It is absolutely how stupefyingly dumb this son of a bitch is. It is also mind-boggling how stupid the Kool-Aid drinkers are that listen to that crap and applaud.
Let's visit what Slick said in the clip up there:
"Nothing wrong with our country.."
Not if you like living in a third world toilet where there's rampant unemployment, a sputtering economy, low wages, socialism, an opressive, intrusive government, and a narcissistic dictator who thinks all he has to do is make speeches to his adoring masses.
"Something wrong with our politics.."
Well, slick, you are the titular head of one of the major parties in this two-party system. Your party has spent the last three years demonizing and slandering the other and those in a movement -- both Democrat and Republican (as well as Libertarian and other minor political factions) -- who have banded together because they are dismayed at the direction our country is going. One would think that the President of the United States of America could exhibit some leadership and bring the factions together -- especially since that was one of the campaign promises you ran on, slick. From the New York Times in March of 2008 about candidate Obama:
Political Memo
Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”
...
Mr. Obama, in an interview that was conducted on March 15, in the midst of that controversy, said he was confident that Americans were eager for a new kind of politics and were convinced that “a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.”
He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could — and should — rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda. Only then, he said, could the party achieve what it has so rarely won in modern presidential elections: a mandate to do big things.
The past three years have shown you, Slick, to be a bitter, poisonous hack politician with not even a remote interest in dealing with those who disagree with you. The manner in which you, Pelosi, and Reid shut out any Republican participation when you had a massive super-majority in Congress was incredibly partisan. Even now, you do nothing to bridge the gap with the opposition.
"..Debacle with the debt ceiling..Partisan brinksmanship.."
Debacle? As in certain individuals not bargaining in good faith? As in that party taking his ball and going home, leaving congress to decide matters? Again, it's called leadership, slick.
Partisan brinksmanship? Pot meet kettle!
"..Operating off a common ground..when we're divided.."
Again, it would be nice to have a President who was a leader and who could set an example by putting aside the partisan bullshit.
"Economy gotten better..last 17 month over 2 million private sector jobs.."
Boy, rather than bag on you, I thought I'd research this and came up with those propaganda links that your minions have strewn throughout the internet about how your programs created more jobs in 2010 that Bush did in all of his eight years.
Hah!
It's like your stupid-assed "saved or created" meme. You play with numbers and conveniently ignore facts:
Sorry for the cut-and-paste on this post, but's it's one of the better refutations of Obama's job numbers bullshit and i didn't want to trust the explanation to link rot or my mis-interpretation. Kudos to the author for the legwork!The X axis shows the ENDING year (so the first data point shows the net jobs creation, and cumulative job creation for Jan-Dec 2001. The second data point from Jan-Dec of 2002 and so on).
The blue shaded backgrounds indicate the years President Bush was in office, with a GOP majority in the House (and, half the time, in the Senate as well).
The darker pink shows a Bush White House and Pelosi/Reid (Democrat) Congress.
The light pink shows an Obama White House and Pelosi/Reid (All Democrat) Congress.
What do we see?
- The Bush Administration with a GOP House and half-time GOP Senate started with the Clinton recession, and ended up building a net 4.2 million jobs over those 6 years.
- When the Democrats took over Congress, the jobs situation LOST 2.3 million net jobs
- President Bush left office with a net 1.9 million jobs created over his 8 years.
- President Obama has watched the number of net jobs drop from 1.9 million positive to 2.1 million negative. A loss of 4 million jobs on his watch.
Now, the article is barely factually correct; it states that 2010 saw more private sector jobs created than 8 years of Bush Administration. But is that a fair or balanced assessment? I would argue not; it's highly misleading and obviously so for political reasons only. Why do I state this? It's quite simple:
1. You are comparing 8 years of the Bush Administration with just ONE year of the Obama Administration. When you compare both years of the Obama Administration, you find a decidedly LESS rosy picture (4 million lost for Obama versus 2 million gained for President Bush).
2. You are discounting the impact of the Pelosi/Reid Congress (of which President Obama was a member, and thus also complicit in its effects). Note when the drop off starts - the blue line (net change year over year) takes a decided downturn when Pelosi and Reid take control. Coincidence? Given that was when the deficit spending (and budgets originate in the House) skyrocketed.
3. It discounts the 2010 effects. 2010 saw losses for 6 of the first 9 months; when the Republican sweep of Congress became inevitable (in October, 2010) we see employment taking off. And continuing to take off. Most of the gains for Obama came with a GOP-led or GOP-incumbent Congress.
Now, the original author and poster tried to insinuate that the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress were better for jobs than President George W. Bush and the GOP led House (and half-time GOP led Senate). Yet when we examine the data, we find that such insinuations are simply not supportable. They don't hold up under an examination of THEIR provided data.
The conclusions are unequivocal:
- President Bush, in his first 2 years, saw fewer losses of jobs than President Obama
- President Bush, and the GOP led House, saw a net growth of 6 million jobs
- Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Reid oversaw a loss of 2 million jobs
- President Obama and the Pelosi/Reid led Congress presided over a loss of 4 million jobs
How that translates into "Bush=bad for jobs, Obama=good for jobs" I'm not sure, but then again, liberal logic still is a complete mystery to me!
"..not thinking about party first..elections first.."
So this is why you're out in the Midwest, burning up the roads with that 40-car Cannonball express flapping your lips, making speeches like the one above?
Sure sounds a lot like campaigning and it's pretty disgusting that your listening tour has turned into a series of whistle-stop speeches where you roadies have bussed in Kool-Aid drinking plants to swoon over every lie and misstatement you utter.
If you're gonna use our nickel to spout your drivel, try to not be so obvious, eh Slick?
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment