Fox is openly donating to the GOP, openly promoting Tea Party events, openly softballing most of their interviews with conservatives and Tea Partiers, going so far as to help Sharon Angle redo her resume live on air. There are a few personalities on Fox that are more credible, and there are some near-equivalencies on MSNBC – in that Democratic candidates get more air time and plenty of softball questions, but again, not with all personalities. But they’re not donating to Democrats, not promoting Democratic events (reporting on Stewart and Colbert isn’t the same as promoting Tea Party rallies), and they do ask at least a couple tough questions in most of their interviews. The toughest I’ve seen Hannity get with a conservative is when Rove bashed O’Donnell the other week. And I defy you to find actual equivalencies, with real, presentable examples, on any of the old school networks. And when their parents – GE, Disney, CBS Corp. – donate to political parties, they donate to both, hedging their bets for any eventuality. Fox is the only one that gives money to only one side. And, you know, don’t you ever get tired of trying to defend Fox?

Paul Westlake said:
No, most liberals do NOT act like it has nothing to do with the economy, we’re just not blaming the scapegoats presented by the right wing. Fannie and Freddie worked exactly according to design until Wall Street got their hands on the paper and started carving it up into derivatives, then CDOs, then synthetic CDOs, then REIT shorts, then massive insurance coverage, then the intentional bursting of the bubble, and the windfall collected from the taxpayers who had to bail out AIG (and more) to cover the payouts. I

Let me do my Paul Westlake impression:

Can you substantiate that there really was an AIG bailout. I mean your definition of bailout is purely subjective. And I don’t see how you make these claims about liberals. And you offer no evidence about Fannie and Freddie, when in fact it’s not clear that Fannie or Freddie even exist. (And don’t send me to Wikipedia, because it’s a fraud.) And you don’t have a source on your statement on derivatives. And can you provide a dictionary definition of the word “bubble”. And the meaning of white can sometimes mean black, and black can sometimes mean white. Etc. etc. etc.

felixw said:
Can you substantiate that there really was an AIG bailout. I mean your definition of bailout is purely subjective. And I don’t see how you make these claims about liberals. And you offer no evidence about Fannie and Freddie, when in fact it’s not clear that Fannie or Freddie even exist. (And don’t send me to Wikipedia, because it’s a fraud.) And you don’t have a source on your statement on derivatives. And can you provide a dictionary definition of the word “bubble”. And the meaning of white can sometimes mean black, and black can sometimes mean white. Etc. etc. etc.

That was your impression of yourself, sophist. All anyone has to do is look what we’ve both already posted on these boards to see which one of us is projecting, my man. Your efforts are getting lamer and lamer. Really, you gotta stop hurting yourself like this. Maybe you should seek some counseling. ;-)