New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

I just heard a quote from an Obama speech and went WTF...

Friday13

Governor
THose voting for Mitt, those who have looked at the facts and are still okay with him are people who are ok with not knowing what the hell the guy will do. He has contradicted himself on every single thing he says he stands for.

So the bottom line is that you question the judgement of those who would vote for Obama, but fail to take a good look at your own. It is the same people who voted for Bush who would now want to bring back the identical policies....tax cuts, deregulation, irrational military threats against Iran when it is clear that Obama's policies are working and Iran's regime is in danger of collapse.
You tout Romney's business experience but ignore that his business experience has to do with using debt to buy up companies and then selling them for a profit.....tell me how the hell that applies to running a government.....

Your judgement stinks out loud....I'll stand by mine anyday.
I'll second that...
 

justoffal

Senator
When you read between the lies/lines of every Obama "speech".....you see that he means the same thing throughout. Socialism (communism w/a smiley face).

He means 'take from those that have (have worked hard for everything they have and their success) and give it to those who haven't worked' (and don't think they should have to work).

That, in Obama's and in leftists' ""mind"" (as if they had one), means economic JUSTICE and they'll now call it economic patriotism as they, the leftists, continue to ream Americans in every way possible.....especially financially, morally and economically.
Well they may edit out the facts here Lapcat but you and I know where to find them...far away from the reach of the dreamy eyed moderators here who are probably scouring the net trying to find a way in....which they never will. Also encouraging is the enormous amount of attention we seem to be getting there. Our message of hopeless hope and changeless change is having a real effect.

JO
 

justoffal

Senator
The eventual end of this cycle is predictable. It is no different then driving by the gas station even when you need to pull in....you can continue to punch the accelerator in hope, you can curse those who tell you that the tank is empty and call them racists, you can even order them to leave the car after it has stalled out and they tell you " I told you so " but one thing you cannot escape is the need to put gas in the tank...though lefties will tell you the automobile can run on hope.

JO
 

justoffal

Senator
You know lappy.....what makes me laugh is that most of these " Generous with other people's money " are not so in their own personal lives. Ask any one of them what they do for charity or how much volunteer work they do at local organizations and you will find that on the whole the people who advocate socialism are the ones who expect to be on the receiving end of free stuff and will scream the loudest when their stuff gets grabbed.
 

Arkady

President
"It's Time For A New Economic Patriotism"

Huh? So that's what he's calling it now? We know what he's referring to - it's just a doubling down on his agenda of wealth redistribution and punishing success. So that's what he's now referring to as a "new economic patriotism." Economic patriotism used to mean getting educated, working for a living and paying your way/pulling your own weight. Now it means "from each according to ability, to each according to need. No effing thanks!
Obama's right. The essence of patriotism is considering the good of the country, not just what's best for you, personally. Republicans have tried to pretend that having every individual trying to optimize his own personal good must, necessarily, be in the best interest of the country. But, if that was ever convincing, it sure isn't after the financial meltdown. I'm glad the president is calling for a new economic patriotism. It's exactly what we need.
 

Colorforms

Senator
Well so far IRP, all you have done in this thread is attack posters and get indignant when you get attacked back. You may want to stop venting so often and come up with a counterargument from time to time that doesn't consist of simply "bullshit".
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
I'm not indignant. I expect to get attacked and attacked back. That is the lifeblood of the rightie mentality.

But for the record, on this thread, I did offer a "non-bullshit" argument to Lukey's top-post. Lukey did not respond to my counter argument. I guess he accepted that I was right. But some righties - and I don't include you in this - sole purpose in life is to vent and spew bullshit. Here is the link to my post in response to Lukey above:

https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?38666-I-just-heard-a-quote-from-an-Obama-speech-and-went-WTF&p=533049#post533049

Well so far IRP, all you have done in this thread is attack posters and get indignant when you get attacked back. You may want to stop venting so often and come up with a counterargument from time to time that doesn't consist of simply "bullshit".
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
I have a slight quibble Arkady. I agree that the public rhetoric is that every individual "shapes their own destiny" and the invisible hand leads to the optimal situation for the country (apparently because free people are simultaneously self-interested and charitable). However, the thinking behind the big money that funds this public rhetoric is more likely to be "what is best for the owners of big corporations is necessarily what is best for the United States." (It is the old "what is good for GM is good for the US" except that the Romney folks probably wouldn't say that these days.) The peons get the table scraps of the owners of big corporations. And, if the owners of the big corporations screw up, the peons are the ones who get hurt.

Obama's right. The essence of patriotism is considering the good of the country, not just what's best for you, personally. Republicans have tried to pretend that having every individual trying to optimize his own personal good must, necessarily, be in the best interest of the country. But, if that was ever convincing, it sure isn't after the financial meltdown. I'm glad the president is calling for a new economic patriotism. It's exactly what we need.
 

Colorforms

Senator
Not going for a "gotcha" moment here IRP, but your first post to anyone in this thread was
Time out!

I call one foul for bullshit! Another foul for divisiveness!
You threw the first stone and set the tone for rebuttal. I will grant you that Jen's post was polarizing, but if you were looking for a discussion, you may have wanted to open with one.
 

Minotaur

Governor
So you can post what is fact and what is fiction I but I can't because you say so? What else can't I do when I am posting strictly as a poster? Only you can come up with that and say it like you mean. Are you asking if PJ can change the rules to accommodate your idea? If so, send your request to a Moderator and stop trying to get approval from me, the poster on this thread. ;)

Clever try ya little sneaky you. ha ha
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Evidence?

I am a semi-retired entrepreneur who drinks blue kool-aid (and knows that you drink red kool-aid). One thing that I spend a fair amount of time on now is working in "community development" in the poorer neighborhoods of Seattle helping other entrepreneurs develop information systems to support their small businesses. Helping the people in these neighborhoods with relatively few resources develop their communities is good for me and good for my community. I meet a lot of great people. I also give money on a yearly basis to the universities that I graduated from, to PBS/NPR, to the International Rescue Committee, to the Alzeimer's Association, and to a bunch of local Seattle organizations. I am also on a lot of lists and often hear from various non-profits looking for funds. I give to them periodically. I also regularly donate to FEMA type emergencies like Katrina (or 9/11). I also know plenty of other well to-do folks who drink blue kool-aid who are just like me. I also am happy to say that I have met many folks who drink red kool-aid who are very generous with their time and money.

You know lappy.....what makes me laugh is that most of these " Generous with other people's money " are not so in their own personal lives. Ask any one of them what they do for charity or how much volunteer work they do at local organizations and you will find that on the whole the people who advocate socialism are the ones who expect to be on the receiving end of free stuff and will scream the loudest when their stuff gets grabbed.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Well, technically, you are wrong. I responded to Lukey at 8:15 AM. I responded to Jen at 10:20 or so. (I think that I posted to the thread before Jen posted.)

Nevertheless, if you read through the whole thread between Jen, me, and LeRoy, you will find that the discussion got a bit more substantive. This is a link to my final post in the thread.

https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?38666-I-just-heard-a-quote-from-an-Obama-speech-and-went-WTF&p=533157#post533157

BTW, I do not include you or Jen in the "automatic venter" category. But - to be honest - Jen has long said that when she makes broad stereotypical statements about "lefties" that individual lefties should not take it personally because she does not mean for her comments to be taken personally. This is permissable under PJ Rules. Outside of PJ, I would not expect to make broad statements about righties. However, the rules make it dangerous (for reasons of infractions) to be more targeted in my criticism. So I just use the generic "rightie" label and throw all righties into the same box. Fortunately, I know righties who are perfectly good people outside of the PJ context.


Not going for a "gotcha" moment here IRP, but your first post to anyone in this thread was

You threw the first stone and set the tone for rebuttal. I will grant you that Jen's post was polarizing, but if you were looking for a discussion, you may have wanted to open with one.
 

Colorforms

Senator
LOL the bulk of my friends outside of PJ are "lefties" and in fact I had a rather spirited debate with one of them yesterday when we went out to lunch. He will not talk politics with me for any length of time, however, because he gets emotional, where I don't, and that bothers him. However, when you talk groups, you have to generalize. Groups are not monolithic, for example, there are a few bigots in the TEA Party movement, but the gestalt view is not bigoted. There are democrats who don't feel that successful people should be punitively taxed, but that's not the gestalt democrat view.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
I agree with your basic points Color. I might quibble with your characterization of the gestalt democratic view as wanting to "punitively tax the siccessful." However, as you acknowledged that there are some Tea Party bigots, I will acknowledge that there are some Democrats who want (in effect) to punitively tax the successful. (Of course, successful could mean a lot of stuff. It could mean wealthy. It could mean hard-working. Etc. Etc. The fuzzy areas are folks that work hard but are poor - e.g. "the working poor" who don't earn a livable wage.)

LOL the bulk of my friends outside of PJ are "lefties" and in fact I had a rather spirited debate with one of them yesterday when we went out to lunch. He will not talk politics with me for any length of time, however, because he gets emotional, where I don't, and that bothers him. However, when you talk groups, you have to generalize. Groups are not monolithic, for example, there are a few bigots in the TEA Party movement, but the gestalt view is not bigoted. There are democrats who don't feel that successful people should be punitively taxed, but that's not the gestalt democrat view.
 
LOL the bulk of my friends outside of PJ are "lefties" and in fact I had a rather spirited debate with one of them yesterday when we went out to lunch. He will not talk politics with me for any length of time, however, because he gets emotional, where I don't, and that bothers him. However, when you talk groups, you have to generalize. Groups are not monolithic, for example, there are a few bigots in the TEA Party movement, but the gestalt view is not bigoted. There are democrats who don't feel that successful people should be punitively taxed, but that's not the gestalt democrat view.
The definition of what is a "punitive level of taxation" is very unclear here. Were the Clinton-era rates "punitive"? The high-income people were then being taxed at a rate of 39.6%---which was certainly NOT keeping them from becoming even richer. Nor do most Democrats think that an 'inheritance tax' is 'punitive' in any way, since the people getting those inheritances have been successful only in, well, getting an inheritance; they were born into the right families, evidently.
 
Top