The question of whether Obama and the boys are stupid or deliberately destructive came up in Eric's post below. This article from Investor's Business Daily lists ten reasons for the poor job situation in this country: (Hat tip--Wintery Knight)
-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.
Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?
The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.
But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Is there any doubt now that Obama is a Muslim intent on destroying this country from within so his Muslim buddies can march right in and institute Sharia law in America?
The evidence is clear. Obama means to destroy our economy, and with it, our country.
And if you're still unclear why, just look at how he supports building that mosque in Manhattan.
The Muslims and Obama (but I repeat myself)are thumbing their noses at America, and the idiot Libs are defending him.
Only God can help us now. And I don't mean Allah.
Excellent points. Not surprisingly, people with no business experience don't know how to create jobs. Obama's cabinet has the least private sector experience ever, by far.
Is the media helping educate people on the problem? Of course not. As Rich Karlgaard of Forbes notes, editorial after editorial blames business for the problem but never talks to the business people. I guess they must be omniscient and don't need to actually interview the people in question.
Forgot the Forbes link -- http://tinyurl.com/2e97vy6
"Is there any doubt now that Obama is a Muslim intent on destroying this country from within so his Muslim buddies can march right in and institute Sharia law in America?"
No, not among the deluded.
Jim,
Not that I spend much time over Obama's true religion (I believe he isn't religious at all, but only seeks to present himself so. He'd say he was a Druid if he thought it would score him points.), but what makes you think it isn't YOU who is deluded?
What would be worse would be a president who bends over backwards to appear "tolerant" of other religions to the point that he won't act to protect his own country from the darkest aspects of any religion. That would just be stupidity, a quality with which Obama is plainly and greatly endowed.
Make no mistake: Barry ain't the first US prez to claim that Islam is peaceful and benign, tolerant as any other. But he supposedly studied it as a child, claims aspects of their rituals are among the most beautiful sounds in the world and constantly refers to his Islamic roots. Does this make him Muslim? Perhaps not. But his supposed conversion to Christianity (what a joke--he's no Christian) has brought about no public rebukes from the more asshole representatives of Islam, something that is totally out of character, and there are elements in the Muslim world that also view him as being a Muslim in the White House.
Again, I believe he's a devout Obama worshipper and nothing more. I only know that the most important thing is that he never sees a second term and that the right gains a majority in either, if not both Houses and he never again is able to get any proposal passed for the rest of his term unless, like Clinton before him, it is a proposal forced upon him by conservative elements of Congress.
Neil,
I could not get that link to work. Can you try re-posting it please?
Sorry, Marshall. Try this -- http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2010/07/20/the-forgotten-employer/
If that doesn't work you may have to join the Forbes site (I think it is free).
"That would just be stupidity, a quality with which Obama is plainly and greatly endowed."
I think you're projecting.
"But he supposedly studied it as a child". Yes, the same way you studied Christianity in vacation bible school one summer.
"claims aspects of their rituals are among the most beautiful sounds in the world". The "aspect" you are referring to is the evening call to prayer. Why is that a problem for you? Kind of like hearing Ave Maria, isn't it?
"constantly refers to his Islamic roots." Constantly? Ever? Want to quote one of two of the "constant" references?
"But his supposed conversion to Christianity (what a joke--he's no Christian) has brought about no public rebukes from the more asshole representatives of Islam, something that is totally out of character," Like YOUR supposed conversion? Why do you take everyone else's word? Isn't denial of the Muslim faith one of the great sins or insults to Islam. Ever hear any criticisms from the "more asshole" members of the Muslim faith criticize him for that? I didn't think so.
"I believe he's a devout Obama worshipper and nothing more." Your right, clueless or deluded as it may be.
I'm projecting nothing, Jim. I haven't seen any evidence of the brilliance so many claim he possesses. What I have seen is continuing actions, statements and policy proposals that demonstrate rank stupidity.
""But he supposedly studied it as a child". Yes, the same way you studied Christianity in vacation bible school one summer."
You have no idea of the extent of my education as I have never stated such. But, in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." That doesn't sound like "vacation bible school" to me.
""claims aspects of their rituals are among the most beautiful sounds in the world". The "aspect" you are referring to is the evening call to prayer. Why is that a problem for you? Kind of like hearing Ave Maria, isn't it?"
Did I say it was a problem for me? It is merely another of his references to his Islamic roots. Both of his fathers were Muslim, for pete's sake. How much more "rooted" need one be? Keep in mind that I don't believe he's religious at all. If I have any concerns regarding what he believes, it's that I don't believe he speaks truthfully on the subject to begin with and does so only for effect. His actions and words do not reflect Christian teaching and his support for the homo agenda doesn't reflect either religion.
"Isn't denial of the Muslim faith one of the great sins or insults to Islam. Ever hear any criticisms from the "more asshole" members of the Muslim faith criticize him for that? I didn't think so."
So you're agreeing with me, then, on this point. Thanks.
""I believe he's a devout Obama worshipper and nothing more." Your right, clueless or deluded as it may be."
Again you agree, but in a stupid manner. How can I be right if my position is clueless or deluded at the same time? That doesn't make sense. Are you saying that I've stumbled upon the truth? You should be so lucky.
I didn't say "you're right". I said "your" right, as in you have a right to believe it.
"So you're agreeing with me, then, on this point." Not sure about that. Seems you're saying he's Muslim because Muslims don't criticize him for being Christian and I'm saying that they don't believe there was a "Muslim faith" for him to deny.
Jim,
"I didn't say "you're right". I said "your" right, as in you have a right to believe it."
Thanks for the clarification. We must all keep in mind that the written word doesn't always carry the intention we hope it does. But even if you spoke the words, the same misunderstanding might have occurred. At the same time, there is nothing clueless or deluded in my position. In Islamic tradition, the son of a Muslim is himself a Muslim. There is some "age of reason" caveat, but again, he did receive Islamic instruction of a kind a bit more comprehensive than the typical vacaction Bible school. If the usual Muslim assholes aren't up in arms over his "conversion", then it's quite possible that they do not view his conversion as real. This could be due to the same view of Obama's many pro-Muslim actions since taking office. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but only that it can't be dismissed as a possibility. Just ask yourself: based on his own actions and words since taking office, who would most likely feel that Obama is in their corner, the Jews or the Muslims? You'd have to have had your head buried deeply in the sand, or some darker and smellier locale, to believe the Jews are more comfortable.
"then it's quite possible that they do not view his conversion as real."
But it's more likely that they don't consider it an issue because he never practiced the Muslim faith and so did not convert from Islam to Christianity but chose Christianity when he discovered his faith. Because Obama did not HAVE a Muslim tradition. His Muslim father left the family when Barack was little more than a toddler. He studied at public schools in Indonesia including St. Francis of Assisi School, no doubt one of the strictest Muslim schools in the country (snark). He was raised by his maternal grandparents from the age of 10. So he really has no Muslim tradition.
"who would most likely feel that Obama is in their corner, the Jews or the Muslims?"
When it comes to Israel and Palestine, I would think neither or both. There is no evidence whatsoever that he favors one over the other. "based on his own actions and words since taking office". I think he would like to have fairness and a just lasting peace, however it can be achieved.
Jim,
You obviously choose to deny that he spent time in a public school in which he had regular Muslim classes as part of his curriculum. This is not the same as the Catholic school he attended for a time. You also seem to disregard the reality of what constitutes a Muslim in the eyes of Muslims. As I said, he's a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. How devout his father was is irrelevant to the devout Muslims. Again, I allow for the "age of reason" caveat that likely prevails, and that alone might be enough to explain the lack of outrage from asshole Muslims. Neither of us can know for sure about that OR about how honest Barry is about WHAT he believes.
What I DO know is that things he supports conflicts with both Christianity AND Islam (homo stuff and/or abortion to name the two most obvious things) so I doubt his sincerity regarding ANYTHING he claims on matters of faith. I also know that the "brand" of "Christianity" to which he lent his time and money is a poor example of Christianity. Black Liberation Theology is marxist crap and only superficially aligns with real Biblical Christianity. So you could call yourself a cocker spaniel, but aside from barking, it wouldn't be accurate. The same goes for his Christian claims.
As to his Islamic studies, I've been unable to turn up definitive descriptions of what they may have entailed. I'd have to assume that in an Islamic nation, a public school that has Muslim classes would have included some level of worship. It's a safe bet.
But, I've already spent way too much time discussing something over which I've initially stated I give little thought. I maintain that I believe his professions of any faith is politics only and that he worships only himself. So if you would like to comment on his stupidity regarding job creation, that would be getting back to the point of the post.
"I give little thought"
Enough said.
That's funny coming from someone who can't even spell his own name.
Someday you'll have to grace us with something that constitutes thought in YOUR world. That should be interesting.
Touché
lol.. It was pre-coffee.
"Someday.."
Ahh.. someday. Sounds like "hope". Ma, you're not turning liberal on us, are you?
Hope springs eternal for most people, Parkster, regardless of political persuasion. For the Christian, it is part of the trio of "faith, hope and charity".
For the conservative, it is accompanied by action to realize hope for particular outcomes, as opposed to the average liberal sitting around "hoping" change comes without any effort expended (see John Mayer's "Waiting For The World To Change").
Conservatives also dabble in the fantastical, such as hoping lefties get their heads out of their asses and see things as they really are rather than how they pretend they are, how they wish and hope they could be.
I am filled with hope for mankind, as most conservatives are.
Wait.. Did you just cite John Mayer? The "bubbly toes" guy.
This keeps getting worse.
My point exactly. Mayer is typical of the leftist voter who waits around for change to happen rather than actively working for change that matters. Look at you who voted for Obama, the "hope and change" guy who stated that "we are the change we've been waiting for", or similarly stupid words to that effect. To vote Democratic/lib/progressive is to expect change to happen. To have voted Republican, or more accurately, conservative, is to have acted to elect those who would remove restrictions on our own ability to succeed and bring about meaningful change.
So yes, as you come to grips with this reality, you should indeed see that things are getting worse to have expected anything better from leftist politicians. Mayer is a reflection of YOUR ilk.
"Mayer is typical of the leftist voter who waits around for change to happen rather than actively working for change that matters."
Really? Wow..
To be fair to Mayer, his job is to write or sing songs. That is his contribution to society, seems like he went out and did that. I'm guessing that he even helped the economy (even if he was hurting our ears). Just another liberal, helping the economy while conservatives don’t even notice.
But to characterize him as a "typical leftist" (I'm pretty sure he's not leftist), is a bit of a stretch. Most of us are not international music icons. Defeating Mayer is about as noble as knocking down your own straw man.
Leave it to you to focus in on an aside and think you're scoring points. But I'll play.
Artists of all sort "contribute" to an extent for sure. Musicians and actors, as well as all those attached to the final product we consume, play a part in stimulating the economy. There are, especially in the acting world, businesses that benefit by the creation of a movie, play or TV show. And as there is a market for entertainment, that part of the economy that depends on the consumption of entertainment will benefit. If any of this is news to anyone, consider yourself informed just a bit better than before. If you honestly believe that such contributions to the economy go unnoticed by the right, then you are really stupid in your perception of the rightwing.
As regards Mayer, if he is not leftist, then he is totally apolitical, unpolitical or politically ignorant, which makes him a perfect voice for lefty philosophy. But more importantly, the song in question carries a specific message that is troubling. If your intent was to try to diminish MY position, to try to make ME look foolish, you would have been better served by insisting Mayer was mocking lefty thought with that song; that it was somehow a parody of lefty attitudes. THAT would have stopped me in my tracks and if you can support that hypothesis I would most gratefully stand corrected.
Back to his trade, perhaps you can provide insights as to just how the entertainers of the world have positively impacted your own economic situation. No strawman was erected here, but the straw to which you are grasping is quite thin.
I have heard Muslims are taught to lie to infidels. If this is true, then Obama could be a Muslim lying to hide his agenda, and his Muslim buddies would understand why he is denying Islam. Therefore, there wouldn't necessarily be public rebukes from your so-called "asshole Muslims".
One thing is certain:
Obama is not a Christian. No true Christian would do or say the things he does and says. And, no true Christian would support such abominations as Homosexuality, abortion, and a Muslim Mosque so near ground zero, which is a slap in the face to the victims and the families of those who died in the WTC attack.
"One thing is certain:"
Yep. You have know idea what you are talking about. That's what's certain.
I'm glad Mark is around to point out who is Christian. Finally, an authority on the topic.
Ma, pointing out the flaws of your own argument, you are an evil genius.
"...apolitical, unpolitical or politically ignorant..."
Yet.. the spokesperson for the leftist agenda?
"...MY position, to try to make ME look foolish..."
Blah blah blah.. Nobody cares.
"…how the entertainers of the world have positively impacted your own economic situation."
Now THAT was classic.. if it doesn’t happen to you, then it never really happened at all.
This all begs the question; do you even know the meaning of the song? The actual lyrics are low on the list of interpretation. There is also how the singer interprets the song, the singer / songwriters comments regarding the song, critical interpretation and cultural interpretation. At least that would give you a good start. Run along now and do some actual research.
"I'm glad Mark is around to point out who is Christian. Finally, an authority on the topic."
The Bible, God's Word, is the authority. I merely judge the godliness of the man based on God's Word:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." ~ Matthew 7:16-18
But of course, you, being atheist, don't place any value in these words.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine" ~ Matthew 7:6
Hence, I will no longer engage with you.
Parkie said:
"Ma, pointing out the flaws of your own argument, you are an evil genius.
"...apolitical, unpolitical or politically ignorant..."
Yet.. the spokesperson for the leftist agenda?"
Presenting the obvious only seems like genius to you Parko. The Mayer song, the words of which I've understood quite well without any more research than listening to them(no--that's not really genius, either), is a perfect representation of lefty sentiment (and no, not all of it) which makes him a fine spokesman for you guys.
"Blah blah blah.. Nobody cares."
Well, well. You CAN see the obvious. You're a nobody. You visit here. So obviously you care.
"Now THAT was classic.. if it doesn’t happen to you, then it never really happened at all."
What's classic is your attempt to suggest something I didn't say or imply. I asked a specific question in response to your comment. First, you assume I'm unaware of the contribution to the economy of the work of artists, and now you suggest that I think it never happened because I didn't feel it. Isn't it painful when you pull such nonsense out of your ass?
"Run along now and do some actual research."
As if I would benefit by such an expenditure of my time. The words of the song are plain. If Mayer has to interpret them, then that's a problem with his writing. Does his interpretation say something different than the words of his song? Then he's mocking lefty attitudes as I've said before. What else would his "interpretation" reveal that the words of the song itself do not? Why would I care? My whole point was specifically about those words. If the message isn't clear just from listening, then his words aren't worth the effort to pay attention to them.
So why don't YOU go run along and try to impress someone else with your condescension. Here, you actually have to be better at the banter before you suppose yourself high enough to look down upon someone else.
Wonderful Mark.. I dont think we disagree, you are the judge of whom is Christian. I could not imagine a better job for you.
And for the record.. I'm not an atheist. But, now that you say I am, perhaps I should give it a second look.
Ahh.. Ma.. Where to start?
"...your ass?"
Hmm.. Why dont you stay away from ass for once in your life? You can start by staying away from my ass. We all know your in the closet, but to come out like this? Please Ma, have some more class than that.
With respect to Mayer, all I wanted was some backup of your outrageous claim. You have little ability to do more than post articles from authoritarian websites. Such is life. I just wanted to see if you could do it. I suppose I was asking too much.
"Ahh.. Ma.. Where to start?"
Here's an idea: why not start by offering an intelligent comment now and then? Your attempts at cleverness are no more clever or effective than feodor's, though it's a toss-up who's attempts are more pathetic.
"With respect to Mayer, all I wanted was some backup of your outrageous claim."
Maybe you could clarify what it was about the statement (which ever statement you mean) you found so outrageous. Would that be too much trouble for a clever person such as yourself?
" You have little ability to do more than post articles from authoritarian websites."
Please, Sparky. You'll have to first offer a substantive comment before you can comment on MY abilities. As to the websites I use, "authoritarian" is a queer description. Please explain how you think it applies. Take your time as I know it'll be a difficult task for you.
" I suppose I was asking too much."
For you to be taken seriously or as a clever person is asking to much. For me to expect an intelligent, substantive conversation from you is asking too much. But of course, I don't have such high expectations of you.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/
This is probably closer to being on topic than the content of the rest of the thread.
Interesting that in this entire thread no one on the left actually engaged the premise of the post.
FYI, If I was still a business owner I would certainly not be hiring. I would also be tying to figure out how to pay the newly mandated health care costs. Finally, I would not be looking at accessing a loan as the way out of the situation.
Craig,
Randall Hoven, who contributes wonderful pieces at AmericanThinker.com, did an article on the same numbers. That makes two right-leaning sources commenting on these CBO numbers. I wonder what counter the left could present?
Marshall,
Probably none. Or that it's all GWB's fault.
"Your attempts at cleverness…"
Sorry Ma, I'm not trying to be clever. Just shocked that you would equate one pop-star and his song with the entire liberal movement.
"Would that be too much trouble…"
Umm.. Ma, I’ve been more than clear.
"…comment on MY abilities.."
So, now there are rules? You are the one posting the heavy hitting comments. Just back it up. Simple
"This is probably closer to being on topic than the content of the rest of the thread."
I'm sure of it. The entire premise of this post is based on faulty reasoning at best. The distractions prove far more interesting than the original topic.
Parky,
I can see how you might find meandering meaningless digressions more interesting than a discussion of why businesses won't hire, but from here it just looks like trying to avoid an unpleasant subject.
I'm sure those affected will appreciate your concern.
Parky said,
"Just shocked that you would equate one pop-star and his song with the entire liberal movement."
I guess you should be if I was actually doing that. I was equating the message of his goofy song with the entire lib movement. That message, being so typical of the average lib, qualifies him to be a spokesman for the entire lib movement? Get the distinction here, or is it too nuanced for the party of nuance?
"Umm.. Ma, I’ve been more than clear."
Then my request for clarification would not have been lodged.
"So, now there are rules? You are the one posting the heavy hitting comments. Just back it up. Simple"
Well, certainly YOU seem pretty simple. There've always been rules among which is to do what you think I haven't done. So now you have two tasks, find fault with anything I've said with some substance that rebuts it and also to show where I've not backed up what I've said.
I'll throw you a bone. Regarding the song, it's typical because "Waiting For The World To Change" is how you guys work. Libs sit around expecting the gov't to take care of them. The lib leaders count on that hand extended to bribe you fools to vote for them. This is evident in even the stim and bailout plans, which weren't based on the private sector working out its own problems, which it always does better on their own. Barry offered money and all sort of people and companies lined up for it. That's not how things work in the real world, but it's typical of the lib mindset. The libs wait for others to do the heavy lifting. This is seen in the progressive tax policies of the left, as if the producers aren't doing enough. Waiting for change was apparent in the housing problem where the gov forced banks to give loans to people who wouldn't normally qualify. I could go on, but as it already is far more substance (even in its sparse state) than you've ever provided for YOUR positions, whatever those might be.
"The entire premise of this post is based on faulty reasoning at best."
Really. Perhaps just one little counter argument might suggest you're not full of crap. Just one little insight into what you find to be faulty might convince me you're not just here to poop on any conservative point of view. The argument for that list of reasons is frankly, beyond your ability to refute and I dare you to prove me wrong. Go get some spine and give it your best shot.
"an unpleasant subject"
Its more of a dismal subject.
Craig, its more of the "conclusion" that I have a problem with. Ma, has a list of Obama decisions, followed by an impossible conclusion. Such is life.
Ma, I understand your "distinction". Its anything but nuanced.
"conservative point of view"
Ma, the idea that you represent a "conservative" pov is laughable.
Not a lot of time here, but enough to mention that Parklife stills posts nothing in the way of a substantial rebuttal. Why not just leave it at, "Sez you" and go on about your business. You say my conclusions are faulty. We get that. Now maybe you can point out why those conclusions are wrong. Or are you going to simply go with, "Cuz!" It wouldnt' surprise me.
"substantial rebuttal"
Rebuttal to what? I’m pretty sure you rebutted yourself back there at some point. Even before that, you were discussing how Mayer is apolitical. Yet, at the same time making hugely popular music that reflects the sensibilities of liberals (btw, the music industry has little / no effect on the economy?). Ma, there is nothing to rebut. You have a complete argument with yourself.
Even the original post, you run through a list of policies that have been enacted since President Obama took office. That looks like a great list! Next you jump to the wild conclusion these policies will encourage companies to go overseas? (Does Canada count?) The topper comment, "Doubtful." Just as it would be inappropriate for somebody to suggest that Gore would have been better than Bush, it is equally reprehensible to suggest that McCain would be better (or worse) than Obama. Simply put, McCain lost. A backward looking prediction as to how he would have handled the economy is completely inappropriate.
Park,
You try so hard to sound as if you're saying something. It's so sad that there's nothing there. Can you pick any smaller nits with which to try and make your bones?
I don't defend McCain and haven't here except to say that I don't suspect he'd have hurt us as badly as Obama. There is a simple reason for it: at his worst, he's not as left-leaning as Obama. This doesn't take any deep thought, which should have benefitted you greatly. Obviously, I'm wrong to think so. In addition, it would not have been inappropriate for anyone to suggest Gore would have been better than Bush. It would have been extremely stupid.
So, if nothing on the list, or no combination of those points, had anything to do with companies moving their operations overseas, or, preventing any from bringing their operations back home, perhaps you can come up with one single reason that is more accurate. Have you got anything at all that is substantive?
Post a Comment