|
|
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
||||||||
|
Expansion of Firearm Rights Despite this, the sixth annual "BOO! OBAMY GONER CONFYSKATE YER GUNS!" sale brought in millions yet gain to the coffers of firearm manufacturers. The dark skinned liberal has been an enormous boon to ammunition manufacturers as well. I cannot buy my favorite .22 caliber load (standard velocity long rifle) despite the one box per customer limit because spiral-eyed loons fired up by Fox's bullhorn snap up the boxes just as they hit the store shelves. Crazy. |
||||||||
|
Racism I read this, and what I hear is "the thugger-in-chief" has no business being in command of US troops--many of whom enjoy much fairer complexion, and who suffer butt-hurt at the thought their orders come down from a guy their grand parents would have had out in the fields plucking cotton. You got a jump down, turn around Pick a bale a cotton Got a jump down, turn around Pick a bale a day Chorus: Oh, Lawdy, pick a bale a cotton Oh, Lawdy, pick a bale a day |
||||||||
|
Rank of Presidents No, Bush is only the second worst president in US history. He was an embarrassment of such magnitude the Grand Old Party refused to let him appear at subsequent political functions. And Fox has worked overtime to shift the blame of Bush policies onto the thugger, such that a substantial fraction of their viewers believe Obama was responsible for the Iraq War (and for 9/11). Not terribly surprising given that 50% of Fox viewers erroneously believe WMDs were found in Iraq, that the AHA was a government takeover and included death squads tasked with gunning down their grandmothers, and on and on. The only logical underlying motivation I can think of for spreading such obvious outright lies and calumny is racial. The man's suntan is darker than that of the Orangeman Boehner. |
||||||||
|
Criticism Actually, congress passed a law requiring private insurance for mariners back in the 18th century. So there is long precedent for what Obama managed to accomplish in this regard. He has been a pretty good president--well within the top 25% considering how he saved planet Earth from the financial ruin engineered by his predecessor. John McCain MIGHT have been able to stave off the incipient global depression. Invalid criticism run rampant amidst teabagger talking points. Obama is not the Muslim Son of Satan (as the "Starbucks flavors their coffee with gay semen" pastor claims). Obama did not start WWII, or make a secret pact with Saddam to take down the WTC. Obama has not issued 23 executive orders regarding gun control. Let's try to stick to simple, easily checked facts. |
||||||||
|
I wonder if most of this is partisan posturing? (Likely) I'm hearing a lot of talking points in here regardless. |
||||||||
|
Josh What gets me is these wackos who blame Obama for being so bad, when any objective view clearly shows that he inherited a god almighty mess, and things have slowly improved in his tenure. Things are not great... Naturally. Hoe long did the Great Depression last again? It is really hard to imagine any realistic scenario in which the country rebounds from the 2008 crash much better than it did. Those who claim otherwise would appear to be naive dupes with no understanding of history or macroeconomics. Obama made many mistakes and poor decisions - every president does. But, if things continue as is for another 5 years, history will view Obama as a great president. |
||||||||
|
Jeff When it comes to economics I think presidents largely do what the people who they have around them tell them will be good for the economy. In many ways I think we are seeing the death rasps of our current monetary policy which has been FED driven since 1913. The people to blame for that mess are the legislators who voted for the law creating the FED. Though it seems to me the game could potentially continue for (perhaps quite a while longer) with a world currency. But eventually you have to inflate the value of the money away to the point where it's hurtful to most folks. My complaints with Obama are probably more related to his selection of Supreme Court justices. Though it was a partisan selection so. Maybe not terribly fair. That's how president's generally pick Supreme Court justices. ACA was ran through too fast. I see the problems my patients have with insurance these days that is a direct result of the legislation. The ACA has largely been good for me personally but I'm not the cohort that the law was trying to help, you know? Far and furious. That was a debacle that I'll never forgive. And it was done cynically to go after guns. Can I verify that in any kind of objective fashion? Of course not. The classification of communications on the subject is all the confirmation that I think is needed. Racial relations have gotten worse under Obama. His fault? Probably not fair to paint that on him directly but I don't think he did anything other than stoke those fires. I think the bully pulpit could have been used more constructively. Lastly the artisan divide has worsened. Again, directly obama's fault? Not necessarily directly but again he didn't do much to use the bully pulpit to do much about it. And I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that every time a democrat suggests they "tried" to be bipartisan that they were in fact being bipartisan. |
||||||||
|
Back to the thread Now that Rosie O’Donnell and Donald Trump are in a feud and war of words, it’s time to look at what they really do in the public forum. Trump called Rosie “an animal” has hurled other epithets at her in the last day since O’Donnell baited him on “The View.” Trump’s sympathy level has since fallen. But between these two prominent New Yorkers, I wondered: now that it’s Christmas time, who’s more charitable? Donald the self-proclaimed billionaire, or Rosie the talk show host and comic? The answer: Rosie, as it turns out. Her For All the Kids Foundation gave away $1.9 million in 2004-2005 to children’s charities all over the United States. This is pretty remarkable, and something I didn’t know about it until I looked it up. The foundation benefits groups that help at risk kids, and even put a big chunk of change toward rebuilding a Head Start center in New York. Rosie also has a second charity, called Rosie’s Broadway Kids. Last year she earmarked $375,000 for arts education in New York City public schools. Trump is no slouch by any means when it comes to giving. But according to federal tax records and guidestar.org, his donations are substantially less than O’Donnell’s. In 2003-2004, his Donald J. Trump Foundation gave away $725,000 to a host of charities. While O’Donnell’s charities focus on her personal passion, children, Trump is more generic in his selections. The biggest winner was the United Way of New York City, with $250,000. His second favorite choices were the Police Athletic League and Damon Runyon Cancer Research, each with $100,000. But O’Donnell, who supposedly has a much smaller net worth than Trump, is the winner. Maybe what they should do now is call a Christmas truce, and each write a check to the other’s foundation. That would be in the true holiday spirit. And if they’re looking for more places to send their tax-free dollars, may I suggest: Literacy Partners of New York; MusiCares Foundation; and Neediest Kids of Washington, DC (www.neediestkids.org). They need the money more than the lawyers who would have to work on a needless lawsuit! |
||||||||
|
tat3225 09-Aug-15, 03:07 |
Who spends more money, Rosie or Trump? Who is spending millions of dollars to run for President, Rosie or Trump? |
||||||||
|
tat3225 09-Aug-15, 03:27 |
Zorro So sure, Obama inherited a financial nightmare that was legitimately not his fault. The problem is that many democrats blame Bush for these problems, as though it was Bush's fault. This is a point of contention between some conservatives and liberals these days because when we actually look back at the Clinton presidency which was the only democratic presidency in recent history before Obama, Clinton was responsible for disaster fiscal policy and DOMA. The latter being a major social issue for liberals in recent history. The democrats passed more legislature just like DOMA during the Obama administration, such as obamacare, that is going to cause problems down the road that democrats can then campaign on all over again. Meanwhile these same problems will have been caused by obamacare. Democrats play defense against this by accusing the GOP of a conspiracy and mocking conservatives. But it's actually a very serious situation. The water crisis out west is an example of liberal policies with delayed consequences that liberals then turn around and present as something else. Nuclear power is another one. There really is a very long list and it's extremely unproductive. To be fair, a lot of this is caused by the kind of political problems Trump is drawing attention to when he says that politicians on both sides are puppets. In other words, democrats being funded by environmental groups have to say certain things and advocate for certain things. Same is true for the Republicans. |
||||||||
|
Water Crisis The conservative view is of unlimited resources and manifest destiny to exhaust those as rapidly as possible to maximize short term gain, versus sustainability. |
||||||||
|
One Pertinent Question |
||||||||
|
What the post-debate poll results tell us. www.breitbart.com by Mike Flynn on 9 Aug 2015 A new NBC News poll provides the first glimpse of the Republican race following the Fox News debate on Thursday. The survey, conducted Friday and Saturday, finds Donald Trump holding his lead with 23 percent support among Republican primary voters. This is consistent with a Gravis Marketing poll taken after the debate, where 19 percent of Republicans said Trump won the debate. The Gravis poll found that more Republicans, 22 percent, felt Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon and political rookie, won the debate. In the NBC poll, Carson surged into third place in the nomination contest, earning 11 percent support. Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was the second choice in the NBC Poll, receiving support from 13 percent of Republican voters. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina was fourth, with 11 percent, following her widely recognized domination of the “undercard” debate earlier Thursday evening. The exact breakdown and percentage of the first seven spots in the NBC poll are: Trump (23), Cruz (13), Carson (11), Fiorina (8), Rubio (8), Bush (7) and Walker (7). In other words, the highest poll ranking of a candidate acceptable to the Republicans in D.C. is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), in fifth place with just 8 percent. This is stunning considering the obvious attacks on Trump by Fox moderators, the limited number of questions offered to Cruz and Carson and the relegation of Fiorina to a non-prime time debate slot. In the post-debate analysis, Fox News roundly criticized Trump and heaped praise on Rubio and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a former Fox News anchor. Obviously the NBC News poll is the first of many post-debate polls and the nomination contest is still in its very early days. Trump created a silly controversy for himself with an attack on Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly over the weekend, which isn’t factored into this poll’s results. That said, something undeniably interesting is happening in the GOP nomination contest. Ratings for the Fox News debate were historic, with some 24 million Americans tuning in. The debate was one of the most watched shows on cable ever, never mind other news or political debate programs. On Saturday, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is inexplicably also running for President, said Donald Trump was “inflicting permanent damage on the GOP.” He wants him booted from the nominating contest. Trump is a volatile chemical, but there is no doubt his presence on the stage helped attract far more people than would have otherwise watched an early Presidential primary debate. The GOP should embrace the opportunity to reach millions of new voters with its message. Of course, that assumes the GOP has a message it wants to communicate. Watching both debates, it is obvious that Trump, Cruz, Carson and Fiorina were the most interesting people on the stage. The rest of the candidates were political pod people, repeating anodyne talking points that had been focus-grouped to within an inch of their lives. One would be very hard-pressed to match the text of an answer to the candidate who said it. Americans are increasingly fed-up with politicians of all stripes. The fact that an aging hippy socialist with no prayer of becoming President (Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) can attract more than 10,000 people for a speech is as much an indictment of the entire political class as it is of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Dem frontrunner. The Presidential politics will likely settle down into its ordinary, and boring, slog through November next year. The odds still favor the two parties coughing up two uninspiring career politicians to quibble before the declining number of Americans that still participate in politics. Or, maybe not. This early post-debate poll confirms that the public is frustrated and turned off of politicians, no matter their resume or rhetoric. For most of the people on those twin debate stages, the message is very simple: We really don’t like you. |
||||||||
| |||||||||
