Patterico's Pontifications

1/20/2015

NYT: Now That Job Market Is “Surging” Obama Can Finally Turn Away from “Austerity”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:39 am



New York Times:

With the American job market surging to life, President Obama plans to use his State of the Union address on Tuesday night to effectively declare victory over the economic hard times that dominated his first six years in office and advocate using the nation’s healthier finances to tackle long-deferred issues like education and income inequality.

In presenting a series of initiatives aimed at the middle class, Mr. Obama hopes to pivot finally from the politics of adversity and austerity that have frustrated him for much of his tenure. But coming off a midterm election defeat that handed full control of Congress to Republicans, the president faces long odds in actually enacting his agenda and in essence is trying to frame the debate for his remaining time in power and for the emerging 2016 contest to succeed him.

As I have explained many times before, the unemployment number is phony because it considers only people actively looking for work. The labor force participation rate tells you who is still working or at least trying to find a job. When people give up and drop out of the workforce — like when they decide that government benefits are sweet enough that it’s no longer necessary to work — that metric goes down. And under Obama it has gone straight down, and is at a 36-year low.

As for the idea that Obama has had to contend with the “politics of austerity” — how much has he added to the federal deficit in 6 years? The Weekly Standard puts that number at $7.5 trillion.

Austerity!!!

The Paper of Record, ladies and gentlemen. They won’t insult their readers by showing Mohammed cartoons, but they will insult their readers’ intelligence all day long.

This is, after all, the paper that loved (and whitewashed) Josef Stalin.

67 Responses to “NYT: Now That Job Market Is “Surging” Obama Can Finally Turn Away from “Austerity””

  1. News!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Our esteemed host wrote:

    The Paper of Record, ladies and gentlemen. They won’t insult their readers by showing Mohammed cartoons, but they will insult their readers’ intelligence all day long.

    This is, after all, the paper that loved (and whitewashed) Josef Stalin.

    The editors who covered for Tovarisch Stalin aren’t the same ones here today, but today’s editors are at the very least Walter Duranty’s ideological grandchildren.

    The journalist Dana (f6a568)

  3. Over at the Onion they ask “How can we possibly parody this?”

    1) The jobs market is not “surging.” It has finally gotten to the point of growing as fast as the workforce (and the workforce has stopped declining).

    2) “Austerity” would have meant laying off 30% of the federal civilian workforce and paring down pay and pensions, just for starters. Instead, Obama grew the federal government by record amounts.

    Oh, they meant squeezing the peasants? Sorry, I misunderstood.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  4. They keep using that word, “austerity”. I do not think it means what they think it means.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. is it possible that the New York Metro area is actually having a good
    period of employment?

    seeRpea (ef7fc5)

  6. re #4: ‘austerity’ in the same meaning of a cut in the budget does not mean
    spending less dollars but not increasing the spending as much as the year beofre.

    seeRpea (ef7fc5)

  7. Kevin M – When you say that “Obama grew the federal government by record amounts,” did you know that federal spending in 2013 was 20.8 per cent of GDP – which was less than all but 2 years from 1981-1992?

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  8. Johnny – how austere of him.

    JD (0b5351)

  9. if jobs are so plentiful why exactly do helpless loser-assed failmericans need government to pay for their community college

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  10. And if you get a job, it likely is an under 30 hours per week job.

    Loren (1e34f2)

  11. Jonny Scum-half – How did Obama’s spending compare to federal spending over a longer period?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  12. And also, is that GDP that includes federal spending or GDP that does not include federal spending?

    nk (dbc370)

  13. daleyrocks – Nice insult. In any event, the answer is that in 3 years under Obama (2009, 2010 and 2011) spending as a percentage of GDP was more than at any time under Reagan. In 2012 spending was less as a percentage of GDP than in 1982, 1983 and 1985.

    nk – Not sure. I read the numbers on the Tax Policy Center website.

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  14. Jonny, government spending is by definition a part of “GDP”. It’s a game they play.

    bobathome (f208b6)

  15. federal government spending as percent of GDP was very very very high in 2012 Mr. Scrum-half – and it was very high in 2013 too

    i do not think your assertions are meritorious

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  16. if your assertions were meritorious I would tell you believe me

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  17. If you’re not enjoying your Funbama time you need to try some more of the green kool aid.

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  18. our future…

    redc1c4 (589173)

  19. our reality

    redc1c4 (589173)

  20. There’s a fundamental dishonesty in expressing government spending as a percentage of the economy and not on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis (and, really, isn’t that the proper measure of ‘government spending’?). Specifically, it assumes that because we have a Bill Gates or Elon Musk come along with an idea that boosts the economy that government spending MUST grow. Why? Shouldn’t the people decide that, after having it explained to them? No. It’s just assume that the government must grow. It’s idiotic, and yet it’s boilerplate economic thinking.

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  21. The New York Times news analysis is kind of missing the fact that the stimulus money could have been used for some of these ideas – but it only went to lower taxes and longer unemployment insurance and maybe special spending.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. East Bay Jay – I’m not trying to be dishonest. I’m using metrics that are regularly used by both left and right. My point is that it’s just wrong to argue that Obama’s spending has been fundamentally different than other presidents. Sure, it’s true that spending as a percentage of GDP was higher (by a percentage point or 2) under Obama than under, for example, Reagan, but that’s due not just to increased spending (in the stimulus package) but also to the severe recession that cut GDP.
    Arguments against Obama would be much more persuasive if they didn’t try to prove that he’s actively trying to destroy America (as I heard Mark Levin argue last night), or that he’s somehow acting radically different than his predecessors, neither of which is true.

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  23. The New York Times has news.

    Front page headline today:

    U.S. SIGNALS SHIFT
    ON HOW TO END
    SYRIAN CIVIL WAR
    —————
    BACKING NEW MEDIATION

    ———–
    Gradual Change Takes
    Priority, With Less
    Focus on Assad

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/world/middleeast/us-support-for-syria-peace-plans-demonstrates-shift-in-priorities.htm

    supporters and opponents take as proof Washington now believes that if Mr. Assad is ousted, there will be nothing to check the spreading chaos and extremism. American planes now bomb the Islamic State group’s militants in Syria, sharing skies with Syrian jets. American officials assure Mr. Assad, through Iraqi intermediaries, that Syria’s military is not their target. The United States still trains and equips Syrian insurgents, but now mainly to fight the Islamic State, not the government.

    Now, the United States and other Western countries have publicly welcomed initiatives — one from the United Nations and one from Russia — that postpone any revival of the United States-backed Geneva framework, which called for a wholesale transfer of power to a “transitional governing body.” The last Geneva talks failed a year ago amid vehement disagreement over whether that body could include Mr. Assad.

    In the meantime, aomebody seems to be trying to get israel involved in the war.

    The idea might be that then a ceasefire would be forced which would save Assad.

    In any case, the leader of Hezbollah, Hasan Nasrallah, made a prediction that he could soon conquer the Galilee.

    And it turns out that preparations were being made by Hezbollah in the Golan area of Syria, outside Israeli lines, for attacks on israel.

    So Israel bombed them.

    And killed an Iranian general.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2918478/Iran-Hezbollah-planning-imminent-joint-invasion-Israel-s-northern-Galilee-region-according-high-level-intelligence.html

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  24. I said the New York Times, so these are the New York Times stories: (or at least on their website)

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/18/world/middleeast/ap-ml-syria.html

    Israel and Hezbollah fought a devastating war in 2006, but since then have largely shied away from direct confrontation. On Thursday, however, Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, boasted that the group’s rockets could hit any part of Israel and threatened to invade the Galilee region of northern Israel in the next war between the two bitter foes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/world/middleeast/iran-says-one-of-its-generals-was-killed-in-israeli-strike-in-syria.html

    The death of the general, Mohammad Ali Allahdadi, added to the evidence of Iran’s deep military involvement across the Syrian conflict. But the strike that killed him also appeared to be a departure from the tacit agreement in which a host of foreign players — Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, the United States, and its Persian Gulf Arab allies — have increasingly intervened openly in Syria while seeking to avoid direct clashes with one another.

    Citing anonymous intelligence sources, the Israeli news media reported that officials believed Hezbollah was planning an attack on Israelis from the area, near the Golan Heights frontier…

    There’s more there on the war now.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. I;m thinking the strategy may be to:

    1) Attack Israel.

    2) To the point where they get Israel involved in the Syrian Civil War.

    3) Arrange for a ceasefire that preserves Assad in power.

    4in tghe meantime, extend the deadline for Iran.

    There could be other strategic goals, but that strategy at least makes sense.

    And the time is ripe. Obama is now ready to tolrate Assad for the time being.

    Using a nuclear bomb now, if one is ready, and we’ll know if Iran built it or bought it from Nortth Korea, leads no place for Iran. Of course, it be part of a wider war, would make it more acceptable to the world. And the goal is not just to get a bonb, it is to use it, and < get away with it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. “Arguments against Obama would be much more persuasive if they didn’t try to prove that he’s actively trying to destroy America (as I heard Mark Levin argue last night), or that he’s somehow acting radically different than his predecessors, neither of which is true.”

    I don’t have the time (or the inclination) right now to provide the details on why this is bullsh*t, but it most certainly is and I’m calling it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. Forget the lying two-faced enemy agent occupying the White House. Obama has earned the contempt of Congress, and the complete rejection of honest and decent Americans. He’s a disgrace to the nation, and an embarrassment to the concept of self government. Ignore him and his idiot nostrums and don’t let him into your homes, he’d rather see you dead than see you prosper, he’s as toxic a poison as this nation has ever faced.

    On the bright side, remember Justified tonight, 10pm, Fox HD.

    ropelight (4c8f79)

  28. Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede) — 1/20/2015 @ 10:52 am

    Arguments against Obama would be much more persuasive if they didn’t try to prove that he’s actively trying to destroy America (as I heard Mark Levin argue last night), or that he’s somehow acting radically different than his predecessors, neither of which is true.

    Mark Levin and some others notwithstanding, that’s a bit of a straw man, although it is a bit annoying to me when people offer this “explanation” of why Obama makes arguments or endorses proposals that are so patently faulty.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  29. I don’t have the time (or the inclination) right now to provide the details on why this is bullsh*t, but it most certainly is and I’m calling it.

    what he said.

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  30. Obola-hood’s cunning plan to fundamentally transform Obolamerica

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  31. Surging Economy

    pull the other one: it’s got bells on it.

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  32. Mark Levin is just disgruntled cause of how Obama is trying to viciously rape America’s economy like it was an inebriated UV coed but you know what?

    that’s him

    Not everybody feels the same way.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  33. That “bubble” is too damn comfortable, time to turn up the heat.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  34. Sammy Finkelman – what straw man? Conservatives have been making that argument for years, and in fact Ropelight @28 does just that. I simply provided information in response to what I saw as an overstatement (a mild one, compared with many that have been made over the years). I cited where I got that information. If someone wants to correct me, or to persuade me, that’s fine – but mostly it appears that people just like to call each other names.

    Just to generalize for a moment – I disagree with a lot of what’s written on this blog, but in general I find it interesting because much of it is intelligently written. It’s not exclusively flame-throwing, although there’s some of that.

    I don’t pretend that Obama is some great man, but it’s hard not to defend him when the rhetoric from Sean Hannity, Fox News and many bloggers in the past 6 years has been so obviously false. Serious question – are people here interested in “winning arguments” by insulting other Americans who hold different viewpoints, or are they interested in engaging in a discussion about serious issues?

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  35. In 2012 spending was less as a percentage of GDP than in 1982, 1983 and 1985.

    Johnny must be too young to remember what momentous world event was being backstopped by that spending:
    The rebuilding of the Hollow Force inherited from Jimmah, leading to the defeat of the Evil Empire.

    Nice try Kid, come back when you learn some history, and perspective.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  36. “Free Healthcare” in the news.

    unexpectedly, they are running out of other people’s money.

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  37. 36. Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede) — 1/20/2015 @ 12:27 pm

    Sammy Finkelman – what straw man? Conservatives have been making that argument for years,

    Some.

    It’s straw man because it’s somewhat easy to knock down or dispute, but that has nothing to do with whether in fact he is proposing idiot nostrums, or playing polictics of some kind, or believes, or can believe, or should be thought to believe, what he is saying when he speaks on public issues.

    Just to generalize for a moment – I disagree with a lot of what’s written on this blog, but in general I find it interesting because much of it is intelligently written. It’s not exclusively flame-throwing, although there’s some of that.

    Yes.

    I don’t pretend that Obama is some great man, but it’s hard not to defend him when the rhetoric from Sean Hannity, Fox News and many bloggers in the past 6 years has been so obviously false. Serious question – are people here interested in “winning arguments” by insulting other Americans who hold different viewpoints, or are they interested in engaging in a discussion about serious issues?

    Some people may be more interested in winning arguments – or pretending that they are. It’s off-putting, but it doesn’t make Obama honest, and it doesn’t make his proosals a sincere attempt to have something happen, and it doesn’t make his proposals into good ideas.

    And yes, other presidents have spoken nonsense too, particularly about the economy. It seems every president does. I don’t know why. You would think for once somebody would decide to stop citing misleading statistics. Fire the speechwriters if they insist on putting them in. (that would take courage) Of course they may not know better.

    President Gerald Ford once did say in a state of the Union message that the state of the union is not good. But that wss his first.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4938

    When the bipartisan applause stopped, President Truman said, “I am happy to report to this 81st Congress that the state of the Union is good. Our Nation is better able than ever before to meet the needs of the American people, and to give them their fair chance in the pursuit of happiness. [It] is foremost among the nations of the world in the search for peace.”

    Today, that freshman Member from Michigan stands where Mr. Truman stood, and I must say to you that the state of the Union is not good: Millions of Americans are out of work.

    Recession and inflation are eroding the money of millions more.
    Prices are too high, and sales are too slow.

    This year’s Federal deficit will be about $30 billion; next year’s probably $45 billion.

    The national debt will rise to over $500 billion.

    Our plant capacity and productivity are not increasing fast enough.

    We depend on others for essential energy.

    Some people question their Government’s ability to make hard decisions and stick with them; they expect Washington politics as usual.

    Yet, what President Truman said on January 5, 1949, is even more true in 1975. We are better able to meet our people’s needs. All Americans do have a fairer chance to pursue happiness. Not only are we still the foremost nation in the pursuit of peace but today’s prospects of attaining it are infinitely brighter.

    There were 59 million Americans employed at the start of 1949; now there are more than 85 million Americans who have jobs. In comparable dollars, the average income of the American family has doubled during the past 26 years. ..

    He can’t help seguing into some good news. OK, about the average income doubling, but is that relevant, and the number of Americans who have jobs is a nonsensical statistic. The population grew, and a higher percentage of women wanted to work.

    Ford’s proposals and analysis maybe weren’t too good, but they were sincere.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  38. Sammy Finkelman @39 – I think that I agree with you if you’re saying that Obama is a politician, and that one can never assume sincerity in a politician. Fair enough, but that doesn’t make him unique, or some revolutionary figure in American society.
    I get that you disagree with his general viewpoint, but let’s not pretend that he’s anything but within the mainstream of American politics. (Not saying that you have done that, but many have, and it’s tiresome. Our form of government works best if the electorate is well-informed, and throwing insults and repeating slogans doesn’t inform anyone.)

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  39. even by the admittedly low standards of American politicians, Obola is a lying POS, and anyone who claims otherwise is either, uninformed, delusional or a liar themselves.

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  40. 40. Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede) — 1/20/2015 @ 1:00 pm

    Sammy Finkelman @39 – I think that I agree with you if you’re saying that Obama is a politician, and that one can never assume sincerity in a politician. Fair enough, but that doesn’t make him unique, or some revolutionary figure in American society.

    No, he’s not unique, but some Republically inclined people like to make him that way, but he is a lot more insincere than average politician. Not a lot more evil maybe, except that he has almost never shown signs of caring what is truly the best thing to do.

    He always voted at his party’s call,
    and never thought of thinking for himself at all!

    And was disingenuous about doing that, too.

    It helps for someone to do that, if they are not too intellectually curious, so they don’t know how wrong some political position might be.

    Some people also can point to his position on partial birth abortion in Illinois. Or the way he ignored the crime problem in his city. Everybody did, but hat concewrned his district alot more. Instead he went with the anti-punishment nostrums. Or his associations with people who espoused very bad things, if it could help his career. (Bill Ayers, the Reverend Wright, Al Sharpton) I think he actually doesn’t want to harm people, in fact he tried to modify what they said, but he also doesn’t want to damage his standing.

    He is really more cynical than the average politician, and endorses some things because it’s lobbied for. They’ll feed him arguments – he’ll try to expand on them, and fall on his face.

    Where Obama is unique really is in his extreme lying about public issues, combined with not so much lying about other things. He likes to confine his lying to arguments about public issues, but on them, any nonsense that can fly goes.

    He also gets some things just plain wrong. (where’s he’s not committed)

    I get that you disagree with his general viewpoint, but let’s not pretend that he’s anything but within the mainstream of American politics.

    That’s absolutely correct. He is a pretty mainstream Democrat. Really. Of course, some people may think that a somewhat left wing Democrat post 1966 is all the way out there! I’m not even sure he’s truly left-wing. I’m not sure he has a real viewpoint, so I can’t say I disagree with him. Well, yes, on his foreign policy analysis.

    As for him being leftwing, would any committed environmentalist wacko just mostly forget about stopping the rising of the oceans?? Maybe there will be some echo of that in today’s speech.

    Some of his positions are because of his past associations, not because he actually thought about any of that. And there’s one thing about Obama: A foolish consistency is his hobgoblin, to reorise Ralph Waldo Emerson. Like about closing Guantanamo Bay.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  41. but let’s not pretend that he’s anything but within the mainstream of American politics. (Not saying that you have done that, but many have, and it’s tiresome.

    I think saying that he is, is just stupid.

    Now there are some terrible things that have happened during his administration. Not all that many, but some. The running of guns to Mexico. But that was not a cynical ploy to justify gun control laws like some people tried to say. I think that was just corruption in the BATF. Which managed to entangle one or more political appointees, and so they don’t acknowledge how bad this was, nor are they honest about this thing.

    I don’t think anybody set out to make sure that veterans did not get to see doctors in hospitals. Nobody’s saying that, but that also applies to Fast and Furious. That was also corruption.

    Why Obama doesn’t care about that is another story.

    Well, I must think about this some more, and fine tune it.

    Our form of government works best if the electorate is well-informed, and throwing insults and repeating slogans doesn’t inform anyone.)

    It misinforms people, if the insults are not true, or the slogans not accurate.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  42. I think the thing about not saying Islam comes from believing things he is told. He is told this is really harmful to say. Of course, Obama tries to make the argument better – and fails.

    It would be so wasy to say “Islamic heresy” “Islamic-based violent extremism” but there are some people Islamic clerics who have ties to this, and teach something somewhat clsoe to this, who seem to have done a good job of lobbying.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  43. #34
    more like the last goat in Raqqah during an ISIS tribunal

    steveg (794291)

  44. Regarding the labeling of terrorists as “Islamic,” do you think that it’s possibly a reasonable position to take in order to avoid sticking a finger in the eye of many countries that are majority Muslim?

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  45. “Regarding the labeling of terrorists as “Islamic,” do you think that it’s possibly a reasonable position to take in order to avoid sticking a finger in the eye of many countries that are majority Muslim?”

    Jonny Scrum-half – The terrorists labels themselves as Islamic. You must be dim if you believe Obama, Biden and Howard Dean are more expert on Islam than people who practice the religion.

    Hi, IMDW!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. labeling something is not the same as sticking a finger in someone’s eye

    i should know I have my own p-touch i bought it at CVS cause of I had to put my name on my mailbox

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  47. happyfeet – Are you sure that, say, Saudi Arabia would feel the same way you do?

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  48. “I think the thing about not saying Islam comes from believing things he is told. He is told this is really harmful to say. Of course, Obama tries to make the argument better – and fails.”

    No one who “advises” Obama thinks he values what’s proffered. He has as much as said that he can perform any job better than it’s performed by the expert in the field.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. 46. Regarding the labeling of terrorists as “Islamic,” do you think that it’s possibly a reasonable position to take in order to avoid sticking a finger in the eye of many countries that are majority Muslim?

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede) — 1/20/2015 @ 1:59 pm

    I linked to an Eli Lake article on the below thread that attempted to make the same argument. It is a unpersuasive and lunatic position to take on so many levels, and I didn’t even go into all of them.

    http://patterico.com/2015/01/16/president-obama-i-refuse-to-say-the-i-word-prime-minister-david-cameron-islam-islam-islam/#comment-1731242

    This really doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know. What it does do is call into question the sanity of US and Western leaders. First, it doesn’t explain so many blunders, such as when Bush invited an Imam to the WH to put on a show about how the US isn’t at war with Islam (while at the same time planning to invade a Muslim country). At the same time that particular Imam was at the WH for the lovefest, the FBI knocked on the door of his house because they were investigating his ties to terrorism.

    Their jaws hit the floor when his wife told him he wasn’t home, he was at the WH meeting the President.

    It also doesn’t explain why the Obama administration was cozying up to the MB at home and abroad, if radical Islam is the reason we can’t talk about radical Islam.

    But more importantly if we know that the Muslim governments we need to ally with are in effect held hostage by large pluralities of their own populations that support radical Islam, why are we pursuing these suicidal immigration policies so that one day Muslim populations reach critical mass and we can also be held hostage by those same large pluralities? This is France’s problem, now.

    Well, we certainly don’t want to stick our finger in these countries eyes if we want them to ally with us. So we can’t call the terrorists Islamic because that will inflame their large radical Islamic pluralities. But then, we also can’t have free speech. And we also can’t have effective internal security policies. Why, if France were to enforce French law in those no-go banlieues that would also enrage those coreligionists in those allied countries. And if we limited Muslim immigration that would also enrage those coreligionists.

    It’s not only unpersuasive and lunatic. It’s unpersuasive, lunatic, and suicidal. Because what is happening, if you have eyes to see, is that if that is the case, then we also are held hostage by the large radicalized pluralities of Islamists in countries that can’t ally with us it we actually identify who we’re fighting.

    Which then calls into question their commitment. And their sincerity.

    How do you think, Johnny Scrum-half, that if a Florida pastor burns a book then a Muslim mob just spontaneously forms in Kabul? Can you spot a good cop, bad cop game being played against you or not? In OIC countries where mobs formed because of that “offensive anti-Muslim video” they didn’t form on their own. They were formed, and they were formed with governmental consent.

    Tell you what. Let’s ally with Muslim countries that have leaders that aren’t afraid to say that there are some serious pathologies in Islam and religious leaders have better get cracking to fix them. Let’s start with al-Sissi.

    Steve57 (4ce020)

  50. Steve57 – I’m not defending the Muslim countries. I’m not even saying that the Obama Administration is right to refrain from using labels like “radical Islam,” and the like. I’m just suggesting that perhaps it’s reasonable to think that those language choices are affected more by diplomatic considerations than by Obama’s supposed affinity for Islamic terrorists.

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede)

  51. It’s so much better, don’t you think Johnny Scrum-half, for a US administration to treat its own people as if they have the IQs of banana slugs by lecturing us about how these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. Then demand we be more polite to Islam and self-censor.

    Because those terrorists who Howard Dean stopped calling Muslim because they’re no more Muslim than he is might go on a killing spree if we insult the prophet.

    I would say this is an insane way to fight a war, but we’re so careful to be sophisticated enough to “avoid sticking a finger in the eye of many countries that are majority Muslim” we’re not fighting one.

    Steve57 (4ce020)

  52. 52. …I’m just suggesting that perhaps it’s reasonable to think that those language choices are affected more by diplomatic considerations than by Obama’s supposed affinity for Islamic terrorists.

    Jonny Scrum-half (5c9ede) — 1/20/2015 @ 3:15 pm

    What diplomatic consideration do you think compelled Barack Obama to demand over the Egyptian government’s objections to give MB members front row seats at his Cairo speech?

    Steve57 (4ce020)

  53. This administration has made way, way too many unforced errors to chalk up them up to mere diplomatic considerations. Perhaps you disagree, Johnny Scrum-half.

    What diplomatic considerations do you think compelled Obama to write an op-ed praising his friend Erdogan on the occasion of his visit to the US in May of 2013. Published, by the way, in a paper that was formerly anti-regime, so Erdogan confiscated it and essentially gave it to his son-in-law.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/17/as-obama-fetes-erdogan-turkey-seizes-opposition-press/

    …Erdoğan has stacked previously apolitical bodies with his own party hacks, and transformed technocratic institutions to wield against the press. He has had them, for example, levy fines of billions of dollars to silence some outfits, and seized and sold at auction another. The sole bidder (after others dropped out because of political pressure)? Erdoğan’s son-in-law. Ironically, it was Sabah—the once-opposition paper confiscated by Erdoğan and given to his son-in-law—that President Obama chose to contribute a glowing op-ed to on the occasion of Erdoğan’s visit to Turkey…

    Steve57 (4ce020)

  54. “I’m just suggesting that perhaps it’s reasonable to think that those language choices are affected more by diplomatic considerations than by Obama’s supposed affinity for Islamic terrorists.”

    Jonny Scrum-half – Are you suggesting he has an affinity for Islamic terrorists IMDW?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. Maybe after that you can explain the genius behind the James Taylor gambit in Paris. I still haven’t recovered from that.

    Steve57 (4ce020)

  56. “radical islime” is redundant…

    there is only islime, and no matter how much taqiyya Obola, his useful idiots and all the deniers practice, you can’t change what it is: a violent death cult that calls for the submission of all humanity to it, by force if necessary.

    if telling the truth about your religion offends you, maybe you need a new religion, instead of one founded by a psychotic child molesting bandit and mass murderer.

    redc1c4 (2b3c9e)

  57. Exactly, you either convert, pay the tax or die. Plenty of options there. And it’s right there on the label. As we all know Islam means submission. They ain’t trying to hide it.

    Gazzer (c44509)

  58. Mr. Scrum-half Saudis are terrorist-sponsoring perverts

    they whip bloggers bloody

    they’re disgusting filthy and inhuman

    i don’t care about their deviant little feelings i just don’t

    yuck

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. 30. (link to http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/rnc-releases-obamas-sotu-by-the-numbers )

    6: Veto Threats Issued By Obama In The New Year. (The White House Website, Accessed 1/19/15; ABC News, 1/16/15)

    The CBS Evening News reported tonight that the number of veto threats issued by President Obama since the start of the year went up by 2 today, for a total of 8.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  60. 51.

    First, it doesn’t explain so many blunders, such as when Bush invited an Imam to the WH to put on a show about how the US isn’t at war with Islam

    Well, if Bush did this kind of stuff, it has to be outside advice.

    Bear in mind, by the way, that Islamic terrorists are not brought up that way, with a very few second generation terrorist exceptions.

    They are all “born again” Muslims, so to speak, or even outright converts.

    This is form of Islamic revivalism, not historical Islam.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  61. 63. It’s a locked room mystery.

    The door could not be opened because a key was stuck in the lock.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  62. Islamic terrorism is Islamic fundamentalism evolving freely and repeatedly from the sole authorities of the Islamic faith-the Quran and Hadith.

    Nominal, moderate voices from the midst of Islam in English are belied by concurrent pronouncements in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu. Moreover, in the rare cases where voices of coexistence are genuine and sincere they will be silenced and crushed.

    DNF (b0b54f)

  63. 58. Heh, indeed.

    DNF (b0b54f)

  64. 41. At this late date I have no part with anyone unable or unwilling to call Evil by its unvarnished name.

    Does doing so embarrass you, ESAD, coward.

    DNF (b0b54f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4917 secs.