Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

But you could use the exact same reasoning to arrive at the opposite conclusion, i.e. "the more money 98% of people who are not rich have, the more they can spend on goods and services". Therefore we need to increase public services and cut taxes for the non-rich, because their wealth and consumption will trickle up to the rich who make money by selling mass produced cars, TVs, etc.

When the same reasoning can be used to arrive at two different incompatible conclusions, you know there's something wrong with the reasoning.

Otherwise, Schrodinger's cat is alive and well.

 

[Dezzie]

Huh? Where did that come from? I've heard a lot of criticism of Obama over the past couple years, but that's a new one to me. It is interesting that you find fault only with his what you call "stuttering", and not the actual message he gives.

In my opinion, you should know what you are going to say. You shouldn't be blubbering all over yourself while trying to find the words. Especially to be a President. I never said I didn't find faults in his messages either. Not sure where that accusation came from... My whole point with the studdering what what I said above. I understand that "public speaking is scary or difficult" but I mean... some people are excellent at it (even if they are lying). Obama is an example of not being very good at hiding it... nor was Bush IMO. You should come PREPARED for a speech... not just seem like you are winging it. People running for President should understand what they are getting themselves into. That's just my opinion.

I actually just recently re-watched a lot of election stuff and cracked up at some of the things Obama and Bush said during their speeches. I was left quite speechless myself and couldn't believe no one saw what tards they were (at the moment).

IMHO professionalism is key when it comes to being a good President. Telling jokes over the course of 3-5 minutes is not a good example of professionalism. People in the Government joke and laugh about way too much. IMO they should be serious at all times when dealing with the issues of our Country and others.

 

[Magic Man]

In my opinion, you should know what you are going to say. You shouldn't be blubbering all over yourself while trying to find the words. Especially to be a President. I never said I didn't find faults in his messages either. Not sure where that accusation came from... My whole point with the studdering what what I said above. I understand that "public speaking is scary or difficult" but I mean... some people are excellent at it (even if they are lying). Obama is an example of not being very good at hiding it... nor was Bush IMO. You should come PREPARED for a speech... not just seem like you are winging it. People running for President should understand what they are getting themselves into. That's just my opinion.

And what part of Obama's speaking makes you think he's not prepared? I've seen him in interviews and question-and-answer sessions where he says stuff like "but-but-but-but-but...", but I don't remember hearing that in speeches.

I actually just recently re-watched a lot of election stuff and cracked up at some of the things Obama and Bush said during their speeches. I was left quite speechless myself and couldn't believe no one saw what tards they were (at the moment).

Can you give me an example or two?

IMHO professionalism is key when it comes to being a good President. Telling jokes over the course of 3-5 minutes is not a good example of professionalism. People in the Government joke and laugh about way too much. IMO they should be serious at all times when dealing with the issues of our Country and others.

What are you talking about? First, can you answer my question from before about where you're getting this bit about him laughing a lot and not being serious? Then can you explain this expansion on that claim? I have no idea where this stuff is coming from.

 

[T-Dawg]

But you could use the exact same reasoning to arrive at the opposite conclusion, i.e. "the more money 98% of people who are not rich have, the more they can spend on goods and services". Therefore we need to increase public services and cut taxes for the non-rich, because their wealth and consumption will trickle up to the rich who make money by selling mass produced cars, TVs, etc.

When the same reasoning can be used to arrive at two different incompatible conclusions, you know there's something wrong with the reasoning.

I think that's an actual economic theory, colloquially called the "bubble up" theory as opposed to the "trickle down" theory. It makes a lot more sense than "trickle down," at any rate.

 

[Skwim]

i

"Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag"

And, if one did find himself in a wet paper bag, just how would he go about governing himself out of it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Otherwise, Schrodinger's cat is alive and well.

Hmm .... Mercy I am afraid I don't follow you. I think I get your gist, you're just trying to be humorous, right? Sorry for being dense. :sorry1:

 

[madhatter85]

Kathryn, your assertion that Obama has not attempted to reach across the aisle and compromise with the right, could not be further from the truth. That is exactly what he has done, too many times.

That is not what he has done. He has consistently reached over the aisle to taunt the other side.

In his proposals he always throws in raising the national debt which is exactly what the republicans are against. It is not about making people homeless and making the rich even more wealthy.

When the right bawks and says "come back with a decent proposal by cutting programs the government has no business being in" the left gets up in arms saying "They want to take away your unemployment benefits!" when that is not true.

although, most of this idiocy is media driven because they want to create controversy.

The republicans who have rejects his backhanded "attempts" to "reach across the aisle" have been in the interest of the tremendous national debt which will cripple our country's ability to operate at all.

The government has to shrink. People should not be dependent upon government, the government should be dependent upon the people.

if you want to see real politics watch CSPAN and not Fox News or even worse, "The Daily Show." Holy hell i can't believe people watch that for their "News source"

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, your assertion that Obama has not attempted to reach across the aisle and compromise with the right, could not be further from the truth. That is exactly what he has done, too many times. That would have been bad enough. But now this time, he blames the liberals? And he wonders why much of his base stayed home in November?

I'm not saying that he hasn't made symbolic gestures, or done some political grandstanding - he is, after all, first and foremost a lawyer, and knows very well how to stick to the letter of the law while straying far from the spirit of the law.

His ATTITUDE toward who he perceives as his opposition has been incredibly divisive, and in my opinion haughty and even immature.

The man simply doesn't have a grasp of what constitutes appropriate and inspiring leadership.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This country has more rich people in the past ten years per capita than it has ever had.

I believe that is a good thing. You just made my point. :yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Personally, I think a short-term hiatus on tax hikes is a good thing. Just let the economy settle down first, and then attack the debt with a vengence.

Exactly right!

 

[Reverend Rick]

If we ever want to lower the unemployment rate in this country, we have got to quit sending these people checks for doing nothing.

 

[linwood]

I believe that is a good thing. You just made my point. :yes:

Not at all.

The fact that there is far more money at the top AND far less money at the bottom while the middle is fast becoming non-existent is evidence that "Trickle-Down" is a sham.
It doesn`t work.

The fact that we`ve relied on this "Trickle-Down" ideology since Reagan and it`s result is the catastrophic economic ********* we`re in now is evidence "Trickle-Down" is a sham.

The rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and the middle class keeps getting deeper and deeper in debt.

WTF?

 

[Magic Man]

That is not what he has done. He has consistently reached over the aisle to taunt the other side.

Yeah, that's what it is. It's not an attempt to compromise; it's a taunt. Of course. You're right. The subtraction of a public option from the healthcare bill and the general watering down of it was just a taunt. This compromise of giving the republicans basically everything they want in terms of taxes is just a taunt.

In his proposals he always throws in raising the national debt which is exactly what the republicans are against. It is not about making people homeless and making the rich even more wealthy.

When the right balks and says "come back with a decent proposal by cutting programs the government has no business being in" the left gets up in arms saying "They want to take away your unemployment benefits!" when that is not true.

What are you talking about? When has the right ever said that and meant it? That's generally just something they say to get elected or when they know they have no chance of getting what they want. It's like having someone hold you back from fighting someone else. You can talk all kinds of trash and pretend you'd back it up if only this guy holding you back would get out of the way. And it is true that republicans want to take away unemployment benefits.

The republicans who have rejects his backhanded "attempts" to "reach across the aisle" have been in the interest of the tremendous national debt which will cripple our country's ability to operate at all.

I'm still waiting to hear what these "backhanded attempts to reach across the aisle" are. And what has Obama done that has added to the current debt?

The government has to shrink. People should not be dependent upon government, the government should be dependent upon the people.

No, it doesn't. The people have to be able to depend on the government. If not, there's no point in having it in the first place.

if you want to see real politics watch CSPAN and not Fox News or even worse, "The Daily Show." Holy hell i can't believe people watch that for their "News source"

If you were actually watching CSPAN you wouldn't have these wildly biased ideas. And most people don't watch the Daily Show to get their news. We watch it because it's funny.

 

[linwood]

If we ever want to lower the unemployment rate in this country, we have got to quit sending these people checks for doing nothing.

There is nothing to do, the rich we have been talking about have sent our jobs to India.

Actually, I concede the "Trickle-Down" argument Rick.

It apparently does indeed work to improve economic growth.
Asia`s economic growth that is.
All the rich peoples money seems to be "Trickling -Down" to Shanghai.

It sure isn`t doing the good `ole USA of A any good though.

 

[Magic Man]

If we ever want to lower the unemployment rate in this country, we have got to quit sending these people checks for doing nothing.

And how is that going to lower unemployment? Is that going to create jobs for the unemployed?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And how is that going to lower unemployment? Is that going to create jobs for the unemployed?

We can deny them healthcare too and hasten their demise.

 

[Magic Man]

We can deny them healthcare too and hasten their demise.

Ooo, good call. I never thought about that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ooo, good call. I never thought about that.

And then later on, instead of giving someone a pink slip, we just lead them to a gas chamber.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can deny them healthcare too and hasten their demise.

Give'm free cigarettes too!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If we ever want to lower the unemployment rate in this country, we have got to quit sending these people checks for doing nothing.

The exact same unemployment and welfare regulations existed before and immediately after 2008, so "sending these people checks for doing nothing" clearly did not cause the rise of unemployment since 2008. It was caused by the recession.