Mr. Bonine wants to thank President Obama
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
I wish to thank the president for doing such a wonderful job of stimulating the economy with regard to gun and ammo sales. And he has done this by doing... well nothing.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
Don't we already have a thread on this?

and I thought the plan was to Buy Boats!
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Shouldn't you be thanking the more paranoid citizens of our fair republic, Richard?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Brian: you make a good point. Should I thank the President for making them paranoid?
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Richard: Be sure to remind them that just because they're paranoid doesn't mean the President really isn't out to intentionally make the world a better and fairer place.

I can certainly understand why Obama scares some folks out of their wits. Of course, most of them were just plain witless to begin with.
Top
supporter
Posted by K.Duffy (+1807) 12 years ago
Mr. Bonine, I have a question that I hope you'll answer for me, it's probably a stupid one, but you know what Forest Gump says!
Nearly all of the Republicans I know, make references to what you posted - the stockpiling of weapons/ammo. What I'm not sure of, is the purpose of the subtle "warning". Is it a "call to arms" where the white house is to be stormed and taken back? Is it the age old fear that with a Democrat in the presidency, the right to bear arms will be taken away? Or, indeed, just the general paranoia of not knowing what's going to happen?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
My understanding of the ammo stockpiling is a fear that under this administration ammo will become very hard to obtain and will be tracked, (i.e. Mr Bonine has 4 boxes of shells for his .270 rifle). The second amendment may be significantly curtailed. And there is a general uncertainty, as BO is moving his agenda forward with impressive and unprecedented speed. I am unaware of any plan to "storm the White House". There is no need for that way of thinking. He is also doing a pretty good job of sinking his own boat.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
You need to quit watching Glenn Beck.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Blame God, Richard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Brian: you make a good point. Should I thank the President for making them paranoid?

Hah! As if the President needed to do anything in that regard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Apparently Senators Tester and Baucus are paranoid as well?

http://www.greatfallstrib.../903100349
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
Yeah - the reasons these p*ssies by more ammo is so they have something extra to hand over when the "Obama Takes Your Gun" team shows up.

It's the dumbest load of bullsh!t I've ever seen. Okay guys, if you're going to get your guns and ammo taken away, who is gonna do it? Cops, army guys? Those are the ones standing in line with you in the sporting goods department. Congratulate yourselves for being myopic dumbasses.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
What if he did what he proposed doing in Illinois in 1999 and raised gun and ammo taxes 500%?

That would seem to be a valid reason to stock up, wouldn't it?
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Apparently Senators Tester and Baucus are paranoid as well?

Perhaps they're capitalizing on the paranoia and making a prudent business decision.

Or, perhaps they realize who most of their constituents are.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
People aren't stockpiling because they fear price hikes

P.S. He can't do things people won't allow - it didn't work in Illinois in 1999

P.S.S. A valid reason to stock up? I don't think there will ever be a "valid" reason to stock up on guns. People stock up because they're paranoid of some endtimes mass hysteria. "Charlotte, get the shotgun and protect those dried beans and canned goods!"

I mean, why would I need to stockpile? - the most guns I can hope to operate at once is two - only one if I plan on hitting something
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
P.S. He can't do things people won't allow

Funny. I don't remember there being widespread support for banning light bulbs. Yet there it is.

What example in history would you use to establish that gun confiscation or restriction is not a possible (if not likely) end? Seems we've got some American Exceptionalists on our hands all the sudden.

And it seems that twin Senators Burns and Tester had to write another nastygram to the Obamabus admin when they ordered DoD to stop selling brass to ammunition reloaders.

http://www.nraila.org/med...yBrass.pdf

Why would they do that?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
What example in history would you use to establish that gun confiscation or restriction is not a possible (if not likely) end?

What example in history would you use to say it is?

And again Rick, how many guns can you operate at once? What's the stockpile for?

The reality is, unless you (because it's you and your wingnut pals who fears it so badly) are planning on turning the country over to Hitler, we're not going to experience murderous pandemonium or gun confiscation.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"You need to quit watching Glenn Beck."

I have not watched Glenn Beck, or any other TV (other than NASCAR) since the 1st of Feb.
Top
supporter
Posted by K.Duffy (+1807) 12 years ago
Ah-ha! A clue to the secret experiment!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Well, that's a good start. Now turn off the talk radio, and your journey back to sanity will be nearly complete.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
And it seems that twin Senators Burns and Tester had to write another nastygram to the Obamabus admin when they ordered DoD to stop selling brass to ammunition reloaders.

Richard/Rick, do your research. Even thirty seconds or so would make a real difference. The sequence of events leading to the order in question originated in the military under the last (Bush) administration and might even be clerical in nature. If you weren't so afraid of the Boogeyman you might be able to understand anything outside of your ideological point of view.

And by the way, the letter you referenced is not to the Obama administration.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"Ah-ha! A clue to the secret experiment!"

Sorry... you are colder than the beer I drink.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
And there is a general uncertainty, as BO is moving his agenda forward with impressive and unprecedented speed. I am unaware of any plan to "storm the White House". There is no need for that way of thinking. He is also doing a pretty good job of sinking his own boat.

------------------

Only in the minds of wingnuts like you, Ricardo.

Call me when Obama has a 28% approval rating like your boy Nixon Bush.
Top
Posted by Bob's sister (+26) 12 years ago
Because he can stock pile. Some ammo is getting difficult to find. And some won't be found because they are not making it. I don't own a gun but sure glad I know someone who does. Made shopping for his birthday easy...ammo. Yup, glad to cling to my Bible and my guns. Proud American
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 12 years ago
These are the same wingnuts that purchased generators for Y2K but forgot to buy gas to run them. Last I heard the freeman compound was for sale.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Two words:

Colloidal Silver.

Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"Call me when Obama has a 28% approval rating like your boy Nixon Bush"

So you can spew forth some other lame explanation? I will keep that in mind.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
In what respect, Ricardo?


Obama will NEVER have a 28% approval rating during his Presidency.

I'll wager on this - but you're a little girl, so I know you wouldn't bet me....

Also.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Obama will NEVER have a 28% approval rating during his Presidency.

For once I agree with you Bob. Obama WILL never have a 28% approval rating during his Presidency. After his failed Socialist-Economic policies among other to-come-failures, people will slowly realize just how disastrous and dangerous for this country they are and that 28% will be looking awfully good to the one-term wonder.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Um, Kyle...Obama's approval rating is way higher than 28% right now.


It's highly unlikely that Mr. Obama could be a COMPLETE FAILURE like George W. Bush and even approach his abysmal rating as Bush slinked away from Washington D.C.

It hurts to read that, doesn't it, wingnut?

Also.

[This message was edited by Bob L. (4/2/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
At the rate he's going Bob, Obama'll hit 28% before the mid-term of his Presidency.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Put your money where your big, fat mouth is, wingnut.

Or are you chicken?

January 2011, 28%. You take the under. I'll bet the over ALL DAY.

Also.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/2/2009)]
Top
Posted by Donna Kingsley Coffeen (+398) 12 years ago
Good thing this was done in writing! Someone is going to collect in 2010 and it won't be the one who hopes Obama will fail.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
When not watching TV, Richard, Kyle(not Screech), Rick, etc are catching up on The Worldview Times.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Uh oh, Bruce is callin' out the chickens again.

Anyway its tough to grade succeed/fail anymore nowadays.
http://www.newsobserver.c...68042.html

I mean all you gotta do is send your "Stimulus Czar" out to take credit for things that were already happening anyway

Biden used the outdated, current station as a backdrop. Pikeville is just north of Goldsboro in Wayne County.

"We're investing in places like this all across the country," Biden said, "to demonstrate the vital role towns like this play in the recovery."

Most of the money for the station that was announced Wednesday, however, had been secured last year under the Bush administration, according to fire department officials.


Sleazoid Politics 101. Some people would call that success, though I guess.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Sleazoid Politics 101? Rick, read the whole article. The following is from the very article you quoted. Did you read it all?

Officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday disputed statements by officials from a volunteer fire department in North Carolina and a state senator about when the fire department's recently announced loan and grants for a new fire station were approved.

Leaders of the Pikeville Pleasant Grove Volunteer Fire Department and N.C. Sen. David Rouzer, a Republican, said Wednesday that the department had requested the $1 million loan and at least some of the $150,000 in grants last year and was working through the application process with the Bush administration.

The fire department's president, Russell Robertson, said he was told the loan was approved in December. Contract bids for the new station were put out in January, he said. Rouzer, who worked for the Agriculture Department in the Bush administration, accused the Obama administration of being disingenuous because Vice President Joe Biden, who visited the fire department Wednesday, announced that the fire department was receiving stimulus money through the Obama administration.

Robertson reiterated his December time frame Thursday morning. But after speaking with USDA officials, Robertson said later in the day that he had misunderstood the process. He said the fire department did not officially apply for the money until March 5. USDA provided a copy of the application with that date.


[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/2/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
The issue isn't when a particular grant proposal was filed - What really matters is how much funding is available now compared to before. Nobody can deny that grant programs have more funds available today than were available on January 19. That's what the Obama administration can take credit for now (and perhaps blame later if the money is misspent).

What I find funny is that Rick and Kyle etc. act like Obama has been in office for years. Folks - it's been less than 80 days!!! We STILL haven't reached the 100-day mark. What is it with you guys?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
it's been less than 80 days!!! We STILL haven't reached the 100-day mark. What is it with you guys?

Steve it's because he's done so poorly in those 80 day that I don't want to see what the next 1,381 are going to be like.

And no Bob, I don't gamble for reasons which are my own. Call me a "Chicken" if you wish.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Ok Kyle. Thanks for explaining. Although I think your expectations for what anyone could accomplish in the time period we're talking about may be perhaps a tad unrealistic, given the shape of things.

I won't accuse you of wanting instant gratification, but it does appear that is what many of Obama's critics expected, wanted and are now PO'd about for not getting. And I'd be OK with that as long as they can say with 100% honesty that they would have expected McCain to perform similar miracles.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (4/2/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Steve - Kyle just doesn't know what to think of a President who hasn't already gone on vacation after working all of 2 1/2 months.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
working all of 2 1/2 months

Does this include stump-speeches on Leno & 60 Minutes?

Obama reminds me quite a bit of Emperor Nero. The economy is crumbling around him and he decides to joke about Special Olympics bowling with Jay.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/2/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Obama reminds me quite a bit of Emperor Nero. The economy is crumbling around him and he decides to joke about Special Olympics bowling with Jay.

Hyperbolize much?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
You just haven't looked up, Brian. The sky is falling.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Uh oh, Bruce is callin' out the chickens again.

--------

Hey, it worked...
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
You just haven't looked up, Brian. The sky is falling.

I prefer to think of it in terms of the ground rushing upward.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"And I'd be OK with that as long as they can say with 100% honesty that they would have expected McCain to perform similar miracles."

Isn't the difference though that Obama campaigned that thing would be different immediately? Wasn't Obama the one who appeared like Apollo at the DNC coronation ceremony in Mile High (and screwed up the football vortex for the foreseeable future)? Perhaps people expect more of Obama because he promised more in a shorter time-frame and has yet to deliver?
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Hmmm... I think we must have been watching the campaign on different networks, Richard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Steve to say we should give Obama time to see if it works out defies common sense.

One doesn't need to sit back and deliberate, tapping finger on chin to know what happens when you pour gas on fire. What Obama's trying has been tried before. It has failed and will fail because somethin' for nothin' never works.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
So, let's see

1. When has it been tried before?

2. And how?

3. And how has it failed?

And try to use a source other than The Heritage Foundation or Neil Cavuto to back up your statements.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/3/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
It's far easier to be pessimistic than optimistic, Derf.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
What, buy now, pay later and/or printing pressing your way to 'prosperity'?

It's been tried many times.

Obama's mentor Jimmuh was a recent (American) example. He threw lots of cash out there and did nothing for the supply side to help produce goods for all that 'new' money to chase. Results are in the history books.

We need to expand the production (supply) side of things in this country, not demand. Supply is where the work and progress is. Our out of control demand is what got us here. And Jimmuh Junior is just feeding the flames.

So the question is, is this a case where Obama is such an economic genius that common sense doesn't apply? Alot of faith to put in a South Chicago career politician.

A good common sense perspective...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/P...ette.skid/

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Do you and Richard have a economics/history study group the rest of us aren't aware of?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I seem to remember hearing the name Krugman a time or two. Yet even he thinks the Obama Juggernaut's firing blanks.

http://krugman.blogs.nyti...al-policy/
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Rick - Are you saying, in the simplest terms, that there currently aren't enough things for consumers to purchase?

And Rick, I thought you frowned upon comedians venturing into areas political.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Steve to say we should give Obama time to see if it works out defies common sense.

Hate to break it to you, but it isn't up to you to "give Obama time." He was elected POTUS by a large majority of the American people to a FOUR YEAR TERM - not a 50 day term or an 80 day term. So, again I have to do the tough love here: Snap out of it! Cuz if you don't, you're going to have a very, very long next 46 months.

On the other points, nobody - and I mean NOBODY - in their right mind could think that a President - any president - could "immediately" turn around an economy that is so badly out of whack. But maybe the key to the issue is right there....

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (4/3/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
And Rick, I thought you frowned upon comedians venturing into areas political.

-----

Only when said comedian disagrees with Rick. Otherwise it's just fine!
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
We need to expand the production (supply) side of things in this country, not demand. Supply is where the work and progress is. Our out of control demand is what got us here.

Will someone please explain to me how this works? This seems to be a fairly convoluted understanding of economics. I'm pretty certain that if demand was that high we would have an expanding economy.

And as to Krugman's comments, upon reading the article it seems he is opposing Treasury's proposal for dealing with the toxic assets on bank books. I can't find your interpretation of the whole current administration "firing blanks."
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Derf: In this situation there is no need to provide citations from some website as the point is something with which we are all familiar. If you spend more money than you earn, it is not too long before you have some choices to make: Either you can cut your spending to match your income, or you can find ways to increase your income to match your spending.

The current administration has chosen the later, they are going to increase income (through taxation) to match their spending, with the idea that all of that spending will somehow stimulate the economy. If it works (never happened before) it will be the first time. Obama has spent more money in the first 100 days than any President to-date. I believe his approach will have disastrous and long term consequences.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Two words, Richard.

Keynes

Keynesian

Please be informed before you speak.

And I'm not sure why you weren't speaking up when the public debt was being run up to a mere 11 Trillion dollars and creating the mess we're in. Just wondering.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Derf:

Good luck!


It's been said in this forum that economics is not Richard's forte.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
What, buy now, pay later and/or printing pressing your way to 'prosperity'?

It's been tried many times.

Obama's mentor Jimmuh was a recent (American) example. He threw lots of cash out there and did nothing for the supply side to help produce goods for all that 'new' money to chase. Results are in the history books.

---------------------------

Rick: Here are some hints for you.

The following are better examples than Jimmy Carter:
(1) FDR - but that actually worked...never mind
(2) LBJ - Guns and butter? The Great Society? Mean anything to you? Bueller?
(3) Your hero, the 43rd President of the U.S.

As for your complete ignorance of all things regarding the economy (and history), I can only chuckle to myself and shake my head sadly.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
We all have a bias, Bob. The problem is when that bias is the only tool we use to interpret and view events around us, understanding eludes us. I think we're seeing clear-cut examples here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Rick - Krugman is criticizing Obama for not spending enough.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Congratulations! You guys have broken the "Rickenkyle code," summarized as follows:

STEP 1: Make an opinionated statement

STEP 2: Provide a link that either:
(a) Is completely unrelated to your opinionated statement or
(b) Directly contradicts your opinionated statement

STEP 3(OPTIONAL): Conclude with another opinionated statement

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
(1) FDR - but that actually worked...never mind

That worked? Really?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/...elNum=5409

How Government Prolonged the Depression
http://online.wsj.com/art...37485.html

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Sorry, Bruce. One-liners and personal insults don't add to your case. They subtract. Just something to think about.

1) FDR - but that actually worked...never mind

Worst and longest depression in American history, only ceasing because we essentially blew up the rest of the competing industrialized world.

(2) LBJ - Guns and butter? The Great Society? Mean anything to you? Bueller?

An abject failure, and, yes a good parallel to what's being tried today. Only we don't have the industrial infrastructure and competitive advantage to ride on like we did back then.

(3) Your hero, the 43rd President of the U.S.

You'd have to be more specific.

As for Krugman

The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system - that what we're facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.

He's accusing Obama here of a complete misdiagnosis. Krugman believes, and has said for quite awhile that the problem is basically overvaluation. Adding currency or racking up insane deficits to artificially prop up overvalued assets is a recipe for eventual disaster. It will cause the price of everything else to rise, and the massive borrowing sucks alot of the money out of the economy that should be invested in growth.

Absolute common sense. Like prescribing Viagra for a heart condition. It'll only make things worse in the long term.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Ricky:

Why not bring up LBJ instead of Jimmy Carter? Hmmmmm.

Here's another hint re: Krugman: Mark-to-market accounting

Google away, little buddy!

(Try FASB)
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"And I'm not sure why you weren't speaking up when the public debt was being run up to a mere 11 Trillion dollars and creating the mess we're in. Just wondering."

I am one of the few that posts here who been very consistent in my outrage about public spending. There is 5 years of evidence on that point, if you care to do the research you demand everyone else do before they speak.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
(3) Your hero, the 43rd President of the U.S.

You'd have to be more specific.

---------

Your hero, the 43rd President, simultaneously cut taxes AND increased spending. You were fine with that, though, because you're a simple ideologue.

To Richard's credit, he was not OK with Bush's methods and stated as much on this forum.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
" LBJ - Guns and butter? The Great Society? Mean anything to you? Bueller?"

Exactly what is the exit strategy for LBJ's "war on poverty", anyway?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Wait, I'm confused. Are you actually referring to "The Great Society" as some kind of success? I thought you were being sarcastic
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Um, no, Ricky. Try and keep up.

I love it when you wingnuts blame the Depression on FDR. Coolidge and Hoover were the best!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Your hero, the 43rd President, simultaneously cut taxes AND increased spending. You were fine with that, though, because you're a simple ideologue.

I was fine with the cutting taxes. Not so much with the spending, especially on entitlements. But coming from the guy who's answer is to Bush up the deficit another 3 or 4 times, it's disingenuous.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
GDP is going to be down over 4% in Q1. Unemployment at 8.5%

Quite a legacy for your hero, the 43rd President.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, me boy...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Hoover took a wrong turn on the Depression and FDR cemented it as by far the worst economic disaster in American history.

I like how you call everyone else ideologues, then frame absolutely everything as R vs D. Hoover (like Bush) made some huge mistakes at the beginning of the Recession/Depression.

But then, just like now, you expect that following up with even more reckless policy will make it better. I guess just cuz there's a (D) next to someone's name.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Desperate times call for desperate measures, me boy...

I guess you're a big advocate of payday and title loans then, or credit card cash advances?

That's basically the equivalent of what we're doing. At some point we need to get our house in order.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Rick:

Try and keep up.

I was stating that LBJ would be a better example than Carter, because I was not a fan of "The Great Society."

Was LBJ a Republican and no one bothered to tell me?


Once again, Ricky, I vote for Republicans about 30-40% of the time, yet I'm the ideologue. When is the last time you voted for a Democrat? When?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
I was fine with the cutting taxes. Not so much with the spending, especially on entitlements. But coming from the guy who's answer is to Bush up the deficit another 3 or 4 times, it's disingenuous.

---------

From an economic perspective, why would spending on entitlements be worse than....say.....military spending?

Last I checked, spending on Medicare and Medicaid kinda pays the rent for someone who posts here, no? Are you a "Gross National Parasite," Ricky?????
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Why the very last time I cast a ballot.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Well, that would be the first time.

Congrats, Ricky. Didn't think you had it in you. Was it a relative or something?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Last I checked, spending on Medicare and Medicaid kinda pays the rent for someone who posts here, no?

I'd ask a corollary, but, nah, not worth it.

That's what government does, they get in, take everything over, and then pretend like nobody could exist if it weren't for them. Do you think Medicare invented health care? Ah, never mind. That's a personal rabbit trail for another thread.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I was stating that LBJ would be a better example than Carter, because I was not a fan of "The Great Society."

Good good. Glad we got that cleared up. So the examples we have of when Obama's methodology has 'worked' was during the decade-plus long Depression with sustained 20%+ unemployment, and finally punctuated by the worst war the world has ever seen.

I say we go for it. Now that's optimism.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
I didn't say whether The Great Society "worked" or "didn't work."

Just said I wasn't a fan.



Let me repeat, and use small words so you get it.

GDP: Down 4%
Unemployment: 8.5%
Underemployment: Estimated at about 16%

The economy is sucking the gas pipe.

Gov't can do two things:
(1) Cut taxes
(2) Increase spending

The powers that be have done both. Will it work? I sure hope so.

Oh, and George Bush was a great President.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Gov't can do two things:
(1) Cut taxes
(2) Increase spending


If only that were all government could do.

http://www.star-telegram....85821.html

http://online.wsj.com/art...88163.html

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
World War II ended the Great Depression? In the United States? did U larn that N thrid grad histery?

You were joking when you said that, right?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Way to keep it classy, Derf.

Was the depression over in 1939?

I guess here's some evidence that you guys all worship at the altar of an economist with a third grade education?

http://krugman.blogs.nyti...recession/

The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
The economy began expanding in 1933 and had nearly doubled in size by 1940. Technically, a recession/depression ends when the economy begins to expand.

The idea that World War II ended the Great Depression in the United States is one of the great myths of history and an incredibly over-simplified understanding of economics and history--like something we would learn in 3rd grade. Let's see-- World War I, and then that ended and then the League of Nations which failed, and then then the Great Depression which was ended by WWII. History is not a sequence of events that happened one after the other.

Because most people recall the events in that order and many people were underemployed or unemployed after the economy began to expand they recall that "World War II" ended the Great Depression. Ended meaning "this was in front and this was behind" as in "ended."

World War II alleviated the employment problem (ie large numbers of unemployed and displaced people) left over from the impact of the Great Depression in the United States. As I said, the economy had been expanding for years before our entry into the war.

We will see this happen again when this recession ends. The economy will begin to expand at some point, but many of the effects of the expansion will not be seen for months, especially the 8.5 to 10% of the populace that will be unemployed or underemployed.

I'm going to stick by what I said: it's juvenile to say that World War II ended the Great Depression in the United States other than to say it in terms of this followed the other in sequence of major events.

Last, be careful about making "the World War II expanded the ecomomy" argument. There's a lot of evidence to show that the expansion of the economy during the war itself was greatly aided by the large influx of money shot into the ecomomy through government social service, financial, and employment programs (largely funded with deficit spending from 1932-1944) and federal suport of many different heavy industries. Sound familiar?

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
"The economy began expanding in 1933"????????

So, your saying it was really Hoover who bailed us out of the depression??????

And that it was Roosevelt who kept it going with massive government intererference?????

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Not exactly, Jim. The real story is that FDR spontaneously ended the Great Depression the same year he took office through divine Messianic providence alone.

In fact the term 'Great Depression' in and of itself is a common piece of Mythology. As we all know Depressions can not be Depressions when Democrats preside in office.

Everything they teach anyone anywhere is a lie. Only Derf knows the truth.

Last, be careful about making "the World War II expanded the ecomomy" argument.

I didn't make that argument. Krugman did.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Jim and Rick,

You've proven you can quote anyone out of context to try and grind your ideological axes.

Last, be careful about making "the World War II expanded the ecomomy" argument.

"The economy began expanding in 1933"


Could you say something of substance?

(Emoticon Free Zone)

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/4/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
You make it tough, Derf. It's honestly difficult to figure out what the context is supposed to be.

I mean without credible reference, you dismiss 60 years of economic thinking and teaching out of hand, calling it juvenile, and then say we have an issue with context?

Generally bold claims require bold evidence. Yet I haven't seen any real evidence presented.

But even more discouraging is the personal stuff. It just establishes that the only thing being accomplished here is a shouting match.

You insult people based on your high-horsed 'knowledge' of Keynes and Keynesian theory, but then later dismiss the plain opinion of probably the world's foremost (or at least best known) Keynesian economist as 'juvenile' and misguided...

In spite of the fact that Krugman's 'juvenile' statement by itself corresponds perfectly with Keynesian theory.

Now I wouldn't go so far as to say "Please be informed before you speak" but a little courtesy would go a long way.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/4/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
I wouldn't mind if you answered the question I posted last night, Rick.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Rick - Are you saying, in the simplest terms, that there currently aren't enough things for consumers to purchase?

No, I'm saying there aren't enough things that we produce for consumers to purchase. Economies function much better when they don't outsource most their supply. A retail economy, like we see today, isn't sustainable. At least not at the standard of living we're used to.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Wait a minute here, Rick. Let's look back on this thread.

Seems we've got some American Exceptionalists on our hands all the sudden.

Sleazoid Politics 101. Some people would call that success, though I guess.

Steve to say we should give Obama time to see if it works out defies common sense.

One doesn't need to sit back and deliberate, tapping finger on chin to know what happens when you pour gas on fire. What Obama's trying has been tried before. It has failed and will fail because somethin' for nothin' never works.

Obama's mentor Jimmuh was a recent (American) example.

Wait, I'm confused. Are you actually referring to "The Great Society" as some kind of success? I thought you were being sarcastic

But then, just like now, you expect that following up with even more reckless policy will make it better. I guess just cuz there's a (D) next to someone's name.


This is about a minute of cutting and pasting from this thread alone. And you're telling me to be courteous? You ooze disrespect, discourtesy, and sarcasm and then cry "foul" when you're slammed? And the only thing being slammed is your inability to see any relevance in anything outside your narrow perspective.

And then

I mean without credible reference, you dismiss 60 years of economic thinking and teaching out of hand, calling it juvenile, and then say we have an issue with context?

I don't think I'm the one generally dismissive of economic and historic thinking and teaching. Think about it.

You . . . dismiss the plain opinion of probably the world's foremost (or at least best known) Keynesian economist as 'juvenile' and misguided...

No-I did not dismiss his opinion. I dismissed as juvenile and misguided your misrepresentation and misuse of his thought to suit your own purposes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Oh, let little Ricky play the injured party.

It makes him feel better.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Derf, first there's a degree of separation between what's said about politics and political figures and what's said to a member of your community. It seems it would be tough to maintain any objectivity while emotionally invested in a person you've never met, and likely will never meet. Maybe that's what Levi was trying to get at.

And for the record, I could care less how insulting you get with me personally. As I've said, it doesn't help your argument, it hurts it, so it doesn't bother me. I was actually more surprised by your out-of-left-field treatment of others.

As to the debate, you always seem to rely on your own definitive statements as self supporting, while in reality the only support you have (or at least show) is your own opinion. For example

The idea that World War II ended the Great Depression in the United States is one of the great myths of history and an incredibly over-simplified understanding of economics and history--like something we would learn in 3rd grade.

I'm going to stick by what I said: it's juvenile to say that World War II ended the Great Depression in the United States other than to say it in terms of this followed the other in sequence of major events.

Then you said I dismissed as juvenile and misguided your misrepresentation and misuse of his thought to suit your own purposes.

Krugman's own words.

But economics isn't a morality play, in which evil deeds are always punished and good deeds rewarded.

The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we're spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Yes, there would be infinitely better ways to spend the money. But at a time when a shortfall of demand is the problem, the Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.


Please rather than just tell me I'm taking his words out of context, demonstrate how so. Krugman plainly says WWII ended the depression, and that war has a Keynesian (short term) effect on the economy.

The only explanation I can find for your "out of context" dismissal is you take "out of context" to mean anything that doesn't support your opinion.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Derf said: "The economy began expanding in 1933 and had nearly doubled in size by 1940. Technically, a recession/depression ends when the economy begins to expand."

By your own stated definition of the end of a recession/depression, the "Great Depression" was over in 1933. If this is the case, then Roosevelt couldn't have had anything to do with being the savior, because he wasn't sworn in until March 20, 1933. If I had a nickel for every time I've read or heard statements about how "no President can fix things immediately" in the last 80 days, I'd be sitting on a beach somewhere instead of having to point out that you can't have it both ways. You need to stop believing in the myths of salvation which have been promulgated by the Democrats for 80 years. If the Depression was "over" in 1933, then give credit to the free market. Hoover sold his soul at the end by raising taxes and creating the RFC, which jump-started the "New Deal".

The reason the recovery dragged on at a snails pace for nearly 10 years was because of Roosevelt instituting more massive government interference. The Conservative position has always been that Roosevelt's policies and programs were failures which extended the misery until WWII and perhaps beyond. By your own statement, you provided the context for arguing that to be true.

Obama and the Democrats (with a jump-start from the pseudo-Conservative, Bush) are now engaged in doing the same thing all over again and the result will be the same; more misery and more enslavement to government. With the massive debt being incurred, this time it will extend for generations to come.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Rickster,

There are any number of sources available that support my contention that the depression was from 1929 to 1933. Everything after that was recovery. Many can be found online. Do a search and read. Yes, there are opposing points of view. Avoid the temptation to find the first one that supports your point of view and then post the url on this thread. I'm already aware they are there. It won't prove you "right" or me "wrong."

As to the quote from Krugman, I don't think that a throwaway line in a blog proves that "World War II ended the great depression." The "quote" is found in a hundred and fifty or so word argument attempting to prove that our current economic difficulties are cause by the bursting housing bubble and not the Iraq war. Wouldn't you think someone should be in a discussion somewhere on the same page as you before you try to make what they are saying authoritative?

The context is important. Would he disagree with this statement? "World War II ended the high unemployment cause by the depression of 1929-1932 (and the mini-depression of 1937) and returned the US to full employment." I seriously doubt it. Why don't we post the question on his blog and see what he says?

Oh, and you pulled a large quote from his blog to try and make your point. And I love the sentence you left out-cutting in mid paragraph. Just to be clear: I yield to nobody in my outrage over the way we were lied into a disastrous, unnecessary war.

I think that shows exactly the issue I have with ideologues. You pick and choose to suit your own point of view. We're really not talking about when the depression ended (they were all called depressions until the Great Depression). You were basically making your tired argument that liberals are evil sleaze bags and no one of a left of center persuasion ever did anything good. And you'll do whatever it takes, from misquote to manipulate to insult to rely on sound bytes to practice revisionism to prove it. You absolutely refuse to see any validity in a point of view that differs from yours. Don't think I'm picking on conservatives. I've found the far left to be nuttier than the far right. It's like believing "I'm always right and everyone else is always wrong." That attitude is always nonsensical.

Yes, I said it-which leads me to my final point to answer your first. I see no difference in saying "People who think like you are idiots. People whole look like you, act like you, feel like you, behave like you, are all idiots. Even people who have your values and associate with people like you are idiots." And "You're an idiot." They are exactly the same. Don't try and gussy it up and say you're "maintaining distance and objectivity". You're being insulting, period.

I'd better quit. Ideologue II (Jim Brady) is knocking on the door.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
I just love watching Rick use Krugman to defend one of his points. No matter what else you accomplish Derf, that alone is a sweet, sweet success.

You will never convince conservatives that FDR did anything positive in regards to the Great Depression. It wasn't until we adopted a command and control economy (the war footing) that the depression ended. The irony of this is completely lost on FDR deniers.

In other words - they're arguing that FDR wasn't socialist enough.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (4/6/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Another fellow traveler on the "Obama's comming fer muh guns"-express:
http://littlegreenfootbal...Stormfront
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Given this tragic situation, wouldn't it behoove the President to reassure the people as to what his plans truly are...?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Nice try, Ricardo.

Maybe it would be better if your morbidly obese, Oxy-Contin abusing hero Mr. Limbaugh and those of his ilk would tone it down a notch.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/6/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Jimbo,

If I wished, and if I decided to use your convoluted methodology, I could prove that the mere election of FDR ended the recession/depression. I could probably even twist your own words to suit my purposes. You stated that FDR was sworn in to office in March of 1933. Everyone knows the economy bottomed out in the spring of 1933. As a matter of fact, you agree with that. The mere election of a liberal president in November of 1932, the transition from one government to the other in the following months, and the mere inaugural and a liberal living in the White House all acted together to stem the economic downturn. If I wanted to argue from ideology alone and live out in the fringes with some other folks who will remain unnamed, I could do that.

As always, things are probably a little more complicated than that. While the economy was expanding through much of the 30's, all the social upheaval of the time had long ranging consequences. A changing money supply, removal of the gold standard, social, economic, financial, and employment federal programs, the gathering war in Europe, re-arming and industrialization of the fascist and imperialist governments, and increasing armament sales all worked together to expand the economy. Yes, even the free market helped. Industries and agriculture recovered. But the major problem was how to literally start over with an economy less than half the size of what it was before and 25 to 35 percent unemployment and millions of displaced working and rural people. Not everything worked. Many programs failed miserably. And the large unemployed and displaced population didn't go mostly away until we were fully engaged in World War II. But as a whole, my spin is that the administration did well in dealing with the effects of the recession/depression.

I kind of want to say "it would be nice if everything was as black and white as you want it to be." But on second thought, I don't think I'd be able to live in a world as clear-cut as all that. I couldn't live there because the world has never been as clear-cut as all that.

And while I appreciate your advice to stop believing in the myths of salvation which have been promulgated by the Democrats., I'm living quite well by a different salvation myth, thank you.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/6/2009)]
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Derf, Welcome to the twisted world of Rick and Richard; where fact and logic have no foothold. and, where its far better to complain than to contribute.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I just love watching Rick use Krugman to defend one of his points. No matter what else you accomplish Derf, that alone is a sweet, sweet success.

Not sure I was given much of a choice.

And try to use a source other than The Heritage Foundation or Neil Cavuto to back up your statements.

So it's not difficult enough to worry about whether someone's ideas came from the right side of the tracks in the first place, now we have to contend with the Derfernican Model of debate... Where the truth or context of any reference from anywhere is itself subject to whether Derf agrees with the premise.

Found another full-on Krugman op-ed example for you, just so you can't discount it as a lowly blog post.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...ugman.html
Well, the Great Depression did eventually come to an end, but that was thanks to an enormous war, something we'd rather not emulate.

But unfortunately, since Krugman again made no statement or footnote
"This article is intended as a direct repudiation of the Derfernican Theory... ie that FDR ended the Depression in 1933 right before he took the oath of office."

We can be certain this one will be dismissed as "Out of Context" as well. Suffice it to say, if I am an ideologue, then I feel like I'm just getting my 101 level course from the Master.

Yes, there are opposing points of view... I'm already aware they are there. It won't prove you "right" or me "wrong."

I'd say that's a moderate step down from "did U larn that N thrid grad histery?" or "Please be informed before you speak"

I guess I can accept "reasonable people can disagree" a little more readily.

I'm still having trouble finding any reputable economist-type who dates the Great Depression as having ended in 1933. References would still be appreciated.

If I wished, and if I decided to use your convoluted methodology, I could prove that the mere election of FDR ended the recession/depression.
Or he could use his own tried and true instead. Say "It is So, and if you doubt me, look it up on the Internets."

(Just don't quote Neil Cavuto, or anyone who disagrees with him)
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Remember Rick you're arguing with the "FDR is God" crowd. Just like with Obama don't mess with their Messiah.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
I note that the rest of my post stands uncontested.

FDR: Not Communist Enough!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Kyle, I can guarandamtee you that poster was not created by a fan of Obama's. I have to hand it to the Right-Wing crowd: You guysa are the best when it comes to generating propoganda - whether it be for your guys or against ours. Kudos to you! (domestic, of course)
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Bridgier, I'd say it resembled Fascism more than Communism. But whether it 'fixed' the economy is an open question.

I think the classical or maybe Friedmanist??? view of economics would probably say the war altered the economy in such a way that reasonable comparisons to peacetime would be tough.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Um, Ricky....

HITLER WAS THE FASCIST, YOU STUPID MF

Please quit making stuff up.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"Derf, Welcome to the twisted world of Rick and Richard; where fact and logic have no foothold. and, where its far better to complain than to contribute."

Doesn't this forum already have enough people who think like you do?

I am not complaining. I simply think that the president should state his intentions with regard to guns.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Doesn't this forum already have enough people who think like you do?

-----------

Ricardo, that's an ignorant statement, even for you.

Everyone's an individual, not many people think alike...except perhaps for dittoheads like you. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Well Bob, I know for sure that there is no one at MC.com who thinks like I do.

What is Rush saying these days? It has been a month or so since I last listened.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Let's see

Bridgier
FDR: Not Communist Enough!!!

Me
I'd say it resembled Fascism more than Communism .

Batman
HITLER WAS THE FASCIST, YOU STUPID MF

But I guess Stalin would've been ok? You team players confuse me.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Is that because they didn't post a link so you could check their sources?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Someone's gotta look out for those "Conservative Estimates"
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Kyle, that Obamessiah site reminded me...

http://swampland.blogs.ti...ts_humble/
"This guy was president before I was," says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: "This guy was God before I was."

Wonder if he gave God an ipod loaded with a photobiography and a select collection of his finest oratory.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/6/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Wonder if he gave God an ipod loaded with a photobiography and a select collection of his finest oratory

I don't think he could fit the teleprompter in there.



Although that teleprompter looks an awfully lot like an iPod.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Rick,

I like this one as well.

Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Well at least Obama unveiled an actual tangible plan on Saturday Night.

http://www.hulu.com/watch...l-address#
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
You know.. the teleprompter bit is moving into BDS territory - particularly since it was St. Ronnie the Immaculate who pioneered their usage. I've actually seen the man live, sans teleprompter, and he can orate quite well.

I can't believe I got pulled into this conversation to defend Obama's speaking ability to people who voted for a somewhat loquacious chimpanzee. I must admit, you guys are good at this.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
You know.. the teleprompter bit is moving into BDS territory

Bridgier, that may be but considering that Obama gives us so much material with which to work from it's kind of hard not to comment on his well documented troubles with impromptu speech.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
There were several points when this thread was dangerously close to an exchange of thought.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Richard, how's the experiment going? Do you think the President should make his thoughts known in reference to guns?
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 12 years ago
"There were several points when this thread was dangerously close to an exchange of thought."

Derf, you noticed that? It is funny how when people get their ass kicked in a debate they say something quasi- funny, put a smiley face nest to there last sentence and return to badgering teenagers over the spelling instead of admitting they are wrong and learning a lesson from the exercise.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Kyle & Rick: I think you have BO's TelePrompTer all wrong. I think he is using the model that looks like this:




I think it says "Yes, we ban".
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"Richard, how's the experiment going? Do you think the President should make his thoughts known in reference to guns?"

The experiment is going well.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
OK, Ricardo, here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say there was a deranged individual in Wyoming who believed that Obama was a Muslim pirate.

Would it be incumbent on President Obama to declare that he is not a Muslim pirate?

If he made this declaration, would the deranged individual from Wyoming believe him?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Well Documented = Fevered Wingnut Fantasy. Got it.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Bob--

The answer is probably "no" to both of your questions. More likely "no" to the second.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I'm still having trouble finding any reputable economist-type who dates the Great Depression as having ended in 1933. References would still be appreciated.

Let's keep it simple, Rick. In the back of your thrid grad classroom was a big ol' book called a dictionary. This is what it says:

GREAT DEPRESSION (finance definition)
A period that began with the stock market crash in October 1929 that turned into a worldwide economic collapse. Real gross national product in the U.S. declined from October 1929 until March 1933 by 24 percent. A large number of banks and businesses failed, which added to the malaise. International trade also declined sharply as countries passed trade protectionist legislation. WHEN RECOVERY BEGAN, it failed to make up the earlier losses and the EFFECTS OF THE DEPRESSION continued until World War II began in 1939. During the 1929 to 1933 period, unemployment was above 20 percent.
http://www.yourdictionary...depression

RECESSION
A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.
http://www.investorwords....ssion.html

DEPRESSION
A period during which business activity drops significantly. High unemployment rates and deflation often accompany a depression.
http://www.investorwords....ssion.html

GDP IN THE UNITED STATES (in billions of dollars)
1929-103.6
1930-91.2
1931-76.5
1932-58.7
1933-56.4
1934-66.0
1935-73.3
1936-83.8
1937-91.9
1938-86.1
1939-92.2
1940-101.4
1941-126.7
http://www.bea.gov/nation...gal=&Land=

There's your evidence. Now put it all together.

One other site that might be handy for you is found here http://www.coloring.ws/connect.html

I'm sticking with my original statement: The economy began expanding in 1933 and had nearly doubled in size by 1940. (There was another smaller recession in 1937-38) Technically, a recession/depression ends when the economy begins to expand. The term "Great Depression" is a historical phrase that is used to describe an era (Vietnam War Era, Reconstruction, Industrial Revolution, etc.) and not meant to be as descriptive as the calendar.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/7/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
"Facts schmacts. You can prove anything with facts" - Homer Simpson
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Derf it was never really my intention to get into a pissin contest with someone on the difference between a bad recession and a depression. Depression is not a cut and dried economic term, but for a couple reasons, I think most people legitimately define it the way Krugman does.

Look at the meaning of the word depression itself. Think of say the grand canyon as a 'depression.' Would it be legitimate to climb to the bottom of the canyon, then climb up 5 feet from the bottom and say you are out of the 'depression?'

A depression is generally understood to be a low area, not a low point. It applies economically as well. Using your definition, after losing your house, finding a cardboard box to sleep in would have to be considered your personal Depression's end, regardless of how insignificant the progress.

Because of this, most people understand Depression not as a measure of normal to bottom, but of normal to normal. Or something resembling normal. This is how most economists look at it as well. It's why they look at things like unemployment and wages to determine whether 'normal' has really returned.

Normally the left-leaners harp most often on unemployment figures and wages as the biggest signals of economic health, yet now you argue they're just meaningless lagging indicators.

But all this is a distraction from the main point... you basically called someone retarded for saying what most economists believe, that the "Great Depression" lasted at least a decade. Now you're shifting to defend whether your own interpretation is rational. It's a meaningless argument.

So just to let bygones be bygones, we'll just go with your assumption. FDR was handed a recovering non-depressed economy in 1933 and with massive and unprecedented government interventions, managed to drive it off another cliff just a few years later in 1937, marking him as likely the most dismal economic failure in American History
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
This has all be VERY educational. A lot of words have been written, and many exchanges have occurred. But something still tells me that (forgive me Cool Hand) what we have here is a failure to communicate.

So, if I was school teacher and you boys were in my class, I'd require you to sit on opposite sides of the classroom and not say another word until recess, during which time I'd make you both play hopscotch with the girls until you promised to get along!
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 12 years ago
As a "Depression" baby I know a little of the subject. If you know any old timers or have elderly relatives ask them if they think the depression ended in our part of the country in 1933?
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Yes, Rick, and there's an Easter Bunny, too.

Steve: "Mr. Craddock, Mr. Craddock! Rick cheated at hopscotch! He only jumped on the squares on the right! He said all the center and left ones had cooties!"

The Great Depression, Ike, or the depression?

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/7/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
This whole thread has depressed me.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
See you at Sunrise Service, Wendy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I don't know. I hopped on the Krugman square quite a few times. Haven't seen you touch the Cavuto or Heritage squares yet though.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Derf: Of COURSE Rick only jumped on the squares on the right. There's no way he would be caught dead anywhere left of center.

As for Wendy, I'm sure she'll be watching the sunrise from the reserved seating section of the Tabernacle of Our Main Man of the Great Salt Lake listening to a Holy Choir of Heavenly Eunuchs (or the next best thing - hundreds of boys whose testicles haven't yet dropped).
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I'm forced to hop on the Cavuto sqare everyday at the Centra. I have to do something to raise my heartrate. As to the Heritage Foundation, that's in the ten foot pole department. I'd really need my cootie shot then.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Derf it was never really my intention to get into a pissin contest with someone on the difference between a bad recession and a depression. Depression is not a cut and dried economic term, but for a couple reasons, I think most people legitimately define it the way Krugman does.

Look at the meaning of the word depression itself. Think of say the grand canyon as a 'depression.' Would it be legitimate to climb to the bottom of the canyon, then climb up 5 feet from the bottom and say you are out of the 'depression?'

A depression is generally understood to be a low area, not a low point. It applies economically as well. Using your definition, after losing your house, finding a cardboard box to sleep in would have to be considered your personal Depression's end, regardless of how insignificant the progress.

Because of this, most people understand Depression not as a measure of normal to bottom, but of normal to normal. Or something resembling normal. This is how most economists look at it as well. It's why they look at things like unemployment and wages to determine whether 'normal' has really returned.

Normally the left-leaners harp most often on unemployment figures and wages as the biggest signals of economic health, yet now you argue they're just meaningless lagging indicators.

But all this is a distraction from the main point... you basically called someone retarded for saying what most economists believe, that the "Great Depression" lasted at least a decade. Now you're shifting to defend whether your own interpretation is rational. It's a meaningless argument.

So just to let bygones be bygones, we'll just go with your assumption. FDR was handed a recovering non-depressed economy in 1933 and with massive and unprecedented government interventions, managed to drive it off another cliff just a few years later in 1937, marking him as likely the most dismal economic failure in American History

--------------


Wow. That's a lot of words just to say, "Rick is wrong, Derf is right."
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"OK, Ricardo, here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say there was a deranged individual in Wyoming who believed that Obama was a Muslim pirate.

Would it be incumbent on President Obama to declare that he is not a Muslim pirate?

If he made this declaration, would the deranged individual from Wyoming believe him?"

Sorry Bob, I am not going to engage in "hypotheticals". Especially, since there are real people, who really believe that Obama wants to take away everyones guns. And one real individual use a real gun to kill real people who really died. Yes, such behavior is really irrational. Thus, President Obama ought to look deep into his TelePrompTer and make a real public statement on the issue. I know I am asking for a lot since this guy won't even make his birth certificate available.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I'm getting the distinct impression that Richard really did want this thread to be about the Second Amendment.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
OK, Ricardo, I'll make it a real-life question rather than a hypothetical:

There is an individual named Richard Bonine, Jr. who believes that Obama is a Muslim pirate.

Is it incumbent upon President Obama to declare that he is not a Muslim pirate?

If President Obama made this declaration, would Richard Bonine, Jr. believe him?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Then
World War II ended the Great Depression? In the United States? did U larn that N thrid grad histery?

Again
The idea that World War II ended the Great Depression in the United States is one of the great myths of history and an incredibly over-simplified understanding of economics and history--like something we would learn in 3rd grade.

Now
The Great Depression, Ike, or the depression?

It's not possible to win an argument that changes every time it comes up.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
I think we should re-name all of those right wing-nuts who listen to Rush and Hannity the "Parrot-Heads" because they don't seem to use any rational thought when thinking of politics, and just parrot the rantings of some guys hopped up on Oxycontin that are hoping that the U.S. fails so they can try to drive us into another Civil War or something.....

Here's an interesting clip from the Rush show, where a Republican caller finally calls a spade a spade:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...8IBYQ4YUWE

On another note, BUSH drove the economy to it's knees.

http://www.bushwatch.com/economy.htm

Even after Obama was elected, George W. Bush was still signing Bills to try to drain the U.S. Treasury of it's last few cents so that Obama would have nothing to work with. So of course there is no immediate turnaround in LESS THAN 100 DAYS. If someone at your company embezzled most of the money and skipped out with it, do you think everything would be fine in anything under 3 or 4 years?

You Parrot Heads just don't get it (even Jimmy Buffet's Fans don't parrot his every move, so I am appropriating the term).

It sounds like you would love to see the U.S. driven into a Civil War along with Rush and Hannity, who are doing the best to make it fail.(the wing nuts against everyone else-is that why you are stocking up on guns?) However, I am sure that not everyone in your family would be on your side (brother against brother, father against son). Is that really what you WANT? Is that why you are joining Rush Limbaugh in trying to divide the nation, to try to MAKE it fail?

God Help Us All.....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
From the clip:

Fat Rush: "...you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has."

Ricardo, El Rushbo stole that line from you!



Wait a minute....

Ricardo, do you ever have an original thought?
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Cheryl: I know several Parrotheads. Lots of Parrotheads are friends of mine. And Rush and Hannity followers are no Parrotheads.

So, in respect to loyal Jimmy Buffet fans everywhere, can we call Rush and Hannity followers "Dodoheads" instead?

Besides, I seem to recall in the early days of Rush his acolytes were referred to as "dittoheads" - so Dodoheads has a nice homographic element to it. (let them look it up )

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (4/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Jimmy Buffay sucks.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
It's not possible to win an argument that changes every time it comes up.

Holy nitwit! It WAS a joke. Not all humor has to be explained with an emoticon. Besides, there's not one for "I'm being serious as a heart attack right here and now."

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/8/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
From the clip:

Fat Rush: "...you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has."


I think I might go skiing in hell soon. Bob L. listening to Rush Limbaugh? What's next, Bridgier quoting Sean Hannity?

Bob, are you feeling ok? Nothing's wrong is it?

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Kyle:

In this case, I was listening to a clip posted here by Cheryl.

But I do listen to Rush occasionally, just as I sometimes watch Faux News.

Unlike some people here, *cough* RICARDO *cough*, I see Rush as an entertainer. Not someone to parrot incessantly and model my existence after.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
I too, have known and loved some Jimmy Buffet Fans, although not the kind that seriously refer to themselves as Parrotheads. However, I defer to your wishes.....

Dodo Heads it is, although I don't believe even the Dodos were stupid enough to base their whole existence on parroting the ravings of egomaniacal, drug addicted, hateful madmen (I actually think that term "brainwashed nazi" is dead on-that man is my hero!).....plus, these Dodoheads are angling towards making EVERYONE extinct, not just themselves.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Hows about "Palindrones".
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 12 years ago
Mr. Bergman,
May I suggest you go below and read the "HIGHLY EDUCATED" thread. See if any of the comments might apply to you. Seems it is one of the few threads you have not hi-jacked. Ike
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Speaking of...........
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
mr. eichler,

huh?

Derf

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (4/8/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Richard,

Do you still want to discuss the pros and cons of gun control?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
As a "Depression" baby I know a little of the subject. If you know any old timers or have elderly relatives ask them if they think the depression ended in our part of the country in 1933?

The Great Depression, Ike, or the depression?


Oh, haha, I get it. I think?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Hey, Ike, old buddy!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/9/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"OK, Ricardo, I'll make it a real-life question rather than a hypothetical:

There is an individual named Richard Bonine, Jr. who believes that Obama is a Muslim pirate.

Is it incumbent upon President Obama to declare that he is not a Muslim pirate?

If President Obama made this declaration, would Richard Bonine, Jr. believe him?"

Let me answer that question this way:

There was a guy named Bob L who died and went to heaven and met St Peter at the gates. On a wall just inside the gates were millions of clocks. Bob L asked St Peter what all the clocks were for, to which St Peter replied "these are lie clocks". Every time someone lies the hands on their clock move.

So Bob L points to a clock whose hands haven't moved at all and asks "who clock is that? "Oh, that is mother Theresa's, she has never told a lie" St. Peter says. "And whose is this that has just moved a little", asks Bob L. "Why that is Abraham Lincoln's clock. He only told two lies in his entire life." replied St. Peter.

Then Bob L asks "where is Barrack Obama's clock"? St. Peter replied "Oh his clock is in Jesus' office and he is using it as a ceiling fan".
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
I think that's your answer Derf.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Meanwhile real pirates are holding American hostages. The question is who side is B.O. on? How are you so sure?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
He's your Commander in Chief, Ricardo.

He's on our side.

That's how it works.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"It sounds like you would love to see the U.S. driven into a Civil War along with Rush and Hannity, who are doing the best to make it fail.(the wing nuts against everyone else-is that why you are stocking up on guns?) However, I am sure that not everyone in your family would be on your side (brother against brother, father against son). Is that really what you WANT? Is that why you are joining Rush Limbaugh in trying to divide the nation, to try to MAKE it fail?"

Cheryl: Remind me again how you liberals have been so supportive of President Bush and how you wanted to see him succeed over the last eight years? Remind me again how liberals have been such great uniters over the last eight years? In case you have forgotten 46% of the country voted against Barrack Obama last November.

I support the president, not his policies. Given what the current office holder is attempting to do to the country, you are darned right I want him to fail. The less he does, the better off we will be.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
I support the president, not his policies. Given what the current office holder is attempting to do to the country, you are darned right I want him to fail. The less he does, the better off we will be.

------

You got that from Rush, didn't you?

Megadittos, Ricardo!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/9/2009)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
"I support the President, I just don't support all of his policies"

Parrothead....ummm I mean Dodo Head. That quote comes directly from Rush Limbaugh. Like I said, these people never think for themselves or have an original thought. It's like they all stand there saluting (and Parroting) "Heil Limbaugh!"

Here is a whole Google Sarch for that quote: 62 MILLION Hits of that exact phrase, parroted my a legion of DoDo Heads that can't think for themselves.

http://www.google.com/sea...tnG=Search

Nice Biography on this man you parrot: 3 Failed Marriages, Closet Homosexual, Draft Dodger. Drug Addict. Liar. Your hero. Glad you parrot such an upstanding man.

http://pssht.com/biograph...baugh.html

"Political commentator, radio host, college drop-out, alleged
closet homosexual, and, as recently revealed, synthetic heroin
drug addict, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III is probably the best
known neocon personality in American radio.

Born in Cape Girardeau, MO, in 1951, Limbaugh spent many of
his formative years pursuing a career in radio.

After using his pilonidal cyst - a congenital birth defect - to
avoid military service in the Vietnam War, Limbaugh briefly
worked for radio stations in Pittsburgh, PA and Kansas City,
MO. Fired from both jobs, he worked as a wiener salesman for
the KC Royals baseball franchise, eventually slithering back into
the radio business.

In 1971 Limbaugh attended Southeastern Missouri University,
where, according to reports, he had a brief but heated affair
with Elliot Sanders. So gay is Limbaugh, guarantees Sanders,
that, "none of his marriages was ever consummated."

Many of Limbaugh's fans staunchly deny the man's alleged
homosexuality, and Limbaugh himself says the rumors are
politically motivated lies. However, one is forced to doubt
Limbaugh, who has a history of denying and balking at rumors
that are later revealed to be true. His pilonidal cyst, his
pseudonymous career in Pittsburgh radio, and his addiction to
Oxycontin are all facts which Limbaugh initially denied or
concealed.

After more failed stints with Missouri radio stations Limbaugh
moved to Sacramento, CA, where he met and became "friends"
with Norm Woodruff, a flamboyant, openly gay man with a
great deal of influence in the local radio scene. Woodruff, who
mentored Limbaugh in the ways of affluence and elitism (traits
Rush mocks today), would later died of AIDS."
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Ricardo Quote:

"I am not complaining. I simply think that the president should state his intentions with regard to guns."

---------------------------------------

What good would that do, since guys like you (and that other deranged Poplawski guy) wouldn't believe Obama's stated intentions?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
"Meanwhile real pirates are holding American hostages. The question is who side is B.O. on? How are you so sure?"

C'mon Richard... do you REALLY think that the President of the United States is secretly pulling for a bunch of Somalian thugs? Do you REALLY think that?
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that he is a homosexual. I do have a problem with the fact that he is such a hypocrite. Obviously, this man has nothing to lose if he starts a Civil War-no children, no family. He's just a miserable man and unfortunately, you follow him and spew his hate-filled rants.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Meanwhile real pirates are holding American hostages. The question is who side is B.O. on? How are you so sure?

Meanwhile, really bizarre thinking is holding Richard's mind hostage.

Richard, what is your position on the lobbying activities of the BCPGV and the NRA and what, if anything, should be done to curtail either group's efforts?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
...the fact that he is a homosexual.

Really Cheryl? Sources?

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/9/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"C'mon Richard... do you REALLY think that the President of the United States is secretly pulling for a bunch of Somalian thugs? Do you REALLY think that?"

When asked about the pirate situation the President responded " Umm... guys we are talking about housing right now".

I don't know what to think because the President is using thug-like silence-violence communication tactics. "The phone" has rung at 3 am and he has sent the "caller" to voice-mail. We need a leader, not a community agitator.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Rush Limbaugh has a following because he articulates what so many conservatives would say if they had the opportunity that he has.

I find it ironic that you want to start verbal war over who is copying whom, calling people "parrots" etc, rather than deal with the truth of the statements that are made. Does Rush believe that Obama is a "pirate"? Seems like that idea is pretty original with little ol me.

As I have said before, I have not listen to Rush in over a month. I have little idea what he is talking about. Frankly, I quit listening because his constant rant about what Obama was doing or going to do was rather depressing. I am trying to make changes in my life that result in a larger sense of personal satisfaction.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
"I don't know what to think because the President is using thug-like silence-violence communication tactics. "The phone" has rung at 3 am and he has sent the "caller" to voice-mail. We need a leader, not a community agitator."

Are you on some sort of meds?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Ricardo's becoming unhinged. Epic meltdown.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/9/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
We've already talked about depression on this thread. Let's try and stay on task. Should Captain Hook be forced to apply for a permit to carry a concealed blunderbuss?
Top
supporter
Posted by dcjdinmn (+332) 12 years ago
Cheryl, you sound like just another ditto/parrot head of a different color. I should do a search on Barney Frank, copy some text and customize it for a nice Barney Roast. Oh crap, better not do that, if I did too deep I'll probably find a hidden Limbaugh romance.

I love that face!
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
I hate to mention the name.........but it occurs to me that many posters on mc.com are basically Rob Shipley - with a little more restraint.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
I hate to mention the name.........but it occurs to me that many posters on mc.com are basically Rob Shipley - with a little more restraint.

Not nearly enough SCREAMING, ellipses and superfluous exclamation points, Bob.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
That's what I mean.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
Is Barney Frank a hypocrite? I only see the words "openly gay" attached to anything regarding him. So I am just fine with that.

Do I have to do all of the work here?

Just Google "Rush Limbaugh Gay".

Here are the top 3 hits (of more than 1.4 million):

#1--In his "Jeff Christie" phase of his career, Rush Limbaugh worked under an assumed identity, as do many self-loathing, closeted homosexuals. After being arrested for soliciting a gay man in Pittsburgh (on a street well known for being the place to pick up gay prostitutes, just in case Rush wants to claim it was a mistake), Limbaugh was fired from KQV radio, according to numerous sources. (Google Jeff Christie for pictures and decide for yourself if that is Rush).

#2--Why does Rush hang out in Gay bars? Rush used to go drinking at gay bars in in CA. Mind you, I do know that some open-minded people who are not gay go drinking with friends at gay bars. Rush has never struck me as an open-minded person.

#3--Rush has a history of hiring Male Prostitutes

http://www.americanpoliti...tters.html

.....In spite of the sexual preference of his mentor (an openly Gay man), and in spite of having socialized with gay people in the past, Rush has spared no effort to trash "the gay agenda" on his program. He has been especially nasty to Rep. Barny Frank.

Extremely homophobic people are usually suspect - many people say "why doest thou protest so much", as in "maybe you see that tendency in yourself and this is a form of denial"? Otherwise, what is the big deal?...

.......Hypocrite.

I actually have some Heroes that are (or were) Openly Gay.

I try not to have any that are huge Hypocrites.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
#3--Rush has a history of hiring Male Prostitutes.

Do I have to do all of the work here?


When making statements/accusations like the one above Cheryl, yes you do. I'm not the one trying to prove something.

Sources please.


I'm not saying that he's gay or not gay, I could care less if he is. I'd just like to see where your sources are.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/9/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Kyle:

I bet Ricardo cares.

Ricardo doesn't like the homosexuals.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
Apparently Rick does like some homosexuals. He parrots Rush's every word.

On the "educational" front, I found this interesting about Rush:

"Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...#Education

I doubt Rush even understands any of Obama' s Policies.

As to Kyle's request-I have provided links - and not even the "difficult" kind where you have to copy and paste. How much easier can I make it for you to check my sources?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
You have provided second-hand sources Cheryl.

When you shorten the http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html link to http://pssht.com you get a non-existent website.

Also from the "#3--Rush has a history of hiring Male Prostitutes." link when you see this at the very header on the page:



Is it really all that unobjectionable?

Again, provide me with some primary sources like CNN, ABC and I might be able to give some credibility to your claims.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/10/2009)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
Do you seriously think that would be Headline News for CNN or ABC? With all of the things going on in this world, would they really even CARE? I think FOX News is the only one that would consider this information worth their while.....
Top
Posted by Toni Campbell Tivy (+143) 12 years ago
"Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class."


A College Class on Ballroom Dancing? I'm sure that would give him a lot of insight into American Politics (if he had passed).
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I urge participants in this thread to proceed with extreme caution. A conversation that mentions "sexual preference" and "ballroom dance" in the same breath is dangerously close to politically incorrect.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Wow! I am supposed to take the world of "Pssht.com" (the title alone which reeks of rumor and innuendo) and some dude named "agent orange"???

Seems like given the number of times Rush has been in the news the last few weeks (Michael Steele controversy for one example) and the bias in the media toward Obama as the fair-haired man-child that if this were true, such information would be common knowledge and he would have been "Borked", "Craiged" and thrown into the ash heap of history.

Cheryl, aren't you the person who had conversations with an "angel" and wrote a book about it?

And you leftist think I am "unhinged"??? Please.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 12 years ago
Seems to me that the evidence presented in this thread is rather clear cut that Rush Limbaugh is a fudge packer.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. It is an honorable profession (see Jokes 2009 thread).....much more honorable than conservative talk show radio host.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 12 years ago
Nope, not me. Never met an angel or written a book. I guess your memory is going south, Richard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
Must be the other Cheryl - the one that doesn't believe in fossil fuels - another nut under the right-wing pecan tree.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Must be the other Cheryl - the one that doesn't believe in fossil fuels - another nut under the right-wing pecan tree

That's nice Buck. So a woman who believes she saw an angel is automatically branded a "Right Wing Nut"? I know plenty of people on the left who've seen angels.



Or at least their version of a messiah.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 12 years ago
Where do you guys come up with this crap? I know a lot of people who like Obama. I even know a few who claim to love him. But the ONLY people who push images of him as a saviour or messiah are wing-nut types. I expected better of you Kyle - though I'm starting to wonder why.

When are you going to accept that fact that Obama is the duly-elected POTUS? You've got FOUR MORE YEARS. They're going to be very long ones if you don't stop all this bitchin' and moanin'. Snap out of it!
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
When are you going to accept that fact that Obama is the duly-elected POTUS? You've got FOUR MORE YEARS. They're going to be very long ones if you don't stop all this bitchin' and moanin'

Oh Steve I know he's got 4 more years to go until he's shown the door but that's what's going to make the next few years be so much fun. After all every day he's in office means he provides me with so much material to work with here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
If that's your material, you'll be booed off stage.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Far worse (i.e. less capable and competent) presidents have been elected to two terms, Kyle. Or have you forgotten so soon?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Oh I know Brian. The most recent person to violate this creed:

"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof." - John Adams

Was shown the door in January.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Okay, Kyle.

I take it that you were not a W fan. If this is true, are you saying that you would rather have a person who represents more or less an extension of his Administration or someone who represents a clear break from it?

In other words, if you disliked W, why are you so willing to throw his ideologically opposite successor under the bus so soon? I don't get it.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Oh no. Here we go again.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"OK, Ricardo, I'll make it a real-life question rather than a hypothetical:

There is an individual named Richard Bonine, Jr. who believes that Obama is a Muslim pirate.

Is it incumbent upon President Obama to declare that he is not a Muslim pirate?

If President Obama made this declaration, would Richard Bonine, Jr. believe him?"

From the Dallas Morning News:
"One placard said, "Stop Obama's Socialism." Another read, "Some Pirates Are in America," and it showed photographs of Obama, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wearing pirate hats."

http://www.dallasnews.com...48IO2.html

Looks like I am not the only one to think the way I do.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
Jeez, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 12 years ago
For Kyle...lest he forget!


Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Lest I forget what souix?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 12 years ago
...what incompetence actually looks like.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
The Made For TV Presidency

Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Oh believe me souix I haven't forgotten what incompetence looks or sounds like:



Barack Obama wants to be president of these 57 United States
http://latimesblogs.latim...ma-wa.html



[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/16/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Your whole "57 States" argument is getting awfully tired, Kyle. I almost miss seeing posts with "Porkulus" being mentioned in every other sentence.

An exhausted man made a verbal slip-up. No one on their right mind believes for a second that Obama truly thinks that there are 57 states.

On the continuum of f**k-ups, the whole thing ranks somewhere between mistaking sugar for salt in a recipe and wearing white after Labor Day. In other words, big whoop.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Looks like Brian's itching for some new material

Obama inventing a new language...



No word on whether Australians speak Australian or Austrian. Guess we'll have to wait for President Burgundy's Pacific tour to find out.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Again, do you honestly believe that President Obama truly thinks that Australians and Austrians speak the same language?

I am fighting the urge to post a few dozen Bushisms on here.

But thank you for the new material, all the same.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what life was like for people in the public eye before every single word they uttered was recorded. I believe, of course, that they never, EVER made a single mistake in speech.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Again, do you honestly believe that President Obama truly thinks that Australians and Austrians speak the same language?

Hmm Brian, I seem to recall a few years ago a certain Vice President making these remarks

"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people."

And was branded as an imbecile because of it and the MSM taking HIS remarks as gospel.

What was good for the goose is no longer good for the gander?

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (4/16/2009)]
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Forgive them...for they have been teabagging.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
What was good for the goose is no longer good for the gander?

Nice line.

I don't know if Quayle would have gotten the same amount of flak as he received for the "Latin" comment if he hadn't had been so ostentatious with the whole "Potato/potatoe" issue. The "Latin comment was more or less a throwaway comment. The "potatoe" issue displayed far more of a conviction on his part that "potato" is actually spelled "potatoe." That's what got him raked over the coals.

Do you honestly think Barack Obama is a less intelligent and capable person than Dan Quayle? I mean, really?

I really think you should be more cognizant with the stone throwing ... there's plenty of more recent material for perceived dumb-assery than Dan Quayle that could be used against the glass houses of those who would label our current President as incompetent because of his verbal slip-ups.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/16/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Do you honestly think Barack Obama is a less intelligent and capable person than Dan Quayle?

I didn't say he was. What I was pointing out was double standard of the left/MSM/Liberal-leaning people. Obama makes a few mistakes, which really aren't that big of a deal and nothing is noted by the MSM. Others however, with an (R) at the end of their names get repeatedly branded as idiots for making similar remarks.

BTW Brian isn't it fun to be getting back to the way things are supposed to work and not that messy & confusing agreeable stuff:

Geeks In Mourning
http://www.milescity.com/...0694#80695
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
I didn't say he was. What I was pointing out was double standard of the left/MSM/Liberal-leaning people. Obama makes a few mistakes, which really aren't that big of a deal and nothing is noted by the MSM. Others however, with an (R) at the end of their names get repeatedly branded as idiots for making similar remarks.

I think that people will find whatever they're looking for to grill the guy they don't like. If you believe the left/MSM/Liberal-leaning people are the ones to blame for the state of the country or world, you'll find whatever examples you need to prove your case.

Conversely, if you believe the right/MSN/Conservative-leaning people are the ones at fault for the nation's/world's problems, you'll have plenty of ammunition at your disposal as well.

The MSN certainly wasn't that willing to call W out, especially in his first term.

BTW Brian isn't it fun to be getting back to the way things are supposed to work and not that messy & confusing agreeable stuff.

Why, yes Kyle. Yes it is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I don't know if Quayle would have gotten the same amount of flak as he received for the "Latin" comment if he hadn't had been so ostentatious with the whole "Potato/potatoe" issue. The "Latin comment was more or less a throwaway comment. The "potatoe" issue displayed far more of a conviction on his part that "potato" is actually spelled "potatoe." That's what got him raked over the coals.

But the things Olbermann won't tell you on stories like these...

The spelling flash card Quayle held actually spelled "potatoe" Don't know if it was so old as to have contained the old style spelling, or if it was just a misprint.

And even snopes says the "Latin" story is false entirely, because Quayle was telling a joke, which was understood by those he told it to.

But Obama, fairly deliberately said 57 states, and then said he had "one left to go"



And all's we heard about was his tough schedule and how tired he was.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
But the things Olbermann won't tell you on stories like these

Haven't watched Olbermann since he was on ESPN.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Keith Olberman is dreamy.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
Isn't there something like 56 or 57 US States and Territories?

Perhaps he was referring to that? I don't know. I didn't watch the video. If Obama made a mistake, get over it. Bush #2 could hardly speak at all.
Top
Posted by George K. (+45) 12 years ago
I think he meant to say 47 rather than 57.

In the video he says he's visited 57, and there is one more to go, then explains that he wanted to visit Hawaii and Alaska as well, but couldn't make it. So, if he meant 47, add the 'one more to go' and Hawaii, and Alaska, it comes up to fifty...

I'm not a supporter of Obama, but this seems like a simple mistake that anyone could make... I seriously doubt he believes now, or believed when the comment was made, that there were 58 states. If there's more video of someone correcting him, and him still being adamant that there are 58 states, then that's a different story I guess...
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
Okay, this was bugging me, so I did a search and ended up with this link at the United States Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/law/he...php#states

It indicates there are currently 55 states and territories, as listed below:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. American Samoa
4. Arizona
5. Arkansas
6. California
7. Colorado
8. Connecticut
9. Delaware
10. District of Columbia
11. Florida
12. Georgia
13. Guam
14. Hawaii
15. Idaho
16. Illinois
17. Indiana
18. Iowa
19. Kansas
20. Kentucky
21. Louisiana
22. Maine
23. Maryland
24. Massachusetts
25. Michigan
26. Minnesota
27. Mississippi
28. Missouri
29. Montana
30. Nebraska
31. Nevada
32. New Hampshire
33. New Jersey
34. New Mexico
35. New York
36. North Carolina
37. North Dakota
38. Northern Mariana Islands
38. Ohio
39. Oklahoma
40. Oregon
41. Pennsylvania
42. Puerto Rico
43. Rhode Island
44. South Carolina
45. South Dakota
46. Tennessee
47. Texas
48. Utah
49. Vermont
50. Virgin Islands
51. Virginia
52. Washington
53. West Virginia
54. Wisconsin
55. Wyoming

I finally watched the stupid video, and Obama looks tired, but get over it. You're picking one silly little number out of the entire scheme of things.

He's a Harvard Graduate. He knows damn well how many states there are in this country.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
What George K. said above. That makes a lot more sense.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
The spelling flash card Quayle held actually spelled "potatoe" Don't know if it was so old as to have contained the old style spelling, or if it was just a misprint.

Am I to asssume that if the flash card had jumped off a cliff, Mr. Quayle would have followed?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I finally watched the stupid video, and Obama looks tired, but get over it. You're picking one silly little number out of the entire scheme of things.

He's a Harvard Graduate. He knows damn well how many states there are in this country.


Yes it is silly on some level, but that's more the point than anything.

Guess who else was a Harvard Graduate?

Didn't see him given much quarter on that front.

We can take a stroll down memory lane to take a look
http://www.milescity.com/...fpid=20491

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/19/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Guess who else was a Harvard Graduate?

Um, I don't know?

Was this person accepted on his own merits?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Who else went to Harvard? I'm confused. Who are we talking about?
Top