The Awesome Obama Thread II

Did you have thoughts on Message 153, Buz?

Crashfrog notes: Wow - this is exactly the analogy I've been thinking about. Bush drove the car off the road into the swampy muck on the right. To get out of the muck, sometimes you have to back out a step and turn the wheel.Edited by xongsmith, : been

Yes I do. One size fits all as per my Message 162. The cooked book government stats, cited in your message, were concocted by the liar in chief's regime, deceiving the sheeple .For example the labor stats do not apply to all unemployed. They apply only to the unemployed actively seeking employment. . The ones on 99 month unemployment benefit bailout and those who enjoy the leisure life of the regime's taxpayer funded freebies have no interested in seeking employment.The employed consist significantly of government mandated union jobs. This is so the lying briber in chief will be voted for by union workers so as to keep their higher than average high paying government jobs. LoL, unbribed non-union seekers of work need not apply.

So any evidence or sources for these bizarre ramblings? Anything?

No, they're not "cooked" nor is there any Obama administration involvement in their collection.And it's all very well for you to sweepingly dismiss all contrary evidence with a conspiracy theory but that only leaves us knowing nothing at all. Where's your evidence of inflation? Any evidence of inflation? That's what the post was about, as you'll recall. Well, sure. We don't typically consider it a crisis when two-year-olds and retirees aren't in full-time jobs. Well, Newt Gingrich does. Well, that's 100% wrong. People drawing on unemployment benefits are always classified as "unemployed, looking for work" because you have to demonstrate "looking for work" activity to draw benefits. No, in fact, they don't. The employed consist primarily of people employed by businesses smaller than 500 employees. And during the entire Obama administration, public-sector employment has decreased as states run into budget crunches and have to shed police officers and teachers to make ends meet.Wrong as usual, Buz.

What makes you think that? I presume you have some kind of evidence, yes?

Why are conservatives against workers banding together and negotiating higher wages, but are all for CEO's making 100 times more than those union workers? That has never made sense to me.

Well because its not right for common rabble to band together,they should be happy that they can enter the factory trough the front door now days.
Isnt it enough that now days they dont have to work 16 hours a day 7 days a weak with no vacation, i mean cmmon you offer someone a finger and he tries to take your hand.

You must understand that attacks on AMERICA and OUR SYSTEM have long been the tactics of LIBERALS, COMMUNISTS, SOCIALISTS, HOMOSEXUALS and ANARCHISTS. Consider that well known LIBERAL, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, HOMOSEXUAL, ANARCHIST Theodore Roosevelt who based his "Square Deal" on Consumer Protection, Conservation and Controlling Corporations. Why he even said:

quote:

---

The attacks by these great corporations on the Administration’s actions have been given a wide circulation throughout the country, in the newspapers and otherwise, by those writers and speakers who, consciously or unconsciously, act as the representatives of predatory wealthof the wealth accumulated on a giant scale by all forms of iniquity, ranging from the oppression of wage-workers to unfair and unwholesome methods of crushing out competition, and to defrauding the public by stock-jobbing and the manipulation of securities.

---

Imagine, corporations manipulating securities. He wanted to stop fraud and stop oppression of wage workers.Is there any reason to think that Republicans should not oppose such LIBERAL, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, HOMOSEXUAL, ANARCHISTIC ideas?

Thank you, Mr. Gordon Epperly, for having the courage of your convictions, and filing the following awesomely-argued petition: Yes, that's right, let's get down to the real problem. The man's the wrong damn color. Why have the judiciary taken no notice of this? Is justice blind?

I wonder which race Mr Epperly belongs to? Is there one called "ultradumbassfucktard?"

Good God, he actually filed that? My gast is well and truly flabbered. Do they come any thicker than that? If so please post examples - we all need a good laugh.

...Under that reasoning, no black person could ever hold any Federal-level public office. At all.Including the Supreme Court. Like Clarence Thomas.I wish all racists were so pathetically funny. Then we could just point and laugh and ignore their idiotic mewling.

So, Montana's top federal judge, Judge Cebull, thought it would be good fun to send his buddies an email as follows: It is this sort of gravitas, you see, that wins respect for the bench. Explaining his actions, Judge Fucktard said: That's OK, then, judge. We all understand. You were just so blinded by hatred you simply didn't care whether or not you were being racist. We've all been there, except me and everyone I know.And, of course, the usual explanation: I wonder what he'd say if someone tried that on in his courtroom: "I didn't intend to leave fingerprints --- and how was I meant to know that there were security cameras in the building? I move for a mistrial."

Most likely, pursuing the holes in the reasoning gives this scum more respect than is deserved.Nonethelesss...The logic, such as it is, does not go quite that far. Even under the pre-14th Amendment Constitution, states could still grant citizenship to whoever they wanted to, and the federal government could then offer national citizenship.Further, the application of the "logic" is quite questionable for any black person who doesn't draw citizenship by way of being a direct descendant from a black person born in American prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The "logic" would not apply to Obama, although it might apply to his wife.What this goofy person seems to forget is that Obama could possibly have been a citizen based on his white heritage even prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. And there is of course no such thing as being natural born only for civil rights purposes only. Being natural born does not grant any civil rights at all.A better attempt would be to simply claim that Dred Scott has never been explicitly appealed, and that white people simply don't have to respect any rights that black people might try to assert. At least that would be honest.