We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, June 11. 2015
A friend of mine who absolutely loves Obama enjoys sharing little things with friends via Facebook and email. I've put a few below the fold, though I'm still searching for the one which claims that Obama lowered unemployment, increased the stock market to record highs, and lowered gas prices to recent lows. That one was a hoot.
They are factoids which support the concept that Obama is a good, gracious, and successful president despite claims to the otherwise.
By the same token, this same person (and many others like him) continually complain about the 'state of the economy' and how 'corporations are ruining the US' and how we're still plagued with high unemployment and poverty.
I suppose they can make the claims they make because they believe if Obama had the full support of the nation and Congress, these things would finally be 'taken care of' and we'd all live in Candyland.
But it doesn't square. These folk are deluded enough to say the things they say, and make no mistake - none of the facts used are untrue, they are merely out of context and misunderstood by the dopes who use them (to be fair, I've seen plenty of similar stuff by Republicans, and the information used just as poorly). Yet if things are just so dandy, what else does Obama need to really 'fix'? That's what I don't understand. These people are incapable of leaving well enough alone. Once you've got something working, you don't keep fiddling with it. That is, if you actually assume the economy is working. I don't. It's functioning. Sort've. You can't really shut down an economy, it just shifts its activities to more profitable and easier methods. So yes, the economy continues to function despite the damage Obama has done. Measurements are just data. They don't tell you about the health of the economy. These fools have misconstrued momentary data for meaningful analysis, and completely missed out on the fact that correlation is not causation.
All of this is true except the final question. I didn't think much of that was going to happen, so no I don't feel like a dumbass. I only have my guns because the Republicans have blocked him at every turn. I didn't know he was planning to implant anything or put me in a FEMA camp. I have no idea why Sharia law is mentioned, though I get the feeling Obama seems to like the concept because he's scared to death of Muslims, the death panels may come into existence later as the government runs out of money and can't fund healthcare, gay marriage was never going to ruin the country, the birth certificate was a ridiculous discussion point (and there's still some question as to its validity, though I couldn't give a rat's ass about it, and who said he was the Anti-Christ?
Yeah, these people think they're funny. But in reality, they're just stupid - dumber than the person they are calling a dumbass.
Yup, that's true. But um, if I increase my costs from 1 to 2.9 that's a 190% increase, whereas if I increase it from 100 to 172, that's a 72% increase. It seems to me the 1.9 increase is relatively small in comparison to the increase of 72. Percentages are funny that way. As your base grows, you need to spend more to get the percentage impact you seek.
I oppose Keynesian economics, so any deficit spending is by its very nature abhorrent, whether it's 1.9 or 72. But if you were to ask me who was more footloose with the purse strings.....um, there's no comparison really. Obama is the most drunken of all drunken sailors.
The last one, which I continue to search for, stipulates that Obama has lowered gas prices (yes, they are lower), reduced unemployment (yup, it's down) and increased the stock market (yeah, it hit new highs recently). Again, more 'facts'.
Bothersome facts, really. Because, it assumes the president is responsible for all these things, rather than business and consumers (who I think play a bigger role). He happens to be the guy in the White House. Correlation is not causation. That said, even the facts themselves are bothersome because gas prices are down due to overall decreases in usage worldwide (hardly Obama's doing), and that's indicative of worldwide slowdown in economic activity. Reduced unemployment is almost entirely due to workers leaving the workforce. Labor non-participation has hit 40 year highs, an unfortunate and disturbing fact. Yes, some more people are working now than when Obama came to office, but almost none of that is due to the spending spree he engaged. The stock market is up, too. But interest rates are being artificially held at zero....so if you want to make money, you need to put it somewhere to get a return. Obama put all that money into the stock market? I think not.
These are stupid claims. But here is one which is absolutely nuts, and it doesn't involve Obama.
Fox News aside, the Clinton Foundation is NOT a charity. It has always been a corporate concern, but has lately become an election tool. It has non-profit status, but that doesn't make it a charity. So technically, while the other posts he sent me are 'true' this one is not. But almost nothing about the Clintons is ever true. If ever there is a made-for-TV consumption political family, it is Bill and Hillary.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The last claim isn't anywhere near true:
I believe the Republicans are on the side of the Obama anyway. Global dictatorship here go.
This dust-up about HRC's speaking fees started when Diane Sawyer pressed her about millions of dollars she'd earned that way, and HRC responded that she'd had no choice, because she and Bill were broke when they left the White House. Hard to square that with the idea that she's donating all her speaking fees to charity, even if you are prepared to call the Clinton Foundation a charity.
Technically, Obama has lowered the Unemployment RATE. By getting millions of people to stop looking for work, he drove down the numerator instead the driving up the denominator in that equation.
Hillary donates every cent to charity? The charity foundation that pays Chelsea's enormous salary and Hillary's extravagant travel expenses?
They are worth over $100 million now - how exactly?
they provide a service to a market that's willing to pay for it.
what's the problem? if someone doesn't like the hildabeest, no one's forcing him to attend a 'beest speech.
True, I guess.
But... most "normal" folks get a tad annoyed when say, oh, Kuwait (or some such) "pays" her $500,000 for a "speech", and then two weeks later the State Department approves Kuwait's request to purchase double the amount of arms from U.S. companies as they did in the previous year.
I'm not complaining about her fees. I'm complaining about people who think she is some kind of saint for "donating he speaking fees to charity."
She has every right earn what she earns and dispose of the funds in whatever manner she sees fit.
But saying she is giving it to charity is problematic, actually it is known as a lie.
To add some more context, she castigated people who make as much in a year as she makes in a speech. She feels they are somehow undeserving of their salaries. If that is true, capitalism aside, how can she justify her fees?
While she was Secretary of State what she was selling was U.S. foreign policy. It was a racketeering operation.
That is not pure capitalism. Crony capitalism or payola or protection money but not capitalism.
They lose money on every deposit, and make it up on volume. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.AVI knows!
Classic! They run all their money through the Exchange Bank.
if HRC give everything to charity how did she amass a net worth of maybe 25 million?
Factoids: Black is White/ War is Peace/ Night is Day/ Everyone can make any word mean what they wish. Say, that rings true with community organizers doesn't it?
What is the difference between a "fact" and a "factoid"? I will award a free bag of peanuts (roasted or boiled) to the first person that uses Wikipedia as a reference.
Always a pleasure. Best Regards.
PS: If you are not from the South, simply ignore boiled.
We've covered the factoid issue in a previous post.
Wikipedia is unnecessary. Norman Mailer used it to describe snippets of info used to prove a point which were false.
Today, however, it has morphed into any small but of communication that passes trivial information, usually to 'prove' a point or just pass as newsworthy.
Linking factoids, however unrelated, to create a larger discussion point is a common practice in armchair sports and politics.
All the charm of Evita, minus the fashion sense.
All the charm of Evita
Hillary is not a very charming person: "a power of pleasing or attracting, as through personality or beauty." Hillary is as charming as a clam. By contrast, Evita had the ability to evoke strong emotions in others, of both attraction and repulsion. Her descamisados/shirtless ones loved her. The well-off felt repelled by the demagoguery Evita directed against them. "Shall we burn down Barrio Norte?" was one of Evita's well-remembered phrases. When you live in Barrio Norte, the posh section of Buenos Aires, such a statement will repel.
For an example of the strong emotions Evita evoked, look at her her last speech, given a a year before she died of uterine cancer. In this video with English subtitles you can hear some of the crowd's reaction to her. In this Spanish-only version of her last speech you can see some of the audience crying. The only way that a Hillary speech would bring tears to anyone would be in the sense that "Hillary bored me to tears. No one would ever say that of an Evita speech. But had you stated that Hillary shares Evita's thuggery, you would have a point.
And no one's going to be listening to her speech(about anything) in spanish, english or martian.
That reference was simply another way of smacking down that fraudulent, carpetbagging, Arkansas transplanted, piece of sh*t, with another titanic egomaniac, well know for her phoniness and lethargy.
It's not humanely possible for me to care any less that she evoked "strong emotions." Really.
But I will give you this. At least Peron had legs.