The Angry Rich

Martial Media, Culture and Other Arts Off Topic
21

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1045146]Calling them NeoCon is laughable.[/QUOTE]

You realize that actual neo-conservatism is pro-big government, pro-bureaucracy, and anti transparency in government, right?

I mean, this isn’t coming from me as someone on the left, these are bedrocks of neo-conservatism, as it arose from Trotskyite philosophy and grew.

Not arguing here, I’m just curious in what way what was described is not in keeping with neo-con political thought, even in the versions as followed by Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al? There’s a big reason for the ‘neo’ in there. Even Wolfowitz paper is rife with the types of neo-con readings that are the bedrock of neo-conservatism, where there is one reading for the masses, and one for the rulers(again, a philosophy directly touted by neo-cons, not me casting aspursions).

22

1badbluebj -

are you actually crying about my comments because I troll you?

You deserve to be trolled. You’re a neo-con shill posting neo-con garbage into forums that are entirely irrelevant to that stuff.

At least I’m transparent about my intentions here in off topic 1badbj rant land, which you have been busy at turning into muck land in a hope of posting neo-con positive propaganda content into this site in the hopes that positive neo-con rants show up in search engines as if they were actually a voice of majority.

Well, you fail. lol. But I guess if you need to collect money from your handlers for your positive endorsements of fascist policies and hubris filled folk, then you gotta do what you gotta do.

:smiley:

23

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1045147]Which one is it? :confused:[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, my question wasn’t clear.

You claimed that the “producers” are not creating jobs for fear of tax increases. I showed that they produced nearly 8 times as many jobs under the Clinton Administration (with its higher taxes) than the George W. Bush Adminstration. I also pointed out that the Carter Administration (which you hold up as “worst Administration evar”) produced 3 times the jobs, in half the time.

So, why did these producers produce significantly fewer jobs under the Bush Administration, and it’s lower taxes?

24

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1045146]LMFAO!!! First off, he’s a socialist. If he is “center and slightly left”, please give me an example of a Democrat who you say is further left.

Second, he himself locked the Republicans out of the healthcare negotiations. Of course when you are bribing Senators, you really don’t want the opposition to be sitting there watching you.[/quote]

a) you clearly don’t understand what socialism is if you think Obama is one.

b) nobody locked out a minority. they had their vote, they were minority and didn’t get to block it. Apparently, you fail to understand how democracy works as well.

I agree they have not been conservatives for the most part. They have behaved like Democrat Lite. Calling them NeoCon is laughable. But coming from someone who says Obama is “slightly left”, I’m not surprised.

You are in denial about your fascist friends of a feather lol

Actually I’m asking my own questions I myself thought of. And you can’t answer them because you will look even more foolish trying. Notice I regularly answer yours, yet you wont touch mine with a ten foot pole.

you haven’t asked anything I haven’t answered really, you just can’t accept the truth because it doesn’t fit with your narrow and unrealistic paradigm.

Great! You can start by answering/refuting this “lie”:

Why are rich, educated blue States like New York and California teetering on bankruptcy while uneducated, redneck red States like Mississippi and Alabama and Texas :wink: are not in that same boat?

do you understand population demographics? apparently, this is yet another thing you fail to grasp.

Good luck debunking that “stupid dull witted message”.

I have no problem debunking your stupid dull witted messages. It’s quite easy. I guess you are the one who doesn’t recognize how stupid and dull witted the message you give is…but seeing as there is self evident aspects to that, so be it.

So says the guy who openly admits to trolling the site.

I have a valid point about blue States facing bankruptcy though. Unless you can refute it. :wink:

Your point is not valid. You can’t grasp the population sizes of the various states and the various economic realities that follow those numbers. A little simple math is all it takes for your weak and not very well thought out argument to crash and burn.

should I call the wahmbulance for you. It looks like your feeling got hurt there. Maybe you need time to be alone with your thought.

25

[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1045188]You realize that actual neo-conservatism is pro-big government, pro-bureaucracy, and anti transparency in government, right?[/QUOTE]

So that would make Obama a neocon.

26

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045205]1badbluebj -

are you actually crying about my comments because I troll you?[/QUOTE]

No, I just want you to answer a simple question. I have the knowledge to answer yours. Have I asked a question you are not intelligent to answer? Have a made a statement you cannot refute? :wink:

27

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]b) nobody locked out a minority. they had their vote, they were minority and didn’t get to block it. Apparently, you fail to understand how democracy works as well.[/QUOTE]

You fail to understand facts.

"But rather than taking the political risk of bringing the motion to a vote, Democrats pulled off what appeared to be a stunt of their own: When the time came for the scheduled vote last Thursday, they huddled in a back room – denying Republicans the quorum they needed to take action.

Then things got interesting. Republican staff members had secretly set up a video camera outside the committee room. The camera captured a stream of Democrats leaving through a side door of the very committee room they were scheduled to be in – calling into question Democrats’ claim that a scheduling conflict involving another committee meeting prevented their attendance.

Republicans put the video on YouTube, juxtaposing the empty chairs and the Democrats filing out of the room. They put it all to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack.”

Not everyone was laughing. On Tuesday, the committee’s Democrats let the Republicans know that their keys wouldn’t work in the hearing room anymore. They’d had the locks changed.

Why? “Because they [Republicans] don’t know how to behave,” Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., told Politico. Towns’ office did not respond to request for comment. "

Look like I back up my assertions. This happened in the sub-prime issue, not healthcare though. I was mistaken about the issue, but my point that Democrats locked out Republicans is 100% true.

Source, with complete article:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally.html

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]You are in denial about your fascist friends of a feather lol[/QUOTE]

Do you even know what a fascist is? Fascism is when Gov’t controls private industries, ie nationalizing. You know, like Obama has done with General Motors.

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]you haven’t asked anything I haven’t answered really, you just can’t accept the truth because it doesn’t fit with your narrow and unrealistic paradigm.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you failed to see it the first few times. :rolleyes: Ok, I’ll just re-post it:

Why are rich, educated blue States like New York and California teetering on bankruptcy while uneducated, redneck red States like Mississippi and Alabama and Texas are not in that same boat?

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]do you understand population demographics? apparently, this is yet another thing you fail to grasp.[/QUOTE]

Last time I brought up demographics, I was called a racist and the thread was locked.

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]I have no problem debunking your stupid dull witted messages. It’s quite easy.[/QUOTE]

Great! I’ll be waiting for you to answer the question I asked above.

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]Your point is not valid. You can’t grasp the population sizes of the various states and the various economic realities that follow those numbers. A little simple math is all it takes for your weak and not very well thought out argument to crash and burn.[/QUOTE]

So then you will explain it to me like I’ve been asking you to do the last few days, right?

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1045403]should I call the wahmbulance for you.[/QUOTE]

No need to call it, just answer the question I asked about certain blue States facing bankruptcy.

28

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1045246]You claimed that the “producers” are not creating jobs for fear of tax increases. I showed that they produced nearly 8 times as many jobs under the Clinton Administration (with its higher taxes) than the George W. Bush Adminstration. [/QUOTE]

Clinton’s jobs were mostly created via the Dot-com boom. And Clinton actually cut capital gains taxes. Since capital gains includes stock market profits, alot of investing went on in the stock market at that time, and the Dot-coms were the biggest gainers by far, until the Dot-com bubble burst shortly before GW Bush took office.

I notice you did not include jobs created during the Reagan Administration. Is there a reason for that? Also, if you include the data as to what those created jobs actually paid the workers, you would see alot of Carter’s jobs created were lower income bracket jobs, while Reagan created alot of middle class and higher income bracket jobs.

29

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1045451]Do you even know what a fascist is? Fascism is when Gov’t controls private industries, ie nationalizing. You know, like Obama has done with General Motors[/QUOTE]

In September 2008 the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a 25$ billion loan. By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February. In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 followed by General Motors a month later.

30

[QUOTE=MasterKiller;1045464]In September 2008 the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a 25$ billion loan. By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February. In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 followed by General Motors a month later.[/QUOTE]

And my point still stands. Notice Bush’s bailout did not involve the Federal Gov’t taking over a controlling share of GM. Nor did Bush fire the GM CEO at the time and replace him with a CEO of his choosing.

Second, I was against any bailout, whether done by Bush or Obama. Again I show I’m consistant.

31

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1045451]"But rather than taking the political risk of bringing the motion to a vote, Democrats pulled off what appeared to be a stunt of their own: When the time came for the scheduled vote last Thursday, they huddled in a back room – denying Republicans the quorum they needed to take action.[/QUOTE]

I wonder why…:rolleyes:

32

[QUOTE=MasterKiller;1045478]I wonder why…:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

So you feel it’s completely ok for the majority to lock out the minority from debate?

And keep in mind, in my example the Democrats did the lockout to PREVENT a vote. The Republicans were not trying to filibuster in that example.

33

[QUOTE=SanHeChuan;1040266]The Angry Rich[/QUOTE]

The Obama Deception:

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

.

34

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1045457]Clinton’s jobs were mostly created via the Dot-com boom. And Clinton actually cut capital gains taxes. Since capital gains includes stock market profits, alot of investing went on in the stock market at that time, and the Dot-coms were the biggest gainers by far, until the Dot-com bubble burst shortly before GW Bush took office.

I notice you did not include jobs created during the Reagan Administration. Is there a reason for that? Also, if you include the data as to what those created jobs actually paid the workers, you would see alot of Carter’s jobs created were lower income bracket jobs, while Reagan created alot of middle class and higher income bracket jobs.[/QUOTE]

I notice that you did not answer my question. Why was job creation so poor under the Administration of George W. Bush?

35

a filibuster is not debate, it is and always has been abused as a stalling tactic so that bills can die on the floor.

there is no honour in what the GOP has been doing in that respect and it is showing the neo-con true colours.

I think the majority fo the USA don’t care much for the loud little group of fascists trying to push their crap around. :slight_smile:

good for america and good for her representatives for finally getting a handle on how to deal with these goon squads.

thats’ politics for you. :smiley:

36

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1046141]I notice that you did not answer my question. Why was job creation so poor under the Administration of George W. Bush?[/QUOTE]

Because it wasn’t. You’re just repeating talking points and not presenting us with any data. Here, I’ll show you some data proving my assertions:

"You can see two yellow dots in January 2001 and January 2009, and a thin yellow line extended so we can measure the difference between the two. The red arrows show that, if you measure only endpoint to endpoint, 1.1 million net net jobs were created during the Bush Administration (I’m using the payroll survey in all cases).

But this analysis misses most of the story. We can see a steady employment decline from early 2001 through mid-2003, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost four years. This 46 month period is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S., and more than eight million jobs were created during this period (the white arrows). A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

Source (entire article):
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/08/compare-employment/

Also, unemployment averaged 5.3% during the 8 years of GW Bush’s Presidency. Obama is averaging 9.5%.

And don’t forget this one either: When Obama took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. In July that number hit 41.8 million, a record number.

Source - US Dept of Agriculture
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm

37

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1046155]a filibuster is not debate, it is and always has been abused as a stalling tactic so that bills can die on the floor.[/QUOTE]

But as my example showed, it was not a filibuster, but the MAJORITY not allowing a vote to happen.

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1046155]there is no honour in what the GOP has been doing in that respect and it is showing the neo-con true colours.[/QUOTE]

Here is a great article on Democrat vs GOP filibusters. It has too much info to cut and paste, so just read it please and then comment on the parts you deem relevant. I will post excerps if you keep going down this road though, so I’d suggest you read it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1046155]I think the majority fo the USA don’t care much for the loud little group of fascists trying to push their crap around. :-)[/QUOTE]

My above link has data disproving that assertion.

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1046155]thats’ politics for you. :D[/QUOTE]

And so apparantly is bribing Senators and locking out the opposition from debate.

38

“debate” is not “vote”

were they locked out of the vote? were they?

39

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1046156]Because it wasn’t. You’re just repeating talking points and not presenting us with any data. Here, I’ll show you some data proving my assertions:

"You can see two yellow dots in January 2001 and January 2009, and a thin yellow line extended so we can measure the difference between the two. The red arrows show that, if you measure only endpoint to endpoint, 1.1 million net net jobs were created during the Bush Administration (I’m using the payroll survey in all cases).

But this analysis misses most of the story. We can see a steady employment decline from early 2001 through mid-2003, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost four years. This 46 month period is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S., and more than eight million jobs were created during this period (the white arrows). A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

Source (entire article):
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/08/compare-employment/

Also, unemployment averaged 5.3% during the 8 years of GW Bush’s Presidency. Obama is averaging 9.5%.

And don’t forget this one either: When Obama took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. In July that number hit 41.8 million, a record number.

Source - US Dept of Agriculture
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm[/QUOTE]

The Bush Administration ran for 96 months, not 46 months. So, his net job growth was significantly below his contemporaries (1.1 million by your own link). Oh, and my evidence came from the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberal talking points…quite the opposite in fact. Even though his 46 month stretch created 8 million jobs, it was still well below the amount created by Jimmy Carter in 48 months.

Regarding your source:

http://keithhennessey.com/about-2/

I served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush…

From August 2002 through the end of 2007, I served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council at the White House…

I’m now taking some time off to recover from 6+ years in the White House.

Might he be biased?

40

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1046165]“debate” is not “vote”

were they locked out of the vote? were they?[/QUOTE]

They were locked out of a debate, and the majoity refused to allow a vote on the floor. Ask yourself, why would a majority fear having a vote…