December 10, 2010

"I regret that Mr. Liu and his wife were denied the opportunity to attend the ceremony that Michelle and I attended last year."

Liu and spouse have a fifth rate social life.

54 comments:

Scott M said...

Even given the yadda-yadda-yadda about politicians that ascend as high as the oval office needing to have a touch of narcissism, this is over the top.

He should have been a morning show host before going into politics. You learn the subtle art of self-deprecating humor as well as somewhat underhanded ways of getting people to talk about you without your having to mention yourself.

Fen said...

Narcissist says: Mr. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was.

Lincolntf said...

Opening of Obama's Holiday address to the country...

"I regret that Jesus Christ could not be here in person this Christmas, but I am honored to fill in..."

LilyBart said...

Barack Obama is so self-referential. He like the bore at every party.

GMay said...

Good thing they removed NPD from the DSM the other day.

MayBee said...

We... believe that human rights include the dignity that comes with freedom from want

Wait.
When did "we" start believing this?

I want to know.

Maguro said...

Maybe he could send Mr. Liu a DVD of his speeches to make up for it.

traditionalguy said...

Take that China! The true grit of Obama, or its lack, shows. We also regret that a pack of smooth lies are not working on anyone anymore. That is "polarizing" the world between truth lovers and delusion lovers, and it could do the same to China soon. I blame Palin's attitude.

former law student said...

We have to kiss up to China else they will quit lending us all the dollars we have been showering on them, for things we used to make in this country.

Rose said...

it's just his pragmatism. Sorry. This is just depressing.

I'm trying to understand what people see in this guy. I just do not get it. Not even one single iota of it.

edutcher said...

No, fls. We can't make the Red Chinese mad or they might foreclose.

PS It really is all about him.

WV "mintalls" PC for short people

Der Hahn said...

You know talking about you makes me smile.

But every once in a while,

I wanna talk about me, wanna talk about I,
Wanna talk about number one oh my me my,
What I think, what I like, what I know,
What I want, what I see.
I like talking about U U U U Usually
But occasionally
I wanna talk about meeeee

(Toby Keith, I wanna Talk About Me)

MayBee said...

Michelle's heart aches that Mrs. Liu will unable to attend, and bring with her 6 changes of designer clothes for her 24 hours there.

Fen said...

"But enough about me. Lets talk about me"

veni vidi vici said...

Wondering whether the president has downloaded "I Me Mine" by the Beatles onto his iPod, now that the Beatles catalog has become available through iTunes.

Or, put another way, "For the love of Pete!" After self-parody, where will we next be led?

LilyBart said...

"We... believe that human rights include the dignity that comes with freedom from want"

Oh, dear. I missed this the first time around. Freedom from want? This is scary. Really scary.

Someone else's freedom from want is my obligation to work my a$$ off and turn my money over to the State to pay for the 'wants' of others. This does not constitute freedom for me.

kent said...

""I regret that Mr. Liu and his wife were denied the opportunity to attend the ceremony that Michelle and I attended last year.""

::facepalm::

garage mahal said...

Obama saying he was not as deserving as this year's recipient is proof he is a narcissist. The Obama Derangement Syndrome marches on. Maybe he needs to start referring to himself in the third person.

Freeman Hunt said...

We... believe that human rights include the dignity that comes with freedom from want

Totally. I want a new computer. This wanting hurts my dignity! Maybe Obama could write me a letter about the time he bought a new computer.

LilyBart said...

If I have a human right to be free from want - I'm putting you all on notice that I have a long list of 'want'. So get working.

LilyBart said...

My husband thinks this is awesome - he says he doesn't "want" to pay taxes any more. Freedom from want. There you go.

Roger J. said...

what a loser--(Mr Obama of course) He could have challenged the chinese a la Reagan (tear down this wall)--but of course then the chinese didnt hold a significant part of the US debt. And Mr Obama lacks the courage and ability to do something great.

Our president is a fool-a narcissistic fool--a major loser and an embarassment to any American. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

kent said...

I'm glad that -- as per Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) -- it's no longer racist to offer a simple, sincere "Fuck the President" when confronted daily with idiocies and embarrassments such as these. It's just legitimately "expressing frustration," is all.

former law student said...


Oh, dear. I missed this the first time around. Freedom from want? This is scary. Really scary.


Not scary back when America learned how to dream of a White Christmas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0l3MmKP44k


I'm bringing a song of freedom
To all people wherever they may be

Free to speak and free to hear
Free from want and free from fear
Sons of freedom far and near who agree, sing with me
That all God's people shall be free


I guess Irving Berlin was a Commie.

LilyBart said...

Maybe Irving Berlin was a commie - I don't know. But it doesn't sound any better put to music, dude.

LilyBart said...

Just for the record, I think freedom from want is a good thing. But I object to the government taking the position that they will provide for an ever increasing list of 'wants' for the population at the expense of an ever decreasing portion of working taxpayers. Its getting abusive.

Obama has already discussed 'spreading the wealth'. And he wasn't talking about keeping people from starving in the streets. He was talking about government confiscating the income of higher earners to make the distribution of income more 'fair'. Fair based on what? Certainly not based on who worked the hardest for it - or who made the most sacrifice - or took the greater risk for income.

former law student said...

Fair based on what? Certainly not based on who worked the hardest for it - or who made the most sacrifice - or took the greater risk for income.

This question fascinates me. Should not a coalminer, who risks his life every day, earning money by the sweat of his brow, take home more money than a hedge fund manager who sits safely behind a computer in a nice office with a secretary who makes him fresh coffee throughout the day? The person most likely to become a homicide victim on the job is a cab driver -- shouldn't he make more than Warren Buffet? Let us reward the risk takers.

Maguro said...

Still a believer in Marx's Labor Theory of Value after all these years, fls? Sigh.

bgates said...

Let us reward the risk takers.

Who is not letting you reward the risk takers? You can tip cabbies as much as you want. If you're that devoted to their financial well-being, you could even stop trying to make them pay to be replaced by an overpriced and inefficient railroad.

former law student said...

Dudes, Lilly Bart raised these issues. I'm just trying to flesh them out.

Freeman Hunt said...

There is a big difference between desiring freedom from want and calling it a "human right."

former law student said...

There is a big difference between desiring freedom from want and calling it a "human right."

Yes, it's part of American Exceptionalism.

Am I the only born American here? The only one to have heard of FDR's Four Freedoms? The only one to know what the title of this Norman Rockwell print is?


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xoWZhmSpL._SS500_.jpg

LilyBart said...

I was talking about finacial risk, not physical risk.

kent said...

Yet another wholly foreseeable (and foreseen) end result of gullibly relying upon a benevolent government to provide for all of one's "wants":

New poll indicates 40% of physicians will retire or find other work under ObamaCare

This very same approach is already imploding elsewhere, such as Great Britain:

Doctors warn: British health care near the “breaking point”

The Left never, ever learns.

They are flatly INCAPABLE of doing so.

Brian said...

@Fls:
Following up on your cab drivers comment, that they should be paid more than Wall Street hedge fund managers:

Does this mean each cab driver should be paid X million dollars a year? With golden parachutes and stock options?

Who's going to be able to afford the cab fare then, Garage? How many thousands of people drive cabs in New York? And each one pulling in millions?

Or do you simply mean we should lower hedge fund managers salaries to the same as cab drivers? And of course, we should lower anyone else's salary who makes more than cab drivers, but don't face the same dangers they do. Anyone with a desk job would therefore qualify.

WV: monon. A monophonic moron.

Clyde said...

I saw an article the other day about how Serbia was going to boycott the Nobel ceremony to show solidarity with their Chinese friends. Others not taking part included Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Nice group of friends you have there, Serbia.

One thing about someone like Mr. Liu: He shows what posers protesters in western societies are. They aren't really putting their lives on the line when they speak out against their government.

former law student said...

I was talking about finacial risk, not physical risk.

What financial risk?

Did anyone from Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, or AIG have to return a dime of salary or bonus?

Did not the US taxpayer step in to catch the behemoths too big to fail?

former law student said...

Countries with more doctors per capita than the United States:

# 1 San Marino: 47.35 per 1,000 people 1990 Time series
# 2 Cuba: 5.91 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 3 Monaco: 5.81 per 1,000 people 1995 Time series
# 4 Saint Lucia: 5.17 per 1,000 people 1999 Time series
# 5 Belarus: 4.55 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 6 Greece: 4.4 per 1,000 people 2001 Time series
# 7 Russia: 4.25 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 8 Italy: 4.2 per 1,000 people 2004 Time series
# 9 Turkmenistan: 4.18 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 10 Georgia: 4.09 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 11 Lithuania: 3.97 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 12 Belgium: 3.9 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 13 Israel: 3.82 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 14 Andorra: 3.7 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 15 Uruguay: 3.65 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 16 Iceland: 3.62 per 1,000 people 2004 Time series
# 17 Switzerland: 3.6 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 18 Armenia: 3.59 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 19 Bulgaria: 3.56 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 20 Azerbaijan: 3.55 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 21 Kazakhstan: 3.54 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 22 Czech Republic: 3.5 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 23 Austria: 3.4 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 23 Germany: 3.4 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 25 France: 3.37 per 1,000 people 2004 Time series
= 26 Portugal: 3.3 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 26 Sweden: 3.3 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 28 Korea, North: 3.29 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 29 Lebanon: 3.25 per 1,000 people 2001 Time series
= 30 Hungary: 3.2 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 30 Spain: 3.2 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 32 Malta: 3.18 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 33 Estonia: 3.16 per 1,000 people 2001 Time series
= 34 Norway: 3.1 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 34 Netherlands: 3.1 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 34 Slovakia: 3.1 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 37 Latvia: 3.01 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 37 Argentina: 3.01 per 1,000 people 1998 Time series
# 39 Ukraine: 2.95 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 40 Denmark: 2.9 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 41 Ireland: 2.79 per 1,000 people 2004 Time series
# 42 Uzbekistan: 2.74 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 43 Luxembourg: 2.7 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 44 Moldova: 2.64 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 45 Mongolia: 2.63 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
# 46 Finland: 2.6 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
= 47 Kyrgyzstan: 2.5 per 1,000 people 2004 Time series
= 47 Australia: 2.5 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series
= 47 Poland: 2.5 per 1,000 people 2003 Time series
# 50 Croatia: 2.4 per 1,000 people 2004 Time series
# 51 Cyprus: 2.34 per 1,000 people 2002 Time series

I think we could poach enough from Belarus, Greece, Russia, Italy, and Georgia to make up any difference. Or we could just outsource diagnostics to Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan.

kent said...

Countries with more doctors per capita than the United States

No dates later than six years ago (2004) listed, huh? Hmmmmmmm.

(... and, golly: who wouldn't feel wholly and utterly at ease, knowing their health and/or life was resting securely in the hands of the cream of the Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan med school crop, anyway...?)

LilyBart said...

FLS: I'm talking about financial risk as in risking YOUR capital to start a business, grow a business or invest in a business.

Are you being deliberatly obtuse?

MayBee said...

Am I the only born American here? The only one to have heard of FDR's Four Freedoms?

Yeah, FDR believed in Freedom from want so much he interred American citizens of Japanese and German descent. He was all about Freedom, our Franklin.

Sorry, our government is not based on the "human right" of freedom from want. Nor should it be.
I bet the favored in North Korea feel freedom from want. You know why? They have no idea what else they can have.

former law student said...

He was talking about government confiscating the income of higher earners to make the distribution of income more 'fair'.

I'm talking about financial risk as in risking YOUR capital to start a business, grow a business or invest in a business.

You were talking about "higher earners."

My parents did (1) and (2), but they sure as hell weren't "higher earners." They netted less money than family members who worked for other people. But my father was independent, and they enjoyed working together. (Not true that small businessmen are "their own boss." They have multiple bosses -- their customers.)

Regarding (3): People who simply invest in a business enjoy very low tax rates on capital gains and dividends right now.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Regarding (3): People who simply invest in a business enjoy very low tax rates on capital gains and dividends right now.

You only get the cap gains if you actually sell assets.

Most business income is either from interest and dividends or more likely pass through income which IS taxed at your ordinary marginal rate.

Partnerships, LLC, S-Corp are all pass through entities. Most small businesses are in these formats.

Capital gains is not that much of a consideration for businesses, especially smaller businesses.

former law student said...

DBQ: You're thinking "invest in a business" means "invest in someone else's small business"?

I agree that's risky.

How would doing that pay off for me?

JAL said...

Mr. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was.

When my husband heard that he said "That's the first time I've heard Obama say something that was true."

LilyBart said...

Well, FLS, that just a touching story about your family - thanks for sharing.

to get back to the point - is it scary that the government thinks its a human RIGHT to be free from want? I do think its scary when petty government officials and bureaucrats think they have the moral right to confiscate your legal property to redistribute it to others it based on their personal sense of 'fairness', or rather, based on their personal interest. And experience tells us that the list of ‘wants’ covered under ‘freedom from want’ will only grow with time. Some in DC are already talking about people’s rights to free internet access.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You're thinking "invest in a business" means "invest in someone else's small business"?

Actually, I was thinking both. Invest in somebody else's business or invest in your own business.

Either way, the income you derive is generally NOT capital gains income but pass through net gain which is treated like ordinary income.

I agree that's risky.

How would doing that pay off for me?


Well, the pay off would be that you would get income without possibly having to actually work for it, if you are a passive investor.

Another reason you might benefit by being an investor in a S Corp is that if you are an active participant, drawing a salary from the business, you can lower your portion of taxes paid for Social Security/Medicare etc by taking a smaller salary and the remainder is pass through income which skips the payroll tax route. More money in your pocket.

Losses pass through as well and sometimes that is benefical from a tax planning standpoint.

Many real estate pass throughs have other advantages in that often a good portion of the income passing through to you is not taxed and is considered return of capital. That is a good way to temporarily juice your income without paying income tax on the entire amount. R/E investments will likely create capital gains or capital losses.

Another non monetary pay off would be the satisfaction of creating something of value. A business that provides something people want or need and jobs.

MayBee said...

I believe Mr. Liu actually went to the Nobel ceremony for a short time today, but had to leave because Mrs. Liu was waiting for him at a Christmas party.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@fls

and yes, it is risky. However, in life there is risk and reward in everything we do.

Business people and investors in business take risk. If they didn't we would all still be pounding rocks and wearing our birthday suits.

FloridaSteve said...

I'm sorry but this president is a despicable man.

He is the most powerful representative of democracy and freedom on the planet and he is provided with an almost perfect and singular moment to speak for and defend our (but apparently not his) ideals. And this is what he comes up with? It's painful to think that this is the same office that Ronald Reagan once held. HE would have known what to say in that moment and I doubt he would have used the word "I" a single time. Bill Clinton for all his flaws would not have stumbled in that moment. I dare say that Jimmy Carter might have even made a pitch for democracy. But not this fucking clown. Oh no. Mustn't offend. Must make it about me. Despicable only gets half way there.

Only thing he said that was true was that he was far less deserving. No shit.

Ha! my verification word was "waffles" Perfect!

JAL said...

DBQ -- do you remember a few weeks back -- ?

The comments on one of the posts pretty much led to the conclusion that liberals / lefties are some of the most risk averse folks around.

All the way around.

Ralph L said...

Liu is the name of the slave girl in Puccini's "Turandot". She kills herself to avoid being tortured into revealing her master's name to Turandot's minions. Great music, stupid plot.

Ralph L said...

I'd like to know if it even occurred to Obama or his staff to turn down the Peace prize last year. It would have been politically deft, instead it was tone deaf.

former law student said...

I wonder if it ever occurred to W. to reject the Presidency in 2000. After all, Gore-Lieberman got more of the popular vote than Bush-Cheney did. W. could have won because of an obscure historic technicality, but would he really be accepted at the legitimate winner?

Dropping his legal campaign to usurp the Presidency would have been politically deft. Instead it was tone deaf.