October 11, 2015

"Do you think if you ran again — could run again and did run again — you would be elected?" "I do."

President Obama answers Steve Kroft immediately and in 2 short words... just now on "60 Minutes."

And he's right.

174 comments:

Big Mike said...

And he's right.

@Althouse, you and he both are deluded.

pm317 said...

Yeah, he is from Cook County, isn't he?

Nichevo said...

So could GWB.

ndspinelli said...

Big Mike, Narcissistic and deluded.

paminwi said...

That statement is patently false. But I get why he needs to lie. And, IMHO, I can't believe he would be re-elected with a below 50% approval rating.

Ron said...

I'd prefer to never vote again than vote for this guy.

paminwi said...

And Big Mike and ndspinelli, thanks for your comments.

Theodore James said...

And would the professor vote for him again?

Unknown said...

He is correct that he thinks that.

campy said...

By hook or by crook, he would win.

Pete said...

I don't know if he would win again but I'm sure Althouse would vote for him for the same lame reasons she, and others, voted for him in the first place.

traditionalguy said...

After another 4 Obama years, Iran would own a deserted Palestine where the radioactive by bones of 6,000,000 Jews would be bleaching in the sun.

Obama's future will not be a pretty one.

Spiros Pappas said...

He's right for the same reason we have presidential term limits. Reagan and Clinton would have easily won third terms. As for "W," no chance in hell.

Diamondhead said...

I don't doubt that. His failures have been shielded from view, the media doesn't ask uncomfortable questions, buzzfeed posts new listicles every day, and love won.

Ann Althouse said...

"And would the professor vote for him again?"

Depends on who else is running and what the issues are at the time. I voted for Obama against McCain but Romney against Obama.

pm317 said...

What a question from a asslicker media man. And, I am surprised that Althouse decided to seriously weigh in on it.

BN said...

Did the dude ask any hard questions? With pounding follow-ups? There's yer answer.

Nichevo said...

Spiros, perhaps not in 2008, but now? "Miss me yet?"

Sammy Finkelman said...

An incumbent gets about 4% more of the vote than a non-incumbent, all other things being equal, because of the removal of the fear-of-the-unknown element.

Whether he would win or not depends on who are the alternative candidates.

BDNYC said...

I believe Romney would have defeated him if Sandy had followed a different track.

AReasonableMan said...

Keeping in mind that you guys didn't vote for him in the first place, your opinions may not reflect those of the majority of voters. I would guess that Obama would win if he ran again. You can make the argument that he is the most successful Democrat president since FDR. From a Democrat perspective he clearly beats out Clinton and Carter. LBJ's presidency is tainted by Vietnam and Truman's by the use of the atom bomb. JFK will always be beloved as a martyr but his presidency was a mixed bag.

Personally I would rank LBJ as more successful than Obama, but the Vietnam war was fucking stupid.

walter said...

What an ass for even answering that question.

Jim said...

No, he would have to run against Bill Clinton.

BN said...

"Depends on who else is running and what the issues are at the time."

The issues never change; that's why there is a left and a right. Who is running is a couple of smiling excellent liars; aka politicians.

Anonymous said...

Dear Leader has been ignoring Congress, ignoring the Law, ignoring the Constitution. Why not ignore the 22nd Amendment too and run again? He is Dear Leader, he could do whatever Dear Leaders all over the world would do: serve a life sentence... term.

rhhardin said...

Of course Obama would be elected. Women still have the vote. "He means well."

pm317 said...

Oh, Althouse and her superficial analysis of boyfriend Obama. Here is something for others who want to see what Obama is doing to this country.

rcocean said...

Depends on who ran against him. Run another Milquetoast, invade the world, invite the world, the only thing we need is more Tax cuts for the rich, Republican and you'd get Obama for a 3rd termn.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

McCain took a dive, we have the Jones memo as proof, what an idiotic question, they also boughtVolodya is weak, that's why he went into Syria, when he invades Poland, they'll say he was diabetic,

AReasonableMan said...

rcocean said...
Hell, McCain seemed happy that Obama won.


I wonder whether he even voted for himself. He is not a complete idiot.

Rick Caird said...

I doubt he could win again. The Middle East is a catastrophe. Illegal immigration is rampant. He doesn't have the money to buy votes. Besides, there is a better than even chance we will have a recession in the next 12 months.

Gusty Winds said...

"...and Truman's use of the Atom Bomb."

The humble habidasher had no choice. He was thrust into the situation by Roosevelt's death. Roosevelt would have used it had he lived, and the stain assigned by revisionists like ARM would be on him.

ARM...do you really think Roosevelt authorized the development of the Atom Bomb with no intention of using it to end the war? A war that claimed more lives than any other in history. Your sanctimony is an insult to all the soldiers who returned home because of Truman.

At the time the bomb was dropped, my Grandfather was at the Panama Canal preparing for a land invasion of Japan. This after surviving amphibious landings at North Africa, Sicily, and Omaha beach. He told me before he died that none of the men at the canal thought they would survive invading Japan. Truman was a hero to those men and their families.

The entire war was a tragedy, and Truman, at the time, had no choice. The blame for getting his country and his people bombed lies solely on the Emperor.

BN said...

"What was really the difference between McCain and Obama? Or Romney and Obama?"

Sotomayor and Kagan. A Middle East gone to shit, with a Russian bear roaming wild and a Chinese dragon breathing fire. Unconstitutional executive power run amuck at home (someone else will list it out for you), a shitty economy, a pipeline never built, etc., etc.

But yeah, not much other than that.

Gusty Winds said...

Obama would win again. Americans today are too stupid to realize how blessed they are to have a two term limit.

Michael K said...

Depends on who else is running and what the issues are at the time.

Yes, if Putin was running it would be close. Also Rouhani.

Jesuzzz !

We will be lucky to survive Obama and the left still is talking about gay rights and vaginas.

"You can make the argument that he is the most successful Democrat president since FDR."

It depends on your criteria. If a successful nation is one, he would not win.

Bob Boyd said...

"Depends on who else is running and what the issues are at the time."

If you don't know what you would do, how can you know what everyone else would do?

BN said...

Truman was absolutely a true hero who saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. My father included.

Michael K said...

"At the time the bomb was dropped, my Grandfather was at the Panama Canal preparing for a land invasion of Japan. "

Don't waste your time discussing this sort of thing with ARM. The left is ahistorical and there is no educating them.

There are serious discussions of what might have happened with the invasion of Japan but this is not the place, That's one reason why I come here for amusement and Chicago Boyz for serious discussions.

You might read Belmont Club if you are willing to get really serious.

AReasonableMan said...

Gusty Winds said...
Your sanctimony.


As should have been obvious, I was only presenting my perception of the generic Democrat view of the world.

M Jordan said...

Obama has no successes to point to. None. Even his supposed successes -- Obamacre, ..., well, Obamacare -- are slow-detonating disasters.

And he would probably be re-elected.

Sigh.

pm317 said...


If you don't know what you would do, how can you know what everyone else would do?


LOL and right!

BN said...

And even more Japanese lives.

Michael said...

I somehow don't believe that Romney would have us at a point where there are 94 million people out of the workforce, many millions of whom are on disability for dubious conditions. The current regulatory environment, blossoming to "protect" the investor and the consumer produces strong headwinds for the small businessman. Those of us who came out of the downturn with assets have had a field day and have not only recovered but prospered. Not so for the over leveraged or the middle class with few assets outside their homes. A "normal" recovery produces GDP gains on the order of 6% whilst we have been stuck at the 2ish level for nearly a decade.

Kansas City said...

I was struck by the comment above calling Obama an ass for answering the question. I did not even think of that. I think it is harsh, but it is true that Obama would have been a better man if he declined to answer. But if he chooses to answer, which he did, what else is he going to say.

I actually think it is more relevant for Obama to answer the question than anyone else. Why should we be speculating about something that cannot happen?

BN said...

But yes Obama would probably be elected again. Or Hillary, or slow Joe, or B.S, or whoever.

Because what rhhardin and our dear hostess said.

M Jordan said...

I too was struck by the comment that Obama is an ass. It was insightful yet nuance. It was enlightening as well as perspicacious. It was clever while at the same time amusing. Great comment.

pm317 said...

I think it is harsh, but it is true that Obama would have been a better man if he declined to answer.

Obama has been saying this without being asked. He said it in a speech or some other public event on his own that he would win if he ran again.

BN said...

"I too was struck by the comment that Obama is an ass... Great comment."

I don't know. I thought that was understood.

fivewheels said...

Perhaps. And in 2020 he and the rest of the left would still be blaming Bush for his every failure, problem and inconvenience.

Gusty Winds said...

I don't think Obama was an ass for answering the question.

On Bush 41's Inauguration Day, when Reagan landed in California, he gave a speech at the airport calling for the repeal of the 22nd Ammendment. Reagan thought he could have won a third term.

Gusty Winds said...

"... the generic Democrat view of the world".

...is filled with hypocritical holines.

David Begley said...

Why would Kroft ask such a question when he knows it is unconstitutional?

Answer: He knew what the narcissist would say and how controversial his answer would be.

Carly would clean his clock.

walter said...

Oh..I don't get the sense Obama cares much for the constitution when it doesn't suit him..but FWIW, some more on the 223nd amendment issue over time.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

In the several decades since the passage of the 22nd Amendment, various members of Congress have offered proposals for repealing it (all, obviously, without success), twenty-three of them in the last two decades alone. The most recent such proposal is H.J. 15, introduced by Rep. Jose E. Serrano of New York:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
If passed by both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures (an exceedingly unlikely possibility), such an amendment would allow any president to serve an unlimited number of terms in office. It would not, however, establish anyone as "President for life," because it would not remove the requirement that the president be elected to office every four years.

Although Rep. Serrano may be a Democrat, the rhetoric quoted above stating that the purpose of his proposal for repealing the 22nd amendment is specifically to "pave the way to make Barack Obama president for life" is not supported by the facts. Rep. Serrano has introduced the very same proposal to Congress every two years since 1997 (a total of nine times), regardless of which party was currently occupying the White House and starting well before Barack Obama became involved in national politics. On the first two occasions (in 1997 and 1999) the incumbent president was a Democrat (Bill Clinton); the next four occasions (2001, 2003, 2005, and again in 2007), were after the election of a Republican (George W. Bush). Rep. Serrano's 2013 bill is the third time he has proposed that same legislation to Congress since the election of Barack Obama, following similar efforts in 2009 and 2011.

Likewise, another Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, introduced a similar proposal six times in recent years, also regardless of which party was currently occupying the White House. Hoyer introduced such proposals in 1995, 1997, and 1999 (all during the presidency of Bill Clinton), and again in 2001, 2003, and 2005 (all during the presidency of George W. Bush).

Other members of Congress who have offered similar proposals in the last twenty years include the following:

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts (Democrat): 1995, 1997, and 1999 (all during the presidency of Bill Clinton).

Rep. David Dreier of California (Republican): 1997 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York (Democrat): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Republican): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).

Rep. Guy Vander Jagt of Michigan (Republican): 1991 (during the presidency of George H.W. Bush).

Rep. Martin Sabo of Minnesota (Democratic-Farmer-Labor): 1991 (during the presidency of George H.W. Bush).

According to our survey, not a single one of these proposals was ever so much as brought to a vote before Congress (they were all referred to committee and languished there), much less passed and sent to the states for ratification.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp#GuSI6co7OQGFFHRq.99

garage mahal said...

Obama was asked a question....and he answered. ...and I don't like it. Whaaaaaaaa

Unknown said...

I can hear the fan girl squee here on the Pacific Coast!

walter said...

It's not that I don't like it..it's that as a sitting president and supposed constitutional scholar, he has zero class...
Narcissim writ large.

walter said...

But what else should we expect from the first recipient of a pre-emptive Nobel?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Presidential election campaigns are easy to win when you're the only adult running.

Rhythm and Balls said...

A "normal" recovery produces GDP gains on the order of...

If only the Republicans had given us a "normal" recession, then perhaps a "normal" recovery might have been possible.

walter said...

Ah..so..Barney et al had nooo fingerprints on all that mess. Got it.

David Begley said...

And did you notice how quick he was to answer and how decisive he was?

I wanted to puke.

All he thinks about is himself.

News flash to Barack. You are going down in history as the worst president ever.

Rhythm and Balls said...

That's one reason why I come here for amusement and Chicago Boyz for serious discussions.

Right. Because serious guys would call themselves "Boyz". Like the group Boyz II Men, for instance. They had all sorts of R & B songs about diplomacy and global finance.

libertariansafetyguy said...

You know - he could have said that no one needs to serve more than two terms, citing Washington as the example. Oh well.

Rhythm and Balls said...

News flash to Barack. You are going down in history as the worst president ever.

Lol. Always good to get a view of the dispatches from the Bubble.

Obama's ranked at least twice as highly as W., despite having to clean up at least two (possibly three) of the worst disasters ever made by a president ever - on W's watch. But keep on believing. True believers are what make the world work.

walter said...

"rue believers are what" made Obama possible.

walter said...

But lets talk about web names like "boyz", 'balls.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Of course Obama could win again. Look at Detroit, over fifty years of Democrat lead disaster but Democrats still loyally vote party.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"rue believers are what" made Obama possible.

Yeah. "TRUE" believers in avoiding 9/11, a war with the wrong country, a global recession and all the other horrible things that Bush and his Republicans brought us.

And by the way, he's done a hell of a good job on that score. I guess if you want another 9/11, another massive ground invasion of the wrong country and another global recession you're going to have to vote for a Republican. But guess what? In 2016 you'll get that chance! Yippee!

Just don't be surprised if the voters don't go along with that. What party poopers. Bummers. They just don't get how great global terrorist catastrophes and massive poverty and bubble economies really are. What a shame that we have to put up with such people in this great democracy.

It's just not right.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Most incompetent, divisive, and destructive President in U.S. history - and an even worse human being.

Nov 2016 can't come soon enough. Hope Israel is still here.

Rhythm and Balls said...

But lets talk about web names like "boyz", 'balls.

Perhaps both references are equally immature, but I know which one is used more by men and which one is used more by teenage girls.

Or is it "gurlz?"

I'm waiting for the Republicans to just buy out the My Little Pony brand, and come out of the closet as the party of teenage girls. Are you aware of any American demographic as petty, entitled, materialistic, easily distracted and queenlike as they are?

David Begley said...

Per a tweet from CBS's Mark Knoeller: Obama spent five hours today golfing in San Diego.

Say what you want about GWB, but he stopped playing golf in war time.

Obama will break the record for POTUS golf rounds. Historic.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Most incompetent, divisive, and destructive President in U.S. history - and an even worse human being.

I hear a campaign for "SomeoneHasToSayIt" in the works! Clearly he's got more experience with political charisma than anyone!

walter said...

Oh 'ballz, how's that premature pull out of Iraq going?
Those "JV" Isis folks?
Again, Dems played a significant role in the recession. But O and his "true believers" just wants to ride out the "Bush did it" meme as long as possible.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Say what you want about GWB, but he stopped playing golf in war time.

Hahahahahhahahahahahahha! Plus, we're not at war any more, trouser stain.

Obama will break the record for POTUS golf rounds. Historic.

Well, what would be even more historic is if he managed to surpass the number of Americans killed by mass casualty terrorist attacks on our own soil in our country's own financial capital. That would be historic!

But until now, W. has that record. Damn!

The beclowning will not be consciously perceived by the self-beclowner.

walter said...

He might as well have taken a dump in the rose gardeb vs parading Bergdahl's bearded Dad there while handing over terrorists in exchange for that sorry ass.

Dr Weevil said...

1. What kind of moron thinks he can sneer at the Z in the name 'Chicago Boyz' without any of us noticing that it's a Hell of lot more serious name than 'Rhythm and Balls'? Of course, anyone who has ever visited the site knows that it's quite a serious and high-quality site - apparently R&B can't be bothered to go look before opining.

2. Even if Bush left him "two (or three) of the worst disasters ever made by a president ever", Obama has in fact made the economy far worse than the one left to him (that's one) and has made the whole MENA disaster far worse than it was when he inherited it (that's two). I don't know what R&B thinks is the possible third giant problem Bush left him (Russian aggression? American medical care? government corruption?), but he's made all three of those far worse than they were when he got the job. We'll be lucky if we make it to January 2017 without one or more (possibly lots more) nuclear attacks somewhere in the world, and without a hot war with Russia, or China, or both.

David Begley said...

R&b

The Islamists are at war with us in case you didn't notice and have been since the first TT bombing.

Wishing we weren't at war doesn't make it so.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oh 'ballz, how's that premature pull out of Iraq going?

It's either Saddam or America keeping that place together and America already said "no" to the latter. And the Republicans removed the former option. I mean, hell. It's really too bad this isn't a totalitarian empire where you can invade and occupy whoever you want at any time and with no financial consequences or political, democratic approval for doing so. But it isn't so you kind of have to respect the will of the people - as intensely lustful as you are of the idea of making Iraq the 51st American state.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Obama has in fact made the economy far worse than the one left to him...

Oh god. Lectures on economics by a nitwit who doesn't know unemployment is a lagging indicator or that 10%+ is greater than 5%. It's worse than listening to a zombie.

Some brains make better masturbation toys than they do organs of conscious thought.

David Begley said...

If Iraq was our 51st state how many Electoral College votes would it get?

David Begley said...

Work force participation is at a record low. That's the real unemployment rate.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The Islamists are at war with us in case you didn't notice and have been since the first TT bombing.

Wishing we weren't at war doesn't make it so.


Who are "The Islamists?" Do they command an army and a recognized nation? One that operates under the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war or that can be (let alone should be) confronted in any conventional way?

This is the line of thought that brought on some of the worst policy blunders of recent memory. You simply don't realize that unconventional challenges or threats don't call for conventional responses.

Dr Weevil said...

We know all about your brain, R&B: no need to tell us what you use it for.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
"Obama has in fact made the economy far worse than the one left to him...

Oh god. Lectures on economics by a nitwit who doesn't know unemployment is a lagging indicator or that 10%+ is greater than 5%. It's worse than listening to a zombie.

Some brains make better masturbation toys than they do organs of conscious thought."

Even you have to admit that we have the lowest labor participation rate since the 70's. You also have to admit that wages have stagnated or fallen for everyone but the top 10%.

If there was a republican president we would be in the middle of a depression right now. The unemployment rate is the only economic indicator right now outside of the DOW that is doing well. Wall Street gave record amounts of cash to Obama's election campaign. No wonder they are doing well.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Work force participation is at a record low. That's the real unemployment rate.

With the kind of shit jobs you want Americans to be satisfied with, I don't blame them.

What about your family values? Go start working on parental leave and other FMLA issues. Stop trying to make America into China.

BN said...

"... political charisma..."

There's the answer to the question. There are millions and millions of Rhythm and Bullshits around. You do the math.

Don't worry it's gonna be fine.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You also have to admit that wages have stagnated or fallen for everyone but the top 10%.

Oh. So now all of a sudden you're all about worrying about falling/stagnated wages. That's wonderful to hear your concern! After 4 decades, now you're concerned. Better late than never!

So clearly the answer must be to double-down on the economic policies tried and intensified during the last twenty years of Republican political domination. Clearly.

Anonymous said...

Obama against Trump or Carson, Obama would win in a landslide.

Dr Weevil said...

If millions of Americans are no longer counted as 'unemployed' because their benefits have run out and they still haven't found jobs, that's OK with R&B: the jobs they haven't found probably would have sucked. If millions more are working part-time with no benefits who would much rather work full-time with benefits, that's OK with R&B, too. If the percentage of people on disability has gone way way up, because people whose handicaps would not have prevented them from finding a decent job in a normal economy have given up looking in Obama's disastrous economy, that's OK with R&B, too. He's more interested in sneering at the name of a serious website instead of going to it, reading it, and learning from it. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the real unemployment rate is far higher than the dishonest official rate, and the real inflation rate (particularly for food) far higher than the dishonest official rate.

David Begley said...

"You simply don't realize that unconventional challenges or threats don't call for conventional responses."

Agreed.

Waterboard the lot of them.

Bomb the hell out of them.

When ISIS rolled out of Syria and into Iraq, vaporize'em.

We play by the rules of war. The Islamists don't. You also don't schedule a federal court criminal trIal for KSM.

chickelit said...

Well, what would be even more historic is if he managed to surpass the number of Americans killed by mass casualty terrorist attacks on our own soil in our country's own financial capital. That would be historic!

Well that's just silly. It's like blaming FDR for the record number of battleships sunk by the enemy in a sneak attack.

Say what you want about GWB, but he stopped playing golf in war time.

According to professional athlete Michael Jordan, Obama is a shitty golfer.

So why does he do something he's bad at so much? Why doesn't he shoot hoops in the WH basement court? Stress relief is my guess.

Levi Starks said...

The question is asked and answered for only one reason, to rub republican noses in it. I couldn't care less. Have a great rest of your life former President Obama.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"Who are "The Islamists?" Do they command an army and a recognized nation? One that operates under the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war or that can be (let alone should be) confronted in any conventional way?"

They are a bunch of evil men who aren't liked by the locals and want to take the world back to the 1200's. They generally act like the mob when they aren't fighting us. ISIS is a group of them that is currently rounding up women and selling them as slaves. I would rather be fighting them than letting them rape all of the Yazidi's and Christian's that used to live peacefully in Iraq.

"This is the line of thought that brought on some of the worst policy blunders of recent memory. You simply don't realize that unconventional challenges or threats don't call for conventional responses."

We were doing just fine until you pulled us out. Obama and Biden were bragging about how good things were in 2010 when they pulled us out. The only blunder there was pulling us out.

Biden video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOcPCrGRs6k

You are not this stupid. Please stop arguing in bad faith.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If millions of Americans are no longer counted as 'unemployed' because their benefits have run out and they still haven't found jobs, that's OK with R&B.

And if millions of Americans are no longer taxed at the rate that less wealthy Americans are taxed at because they're hedge fund managers, then that's OK with Dr Weevil. Which is a great example to set. Yep - great work ethic and example for national cooperation to set.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well that's just silly. It's like blaming FDR for the record number of battleships sunk by the enemy in a sneak attack.

1. FDR's leadership was so good that the people who did that were decimated beyond belief and completely incapacitated from ever doing something like that again. Not so with GWB.

2. There's a difference between an attack on a military installation and allowing our nation's own commercial passenger aviation systems to be used against iconic towers and skylines, in its greatest cities, and financial power centers, as well as the Pentagon and the Capitol.

Dr Weevil said...

Apparently R&B thinks there are "millions" of hedge fund managers in America, which means he's even stupider than most of us thought.
He also alleges that I support taxing hedge fund managers at lower rates than less wealthy Americans, which is a bald-faced lie.
Typical R&B, doing his best to look like a paid stooge of someone on the left.

Rhythm and Balls said...

They are a bunch of evil men who aren't liked by the locals and want to take the world back to the 1200's.

Not America's problem.

They generally act like the mob when they aren't fighting us.

Not America's problem.

ISIS is a group of them that is currently rounding up women and selling them as slaves.

Not really America's most pressing problem.

I would rather be fighting them than letting them rape all of the Yazidi's and Christian's that used to live peacefully in Iraq.

We gave air cover and strikes for this purpose. Resolving humanitarian crises, esp. intentional ones by psychotic lunatics, may be an American interest. Fighting a ground war to pretend you have a better opposition to take over for them (when you don't) CLEARLY is not.

Unless you want to run for governor of Northern Iraq.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
You also have to admit that wages have stagnated or fallen for everyone but the top 10%.

"Oh. So now all of a sudden you're all about worrying about falling/stagnated wages. That's wonderful to hear your concern! After 4 decades, now you're concerned. Better late than never!

So clearly the answer must be to double-down on the economic policies tried and intensified during the last twenty years of Republican political domination. Clearly."

You have no idea what I believe or who I support and you automatically impute motives on me that I do not hold. Everyone that disagrees with you must be working for the rich! You aren't stupid, but it seems as if you haven't been around the real world much. Hopefully you grow up soon.

Republicans haven't dominated anything for the last 20 years. To say that is retarded. Even when they held power I disagree with much of what they did. The only thing the republicans have accomplished in the last 20 years is to moderately slow the growth of the federal government, create a new entitlement, start a war that they wouldn't finish, and pay off a bunch of cronies. That is why I am fully supporting the evisceration of the GOPe.

In that same time a Democrat president signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal. That same Democrat President also gutted standard accounting regulations that led to among other things Enron Inc. collapsing and the government adopting accounting practices that would make Enron blush. Fannie Mae and Freedy Mac, a public private entity, own 99.9% of all mortgages in the country with a bunch of ex-democrat cronies making billions of dollars. Our Debt is over 20 Trillion dollars, and most of it's growth was under democrat presidents.

Both parties serve the wealthy. They are transferring power and wealth out of the middle class and to the wealthy. But you want to blame republicans for everything! Stop being a chump. Seriously the country needs you to stop carrying water for the plutocracy.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

ISIS is a group of them that is currently rounding up women and selling them as slaves.

"Not really America's most pressing problem."

What is our most pressing problem? Are mocha's too expensive? Poor people are too fat because they can only afford bad food?

Seriously what is our most pressing problem right now?

The war has been over for 5 years now. Have things gotten much better here? Are we dealing with our problems? Obama is sure doing a bang up job of making the wealthy wealthier.

chickelit said...

1. FDR's leadership was so good that the people who did that were decimated beyond belief and completely incapacitated from ever doing something like that again. Not so with GWB.

Bush pacified and pussified al Qaeda in Iraq. It took Obama and Reid to fuck up and lose the progress made in Iraq and to create ISIS. It took Obama's insane (we don't shoot at Muslims) ROE in Afghanistan to fuck that up and cause spikes in American casualties. And yet Bergdahl is free and celebrated as a "hero" by your ilk! If you look around the Middle East, it certainly looks worse than under Bush.

exhelodrvr1 said...

He does look fabulous, plus he's articulate.

narciso said...

plus we lost China and Poland, the two countries the West ended up going to war far,

chickelit said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

What is our most pressing problem? Are mocha's too expensive? Poor people are too fat because they can only afford bad food?

Historically, on these threads, gay issues have been R&B's most passionate concerns.

Rhythm and Balls said...

In that same time a Democrat president signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

Dude. You go on about how disappointed you are in Republicans, but can't seem to realize that B. Clinton was the most conspicuous sell-out of Democratic policies in history. He was famous for using a Republican advisor (Dick Morris) to encourage him to "triangulate" toward the right. And almost every blundering economic booby trap you mentioned was started or given the fatal blow (pun not necessary) under his administration.

Both Trump and Sanders are shots against plutocracy. But I prefer the guy who opposes it due to personal integrity and credibility (the latter) than the guy who opposes it because he simply happens to have enough of his own money to avoid being bribed by it.

You can call me a chump, but at least I can affiliate with a party that won't compromise its values as often as you seem to indicate that Republicans compromise yours.

If that doesn't cause you to at least question the feasibility of your political values, then you should ask yourself why that is. You don't come across as the worst partisan, perhaps even somewhat open-minded. But if I had one party that seemed as perpetually compromised as Republican voters claim that Republicans are, I would at least start to wonder if my values were the most sensible.

chickelit said...

It took Obama and Reid to fuck up and lose the progress made in Iraq and to create ISIS.

I forgot to mention Pelosi.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
If millions of Americans are no longer counted as 'unemployed' because their benefits have run out and they still haven't found jobs, that's OK with R&B.

"And if millions of Americans are no longer taxed at the rate that less wealthy Americans are taxed at because they're hedge fund managers, then that's OK with Dr Weevil. Which is a great example to set. Yep - great work ethic and example for national cooperation to set."

First you evaded his point. Your only argument that the economy is good was the unemployment rate which several of us have pointed out is a manipulated statistic and you cannot deal with that.

Second almost everyone here wants to see the carried interest loophole closed. We also want to see rates lowered and deductions from favored industries removed. The only people discussing tax reform are republicans and they would largely be accomplishing the goals you seem to hold.

walter said...

"articulate"..and clean. Nice crease too.

KenK said...

Some of you clearly dont realize that the electoral college is stacked against the Reps. ANY Dem starts out with a major advantage there. The Dem if they are any good at all can cruise to victory. Any Rep has play a perfect game. This demographic reality is only going to get worse for the GOP as time goes on. And Obama is an arrogant prick, but he pulled it off twice so theres that too, eh?

exhelodrvr1 said...

ARM,
Read about the invasion of Okinawa, and then ask yourself how many Japanese civilians would have survived an invasion of Japan.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If you look around the Middle East, it certainly looks worse than under Bush.

Good Lord! Is this now the benchmark by which we measure American success? The Middle East is a perpetual, eternal clusterfuck. American success should be measured by how far out of it we stay. Just like we would measure a parent's success by how far out of an electric socket he's able to keep his kids' hands.

jr565 said...

There are a lot of low information voters that will vote for Obama no matter how bad he tanks the economy or screws up overseas. Or lies, or changes positions. They just want to have their guy in power, fuck consequences. Repubs, need to be as steadfast in getting their guy elected. Hold your nose, and get your guy in. That's it.

jr565 said...

"Good Lord! Is this now the benchmark by which we measure American success? The Middle East is a perpetual, eternal clusterfuck. American success should be measured by how far out of it we stay. Just like we would measure a parent's success by how far out of an electric socket he's able to keep his kids' hands."

And that clusterfuck looked better under Bush.

exhelodrvr1 said...

jr565,
People that were clueless enough to vote for him previously likely haven't gotten much smarter.

jr565 said...

"And if millions of Americans are no longer taxed at the rate that less wealthy Americans are taxed at because they're hedge fund managers, then that's OK with Dr Weevil. Which is a great example to set. Yep - great work ethic and example for national cooperation to set."

I don't know if you know this, but Obama has not been unkind to the hedge fund managers.

walter said...

For those missing Frank's unique style, here he is in a recent reflection: http://www.mediaite.com/online/barney-frank-to-progressives-ditch-bernie-sanders/
i.e. Barney on Bernie....

jr565 said...

"Depends on who else is running and what the issues are at the time. I voted for Obama against McCain but Romney against Obama."
If it was a choice of Stalin or Obama or a steaming pile of shit or Obama I'd choose Stalin and/or the steaming pile of shit.

KenK said...

American voters knows what they want, and they deserve to get it, good & hard.

walter said...

Dunno jr, he clearly has a pretty healthy self-esteem..pretty important in the prevailing zeitgeist.

Rhythm and Balls said...

First you evaded his point. Your only argument that the economy is good was the unemployment rate which several of us have pointed out is a manipulated statistic and you cannot deal with that.

I didn't say the economy is good. I say that the economy has been improved much better than the point that W. got it to. As far as manipulated statistics, let's talk about the magnitude of this. You can use whatever metrics you want, Obama still improved things - despite the odds of unprecedented malfeasance by Tea Party - to a very appreciable degree. You want to say he's not perfect? That's your best argument? Oh. Ok. He's not perfect. He did the best job anyone could do under the circumstances. And I don't believe that the circumstances pre-2008 are circumstances to which we should rush to return. If more people today decide not to work until age 75, I don't assume that's the worst thing in the world. You do, because it gives you a talking point, though - if not a thinking point. It's far from the worst trade-off for avoiding another bubble economy. Let's see what's really worth improving, and what's just a number. Measuring your manhood doesn't tell you whether it's getting or giving pleasure.

Second almost everyone here wants to see the carried interest loophole closed.

FFS THEN GO DO IT! You actually think Obama is your obstacle? This just goes to show how Republicans can't even do what large majorities of people across the spectrum want! Incompetence! Bad priorities! Less ideology, political tactics, and showmanship and more progress!

We also want to see rates lowered and deductions from favored industries removed.

Again. Then go do it. Is this what I see the House prioritizing, though? No. All I hear is talking points to the insurgents about Obama's supposed criminality, how environmentalism is bad, how debt limit increases should be hostage to shutting down the government, how anything short of Iran's destruction is a disaster... blah blah blah. Just a bunch of rhetoric to appease the tiger running the base.

The only people discussing tax reform are republicans and they would largely be accomplishing the goals you seem to hold.

If they remove loophole deductions then I'm happy to support that with them. It's just one thing but fine.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
In that same time a Democrat president signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

"Dude. You go on about how disappointed you are in Republicans, but can't seem to realize that B. Clinton was the most conspicuous sell-out of Democratic policies in history. He was famous for using a Republican advisor (Dick Morris) to encourage him to "triangulate" toward the right. And almost every blundering economic booby trap you mentioned was started or given the fatal blow (pun not necessary) under his administration."

I am just taking each argument you put up and making you think about it. Nobody has done that to you yet because you still hold petulantly simple beliefs about party loyalty. Clinton is the person who is singularly responsible for the current state of our economy. Yes there were republicans he "worked with" but he is also the most popular democrat alive.

"Both Trump and Sanders are shots against plutocracy. But I prefer the guy who opposes it due to personal integrity and credibility (the latter) than the guy who opposes it because he simply happens to have enough of his own money to avoid being bribed by it."

Sanders is a village idiot. His first attempt at life was to start a carpentry business. He picked up jobs and asked the people at the hardware store how to do them and what materials he needed. He went out of business before he learned how to fix a house. He adheres to a failed philosophy that has lured idealistic idiots in for the last century and invariably leads to poverty, mass killings, and no toilet paper.

Trump is an opportunist. I would support him over anyone from either establishment because I think he would burn DC to the ground. But of the current choices there are better ones.

"You can call me a chump, but at least I can affiliate with a party that won't compromise its values as often as you seem to indicate that Republicans compromise yours."

If you think the Democrat party isn't corrupt to the core you are willfully blind. Obama raked in more campaign cash than any candidate in our history. The big 5 banks have exploded in profits and value. Corporate profits for the largest companies have far outpaced the economy. His first action as president was to strip parents in the DC area of a voucher program that let them escape the disgusting public school system there. His first action as father was to stick his kids in a private school with armed guards.

"If that doesn't cause you to at least question the feasibility of your political values, then you should ask yourself why that is. You don't come across as the worst partisan, perhaps even somewhat open-minded. But if I had one party that seemed as perpetually compromised as Republican voters claim that Republicans are, I would at least start to wonder if my values were the most sensible."

My values revolve around individual freedom. The government should exist for a few limited functions which primarily revolve around enforcing individual freedom. The government is made of people and is not morally superior or inferior. Central planning is generally an inferior solution to freedom and local control.

So far our federal government is proving that it is not worthy of the power we give it. Most of it's power needs to be given to the states.

Rhythm and Balls said...

And that clusterfuck looked better under Bush.

Then go travel back in time, get a passport and immigration visa, and live there under Bush.

But some of us want presidents who focus on America.

What is so damn wrong with you that you don't get this point?

No one gives a fuck about the Middle East. What have you done in your own neighborhood even, lately? Have you done any community service, or public service at home? Yes, you say? You have? WONDERFUL!

Now go to the Middle East and straighten out community relations over there. Go on. It is important to you, or so you say.

Just leave me out of it.

walter said...

Hmm...perhaps buyer's remorse:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-peace-prize-what-barack-obamas-role-in-the-kunduz-bombing-means-for-the-world-s-most-a6689126.html

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"I didn't say the economy is good. I say that the economy has been improved much better than the point that W. got it to. As far as manipulated statistics, let's talk about the magnitude of this. You can use whatever metrics you want, Obama still improved things - despite the odds of unprecedented malfeasance by Tea Party - to a very appreciable degree. You want to say he's not perfect? That's your best argument? Oh. Ok. He's not perfect. He did the best job anyone could do under the circumstances. And I don't believe that the circumstances pre-2008 are circumstances to which we should rush to return. If more people today decide not to work until age 75, I don't assume that's the worst thing in the world. You do, because it gives you a talking point, though - if not a thinking point. It's far from the worst trade-off for avoiding another bubble economy."

We are going to have another correction soon. It is baked in. Obama has printed 1 Trillion dollars a year and borrowed 1 Trillion dollars a year for 7 years. Most of this went out in the form of 0% interest loans to his banker donors. That is 12% of the nations economy for 7 years. Compare that to a sub 2% growth rate. Over 10% of our economy has been going... where? It is all propped up just like in 2008. They are going to wait until after the next election and pull the plug. They will blame it on Austerity/Republicans just like they blamed the Fanny/Freddy collapse on Bush.

"Second almost everyone here wants to see the carried interest loophole closed.

FFS THEN GO DO IT! You actually think Obama is your obstacle? This just goes to show how Republicans can't even do what large majorities of people across the spectrum want! Incompetence! Bad priorities! Less ideology, political tactics, and showmanship and more progress!"

You don't seem to get what is going on. The "republican" base is trying to throw it's leaders out. We have figured out they don't want what we want. The democrat party doesn't want what you want. They tell you what you want to hear, get you angry at republicans, then screw the country over.

"We also want to see rates lowered and deductions from favored industries removed.

Again. Then go do it. Is this what I see the House prioritizing, though? No. All I hear is talking points to the insurgents about Obama's supposed criminality, how environmentalism is bad, how debt limit increases should be hostage to shutting down the government, how anything short of Iran's destruction is a disaster... blah blah blah. Just a bunch of rhetoric to appease the tiger running the base."

Obama has clearly acted in a lawless fashion. If Bush had done what he did you would be screaming bloody murder. But democrats can depend on blind loyalty from their serfs.

"The only people discussing tax reform are republicans and they would largely be accomplishing the goals you seem to hold.

If they remove loophole deductions then I'm happy to support that with them. It's just one thing but fine."

You are starting to come around. If you stop prejudging people and actually listen to them you might notice that the plutocrats, and especially Obama, have been trying to divide the voters of this country against each other and sow hatred.

walter said...

"go travel back in time, get a passport and immigration visa, and live there under Bush.
But some of us want presidents who focus on America."

i.e. (hands over ears) "La, la, la, la"

Have you any Neville Chamberlain T's for sale on Zazzle?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I am just taking each argument you put up and making you think about it. Nobody has done that to you yet because you still hold petulantly simple beliefs about party loyalty. Clinton is the person who is singularly responsible for the current state of our economy. Yes there were republicans he "worked with" but he is also the most popular democrat alive.

Yep. Deregulation was a Democratic priority and Clinton's political calculation of triangulating toward the right had nothing to do with it. Nice try pretending that everything I just said wasn't the relevant issue here.

Sanders is a village idiot. His first attempt at life was to start a carpentry business. He picked up jobs and asked the people at the hardware store how to do them and what materials he needed. He went out of business before he learned how to fix a house. He adheres to a failed philosophy that has lured idealistic idiots in for the last century and invariably leads to poverty, mass killings, and no toilet paper.

Nice arrogant condescension there. He also ran a city unusually well, stuck to some very consistent, well articulated and popular principles for years, and looks to countries with successful domestic policies as examples. America is done and sick of your inability to differentiate Western and Northern Europe from China (the hellhole that forms your own model nation) and the USSR.

Trump is an opportunist. I would support him over anyone from either establishment because I think he would burn DC to the ground. But of the current choices there are better ones.

So you have no constructive political interest, just destruction, and then wonder why you don't get cooperation or what you want. Well, that's because you have no business having a political opinion. You talk about the destruction of China and Russia (confusing them for Scandinavia) and then say you want to destroy America's capitol. Which is fine. Just don't pretend to scratch your ass and wonder why you can't get anyone to work with you on any political objective.

My values revolve around individual freedom. The government should exist for a few limited functions which primarily revolve around enforcing individual freedom. The government is made of people and is not morally superior or inferior. Central planning is generally an inferior solution to freedom and local control.

It's easy to get the government "out of your life". Just go live in a cabin away from society or people who have agreed on some efficient ground rules for anything other than the market. Don't send kids to public schools. Don't use public roads. Don't use FDA approved foods, grow your own crops. It's tantrum throwers like you who need to exercise your right to leave society rather than childishly demanding that everyone else needs to withdraw from their own longstanding social contracts with you. Just go live in a cabin, like Ted Kazinsky lived in... As long as you don't blow anyone up the government will leave you alone, I promise. Your fantasy of everyone else's representative self-government being an "intrusion" on you and your stupid narrow conception of your rights is just self-serving, childish arrogant bunk. No one's trying to interfere in your life, I guarantee it. It's too tiny and nasty and arrogant and adolescent a life to do anyone else any good. So stop with the martyrdom routine, Ali. Just give it up. No one really cares. You could get an Academy Award with those "No! Leave my meager existence alone!" routines. Enough drama already.

chickelit said...

re: unemployment. I can't speak for all industries but under Obama, chemistry employment as stagnated and salaries have actually decreased. link

This is purposeful. This is deliberate. Obama's EPA is at war with many industries and actively encourages them to leave for BRIC nations. This will be reconsidered under either Trump or Fiorina.

Rhythm and Balls said...

This is purposeful. This is deliberate.

This is conspiratorial thinking from a man who thinks the very concept of a "carcinogen" is suspect.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"Then go travel back in time, get a passport and immigration visa, and live there under Bush.

But some of us want presidents who focus on America.

What is so damn wrong with you that you don't get this point?"

My point is I would rather have a federal government that stayed out of my life and did less. I want it to stop taking my money. I want it to stop taking my employees money. I want it to stop giving my money to Obama's donors. Every time the government focus's on America's problems it gets bigger, takes more of my money, and screws another faucet of our lives up. It exists to serve wealthy donors to politicians campaigns and it takes my money to fund it's activities. We need less government.

"No one gives a fuck about the Middle East. What have you done in your own neighborhood even, lately? Have you done any community service, or public service at home? Yes, you say? You have? WONDERFUL!

Now go to the Middle East and straighten out community relations over there. Go on. It is important to you, or so you say.

Just leave me out of it."

What problems ail you? Seriously. You asked above what my values are. My primary value is the belief in liberty. The freedom to walk out your door, go to the store or the park or hang out with family, or work wherever and however you want and be free to keep your earnings and property.

I was over in both Iraq and Afghanistan several times. If you wanted to actually help poor people that was our best shot. I was proud to try to make their lives better. Now they are being sold as sex slaves. Feel better?

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"It's easy to get the government "out of your life". Just go live in a cabin away from society or people who have agreed on some efficient ground rules for anything other than the market. Don't send kids to public schools. Don't use public roads. Don't use FDA approved foods, grow your own crops. It's tantrum throwers like you who need to exercise your right to leave society rather than childishly demanding that everyone else needs to withdraw from their own longstanding social contracts with you. Just go live in a cabin, like Ted Kazinsky lived in... As long as you don't blow anyone up the government will leave you alone, I promise. Your fantasy of everyone else's representative self-government being an "intrusion" on you and your stupid narrow conception of your rights is just self-serving, childish arrogant bunk. No one's trying to interfere in your life, I guarantee it. It's too tiny and nasty and arrogant and adolescent a life to do anyone else any good. So stop with the martyrdom routine, Ali. Just give it up. No one really cares. You could get an Academy Award with those "No! Leave my meager existence alone!" routines. Enough drama already."

This is a pathetic straw man. Even for you it is ridiculous. For a bit there you were engaging then you listened to that little devil on your shoulder.

Engage what I say rather than making a bunch of stuff up please.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Why Mr. Demigod with the fateful heel (Achilles) do you pretend that my response to jr was a response to you?

I mean, I don't have an objection to the two of you tag-teaming each other in the debate department. But it seems like you already had enough passionate and slightly better articulated issues to defend than he did. But if you want to pretend that the two of you both understand the same issues with the same amount of depth and personal investment, I'm afraid I'm not sure if I'll be able to honor that perception.

walter said...

More "community organizers" says he..

walter said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"Yep. Deregulation was a Democratic priority and Clinton's political calculation of triangulating toward the right had nothing to do with it. Nice try pretending that everything I just said wasn't the relevant issue here."

My point is the Democrat and Republican establishments write and change regulations to benefit their wealthy donors. It isn't just over-regulation or deregulation, it is what regulation and how the regulations are enforced.

Clinton removed the regulations that prevented the big banks from dominating the industry. Dodd-Frank was written to crush small banks for the benefit of the big 5 and signed by Obama. You can screech about republicans and the right and all of that crap until your face turns blue. The fact is Democrats, with some republican support, are the ones that have authored the current set of regulations that favor the "too big to fail" banks. And Obama appreciated the record amounts of cash he got from the finance industry.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Engage what I say rather than making a bunch of stuff up please.

I'm trying, but you're making it hard. You seem to be getting incredibly emotional, and it's causing me to lose any understanding of your points, just when you're on the cusp of making sense. I mean, here's one huge heck of a paradox: You say everything the U.S. gov't does, it fucks up. Which is somehow why it does great things in Iraq. It doesn't occur to you that maybe Iraqis don't want us there. Or that we are seen as fucking things up in their eyes. I mean, just the sheer hypocrisy of preferring us being in places where we're not only not wanted but have tenuous if any legitimate permission or interest to be there, while you say the U.S. government has no business even operating in D.C. let alone improving what it's been expected to do for a long time over here... Just the incoherence of that whole belief is too mind-boggling for me to proceed with much further.

You were in Iraq? Wonderful! I'm told military service is a wonderful and even patriotic thing.

I'm also told that there's such a thing as "military history" and a concern for the overall mission of a nation's military adventures. Perhaps you're not aware of the long, illustrious and insanely dubious history of military empire. It goes way back. It never ends well. And everyone who got their rocks off about their empires in ages past made all the same errors you seem to make in their/your exuberance for it. You prioritize achievements abroad over achievements at home. In your case, actively so. You want the U.S. government to do less for Americans than you want it to do for Iraqis. I've already spoke to the sheer, obvious insanity of that priority (one that vast majorities of Americans also see), but perhaps you need to read up on why this invariably leads to a nation's decline. The reasons are obvious. Nations are better off focusing on problems at home than in extending their never-ending lust for control abroad.

You don't like the mere intimation of a government (simply by virtue of its existence!) controlling you? Stop doing the same thing (and much worse) to others abroad. Yep, these Democrats' good intentions are paving the road to hell but your good intentions for others in Iraq are just heavenly.

walter said...

Well...a good chunk of Dems were also on-board for Iraq and Afghanistan post 911. Where obama figures most regards his management and judgement once he came into power as commander in chief.
Think he made the right moves in that context?
I don't hear him using the "JV" prefix much anymore...

walter said...

(but that climate change is veritable security threat!)

Rhythm and Balls said...

walter: What year is it?

I guess it's not as easy to scare Americans in 2015 into being involved in the kind of never-ending mission creep that we could find a way to scare us into in 2005.

I guess you're just one of those guys who doesn't get over his fears that easily. Quick! A spider on your wall from 1985 needs swatting! Keep going after those ghosts, walter. The day you stop fighting them is the day they no longer exist, and that would be a tragedy.

Rhythm and Balls said...

(but that climate change is veritable security threat!)

The military thinks so. Take it up with them.

But why take up issues of weather with an institution that just wants to fight in deserts?

See, the Russians are ahead of you. At least when they find a way to extend air missions to prop up their imperial stooge in Syria, they give everyone at home the weather reports in Damascus.

Weather and military adventure. I do say, today is a great day for killing!

walter said...

That's right R&B. Threat's over. All good.

Birkel said...

"Rhythm and Balls" deserves nothing but mockery and contempt.
That any of you engage him as if he were honest makes me think less of you.

Obama probably would win. Voter turnout by blacks swings the swing states wildly.

Turnout for Sanders, Hillary and even Biden would not be so high. Democrats pretend the results are because of systems and policy preferences. I doubt that is so.

Todd Roberson said...

R & B -

I've alluded to this with you before but here goes again:

While I'm sure I'd largely disagree with your position on nearly every issue, I must admit you make some good points and raise some interesting questions.

If you could just now figure out a way to make your case without resorting to insults, attacks, and childish put downs you'd be much more effective. Just keep you passion but try to be a little less abrasive and ad hominem.

Just trying to help.

Peace -

walter said...

Whoops..can't keep up with your 2 minute addendums. Go R&B!!!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Thanks Todd. I appreciate your input. I admit that I get a lot out of hearing opposing perspectives and have a great deal of respect and even affection for a number of people on the "right", so I apologize when it devolves into something more hostile and childish than necessary. I think we're all at risk of taking things personally, but sometimes that's a net positive as it indicates the possibility of a personal interest or stake in the other guy. We insult each other when (I think) we feel we are letting the other one down and not living up to the promise of a true challenge. That said, insult can be a bit of an artform in itself, and there's a danger in taking the fun of it far enough to miss the point and promote a more negative than positive net exchange. I admit I'm guilty and don't mind graciously learning from guys like you (and TradGuy) who can point out when I'm going too far.

Thanks to you and rest well -

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Engage what I say rather than making a bunch of stuff up please.

"I'm trying, but you're making it hard. You seem to be getting incredibly emotional, and it's causing me to lose any understanding of your points, just when you're on the cusp of making sense. I mean, here's one huge heck of a paradox: You say everything the U.S. gov't does, it fucks up. Which is somehow why it does great things in Iraq. It doesn't occur to you that maybe Iraqis don't want us there. Or that we are seen as fucking things up in their eyes. I mean, just the sheer hypocrisy of preferring us being in places where we're not only not wanted but have tenuous if any legitimate permission or interest to be there, while you say the U.S. government has no business even operating in D.C. let alone improving what it's been expected to do for a long time over here... Just the incoherence of that whole belief is too mind-boggling for me to proceed with much further."

That is because you take for granted the freedom you have here. You weren't there and you didn't see the way women there actually opened up. It is incomprehensible to you because you have known nothing else and you weren't there. You need to get out more. You might try joining the army.

As for the federal government in it's current iteration it has pretty much botched up every task it was given. And strangely enough every policy seems to benefit the wealthy. A bunch of politicians go get people all riled up and pass a giant 40000 page bill named Affordable Care Act and it turns out to just be a giant sop to the insurance companies. If a republican had passed it you would be tearing it apart as a giveaway to giant insurance companies.

You are so focused on the football game between two supposedly opposing sides because you are a fan of one of the teams that you don't notice what is actually going on.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Bad (evil) question. Correct answer.

walter said...

"If a republican had passed it you would be tearing it apart as a giveaway to giant insurance companies."

..and proclaiming it proof of need for single payer..
(not an accident)

Rhythm and Balls said...

That is because you take for granted the freedom you have here.

Well, what can I say? I'm used to the life I live. But I hate the corrosive destruction of lacking appreciation as much as any non-cynic would. Let's just say that I travel enough to appreciate America's certain differences. Doesn't mean I think it's perfect, but then it doesn't have to.

You weren't there and you didn't see the way women there actually opened up.

I believe you.

It is incomprehensible to you because you have known nothing else and you weren't there.

You must think my powers of comprehension are pretty bad. Do you honestly think that anything I haven't known personally I find find incapable of believing?

You need to get out more.

Already spoke to this. Plus, Todd encouraged me to be less negative and personal, so I'll keep my response as short as topicality demands.

You might try joining the army.

I wonder if you might try things other than the army. I've done service projects, and imagine the Iraq missions evolved into a lot of that. But regardless, I would never join the U.S. Army. Never in a million years. You yourself say how untrustworthy D.C. is, and yet, I'm supposed to trust it to make the right decisions concerning how I would be put into fatal danger? Again, how does this make any sense whatsoever?

If I lived in a society where active participation was inherent, one that chose governments that were expected to actually look out for its people, that might be different. One with more solidarity and less opportunism. Then I might reconsider. If I were in Israel, for instance. You'd better believe that their politicians don't get away with even a few soldiers dying for no explanation without hell to pay. But America, as with its elderly, its veterans, its poor, its working poor, its ill, doesn't give a damn about its soldiers, either - other than the lip service it gives them. So you'd better damn well believe I'm not going to trust it with my life in the situations most likely to end it.

As for the federal government in it's current iteration it has pretty much botched up every task it was given. And strangely enough every policy seems to benefit the wealthy. A bunch of politicians go get people all riled up and pass a giant 40000 page bill named Affordable Care Act and it turns out to just be a giant sop to the insurance companies. If a republican had passed it you would be tearing it apart as a giveaway to giant insurance companies.

You are so focused on the football game between two supposedly opposing sides because you are a fan of one of the teams that you don't notice what is actually going on.


Maybe so. That's fair. But at least with one of them I know I have a shot. I'm sure Obama's sold out a lot to stay in office. I'm sure most Democrats don't even feel they have a shot at implementing a proper agenda for the kind of America we want, the one that takes care of itself and its people.

But what I'm sure of is that I'll never see the sort of active hostility against the less fortunate among them that I regularly see from Republicans. And that's because Democrats don't have a natural inclination to see society as a hierarchy with "winners" and "losers" - as Mitt Romney admitted. Just people who rightly have more luck and less luck, and not as people who need more "righteous" scorn for lacking it or "righteous" admiration simply for having that luck. Luck doesn't need my endorsement, no matter how much Republicans tell me I should look up to those who have had more than their fair share of it.

I know this, because I would never tell someone to admire me simply on account of the luck that I've had in my life, either.

Achilles said...

"But what I'm sure of is that I'll never see the sort of active hostility against the less fortunate among them that I regularly see from Republicans. And that's because Democrats don't have a natural inclination to see society as a hierarchy with "winners" and "losers" - as Mitt Romney admitted. Just people who rightly have more luck and less luck, and not as people who need more "righteous" scorn for lacking it or "righteous" admiration simply for having that luck. Luck doesn't need my endorsement, no matter how much Republicans tell me I should look up to those who have had more than their fair share of it.

I know this, because I would never tell someone to admire me simply on account of the luck that I've had in my life, either."

The issue I have with this is the democrats are people who claim to want to help the less fortunate, don't actually do anything to help, and then wrap themselves in some pseudo-morality. They take money from some people, give it to others, and say they are helping the less fortunate.

There are people out there doing a wide variety of things that actually help the poor. I and my wife give money we earned to churches and private causes. We donate food that we bought with money we earned. This is a totally different thing than a government taking someone else's money and handing it out to buy votes.

When a local church/charity helps someone they see the people who are helping them. It builds the community and they can build relationships with the people around them. Through these relationships they get support and this is what helps people move to a better station in life.

When a government takes money from one person and gives it to another based on a loose voting relationship it builds resentment. The people who get the money don't meet anyone or build relationships. And the people who fund this are generally resentful of people on the take.

I and my wife joined the army. I was in several places with actual poor people. Through our actions people in Iraq and Afghanistan got to vote for the first time. Girls in Iraq got to go to school, temporarily. That was gratifying. As for military history? I think I would want to be a part of an institution that prevented South Korea from being like North Korea. I would be proud of an institution that made your Northern and Western Europe possible. Japan and Australia are pretty nice places. There is some work to do in the Philippines and other places but the places where we have won are far better than the places where we were pulled out.

Do I understand the dark side of military force? Better than you. I have seen and done shit that is pretty awful. It sucks and trust me when I say I wish some things didn't have to happen. My least favorite is standing in formation for someone I just had breakfast with the day before. The second least favorite were the drone strikes and cleaning up after them. But, to overuse a phrase, freedom ain't free. You can say the Iraqi people didn't want us there and that is true for some of them. But I can guarantee you 99% of the women and girls wanted us there. Don't worry about them though. Sexual slavery isn't so bad once you get used to it. We are going to take care of our own.

Annie said...

R&B...And yet whenever a study is done on the subject, who gives more of their time and treasure to the less fortunate, it is those conservatives, who identify as republicans, who come out on top. Not progressives/democrats.

Government confiscation/redistribution, to buy and keep votes, is not charity. It's theft. And it's damn cruel to keep people as state owned pets to hold on to power. And evil to project that cruelness onto others as cover.

Democrats have a natural inclination to want others to take care of them and pay for the consequences of their repeated bad life choices. If one objects to to being forced to pay, one is attacked as being heartless and mean and uncaring of the 'less fortunate'. It's played out in my family numerous times. I've seen it played out numerous times in my job where young women get knocked up, live with but refuse to marry the boyfriend...because unmarried = EBT, EITC, medicaid, WIC, housing and energy subsidy, free school breakfast/lunch. They trade tips on how to get maximum benefits. Any money they earn goes to partying, vacation, nails, clothes, smart phones, the boyfriend's new truck or motorcycle. Yeah, the 'less fortunate'.

Terry said...

That's a dumb question. Every president would say yes. Instead Kroft should have asked Obama if he thought he had too much power. That's a tough question to answer with a yes or no, and the way Obama (or any president) qualified his answer would be informative.

Quaestor said...

And he's right.

The most fatuous sentence Althouse has written lately, and given the recent string of doozies that's pretty damned fatuous, silly, foolish, inane, vacuous, etc.

Bob Ellison said...

"I am going to let Joe make that decision." "I’m going to leave it to Hillary when she has an interview with you to address all these questions." Exact quotes from the narcissist-in-chief.

damikesc said...

In that same time a Democrat president signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal. That same Democrat President also gutted standard accounting regulations that led to among other things Enron Inc. collapsing and the government adopting accounting practices that would make Enron blush.

It should be noted that, under a Republican President, the people who committed fraud with Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, etc were prosecuted.

The number of prosecutions for the massive banking collapse seems astonishingly low, no?

Also, any idea why nobody is bringing up Google on monopoly charges, given that they clearly are a monopoly?

I didn't say the economy is good. I say that the economy has been improved much better than the point that W. got it to.

It's been SEVEN YEARS.

Then again, the Dems main playbook, the New Deal, also failed for years. It only took the eradication of Europe to make us successful...and, hey, with a Muslim invasion going on there, we might be seeing that again.

Nice arrogant condescension there. He also ran a city unusually well, stuck to some very consistent, well articulated and popular principles for years, and looks to countries with successful domestic policies as examples. America is done and sick of your inability to differentiate Western and Northern Europe from China (the hellhole that forms your own model nation) and the USSR.

No, we are a lot like Northern and Western Europe --- government ignores citizens views on immigration. Except Europe is going to go A LOT more fascist than we ever would. As usual.

Nichevo said...

China (the hellhole that forms your own model nation)

Hey R&B,

You spelled "Thomas Friedman's" wrong.

MadisonMan said...

Are you and your country better off than you were 8 years ago?

Anyway, who would he run against.

I think any lame duck has to answer yes to that question -- otherwise you're admitting to all of your political opponents that you're weak.

Phil 3:14 said...

A short, anger-inducing header and 150 comments.

As expected, a free for all.

And you could be talking about the Packers instead, and enjoying it more.

Terry said...

"Also, any idea why nobody is bringing up Google on monopoly charges, given that they clearly are a monopoly?"
Eric Schmidt has held several positions in Obama's campaigns and official positions in his administration. You might think the "anti-corporate" warriors on the Left wouldn't like that, but you haven't heard a peep from them. Their anti-corporatism is very selective.

Kansas City said...

Very interesting to see how questions about Obama the person gets people going. Also interesting that Ann somehow has mostly a conservative audience.

I think Obama has been an awful president, but I never have thought I was close to understanding him as a person. I assume he is trying to do a good job. I think he has very poor judgment, combined with misguided core beliefs from a family and a background that really is not rooted in American values. He also has what people call that narcissistic side. It is obvious by how much he speaks about himself and in the first person. He also is a typical politician in the sense of lusting for fortune and power. But at the same time, he is a different kind of guy.

After he finishes messing up his tenure as president, then the debate will be between his sycophants who want to make the first black president into George Washington and the critics who want to make him James Buchanan. In the short term, his fans (and of course he) will be able to blame his successor for all the tragedies resulting from Obama's tenure, e.g., sure the Iranians started a nuclear war in the Middle East, but it was President Biden/Rubio/Fiorina's fault and, when Obama left, he had Iran at peace under his agreement with them. In the long term, we'll all be dead, but perhaps there will be a more objective assessment of President Obama.

There also is a small chance that some revelations will come to provide further enlightenment on him as a person. If Hillary Clinton goes down, I assume it will not be quietly at this point. The Clintons are rich beyond their wildest dreams and she would be too old for a third try (I think), so aside from dreams about Chelsea, they would have no reason to hold back what they might have on Obama.

Static Ping said...

I can believe Obama could win a third term.

If he did, I'm not sure there would be a next election after that.

CStanley said...

He has to keep saying things that provoke reaction from Republicans, so that they overreact and then he can laugh off all criticism as though it comes from irrational people who hate him.

He's like the obnoxious kid who provokes his siblings or classmates and then laughs when the other kids get in trouble for reacting to his irritations.

jr565 said...

Obama is counting on the complete lack of attention to his policies by the left (except for a few outliers) who only bring out the anti war signs when its Bush. Who only care about the economy when its Bush.

jr565 said...

"But what I'm sure of is that I'll never see the sort of active hostility against the less fortunate among them that I regularly see from Republicans. And that's because Democrats don't have a natural inclination to see society as a hierarchy with "winners" and "losers" - as Mitt Romney admitted. Just people who rightly have more luck and less luck, and not as people who need more "righteous" scorn for lacking it or "righteous" admiration simply for having that luck. Luck doesn't need my endorsement, no matter how much Republicans tell me I should look up to those who have had more than their fair share of it. "


Or to put it another way "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?"

damikesc said...

Eric Schmidt has held several positions in Obama's campaigns and official positions in his administration. You might think the "anti-corporate" warriors on the Left wouldn't like that, but you haven't heard a peep from them. Their anti-corporatism is very selective.

If I was a Republican President, I'd demand anti-trust investigations on Apple and Google my first day in office. Same for large banks and then begin smashing them to size.

Let the Left live by their rules.

...I'd also demand a law that any federal employee who pleads the Fifth in an investigation of their duties forfeits their pension. They won't go to jail, but nobody said negative consequences were illegal.

Nichevo said...

Only way to fix that kid is a beatdown and we all know it. With the decline in beatdowns, such behavior can be expected to grow and flourish.

Brando said...

Against a GOP that is determined to keep losing presidential elections by hamstringing its nominees and fighting amongst itself? Obama could absolutely win again. No question.

n.n said...

He's right. The pro-choice cult would easily elect him in their stupor. It is hopes and promises of dissociation of risk and freedom from responsibility that is the opiate of the masses. The pro-choice cult reflects a Peter Pan syndrome that is retained past childhood.

damikesc said...

Against a GOP that is determined to keep losing presidential elections by hamstringing its nominees and fighting amongst itself? Obama could absolutely win again. No question.

The problem, as some are noticing, is the "establishment". They demand conservatives compromise --- but they will NEVER do the same.

That is why the Liberty Caucus proposal for Speaker will never be named Speaker...because the Establishment would rather work with Democrats.

...and if they do that to name a Speaker, I will never vote for a Republican for anything ever again.

EMD said...

"It is obvious by how much he speaks about himself and in the first person"

I think most of us speak about ourselves in the first person. It's the third-person speakers that are routinely considered more narcissistic, like Karl Malone. Obama rarely uses the third person, but his narcissism shows in other ways.

EMD said...

"Also, any idea why nobody is bringing up Google on monopoly charges, given that they clearly are a monopoly?"

I don't harbor any great love for Google, but what, exactly, would the charges be?

Also, a related question is "what kind of company is Google?"

EMD said...

"That is why the Liberty Caucus proposal for Speaker will never be named Speaker...because the Establishment would rather work with Democrats."

They should elect their own speaker and have their own press conferences. They'll get coverage because the media will love to no end the "Republicans in chaos" narrative.

EMD said...

" I will never vote for a Republican for anything ever again."

Except down ballot, at the local and state level, where they seem to have their shit together and are winning all over the place, despite the "demographic" future that is still very much in doubt.

Kansas City said...

EMD

You misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote Obama "speaks about himself and in the first person"

You said: "I think most of us speak about ourselves in the first person."

No, I wrote in the conjunctive with "and" not that he "speaks about himself in the first person." I referenced two different things: (1) he talks a lot about himself as a person; and (2) he also often speaks in the first person, using "I" and "me" instead of "We" and "us."

damikesc said...

They should elect their own speaker and have their own press conferences. They'll get coverage because the media will love to no end the "Republicans in chaos" narrative.

Except fighting Dems AND K Street is a heavy load to bear. You don't see the Dem Establishment trying to work with Republicans against their base.

I don't harbor any great love for Google, but what, exactly, would the charges be?

They own the internet ad market and the search engine market in a way Microsoft could've only PRAYED to do in the 1990's.

Except down ballot, at the local and state level, where they seem to have their shit together and are winning all over the place, despite the "demographic" future that is still very much in doubt.

I'll vote state because that will become my only concern. The country can go fuck itself.