There’s nothing more embarrassing to pragmatic “conservative” elites than when the bitterclinger “fringe” goes around calling Obama a “socialist” or “communist”. Simply gauche, such overstatements are — not to mention unhelpful: Obama loves the American ideal just as much as you or I, the argument goes, and to pretend otherwise is to distract from the more important work of finding a common ground upon which to govern.
He is a good man. And so wanting him to fail is tantamount to wanting America to fail — and only dodgy reactionaries and political hucksters out to exploit the fears of the knuckledraggers would dare venture into such untoward rhetorical territory.
A fine narrative, that — one that smacks of collegiality and good will, of post-debate clubs pints and rollicking, spirited dialogue among kindred spirits who all share, at the end of the day, the same ideological goals: a brushed and burnished land of the free, home of the brave.
Now. If only the fucking President would stop tracking shit all over that particular metaphorical carpet, perhaps we could sell it better. From his off-the-prompter remarks on Wall Street reform, Quincy, IL:
We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.
Listen carefully to what Obama is saying here: namely, that it is the “responsibility” of businesses and entrepreneurs to “help grow the economy” with the government as beneficiary. That is, it is the responsibility of the free man, according to Obama, to create wealth for the purposes of aiding the government in its own push to control market movement.
As Ed Morrissey rightly notes:
the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.
Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government.
Of course, when a free people are the government — as is intended within a representative republic — both happen simultaneously. But what Obama is indicating is a clear hierarchy, with government, and not the market, paramount.
You may not want to call this socialism or liberal fascism. But what it sure ain’t is market capitalism.
So yes. I hope he fails. Still.
I think the word fascism is underused.
How much money did this guy make on those shitty books? I think he’s made enough.
Time to start keeping your savings in the mattress again. Jesus, is it any wonder gold is so freaking expensive?
Is Obama’s actual first name Benito by any chance?
Pres. Obama was found, unconscious, face down in the plate of food before him as he ate alone in the White House. Evidently, he asphyxiated after a bolus of Wagyu beef became lodged in his windpipe.
The “pragmatic conservative” elites are better referred to as:
mee-tooers (from the Goldwater days)
wusses
wimps
pussies
sell-outs
inside the beltway too long elites
strange new respect elites
Wealth, you make it, we spread it around. You are not holding up your side of this contract. One we all agreed to in Nov. 2008. Get cracking or else…
I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. B
At what point?
I think there is a reason that almost none of my money goes into my bank account.
I really WANT to be a Fascist, but, unfortunately, my parents raised me to see the outright bullshit that Obama promotes.
Bummer, huh?
And I hope he fails miserably. One of the worst things George Bush ever said was something about using non free market principles to save the free market. A head scratcher to be sure, but this Obama quote shows he’s stopped even trying to hide his socialist/fascist ideology.
That is right what you say how when the little president man says “we” he means the State.
Funny how he never says this to Soros. Or his Hollywood and sports buddies. Only to the people that hold everyday jobs. Teh One always wants to get all redistributive on everone’s ass, except for his own. Fuck him.
You want to know what really falls out of popular favor in a heartbeat?
Communism. Shhh! Not aloud! Which is weird because big hunks of this could be taken from the administration’s playbook, could they not? Except for the privilege of the oligarchy, of course. Ask Lenin about how that part didn’t agree with Marx.Kinda reeks of hope and change, doesn’t it, if only that were approved to observe aloud.
So I said the C-word. Vilify me. I certainly preemptively condemn myself.
Hey, fail-grubber. Go easy on the guy. That’s his first coherent improvised sentence.
And show a little empathy for the lefties. Their dysfunctional relationship with “socialism,” bred by contradictory callings to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic, to disclaim it to all who note said defenses, to adulate it, to deny its existence, to have no idea what you’re talking about when you use that strange alien term from the depths of time, to accuse you of having no idea what you’re talking about when you use that universally admired word of glorious futurity, to apply it to every deviate from anarchism except themselves, except when you’re not around, unless they’re baiting you into quoting them saying it so they can deniably [return to beginning of list], kinda fucks with their heads.
Under all that fucked-with-ness, good. Purest good. A goodness that cannot be grubbed! Not by your grubbing grub grubbers of grub grubby grub grub
The proggy Left isn’t against making a lot/ too much money. They’re merely against you making a lot/ too much money.
Bah.
There’s a point that every time I ever try to make it, the comment just won’t go through, and if I try twice, it says it’s a duplicate. It’s very good point, I think. But oh well.
RESIGNATION-GRUBBER!
Free people in a free market with an honest government are the most creative, productive people possible. Corrupt government destroys productive people.
I don’t think this quite captures the moment anymore. I think “I observe he fails” is more accurate, several months having intervened since Mr. Limbaugh’s original statement.
“The proggy Left isn’t against making a lot/ too much money. They’re merely against you making a lot/ too much money.”
Isn’t their object much more about being the arbiters of fairness? Hang the outcomes, so far as they’re concerned, the point their all about is the power to settle the issue. The answer is arbitrary to them, outside their unlimited end.
“you’ve made enough money.”
I rescind my use of the word “wealth” above. It is income that he is attacking. The real class war is between those who have “wealth”, handed down over the generations from the beginning where some, now forgotten ancestor, earned it as “income” and those who are striving nowadays to be that ancestor for their future family.
Whenever the “rich” are demonized it is not those of wealth who are the target, it is those who are striving to become wealthy who are the focus of the attacks. All the talk of “glass ceilings” which are nothing compared to the armor-plated one envisioned to keep those “nouveau” people from becoming “riche”.
Even my annoying lefty brother-in-law is (slowly) coming to the realization that his hero, Saint Barrack, is just another lying douche-bag politician and not the “light of the world”.
Which, for me, is kinda sweet…
“Everything in the state, nothing outside the state.”
-Benito Mussolini
That Benito, OI?
I cannot figure out which is more noxious – the idea that Barcky would get to determine what is too much, or his view of the role of private business.
“…or his view of the role of private business.”
Rather primitive, isn’t it?
I hope Obama fails as well. Epically.
And if that means I’m a RAAAAACIST, then I am a RAAAAACIST.
For which I denounce myself.
Now Jeff. You need to listen to the sensible Jew, Michael Medved. He says that Obama isn’t radical. His party is.
Hillary Clinton? The self-proclaimed Progressive in the early-20th-century mode?
Yeah, Michael. Keep having faith in the non-radicalness of Obama and Hillary, because it’s so UNSEEMLY to accuse Obama of being a radical. Accuse the PARTY that the hapless Obama cannot control.
BECAUSE OF THE SEEMLINESS!
His conclusion, though, has merit:
Yes, it’s the whole party with the problem. But yes, it’s also OK to note that Obama is steering the country much harder left than Bill Clinton ever dreamed, and that Obama and henchmen are a bunch of hyper-Left Chicago thugs who will ruin us before we know what happened.
That’d be him, Laz. That would be him.
Jeff,
Why do you hate our Black…no wait, White, no wait…..ummmm…ummmmm….You raaaaaacist!!!
How much money did this guy make on those shitty books? I think he’s made enough.
A cool $5 million. Is that enough for you, Obama? How much you plan to make on the CCX?
How about Oprah? She made enough? Beyoncé? Rappers? The NBA? How many of them are actually “providing a good product or providing good service” beyond pure entertainment?
dicentra, it says quite a lot for the depths of FAIL plumbed by O! that the Hildebeast actually looks moderate and reasonable and competent by comparison. When you are only kept from looking like the dumbest person in the room by having Joe Biden there…..
People, we have to remember that most of what Obama says about Wall Street is pure kabuki. His administration is tight with Goldman Sachs, they’re all making a bundle on the side—without producing anything at all that could be classified as a good or service.
And when the CCX gears up, they’ll be buying and selling air. Which will drive the cost of energy through the roof.
the Hildebeast actually looks moderate and reasonable and competent by comparison
I bet she’d have been just as radical as Obama. I bet her WH would look similar. Bill never was an ideologue: his only belief was in his own popularity. Hillary was a True Believer
Was? She gone somewhere incommunicado?
Speaking of the CCX, Al Gore has a new mortgage payment to cover.*
Wiki Montecito: “The racial makeup of the CDP was 94.03% White, 0.48% African American, 0.31% Native American, 1.29% Asian, 0.21% Pacific Islander, 2.14% from other races, and 1.54% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 5.19% of the population.”
I finally found a government policy I can support: Link. (H/T Instapundit)
Was? She gone somewhere incommunicado?
Yes. Obama keeps sending her out to Andorra and Guinea-Bisseau to strengthen ties.
The “was” refers to the Clinton administration.
Speaking of arrows (or not), I saw the BBC’s latest version of Hamlet starring Doctor Who and Captain Picard. Wasn’t bad.
“Who the devil are you?”
“I’m the Doctor.”
“Doctor? Doctor who?”
“Precisely!”
I was struck by the moral wrestlings that the characters did, especially that of Claudius, who wonders whether he can repent of the murder while still enjoying its fruits.
You going to find that in modern movies, TV, or theater?
Not even a concept.
And David Tennant was delightfully manic near the end. They also made interesting use of different cameras, mostly conventional cameras filming the action, sometimes you see the view through a security camera, sometimes via a hand-held that Hamlet uses for some of his soliloquies and also to observe the king during the play. And sometimes Hamlet speaks directly to the regular cameras.
Modern dress. Old, sparse set. Polonius is shot through a mirror. I liked it.
Digging out what psycho said, just because [hope I’m ain’t injuring ya psycho, cause I edited the html code out]:
Mojo:
That’s from the old series. With the new series, they do the “Doctor? Doctor who?” shtick, but the Doctor doesn’t call himself “Doctor Who.” He’s “The Doctor.” Full stop.
#13 psy- on
The more “coherent” his off-the teleprompter remarks, the more clearly Leftist they become.
Odd, that.
Oh, hey. Sorry ’bout that, I shoulda scrolled up and checked it hadn’t already been fixed. My bad.
Somebody has to make that decision about “needs and abilities”, and President Obama is ready to do that.
#33 bh
Are you “Rational”, who posted this at the LA Times link:
Heh-heh.
Heh, not me, Spiny. You can always tell who linked by the comments though. The Drudge link resulted in all negative comments for the Goracle so far.
If it was a HuffPo link all the comments would say, “Good for him, he’s earned it! He works sooooo hard for the planet.”
Why does Drudge hate us so? I mean, oilslick hysteria and he’s buying it? wtf?
That’s because in their senile dyslexia they keep reading that last word as “columnist,” and they take offense.
His “elitism” is showing. Why does he (and other liberal elites) believe he has the right to determine what is “enough money”? That type of arrogance is grating, and they’re too blind in their own self-grandeur to see it. Or if they do, it’s dismissed as irrelevant as it comes from the “rabble”.
This is particularly laughable since his only accomplishment prior to winning the election for President was to pen 2 autobiographies before he had ever done anything, and convince leftists and the MSM (redundant) to buy it.
Teh One earned over $5,000,000 for doing squadoosh, his wife earned $300,000+ a year for being married to a Senator that earmarked money to her employer, and we are supposed to listen to his fool ass talk about economics?
“I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service.”
Listen carefully to what Obama is saying here, you dumbass: You can make as much money as you like for as long as you can, even if he personally thinks there’s a time when you’ve got enough, a notion my mother would call “not greedy.”
OT: seems like they can’t quite make up their mind on bringing up Comp Imm Ref this year. Which would argue against them perceiving it as a slam dunk. Some internal polls making them skittish perhaps? Or are they just noticing the way the Arizona law is playing out?
LT joins the ranks of the dimwitted dishonest douchenozzles. I sense a theme with guitar/skin flute playing leftists, but there are not enough data points to define a pattern yet.
I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money
That is pretty fucking clear and straight forward, LT.
LT, way to win friends and influence people.
Starting off with the name calling suggests you’ve got nothing in the way of substantive rebuttal.
You should probably leave before what little intellect you have is pounded into hamburger.
“Listen carefully to what Obama is saying here, you dumbass: You can make as much money as you like for as long as you can, even if he personally thinks there’s a time when you’ve got enough, a notion my mother would call “not greedy.” ”
Yeah, that Edison guy should have just knocked off the money making after his first mega-blockbuster invention. Stupid greedy Edison guy. Damn him for working into his eighties.
Yes, that’s where he explains how he’s personally at odds with the American way, dipshit.
And who does the deciding on what is “good”? Why does he have to give his approval?
Markets already decide what is “good” by what sells when not twisted to benefit political rent seekers.
Gates and Jobs shoulda packed it in decades ago.
LT,
Oops, too late.
a notion my mother would call “not greedy.”
So you live the rest of your life like a Kennedy trust fund parasite? Fine for you, but leave the rest of the American citizenry out of it, eh?
The best part is that we have people like Obama to tell us when we have made enough, otherwise we might never know.
he O!ne : ‘I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.’
sdferr : ‘ Isn’t their object much more about being the arbiters of fairness? Hang the outcomes, so far as they’re concerned, the point their all about is the power to settle the issue. The answer is arbitrary to them, outside their unlimited end.’
Yes, yes , this is correct, as I know without a shadow of a doubt what the ‘correct’ amount of money to make/own/ be in charge of etc….. is. But , they never ask for my enlightened opinion. Funny that.
Obama will determine what is “good” and what is a “service.” That’s what VAT taxes are for.
Also, he’ll decide what is “news” and what isn’t.
As to LT’s point, I think it’s fairly clear that Obama is not happy with the “American way” and is seeking to change it. And part of the problem, as I thought I’d pointed out, is that he believe industry has a responsibility to him.
LT : ‘But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service’
But , LT , my good friend , who gets to determine if the wares you are hawking are a ‘good product’ or ‘providing good service’?
It certainly won’t be me or you now, will it? But, don’t worry, the O!ne is super ,super smart and knows what are good and what are bad products and services. Some examples : wal-mart=non-union jobs= bad , public school teacher unions=good. Rush=right-wing talk radio= way bad , air america=any left-wing radio= an obvious good , doctors/insurance providers=greedy bad , 14,000 more IRS agents to enforce ‘healthcare reform’= goody good. Hope, change. Brainless.
“Yes, that’s where he explains how he’s personally at odds with the American way, dipshit.”
Lot so Americans are personally at odds with that one shallow take on the “American Way.” The important thing is that he’s not at odds with other people doing what they like.
“But , LT , my good friend , who gets to determine if the wares you are hawking are a ‘good product’ or ‘providing good service’?’
The people buying them. That’s capitalism.
#67 – presuming they aren’t yanking tonsils or lopping off feet for obscene profits, right?
“As to LT’s point, I think it’s fairly clear that Obama is not happy with the “American way” and is seeking to change it. And part of the problem, as I thought I’d pointed out, is that he believe industry has a responsibility to him.”
Just unbelievable immature. You think that because, as far as you can tell, Obama may not want all the money in the world, Obama is “unhappy with the American way”? Honestly? That’s the level at which you’re approaching this? Can you bring a unicorn in, too?
and you’ve chosen what to read here:
The second sentenced is a perfect description of capitalism, and says nothing about the government. You choose to take only the third, and to read it as you like.
“Our economy” is not “our government.” Do you not know this? Ed wrote something dumb, you made it dumber.
“the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy.”
That is such ninth-grade nonsense. Ash any hugely successful person if they want the economy to grow around them as they grow or not.
LT : ‘The people buying them. That’s capitalism.’
You are preaching to the choir telling me that. Try getting it through to our ‘enlightened elite’ in D.C..
And , I don’t hink The O!ne would advocate for salary caps a la sports leagues, he is more into saying , yeah keep up the good work , but I am gonna have to take some of that moola you CREATED, ’cause, uh , we can’t create money out of nowhere (now that the world is wising up and is gonna treat our debt a la Greece’s), and we really need it here ,to make the world fair and all that.
How does that make it his responsibility?
Guys, I think we’ve officially exhausted the third string.
LT, I pronounce you to be yet another idiot who wandered in here. Try not to get too chewed up by the more lively commenters here. Then again, I really don’t care.
#72: “getting it through to our ‘enlightened elite’ in D.C..”
Obama said it.
If someone manages to provide a good or service that people want, and people purchase said good or service voluntarily, then what does it matter how much money the provider makes? Why is it anyone else’s business?
The president is not a person as much as he is a symbol of the office. When the president declares that there is some kind of limit to how much money he thinks someone should make, he speaks with authority backed up by guns. I would find such a statement troubling no matter which party said president represents. It is NONE OF HIS FRELLING BUSINESS. That cannot be emphasized enough.
#74. Uh huh. Getting “chewed up” here means Pablo preening like a matador at whatever dumb shit he says and Jeff acting hurt.
And again: “Economy” is not “government.”
And one off the cuff line in a speech doesn’t reveal a world view. (Obama is himself a multi-millionaire, it seems necessary to point out.)
LT,
Your arguments would hold more sway with me if Obama hadn’t already established a pattern of lambasting the “fat cats” and advocating for the redistribution of wealth.
Give the President’s predilection toward these things, it’s hardly a stretch to interpret his off-script improvisation as saying that the government will “allow” us to make money up to a certain point, after which we’re “free” to keep working, while the State takes most of the benefit from us.
Honestly, given the foundation that he’s established over the past couple of years, it seems a reasonable conclusion.
Just in case LT responded to me, I want to let him know that I already trollhammered him, so I cannot see what stupidity he’s spewing now.
“If someone manages to provide a good or service that people want, and people purchase said good or service voluntarily, then what does it matter how much money the provider makes? Why is it anyone else’s business?”
It matters not at all, just like Obama said:
“But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service.”
Squid, why are you so frightened by what the President said? It’s because he’s black, isn’t it? Where did he say that he will confiscate all income above a certain point? Answer, he didn’t.
Seriously, you wingnuts must wear out underwear all the time, considering how much you soil yourselves.
“Just in case LT responded to me, I want to let him know that I already trollhammered him, so I cannot see what stupidity he’s spewing now.”
I haven’t been here in ages. Explain, please.
Okay, I should have put on a sockpuppet for that last comment.
It means he TrollHammered you during this thread. Just like I’m about to do.
“LT,
Your arguments would hold more sway with me if Obama hadn’t already established a pattern of lambasting the “fat cats” and advocating for the redistribution of wealth.
Give the President’s predilection toward these things, it’s hardly a stretch to interpret his off-script improvisation as saying that the government will “allow” us to make money up to a certain point, after which we’re “free” to keep working, while the State takes most of the benefit from us.
Honestly, given the foundation that he’s established over the past couple of years, it seems a reasonable conclusion.”
It’s reasonable to listen to what he said. You don’t have to draw conclusions. As far as ““fat cats” and advocating for the redistribution of wealth,’ what do you want from people when you say things like this? It was, and you’ll have to agree, that it was good for AMerica when we beat the robber barons. Can I at least get that? if so, then it is beneath silly to pretend that tendency does not exist today. the amount of money controlled by a small number of banks in this country – you should hate that, too. As a Repoublican you should hate that.
“It means he TrollHammered you during this thread. Just like I’m about to do.”
And that means that he, and then you, won’t be able to see my comments? Not familiar with the trollhammer.
TrollHammer: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/34653.
I tried to create a URL but the spam filter caught it.
#87: I see the value. But shouldn’t people be using it on jeff and pablo’s comments? it would make Protein Wisdom so much more readable.
As far as ““fat cats” and advocating for the redistribution of wealth,’ what do you want from people when you say things like this? It was, and you’ll have to agree, that it was good for AMerica when we beat the robber barons. Can I at least get that? if so, then it is beneath silly to pretend that tendency does not exist today. the amount of money controlled by a small number of banks in this country – you should hate that, too. As a Repoublican you should hate that.
Firstly, I’m an independent. I have no love for Democrat nor Republican, as each party does a great deal to harm the fabric of our nation.
Nextly, the ‘spread the wealth around’ comment came from one of Obama’s first major unscripted errors, and was made in the context of speaking to Joe the Plumber. Last I checked, Joe didn’t qualify as a robber baron.
Now, I may be accused of interpreting the President’s remarks in bad faith, and I’ll freely admit that he’s burned through whatever benefit of the doubt I once granted to him. But his little ad-lib sure seemed to me like a guy saying that there was a certain amount of money that was Enough. Further, the President made it sound as though entrepreneurs had a responsibility to grow the economy for the sake of the government, when anyone versed in classical American values knows that entrepreneurs work for their own benefit. Their communities benefit secondarily, and it’s the amalgamation of millions of these secondary benefits that creates a healthy economy.
Now, you may not have burned through all your goodwill towards the President, and you may be willing to accept that he meant we were responsible for improving the economy as an act of enlightened self-interest. But given this guy’s history, it sure sounded like another occasion where he’s trying to tell the few remaining productive members of our country that they owe him an economic recovery.
As the great Libertarian scholar George Harrison once put it:
‘Cuz I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no one but me.
“We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”
Since when is it my responsibility as a business owner to “fulfill the core responsibility of the financial system to help grow the economy”?
And what the hell does that even mean?
It’s my responsibility to produce a product people want (“good” or “bad” is irrelevant), and run my company in a manner that makes money. I’ve made money in good economies and bad economies, and it isn’t my responsibility to change that.
LT, do you have any idea just how stupid you sound when you tell us we don’t have to draw any conclusions from what President Obama says?
Unlike you, we prefer to not be mind-numbed robots, uncritically taking everything a politician says at face value.
Just wondering, LT, did you accept everything President Bush said without drawing any conclusions? Or are you just telling us to give President Obama a special exemption?
(the comment from “T” above was me, sorry, hit enter too soon)
I forgot to mention, as a business owner, I don’t want anyone anywhere NEAR the reigns of the economy who personally thinks it is possible that someone can make “enough money”.
That concept is so far removed from everything this country was founded on, the fact he felt comfortable enough to say it, chills me to the bone.
That is such ninth-grade nonsense. Ash any hugely successful person if they want the economy to grow around them as they grow or not.
Speaking of nonsense. First you attempt to give weight to your argument weight by what must be a legion of hugely successful persons who agree with you. Second, whether they want the economy to grow or not is secondary to whether or not it is. Lastly, fortunes are made when bargains are plenty. Hard to believe there is so much fail in what you probably thought was a throw away no-brainer.
“Nextly, the ’spread the wealth around’ comment came from one of Obama’s first major unscripted errors, and was made in the context of speaking to Joe the Plumber. Last I checked, Joe didn’t qualify as a robber baron.”
That is a really dumb comment.
“Further, the President made it sound as though entrepreneurs had a responsibility to grow the economy *for the sake of the government*”
That’s the crux of this nonsense. Show me exactly where he did that. I’ll wait.
Blake, pay attention. I said to you that you didn’t have to draw your ridiculous conclusions about Obama wanting to not “allow” you to make some amount of money because he *said the exact opposite*.
“But, you know, part of *the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it* if you’re providing a good product or providing good service.”
“That concept is so far removed from everything this country was founded on, the fact he felt comfortable enough to say it, *chills me to the bone*.”
I’M AFRAID! WAAAH!
LT, you’re lying. Your exact words were “You don’t have to draw conclusions.” Period, end of subject.
Should we draw conclusions from your exact words? Or the context in which your words were uttered? Do we not draw conclusions and then draw conclusions as you see fit?
Please enlighten me, dumbass.
LT, since you missed the rest of my posts, here they are:
Since when is it my responsibility as a business owner to “fulfill the core responsibility of the financial system to help grow the economy”?
And what the hell does that even mean?
It’s my responsibility to produce a product people want (“good” or “bad” is irrelevant), and run my company in a manner that makes money. I’ve made money in good economies and bad economies, and it isn’t my responsibility to change that.
and:
I forgot to mention, as a business owner, I don’t want anyone anywhere NEAR the reigns of the economy who personally thinks it is possible that someone can make “enough money”.
Do you have anything intelligent to add?
My exact words, you fucking dumbass, were, “It’s reasonable to listen to what he said. You don’t have to draw conclusions.” And no matter how many times you ignore it because it doesn’t fit your diapered outrage, he said it, and it makes you wrong, and a fool.
“Since when is it my responsibility as a business owner to “fulfill the core responsibility of the financial system to help grow the economy”?
And what the hell does that even mean?”
I agree – it’s one confusing line in a speech. But look at it this way: You’re a business owner. Do you rip people off? Do you try to make money off other people through dishonesty?
I agree – it’s one confusing line in a speech. But look at it this way: You’re a business owner. Do you rip people off? Do you try to make money off other people through dishonesty?
No, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything being discussed here.
Now, what reason can you give me to be comfortable with someone who has his hands on the economy who feels its possible to make too much money?
So, LT, are you saying that I didn’t quote your exact words? Or that perhaps I drew the wrong conclusion from your words?
Of course, I notice you ignore the rest of what I said, when I asked if you were willing to give President Bush the same exemption you’re trying to give to President Obama.
So, are we drawing the wrong conclusions or should we take the President at face value?
You got two choices, LT.
You admit you’re willing to take what the President says at face value, thereby putting yourself in the mindless drone sycophant category. Oh, and it also make you a hypocrite, because I’m quite sure you weren’t willing to be consistent and give President Bush the benefit of a doubt.
Or, you look at what President Obama says and draw conclusions from what he says, based on the context of what the President has done in the past.
Either way, you’re boxed in.
“No, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything being discussed here.”
it has everything to do with it. Just because you don’t recognize that your honest dealings are a way of recognizing your responsibility to the larger economy doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Now, what reason can you give me to be comfortable with someone who has his hands on the economy who feels its possible to make too much money?
How about growing up, ignoring your own overblown hyperbole, and recognizing that obama is not going to stop you or anyone else from making whatever amount of money you want to make? It’s not the president’s job to keep you from shitting yourself over nonsense.
‘Of course, I notice you ignore the rest of what I said, when I asked if you were willing to give President Bush the same exemption you’re trying to give to President Obama.”
It’s not an exemption. He said it. It’s right there. you don’t need to mix your fantasies into it. And if Bush siad something clearly, of course. I wouldn’t try to distort him. (And I’ve got a long record on Lefty blogs of giving people shit for distorting people’s words, even, and especially, Republicans. (Can you say the same for yourself on Righty blogs?) It’s just not necessary, and makes people look stupid. This time, I’m happy it’s all these Winger blogs trying to make something out of nonsense.)
LT, are you capable of replying to anyone without sounding like a temperamental child?
it has everything to do with it. Just because you don’t recognize that your honest dealings are a way of recognizing your responsibility to the larger economy doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Please explain, without invective if possible, what “honest” dealings have to do with the larger economy, and how does responsibility enter into the equation.
How about growing up, ignoring your own overblown hyperbole,
Please post what I said that is hyperbole.
obama is not going to stop you or anyone else from making whatever amount of money you want to make?
I didn’t say he was. I did say that it was uncomforting to have someone with such a screwed up view of the private sector in charge.
It’s not the president’s job to keep you from shitting yourself over nonsense.
Nor is it the president’s job to lecture me on what I should be doing with my business.
#52 LT:
When has central economic planning of an economy for day-in, day-out normal non-WWII life ever worked?
How are those wasted GM loan dollars doing for you LT? Chrysler bucks? Ever going to see them again, ya think? How about the Freddie and Fannie dollars? Hmmmm? What sort of return do you expect on the $837B stimulus spending?
Oh wait, it was greed you and Obama were hectoring on about. Not wasteful spending largess. Sorry there.
LT, okay, great, you’ve categorized yourself.
I’m cool with it.
I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.
LT,
What did the President mean by the above. He went off-script and said this from the heart, so it must be important. Is he really proposing that his fellow Americans set some modest goal and then be content that he achieved it? Is the President really saying, “My fellow Americans, good enough is good enough. Don’t try too hard.”
Please, enlighten us.
Of course he doesn’t get his hands dirty.
Squid,
I think from that sentence alone you CAN draw your own conclusions. Since he hasn’t sent his personal army of brownshirts to come take everybody’s money over a certain amount, and since he followed that with another sentence that shot the RW masturbatory meaning to hell, I take it to mean that he personally thinks that you can have too much money.
Do you think he’s allowed to believe that? Or is that too free for you? And is it really that abhorrent as a personal belief? I’d agree that it would be abhorrent as a law, but, like I said, his next sentence makes it clear he doesn’t believe it should be.
And here’s a transcript of the remark that shows it in a slightly different light:
Now, what we’re doing — I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. *(Laughter.)*
He wasn’t writing fucking policy. It was a laugh line. Listen to it, even with mark Levin trying to whine into something it’s not.
#111: Ha! The hypocrisy grows. So you want bailed out firms to not be regulated?
The “just words” defense. It is getting quite a workout. When does the “just actions” defense start to be used? This year or is it on hold till 2012?
It’s always such a problem keeping Mr. Perfect perfect.
So you admit that when you said that “obama is not going to stop you or anyone else from making whatever amount of money you want to make?” you lied. Or do you have some odd definition of “anyone else”?
Oh yes. I lied. When i said “obama is not going to stop you or anyone else from making whatever amount of money you want to make” I lied, because execs at bailed out forms will actually be forced to use taxpayer money more responsibly than they would on their own.
How will i live with myself?
Also: Getting taxpayer bailouts is now a form of “making money.” You. Fucking. Communist.
I want firms not bailed out in the first damn place.
Oh, and LT, which of several dozen different O! pronouncements should we take as the gO!spel? All I can judge him by is the actions he takes and the company he keeps. When that company includes someone like Billy Ayers who was down with killing 25 million Americans who might not agree with his socialism, I judge him to be Stalin in Man-Tan. With you as his willing accomplice.
I have an idea. How about we don’t give the fucking bankers any taxpayer monies. You know as a sort of incentive to use their own ill gotten gains in a responsible way?
Now I know that both you and Obama have the special “just words” exemption whenever you make one of those oh so infrequent “unscripted errors“.
I made no defense of bailouts, TARP or any of the other crap that has been done. I only pointed out that you made a statement that was not true.
Now you wish to defend it by the exact same type logic that Obama used in the statement you call an “unscripted error” which is closer to being “unscripted truth” And that is always a problem for the Left.
“…you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service.”
The point that seems to be missed, and that LT is trying to obfuscate, is that this is known as the Gore-Soros Exception, the clause that is designed not to piss off filthy rich contributors, supporters, and enablers such as the aforementioned jocks, Hollywood dimbulbs, Unions leaders, and other misguided ninnies who dispense cash like Pez.
That may be the American way, but I do not agree with it is a pretty damn accurate paraphrasing of what he said. This new trollish thingie wants people to ignore history and reality to think that Barcky did not mean what he chose to say, or, doesn’t really mean it because he has not done it. Maybe elle tee and willie the racist skin flute player could get together and do a guitar duet.
So you admit that when you said that “obama is not going to stop you or anyone else from making whatever amount of money you want to make?” you lied.
I don’t think he lied, I just think, given his childish responses here, he has so much emotional capital invested in the O, that he’s going to do whatever it takes to deflect any questions concerning his fearless leader’s fitness as leader.
Look on the bright side, at least he finally has a full-time job…
No doubt that elle tee is one of those that would be willing to determine at what point you have earned enough. I cannot stand fascists like that.
I just saw where the new lying assbandit tried to pass it off as just words and a laugh line. Only a leftist redistributionist would laugh at that idea. FOAD
Obama is president. And a moderate one, at that. I don’t have an emotional attachment to him. I like a lot of what he’s done (some form of health care reform), and I really hate a lot of what he’s done (*some* form of health care reform, indefinite detention). I just enjoy laughing at these “Whitey Tape!” kind of idiocies.
Because somebody has to make those decisions on what is enough and what isn’t enough. Not just anyone can summarize ‘from ability’ and ‘to need’.
LT=Good little commissar. Until he is no longer useful, then the ‘from ability’ and ‘to need’ equation gets imbalanced, and a correction needs to be made. Historically the correction came from a Makarov, but that can be done differently. Say, a Beretta.
Still the 9 grams of lead solution.
#127 geoffb:
Style, man. It is a question of style. Like the cut of the uniform. Style. Optics. PR.
A moderate one. Priceless.
Stalin was a known ascetic, a pipe his only vice. heh
“Obama is president. And a moderate one, at that.”
That immediately discredits anything you have ever, or will ever say.
“I don’t have an emotional attachment to him.”
It may not be emotional, but more like suction.
Well if he was speaking of president in general then he might have a leg to stand on.
If he was speaking of American presidents his notion is laughable.
LT really said Obama is a moderate? He is totally frelling high right now.
More like suction … kick LT in the chin and Barcky will get his nuts cut off.
z
Just so we are clear, I recognized this douchenozzle from its first comment.
Naturally. How can anyone think that a “moderate” like Obama — who has never been around a socialist in his life! — would ever believe he meant anything said oft-script that drips of socialist ideology?
Listen you dumb fuck. You’ve done nothing since you arrived but call people names and play Baghdad Bob to Obama’s rhetorical slip-up. There’s a reason this guy excels with a teleprompter, and is a giant fail when he goes off message.
Were I you, I’d spend less time here trying to convince us that Obama has no desire to redistribute the wealth of the yearners and upstarts acting beyond their class, and more time making sure the idiot doesn’t deviate from the scripts he’s given. He is, after all, a symbol. Somebody best get to reminding him!
After all, if you wanted a leader who speaks and thinks, you’d have drafted someone with some brains and experience.
You little prick.
And now that I’ve giving you your unfettered say — which you used to take shots at the people here who were clearly quite willing to engage you — I’ll proceed to delete anything else you write that takes whacks at people rather than sticking to the issues.
You say you haven’t been here in a while? Fine. Things have changed. I don’t care to “persuade” people like you. Instead, you should be grateful I don’t spit at you on sight.
The cavalry arrives.
Booyaka!
I hope he fails.
hehehe
Unlikely.
Next superawesome 11-D chess move.
My boi Obama is rollin’.
filibuster that!
hahahaha
i just can’t quit you Jeff.
<3
filibuster that!
Gladly, failbot. To Obama and his Marxist confederates, anyone who disagrees with their agenda is a “special interest.”
As my Texan ancestors said 175 years ago, “come and take it.”
Nishi you might want to help your buddy LT try to find his nuts now.
yea its a fuckin’ tsunami but we have no evidence of this so please report our tpm? you are an idiot savant but more idiot
Meat-arrows (with thanks to Mr. Bradley), grilled and penetrating, mustard only. thwonck-ngngng.
hf & nishi sitting in a tree, t-o-e n-a-i-l f-u-n-g-u-s with kerry
Maybe they should introduce a law that makes it a felony to disable the filters for online credit card donations. Nishit just is a twit that flits and flits from her daily talking point. Clearly, there is some idiot out there that gives it its daily talking point. Yesterday it was Puerto Rico. Today, Dems doing campaign finance reform that does not include any of their major constituencies, unions, etc …
Yeah, that’s some roll alright. Downhill, and picking up speed.
#137:
He doesn’t want you. Get over it already. Creep. Stalker.
So, it has quoted the fevered swamps of Balloon Juice, Kos, Atrios, and Sully in the last week, and thinks that will somehow win Jeff over to the “cool” side. I am not sure it is possible for it to be more dumb.
The cavalry arrives.
A-singing.
Nishi I’ve long considered a harmless little lefty drone.
I’ve waited quite a while to see what I considered “weapons grade stupidity.”
LT, thanks, you kind of made my day.
According to that Harvard political blog study pdf that was linked the other day Sully and Balloon Juice are political “moderate” blogs. So on that scale Obama might be one also, barely.
“The bill would require the CEO or head of an organization that is the primary financial sponsor of a political ad to claim responsibility for the ad by appearing on camera. ”
I see – so we’ll be seeing a lot of Soros and union goons then, I take it.
geoffb – You are far more generous than I.
Plasmodium – I guarantee you that almost every leftist special interest will have an exception carved out for them. Every last one.
True dat, JD, true dat.
LT:
His speeches are released to the press before he makes them, so they can tell when he goes off prompter. And according to a member of the press, “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” was an ad lib, and the sentence after that was him walking it BACK because he realized how it sounded.
He does that all the time, yo. Too bad you are so besotted by his charm you can’t tell the difference between his true beliefs (hint: they match his actions) and the façade.
I take it to mean that he personally thinks that you can have too much money.
Only a socialist thinks that way. Only someone who thinks that wealth is a fixed quantity and that poverty is caused by people hogging all the stuff would let such words escape his mouth.
Since he hasn’t sent his personal army of brownshirts to come take everybody’s money over a certain amount.
He doesn’t need a personal army of brownshirts: he has the IRS. He has the ability to propose and approve taxes. You really need to put that strawman back in the passenger’s seat so you can drive in the carpool lanes, because it isn’t any use to you here.
Your method of argumentation may work on the port side; you’ll want to try something else over here.
You began by quoting two sentences from Obama’s speech: one that sounds suspiciously Marxist and one that walks back the first. Then you insist that the walkback cancels out the ad lib, because dammit, Obama said it!, as if all of his utterances were determinative of his essence and character. The ones that you find exculpatory, anyway.
Second, you set up an absurd strawman: Obama as a Hitler or Stalin figure, a punishing father with his own secret police who can do horrible things at will.
Then you argue that because the strawman is absurd, Obama is a by-God capitalist from stem to stern, and anyone who says otherwise is a foaming-at-the-mouth whack-job (argumentum ad hominem) who listens to too much Glenn Beck and is fixin’ to go all McVeigh on some federal building any time now.
Then you repeated the canard about “Robber Barons,” which Teddy Roosevelt, a budding progressive, defeated like St. George and the dragon. Thus giving rise to the belief that capitalism is like a nuclear reaction that needs the control rods of gubmint intervention (not gubmint as the referee; gubmint as the master controller) to prevent it from consuming the whole country.
I’M AFRAID! WAAAH!
SARCASM! Which, that’s fine as far as it goes, but now you’re just engaging in taunts and trivialization, as if your tone provided sufficient weight to your arguments. Because if you weren’t totally in the know, if you didn’t have the facts and the lessons of history on your side, you woudln’t have the standing to be flippant and sarcastic and abusive.
That technique was perfected in 1970s sit-coms wherein the hip young adult berated the stodgy old-timer for his racismsexismwhatever and the stodgy old-timer couldn’t muster an equally clever comeback so the hip young adult’s POV was established as the TRVTH.
A liberal (heh) does of more ad hominems ensures that the tone of the discussion remains civil.
To further the follies, you misinterpret—wilfully or unwittingly—the commenters’ objections to
“the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.” You define those responsibilities as obeying the law and not cheating customers, but that’s not what Obama meant. He meant that a company’s primary obligation is to the collective or society as a whole, that it has a responsibility to the rest of society to be prosperous, because that prosperity helps the group.
NO CAPITALIST WOULD EVER OPERATE FROM THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, and therefore no utterance such as Obama’s would ever escape his lips. Those are the tells, LT.
We can tell that Obama is not an actual supporter of capitalism because he says things that no capitalist or free marketeer or libertarian or Ayn Randian would EVER say. It’s similar to the way that native speakers of English make much different grammatical error than non-native speakers do.
For example, no native speaker of English would refer to her daughter as “he” or her son as “she,” but my friend from China did it all the time because Chinese doesn’t have gendered pronouns.
Second example: my Korean roommate could tell which “Koreans” on M*A*S*H were natives and which ones weren’t, but I NEVER COULD because I don’t speak Korean.
Likewise, Obama says things about the economy that he thinks sound all free-marketeery, but because he’s NOT actually down with the free market, it never sounds quite right to the native speakers (us).
Your sophistry in his defense cannot persuade us because we can hear the “accent” with our own ears.
And that’s the biggest mistake you make in this thread: you think you sound like a native when you speak our language, and you’re trying to persuade us that Obama is also a native speaker.
But we know different. We can’t help but know.
JD #143: It is a felony. The problem comes in when you have crooks like Obama who won’t obey it, and an FEC that won’t enforce it against him. Frankly, if the majority is big enough in 2011, the donation episode provides ample grounds for impeachment all by itself.
Don’t know if this has been linked before here. Doc Zero has a nice post about money, value, and power, “The Dreadful Equation“
[…] Neptunus Lex, Confederate Yankee, YID With LID, Animal Farm, Villainous Company, protein wisdom and Pajamas Media SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Obama Says: “I do think at a certain point […]
[…] Protein Wisdom, the brutally honest truth about Obama and the false narrative that the MSM wants to portray Obama […]
I am reminded of Atlas Shrugged where Rierden was just explained to how he would lose money every time he poured steel. And he was told: “Well, you will think of something” like Businesses are like the sun, unlimited and cant be stopped, a force of nature. Ambition IS a force of nature! but it can be taken away.
filibuster that!
What, this?
Why would any Republican filibuster that? It is chock-full of win.
But, to quote you:
Shockingly, nishit the genocidal eugenecist and liar extraordinaire is a supporter of Big Brother.
Someone needs to email Chris a link to the IRS.
Make sure he is sitting down, first.
First they ought to pull Chris’ I-9 out of his file and let him review it.
Hmmm, hot for fingerprints. What a maroon.
TrollHammer™, because why wouldn’t you?
OK. From now on all design and fabrication I do out of my garage will be strictly for cash, or drugs. One or the other.