Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syria
Obama To Congress: Drop Corporate Tax Rate By 7%
Meet Rebecca Williams, The FBI’s Stripper Turned “Trailer Park Mata Hari”
VA Gov. McDonnell Backs Off Support Of Forced Vaginal Probe Law
Santorum A Birther? Got Briefing From Conspiracy Sheriff Arpaio
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adds $26 Billion To Fortune Under Obama, Complains Of Socialism
Kardashian – Endorsed QuickTrim Diet Pill May Face Class Action Lawsuit
Virginia Still Within Reach For Obama
Porn Displayed On Best Buy TVs Via Wifi
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?
The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise
Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
When will wingnuts learn that a little bit of “socialism” can do wonders for a free market?
Probably never, because what makes them wingnuts is that they don’t learn.
Right, Wilbur, 10% unemployment 16% real unemployment, and foreclosures out the wazoo.
Will these socialistic wonders never cease?
You guys for the most distrust and hate the stock markets and you proudly admit you want our country to turn into a European-style socialist country, so why you beat your chests over this chart is baffling. Hypocritical, even.
Then, there’s this.
Look! Over there! is so 2010.
How about this, E L : Judging increases with Inauguration day as a starting point is intellectually dishonest, is it not?
Ignoring the obvious to make some silly point is so 1848.
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the form of socialism that shovels trillions to Wall Street and crawls into bed with the insurance industry and Big Pharma. My education has been severely neglected.
Right, Wilbur, 10% unemployment 16% real unemployment, and foreclosures out the wazoo.
So, Dennis, what would these employment figures have been if it were not for Obama? Higher? Lower?
You guys for the most distrust and hate the stock markets and you proudly admit you want our country to turn into a European-style socialist country, so why you beat your chests over this chart is baffling. Hypocritical, even.
So it’s hypocritical of us to fail to behave like your ridiculous childish caricature of us? Please, Dennis, make it a new year’s resolution to be just a little bit less of an ass every day.
Then, there’s this.
Sorry Frank, but people who looked away or cheered while Bush and Cheney were pissing on the Constitution don’t get to hoist it as their standard now.
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the form of socialism …
Hence the scare quotes: “socialism”.
Judging increases with Inauguration day as a starting point is intellectually dishonest, is it not?
What’s a good starting point? A month before an election?
“what would these employment figures have been if it were not for Obama?”
“without this stimulus, unemployment will be 8%” — Barack Obama
Clearly this just means that the ALL AMERICAN PATRIOTS on Wall Street are bravely fighting the evil forces of Obama and his evil SOCIALIST(!!!1) agenda, right?
Were you trying to answer my question, SaveFarris? I agree – Obama underestimated the size of the stimulus that was needed. Glad to see you think so too. Please contact your congresspeople.
Judging increases with Inauguration day as a starting point is intellectually dishonest, is it not?
Of course. As we all know, the Bush administration didn’t become officially responsible for anything until Sept 12, 2001.
American unemployment?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundeconomywithjontalton/2013793661_the_dissonance_between_globali.html
China is officially communist. Socialism works.
Right, Wilbur, 10% unemployment 16% real unemployment, and foreclosures out the wazoo.
Yes, because we want you to be unemployed so that you have more free time to rape and blow goats. Sure, why not?
You guys for the most distrust and hate the stock markets and you proudly admit you want our country to turn into a European-style socialist country,
I’d rather live in Sweden than Dubai, thank you very much.
Sorry Frank, but
Funny, but I don’t recall any pissing on the Constitution ( at least, none that ceased with the new administration ); and I get to object to whatever is objectionable. If you are looking for consistency, look no further than the inconsistency of self-proclaimed liberals voting to give more to the government.
If you are looking for consistency, look no further than the inconsistency of self-proclaimed liberals voting to give more to the government.
Frank DiSalle, thanks for a new addition to my wifes’ already bulging file, ‘When Americans misuse American English”.
Fixed that for yah.
No charge.
( at least, none that ceased with the new administration )
Does this somehow detract from the fact that you guys supported and continue to support torture?
look no further than the inconsistency of self-proclaimed liberals voting to give more to the government.
Oh noes, the belief that the government should work to help people rather than be a tool to kill brown people. Teh horrorz.
Seriously, Frank, would it kill you not to be a complete asshole for one post?
Zython , shut the fuck up… Got it ?
Wilbur, so there was a typo. Your reductio ad absurdum doesn’t change the inconsistency between the value of individual autonomy, and the idea that the government makes better decisions than you or I can. There is nothing wrong with helping people who need help, but there is something wrong with telling schools what to serve for lunch, and, of course, attempting to force individuals to buy health insurance.
I don’t have room in my house for “The things liberals that just ain’t so.”
“The things liberals that just ain’t so,” should be “The things liberals believe that just ain’t so.”
Of course, if you correct it quickly enough, you can get that warm tingle up your leg you get, when I make a mistake.
Higher numbers than Eisenhower, who oversaw America’s greatest decade of economic growth ever.
Incredible. Our Muslim Socialist is actually the best capitalist we’ve ever had.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I don’t have room in my house for “The things liberals that just ain’t so.”
Because obviously your house is already chock-a-block with “things wingnuts believe that not only just ain’t so but are positively batty,” such as the idea that liberals believe “governments make better decisions than you or I can” or that the HCA “forces individuals to buy health insurance.”
PS, that wasn’t me up above, it was Dark Avenger.
Zython , shut the fuck up… Got it ?
Once again, the conservatives go for personal attacks. I would be hurt if it weren’t so pathetic.
Seriously, Frank, would it kill you not to be a complete asshole for one post?
That wasn’t a personal attack? Yep, you’re pathetic, all right.
You typed that at 9:39 PM , and this at 11:53 PM – yes, 2 hours and 14 minutes later:
Once again, the conservatives go for personal attacks.
You’ll never be more than an ankle – biter, Zython.
BTW, as a New Year’s gift , I am giving you a Google command that will help you.
-site:wikipedia.org
You’re welcome
but there is something wrong with telling schools what to serve for lunch
Wait, its wrong for the government to tell schools what to serve for lunch? The schools that the government RUNS? The schools that let kids take their own lunches if they don’t want the cafeteria food? Are you fucking stupid?*
Conservatives: fighting for causes with no point.
*This is a rhetorical question. We both know the answer to this one.
Wait, its wrong for the government to tell schools what to serve for lunch?
Zython, you don’t understand Frank’s way of thinking. Which is to say that you don’t understand the peculiar sociopathy of American wingnuttery that laughibly styles itself “conservative”:
There shouldn’t be government schools. Such schools that exist should be privately run for-profit concerns, the owners of which should be free to choose to cut budgetary corners by serving dingdongs and dogshit to their students for lunch. If parents don’t like that then they would be free to choose to take their children and their tuition dollars elsewhere.
Of course, a few kids may end up in the hospital before that can happen, but hey, freedom isn’t free.
Your reductio ad absurdum doesn’t change the inconsistency between the value of individual autonomy, and the idea that the government makes better decisions than you or I can.
Actually, it makes sense compared to your ungrammatical formulation, but then expecting you to process and absorb information correctly is like expecting a gibbon to become a Formula 500 race car driver.
Just a reminder to those who engage in personal attacks: the host of this site has repeatedly requested that people refrain from this practice. Whether or not he chooses to enforce that request by banning people from the site is up to him, but it’s kind of beside the point — we should respect his request, and when we do not, we are being assholes. It’s very easy not to be an asshole. When someone demonstrates a lapse in civility, even when it’s directed at you personally, just don’t respond in kind. Take the high road. Suffer their pernicious attacks in dignified silence. Resist the temptation to deliver a withering retort. Shame them by sticking to the topic at hand. Come on, you can do it. I know you can.
Now, to respond to Frank’s link without kneejerkingly accusing him of lookoverthereism:
No human being could possibly ascertain whether a bill could be considered constitutional if he or she had never even read the bill. Yet, over and over again, Democrat Congress members were caught on tape saying exactly that — that they had not even read the bills they were voting on.
Thing one: why say “Democrat” instead of “Democratic”? It’s so unimaginative. It’s juvenile, too. It’s a pejorative reference that has no purpose other than to annoy. It makes me less inclined to take the substance of the argument seriously.
Thing two: “Caught on tape” is one way of putting it. “Admitting publicly what Republicans are afraid to” is another. The implications are extremely hard to swallow — that because Democratic representatives have admitted this lapse, A) Republican representatives have not made similar admissions and B) Republican representatives are not just as guilty of the same lapse.
Funny, but I don’t recall any pissing on the Constitution…
Frank, just shut the fuck up already:
You’re a mush brain, Frank. A complete mush brain. Someone screeches “Be outraged!” and you’re outraged. And you never have any idea why.
Okay Frank,
Let’s talk about forcing people to buy Health Insurance.
First, let’s agree that buying private Health Ins. is a compromise position. It would not be necessary with a “single payer system”, a “private option”, or a truly Government run system (like the military).
Now, I recall that we’d agreed that making MediCare available to all Americans was probably the best solution, but it didn’t happen & we need to move on.
We can also agree that:
1. Health Care is expensive.
2. Uninsured Health Care is beyond the budget of most Americans.
3. At sometime in his life EVERY American will need some kind of Health Care. Apologies here to Repack Rider, but I have to ask him if he never had a cavity filled, never had his tonsils or appendix out, never broke a bone in his biking, or wife never had a baby.
4. Americans can’t “opt-out” of emergency Health Care. We will leave aside the story of a few months ago where the Fire Department refused to save a burning house because the owner had refused to pay the fees for coverage out of area. But keep it in mind for an analogy. If you are (God Forbid) hit by a car, the local ambulance will take you to the emergency room whether you are conscious or not. You will receive emergency care whether you are conscious or not. Your ability to pay is not questioned until much later. Even for an “Opt Outer”, these services will be provided.
So what do you propose, Frank? The “Opt Outers” carry a card, or wear a Medical Alert bracelet saying leave me in the street?
Beacuse, we can agree on one more thing:
5. NO ONE can promise that they won’t be run over by a car tomorrow.
The only question is who is going to pick up the costs. The individuals, by buying Health Ins (willingly or otherwise), or the Public at large?
God, how I love this “one strike, no appeal” policy Oliver has put in place for personal attacks.
If Oliver were ever serious about it, and let’s face it – it’s more than clear he never was – there would be no liberals left to comment here.
God, how I love this “one strike, no appeal” policy Oliver has put in place for personal attacks.
He did it a few days before he was to attend Obama’s ‘Far-Feft Bomb Throwers Asking Softball Questions/Oprah’s Book Club’ discussion summit.
It was nothing more than a little ‘clean-up around the house before company comes over’ move so the Glenn Reynold’s of the world wouldn’t make fun of him for it.
Get your blog so you can run it the way you see fit, Irish and Dennis.
Unless your primary goal in life is to declare how butthurt you are by what Oliver posts here, your complaints aren’t worth a boot full of piss.
Wow, you really do have to love how Dennis complains about Oliver’s lack of enforcement of the “No Personal Attacks” rule, and then immediately makes a personal attack against Oliver.
Or, for that matter, the fact that it’s just one more bit of pearl-clutching and “LOOK OVER THERE” intended to distract from the post it’s in the comments page of, which was about how the stock market under Obama has outperformed every one of his predecessors since at least Eisenhower for the same amount of their time in office that Obama has served. As to why we are making a big deal about that? It’s because of those of you on the Right who keep mindlessly screeching “SOCIALISM” in defiance of all factual basis that proves you wrong.
DA,
As usual, you miss the point entirely.
I don’t make the rules. Oliver does.
But what good does it do for him to make a well-publicized post demanding an end to personal attacks, and clearly delineating the consequences of such, if he is unwilling to enforce his rules?
It does no good at all. It makes Oliver look foolish. Well, I suppose it would be more accurate to say it makes him look more foolish.
Because posts like this one, and comments like yours, set the bar very damn high.
Prodigal,
My apologies for whatever I contributed to being off topic. In my own defence, I asked the questions honestly, with a real desire to hear Frank’s answer.
I will refrain from the argument about who is being foolish for using personal attacks. You are right about it being off topic & it is juvenile at the best of times.
Prodigal , you seem to be the only who did ask me a question with a desire to hear the answer.
It appears that every comment I make triggers a torrent of snark, abuse, and attempts at clever repartee, most of which qualify as mistaken (see Wilbur), irrelevant (see fafaroo), or just stupid (see Zython).
This thread, this blog, is not about me. For the illiterate amongst you (see Dark Avenger), that’s “This blog is Oliver’s, and your comments should be about what HE IS WRITING ABOUT!”
IMHO, the no abuse rule has no meaning because, as usual, the abuse begins on the left. Oliver graciously allows me to defend myself.
Or, for that matter, the fact that it’s just one more bit of pearl-clutching and “LOOK OVER THERE” intended to distract from the post it’s in the comments page of, which was about how the stock market under Obama has outperformed every one of his predecessors since at least Eisenhower for the same amount of their time in office that Obama has served.–PROD
Prodigal, are you that shallow that you can’t seem to find a way to add to the conversation about that graph? Do the “Look over there’s” distract you so much that they render you completely impotent?
Obviously there’s nothing more anyone here can think of to say so you need to blame that on someone else.
How about maybe you tell us what the joblessness looks like in the first two years of each presidents’ terms and give us your best interpretation of why Bush 43 lowered unemployment and the rate went to 10% during Obama’s first term in relation to how much you guys screeched about Bush only caring about his rich oil buddies and hating black people and being turned off by the plight of the middle class. You can handle that one, right?
Yes, Frank, it’s totally irrelevant that the person you linked to bitched that:
when the Republicans regularly shoved through bills without enough time to read them throughout there majority in the Bush years and neither you nor her nor any conservative gave one shit about the constitutionality of it all.
Then she spends the rest of the column bitching about the Constitutionality of health care reform, the offending provision of which is currently being challenged in court, as per, you guessed it, the Constitution. And, naturally, if and when the Supreme Court decides the law is constitutional, we’ll hear no end to the bitching about “judicial activism.”
I eagerly await the house Republicans’ reading of the Constitution at the opening of the next session. I suspect it will be the first time most of them have ever read the thing period.
And why would you care what’s in the Constitution, Frank? Just because something is Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s moral or ethical, right?
As proven by their ultimate leader, Sarah Palin regarding the First Amendment. What wingnuts really want is the power to force their own interpretation of the Constitution on everybody else.
But what good does it do for him to make a well-publicized post demanding an end to personal attacks, and clearly delineating the consequences of such, if he is unwilling to enforce his rules?
It does no good at all. It makes Oliver look foolish. Well, I suppose it would be more accurate to say it makes him look more foolish.
Because posts like this one, and comments like yours, set the bar very damn high.
Then you should e-mail him and engage him on this issue, rather than complaining about it here when others besides you, some of them on my side, have made the same observation.
Also, Oliver has removed comments, including mine from this blog, so he does have his standards, as Mr. DiSalle can attest to from first-hand experience, and as I have documented on my blog
Even when Oliver has confronted people, they sometimes don’t take the hint
I’ve tried to give you subtle hints, but Frank, just go away.
To quote Oliver.
Last Saturday both the House and Senate voted to give the Appropriations Committee chairmen and their staff unrestricted access to the income tax returns of ordinary Americans.
Perhaps it requires a “mush brain” to see with clarity the error you have made. The comment includes this information: “both the House and Senate voted”. It would seem to me that legislation referring to income tax, and, therefore, tax returns, should rightfully be passed by Congress. And it was, was it not? For your information, Congress can do whatever it wants with income tax returns; it always could.
But keep trying.
The only question is who is going to pick up the costs. The individuals, by buying Health Ins (willingly or otherwise), or the Public at large?
I will forego responding to your assumptions, for the sake of brevity.
The answer is the public at large. Why? Because different communities in different states have different problems. The Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, decided that the “unit of governance” (my term) should be the State, not the Federal government.
Why should a 23 year old store clerk in Casper, Wyoming be paying for the health insurance of a 23 year old New York City cab driver, who is in far greater danger of being sick, or injured?
Simple, Irish. It makes him a Democrat. You know, where morality is negotiable, core beliefs can be changed on a whim and lying is acceptable so long as your lies further the liberal cause. (Yglesias).
I consider Oliver’s personal attack ban to be an homage to Obama’s Iran policy (“If you don’t meet our demands we’re … … gonna make frowny faces at you!!”)
Oliver it’s totally your fault that those guys are all assholes.
IMHO, the no abuse rule has no meaning because, as usual, the abuse begins on the left. Oliver graciously allows me to defend myself.
What about this where Dennis’s VERY FIRST comment is to insult me for daring to point out Palin’s sociopathic tendencies. No rebuttal of any sort, just unprovoked insults. Of course, I don’t see any condemnation from you of his behavior, either. Figures.
Well, DA, I’ve tried that in the past.
Unfortunately, because I have in the past made the observation that Oliver possesses particularly odious biases of his own, turned his own lame logic and rhetoric against him, and broken him down in embarrassing fashion with plain facts, he has a) banned me under other handles, and b) refused to engage when I ask him why (other than to make generalized accusations of RAAAAACISM with no evidence to back them up).
So you’ll excuse me if I take measure Oliver’s words against his actions and find him wanting.
And if even if you don’t.
…and broken him down in embarrassing fashion with plain facts,…
You’re sure it wasn’t because you’re a whiner? Cuz you sound like a whiner.
So you’ll excuse me if I take measure Oliver’s words against his actions and find him wanting.
I really doubt your version of things, but it’s his website to run as he sees fit, so whining that he doesn’t run it to your satisfaction only demonstrates what a WATB you are.
Of course, fafaroo, some of it may have been because I did it to you.
Because you’re dumb on purpose, remember?
DA, see if you can get it from fafaroo. I just gave him a clue to one of my previous handles from which I kicked his ass sideways. I’d send you to the Google cache, but there you only get second-hand references and replies by other commenters (even you, DA!) to comments that Oliver has deleted. Because that’s how he rolls – to the memory hole.
These are not opinions, nor generalizations, the pitiful weapons of the WATB who runs this site and tolerates the same from the likes of you. These are facts. Go find them for yourself.
ROFLMAO! What an awesome new troll strategy: The Phantom Troll! Under another name, which he cannot reveal, he kicked all our asses with his brilliance!
GMIU, you’re preaching to the converted here.
As I stated before, Oliver has deleted comments here in the past, most notably, some of Mr. DiSalles’, and one of mine repeating what Frank wrote while criticizing the content.
BTW, don’t mention Google caches around Mr. DiSalle, you’ll threaten his crown as the King of Google searching.
How about this, E L : Judging increases with Inauguration day as a starting point is intellectually dishonest, is it not?
Well of course it’s a rigged game to find a starting point you like and measure performance from that point only.
Of course, Frank, you didn’t notice when Limbaugh did it. You didn’t notice when the Wall Street Journal editorial page did it. You didn’t notice when Hannity did it. You didn’t notice when conservative commenters right here on this blog did it.
But when a lefty does it? Now that’s intellectual dishonesty.
I have in the past made the observation that Oliver possesses particularly odious biases of his own, turned his own lame logic and rhetoric against him, and broken him down in embarrassing fashion with plain facts
Gosh, I wish I could believe you, Irish, but I just don’t. No evidence, you know?
Oliver has deleted comments here in the past, most notably, some of Mr. DiSalles’
To the best of my knowledge, none of my comments have ever been deleted. I have said this before, and no one came forth to say, “Well, this one was – you just didn’t know it.”
Quaker, I am not here to point statements made by conservatives that you might not like. There are enough people here doing that already.
I think a more accurate presentation would be a simple line graph with two year intervals from 1990 to 2010. Then at each year point where a Presidential term began, you would mark it
Clinton – 1992, 1996
Bush – 2000, 2004
Obama – 2008, 2010
That would be illustrative .
Of course, I don’t see any condemnation from you of his behavior, either.
He was insulting me, now was he? You actually condemn me for insulting you AFTER you insult me – how hypocritical is that?
That would be illustrative.
Indeed. The bar graph is an old Marxist ploy. Modern day liberals use it to conceal the truth of Obama’s real, socialist agenda.
The simple, honest line graph is the chart of freedom, the plot of patriots!
To the best of my knowledge, none of my comments have ever been deleted. I have said this before, and no one came forth to say, “Well, this one was – you just didn’t know it.
Like I said – c*nts
If the t*mpon fits – wear it.
Remember that, and my response to it in the same thread?
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/05/07/michael-steele-fires-rnc-fires-finance-director/#comment-222131
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/05/11/conservatives-founding-father-fetish/#comment-222670
Thanks for demonstrating what a clinical example of Korsakoff’s Syndrome looks like, BTW.
Quaker, I am not here to point statements made by conservatives that you might not like.
Clearly not. But don’t let that dissuade you from calling the exact same behavior “intellectually dishonest” whenever it suits you.
He was insulting me, now was he?
No, dumbass. You said, and I quote:
I pointed out that Dennis had insulted me with no provocation and nothing directed at him. However, you did not condemn this behavior that you’re condemning us for.
You actually condemn me for insulting you AFTER you insult me – how hypocritical is that?
You mean the part where I say that you’re an asshole? Yeah, if you don’t want to be called an asshole, you can start by not being an asshole.
Oliver’s blog is just so gosh-darn awful that our resident wing-nut trolls just have to post here so darn often.
Fuckwits.
If I knew how to make one of those online poll thingies, I would make one and this would be the question:
Which is the most tedious (choose one):
o long threads where people do nothing but insult one another
o long threads where people whine about being insulted
o long threads where people insult each other while whining about being insulted
o long threads where people complain about the blog host not stopping people from insulting one another
o long threads where people whine about other people complaining about the bloghost not stopping people from insulting one another
o people who post e-polls about what is most tedious
Free advice: take it or leave it. Get your zinger off. If you get zinged in return take it like a knight of eld: Zing back if you can do so without bending over backwards, and most importantly don’t whine about being zung as if you’ve never zung anyone yourself. Above all, remember to say something about the topic of the thread while you’re zinging. Above above all, if you feel like complaining about the way our host runs his blog, shut the fuck up and leave, in that order.
Yeah, if you don’t want to be called an asshole, you can start by not being an asshole.
Yeah, if you don’t want to be insulted, you can start by not insulting any one.
OR, put another way : “Get your zinger off. If you get zinged in return take it like a knight of eld *”
* ‘eld’: That’s “old” for us folks that don’t wear cordirouy jackets with suede elbiw patches, and smoke Mixture No. 79 in a meerschaumn pipe.
what are you laughing at? There are still four comments missing.
Yes, they were “in moderation.”
Thanks for demonstrating what a goddam liar looks like, BTW.
Nice to now I have an Archivist. I am honored.
Thanks for demonstrating what a goddam liar looks like, BTW.
You mean the one who said:
“Like I said – c*nts
If the t*mpon fits – wear it”
?
You’re quite welcome.
Nice to now I have an Archivist. I am honored.
Oh, the honor is all mine:
Oliver’s blog is just so gosh-darn awful that our resident wing-nut trolls just have to post here so darn often.
Fuckwits.–Jaim Galt
Jaim, you were the one who called this a “shitty blog” and on several occasions declared you were leaving, yet every single time you came back. To keep complaining.
Unless you’re calling yourself a fuckwit, that’s about the most hypocritical post on this thread, which was no easy feat.
Jaim, you are without a doubt, and with only a little competition for the title from mambochicken, the angriest, most bitter, commenter on this blog. You are the quickest to be insulting, the quickest to be insulting, profane and blasphemous, and the person with the least substantive comments of all. You are minimizing the effect of this behavior, precisely because you engage in it with such horrifying frequency.
D A, you’re babbling. Shut up before I start reporting your comments to the local Community Mental Health Agency. And you have yet to explain what “The Foster Brooks of the Right” means. Perhaps your psychiatrist can help you with that.
Here’s a slogan that may help you in the future: “Resentment is like pissing in a dark suit; it feels nice and warm at first, and no one knows but you. But then it stinks, and everyone finds out.”
D A, you’re babbling. Shut up before I start reporting your comments to the local Community Mental Health Agency. And you have yet to explain what “The Foster Brooks of the Right” means. Perhaps your psychiatrist can help you with that.
Frank DiSalle, I can go to a phone booth and call the local CMHA in your area this morning, would you like that?
And you have yet to explain what “The Foster Brooks of the Right” means.
Google “Lovable” with the name in question and you’ll have your answer, unless your mad Googling skillz are no more.
You might want to try being less hypocritical if you want people to take what you write seriously, Dennis. You don’t get to be self-righteous about my adding or not adding to the conversation on the topic of the post after expending so much effort to try to distract people from it.
But as for your next question – since it did actually manage to have some relevance to the post topic – Bush 43′s term in office saw unemployment almost double, despite his “job creating” tax cuts. I’m posting via my BlackBerry, so will have to wait til I can pull up the exact figures from a PC to post them, but give me a couple of hours and I’ll drop them on you.
I only just noticed that Dennis was claiming that Bush reduced unemployment in his first two years, rather than that he reduced unemployment over the course of his entire term in office. My bad.
But here are the figures that prove his claim false:
Jan 01: 4.2%
Jan 03: 5.8%
Increase in unemployment under Bush: 38%
But to be fair, and since the most current BLS figures are for November of 10, I’ll also provide the figures for the equivalent period during Bush’s term:
Jan 01: 4.2%
Nov 02: 5.9%
Increase in unemployment under Bush: 40%
And here are the figures for Obama:
Jan 09: 7.7%
Nov 10: 9.8%
Increase in unemployment under Obama: 27%
How much larger the increase in unemployment was under Bush than under Obama: 48%
And let’s not forget that when Bush took office the economy was booming and the government had surpluses for the two years previous, whereas when Obama took office the economy was in a credit default swap/credit default obligation-fueled tailspin, and the government had deficits from 2002 onward.
None of which changes the fact that the private sector has done better under Obama than it did under Bush (to return this conversation to the actual topic at hand); but regardless, Dennis, you’re welcome.
Prodigal, a TFJ for you, sir.
Jaim, you are without a doubt, and with only a little competition for the title from mambochicken, the angriest, most bitter, commenter on this blog.
Hi Frank! You are without a doubt, and with NO competition, the dumbest and whiniest commenter on this blog. You’re probably also the oldest and in the poorest health. I’d rather be angry and bitter and correct than be in your shoes, any day.
I’d rather be angry and bitter and correct than be in your shoes, any day.
Well, two out of three ain’t bad. Now, if we could get a show of that education you paid $100 thousand for, you’d be batting 1.000.
I’m in poor health? Perhaps you should call my doctor – he must be missing something. And since when is “being in poor health” a criticism? Who are you, Jack Lalanne?
And this is rich: I’m the oldest. Wow! Does that speak volumes about you! Yes, youth is so important. Look how well it treats you. You’d rather be angry and bitter. Don’t you mean you have found that you got what you wanted, but not what you needed, and that’s why you’re angry and bitter. You have finally discovered that smart doesn’t equal wise, and educated doesn’t equal mature, and you are pissed off!
What a surprise!
You’re another idiot with a Ph D – just like the President.
Hi Frank!
I’m in poor health? Perhaps you should call my doctor – he must be missing something. And since when is “being in poor health” a criticism? Who are you, Jack Lalanne?
Sorry, Frank. Naturally I assumed an old drunk who had visited the hospital six times last year, and used his poor health to avoid a confrontation with a commenter on this blog (i.e., Sean Martin) after making obnoxious threats, was someone who wasn’t in the greatest shape. I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part.
And this is rich: I’m the oldest. Wow! Does that speak volumes about you!
Not much, really. Our society values youth, for one. I am glad to be young, healthy, and have more intelligence in my stool than you, a broken-down pathetic excuse for a man. I’ve got my whole life ahead of me, Frank, whereas you’re on your way out. I’m happy for that.
You’d rather be angry and bitter.
You forgot “correct”. I have the truth on my side, Frank. I am not a deluded, ignorant fool, unlike you. I’d rather be awake and outside the cave than watching the shadows dance on the walls. And you know what, reality can suck a lot; the world is often a cold, unforgiving place. If that doesn’t bother you, then there’s something wrong with you. What makes me particularly angry is when uninformed, uneducated fools like yourself lack any self-awareness. You think you’re informed and logical and reasonable, when you’re nothing of the sort. And you vote. Stupidly.
Don’t you mean you have found that you got what you wanted, but not what you needed, and that’s why you’re angry and bitter. You have finally discovered that smart doesn’t equal wise, and educated doesn’t equal mature, and you are pissed off!
This is gibberish. What are you talking about?
You’re another idiot with a Ph D – just like the President.
Ha. That’s amusing. First off, President Obama does not have a Ph.D. Secondly, for all Obama’s faults, he’s not even close to being an idiot – it’s tough to achieve all he has, academically and otherwise, without having a good head on your shoulders. Third, there aren’t a whole lot of idiots with Ph.Ds, Frank. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there aren’t – the process of getting the Ph.D. typically weeds out the lazy and the dumb. It’s a kind of selection process, you see.
You, on the other hand, are an uneducated, uninformed old fool. A veteran who left the Army at the same rank he entered it. A failure.
Yes, I would rather be me, with all my anger and bitterness. Your life has been one gigantic waste.
And by the way, before you get all hurt and whiny here, recognize that you brought my name up first. You didn’t have to do that.
If it wasn’t mambo being the PhD who gave you the TFJ, Prod, I’d have been more shocked to see someone who surely has some math background laud you for such an elemntary mistake in analyzing percentages, especially as it regards increases in the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate one year ago is right where it is today give or take a tenth or two in the overall percentage rate. This is a monumental failure on Obama’s part, given the dire circumstances and the amount of money legislaed by his Congress to lower the rate, but according to you, it would pale in comparison to, say for example, had Bush stared out with a 1.0% nominal unemoployument rate and it had ticked up to 2.7%, the same 1.7% increase incurred after the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11 effects on the economy. Had that happened, you and mambo could give each other terrorist fist jabs all day at comparing a 170% increase under Bush versus a last y-o-y increase under Obama’s leadership of 0%. 170% increase vs. Obama’s 0% increase with the unemployment rate at 10%…..TFJ, Barack!!!
I don’t know who’s the bigger idiot here, you for getting excited at something your 7th grade math teacher woould make an example out of for playing fast ad loose with percentages, or mambo for pretending he’s a boy genius and givng you a TFJ for failed math analysis.
I think I’ll go with mambo since he’s probably supppised to know better. At least that’s what he claims and declares that’s why he’s a liberal.
How about maybe you tell us what the joblessness looks like in the first two years of each presidents’ terms and give us your best interpretation of why Bush 43 lowered unemployment and the rate went to 10% during Obama’s first term
You’re a liar, Dennis. Prodigal pointed that out.
Additionally, the majority of the increase (from the trough years ago of ~4% unemployment) occurred under Bush’s watch. I don’t see you howling about that. Why not? Sure, the unemployment rate hasn’t improved markedly during Obama’s tenure, at least not yet… but how about the guy who was in charge during the uptick in joblessness?
Fact: Bush left office with far more people unemployed than when he started. We’ll see how things shake out for Obama’s presidency.
We’ll see how things shake out for Obama’s presidency.
Well, sounds like an admission on your part that this is a bullshit graph Oliver is beating his chest over Obama for, which was my point to Prodigal. Both of you seem to think picking two data points favorable to your argumnent is way cool, but when a negative is brought up along those same data points, then you want to go to a more in-depth analysis and say things like “we’ll see how things shake out” and “And let’s not forget that when Bush took office the economy was booming….” even though it wasn’t.
sounds like an admission on your part that this is a bullshit graph Oliver is beating his chest over Obama for
The graph is not particularly informative. There’s a great many factors that influence the movement of the stock market. What it does indicate, however, is that Obama’s effect on the economy is unlikely to be as horrific as conservatives suggest.
but when a negative is brought up along those same data points, then you want to go to a more in-depth analysis
I’d prefer we always engage in more in-depth analysis, but that’s not practical when dealing with folks like you and Frank.
and say things like “we’ll see how things shake out”
Will we not? Is that a false statement? You know, like how you said that Bush lowered unemployment?
“And let’s not forget that when Bush took office the economy was booming….” even though it wasn’t.
He did inherit a surplus, and a much better economy than Obama inherited. So there’s that. I suppose that “booming” is a subjective term.
Since we can now add “Math” to the list of things that Dennis doesn’t understand, let’s take a look at the first set of figures he quoted from me:
Jan 01: 4.2%
Nov 02: 5.9%
Increase in unemployment under Bush: 40%
If you divide 5.9 by 4.2, you get 1.40 (the actual figure goes on for several decimal places beyond that, but for simplicity’s sake I was rounding off at the hundredths).
When you convert 1.40 to a percentage, it becomes 140%.
Because that number is larger than 100%, that means that unemployment increased under Bush during his first 22 months in office, and since the rate was 140% of what it had been at the start of Bush’s first 22 months, that means that it increased by 40% over that 22 month period.
Do please try to keep up with the rest of the class in future, Dennis.