"What if Obama can't lead?" :o

[B-Man]

gatorman[/b]' timestamp='1392779789' post='3061605']

No one engages with me? WTF are you talking about?

 

LOL.....................I blame myself for not taking into account your poor attention span.

 

As you apparently have forgotten, I replied to you back in November that (unlike some of the other posters here on PPP who like playing with you) I would not be responding to your silliness.

 

Your painfully obvious desperation in your recent replies, trying to invoke any type of answer, shows that you need an occasional reminder of this.

 

 

How does every three months work for you ?......................................Okay ?

 

 

Like everyone here, I will continue to laugh at your simplistic remarks and I may even reference one at times.

 

But I certainly see no reason to ask you any questions or involve you in any type of dialogue. As I put it in November, you have shown neither the intelligence nor the wit to discuss anything with me, and certainly nothing that you have written since then has demonstrated any need for re-evaluating that policy.

 

 

 

So............................see you in late May for your reminder.

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

You think the tea party people are honest, lol?

 

My God man you are dense.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm sure the Conservative/Libertarian/anti-Obama types don't like being confronted with facts and the truth so they reply with insults, but so what?

I can't speak for "conservatives" or "anti-Obama types" (whatever that means), but I'll speak for myself as a libertarian:

 

Libertarians define themselves as such because they reject the lies on both sides of the asile, don't align with either party, and reject all partisan spin. It might also surprise you to learn that libertarian leanings corolates very strongly with high intelligence.

 

Of course i'm going to be ridiculed disagreeing with passionate partisans, why woould you expect something else?

That's not why you're ridiculed. The reasons you're ridiculed are exactly the ones I listed. Further, I challenge you to make an accurate list of each PPP poster's political philosophy and belief system, which is something you should easily be able to do, having identified all of us as partisans.

 

Like you, when I tried to get you to address the anti-trust case between big credit card companies and small businesses and you just blamed government, you know, government bad! You ran away from that argument because your silly simplistic ideology does not compute that paradigm.

Incorrect. I started a conversation about the nature of punative fines levied against businesses, and the nature of monopoly; to which you responded with a dismissive non-sequitor. You weren't interested in having a conversation, or learning anything; you simply hacked away, your preferred narative as your cudgel. Why would I respond to that? Answer: I wouldn't given your preferred level of conversation, and the fact that I do this for a living (I later attended a high level round table concerning how government actions and policy will effect our business decisions in the second half of our fiscal year.)

 

Again, that goes back to why no one here is willing to engage you.

Edited February 19, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Back to the thread.........

 

 

 

His “Year of Action” — intended to dispel that lame-duck scent — is simultaneously Caesar-like and pathetic. (Maybe the presidential seal should depict that dude from the Little Caesars pizza commercials?) Last week, he announced that he would unilaterally raise the minimum wage for federal contractors seeking new work. Only 1 percent of the workforce makes the minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and vanishingly few of them work for the federal government. This probably explains why the White House wouldn’t give an actual number when asked how many people his bold action would benefit.

 

 

Yet, at the Democratic retreat last week, Obama threw cold water on the idea that he could do much more on immigration from the Oval Office, saying there are “outer limits to what we can do by executive action.”

 

 

Some of his unilateral actions are a bigger deal, of course. The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to treat carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” is an outrageous expansion of executive power. But Obama doesn’t tout that as a bullet point; he let the EPA take the political heat for that decision a while ago. His multiple unilateral revisions to Obamacare run the gamut from desperate tinkering to outright lawlessness.

 

But flop-sweat panic to compensate for executive incompetence and to fend off a rout in the midterms doesn’t exactly project presidential boldness either

 

{snip}

 

That’s a lesson Democrats would do well to ponder, because they are rhetorically giving Obama license to do whatever he likes. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D.,Texas) recently declared that the priority for her and her comrades should be to draft executive orders — not laws — for Obama to sign. Representative Xavier Becerra (D., Calif.) suggested on Fox News Sunday that the president could rewrite Obamacare at whim because the Constitution gives him the power to act during a national security threat. And of course, Senator Harry Reid (D., Nev.) blew up the filibuster rules for appointees.

 

 

They shouldn’t be surprised if the next Republican president takes advantage of that license.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nationalr...-jonah-goldberg

[3rdnlng]

I can't speak for "conservatives" or "anti-Obama types" (whatever that means), but I'll speak for myself as a libertarian:

 

Libertarians are define themselves as such because they reject the lies on both sides of the isle, don't align with either party, and reject all partisan spin. It might also surprise you to learn that libertarian leanings corolates very strongly with high intellegence.

 

 

That's not why you're ridiculed. The reasons you're ridiculed are exactly the ones I listed. Further, I challenge you to make an accurate list of each PPP poster's political philosophy and belief system, which is something you should easily be able to do, having identified all of us as partisans.

 

 

Incorrect. I started a conversation about the nature of punative fines levied against businesses, and the nature of monopoly; to which you responded with a dismissive non-sequitor. You weren't interested in having a conversation, or learning anything; you simply hacked away, your preferred narative as your cudgel. Why would I respond to that? Answer: I wouldn't given your preferred level of conversation, and the fact that I do this for a living (I later attended a high level round table concerning how government actions and policy will effect our business decisions in the second half of our fiscal year.)

 

Again, that goes back to why no one here is willing to engage you.

 

Now that is pure gold.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Now that is pure gold.

Oh, good grief. More like tarnished silver.

 

/wince

[boyst]

 

 

Now that is pure gold.

you missed isle =/= aisle

[TakeYouToTasker]

you missed isle =/= aisle

I can live with the eggcorn, and the typo, both.

[Tiberius]

LOL.....................I blame myself for not taking into account your poor attention span.

As you apparently have forgotten, I replied to you back in November that (unlike some of the other posters here on PPP who like playing with you) I would not be responding to your silliness.

Your painfully obvious desperation in your recent replies, trying to invoke any type of answer, shows that you need an occasional reminder of this.How does every three months work for you ?......................................Okay ?Like everyone here, I will continue to laugh at your simplistic remarks and I may even reference one at times.But I certainly see no reason to ask you any questions or involve you in any type of dialogue. As I put it in November, you have shown neither the intelligence nor the wit to discuss anything with me, and certainly nothing that you have written since then has demonstrated any need for re-evaluating that poli

So............................see you in late May for your reminder

 

You are a straight up propaganda machine, if you don't reply, that doesn't break my heart. You don't think for yourself so it doesn't surprise me you can't defend your cut and paste nonsense. Whatever.

 

 

 

Again, that goes back to why no one here is willing to engage you.

 

So you and others write giant long posts engaging with me explaining why you don't engage?? Huh? The only reason you don't want to engage is because your anti government ideology--and that's what it is-- is doctrinaire silliness. and I'm not afraid to point that out.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So you and others write giant long posts engaging with me explaining why you don't engage?? Huh?

Again, I'm not engaging you in an exchange of ideas; I'm critiquing your posting habits, and explaining why I don't engage you in a discussion of ideas: you're seemingly, possibly willfully, incapable.

 

The only reason you don't want to engage is because your anti government ideology--and that's what it is-- is doctrinaire silliness. and I'm not afraid to point that out.

So, which is it? Do I engage, or not engage? You should start by figuring that out.

 

To the rest, I'll just note that your fiat declarations, perjorative of other posters, and dismissive of their ideas, do not consititute fact on your say so. But then, this is where your failures as a poster play to my point: you don't contribute anything beyond perjoratives, fiat declarations, and dismissive handwavium; which is what I was critiquing in the post which led to this exchange in the first place.

Edited February 19, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

 

 

You are a straight up propaganda machine, if you don't reply, that doesn't break my heart. You don't think for yourself so it doesn't surprise me you can't defend your cut and paste nonsense. Whatever.

 

 

 

So you and others write giant long posts engaging with me explaining why you don't engage?? Huh? The only reason you don't want to engage is because your anti government ideology--and that's what it is-- is doctrinaire silliness. and I'm not afraid to point that out.

 

People, this nonsense is why I simply reply "You're an idiot."

[TakeYouToTasker]

People, this nonsense is why I simply reply "You're an idiot."

I hold out hope that some day this board will produce a contingent of left leaning posters who are both introspective and argue honestly.

 

Perhaps gatorman is the manure from which they will take sustenance and grow. Then again, perhaps he's just manure.

[Chef Jim]

So you and others write giant long posts engaging with me explaining why you don't engage?? Huh? The only reason you don't want to engage is because your anti government ideology--and that's what it is-- is doctrinaire silliness. and I'm not afraid to point that out.

 

Would you stop with the anit-government ****. Saying that alone is proof you have no idea what your talking about or our philosophies on government.

[gumby]

I hold out hope that some day this board will produce a contingent of left leaning posters who are both introspective and argue honestly.

 

Perhaps gatorman is the manure from which they will take sustenance and grow. Then again, perhaps he's just manure.

 

 

If they were introspective and honest could they still be on the left?

[TakeYouToTasker]

If they were introspective and honest could they still be on the left?

Yes. Those on the left aren't always wrong. Infact, on social issues they are on the proper side of the issue far more often than conservatives. Their major failing is that they don't understand that economic freedom, which is stacked upon the right of an individual to truely own property, is essential to all other freedoms.

[gumby]

Yes. Those on the left aren't always wrong. Infact, on social issues they are on the proper side of the issue far more often than conservatives. Their major failing is that they don't understand that economic freedom, which is stacked upon the right of an individual to truely own property, is essential to all other freedoms.

 

Actually my post was supposed to be flippant but rereading it maybe not so much.

 

I don't agree with all of this particular post of yours, but my point is who on the political left actually argues their point honestly? I have a hard time thinking of anyone who does. It's all lies and spin put out by the political class and parroted by the mainstream media. Which in turn filters down to places like this.

 

I contend the left can't be honest because if they were they'd have a hard time winning elections. The few times the left is actually honest about what they believe. (e.g. Obama's "bitter clingers" comment) look how fast they go into damage control, aided by the media, to deflect, misdirect and let's be honest openly lie about what was meant. So good luck waiting for the day when the left is honest. I fear you'll be waiting a long time.

 

Republicans (with a few exceptions) aren't any better by the way. They like to talk about their conservative credentials but their actions speak louder than words.

Edited February 19, 2014 by gumby

[3rdnlng]

http://www.conservative-daily.com/2014/02/23/democrats-are-terrified-of-impeachment/

The Democrats are scared. They are terrified by the recent surge in support for impeachment proceedings from Members of Congress and the American people.

In a recent fundraising email to supporters, the Democrat Party urges recipients to donate money to help retake the House of Representatives. Normally, that would be completely fine. Every political party is allowed to fundraise.

The problem is the reason behind the Democrats’ fundraising push…

The email starts out by listing some of the GOP Congressmen and Senators who have gone on-record supporting an impeachment vote.

The email closes by telling supporters that if the Democrat Party can win just 17 more seats, it will be able to take back the House of Representatives and “put an end to this kind of asinine behavior.”

Asinine behavior? Since when did support for the Constitution and the rule of law become asinine behavior?

For something to be asinine, it must be extremely stupid or foolish. Impeachment proceedings are neither. Not only is impeachment the wise thing to do, but it is absolutely necessary to save our Republic!

Tell Congress that Barack Obama is a lawless president and there is nothing asinine about impeaching him and removing him from office!

This is the same sort of blind devotion that kept Adolf Hitler in power! Anyone who is blinded by party affiliation and cannot recognize the tyranny right in front of their eyes has no business serving in Congress!

This hubris is absolutely incompatible with our system of government. The Democrats are so in love with Barack Hussein Obama that, in their eyes, he can do absolutely no wrong. They bought the President’s campaign speeches hook, line, and sinker and are still waiting for him to bring that “change” to Washington.

What they don’t even realize is that Barack Obama has brought “change” to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He has changed the Presidency into an Autocracy, where he can override the Constitution whenever he wants!

The Democrats can look down on us and belittle us, but no amount of ignorance can escape the fact that the Barack Obama they voted for is not same person who is currently occupying the Oval Office.

[DC Tom]

http://www.conservat...of-impeachment/

 

The Democrats are scared. They are terrified by the recent surge in support for impeachment proceedings from Members of Congress and the American people.

In a recent fundraising email to supporters, the Democrat Party urges recipients to donate money to help retake the House of Representatives. Normally, that would be completely fine. Every political party is allowed to fundraise.

The problem is the reason behind the Democrats’ fundraising push…

The email starts out by listing some of the GOP Congressmen and Senators who have gone on-record supporting an impeachment vote.

The email closes by telling supporters that if the Democrat Party can win just 17 more seats, it will be able to take back the House of Representatives and “put an end to this kind of asinine behavior.”

Asinine behavior? Since when did support for the Constitution and the rule of law become asinine behavior?

For something to be asinine, it must be extremely stupid or foolish. Impeachment proceedings are neither. Not only is impeachment the wise thing to do, but it is absolutely necessary to save our Republic!

Tell Congress that Barack Obama is a lawless president and there is nothing asinine about impeaching him and removing him from office!

This is the same sort of blind devotion that kept Adolf Hitler in power! Anyone who is blinded by party affiliation and cannot recognize the tyranny right in front of their eyes has no business serving in Congress!

This hubris is absolutely incompatible with our system of government. The Democrats are so in love with Barack Hussein Obama that, in their eyes, he can do absolutely no wrong. They bought the President’s campaign speeches hook, line, and sinker and are still waiting for him to bring that “change” to Washington.

What they don’t even realize is that Barack Obama has brought “change” to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He has changed the Presidency into an Autocracy, where he can override the Constitution whenever he wants!

The Democrats can look down on us and belittle us, but no amount of ignorance can escape the fact that the Barack Obama they voted for is not same person who is currently occupying the Oval Office.

 

The Democrats aren't scared of impeachment. At most, they're just using fear to get money.

 

But Obama's not going to be impeached.

[3rdnlng]

The Democrats aren't scared of impeachment. At most, they're just using fear to get money.

 

But Obama's not going to be impeached.

 

I doubt very much that he will be impeached. Has he done enough to be impeached though? That question is the reason I posted the link.

[DC Tom]

I doubt very much that he will be impeached. Has he done enough to be impeached though? That question is the reason I posted the link.

 

Probably not. As much as the multitude of extra-legal changes to the ACA piss me off, I'd say it's not an impeachable offense until someone tries and succeeds in challenging the changes in court, which court orders Obama then proceeds to ignore.

 

And I truly wish someone would challenge that bull **** in court, to re-establish that our government's based on the rule of law, rather than on the rule of man.