Obama Compares Republicans to Terrorists
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
You can see the video for yourself, here. And here’s the key remarks:
It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.
Which reminds me of Lincoln’s great metaphors, like a-house-divided-against-itself or the snake-in-the-bed metaphor or my personal favorite, the wolf metaphor:
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to—day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty.
Yep, just like Lincoln’s metaphors, except that Lincoln’s were clever, wise, insightful and necessary. I mean aside from those three differences, Obama’s statement was positively Lincolnesque.
I mean how many ways was this statement stupid?
First, it was unnecessary. You don’t need a metaphor to explain. You needed the tax cut and this was the price you were willing to pay to get it.
Second, it is petulant and un-presidential. To quote Peter Wehner, “Obama has mastered the ability to look both unprincipled and graceless at the same time.” Not too long ago, Evan Thomas gushed “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” Now he has come down to Earth.
Third, it is demonizing your fellow Americans as though they were enemies of this nation. So much for being post-partisan.
Finally, it tells the world that you will negotiate with terrorists. All they have to do is take live hostages and hurt them, and Obama will negotiate. At one point in time, Obama and his handlers denied that he would negotiate with terrorists. But now he has cleared up any ambiguity. Heckuvajob there, Barry.
November, 2012, can’t come fast enough.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
“You needed the tax cut and this was the price you were willing to get it.”
A.W. – I object to the framing. Obama needed to avoid increasing taxes in this economic environment. It was the obvious move. His Kool-Aid drinking hyperpartisan fans are unhappy. So what?
We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/7/2010 @ 5:37 pm“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed.”
Hmmm. If I were an al Qaeda terrorist and saw that, wouldn’t I sprint out of my cave, make a quick grab and lop off a few heads?
I mean, after all, the policy of the President of the US is to negotiate when “the hostage gets harmed” right?
JohnG (85c834) — 12/7/2010 @ 5:46 pmPetulant and juvenile, that’s the administration we’ve to endure for two more years.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2010 @ 5:50 pmSo, tax increases would have harmed the American people? I guess the tax cuts helped them, then?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/7/2010 @ 5:58 pmWhy didn’t he talk about Slurpees instead? He’s got that analogy down pat.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/7/2010 @ 6:01 pm“We have some unease,” Pelosi says of Obama plan & admits to being in the dark: “we didn’t realize…agreement was going to be announced.”
Nancy is out of the loop? This surprises me.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/7/2010 @ 6:12 pmDon’t worry, Nancy. You will get to see what is in the agreement after it is made.
Goose and gander, you know.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/7/2010 @ 6:19 pmIf Republicans are now terrorists, does that mean our illustrious President will drop the “overseas contingency operations” phrase and return to his predecessor’s “war on terror?”
The semanticist Dana (bd7e62) — 12/7/2010 @ 6:21 pmIf we’re comparing him to Presidents, Obama reminds me of Nixon more each day.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:02 pmIf Republicans are now terrorists, does that mean our illustrious President will drop the “overseas contingency operations” phrase and return to his predecessor’s “war on terror?”
Comment by The semanticist Dana — 12/7/2010 @ 6:21 pm
Silly. Do try to keep up. Insurgents is the word for the
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:09 pmundocumented[sexist; sorry] undocupersonted man-caused-disaster causers, now.I mean person-caused disasters. I denounce myself.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:09 pmI always told you guys here that Obama is a mystery yet to be unraveled. He is neither black nor white. He is neither Christian nor Muslim. He is neither Jew lover nor anti-semitic. He is neither Republican nor Democrat. He is neither here nor there.. He is Barack Obama! More to come….
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:16 pmnoyk chastised me:
[Skulking off to hide in a dark corner.]
The Dana hanging his head in shame (bd7e62) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:19 pm[Skulking off to hide in a dark corner.]
Comment by The Dana hanging his head in shame — 12/7/2010 @ 7:19 pm
And well you might: can’t believe you used the word shame. Has “ham” in it. Disrespectful to both Jews and Muslims. And vegetarians. 😛
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:26 pm_______________________________________
Finally, it tells the world that you will negotiate with terrorists.
That along with his bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan.
The guy now in the White House is the ultimate joke and fool when it comes to doing or saying things that are either inappropriately servile or inappropriately combative—eg, his saying about Republican opposition in 2008: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:26 pmBut in principle, wouldn’t you negotiate with a terrorist if that would save a life?
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:31 pmConsidering his prior comments about “getting in their faces” and his incredibly incendiary comments to his Hispanic supporters, this is just more of the same. Most divisive president since Nixon, yet it took Nixon almost two full terms to get there.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:32 pmIn principle? Absolutely not, because doing so would open the door to more hostages. In practice? Maybe, and that’s the difference I hope Obama meant but it’s not what he said. Of course, the real problem is that he thinks of American citizens who oppose his views as terrorists.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:35 pmWhat DRJ said — all of it.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:38 pmAaron I am waiting for you to do a post, praising the President for his bipartisanship on this issue. But i am not gonna hold my breath… This is easier.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:39 pmObama is a petulant little dlck.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:43 pmDRJ, So once an American is taken hostage, he is on his own. Tough luck for him. No effort to negotiate.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:43 pmAre you insane? He just called the other partisans ‘terrorists’ who were going to harm the country if Obama didn’t cave to their evil demands.
Why would anyone in their right mind say Obama was bipartisan? The GOP got most of what they wanted, but clearly not because of the president’s bipartisanship. It was simply his weakness.
The last thing Obama wanted was to be bipartisan about this, dope.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:44 pmStop for second, wipe those tears away, and re-read DRJ’s comment, where she said in practice she may be unable to live up to her principle if life is on the line.
The opposite of the lazy demagogue crap you used to summarize her intelligent view, which politely tried to correct a misconception on the difference between principle and practice.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:45 pmI think Aaron should wait to write that post until Obama compares his liberal supporters to terrorist hostage-takers.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:46 pmChimperor/lovie is back to its idiotic ways.
Frankly, I did not take “terrorist” from what he said, I thought kidnapper. Regardless, it is clear that he now takes his rhetorical cues from firedoglake and Willie the racist hilljack Yelverton.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:46 pmI do not see what the Republicans won in this negotiation.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:49 pmDo not get in between a narcissist and what he wants. When you deny The One his “I won,” prepare to get publicly labeled a terrorist and an enemy.
Do we even have to ask if Bush ever even considered calling those burning him in effigy, making little films about his assassination, painting swastikas on his face, etc. “enemies” ?
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:50 pmRegardless, he isn’t framing this as a difference of opinion, where statesmen come together to compromise on their agendas for the good of the republic. He saw this as evil Rethuglicans threatening their “hostage”, and Obama unwilling to let the “hostage” come to harm.
He managed to burn any good-will he may have appeared to deserve for caving on the issue. For nothing. Just to be a jerk.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:51 pmJD is it possible for you to comment without being insulting? I think you can if you try..
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:52 pmJD,
Some people will like the tax cuts and others will like the depreciation deal, but overall I think the biggest win for the GOP is getting a deal on the estate tax. That will resonate with a lot of the middle class.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:53 pmThat’s partly because Obama’s claiming he got it from the GOP, but the Payroll Tax Deduction was on the GOP’s wishlist for years, and while it’s on the D’s column of gains, that’s just theater.
Extending the Bush tax cuts will save us from an economic disaster, which is great politics for Obama more than Republicans, but we all have a stake in the USA thriving.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:53 pmOn the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t tell JD to count chickens unhatched.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:55 pmJD,
Ten years ago I might have agreed that a hostage-taker is just a kidnapper, but not after 9/11 and especially after Beslan.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 7:56 pmDustin you and I know he did not specifically call the GOP terrorists. But I know why you folks have to latch on it.. To you, there always has to be a fight. That’s understandable.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:04 pmDustin – but what was won? Tax rates we going to be extended, if not by this Congress then by the next. No way was Barcky going to raise taxes on the middle class, it was always just a question of when it would happen. I know the optics on the unemployment benefits play well around the holidays, but they are pure deficit spending, and have already been extended beyond, way beyond, what they used to be, prior to Obarcky. In the end, we won the status quo, which we could have got in January without helping Barcky and his bipartisan charade.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:06 pmHush, lovie.
DRJ – good point.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:07 pm“Well, what do you expect from The Emperor? When you have a pile of dirt in the middle of a room, you sweep it out the door or vacuum it up; you don’t just let it stay there.”
Heh heh heh. Now if The Emperor tries to claim I compared him to a pile of dirt (see title of this post) I can wiggle out of it by saying “I didn’t specifically call him a pile of dirt; he’s just looking for a fight!”
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:10 pmSWEET!
I do not see what the Republicans won in this negotiation.
Comment by JD
There you go. Exactly my point. Classic thoughtless comment.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:13 pmJD, you win this point.
Really? I thought he called me a hostage taker threatening to do harm unless Obama gave in. That you’re saying ‘that’s not so bad, it’s not like he specifically called you a terrorist’ is the most pathetic defense I’ve ever heard.
I’m not the one using this kind of braindead rhetoric about enemies and evil hostage takers. You can claim to understand where I’m coming from, but it sounds like you’re trying to project. It’s ‘understandable’ to you to see American politics as about a battle against evil enemies because that’s the kind of thing you love and defend. It’s just sophistry to pretend I’m guilty of it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:15 pm@noyk, lol! Really nice. But in this case I know I am not a pile of dirt so I won’t fight cause I know you are not referring to me. It’s about knowing yourself.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:18 pmLovie knows thoughtless, to be sure.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:20 pmComment by The Emperor — 12/7/2010 @ 8:18 pm
In case it was not already clear, The Emperor, I was not in fact comparing you to a pile of dirt. I was giving you an illustration of how ridiculous your attempt to deny a comparison Pres. Obama most certainly made (between Republicans and terrorists) looked to the rest of us.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:22 pmCute. So anyone who actually minds this crap from Obama was actually trying to harm America, their hostage, and Obama wins in his accusations. Of course, we can’t even call Obama out on his demagoguery or you start screaming this hissy fit you’ve been having for hours. I guess you actually fail this ‘know thyself’ test, then, don’t you?
Obama’s unpatriotic and unpresidential. The way he is carrying his debates have always been undignified and selfish. George W Bush, more beloved and respected by Americans, did not soil his office by wallowing in these attacks.
We’re talking about a freaking taxation policy, and Obama’s inability to respect the other position on it is amazing.
Of course, you’re calling this the picture of bipartisanship.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:23 pmIt’s really typical of some of you to pick quarrels over useless issues why leaving the big issue. Not even minding the fact that he, Obama is taking a lot of flack from his base for “capitulating” to your demands. Not even minding what this might cost him politically.. Oh but you have to miss the forest for the tree… typical.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:25 pmnoyk my point is that, since you all know that you are not terrorists, why are you all acting like you think you are? My mother always told me, if someone called you a fool, don’t act like a fool and prove him right. Just brush it off your shoulders and move on.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:28 pmOooo, Emperor is telling us we are picking quarrels and chiding me because he thinks I must have a fight.
It smells a lot like projection.
Why is it that when a lefty troll repeats the same whine 50 times, it’s something they are actually attempting to defend themselves from? I guess it’s some kind of defense mechanism. If both sides are doing it, they won a relative battle?
Except Obama’s the one itching for a fight.
Well, no. We don’t mind. Why should we? Obama broke another promise. Soros will have to fund at least 3 more websites to get the idea out there that he can be trusted at all on anything. Of course someone like Obama, on both sides of so many issues, is constantly taking flack. He’s not a blank slate anymore and it was stupid for anyone to trust him on anything.
I see the forest for the forest.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:30 pmViews vary, but when it comes down to the brass tacks, the President doesn’t seem to have much faith in the American people or the loyal opposition.
We can argue all day, or night, about why the President should do this, that or another.
However, when a sitting President compares the opposition party to hostage-takers with full knowledge of the recent election, he is either not up to the job, or insane.
I rather suspect the former rather than the latter.
It has to be hard for him, as well as his cult, to face the consequences of actually governing.
Ag80 (e828a4) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:31 pmnoyk my point is that, since you all know that you are not terrorists, why are you all acting like you think you are? My mother always told me, if someone called you a fool, don’t act like a fool and prove him right. Just brush it off your shoulders and move on.
Comment by The Emperor — 12/7/2010 @ 8:28 pm
Why are we objecting to this rhetoric? Um, because it’s pretty revealing of a lot of things about Pres. Obama (and none of them positive) that he would use the biggest bully pulpit in the world to vent his petty personal grievances against those who oppose him, using invective he refuses to assign even to mass murderers? Let me think. Yep, sounds like a pretty good reason to me.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:33 pmHe acted like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:37 pmYou may not have seen his press conference today if you merely suspect something I think was on full display.
He looked awful. Today in particular was a stark reminder that Obama is not up to the job. It shouldn’t be this hard, in all honesty. We shouldn’t need someone with the resilience of Bush or Reagan to constant hard debates. But this is the job Obama signed up for, and he just can’t take it. Give the poor slob a way out, Democrats, and primary him.
Imagine how this little man would cave to a real terrorist, and not just some different numbers on an IRS chart.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:37 pmNOYK, I always enjoy reading your posts. Get ready for Teh Crazee™, however.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:39 pmCan anyone show me a quote where Obama discusses Osama Bin Laden in terms harsher than this ‘hostage taking’ and ‘American people harming’ language?
Might as well be talking about Sarah Palin.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:40 pmI actually feel sorry for POTUS right about now. You see, I think he bought into all the adulation. Sure, most politicians are egomaniacs—comes with the territory—but you remember all the junior high school crush type commentary about him.
I’m pretty sure that BHO has very seldom been disagreed with or questioned until now. And I don’t think he likes it.
Again, we don’t know much about his work history, do we? Or academic history (other than complaining about a grade he received decades before in college).
I can’t wait for the transcripts to leak. Because I know what I am going to see.
He isn’t the One the Left was waiting for. The Left just projected their dreams onto an empty suit filled with a whirlwind of entitlement.
We shall see. His job is going to get tougher, not easier. And some Presidents grow with the job.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:43 pmWhat you folks fail to admit here is that Obama is smart. Smarter than you would like to admit. But time will tell. I am usually right…. 8)
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:44 pmMaybe we need to release lovie’s hostage brain. He seems to need it badly.
Icy Texan (ed9a26) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:46 pmComment by Dustin — 12/7/2010 @ 8:40 pm
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:46 pmI get it Dustin, Obama thinks you all are terrorist/hostage takers. Worse than Osama Bin Laden. Point taken.
Barcky “capitulated” to the status quo, while tossing in some redistributive tax credits, and extending unemployment, and whatever other goodies SanFranNan and Hairy Reed throw in to bribe the Dems to support the President. The only thing that Team R won was the Dems will not get to shoot the economy in the nards vis a vis taxes until 2012. Whoopee!
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:46 pmWhere is the proof of Barcky’s alleged smarts?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:48 pmHe disagrees with you, you fight him. He agrees with you, you still find a way to fight him.. Vintage GOP politics.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:48 pmHi Icy…
I was about to say you keep repeating yourself in this thread without making any reasonable reactions to the points you’re pretending to debate effectively.
That you have to say it shows you feel the need to compensate for the strength of your point. And I can see why that is, since Obama really looks like a jerk again.
I admit Obama’s been successful legislatively, though he was this with overwhelming congressional support and still had a lot of trouble getting anything done. That’s over. The Obama agenda is over, and this tax cut, something he campaigned loudly against, is proof.
How smart do you think this guy is, exactly? My impression used to be that he was brilliant, and now it’s that he’s overwhelmed because he can’t think ahead.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:49 pmYou’re mocking this? He did say we’re hostage takers. He did say ‘punch back twice as hard’ and ‘get in their faces’. His crazy religion thinks the CIA invented AIDS (I can only wish he were a Muslim). You may think you’re pulling a fast one by pretending I’m starting a fight, but you’re projecting the famous comments Obama made *today* that he is itching for fights.
He was teaching classes on tactics to agitate the community.
The best you can do is sneer at reasonable points and laugh nervously, but your comment tempo suggests you really, really wish you could do something more to challenge these points. You can’t.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:52 pmI do not see what the Republicans won in this negotiation.
Comment by JD
The only thing that Team R won was the Dems will not get to shoot the economy in the nards vis a vis taxes until 2012. Whoopee!
Comment by JD — 12/7/2010 @ 8:46 pm
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:52 pmHow can I possibly add to that? Priceless.
I think we’re seeing a consequence of the departure of Rahm Emanuel: President Obama’s thin skin is really showing.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:56 pmOh, I don’t want to argue with a proven troll, Dustin, but when people tell me how darned smart BHO is, I scratch my head.
Based on what?
I remember hearing how dim Reagan was from everyone in the media. Then I read his letters, and found him to be a thoughtful and wise man (and not one with whom I agreed on many things, incidentally).
But when I ask why people think BHO is smart, they sputter and talk about colleges with me (for which we have no transcripts). Or some speech (which he may or may not have written).
He should sit down, one on one, without a TelePrompter, and chat with some people. But every time he has done things like that, why, he doesn’t look quite so brilliant.
Is he stupid? No. But he is certainly politically tone deaf, and would not even be on the radar if not for the media, which acts much like the bookish girl who did homework for the quarterback in high school.
If this man is brilliant, let’s start seeing some evidence of that brilliance. Again, time will tell.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:56 pmNot to mention his intemperate remarks and us-vs-them language.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:57 pmTime has told. Barcky is no brighter than a burnt out squiggly bulb.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:57 pmreally wish you could do something more to challenge these points. You can’t.
Comment by Dustin — 12/7/2010 @ 8:52 pm
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 8:59 pmWhich points, Dustin? That Obama thinks y’all are evil terrorist hostage takers worse than OBL himself? I agree with you all. Check my comment @ 8:46pm. I CAPITULATED! LOL!!
That’s interesting. I thought he looked particularly miserable today. It really surprised me to see Rahm leave the admin. For a neophyte like Obama, having very strong advisors means everything.
The next year is going to be the most difficult he has ever experienced. I’m not sure he can attract the brightest democrat advisors right now.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:01 pmObama is such a horrible person.. He bullies cats and he hates dogs. Bad man!
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:02 pmDRJ, that approach has worked for him, Alinsky-style, since Day One. What he is counting on is the Pom Pom Brigade giving him cover when he uses extreme language about political opponents.
Except that some Pom Pom Brigade surely is critical when people with Rs after their names say extreme things.
Which is fine. People are waking up and smelling the coffee about this guy.
Do you all remember the troll who kept looking at the plummeting approval ratings of BHO and called it “rock solid support”?
What choice do the Cheerleaders have? They must go down with the ship, so to speak. Or admit they were bamboozled by a Chicago pol.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:03 pmChimperer is arguing with the voices in her head again. Pity.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:03 pmI’m not able to respond when all you do is laugh as though your argument is well established. It looks like you can’t make a point and are just aggressively acting as though you’re triumphant.
I don’t think it’s funny that Obama thinks tax policies are hostage taking terrorism.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:04 pmJD, cheerleader outfits are not always flattering.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:05 pmThe emperor said:
He disagrees with you, you fight him. He agrees with you, you still find a way to fight him.. Vintage GOP politics.
How about he takes a stand one way or another?
It would make arguments a whole lot easier.
Ag80 (e828a4) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:05 pmI think we’re seeing a consequence of the departure of Rahm Emanuel: President Obama’s thin skin is really showing.
Comment by DRJ — 12/7/2010 @ 8:56 pm
Don’t remember all of Obama’s political history. Is this the first election he’s “lost” (at least in the sense that he knew it was a referendum on Obamacare and his agenda)? It’s got to be at least his first really big electoral “loss.” And all those far-left liberals sniping at his heels too.
in addition to the lack of Rahm, all that dryup of adulation has to hurt an outsized ego like his. Am not surprised Pres. Narcissist is lashing out. Yet again.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:08 pm@Dudtin. Come on. What more do you want from me amigo, Dustin? huh? Obama can never please you guys. It is impossible! But this is not about pleasing you people. This is about doing whats best for the country, under the present circumstances. Politics can wait.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:09 pmCorrection@77 Sorry about the typo. Dustin. Not Dudtin. My apologies.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:11 pmHe lost in 2000, to Bobby Rush, but it wasn’t nearly the same thing as W’s in ’78, Clinton in ’80, or even Sarah in 2002
narciso (6075d0) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:11 pmHe’s smart. He’s at least quite good at reading the teleprompter with passion, which I realize sounds pathetic. He was able to stay afloat at one of the most challenging law schools out there, which at least makes him smart, if not necessarily as brilliant as a white magna cum laude (I have no idea if he got special treatment).
He is probably less intelligent than Bush, but Bush also reads more and had far more experience leading. Some of the difference is simply knowing how to handle responsibility. I don’t think Obama’s big problem is his smarts.
The USA can’t be led by philosopher kings. We want different things, and the best solution is for the ‘expert’ king to leave us alone as much as he can. That kind of light leadership is difficult for someone who thinks he knows best.
It is pretty funny to see Emperor cryptically tell us we’re failing to see just how smart Obama is, as though this is some kind of master plan he’s had all along, when clearly he just fell on his face on a pillar of his entire justification for running for President.
The only positive for him is that he did help the economy, which is good for his political fortune. How many people who agree with that are going to vote for him, though?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:12 pmHow about he takes a stand one way or another?
It would make arguments a whole lot easier.
Comment by Ag80 — 12/7/2010 @ 9:05 pm
Tell me, in all honesty, which stand would you have preferred he took on this issue? What option did he realistically have under the circumstances?
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:13 pmOK, fair enough. Thank you Obama for agreeing to these critical tax cuts staying in place, which are essential to our country overcoming major financial problems.
Demint is right that the ‘2 year’ manner in which he agreed to do so causes long term planning to be more difficult. Worse yet, Obama’s promising to continue fighting these cuts.
I think all Obama gets credit for is dimly realizing we just had a huge election, and the GOP won hugely, and he shouldn’t fight this too hard if he wishes to have any political power.
Thanks, Obama, for that. But I hope the GOP moves to make these cuts permanent, starting in January. We need long term stability instead of constant political battles.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:15 pmFair enough, Dustin. You are the gentleman.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:18 pmEasy: make them permanent, and stop his version of stimulus, which is a proven failure.
Permanent tax cuts and massive spending cuts (instead of this ‘freeze employee pay to cola increases’ crap) is the stimulus our nation has needed since before 2006. Obama is still on the ‘this is a good first step’ token austerity stage.
He fought these tax cuts for ages, and what he’s agreeing to is to fight them in the future. Gee thanks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:19 pmYeah, I know the guy has a long history of trollish behavior, but this was funny:
It just seems to me that, for some time, everything this guy did was seen as peachy keen. Like golfing all the time (when GWB golfed, it was a bad thing). Or working out (ditto). Or misspeaking (there are whole books on mangled prose from GWB).
In other words, everything BHO did pleased many supporters. So it is kind of funny when such people accuse opponents of being, well, reflexive or partisan.
It really was a massive romantic crush that the media—and many supporters—showed.
The “Politics can wait” business is especially ironic.
But honestly, what did we all expect?
Fortunately, folks are waking up. It’s a good thing…because it is bad to worship any political figure.
Even if you voted for him to feel good about yourself.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:20 pmSomehow, it is wrong for us to have political viewpoints, but Barcky whining like a little schoolgirl, and diminishing the presidency is just fine. Chimperer is still begging to be the next one to bend over and grab their ankles for Teh Won.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:20 pmDustin, perhaps BHO realizes that…what was the expression?…oh yes:
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:21 pm
Maybe I should speak Obama’s language.
Thank you for agreeing to our extortion demands! We agree not to kill our hostage, AKA America, with … a return to unemployment lasting 1 year?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:22 pmWell he did win one case, against Citigroup, which helped open up the ‘subprime tsunami’ but his syllabi, including exam questions, suggest he doesn’t really know the law, that’s why he suppliedAlinsky principles instead in one of his classes.
narciso (6075d0) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:26 pmI will tell you why I think he is smart. If this move helps the economy and helps job growth and people feel some relief, he is going to take the credit for doing what was necessary to salvage a failing economy. He wins. If it fails, he puts the blame on the Republicans and looks like the bipartisan who tried to do the right thing. He wins.JD was right when he said: I do not see what the Republicans won in this negotiation. It would have been better he continued the fight till there was nothing left but to be voted out by 2012 because of how things would have worsened, economically.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:27 pmThe Emperor:
To be effective, Obama should done a Clinton and insisted on extending the tax cuts while telling his base off in a Sister Souljah moment. Independents and moderates on both sides would believe Obama learned from November 2nd, and frankly he could have continued with his agenda for perhaps another year. Not only would this have let Obama claim the bipartisan high ground, it would have put the GOP in a political bind. Now, instead of looking like a leader, Obama looks like a liberal lady venting on The View.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:29 pmThere is a difference between being smart…and taking credit for the actions of others, and blaming others for one’s own problems.
I think the Old Troll in a New Bottle means “canny,” not smart.
But I am not surprised.
Again, people saw in BHO what they wanted to believe about themselves. Maybe they were right, but not in a good way.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:30 pmDRJ, that would have required Obama to show development, or change, which obviously suggests he was wrong in the past.
I agree a major part of Obama’s mistake is simply how he’s explaining what he did to his base. He’s unwilling to admit the election repudiated his platform. In fact, he makes himself sound unprincipled in allowing something very harmful to happen to America.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:34 pmEric Blair and his obsession with trolls… tsk tsk tsk.. Wonder why this blog is not just called Erico’s Pontification. Just remove the “Patt”…
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:34 pmAnd DRJ? That “liberal lady” line is going to leave a mark. Ouch.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:34 pmDustin,
Obama could always claim that now is not the right time to raise taxes on the rich, only to change his mind in a year or two. He can afford to anger his base now. He can’t afford it 1-2 years from now.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:38 pmIt’s true that he could attempt this, but the fact is that he continues to sharply take one side of the argument (that the tax cuts cannot be allowed to exist a day longer than they can possibly be canceled). He will have a hard time convincing anyone that he intended this move to save the US economy.
It probably doesn’t matter much, because I think if the economy turns around, it will help his fortunes regardless of how he attempts to take credit for it. And this move is better for the economy than the alternative.
I don’t see this matter as ‘obama wins’ or ‘obama loses’, because there are a lot of people who have been without work for far too long thanks to Obama’s failed policies, and I’m just ready to see something better. Obviously less mismanagement helps democrat politics, but I’m focused on my country.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:38 pmDRJ has changed somewhat.. Ouch!! But I like her still. 🙂 Nice point though. He probably could have handled it better. But he still did the right thing under the circumstances. Lets not lose sight of that.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:40 pmYou’re right. This is the best time possible for Obama to anger his base. It’s a smart calculation, though I wonder how the purists will respond to this in 2 years when Obama picks up the cause again (which I am sure he will). I think it will be a lot like Mccain telling people to ‘finish the dang fence’.
By then, he’ll have someone to compare himself against, who will be demonized.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:41 pmThe Emperor:
I agree in part. He’s the President and the next election will be a referendum on unemployment and the economy. If unemployment improves and the economy is good, he may well win. If not, he may not. But blaming the Republicans won’t help him if things are about the same in 2012 as they are now, and I fear they will be.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:42 pmHow does the status quo help the economy, lovie?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:43 pmI didn’t realize you agreed that keeping the tax cuts was the right thing to do. I’m sure you understand why it’s undermining the gains for Obama to keep mentioning that these are temporary, still.
He feels he was forced at gunpoint to do this. His own rhetoric shows just how frustrated he is. It’s hard to give someone credit for a choice they didn’t freely make, that they are promising to reverse as quickly as they can. I can be happy about the development without beautifying Obama for it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:44 pmRelative to tax increases? The left calls these tax ‘cuts’ (more honestly called status quo like you do) huge. So the tax increase would be huge. That would screw up the economy even more than it is.
Perhaps instead of ‘help the economy’ we can more precisely say ‘not further destroy the economy’
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:47 pmHe feels he was forced at gunpoint to do this. His own rhetoric shows just how frustrated he is. It’s hard to give someone credit for a choice they didn’t freely make, that they are promising to reverse as quickly as they can. I can be happy about the development without beautifying Obama for it.
Comment by Dustin — 12/7/2010 @ 9:44 pm
You dont’t know that Dustin. Look, he has an angry base to pacify. He is using the best kind of rhetoric to win them over. He is a politician.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:50 pmAh, my bad.
Yeah, maybe he’s lying, emperor. Like with gay marriage and immigration and everything else, I guess I have to calculate that what he’s saying is the opposite of what he means, and give him credit for the opposite of his stated position because the other way actually seems a lot more presidential and intelligent.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:51 pmSays a cheerleader.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:52 pmNot you, of course, Dustin.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:53 pmOh yes, and if I don’t simultaneously THANK HIM under assumptions he is probably lying to the American people (he’s a politician), Emperor will become exasperated that there’s nothing Obama can possibly do to please me!
Well, aside from actually convey the ideas I want, instead of expecting me to pretend Obama’s a blank slate like he boasts suckers pretend he is.
I guess the emperor thinks I’m freaking dumb as hell.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:53 pmAnd whose cheerleader are you, Eric? It takes one to know one…
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:54 pmHence the smartness I speak of…
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:56 pmhaha, no, I think you’re being very clear.
It’s amazing the thought processes that are actually going on behind the ‘lol!’. Takes a lot of work to actually get them out in the open, and for good reason. What I’m being asked to grant Obama is simply unreasonable. I can’t even ridicule it.
Emperor seemed a lot better when he was being cryptic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:56 pmthe only problem Ear Leader has is that he’s usually on the side of the terrorists.
that’s why he’s so confused: there is nothing in Alinsky about how to deal with this particular situation.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/7/2010 @ 9:58 pmNot that The Emperor doesn’t have a strong point.
At the root of what he’s saying is that the Tax Cut hysteria is obviously absurd and no one really means that it was OK to deprive the middle class tax cuts because tax hikes on the rich were that urgent.
Why would they be? We’re 3 trillion in deficit since Obama took the White House 2 years ago (triple the deficit of the 12 years the GOP held the House from 1994 to 2006). Don’t tell me a few tens of billions were that urgent to the left.
So something in Obama’s stated logic doesn’t add up. Emperor thinks he’s playing a politician’s game of deception of his own base to CYA as he saves the economy from ideas he actually champions loudly in public. I am not grateful to him for this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:01 pmDustin doth protest much. The world is not such a pure place after all. Take heart brother… 🙁
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:04 pmAs I said, Dustin: Old Troll in a New Bottle.
I am actually amused by the game of Twister that Obama-ites are being forced to play the the actions of The Won. They elected someone who was all about Hope and Change. Now it is More of the Same from their perspective—except that when BHO does it, it is better! Cooler! Less Bush-like!
It’s almost a masochistic thing. But some of the far Lefties are waking up. This was not Who they were waiting for.
Very smart indeed.
But honestly, the Obama-ites don’t have any choice. They can’t admit that they got rolled. So, somehow, capitulating to the Republicans has to be a master stroke of political acumen…despite the campaign promises and current rhetoric.
It must be frustrating.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:06 pm_______________________________________
Obama looks like a liberal lady venting on The View.
Something about that sentence makes me really laugh. I picture the guy wearing lipstick, eyeliner and a long-hair wig, sitting on the couch, legs crossed, yakking away with Barbara Walters and Whoppi. Our leader in drag just about sums up this particular moment in America’s history.
As for the tactics of his giving in to the Republicans — which I’m certainly not going to hold against him (although his using the analogy of being held hostage illustrates he clings to the mentality of college-aged leftism) — I’m not sure exactly how that will play out in the long run. For instance, in the near future, will enough Democrats/liberals in the Senate and House band together to prevent the agreement from going forward? An agreement that Pelosi, for one, apparently wasn’t made privy to until today? If so, then how will Obama maneuver around both the leftwing and rightwing?
In the long run, any legislation that won’t make the IRS even more of a PITA to many Americans is a good thing. When there already are so many nuisances in the current economy, adding another hurdle is the last thing we (and the president and Congress) need right now.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:09 pmHere’s a great article on the Dems’ position in this
Here are some relevant passages:
This really isn’t a win-win situation for Obama. It’s a lose-lose situation for the Democrats.
Some chump (e84e27) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:11 pmSome Chump, thanks for the link. Sounds like a much more clear version of what I was struggling to say (and more thought out).
What happens if the democrats manage to stall this deal this session? Then, politically, the GOP has an extremely good way to draw the distinction between the parties come January.
They have demonized the job makers, and failed to notice the corner they painted themselves into.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:19 pm____________________________________________
Don’t tell me a few tens of billions were that urgent to the left.
I think this calls for another tribute to one of the great pillars of the Democrat Party, one of the heroes of the left in US history. A former president who occupied the White House during a time America was going through major economic dislocation not necessarily so much worse than today:
____________________________________________
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:28 pmDid he say he had to talk to the experts to know whose ass to kick?
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:33 pmThere’s an argument Obama’s and the recalcitrant Democrats’ attitude toward taxes is the same as their attitude toward health care reform, i.e., they believe moving America farther left is worth whatever it costs individually or collectively. Is there a point where America is pushed so far toward European-style socialism that we can’t untangle ourselves? I think there is.
Barack Obama said he’s willing to be a one-term President if he can do the things he wants to do, and I think enlarging government and spreading wealth via higher taxes is a big part of what he wants to do. If so, agreeing to this would be really hard for him to do.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/7/2010 @ 10:45 pmDRJ, I think you give the man far too much credit for consistency and far sightedness. I think he has spent too much time listening to his own PR flacks.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/7/2010 @ 11:34 pm“Look, he has an angry base to pacify. He is using the best kind of rhetoric to win them over. He is a politician.
Comment by The Emperor — 12/7/2010 @ 9:50 pm ”
Sounds like Arafat, giving different speeches in English and Arabic. I did not find this admirable.
How many layers of lies before it has to be admitted he is a liar, whatever the excuse?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/7/2010 @ 11:44 pmThat Barry is just one classy Dude!
AD-RtR/OS! (1759f4) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:01 amHostage negotiators…
AD-RtR/OS! (1759f4) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:04 amI prefer guys who speak Latin…
well, two words in Latin:
Semper Fi!
“DRJ, So once an American is taken hostage, he is on his own. Tough luck for him. No effort to negotiate.
Comment by The Emperor — 12/7/2010 @ 7:43 pm”
Do you really think the United States government should pay people to kidnap Americans?
I would prefer it be known that kidnapping Americans brings death to the kidnapper and anyone giving them shelter, aid, or support. I would not mind the government spending millions of dollars to make this happen.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:23 amThe emperor wrote:
President Reagan tried that tactic, too: hard-nosed in public, but trading arms for hostages on the down-low. We saw how well that worked.
The hard-hearted Dana (3e4784) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:47 amThe emperor wrote:
And then we had President Carter. Our embassy in Tehran is seized, and dozens of American embassy personnel are taken hostage. Yeah, they all came out alive, but at what cost? Our reputation in tatters, and our enemies emboldened by the weak-willed Yankees.
President Carter should have told the Ayatollah, in no uncertain terms, “Our people will be on a plane, out of Iran, within 72 hours, or they will be considered the honored but unfortunate American casualties in the attack which left Tehran and Qom radioactive black hols in the ground,” and meant it!
Either the Iranians would have complied, and President Carter would have been respected for his strength — and probably re-elected — or he’d have had to carry through his promise, and American resolve would still be respected, with Iran not a problem today.
Either result would have been better than what we got . . . other. of course, than Mr Carter’s early retirement.
The Dana who remembers President Carter, though not fondly (3e4784) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:00 amThe Empty Roar
I won’t respond to every post on this subject, but…
> Aaron I am waiting for you to do a post, praising the President for his bipartisanship on this issue. But i am not gonna hold my breath… This is easier.
I am sorry, but I don’t see how caving to people he didn’t want to cave to, and then sullenly calling them terrorists is bi-partisan on any level. I suppose he would be bi-partisan if he was equally nasty toward his side, or he was graceful toward the republicans. I mean obviously you missed my third point on why this is stupid.
> What you folks fail to admit here is that Obama is smart. Smarter than you would like to admit.
Obama is smart. And he is good at what he is qualified for, which is to be a law professor and a lawyer. But he stinks out loud as an administrator/manager, and he comes off as emotionally immature at times like this.
> I am usually right….
Really? Can you name five controversial things you have said here that turned out to be right? Even one? I can’t recall any time I have disagreed with you, only to be proven right later.
> Look, he has an angry base to pacify. He is using the best kind of rhetoric to win them over. He is a politician.
He has an angry country to pacify, too, mad at him for blowing a hole in the deficit, for destroying any attempt to pull us out the ditch, angry for passing a disastrous health care law we told him not to pass. Maybe the way to pacify his angry base isn’t to piss off everyone else. There are lots of things he could do to make his base happy without being an asshole.
And please don’t tell me there is some kind of political calculus behind this. As I wrote a few months ago:
> there are moments when our president is such a complete jerk, I half-jokingly call him [mostly in private] President Asshole. I think the first time I did was when he compared his bowling skills to that of someone in the special Olympics. Seriously, for the most powerful man in the world to compare to make fun of some of the weakest? That is a straight up asshole move. Presuming to dress down the Supreme Court in the middle of the State of the Union? Another straight up asshole move. Giving the finger to people when he thinks he is being sly? Big time asshole.
This man is quite capable of being an asshole for no good reason at all. Or are you going to tell me that making fun of the handicapped was more evidence of his political savy?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:22 amDana so you are saying that if, God forbid, you or any close family member; maybe your wife or child is kidnapped, your government should not make any effort to negotiate for their release? You are willing to allow them to be murdered just like that? Really?
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:27 amThe Emperor asked the Kitty Dukakis question:
This is why we don’t have people too close to the situation taking those decisions. It’s damned hard to be logical about the situation when it’s your family which is involved. So, no, I’d answer very differently if it was my family, but, considering the good of the country, it would be the wrong answer.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:43 amEmpty
The problem with negotiating with terrorists is that you are rewarding bad behavior. If you reward something, you get more of it. If hostage-taking gets you what you want, then another person might think this is how they can get what THEY want and so on. And its a bad thing not merely because it means that bad guys will get what they want, but because these situations are inherently dangerous.
In letting one hostage die, if it comes to that, you might be saving ten other lives.
Plus there is another problem made plain in this era. Hostage takers often have even more sinister agendas. For instance, they took hostages on 9-11, and assuming it was a regular hijacking we did nothing until they flew three planes into buildings. And a few years back some lunatic took a class hostage. While he was “negotiating” he started raping little girls in the classroom, because the real goal wasn’t to win concessions, but to get to have sex with children. If we took a hard stance and made it clear that any hostage situation would end quickly and violently, those horrific situations become less likely.
As for “what if it was your family” well, that is just it. my logic of trade one life for ten others only works if each life is counted equally, or at least less than the 9 additional people who would have died. But of course you value your loved ones more than 1,000 strangers. So naturally lots of people make exceptions when their loved ones are threatened.
But you want to leverage that into a “let’s negotiate with terrorists” principle, but once you start talking humanity in the aggregate, the people become equal in your eyes again, and your logic falls apart. Twist and turn all you want, but trading 10 lives for one life makes zero logical sense. And you are merely trying to exploit the very natural sense of irrationality we feel toward our loved ones to try to argue for the worst outcome possible–more people being taken hostage, and more people being killed.
That’s the problem with liberals, in fact. They see only the person suffering in front of them and think nothing of the consequences of their short-sighted compassion. Whether you are talking about welfare which kept the poor in poverty, unemployment benefits which INCREASES unemployment, or “universal” health care which will universally degrade our healthcare, liberals regularly harm the many in the quest to save the few that are visibly suffering right in front of them. They typically mean well, but one’s compassion must be tempered with logic.
Getting ten people killed to save one person is just not logical.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:48 am“Of course, the real problem is that he thinks of American citizens who oppose his views as terrorists.”
No he doesn’t DRJ. Relax. This rhetoric is no different that plenty of the rhetoric coming out of the Republican/Conservative/Bush Admin. team when GWB was in office. It’s all politics.
Tax cuts aren’t going to save the economy either. Not this time. It worked for Regan coz people went from paying 80% to paying 40%.
In case you all weren’t paying attention this country just had a great big party, now it’s time to pay for the room and nobody wants to pay. Predictably the people who really really don’t want to pay are the people who benefited most from our big party.
The Republicans really want them though coz the economy will continue to slowly creep back. There is still a little growth out there so if there is a recovery in 2 years WITHOUT tax cuts for the rich, then that is one more strike against that Republican darling “trickle down” economics. Tax cuts for the middle class work, tax cuts for the wealthy don’t (unless they are Reaganesque of course). If the Reps can get those tax cuts for the wealthy in then, if the economy recovers as it always would have, they can say “see! see! tax cuts for the wealthy work! out trickle down theory is right!
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:02 amWell the stark reality is that people are still being kidnapped and held hostage and back ground efforts are still being made to negotiate a compromise.. In spite of the policy never to negotiate with terrorists, kidnapping is still going on and negotiating is done to seek a peaceful resolution where lives are not lost.. Needlessly. I think the policy should be more focused on preventing these kidnappings instead some idealistic policy that those not agree with reality. And this is not a liberal point of view. It’s human. I understand that we should not negotiate with terrorists. But in practice, it is not that easy.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:04 amEdwood
To say that Republicans are terrorists is unwashable
Tax cuts is the only way to restore an economy that is overspending the only way to stop overspending is to cut off revenue
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:08 amRecall though how the ‘arms for hostages’ came about, Operation Staunch, the interdiction effort toward Iran, was going badly, Mugniyeh, Hezbollah’s operations chief the virtual puppet of the Iranians, had kidnapped every asset off the street, after bombing American diplomatic facilities, at least three times. Ghorbanifar, a longtime agency contact, offered them a link with those ‘moderates’ in the Iranian govt, that the CIA insisted were there. Now at the end of that chain, was Mussavi, the one who had ordered the development of the MOIS, and the godfather of Hezbollah, (yes that Mussavi) by having hand picked Mohashtemi-pur for the embassy in Damascus. Bob Baer found this out years later, but he didn’t even include the former in his memoir of the time, only that another figure,
narciso (6075d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:13 amNezhi -Neshad, in the negotiations, also had terrorist ties. So it’s too simplistic to say
that negotiating with terrorists was the objective
Comment by JD — 12/7/2010 @ 8:06 pm
I have to ask: Does there mere presence of someone signaling that they want to negotiate in response to another party advocating a position indicate that the first person is caving? Specifically, does Obama signaling that he wants to negotiate mean he’s caving.
If you think so, then you seem to be the sort of person who wonders why he gets rolled all the time.
Brad S (9f6740) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:13 amEdWood – Don’t you mean two more years without tax increases rather than tax cuts. All the agreement does is preserve the status quo. Middle income voters received larger percentage tax cuts from Bush than higher income taxpayers. Bush knocked something like another 6% of the population off the tax rolls. Higher income taxpayers received higher dollar tax savings because they pay higher taxes in absolute dollar terms.
If the top 10% of taxpayers already pay 70% of income taxes, well in excess of their share of income, what is their “fair” share of taxes you feel they should pay to end this party? Give me a number Ed.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:18 amThe Empty Roar
> In spite of the policy never to negotiate with terrorists, kidnapping is still going on and negotiating is done
In other words, people do negotiate and you pretend it is shocking that kidnapping still goes on. Or so you say.
And of course you don’t ask the question: how much worse would it be, if we as a nation negotiated with terrorists. So again, its shallow compassion.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:24 amPaying off the Somali pirates has worked swimmingly. Oh sorry, “pirate” has such a negative connotation, sea faring toll collectors.
jfap (84eedd) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:25 amInternationally, Obama intended to sit down with North Korea and Iran. Those efforts have been big busts. His Israeli/Palestinian negotiating efforts have set back peace efforts rather than advancing them. Norway is thinking of asking for the Nobel back.
From his famous “I Won” no negotiating stance with Republicans on the Porkulous Bill to his electoral refudiatiation, he is now whining about backing off a pure progressive class warfare strategy which he acknowledges would harm the country by attempting to blame the Republicans as the bad guys, terrorists even. If his strategy was bad for the country it is pitiful that he doesn’t even have the testicular fortitude to admit it and has to find someone on which to pin blame.
What a gutless hack.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:35 amAaron I think what you are failing to ask is what does the kidnapper want? Is it something that can be done? Can we get them to consider our stance? Negotiation is a tough job. With good negotiation, bad things can be averted and lives saved. You only resort to force when negotiation fails. But negotiate first. I know you agree with me.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:36 amThe Empty Roar
> I know you agree with me.
In the sense that i told you specifically I do not?
But no, explain to me how your approach doesn’t lead to even more people being taken hostage.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:42 amThe Emperor – So are you saying that between January 2009 and the midterms, Obama had kidnapped the nation, but he had no reason to negotiate?
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:44 amBrad S – go ahead and high five Team R for this. I do not have to, and will not.
Daley – ed Wood is just faithfully pushing the Leftist narrative. The taxcut gibberish when the status quo is being maintained says it all. It would be interesting to see them lay out exactly how much the evil rich do not deserve of their money, and how much you have to make before you start paying income taxes.
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:49 amJD
Apparently there is no extension of unemployment benies – it was a closing of deniable for the 99 week loopholes that most applicants were already getting around to get the 99 weeks
according to ed at Hotair on info from a reader
EricPWJohnson (e83e82) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:56 amYes, let’s continue to negotiate with Iran(biggest sponsor of worldwide terror) until they create a nuclear arsonel which they will use to extort the world. When do you feel the time for negotiation is over, E?
jfap (45a560) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:56 amsorry deniable = deniable eligibility
EricPWJohnson (e83e82) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:57 amHey, look! Yyyyyyyyyyet another post at Protein Wisdom snarkily referring to Obama as a Good Man!
Please remember: it is not obsessive for them to do this, continually, for more than two years — but it is obsessive for me to note, occasionally, the fact that they do.
Patterico (c218bd) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:57 amJD
This is why the core of entitlements dont work
Social Security, welfare, public education and the list goes on and on and on
EricPWJohnson (e83e82) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:58 amMy memory is a bit faulty at my age, but I don’t recall President Bush ever saying the Democrats were out to harm the American people. Maybe you can find one example, since you claim such rhetoric was plentiful.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:04 amSome chump – it will be amusing to see what examples they come up with. It will likely follow the Sen. Horseface Kerry model where substantive disagreement is met with “don’t question ny patriotism!”
JD (5017e3) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:15 amI just read a sampling of the morning round of lefty blogs and columnists. Apparently it is no longer considered racist to criticize the president’s decisions or to judge the man’s competence as a leader. As ugly as the intra-family screeching is, this is actually a great step forward for our country’s emotional health and for ongoing political discourse in general, IMO.
elissa (d8d2f1) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:18 amOh, how naive can you be, Elissa. 😉 It is still racist for anyone that is not a leftist to disagree with Teh One.
JD (5017e3) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:22 amYou mean this thread;
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=23368#comments
You were naive, you had some inkling of how bad it could be, but hoped for the best. One could not imagine that all the tripwires that would prevent such a character from reaching the top post, could be circumvented, from the media; through the journolist, to the campaign finance system. Many of us, did. Now the lesson to take from this particularly with the experience with the Times, is to not accept such memes again, from a poisoned well like Huff Po, TPM, et al
narciso (6075d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:50 amdaley you got me confused there. How can the hostage taker also be the one wanting to negotiate? And was Obama referring to himself in this case as the hostage taker?
The Emperor (fdc9d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:27 amEdWood, that you ignore that the Democrats want almost all of the tax “cuts” you blame on Republicans shows that you are not a serious person.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:28 amwell as we speak, negotiation is going on around the world. That is why we have diplomats. Iran. North Korea. You give something to get something. It is what smart people do. Telling the hostage taker to go f*ck himself is easy. Any idiot can do that. But negotiation takes hard work and skill. It is the best way to avoid conflicts and unnecessary loss of lives. Not to talk of wars.
The Emperor (fdc9d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:36 amObama has now reached a new low–claiming that Republicans are hostage-takers. I guess he forgot that he’s the President of the entire country, and not just the liberals on each coast.
I must be a terrible thing to believe in your own press, only to wake up one day and find out that they’ve turned on you.
As someone who lives in Illinois, I know what it’s like to be a hostage to bad government, and it’s not eh Republicans who are holding this state hostage.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:53 amjfap wrote:
Ask Presidents Jefferson and Madison about this. Or the United States Marine Corps; do you recall to what the “shores of Tripoli” refers?
The historian Dana (3e4784) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:58 amjfap. When do i think the time of negotiation is over? Hostage taking is like someone holding you on your groin, with a knife pointed to cut it off. You agree to his demands you save your junk. You tell him to fuck off, he takes away your manhood. So when does negotiation end? You tell me.
The Emperor (fdc9d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:27 amYou lie, edwood.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:38 amOh, and Obama is the US President, so compare him directly to George W Bush. Not some hyper hyphenated group of people.
Obviously the right has its nutcase blohards… just look at this one guy who apparently finds this ‘Think of your president as a good man I disagree with’ lesson to be the most offensive thing he’s ever heard, worthy of tens of thousands of comments and years of obsession.
But obviously that guy isn’t presidential or even sane. I doubt someone who is that sensitive has ever held a job for more than a year. But what happens when someone that angry and sensitive becomes the President of the United States? The president is supposed to be an adult.
Obama can’t handle the give and take. He can’t abide by elections that rebuke his agenda. Or at least, he can’t do so without making these ridiculous displays of emotion that signal he is a complete jerk.
Did W compare Pelosi to a terrorist? Of course not. If he did, he would not be presidential.
It’s only going to get worse for Obama, as his failed policies are actually corrected by a hostile legislature, and his many mistakes are investigated.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:49 amI sure do, Dana. I didn’t think I needed the sarc tag. Emptyhead has obviously never read “The Art of War.” Waiting until your opponent acquires the means to prolong a battle is foolish. That’s why the UN’s bs about disproportionate force is ridiculous. It just causes more suffering for a longer period.
jfap (1c55ae) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:49 amThat’s a good point, jfap.
If Obama caved instantly for tactical reasons, that would actually be sensible. Aside from his completely pointless rhetoric that Aaron Worthing correctly puts in a category with a lot of dumb remarks that will make Obama’s life more difficult.
One emerging issue for him is calling House investigations partisan demonization. So why is he the first and worst example of that? He should be acting presidential.
Republicans shouldn’t lament. We have taken some ground and can press for more. It is critical that we make these tax cuts permanent, and that we cut spending seriously.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:02 amEric at 135. I heard Obama’s statement and he never used the word “terrorist”. You are using that word. The Prez is stating that the Reps are hostage takers coz (supposedly) they won’t consider any other legislation unless they get their way on the Bush tax cuts.
It’s all political posturing and rhetoric. It’s a negotiation tactic which has been used by Reps as well which is why I’m not impressed by all the overinflated, put words in peoples mouths “outrage” being posted on this topic because it’s just so predictable.
Look, if the Dems could do it they would give the wealthiest 1% those tax cuts too, to keep those campaign contributions coming in. But that isn’t their professed base. Since they are the party of “the people” they will have to vow to fight Obama and be angry at his “Republican” deal etc. etc. and then try blame the whole thing on the Republicans when they, the fightin’ Dems, cave in to the same lobbyists working on Boehner and crew.
The problem for them is that the victim card isn’t going to work for them anymore, and when they cave in their base is going to look (even more?)like weak weenies as will the Prez.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:38 amDustin at 161.
Sorry Dustin but I do not. Surf around a bit. Extreme rhetoric is not a thing of “lib” politicians.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:40 amThen, Ed, you should be able to quote for us President Bush using comparable language about Democrats.
JD (6e25b4) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:52 am?
For Bush calling democrats hostage takers, merely for having a different taxation agenda?
You’re lying. I’ve called you out directly and you have now failed to defend yourself.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:54 amYou made the claim, you back it up. Show us an instance where President Bush said the Democrats intended to harm the American people, or compared Dems to terrorists.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:09 amObama is a hostage taker. I hope he fails.
The Emperor (ac4552) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:14 amCan you imagine if President Bush had said that about Obama?
Granted, this is drastically tamer than Obama’s comments, but even this is completely unrealistic.
Emperor is actually admitting my point, if he’s saying Obama is as Presidential as Rush Limbaugh. I agree.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:15 amThis is about doing whats best for the country, under the present circumstances.
Adding nearly $1 trillion to the federal deficit over two years (when last fiscal year’s deficit alone was $1.6 trillion) is what’s best for the country?
The very thing that was supposed to “stimulate” job creation, the payroll tax cut, doesn’t even apply to employers, who actually provide the jobs.
Here’s the basic problem–the government has never taken in more than 20% of GDP in tax revenue ever since the 16th Amendment was passed. The current annual deficit is about 10-12% of GDP, which has effectively negated any possible benefits that might have come from Obama’s stimulus. Only in a country where basic math has fallen by the wayside would these clowns in the government be able to get away with pushing the line that this bill helps the economy.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:38 amWhat it does is try to kick the can down the road until the 2012 elections–that’s all.
EdWood,
I can’t find the inflammatory rhetoric you ascribe to President Bush. The sternest rhetoric I could find was in 2007 when the Boston Herald claimed Bush “lambasted” the Democratic Congress for delaying the budget and almost forcing a government shutdown:
Do you really equate that with calling Republicans hostage-takers?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:14 pmAnother Chris – I think the idea isn’t to stimulate job creation, but to stimulate spending, because spending will increase demand for goods/services which will increase demand for labor to help produce them.
The difficulty is that – look, I’m not going to spend the 2% I get from a payroll tax holiday. I’m going to save it, because I want a cushion if I lose my job.
My guess is that everyone who can do that will.
Which makes this kind of stimulus unhelpful.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:17 pmI was with you up to that point.
Actually, people having a little savings isn’t such a bad thing for the economy, or for them spending money over the long term. I agree, it’s not like we’ll see tax cuts lead straight to purchases and it’s not like we’ll see profits lead straight to jobs.
Of course, we’re not talking about cutting your taxed, but rather not hiking them. Many people will spend less if they are taxed more, which will lead to job destruction, and probably much more quickly than the converse you’re discussing.
I think long term recovery requires much more stability in how employers can plan for hiring, which is helped a lot if the federal government spends sustainably.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:24 pmDustin: unhelpful in triggering job growth, at the very least.
People saving is a good thing for them. But it doesn’t cause employers to believe that hiring more people would improve their bottom line – because it doesn’t stimulate demand.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:26 pmAlso: your argument about people stopping spending is essentially why democrats are on board with extending the reductions for incomes below $250K; the idea is that in general, people making less than $250K spend a greater percentage of their income than people making above $250K, so raising taxes on the former group is certain to cause a reduction in spending, while raising taxes on the latter group isn’t certain to do so.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:29 pmThe payroll deduction reduction or rebate method has been shown to be a failure by studies of the 2008 and 2009 stimulus efforts. Of those surveyed only a small fraction told the poller that they would spend the tax rebates.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:32 pmSaving is helpful if it frees up capital for banks to loan to businesses, but businesses are afraid to borrow plus increased government regulations and interference in the banking industry has effectively halted that, too.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:33 pm“People saving is a good thing for them. But it doesn’t cause employers to believe that hiring more people would improve their bottom line – because it doesn’t stimulate demand.”
Directly, that sounds reasonable.
But I think the results of low savings (foreclosures, defaults, fewer great purchases like houses and cars that need down payments) are quite bad for employers generally. I think savings and demand are not neatly correlated, but they are correlated in a way. And it’s our money.
If you’re admitting that people will save more money (and this means paying off credit cards for many Americans), then I think you’re admitting these tax cuts will have a great benefit to our economy over the long term. I don’t want thousands more foreclosures or defaults.
Some analysts are saying the payroll deduction cut will have a more instant impact on demand for purchases, though I wish it led to savings instead because I think that’s the key to a long term stable and thriving economy.
And it’s our money anyway. The federal government spends too much… they don’t have a revenue problem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:33 pmWell, SPQR seems more informed on this than I am. Though I’m not upset if people save their money. People don’t save enough, and this is a better place for their money than another stimulus.
The whole mess is a fiasco these days. Cutting taxes may not lead to jobs instantly and 1:1 per dollar, but it’s a sight better than the stimulus we’ve been trying for a few years. The real problem is that we’re not cutting taxes so much as maintaining them (aside from few places)
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:36 pmDustin: my fear is that by encouraging savings without giving businesses faith that they can expand and make money, we stay stuck at 10-12% unemployment for the next decade or longer.
Providing more capital to loan out? Well, if businesses see no upside to borrowing, then why would they? The capital will just get used to underwrite growth elsewhere. Which doesn’t get the American unemployed back to work.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:43 pm“but I don’t recall President Bush ever saying the Democrats were out to harm the American people”
Some Chump- Obama didn’t say the Reps were out to harm anyone, he said they were holding the middle class hostage.
GWB didn’t need to make any similar statements about Dems (or their implied natural allies, the “liberals”) coz he had so many other people to do it for him.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:44 pmNow, that said: the current situation is something that took a long time to develop – we’ve been shifting to a debt-based economy for decades. It’s irrational to expect it to be fixed in one year, or perhaps even in five.
But I do wonder what happens to the 10% who have no job when the unemployment benefits run out, and I do wonder how our national psyche is changed by going a decade with double-digit unemployment.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:45 pmEd – Do you admit that you were wrong wrong wrong in trying to claim that Bush said anything remotely comparable to what Barcky has said about his political opposition?
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:53 pmNo, his words (from above) were:
Not the middle class, as you claim, but THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The entire country. Do you not know what words mean, or are you just lying?
In other words, you can’t find any quotes where Bush accused the Democrats of wanting to harm the American people. So, your claim is false.
Thanks for playing.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:54 pmAgreed that we ain’t gonna solve this problem quickly. I am also worried about the long term consequences for our nation. I worry we could slip into an intractable dependency on a government that can’t sustain itself.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:56 pmSome Chump seems to have Ed handled.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:56 pmAnother Chris #172 – Yep. Let Prez. Palin or maybe Prez. Perry deal with it.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:59 pmConservatives are enemies of the American people, and wish to cause them harm.
JD (306f5d) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:59 pmWell some Chump ya got me on the quote. Here is the quote I heard from the Prez. and I incorrectly lumped the two. Aaron’s quote cited above is meaner
“So let me be clear to [House Republican Leader John] Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer,”
Here is a source for that quote.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015870-503544.html
However this is what I said in my statement that people are taking exception to
“his rhetoric is no different that plenty of the rhetoric coming out of the Republican/Conservative/Bush Admin. team when GWB was in office.”
If you can find the words where I said that President Bush (Bush Admin is not President Bush)
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:11 pmsaid something similarly mean about Democrats then I’ll give you a cracker.
Dustin: at that level, I worry that large-scale long-term unemployment combined with no real resources for people once their UI benefits run out, is a recipe for mass violence and political instability.
We’re not there today. But five years from now, if things don’t get better?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:11 pmConservatives are enemies of the American people, and wish to cause them harm.
Comment by JD — 12/8/2010 @ 12:59 pm
Nothing at all new in the rhetoric itself. It’s the venue that’s, well, unprecendented. But then we’ve never had a far-left,thin-skinned, community organizer narcissist before in the White House.
I still believe this man does not want a second term. And I’m truly afraid for his health – about five sources yesterday talked about how horrible he looked at the presser yesterday, and you know he’s smoking like three packs a day these days what with the lack of unwind-with-golf days lately.
no one you know (325a59) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:16 pm
no one you know (325a59) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:17 pmunprecendented*sigh*A lot of little ingredients for something horrible.
The nation loves her military (as she should) and absolutely cannot stand her congress. Not too hot on her presidents lately. And the latest one is annoying in his willingness to demonize.
I have faith in my country, but we could be in for a rocky future.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:24 pmEdWood,
Why not compare apples to apples? Surely we can find some Republicans publicly saying things that are crude or mean; likewise some Democrats. Presidents are supposed to be above that. This one isn’t.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:24 pmPathetic
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:34 pmOh I suppose you are right DRJ. You have the most amazing knack of putting things in just the right way.
On the other hand….. here is a statement by that commie cryptofacist constitution wrecker F.D.R. accusing Republicans of being Evil Wicked Witches of the West!!!!
“These Republican leaders are not content with attacks on me or on my wife or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog Fala.”
Hey! He was a Democrat too!!!!
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:03 pmThat’s the best you’ve got, Edwood?
FDR put people in concentration camps too. He considered packing the Court and he did run for office beyond the 2 term tradition already over a century old.
He’s your example?
You were supposed to find an example of Bush’s comments. Otherwise, you fail. Obama is not any more presidential than Rush Limbaugh. He’s a joke.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:11 pmHostage takers.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:47 pmGasp! Bush calls Democrats “Obstructionist” and party of “cut and run”
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:57 pmRead for yourself: “Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing,” Bush said. He said the Democratic Party – the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman – has become the “party of cut-and-run.” . Is he trying to say that his fellow Americans are obstructionists to the war on terror? Did he mean that his fellow Americans are supporters of enemies and haters of America? Very unpresidential.. A little bit of whining too.. I am really disappointed in him…
Ed’s Woody just got deflated. Poor Eddy.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:59 pmThat is pretty weak sauce, chimperor. In fact, not even in the ballpark of calling people enemies of America, and wanting to cause harm to the American people.
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:01 pmIt gets worse…
Bush blames Democrats, his fellow Americans for high gasoline costs pinching Americans’ budget.
President Bush is accusing Democrats in Congress of blocking his energy proposals, saying they are partly to blame for high gasoline costs pinching Americans’ budgets.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:06 pmSo he is saying that Democrats, his fellow Americans hate Americans so much that they would like to inflict more sufferings on them? How can he say that?! That is so unpresidential.. (shaking my head..)
Chimperor aka lovie is in full-on idiot mode now.
JD (d48c3b) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:11 pmPresident Bush is accusing Democrats in Congress of blocking his energy proposals, saying they are partly to blame for high gasoline costs pinching Americans’ budgets.
It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.
LOL
no one you know (325a59) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:11 pmNo it isn’t. It was a perfectly reasonable way to discuss policy consequences.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:13 pm@JD
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:14 pmGood.. Nice it came out of your own mouth. That is just how idiotic your false rage over this recent comment looks. Full-on idiotic! People say things they don’t really mean. How you choose to read it determines who you are.
So now lovie is claiming that The One really did not mean it, he has just repeated it, and others have followed suit. But he really did not mean it, because lovie said so.
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:20 pmPeople say things they don’t really mean. How you choose to read it determines who you are.
Comment by The Emperor — 12/8/2010 @ 3:14 pm
This is a nonsequitur but let’s unpack it anyway.
1. Are you saying the President of the United States compared Republicans to terrorists (hostage takers) but didn’t really mean it? (I can hardly wait to discuss your answer to this.)
2. There’s no real “choosing how to read it.” I gave you an example above showing you that the comparison isn’t a matter of opinion. He in fact compared Republicans who opposed his tax policy to terrorists. It wasn’t ambiguous at all.
no one you know (325a59) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:20 pmLOL, noyk.. The only thing there is that he does not specifically call the Republicans the hostage takers. But nice try.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:23 pmI love this sneering. I take Obama at his word. He really meant to convey the idea that he was forced to do something horrible because he hates those who just won the election so much.
Emperor disagrees, instantly leaping to ‘he’s lying’. he sneers and hems that this is the real world and how normal people act, and I’m naive, and has been obsessed with this point for at least 12 hours now.
He’s right… our different takes on a man’s word says a lot about who we are. It wouldn’t occur to me to attempt to deceive in the confused and pointless way Emperor suggests Obama is (apparently in order to shore up the base this move also infuriates). But Emperor can’t see it any other way.
Emperor: you’re delusional and naive. Obama meant what he said because he’s overwhelmed and pathetic. The evidence in support of this is overwhelming, and many predicted he’d be exactly like this.
If he is instead demonizing most of the country (yes, most) with lies, then it’s much worse than we thought. But I think you’re just a paranoid silly old kook.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:25 pmI think the idea isn’t to stimulate job creation, but to stimulate spending, because spending will increase demand for goods/services which will increase demand for labor to help produce them.
It’s basically the same concept–the idea is that if people buy more stuff from Best Buy and Target, that will subsequently increase demand for jobs. It’s circular logic and not backed up at all by reality, but it’s the line Bernanke is pushing, so that’s what they are running with.
Yep. Let Prez. Palin or maybe Prez. Perry deal with it.
Wow–you’re already predicting Obama’s not going to be re-elected in 2012? I hardly believe it to be a coincidence that Obama has been trying to molify his base with the argument that the Bush tax rates will only last another two years.
The payroll deduction reduction or rebate method has been shown to be a failure by studies of the 2008 and 2009 stimulus efforts. Of those surveyed only a small fraction told the poller that they would spend the tax rebates.
That’s the real rub right there. Congress and both the current and past administrations have crafted their economic policy on the idea that downturns have been an issue of liquidity rather than over-leveraging. They’ve basically ignored the massive run-up in credit creation over the last 35+ years that’s resulted in a 350% debt-to-GDP ratio across all economic sectors.
The media isn’t helping this at all, either–they were crowing yesterday about non-revolving credit going up, when the reality is that all that growth was due to student loan debt going up by $31 billion. Revolving credit went down for the 26th straight month.
People are flat broke, are over-leveraged, and simply cannot save the economy by spending the country out of this depression. And yet our Ivy League-educated leaders in DC, who have been pushing Americans to do just that, can’t figure out for the life of them why the economy and unemployment isn’t recovering.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:31 pmDont think I got anything out of what you said, Dustin. Did you just call me a hostage taker?
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:34 pm‘nice try’?
Bush pointed to specific consequences to specific policies. He wasn’t making a crazy metaphor about any kind of horrible villain. and he wasn’t showing a ridiculous lack of perspective.
You’re out of your mind with your worship of Obama, the guy you praise as a liar.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:37 pmNope. Obama called me one. He’s a crappy excuse for a president. Best defense you’ve got is that he’s a liar, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:38 pm@Dustin. Don’t be silly. I am not worshiping anybody. It’s typical of you to resort to false projections as a way of winning an argument. I worship only God, through His Son, Jesus Christ. Our soon coming King. Obama is just a politician that happens to be President now. I am inclined to support and wish him well. Just like I supported Bush. That is what my faith teaches.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:43 pm? What false projection? How do I typify it?
I’m thinking back to how you said how we take Obama’s comment says a lot about us. You said he was obviously lying because this is how people handle politics. And now you’re saying things about me that aren’t true and appear to be extremely nasty personal attacks.
Are you lying the way you assume everyone else lies?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:47 pmIt’s circular logic and not backed up at all by reality
I don’t agree. 🙂
Businesses hire people when they think they can make money by doing so. Which is to say – when they think that the cost of hiring someone is less than the added income having the person will produce.
If there’s no reason to expect growth in demand for the goods and services of a business, the business would be foolish to hire new people.
So: how do you get businesspeople to believe there will be growth in demand for goods and services?
Like a lot of economic problems, it’s actually a psychological problem: fear of bad economic times helps to create bad economic times, just like overexuberant belief in good economic times helps to create good economic times.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:47 pmhow do you tell the difference between a Republican and a scary scary terrorist?
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:49 pmbtw, just insulting people is not a good argument, emperor.
you may think it’s an hilarious little troll, but you and ed’s fumbling to explain this comment, and then struggling to find something similar to compare it to, has been a complete failure. After so much effort on your part, for your hero, Obama, you actually bolstered the argument that Bush was much more presidential.
History is already remembering that.
Go ahead and insult me some more, if that makes you feel better about letting your little hero Obama down.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:50 pmhah! Trick question!
YOU CAN’T!!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:50 pmDustin you are steppin’ on mah flow
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:50 pm@Dustin.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:53 pmWhy would you say I am worshiping Obama? Because I don’t agree with you? I take exceptions to people insulting my faith. Say any other thing you like, but not use the word worship. That word is reserved for my faith in God. Who the hell is Obama? Does he pay my bills? I have no dog in this fight. Just exercising ourselves mentally on different view points. You don’t have to get personal.
I saw that. My bad. But then again, I am a terrorist who takes hostages and even has a pickup truck.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:55 pmLOL!!! Yea.. Terrorists!
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:02 pmP-A syndrome strikes the Emperor once again.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:05 pmLOL, noyk.. The only thing there is that he does not specifically call the Republicans the hostage takers. But nice try.
Comment by The Emperor — 12/8/2010 @ 3:23 pm
The Emperor,
You said that before, and several people called you out on that (let’s face it) ridiculous dodge, including me last night.
The reason I know you don’t even believe that dodge yourself is that you said just a bit ago about his comparison:
People say things they don’t really mean. How you choose to read it determines who you are.
Comment by The Emperor
That means you thought he made that inexcusable comparison, since you today claim he might not have meant it.
Since you contradict yourself so completely, and repeat dodges already answered, I conclude you’re simply playing games and won’t be conversing with you on this thread anymore. Good night, The Emperor.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:12 pmHe’s a crappy excuse for a president. Best defense you’ve got is that he’s a liar, too.
Comment by Dustin — 12/8/2010 @ 3:38 pm
Well said, Dustin. How I wish he’d resign before 2012 but he’s too proud to, IMO. 2012’s easier for him to find some face-saving excuse not to run again. I think.
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:15 pmnoyk’s right. Emperor knows he’s wrong and just wants to play a game. I guess his hero, Obama, told him to get in our faces, punch us twice as hard, etc, and he’s being a good little troll Obama soldier.
A lot of people listened to Obama’s hate and actually decided to support that. That’s why it’s important we elect presidential leaders. Too many weak minded kids could follow a leader like Obama to a very dark place.
Many of us knew what Obama was all about when we learned what his religious views were (the CIA invented AIDS, America is horrible, 9/11 was justified). I wish he was a Muslim.
I guess emperor is a good example of what happens when someone attempts to rationalize this crap.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:20 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
narciso (6075d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:27 pmnarciso, great video.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:32 pm“Conservatives are enemies of the American people, and wish to cause them harm.
Comment by JD — 12/8/2010 @ 12:59 pm”
JD – Keep your eyes on those bible thumpin’, gun totin’, right-wing militias.
Paging David Niewert.
Paging the SPLC.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:39 pm“How I wish he’d resign before 2012 but he’s too proud to, IMO. 2012′s easier for him to find some face-saving excuse not to run again. I think.”
noyk – We may get lucky with some of the investigations next year and find some impeachable offenses. Definitely a possibility with all the crap he and his people have pulled.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:41 pm@noyk.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:48 pmFor your info, noyk, I was referring to Bush. My point being that people say things they don’t mean and even if Obama in his statement really did call you guys hostage taking terrorists, which he didn’t, you were merely projecting that he did, it should not be a big issue. We all misspeak. I misspeak too.
Dustin 199 My FDR example was a joke ya meat-head.
A little less coffee dood.
I really was agreeing with DRJ. Somehow I seem to do that a lot. Maybe it’s coz she’s from Texas too.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:01 pmMy mistake, Ed. Yes, FDR’s excesses resemble Obama’s sometimes. They are similar in a lot of ways.
You should work a little harder on writing clearly.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:05 pm“…I misspeak too.”
That might be the only truthful thing you’ve ever said!
AD-RtR/OS! (a6afdf) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:05 pmAnother Chris 213. AC is the only commenter on this thread who is making any real sense. Coz AC knows that all O’s desperate rhetoric and the Reps faux shock is all political theatre
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:07 pmBusinesses hire people when they think they can make money by doing so. Which is to say – when they think that the cost of hiring someone is less than the added income having the person will produce.
That’s not really the same thing, unless you’re talking about a sales position. Your average department store/BigBox grunt (which is where they are hoping most of these jobs are going to ultimately center around) isn’t going to substantively add to the store’s income unless they happen to be really good at talking people into buying high-ticket items.
Unless the customer demand is already in place, most businesses will not hire people just because they think those employees will “make them money,” particularly in a country where the average salary (not counting benefits) is $50K a year. There has to be a signficant increase in customer traffic already in place to justify the hiring, so that the business can meet the demand. If a business owner is going to sink money into their business, it’s typically going to be in offering a greater amount of goods or services first in order to draw in a greater number of customers, and then hire employess to handle the increased business, not the other way around. What’s the point of hiring an employee if the demand isn’t there to begin with? You’re just going to have to lay them off in a few weeks or months anyway.
And in an economy where people are leveraged to the gills with debt, trying to stimulate hiring by encouraging people to put themselves even further into debt is just plain dumb.
Another Chris (2e9afa) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:16 pmAD, I was taught never to insult my seniors. I intend to keep to it. Let me be very clear on that.
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:21 pmYes Edwood is on point; faux shock indeed. Accurate.
Another Chris – I think of what you describe as demand pull hiring. The sales force analogy works if you are entering a new territory or trying to penetrate an existing one more thoroughly. Obama and his people just don’t get it. That’s why the tax credit for hiring they instituted was such a joke.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:24 pmHas lovie provided anything to suggest Teh One misspoke? He called us enemies before, and hostage takers or kidnappers this time. He offered no apologies. He did not retract his statements. Yet, lovie claims he did not mean what he clearly stated.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:28 pmJD – Lovey is just spitballing.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:30 pmnoyk – We may get lucky with some of the investigations next year and find some impeachable offenses. Definitely a possibility with all the crap he and his people have pulled.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/8/2010 @ 4:41 pm
Yep, daleyrocks. Plus, with all the stuff he and his administration have pulled even with the press, added to the fact that he seems incapable of not doubling down on mistakes, am hoping some members of the MSM are going to be disgusted enough that they won’t look away when an Andrew Breitbart type gets done publishing an investigation of, say, all those campaign-website-donation frauds.
Or pick one of 20 other investigatable things he’s pulled or overseen.
Speaking of which, wonder how that Pigford exposé is going? *clicks over to Big Government*
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:37 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Comment by narciso — 12/8/2010 @ 4:27 pm
Perfect. LOL
no one you know (72db9b) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:38 pmAnother Chris – I think of what you describe as demand pull hiring. The sales force analogy works if you are entering a new territory or trying to penetrate an existing one more thoroughly.
Here’s a real-world example. Wal-Mart is planning on putting up a new supercenter in the little municipality of Lakeside, CO (seriously, little as in 19 people are part of the “city”), on the site where the old Lakeside Mall used to be. That store will probably add about 2-300 jobs, but it’s mainly because there was already a hole where the market used to be. Wal-Mart is just filling that hole.
Another Chris (2e9afa) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:45 pmI didn’t know you were a Texan, Ed. When are you coming home?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:45 pmEvery other Christmas and for a week every summer DRJ and I love every minute of it. Most of my extended family is there. I’m not ashamed to say that I’m an unrepentant Texas nationalist even though my job keeps me in Alabama.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:25 pmDRJ – Can I be an honorary Texan?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:29 pmThat’s so nice, Ed. If you can’t be here in the flesh, at least you’re here in spirit.
And if it’s up to me, JD, I’d gladly make you an honorary Texan.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:18 pmI am honored.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:45 pmThe comparison to kidnappers is bad enough by itself. But not all kidnappers are terrorists. Most are just criminals and thugs. He didn’t directly compare Republicans to terrorists, and it’s sloppy to claim he did.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:53 pmWe are also his enemies, Aaron. And we want to cause harm to the American people.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:56 pmHe said they were holding people hostage for demands.
And he called the hostage the American people.
Yeah, in modern times, that kind of behavior would be called terrorism.
No, not all kidnappers are terrorists. You’re right it’s bad enough either way, but I think AW’s summary is perfectly fair. We just have a different tax policy in mind than Obama does and he’s going off the rails here. We don’t have to constrain our interpretation of his comments beyond what’s reasonable. The terrorism interpretation is quite reasonable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:01 pmAaron – Do you prefer pirates?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:29 pmI have been taken hostage here by all these hostage taking takers..
The Emperor (d61748) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:25 pm