 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 01 Feb 14 - 09:30 AM GfS: As far as a quick look tells me, I am the only one posting as Guest for about 40 posts. That said, please explain this "liberal agenda" because frankly I don't understand what you're talking about. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: sciencegeek Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:08 AM If we aren't interested in the miimum wage, how about the possibility of single payer state systems? Or are we more interested in whining about it than being pro-active? There is already a single payer system in place... and has been for longer than I've been alive... it's called Medicare. From the Washington Post on single payer aspect of ACA: You often hear people say that the reason the United States doesn't have a single-payer health-care system is that special interests have a hammerlock on Congress. But in the course of reporting out my article on what liberals miss about single payer, Princeton's Uwe Reinhardt, a single-payer supporter, made an interesting variant of this argument: The reason the United States shouldn't have a single-payer system, he said, is that it's too captured by special interests to manage one well. "I have not advocated the single payer model here," he said, "because our government is too corrupt. Medicare is a large insurance company whose board of directors (Ways and Means and Senate Finance) accept payments from vendors to the company. In the private market, that would get you into trouble." The key to a single-payer system is that the government sets prices. Usually, it empowers boards of independent experts who set those prices low. Reinhardt's argument is that in the United States, health industry interests have so much sway over Congress that the prices would end up being set by health-care interests. "When you go to Taiwan or Canada," Reinhardt said, "the kind of lobbying we have here is illegal there. You can't pay money to influence the party the same way. Therefore the bureaucrats who run these systems are pretty much insulated from these pressures. Here you have basically a board of directors in the House Ways and Means Committee that gets money from lobbyists both at the regulatory writing stage and during normal operations. And they can call an administrator and demand they stop something from happening." The question in any argument like this is the counterfactual. Outside of Medicare, Medicaid and some other government-run health systems, prices are set by health-care interests now. But they're much lower in Medicare and Medicaid than they are for private insurers. So it's simultaneously possible for the U.S. government to be much worse at setting prices than, say, France's government, but still be able to negotiate much lower prices than private insurers can manage. Still, Reinhardt's argument is a reminder that the simple fact that a policy worked in another country does not mean it will work in this country. His point about the importance of independence is particularly crucial. One of the most interesting pricing experiments in the United States is all-payer rate setting, where public and private insurers band together to negotiate with providers. There was a time when all-payer rate setting was common. Now it's only used in Maryland (see Sarah Kliff's report on Maryland's unique system). Why? Because Maryland based its plan around a genuinely independent board, argues health-care expert Paul Ginsburg: In the 1970s, a number of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states set hospital rates for private payers and Medicaid, and some received waivers to include Medicare in their systems. When the shift away from regulation took hold in the 1980s and Medicare inpatient prospective payment was thought by many to be adequate to control hospital costs, each of the systems was abandoned except for Maryland, which continues to this day. I believe that Maryland's staying power is a direct result of its structure as an independent regulatory agency. The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission resembles what some are discussing today as the "Federal Reserve Board" model of governance for health care. The governor appoints volunteer commissioners to long terms, and commission decisions are not reviewable by the legislature or executive branches. Obamacare sets up a similar independent board to drive pricing in Medicare. As of a few months ago, that board looked doomed. Republicans were going to filibuster every possible appointee. But now that the filibuster has been eliminated for executive-branch nominations, it seems much likelier that the Obama administration will be able to staff the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- and that the board will actually be close to independent. How that board operates over the next decade or so will be a good test of Reinhardt's theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:16 AM "Totally clueless." says absolutely NOTHING!(as usual)... If you've got a differing OPINION, supported by FACTS, then spit it out! As much as you 'bad mouth' Songwronger, at least he backs up his position...something you don't seem to be concerned with...just more name calling from our resident pretentious troll! BTW, you should start off by checking with a 'fact checker' about the speech.....and you'll find once AGAIN, your position of defending more lies, with your version of the same, is just another hollow attempt of you, trying to sound like know more than you do, just to impress people. It's NOT working, either by you, or the President! Do your homework, like a good student, and knock off trying to be the schoolyard bully! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:55 PM Totally clueless. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:25 PM Guest: "However, I'm still trying to get an answer to the "liberal agenda" remark made by GfS, so I guess we all tilt at windmills now and again." To whom am I answering? Hard to distinguish all the different 'Guests'(with nothing else other than 'guest') I'd be happy to answer you....which ever one you are... Now this is priceless: Akenaton: "GW Bush was also President of the United States of America, but I remember many of the Democrats here being extremely disrespectful of his tenure. I may say, much more disrespectful than Songwronger. Songwronger does not, as far as I have seen, indulge in personal attacks on other members. He does not break the rules." Response: Jack the Sailor: "The rules have changed Ake. We are now supposed to not be impolite, argumentative or unkind. It is impolite to disrespect the President. Constantly starting threads to pick fights about politics is very argumentative. That's breaking two rules." ........... I have to acknowledge SRS, for not deleting my last posts......(of course damned if she did, damned if she didn't). And now Firth, Your 'so-called liberal' agenda is about as 'liberal' as Bush's war in Iraq, for Halliburton...except now it's healthcare for the select insurance corporations.....but you're still too much in awe struck that a black guy is in the Presidency, than to separate that, and see the similarities of Bush and Obama...and that they're working for the same people....and it ain't the 'common folk'! I know, I know....you say it was a 'step in the right direction'.. yeah, the 'RIGHT' direction!..it's all the same. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Songwronger Date: 31 Jan 14 - 10:40 PM The minimum wage talk is a ruse. The income disparity in the U.S. (gap between the rich and poor) is now greater than at any time in our history. Wall Street doesn't pay tax, NFL franchises don't pay tax, but Obama talks about 10.10 an hour. Give me a break. The problem in the U.S. is that we have a one-party system. The article quoted in the original post points out that Obama's threat to use his "pen" is a sham. The "opposition party" goes along with everything he does. Hell, the House of Reps just passed an 8 billion dollar kick in the head to poor people, right up Obama's "austerity" alley. Check out the cuts the new Farm Bill makes to social services. I don't doubt that Obama's administration is the most fascist in American history. The feds have begun confiscating retirement accounts now, and people aren't even aware of it. Obama gets away with it because the compliant media gives you missing pet stories instead of reporting real news. And as far as respecting Obama, he drone kills babies. Fuck him. He needs to be fairly tried and executed. Same as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:47 PM "A minimum wage has to be a wage one can live on. It also assumes that jobs will be full-time. A tad over $10/hr may or may not be a living wage depending on where one lives and how many people depend on that wage. Obama received mixed reviews, but more importantly, it seems obvious that people have lost faith in their political leadership. Read the numbers on how many people watched the SotU address." My limited response to a previous poster's question about Obama's SotU address which I think may have got lost in "what this thread really means" pragmatics. sciencegeek tried to get things back on track. So, who's got papers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 07:16 PM I'm not arguing with you. Are you arguing with me? By all appearances SW is trying to anger people to bait them into a word fight. Do you think this is an invitation to reasoned debate? "the most right-wing administration in US history." " Obama a fascist dictator. " Do you think we have to have this same conversation constantly ongoing on this forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 14 - 07:01 PM Hmmm, how do you have a discussion forum without being argumentative? Surely if two people hold opposing points of view, the discussion is sure to involve arguments. We are being "argumentative" at the moment, are we not? But not disrespectful I hope. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:53 PM The rules have changed Ake. We are now supposed to not be impolite, argumentative or unkind. It is impolite to disrespect the President. Constantly starting threads to pick fights about politics is very argumentative. That's breaking two rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:40 PM GW Bush was also President of the United States of America, but I remember many of the Democrats here being extremely disrespectful of his tenure. I may say, much more disrespectful than Songwronger. Songwronger does not, as far as I have seen, indulge in personal attacks on other members. He does not break the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:38 PM It's a matter of numbers. Songwronger quotes from a somewhat dubious source, the usuals show up to put him in his place and then we have further exposed the dubious source to the internet. Think of it this way: if no one rises to the bait, the fisherman will go fish elsewhere. Next Songwronger thread that is SSDD, ignore! You'll find the trolls in the first ten posts. ################################### A minimum wage has to be a wage one can live on. It also assumes that jobs will be full-time. A tad over $10/hr may or may not be a living wage depending on where one lives and how many people depend on that wage. Obama received mixed reviews, but more importantly, it seems obvious that people have lost faith in their political leadership. Read the numbers on how many people watched the SotU address. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:33 PM Well Jack, the SOtU address is rather an important piece of "politicking", I thought Democrats would be keen to challenge SW's views? I agree with being respectful to the office of President, and SW is often disrespectful, but he also makes valid points regarding President Obama's use of his office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:26 PM "to point out the hypocrisy of your political ideology " He first did that on August 2, 2012, Does he deserve to have his own personal threads one after another about it constantly on this board to the point that very few read anything he has to say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:55 PM 2008, should marked the death of the rapacious capitalist economic system. President Obama and other "democratic liberals", have made the victims pay heavily for its resurrection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:44 PM The problem is, that most people who post here are centre left, they equate basically to people who support the UK Liberal Party. This party is presently in government, supporting a pretty right wing Conservative Party. They are what I term "liberals", because they are in fact carpetbaggers, politicians without even rudimentary principles. Centre left people vote for them, because they wear the label of liberalism, but in reality are no more liberal than the Conservatives. The US and UK are ruled by the capitalist system and no president or Prime minister can be "left wing" and still do his job, which is of course serving the system and trying to ensure its survival. I think this is the point being made by Songwronger, he is trying, in rather harsh terms, to point out the hypocrisy of your political ideology and obviously sees President Obama as a black man who sold out? Looking from here , there does not seem to be a lot of difference between Democrats and republicans, when in a position of power. They are both servants of a higher "God" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:39 PM Of course, Goofballupagus would call that my "phony liberal agenda," (an essentially meaningless concept which only he thinks he understands), but I will refrain from commenting. If someone cuts a loud, smelly, juicy one, it's impolite to call attention to it. Just open the window and air the place out. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:27 PM Not only am I in favor of setting a livable wage for all workers—and for women, equal pay for equal work—but I would like to see a cap placed on executive salaries. $10 million bonuses at the end of the fiscal year? What can one actually do that is really worth THAT much money? A number of exceedingly wealthy people seem to be growing a conscience. Warren Buffet, a multibillionaire, has stated that if all the billionaires in the country gave half their wealth to various charities and good causes, it would not only end poverty in this country, but they—the billionaires—would still have more money than they could ever spend in a hundred lifetimes. Bill and Melinda Gates have joined him in this and are also pushing this idea. Bill and Melinda have, among other causes, dedicated their wealth to ending polio and a number of other diseases, worldwide, and within their lifetimes. And—when Ted Turner (fortune, a mere $3 billion) built a sports stadium in Atlanta on his own dime—not asking for any money from taxpayers—and THEN gave away $1 billion dollars to various good causes, he drew all kinds of flak from other wealthy folk for "setting a bad example!" Turner responded heatedly, "Who in the hell NEEDS that much money!??" $10.10 per hour minimum wage for the working stiff? Little enough, but at least it's about bloody time! And by the way, Jeri, I heartily agree with what Jack says just above. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 04:35 PM I think you are making some good points sg. The problem being, they won't be read by the forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 04:14 PM That is not very kind of you to say that Jeri. I am not trolling and I am as smart or smarter than a lot of people who have left. I have NOT fed songwronger's trolling ever since I realized it was trolling. If I want to say something about the SoTU and have it read here, how do I do it? I know that if I post it here most people will do what I do. Look at the title, see that the name Obama is there without "Mr." or "President" open the thread, confirm that songwronger started it and close the thread never to open the thread again. If you disallow other threads on the same subject and allow songwronger to continue his present tactic you are not only feeding the troll, you are facilitating his domination of and closing off of entire topics of conversation? I don't think that he should be allowed, based on your advice "Don't feed the trolls" to be the only person on this forum allowed to discuss The President of the United States of America in the context of current events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:57 PM so, in the spirit of opening up the discussion of the content of the 2014 state of the nation speach... what do you think of the proposal to make $10.10 the "new" minimum wage - at least for those hired using federal money. This means the contractors who bid on federally funded projects - I think this probably includes all state highway jobs that use "icetea" money to repave roads and upgrade highways or help fund county projects- will have to pay that wage to all their employees. From the flagmen/women to the equipment operators. That cost must be taken into account when they bid on projects. I was more concerned with women still getting less than 100% pay parity. Up from the 59 cents on the dollar to 79 cents... but still a long way from from 100%. And I think that as long as CEOs feel they are entitled to mega salaries, the pay inequality will persist. There just isn't all that much pie left to divide once they get done taking their "share" out of it. what's your take on it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jeri Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:49 PM It's not clever at all. It's "troll 101". He says something that irritates/pisses off people who then believe they're indispensable to setting things right. As long as we have individuals hanging around here who are driven by anger and hatred and THINK THAT'S OK, we will be giving trolls a home here. People who think it's OK to let themselves be ruled by anger and hatred are everything that's wrong with Mudcat. Your excuses don't work with anyone but like-minded troll-fuckers. Years and years ago, I once complained to someone at work about one particular troll. He said "don''t feed trolls." I said, "but this one really knows how to..." He said "don't feed trolls". I said "it doesn't matter, they just keep going," and he replied "don't feed trolls." You might say it never has worked here. I know why. We have never, ever NOT fed them. Somebody always gets his chain pulled enough to jerk him, and others join in because they figure "if x caved, I guess it's OK for me to jump in. I don't like anything Songwronger's ever said (as far as I'm aware), but it would have been relatively easy for anyone who isn't a stooge to talk about the actual SotU address. We used to have nicer people here. We used to have smarter people here. Or maybe it was just that people used to TRY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:39 PM >>people didn't respond to the OP the thread would die. << And Songwronger, if he holds to his usual pattern would start or refresh another one with the same theme. << and with the current unwritten rules for thread titles no one would be able to talk about the 2014 state of the union without out going through songwronger's thread. I've been thinking about this for a while and trying to think of approaches that would satisfy my need for discussion (mostly posting things like cartoons and Jon Stewart bits) without feeding this particular troll. Its beyond me. I've given up. I can't do it on my own. One has to admit his manipulation of us all is pretty clever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:25 PM "Also, I do feel a certain need to speak out against or try to provide what I may consider correct information... and then try to let it die a fitting death." If no one at all replied it would die a fitting faster death :-) However, I'm still trying to get an answer to the "liberal agenda" remark made by GfS, so I guess we all tilt at windmills now and again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:18 PM I agree about letting the thread die... but I'm also hearing that if there is already one thread, a second more neutral thread can't be started. yes .. no ... maybe? Also, I do feel a certain need to speak out against or try to provide what I may consider correct information... and then try to let it die a fitting death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:46 PM And that is what I too find offensive: the content. However, that said, if people didn't respond to the OP the thread would die. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:40 PM "Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014" I fail to see anything offensive with the thread title." I suspect that while the thread title is inoffensive the following line in bold is the true intent of the thread - and THAT is what many of us find offensive... beyond the overall pattern of disrespect and spewing forth of negativity. "Obama's State of the Union address: An empty and reactionary charade" all in bold Now - THIS is what the wronger really means for the thread. Not.. what do you think about the speech, here's my take on it. And I'd like to note that there are more than a few folks who can spot a Songwronger thread post as soon as it pops up. I have no idea how anyone can maintain such a level of animosity without exploding. Anymore than I comprehend the need post it here on what is generally a music site... sciencegeek, not pysch major. I am not black.. or hispanic ... or Irish, Polish, etc... but I am half Italian, so I have had my share of nasty jokes and comments based on ethnic animosity by total strangers- usually by people who had no idea of my heritage. Ethnic and racial profiling has no rational basis other than the unreasoning fear and distrust by some of those who are different for whatever reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:25 PM Bill, I think we all understand your original post. I totally sympathize if you did not read to the end of the opening post which did not have the words of the cut and paste separated from the poster's. I did make the mistake of, for once reading tho whole thing. I was showing off when I corrected you. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:08 PM Let me correct my earlier post. Whatever the original source of SWs copy & paste, it has been picked up by many sites, right & left, which love to throw mud. It is hard to be sure who actually wrote the original. Enter " a cynical and reactionary charade." in Google and see just how complex it is to follow and pin down the origins of all the crap these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:03 PM I was told in school that it is rude (impolite) to refer to the President of The United States by last name only. I'm not saying that you can't do that at all. But this rudeness is part of a pattern. I know it is a songwronger thread whenever I see this done in a thread title. He does it to irritate people. That is argumentative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 14 - 12:49 PM "Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014" I fail to see anything offensive with the thread title. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 12:36 PM What I want is for Joe and perhaps you if you are doing it as well is stop playing a silly thread name game that is being played in favor of this particular troll. This you will recognize from the "membership" page "You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak." I was told in school that it is rude (impolite) to refer to the President of The United States by last name only. That was in Canada. Am I wrong in believing that people born and raised here are not aware of this too? I'm not saying that you can't do that at all. But this rudeness is part of a pattern. Don't you think it is argumentative to start thread after thread in the pattern There used to be several people who trolled the Mudcat this way (not exactly the same but similar technique). Now there is one. That is progress we are all grateful for. Isn't the fact that so few people are posting to these threads and you are encouraging those who do post to stop, enough reason to do something about them. The topic of this thread is "I hate Obama! by songwronger" and the purpose of the thread is to provoke people into bickering with him to defend common sense. God Bless Don for his patience and persistence. But I think all of us are tired of seeing two or three reminders of this bickering and trolling every time we scan the Mudcat list of thread titles. One thread with an inoffensive title would be much more manageable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:50 AM state of the union, like state of the state, addresses are politcal pep talks... and while President Obama is no Knute Rockne, he's also NOT Mitt Romney... you know... the guy who "likes firing people" and thinks that investing in Chinese labor camps... or sorry, barb wired surrounded factories, are the ideal places for the American rich to invest their hard stolen $$$. So while there are those pissing and moaning about our current President, they should take a long hard look at the guy who would have had the job otherwise. I still think that George Romney is spinning in his grave thanks to the actions of his offspring. And while the current health care law is far from perfect... guess what - states like Vermont have figured out that the current law will let them set up single payer systems in their states -- and THAT is why the Conservative Right wants to abolish the ACA... because it has a provision that empowers the PEOPLE not the mega corporations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jeri Date: 31 Jan 14 - 09:17 AM I hadn't even read Don's post when I wrote mine. I wasn't talking about him. I don't think he's a troll. I think he does trolls. But look at where this thread is, and look at how easy we've all been to control. Seems like trollery is what Mudcat wants... at least the ones still here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 14 - 09:02 AM I think you have to start fights to be a troll. I also think you have to look for more people to fight with to be a troll. I've not seen Don do either. SRS, I your point about Songwrongers tactics, if I were deciding what to do, I would simply take every thread by from now on that starts with a silly an over the top attack such as "the most right-wing administration in US history." and put it in a thread called. "Attacks on the Obama Admin" or some such. Amos had a similar thread, was it called "reflections?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:54 AM GfS: WTF is this "'liberal agenda'" you refer to, often. You're harder to nail down on that than goose shit in a bucketful of eels. I can't be arsed to get into who is and who isn't a troll. It's my perspective that for almost all posters, anyone who doesn't agree with their remarks/opinions is a troll. So that's a lost cause. But this liberal agenda thing intrigues me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM SRS: "I know Jeri thinks Don is a troll, I have to respond that I know Don well enough and for long enough to know that he isn't." ...and of course, if anyone ever caught SRS lying, she's delete the post, and close the thread! Repeatedly! Jeri might be closer than you thought. Don is a hardcore wannabe activist he loves to get attention, and uses every tactic of a troll, while accusing others of about everything under the sun...THEN PM's his posse(Some of which are sick and tired of him), who show up to give him support, and help him make excuses for his almost 'progressive', corporate owned administration!!! I wonder how long this post will last.....SRS doesn't like independent thinkers, who are cut from the usual cookie-cutter mold! ...and God forbid, if you don't fall in line with making excuses for what they foolishly believe is a 'liberal agenda'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Stilly River Sage Date: 30 Jan 14 - 11:39 PM Songwronger spins Limbaugh and Coulter with ease. He jumps in on topics that he knows have wide support by many U.S. mudcatters in order to start more fights. He hopes to create chaos ahead of any rational discussions that might start on a given topic. I know Jeri thinks Don is a troll, I have to respond that I know Don well enough and for long enough to know that he isn't. We probably won't agree on that. But it seems that there should be one toxic place to simply transfer the various toxic threads that Songwronger starts to keep it all in one place. The Mother of all BS threads is taken and is a charmingly whimsical place, so it would have to be the Mother of all Noxious Theories thread, a place for malcontents to vent their spleen and rational people can avoid it unless they feel like slumming. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Songwronger Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:57 PM A couple of posts addressing the State of the Union speech, the rest personal invective. Typical. The speech was a disaster. The ovation about Obamacare was an attempt to cover up the laughter in the gallery. People literally laughed at Obama when he tried to pass Obamacare off as a success. What a shameless whore. At any rate, from Time magazine: Vulnerable Democrats Distance Themselves From Obama after State of the Union. The speech was a train wreck. As far as the World Socialist Website, it reports on "workers' struggles." I know that's hard for you liberals to relate to, but read it for yourself. The reportage is hard on Obama because, well, he deserves it. He works for the banks. I find the people here to be intensely aversive to dissent. You want to shut out opposing views. That's fascist. You Obamanoids are truly reflected in your idol's eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:29 PM Right, Jack! The other State of the Union thread had some promise before it got removed. The thread heading all too often has little to do with the thread itself. It's often the OP merely using the subject as a saddle so he can gallop in yet again on his favorite hobby horse. As is the case with THIS thread. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 14 - 07:13 PM The sensible way to do it would be to not censor other threads because TROLL ONE got to the topic first. I want to talk about the State of the Union, not the "the most right-wing administration in US history." I don't want to see disrespectful thread title after disrespectful thread title to the President when the topic of the thread is ALWAYS "Songwronger Hates Obama." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jeri Date: 30 Jan 14 - 06:39 PM Here is a complete transcript. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jeri Date: 30 Jan 14 - 06:25 PM Dueling trolls. One thing I'm sure we all know is that just because a person we don't like starts a thread or a particular subject is supposed to be what the thread's about, that's not usually the way things go. Unfortunately, what we have in this thread is a bunch of... ...people who'd rather bitch about Songwronger than talk about the SOtU. You deserve what you get. I watched the address, and was mightily heartened with the several-minute-long standing ovation he got when he said the attempts to repeal ACA were pretty much over and Republicans should deal with reality. (paraphrasing) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Stilly River Sage Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:58 PM Songwronger: The virtual version of a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:52 PM Well said, Don. Stim, please note that Wrongo will go to any site that's flinging excrement at President Obama, regardless of ideology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:34 PM Songwronger is dragging a wagon-load of dingoes' kidneys in with him, as usual. The most right-wing administrator in the past century, with the possible exception of those who gave Wall Street and the other financial interests free rein, thus precipitating the Great Depression, was Ronald Reagan. Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted a bunch of regulatory agencies to curb their abuses, thus going a long way, not only to aid in ending the Depression, but to prevent others in the future. Reagan gutted these agencies. And this has a great deal to do with the recent mess we've been in. President Obama is doing his damnedest to end all this, but the Republicans are fighting him every step of the way. This thread is not really about the State of the Union address, it's about Songwronger (and of course, the body-lice who accompany him) grasping yet another opportunity to spout his (their) pathological hatred for President Obama. Get that, Songwronger (and friends)! That's President Obama, the duly and legally elected President of the United States. Suck it up!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Mrrzy Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:24 PM Sigh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:30 PM Stim, I can set the record straight. These are SW's words. "The article calls Obama's "the most right-wing administration in US history." SW and, if SW, isn't mistaken, that website are going well beyond what you just stated in terms of rhetoric. It is shrill, hysterical, exaggerated Obama hatred, nothing less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: GUEST,Stim Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:12 PM Bill, Songwronger's post is not from a right wing website, it is from a website that is created and maintained by the Socialist Equality Party (and has been for a long time). The Socialist Equality Party are about as far from right wing as you can get, being what are often referred to as "Unreconstructed Trotskyites". The fact that Songwronger often posts links to and posts text from this site ought to have given you a hint, long ago, as to his sympathies.(and, in case you didn't guess, he has pointed it out often enough!) He regularly underscores the views of the SEP on Obama, which, from the Wikipedia article on them, can be summarized as: "The Socialist Equality Party claims that the majority of left-wing opponents of the Bush Administration have "lined up behind the Obama Administration", despite the fact that the Obama Administration's policies are in many respects similar to those of the Bush Administration. The Socialist Equality Party seeks to create a mass movement in opposition to the Obama Administration on the basis of a Socialist program." Obama, especially early on, had a lot of support from "Progressives"and, though it has been carefully redacted, from what remains of the American Hard Left. From that perspective, a lot of what Obama has done seems accommodationist, if not an outright betrayal. I can appreciate that there would be a lot of bitterness and anger toward him. Even if there was no sense of betrayal, at least there would be a strong desire to show that he is advancing the agenda of capitalism rather than the agenda of the workers struggle. If this is wrong, SW, please set the record straight... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:57 PM Actually he said is is a Socialist website. If a socialist says it its got to be true right? ;-p |