[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

RIMSHOT!

That's a different thread.

[stupendousman]

While it doesn't even touch on the campaign promises Obama broke in just 2 weeks that I was highlighting, the Washington Post has a great opinion piece that kind of sums up just how badly Obama is either bungling his previously claimed priorities, or illustrates just how dishonest he was in his campaign for President:

The Fierce Urgency of Pork

Sure, he has time to correct and do what he said he would. The fact that it doesn't appear that he really even tried at the get go doesn't give me much faith that he will though. He's living up to be exactly what his critics have claimed.

[stupendousman]

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi still hasn't gotten the "bipartisan" memo from her President. For some reason, she's apparently under the impression that the whole "post partisan" thing was just nonsense. I wonder why?

Pelosi dismisses bipartisanship calls - Glenn Thrush and Patrick O'Connor - Politico.com

[stupendousman]

More bad news for those of you who thought Obama was the "real deal" and was telling the truth when he promised a less partisan Washington when he was elected. He's had the opportunity to re-calibrate and use methods he said he would in his campaign, but he's chosen to do exactly the opposite:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's soft-sell pitches to Republicans haven't gotten him very far on his economic stimulus plan, so he's resorting to a sharper tone that is at odds with his vow to make Washington less partisan.

Stopping just short of a take-it-or-leave-it stand, Obama has mocked the notion that a stimulus bill shouldn't include huge spending. He's also defended earmarks as inevitable in such a package. And he's pointedly reminded Republicans about who won the November election.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-...-14284923.html

Sad that Obama has to resort to such petty politics so soon, for such a lousy cause. If this is any indication of what the next 4 years holds in store for us, Democrats can already start lining up their new jobs in DC lobbying firms while the getting is good.

[Wiskedjak]

The problem with "bipartisan" is that it's clearly a very time consuming process, and in the case of trying to fix the economy it would appear that every day counts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The problem with "bipartisan" is that it's clearly a very time consuming process, and in the case of trying to fix the economy it would appear that every day counts.

I think the single biggest question looming over this affair is whether or not the proposed stimulus will actually "fix" anything. I figured all the Republicans would do is cut a massive potential failure into a less massive potential failure.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the single biggest question looming over this affair is whether or not the proposed stimulus will actually "fix" anything. I figured all the Republicans would do is cut a massive potential failure into a less massive potential failure.

Well, I'll give you that. I can't imagine how spending all this money is going to stimulate anything, other than government debt. It seems to me the biggest problems of this recession will come from a lack of consumer confidence; consumers are afraid of losing their jobs and are going to save money rather than spend it, resulting in job losses and further decreases in consumer confidence and a self-fulfilling prophecy. What the government, IMO, needs to do is encourage an increase in consumer confidence rather than bailout companies that are suffering from a lack of business.

[besson3c]

Does this change things, stupendousman?

(CNN) -- A coalition of Democrats and some Republicans reached a compromise that trimmed billions in spending from an earlier version of the Senate economic stimulus bill.
Senators worked late into the night to trim billions from the original stimulus bill

Senators worked late into the night to trim billions from the original stimulus bill

CNN obtained, from a Democratic leadership aide, a list of some programs that have been cut -- either entirely or partially:

Partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for new Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization
Don't Miss

* Vote expected Tuesday on stimulus after bipartisan deal
* Obama fires up House Democrats to help push through stimulus bill

• $50 million for CSERES research

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $30 million for SD salaries

• $100 for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for NIST

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for GSA

• $89 million GSA operations

• $50 million from DHS

• $200 million TSA

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for HIT Grants

• $600 million for Title I (NCLB)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 for Neighborhood Stabilization
advertisement

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The problem with "bipartisan" is that it's clearly a very time consuming process, and in the case of trying to fix the economy it would appear that every day counts.

So then you agree that Obama should forgo all the stuff that even the CBO says won't amount to a single ounce of stimulus, in order to reach a quick resolution? If it's so important, than it should be pretty easy to back off and just provide stimulus instead of increased deficit spending on regular budgetary issues that won't do anything to hasten the recession. I agree.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does this change things, stupendousman?

Not really. Those aren't things that Obama is pushing for. He specifically told the Democrat members of Congress to stop trying to compromise anything more than a few small things that might look bad.

This is a small coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats who are trying to work together despite Obama's partisan goals.

Sorry. This thread is about Obama's hypocrisy. What people other than Obama are doing doesn't help him.

[besson3c]

Ahhh, so this thread is about Obama *personally* compromising, and not his party compromising? Okay... This is where my interest is officially gone, I don't wish to debate and/or speculate about he said she said situations, pretty boring...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh, so this thread is about Obama *personally* compromising, and not his party compromising? Okay... This is where my interest is officially gone, I don't wish to debate and/or speculate about he said she said situations, pretty boring...

Nice try, but it was about "Obama" from the get go. Did you not read the OP? "He said she said?" Okay, whatever. Your concession is noted.

[besson3c]

Okay, so meeting with Republicans is not enough, but Obama has to actually pen the compromise legislation himself? Having his party do this is insufficient in terms of your stupendousman Obama-partisanometer?

The president's job is to set vision and goals, not to write legislation. Are you suggesting that the compromise that is going on is a willful act of stepping out of line on the part of these legislators? A couple of pages ago you were claiming that there is "literally no compromise", but now there seems to be, and you are still unsatisfied because you don't feel that Obama personally played a part in this?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so meeting with Republicans is not enough, but Obama has to actually pen the compromise legislation himself?

No. He has to provide the leadership as he promised. He hasn't done that. In fact, he's discouraged the Democrats in Congress from backing down regarding anything other than tiny symbolic compromises because the waste in the stimulus package are his priorities.

Despite his partisan demands, there are Democrats in the Senate who realize that the bill is REALLY bad and are trying to at least make it a little less worse. That has nothing to do with Obama. He's sticking to his partisan guns.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so meeting with Republicans is not enough, but Obama has to actually pen the compromise legislation himself? Having his party do this is insufficient in terms of your stupendousman Obama-partisanometer?

The president's job is to set vision and goals, not to write legislation. Are you suggesting that the compromise that is going on is a willful act of stepping out of line on the part of these legislators? A couple of pages ago you were claiming that there is "literally no compromise", but now there seems to be, and you are still unsatisfied because you don't feel that Obama personally played a part in this?

Stop the apologies.

Obama promised change, he got elected on change, and now we get this piece of sh!t of Porkulus / Greasulus / Entitlement ?

WTF ?

-t

[Shaddim]

worst. first. 100. days. ever.



(my prediction)

[stumblinmike]

It's gonna be a long eight years for the bitter, defeated elephants! LOL!

[stupendousman]

With many of the same players in place, Obama is making some of the same classic mistakes Clinton made his first 100 days. Instead of waiting and getting his spending priorities into the budget, he's decided to forgo a non-partisan solution to attempt to stimulate us out of the recession and enact his huge spending increases while lying about his actions and engaging in partisan rhetoric. Instead of using his first 100 days to do something that the people really want, he's using them to try and ramrod stuff into government that no one's really interested in. It's "gays in the military" part two.

He promised no "pork" - he's giving us a a bill that the CBO says is a majority of pork.

He promised us real bipartisan compromise - he's giving us partisan attacks and a bill laden with billions of dollars in Democrat pay-offs.

He could have done better if he chose to keep his promises. He chose not to keep his promises. Even the AP is coming close to calling him a liar, and he's only been in office for a few weeks:

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama has it both ways on pork

Again, this is how 1994 happened. You'd think that people would have learned by now.

[ort888]

Stupendousman, you should run for office, since it sounds like you are the worlds foremost expert on everything under the sun.

I'm sure you could fix this country in a matter of hours, leaving you 4 years to kick back and bask in the warm glow of prosperity and unity.

[besson3c]

The formula for prosperity is pretty simple:

1) Kick out all Democrats
2) Tax cuts
3) Profit!

[olePigeon]

Edit: Nevermind.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Stupendousman, you should run for office, since it sounds like you are the worlds foremost expert on everything under the sun.

You don't have to be an expert to catch someone lying. Especially when it's done so brazenly.

I'm sure you could fix this country in a matter of hours, leaving you 4 years to kick back and bask in the warm glow of prosperity and unity.

I don't claim to have all the answers. All I've asked for is for Obama to keep his word regarding matters that he can control. Not only is he not doing the things he promised he would in order to get elected, it doesn't appear that he's even trying which is something that even his supporters should be upset about - unless they are all for lying and dishonesty.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The formula for prosperity is pretty simple:

1) Kick out all Democrats
2) Tax cuts
3) Profit!

When the argument fails, dazzle them with BS!

[besson3c]

That was said purely tongue-in-cheek, but even if it was my opinion my opinion should be no less welcome here than yours.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That was said purely tongue-in-cheek, but even if it was my opinion my opinion should be no less welcome here than yours.

I concede. In fact, I inferred that your reply was "dazzling".

[Chongo]

Didn't take Jon Stewart long to figure out BO is a bigger idiot than W.
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - The Stimulus Package | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Didn't take Jon Stewart long to figure out BO is a bigger idiot than W.
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - The Stimulus Package | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Huh? Yeah, he sure gave Obama a hard time over his habit of answering hard questions at town hall meetings (in contrast to Bush) and giving thoughtful answers. BAM! NAILED HIM!

[besson3c]

Do I want to know how your opinion was derived Chongo?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Huh? Yeah, he sure gave Obama a hard time over his habit of answering hard questions at town hall meetings (in contrast to Bush) and giving thoughtful answers. BAM! NAILED HIM!

"uh, umm uh um, um ,um uh ah, um, um, um, ah uh, um"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

"uh, umm uh um, um ,um uh ah, um, um, um, ah uh, um"

Yeah, he made fun of his pauses. But the entire theme of the bit was that Obama, to quote Stewart, uses the strange new rhetorical device of "giving thoughtful answers." Where are you getting that Stewart thinks Obama is a "bigger idiot than George Bush"?

Kind of proves his concluding point about the O'Reilly vs. Matthews assessments.

[besson3c]

Chongo: are you new to the Daily Show? You are aware that they do a lot of scrubbing of clips together, and that that string of pauses didn't happen in succession?

You can say a lot of things about Obama and Bush, but I frankly think it is impossible for any rational human being to say that Obama is not more articulate than Bush was.

[stupendousman]

They are calling Obama's plan the "Clusterg#@k to the Poorhouse".

Made fun of the lack of ethical high standards of his appointments.

Stewart's comments about him "giving thoughtful answers" was clearly sarcasm, otherwise there would be no reason for Stewart to make fun of him for his lack of command of the answers. He also made fun of Obama for answering questions with questions. Obama's problems speaking without a propter isn't something new.

While I don't think that means he thinks Obama is a "bigger idiot", but I'm not sure how anyone can take away from that report on the Daily Show that they thought Obama was doing a good job. Doing a marginal better job than a guy who clearly had communication problems isn't really anything to boast about.

Now, if Obama had a teleprompter to help him get the answers out...>!!!!! His problem is that there is a delay between what's in his head that he really wants to say, and the formulation of the answer he knows he must create because he wouldn't be able to stay in office long if everyone really knew what he was thinking. Several times during his campaign his words got past his personal filter, and it exacted a political price.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: agreed...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They are calling Obama's plan the "Clusterg#@k to the Poorhouse".

Made fun of the lack of ethical high standards of his appointments.

Stewart's comments about him "giving thoughtful answers" was clearly sarcasm, otherwise there would be no reason for Stewart to make fun of him for his lack of command of the answers. He also made fun of Obama for answering questions with questions. Obama's problems speaking without a propter isn't something new.

While I don't think that means he thinks Obama is a "bigger idiot", but I'm not sure how anyone can take away from that report on the Daily Show that they thought Obama was doing a good job. Doing a marginal better job than a guy who clearly had communication problems isn't really anything to boast about.

Now, if Obama had a teleprompter to help him get the answers out...>!!!!! His problem is that there is a delay between what's in his head that he really wants to say, and the formulation of the answer he knows he must create because he wouldn't be able to stay in office long if everyone really knew what he was thinking. Several times during his campaign his words got past his personal filter, and it exacted a political price.

Parsing Jon Stewart's political opinions to this degree is ridiculous. He's obviously liberal leaning, but, as he and his staff like to say, they are the guys "throwing spitballs from the back of the room." They call it "Clusterg#@k to the Poorhouse" because they called the presidential race "Clusterg#@k to the White House" (and they aren't referring to Obama's plan -- this has been a recurring segment since the economic crisis began). They make fun of verbal gaffes. They edit clips for the best comic effect. They hate talking heads. To suggest that Stewart believes that thinking in politicians is somehow a bad thing is preposterous to anyone who actually watches the show on a regular basis.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

To suggest that Stewart believes that thinking in politicians is somehow a bad thing is preposterous to anyone who actually watches the show on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone said that.

There are plenty of people who can think AND SPEAK and don't require stammering and stuttering to answer a question. Again, this isn't something new (in reagards to Obama) or just invented by the Daily Show.

Stewart was using the "thinking" as a sarcastic excuse as to why Obama seems to have a very hard time answering questions when things aren't pre-scripted. I believe Steward does think that "thinking" is a good thing, but I'm pretty sure he realizes that there are plenty of good public speakers with a command of the answers who don't require every single answer to be thought out to the point where there are huge stammers and delays.

I don't think Obama does this because he lacks intellect. By any measure he seems to be reasonably intelligent, and I'd guess that Stewart would agree. Being reasonably smart and being able to communicate your intelligence effectively are 2 different things though. Bush consistently failed in this regard. Obama isn't doing all that much better when he's "live", but he's got time to improve.

I disagree with both O'Reilly and Mathews, neither of which are very credible.

[besson3c]

I thought that Obama did a good job at his press conference. I agree with Jon Stewart, it is so nice to be spoken to as an adult. I appreciate the fact that Obama at least attempts to make a case and lay out a rationale rather than regurgitating talking points, for the most part (although he is guilty of that too, just like any other politician). If the Republicans want to start seeming reasonable to me, they need to start explaining how tax cuts alone will be enough, or why the ratio between tax cuts and spending needs to change. This goes beyond simply coming up with clever knee-jerky labels like "porkulus".

I'm honestly torn on what ratio of tax cuts and spending will be best. I wish that somebody, be it somebody in here or an actual politican will make this clear.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think anyone said that.

There are plenty of people who can think AND SPEAK and don't require stammering and stuttering to answer a question. Again, this isn't something new (in reagards to Obama) or just invented by the Daily Show.

Stewart was using the "thinking" as a sarcastic excuse as to why Obama seems to have a very hard time answering questions when things aren't pre-scripted. I believe Steward does think that "thinking" is a good thing, but I'm pretty sure he realizes that there are plenty of good public speakers with a command of the answers who don't require every single answer to be thought out to the point where there are huge stammers and delays.

I don't think Obama does this because he lacks intellect. By any measure he seems to be reasonably intelligent, and I'd guess that Stewart would agree. Being reasonably smart and being able to communicate your intelligence effectively are 2 different things though. Bush consistently failed in this regard. Obama isn't doing all that much better when he's "live", but he's got time to improve.

I disagree with both O'Reilly and Mathews, neither of which are very credible.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I can't imagine Stewart mocking thinking, is what I was trying to say. To mock thinking as some kind of excuse necessarily trivializes it. I really think you missed the entire context of the Obama bit in the segment that was linked to in this thread, so I can't agree at all with your interpretation. Stewart has no respect for Bush's intellect, as was made clear in the clip from Bush's town halls. His sarcastic surprise that anyone would use thought in answering reporters' questions was a zinger at Bush, not Obama. To the extent that Stewart made fun of Obama's pauses, again that's "throwing spitballs." They are a topical comedy show -- they need to make fun of something. If Obama had farted they would have made fun of that, too.

As usual, your vociferous opinions on matters as trivial as the interpretation of liberal talk show hosts makes communicating with you tedious, at best.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If Obama had farted they would have made fun of that, too.

The entire crux of your post seems to suggest that he'll even use Obama's ineptitude to bash Bush. So they'd play Obama's fart, then joke about how much louder Bush's farts were. Funny stuff. Maybe Stewart should keep the clips, ditch the punch lines. Sounds to me like the clip of Obama stammering was funnier than the commentary.

Which by the way is fairly typical of "comedians" who think they can somehow cram humor into their party preferences. Usually falls pretty friggin' flat for anyone, but their fellow shills. It's the new rubber chicken, equally old and tired.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought that Obama did a good job at his press conference.

I wonder how he would have done had it not been scripted, with reporters being preselected, prescreened, and contacted prior to the press conference.

It's looking like this is going to be a pattern, as it's apparently not the first or only time this has happened.

The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought that Obama did a good job at his press conference. I agree with Jon Stewart, it is so nice to be spoken to as an adult. I appreciate the fact that Obama at least attempts to make a case and lay out a rationale rather than regurgitating talking points, for the most part (although he is guilty of that too, just like any other politician). If the Republicans want to start seeming reasonable to me, they need to start explaining how tax cuts alone will be enough, or why the ratio between tax cuts and spending needs to change. This goes beyond simply coming up with clever knee-jerky labels like "porkulus".

I'm honestly torn on what ratio of tax cuts and spending will be best. I wish that somebody, be it somebody in here or an actual politican will make this clear.

It has been explained to you a whole bunch of times. I concluded that you simply didn't want to accept it. Which is fine of course, you just generally fall short of any points at all to affirm why you're not accepting. Unless you can tell my why aggressive pro-business, pro-capital legislation wouldn't be welcome news to the market, boosting confidence, investment, growth, and jobs (i.e. stimulus); you may as well drop the line about not getting enough information and just stand behind the fact that you simply disagree with the philosophy.

IMO what has honestly got you torn here besson is trying to toe the Obama line while at the same time defending the horrible package of legislation he's about to sign.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The entire crux of your post seems to suggest that he'll even use Obama's ineptitude to bash Bush. So they'd play Obama's fart, then joke about how much louder Bush's farts were. Funny stuff. Maybe Stewart should keep the clips, ditch the punch lines. Sounds to me like the clip of Obama stammering was funnier than the commentary.

No, I don't think they even relate to each other in that way. He bashed Bush in comparison to Obama and then made fun of Obama's pauses. They don't necessarily have to be part of a larger point. He made fun of Obama for answering with questions, but he also made fun of the Washington Post for not asking the very questions that Obama referred to.

Christ, it's comedy, people

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The entire crux of your post seems to suggest that he'll even use Obama's ineptitude to bash Bush. So they'd play Obama's fart, then joke about how much louder Bush's farts were. Funny stuff. Maybe Stewart should keep the clips, ditch the punch lines. Sounds to me like the clip of Obama stammering was funnier than the commentary.

Which by the way is fairly typical of "comedians" who think they can somehow cram humor into their party preferences. Usually falls pretty friggin' flat for anyone, but their fellow shills. It's the new rubber chicken, equally old and tired.

I don't know. That sounds pretty much like how Conservatives dealt with criticisms of Bush:
"Well, Clinton was worse"

or, my personal favorite:
"He's not as bad as the terrorists"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It has been explained to you a whole bunch of times. I concluded that you simply didn't want to accept it. Which is fine of course, you just generally fall short of any points at all to affirm why you're not accepting. Unless you can tell my why aggressive pro-business, pro-capital legislation wouldn't be welcome news to the market, boosting confidence, investment, growth, and jobs (i.e. stimulus); you may as well drop the line about not getting enough information and just stand behind the fact that you simply disagree with the philosophy.

IMO what has honestly got you torn here besson is trying to toe the Obama line while at the same time defending the horrible package of legislation he's about to sign.

I'm still not getting enough information. What you have said is a basic framework of an idea, the basic gist of the philosophy. I knew that. Tell me how that top down approach to creating jobs and economic growth has worked or not worked in the past. Tell me how it will work now in light of the tradeoffs (as there always are). Tell me how this will create jobs and not just result in companies paying off debt, outsourcing, or doing things other than create jobs.

I've been waiting and waiting for these arguments to seem complete to me. They still don't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm still not getting enough information. What you have said is a basic framework of an idea, the basic gist of the philosophy. I knew that. Tell me how that top down approach to creating jobs and economic growth has worked or not worked in the past.

You've been given links and dates by at least two people besson. You didn't comment on the data itself at all. You just keep coming back to say you don't get it, or you don't buy it, or you're torn, or you're incomplete.

Tell me how it will work now in light of the tradeoffs (as there always are). Tell me how this will create jobs and not just result in companies paying off debt, outsourcing, or doing things other than create jobs.

They outsource to regions where there is a more pro-business, pro-capital environment besson. Businesses are in business to grow. When they do not see a pro-business, pro-capital hand, they either fold to stop loss or they hold to survive. When they do see a pro-business, pro-capital hand, they up the ante. Lending institutions are in the lending business to lend. Like I said, you're not getting any loan offers anymore? They just magically came to a screeching halt? I doubt it. They're ready to do business because that's what they're in business to do. They need consumers and consumers need confidence. Consumer confidence fell apart after the bank failings, market freefall, and subsequent bad news of employment numbers. You need something to reverse-engineer the failure. Judging from the public reaction to this stimulus package, you'll absolutely not get the consumer confidence you need because you won't get the market reaction you need. You won't get the jobs (longterm or quality pay) that you need because you won't get the grassroots growth that you need. i.e. you'll get no stimulus.

I've been waiting and waiting for these arguments to seem complete to me. They still don't.

I've explained the philosophy from the top-down besson. I've explained why this stimulus won't work IMO and you've been given ample information regarding the historical success of the tax cut philosophy. You also have Japan as a perfect, recent model of failure. A model we're about to emulate.

You have to want to be complete besson.

[stupendousman]

I think this is getting off topic again. We can agree to disagree about whether or John Stewart's mocking of Obama for his difficulty in getting out non-scripted answers is just being done somehow to be able to mock Bush.

What I don't think there should be any disagreement about is that Obama isn't doing what he said he would during the election by any true standard. Just today...

SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday - HUMAN EVENTS

Obama promised in his campaign that no vote would go through without time for the American people to be able to see it. It's clear that they're planning on ram-rodding through stuff that isn't going to be very popular (IOW, Democrat Pork).

Sad.

[ebuddy]

"Well, Clinton was worse"

"Bush did not respect UN members' disapproval of action in Iraq."
- Well, Clinton did not even seek UN approval for action in Yugoslavia.

"Bush lied, people died."
- Well, if Bush lied then Kennedy lied, Pelosi lied, Waxman lied, Kerry lied, Gore lied...

You don't have to define "worse", sometimes just pointing out hypocrisy is enough.

"He's not as bad as the terrorists"

If it's any consolation, I don't think Obama's as bad as the terrorists either.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama promised in his campaign that no vote would go through without time for the American people to be able to see it. It's clear that they're planning on ram-rodding through stuff that isn't going to be very popular (IOW, Democrat Pork).
Sad.

Sad indeed. SPENDING!!! THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE...SPENDING! Oh and silly me cuz I thought this whole time it was supposed to be PAY AS YOU GO! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think this is getting off topic again. We can agree to disagree about whether or John Stewart's mocking of Obama for his difficulty in getting out non-scripted answers is just being done somehow to be able to mock Bush.

Can we agree that to have any intelligent discussion about "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" you have to actually have watched the show often enough to know how to spell the host's name correctly?

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He was talking about people who claimed to be our allies overseas. Not his fellow Americans.

Fail.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Can we agree that to have any intelligent discussion about "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" you have to actually have watched the show often enough to know how to spell the host's name correctly?

No. I don't think that typos are really rational points from which to hang a debate on.