The Great Obama

[Zack Morris]

What are you talking about? What 1% is oppressing what 99%?

Who in their right mind believes that? That sounds like the propaganda the Nazi's used to exterminate the Jews.

Names, dates, places, and listing of oppressors, oppressies, and oppressive acts PLEASE!

I recall hearing numerous times that the gays -- who comprise 1-2% of the population -- were unfairly oppressing the remainder of the population with their sinister minority agenda.

[Simple Minded]

What are you talking about? What 1% is oppressing what 99%?

SM,

Four hogs in the trough. One hog corners the feed. Three hogs bash Mr greedy.

Tell me that isn't progressive taxation

Alex.

Alex,

You must be philosophy professor mode. Allow me to return the favor.

From one of my philosophy professors (the teaching kind, not the preaching kind): A man is walking along a country road. He come to a farmer standing in an orchard holding a pig who is eating apples off the tree. The mana (Freudian typo, should be man) asks "What are you doing?" The farmer replies "I'm feeding my pig." The man says "Doesn't that take a long time?" The farmer thinks quietly for a moment and says "Yes, it does..... But what is time to a pig?"

Back to your post. Since we don't know which hog(s) built the trough, which hog(s) filled it with feed (hopefully orgasmic, non-GMO feed), or which hog(s)built the pen keeping them all from being little free range hogs subject to the dangers or life, but instead happy little domestic, highly constrained hogs, the current situation seems unfair.

But, a longer term perspective illustrates Karma is valid even in a hog pen. The greedy hog gets fat first, so if the wolves come he will be the slowest runner. If Farmer Brown comes before the wolves, he gets slaughtered first. If neither wolves nor Farmer Brown comes-a-callin, the fattest pig dies first of coronary artery disease or diabetes.

See, it all works out in the long run!

with humans, we are waiting for the Zombies to restore the natural order......

[Simple Minded]

What are you talking about? What 1% is oppressing what 99%?

Who in their right mind believes that? That sounds like the propaganda the Nazi's used to exterminate the Jews.

Names, dates, places, and listing of oppressors, oppressies, and oppressive acts PLEASE!

I recall hearing numerous times that the gays -- who comprise 1-2% of the population -- were unfairly oppressing the remainder of the population with their sinister minority agenda.

I dunno..... This sounds kinda fishy to me Zack. Think about it, since by definition, gay people are happier than non-gay people, one would not expect the gay people to be the oppressors. Hey, wait a minute! What if the gays are really joos pretending to be gay? Now I see your point.

I thought you were gonna use Sandra Fluke complaining that poor working families don't want to pay for her birth control as an example. Someone pretending to be a woman in order to further the fascade of a war on women. Double agents are everywhere.....

[Simple Minded]

What are you talking about? What 1% is oppressing what 99%?

SM,

Four hogs in the trough. One hog corners the feed. Three hogs bash Mr greedy.

Tell me that isn't progressive taxation

Alex.

alex,

What if the trough contains motorcycle horsepower?

Hopefully, that only means you will be able to outrun the herd of Harleys more easily!

[monster_gardener]

What are you talking about? What 1% is oppressing what 99%?

SM,

Four hogs in the trough. One hog corners the feed. Three hogs bash Mr greedy.

Tell me that isn't progressive taxation

Alex.

Alex,

You must be philosophy professor mode. Allow me to return the favor.

From one of my philosophy professors (the teaching kind, not the preaching kind): A man is walking along a country road. He come to a farmer standing in an orchard holding a pig who is eating apples off the tree. The mana (Freudian typo, should be man) asks "What are you doing?" The farmer replies "I'm feeding my pig." The man says "Doesn't that take a long time?" The farmer thinks quietly for a moment and says "Yes, it does..... But what is time to a pig?"

Back to your post. Since we don't know which hog(s) built the trough, which hog(s) filled it with feed (hopefully orgasmic, non-GMO feed), or which hog(s)built the pen keeping them all from being little free range hogs subject to the dangers or life, but instead happy little domestic, highly constrained hogs, the current situation seems unfair.

But, a longer term perspective illustrates Karma is valid even in a hog pen. The greedy hog gets fat first, so if the wolves come he will be the slowest runner. If Farmer Brown comes before the wolves, he gets slaughtered first. If neither wolves nor Farmer Brown comes-a-callin, the fattest pig dies first of coronary artery disease or diabetes.

See, it all works out in the long run!

with humans, we are waiting for the Zombies to restore the natural order......

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Simple Minded....

keeping them all from being little free range hogs subject to the dangers or life

Recalling Odysseus & his scar from a Wild Boar Hunt.......

Free Range Feral Hogs can get quite big and dangerous.......

Now more than ever.......

Hogzilla was a male hybrid of wild hog and domestic pig that was shot and killed by Chris Griffin in Alapaha, Georgia, United States, on June 17, 2004 on Ken Holyoak's fish farm and hunting reserve.[1] It was alleged to be 12 feet (3.7 m) long and weighed over 1,000 pounds (450 kg). It was originally widely considered a hoax.[2]

The animal's remains were exhumed in early 2005 and studied by Dr. Oz Katz and his father, Dr. Eliahu Katz, for a documentary and a book they wrote together; Eliahu Katz coined the name "Hogzilla". In March 2005, these scientists confirmed that Hogzilla actually weighed 800 pounds (360 kg) and was between 6.9 feet (2.1 m) and 8.6 feet (2.6 m) long, diminishing the previous claim. DNA testing was performed, revealing that Hogzilla was a hybrid of wild boar and domestic pig (Hampshire breed).[2] However, compared to most wild boars and domestics, Hogzilla is still quite a large and extraordinary specimen.[3] Hogzilla's tusks measured nearly 28 inches (71 cm) and 19 inches (48 cm).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogzilla

[manolo]

What are you talking about? What 1% is oppressing what 99%?

SM,

Four hogs in the trough. One hog corners the feed. Three hogs bash Mr greedy.

Tell me that isn't progressive taxation

Alex.

Alex,

You must be philosophy professor mode. Allow me to return the favor.

From one of my philosophy professors (the teaching kind, not the preaching kind): A man is walking along a country road. He come to a farmer standing in an orchard holding a pig who is eating apples off the tree. The mana (Freudian typo, should be man) asks "What are you doing?" The farmer replies "I'm feeding my pig." The man says "Doesn't that take a long time?" The farmer thinks quietly for a moment and says "Yes, it does..... But what is time to a pig?"

Back to your post. Since we don't know which hog(s) built the trough, which hog(s) filled it with feed (hopefully orgasmic, non-GMO feed), or which hog(s)built the pen keeping them all from being little free range hogs subject to the dangers or life, but instead happy little domestic, highly constrained hogs, the current situation seems unfair.

But, a longer term perspective illustrates Karma is valid even in a hog pen. The greedy hog gets fat first, so if the wolves come he will be the slowest runner. If Farmer Brown comes before the wolves, he gets slaughtered first. If neither wolves nor Farmer Brown comes-a-callin, the fattest pig dies first of coronary artery disease or diabetes.

See, it all works out in the long run!

with humans, we are waiting for the Zombies to restore the natural order......

SM,

A lot of ground covered in your post, all interesting.

As an aside, I do have two philosophy degrees, a single honours BA and an Mphil by research in moral rights. My conclusion is that there aren't any, which is probably why I gave up on the PhD (laziness too).

I really like your prof's example on the pig feeding, kind of Zen? We are currently looking after two guinea pigs for a neighbour and I find their restful munching very pleasing. So different from our hamster which thinks only of escape.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

SM,

....I really like your prof's example on the pig feeding, kind of Zen? We are currently looking after two guinea pigs for a neighbour and I find their restful munching very pleasing. So different from our hamster which thinks only of escape.

Alex.

so are guinea pigs (RASCIST!!! ) left wingers and hamsters right wingers? or vice versa?

If you could get the guinea pigs and the hamster to interbreed, you might be able to solve a lot of humanity's problem and win a Nobel Peace prize!

Dressing up the male to look like Mao might be all you need to do!

at the minimum you should be able to make a couple bucks (no pun intended) on the video.

[Doc]

The silly part is comparing the popularity ratings of two presidents that are a generation and a half apart. But it is entertaining.... which is why we are here!!!!!

SM,

When Obama's ratings were lower, right wingers quoted them with the sanctimony of biblical text against those of their Godchild Reagan; with the ratings higher than Reagan's it is "entertaining".

I think of a racist sports commentator, who talked of American golfers through the last 50 years and then had to admit the the existence of Tiger Woods. He used the words "Woods phenomenon" in order to avoid calling the man a golfer. To your credit SM, you have called Obama a "president" and I salute your generosity and honesty.

Alex.

mmmm NO Obama's ratings are not higher than Reagan's Not even close. Obama it turns out is the most divisive president in history. In six years he has had 6 of the 10 most divisive years in US history ever counted

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... allup-says

Obama On Track to Be Most Polarizing President Ever, Gallup Says

Obama outpaces George W. Bush for lightning-rod presidency.

WideModern_140117_obama.jpg
During President Barack Obama's fifth year in office, 82 percent of Democrats and just 11 percent of Republicans approved of the job he was doing, marking a 71 percent partisan gap, according to a Gallup polling analysis released Thursday.



By Rebekah Metzler

Jan. 23, 2014 | 8:20 a.m. EST

President Barack Obama, long fiercely defended by Democrats and demonized by Republicans, is on pace to be the most polarizing president in American history, according to Gallup. But that may not be all his fault; it could be a sign of the times.

During Obama's fifth year in office, 82 percent of Democrats and just 11 percent of Republicans approved of the job he was doing, marking a 71 percent partisan gap, according to a Gallup polling analysis released Thursday. That's the fourth most polarizing year in Gallup's records, but down from the 76 percent gap during his fourth year – also his re-election year – which is typically a president's most polarizing.

[WALSH: Obama Faces State of the Union Hurdle]

But Jeffrey Jones, a polling analyst with Gallup, said the hyper-polarization trend started not with Obama, but with his predecessor, former President George W. Bush.


"Obama is on course to have the most politically polarized approval ratings of any president, with an average 69-point gap during his presidency, a full eight points higher than was the case with Bush," he said in a memo accompanying the polling analysis. "Each year since 2004, the average party gap in presidential job approval has been 60 percentage points or greater. The only other two years with that degree of polarization were Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's re-election years."

The partisan gap was magnified for Bush and Obama thanks to a lack of support from the opposition party, rather than trouble garnering support from their own respective parties.

[READ: Obama Praises NSA, Trashes Edward Snowden]

During their fifth years in office, Bush's approval rating among Democrats was 14 percent and Obama's approval rating among Republicans was 11 percent, according to Gallup. Reagan, Clinton and former President Dwight Eisenhower received at least 30 percent approval from their opposition party during the same period in their presidencies.

"Obama's highly polarized ratings, then, may have as much to do with the era in which he is governing as they do with his actions as president," Jeffries said. "Both Obama and Bush made overtures toward bringing politically divided Americans together, but the evidence suggests neither succeeded. That said, it is not clear that presidents will be very successful in gaining significant support from the opposition party, regardless of what they do in the current political environment."

Gallup analyzed more than 175,000 daily tracking interviews conducted throughout Obama's fifth year in office, from Jan. 20, 2013, through Jan. 19, 2014, to come up with these results.

Obama tried to bring people together?
"elections have consequences"


Obama lives in a left wing bubble. He does not begin to understand his opposition let alone bring them together.

[manolo]

Obama lives in a left wing bubble. He does not begin to understand his opposition let alone bring them together.

Doc,

That's an interesting point. I felt the same about Mitt Romney.

However, when the secret video destroyed Romney it was all about understanding and it did bring his opposition together.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Obama lives in a left wing bubble. He does not begin to understand his opposition let alone bring them together.

Doc,

That's an interesting point. I felt the same about Mitt Romney.

However, when the secret video destroyed Romney it was all about understanding and it did bring his opposition together.

Alex.

Alex,

Oddly enough, the political compass poll has both Obama and Romney as hard core right wingers. The Kiwi must use the continental definition of right and left.

I always thought what destroyed Romney was that he was too much like Obama. Few in the US vote to replace an incumbent unless they view the challenger as different/better.

What was the secret video that destroyed Romney? I don't recall hearing about it.

[manolo]

SM,

What was the secret video that destroyed Romney? I don't recall hearing about it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fundraiser

It's lovely stuff and well worth a watch in full. As I remember it was sent to a member of Jimmy Carter's family and immediately publicised by the Carters. As the Italians say 'Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.'

Alex.

[Doc]

SM,

What was the secret video that destroyed Romney? I don't recall hearing about it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fundraiser

It's lovely stuff and well worth a watch in full. As I remember it was sent to a member of Jimmy Carter's family and immediately publicised by the Carters. As the Italians say 'Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.'

Alex.

On Monday and Tuesday Mother Jones published exclusive video that captured Mitt Romney speaking to donors at a May 17 fundraiser, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Mark Leder. Responding to a question about the "Palestinian problem," Romney said peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible, telling donors that Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." At another point, the GOP presidential nominee told attendees of this $50,000-a-plate dinner that 47 percent of Americans—those who back President Obama—are "victims" who are "dependent upon government" and "pay no income tax." He noted: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." These comments set off a media firestorm and generated headlines around the world.

Hmmm seems like I should have given Romney more support.

[Simple Minded]

SM,

What was the secret video that destroyed Romney? I don't recall hearing about it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fundraiser

It's lovely stuff and well worth a watch in full. As I remember it was sent to a member of Jimmy Carter's family and immediately publicised by the Carters. As the Italians say 'Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.'

Alex.

Now I remember.

A couple talking heads on the MSM tried to turn this into a big pooh-pooh storm. I think the similarities between Romney-Obama and Romneycare-Obamacare doomed Romney as a viable candidate long before this story broke.

Evidently, the Kiwis think so too.

[Simple Minded]

On Monday and Tuesday Mother Jones published exclusive video that captured Mitt Romney speaking to donors at a May 17 fundraiser, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Mark Leder. Responding to a question about the "Palestinian problem," Romney said peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible, telling donors that Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." At another point, the GOP presidential nominee told attendees of this $50,000-a-plate dinner that 47 percent of Americans—those who back President Obama—are "victims" who are "dependent upon government" and "pay no income tax." He noted: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." These comments set off a media firestorm and generated headlines around the world.

Hmmm seems like I should have given Romney more support.

Evidently the advice kids need to hear from their fathers, and fathers need to tell their kids, doesn't sell that well to the general public.

Always vote for the Sugar Daddy who bids the highest for your vote! The next generation is gonna get stuck with the bar bill anyway. Besides in the long run....... we're all dead!

If they can't afford it, they can always default!

[manolo]

Always vote for the Sugar Daddy who bids the highest for your vote! The next generation is gonna get stuck with the bar bill anyway. Besides in the long run....... we're all dead!

If they can't afford it, they can always default!

SM,

You're right.

This strategy worked fine for Reagan and Bush 2. Reagan practically invented deficit financing, ballooning government debt from Carter's modest levels in order to give the feelgood he promised his base. Bush followed with government borrowing to fund his wars and give tax cuts to the same base.

The secret ingredients were to stuff the debt onto an incoming Democrat and then howl about it. Clinton struggled to pay down Republican debt and Obama has been saddled with the Bush debt.

Yes, dumping debt on incoming administrations is a kind of default, just as you say, and the politics is a doozy. I'll bet there are few ordinary Joes who know that Democrats have a better record on balancing the books than the howlers. IMHO politics is less about what you do than about what you can make the voters think you do. It's a wonderful thing to see.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Always vote for the Sugar Daddy who bids the highest for your vote! The next generation is gonna get stuck with the bar bill anyway. Besides in the long run....... we're all dead!

If they can't afford it, they can always default!

SM,

You're right.

This strategy worked fine for Reagan and Bush 2. Reagan practically invented deficit financing, ballooning government debt from Carter's modest levels in order to give the feelgood he promised his base. Bush followed with government borrowing to fund his wars and give tax cuts to the same base.

The secret ingredients were to stuff the debt onto an incoming Democrat and then howl about it. Clinton struggled to pay down Republican debt and Obama has been saddled with the Bush debt.

Yes, dumping debt on incoming administrations is a kind of default, just as you say, and the politics is a doozy. I'll bet there are few ordinary Joes who know that Democrats have a better record on balancing the books than the howlers. IMHO politics is less about what you do than about what you can make the voters think you do. It's a wonderful thing to see.

Alex.

Alex,

You are correct, it is all stagecraft. POTUS as surrogate for god or devil. Each shall believe what ever they wish. The flaw of the two party system....... and the idea of political parties as religions is that it is remarkably easy for anyone to collect thousands of data points to "prove" that the "Church of US" is better than the "Church of Them."

Catholics know it, Muslims know it, Jews know it, so do Democrats and Republicans.

Out of power: "Look at history! They suck, we can do it better!" In power: "Look at history! OK, so we suck too, but not as much as them!"

I just wish there was more a difference between the two parties, at least on the national level. However I think that even with a six party system, the same consultants would be hired, the same marketing would apply, and all six parties would attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator Joe.

The amount the various forms of Joe knows regarding politics is not very encouraging..... It seems very much akin to arguing over football teams or NASCAR drivers. "All long as my guy is in power or winning, things are better."

My acid test for each person remains the amount of money and time they personally voluntarily donate rather than the political ideology they profess. To date it seems a reliable indicator of character. Nothing is easier than to say "The me-minus-one percenters should pay more!!!"

[manolo]

SM,

We seem to wear our politics quite lightly, which is good with me. Lots of truth in your last post, nothing much to fight about.

There have been a few heavyweights in the British parliament, who could enjoy a drink together although opposed in the commons. Have one on me.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

SM,

We seem to wear our politics quite lightly, which is good with me. Lots of truth in your last post, nothing much to fight about.

There have been a few heavyweights in the British parliament, who could enjoy a drink together although opposed in the commons. Have one on me.

Alex.

Bottoms up Mate.

Life is too short to take seriously the morons who are in the business of deceiving themselves and others. It always surprises me that anyone can be so confident in a belief that one party is significantly better than the other (at least in the US). I guess it depends upon the focus of the moment.

Fred at age 20 has interests that will be in conflict with his interests at age 40, and interests at age 40 that will be in conflict with his interests at age 60...... Fred should be very careful about aligning himself with the politicians that promises to fulfill his wishes at any given age.

Justice may result!!! It is very easy to be one's own worst enemy.

Large groups of people have often struck me as a hair trigger away from being borderline insane. Stampedes at soccer games and while Christmas shopping on Black Friday for example. Sometimes it does not take much of a catalyst. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Individuals seem more stable, and rational. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

The mean IQ of the groupies at a Republican convention, or a Democratic convention, is probably not much different than the mean IQ of the groupies at a rock concert.

I think that is why they are called a political parties mate!

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It was the same damn bump every President gets after giving the state of the union.

He's back down to the reliable 42-46% range. I'd say that's good, all things considered; but what really irks me is the bump.

Who are these people, that every year for a week or so after the SotU are suddenly Pro-President? Every time. I swear, every time, these people come out of nowhere to give a thumbs up and disappear into the ether. Is there really a portion of Americans who are impressed with the SotU (no matter what's said) that it moves their opinion? And only for a ten day period? The whole ritual drives me up a wall.

Where do they come from? Why does the media always report on the bump like it means anything? It's like a meteorologist being shocked that winter will be the best chance for snow in northern latitudes.

[YMix]

Where do they come from? Why does the media always report on the bump like it means anything? It's like a meteorologist being shocked that winter will be the best chance for snow in northern latitudes.

Journalist: "The President has seen his shadow at this year's State of the Union address. Experts say this means three weeks of higher approval ratings. Back to you, Nancy."

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Where do they come from? Why does the media always report on the bump like it means anything? It's like a meteorologist being shocked that winter will be the best chance for snow in northern latitudes.

Journalist: "The President has seen his shadow at this year's State of the Union address. Experts say this means three weeks of higher approval ratings. Back to you, Nancy."

Edit: looking at Gallup Polling, Presidents in their 25 quarter average around a 46% approval rating.

Bush was at 32%

Clinton 66%

Reagan n/a

Kennedy/Johnson 45%

Einsenhower 59%

Truman 22%

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I came out Economic Left/Right: 2.00, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46 (sorry not posting the chart)- which puts me slightly in the bottom right quadrant. Or compared to Typhoon, two up, three right from his little dot.

I did not find the chart very useful. Whoever put it together has no clue what they are talking about.

Anytime you see a poll with more than a dichotomous agree/disagree choice it is specious. A 'neutral' option makes it worthless.

I did think the choice of questions was interesting.

I agree with your first point but thought the questions too boilerplate. Where am I going wrong there?

[Nonc Hilaire]

I came out Economic Left/Right: 2.00, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46 (sorry not posting the chart)- which puts me slightly in the bottom right quadrant. Or compared to Typhoon, two up, three right from his little dot.

I did not find the chart very useful. Whoever put it together has no clue what they are talking about.

Anytime you see a poll with more than a dichotomous agree/disagree choice it is specious. A 'neutral' option makes it worthless.

I did think the choice of questions was interesting.

I agree with your first point but thought the questions too boilerplate. Where am I going wrong there?

When I was reading the questions they did not obviously point to the martix.

Maybe it's just me.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



‘Unintended consequences’: Obama traces origin of ISIS to Bush-era Iraq invasion


2a01Rg2g2Z8



.

[manolo]

Folks,

President Obama has cut a deal with Iran. Many Iranian conservatives are unhappy about the reach of this deal into their domestic policy, but for the man in the street this is a time for relief and celebration.

Good times and good vibes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32172301

Alex.