not tongue-in-cheek.
link


and here:


I suggest that you read The Plan: Big Ideas for America by Rham Emanuel to see the things that he wants to implement. With the "left of center" leanings of many of you on the board I know you will like some of the items he lists. However most all of us have a strong desire to protect individual freedoms and from what I read of the book, they will soon be under a greater attack than anything we have ever seen before.

Hillary seems to have just taken this up with her comments expanding the crisis to an environmental campaign.
link

Come on, someone call Karthun to renew his stance on Obama's soft power.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19719.html

I mean, even if the fuckin thing had said reset like it was supposed to. How stupid is that gesture?

Foreign policy can be added to the other list of items that are off to a horrible start.

Today, Barack Obama personally dove into the icy potomac to save thirty drowning passengers of a sightseeing boat. The crew, unfortunately, could not be freed from their locked cabin. The passengers hailed him as a hero while he pulled the last from the water, and collapsed on the shore.

"Fucking Obama," said joxur, "Abandoning two hard-working Americans to die in the freezing waters, just so he could relax on the shore with some friends."

As if Obama is the one actually doing the vetting, or even ALL of the choosing. C'mon, you can do better than that. Ignoring reality to get a dig in just makes you look stupid.

_________________

I can see you put a lot of work into your prose...

It's not like you're trolling takes a lot of work. Going to any conservative blog (you probably have a bookmark folder for them in Firefox) and copy / pasting the headlines of the day.

Lamer.

Give Joxur some credit, it takes a lot of work to repost every link he gets off his blogs.

krby -





Just from looking at that quote and the other quotes you listed, that's very much open to interpretation. He could quite easily be saying, in effect, that we should not waste the opportunity of a crisis to do good for people. "Opportunity" need not automatically be translated to "Crisis is a good thing", but rather in effect such an opportunity CAN be missed and the chance to do good things for people can fade with it.

That's not merely an opportunity to improve one's own standing by doing good things, but from an altruistic perspective, that opportunity is for people who may be in dire need of help - fail to receive it - and die as a result.

I think it's a bit one-sided to think of an opportunity as something, say, along the lines of a business opportunity for money. That's the commonly-accepted notion, I think, and it's a bit single-minded.

Now, that being said, think of it a different way - If we have a crisis, and we manage to do something great that changes the world forever for the better - is that not a good outcome of the crisis? That in no way suggests that they WANT crisis, but it does suggest that they would try to create good results from it(again, depending on what you think is good, and what they think is good).

That doesn't seem necessarily like a bad thing to me. /shrug

It's all a question of what they do with a crisis, not whether or not they view it as an opportunity or not.

While we're on that topic, Project for the New American Century anyone(signed by... /drumroll... neo-conservatives)?

Quick comments on a few different things:



Curious-- did you actually read part of the book, or only ready ABOUT the book and are parroting what conservative pundits tell you to say?



Seriously? That's all it takes for him to get the pronouncement of "omg horrible start" from you?

You mentioned soft power, too. He's got that, in spades, due to his overwhelming popularity across the world. However, it takes time, and it takes your ability to take off the blinders, before you begin to notice it. It also takes time to reverse a massive ship like the US would be after 8 years of degenerate leading.

Next subject: Saying crises can be an opportunity is a bad thing now? Isn't that just a paraphrase of a popular sentiment in Christian culture? "When bad things happen, God can turn them to good!" Hail, Joseph as a prime example! Since you are so open about your Christianity, krby, I wonder if you have the same distain for those types of sentiments. What he said is absolutely true-- crisis create chances for the public to rally behind large pieces of legislation, for good or for ill (depending on your stance on whatever issue we're talking about).

Doesn't all this bickering depress you a little.
Doesn't it enforce the overall hopelessness of our situation?
Or, maybe it just speaks to the true impotency of the electorate to control their own fate.

In less than 2 months, people have already solidified their opinions of the Obama administration.

Shame.

Actually, I was referring to four things:

1) His overture to the Russians that he would abandon the missile shield if they helped with Iran, which they immediately rebuffed. BTW - how would you feel if you were Poland, or the Czechs, after putting yourself at risk with Russia to support and base the missile shield? You recall the stories that Russia reserved the right to direct its nuclear missiles at Poland as a result?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -deal.html

2) His snub of the British PM, after Brown clearly wanted a join press conference.

3) The red button gaffe.

4) The EU threatening a trade war if we kept protectionist language in the stimulus bill.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 655115.ece

People had solidified their opinions long before he was elected. It's all "liberals" not just Obama. If Clinton had won, they would be doing the same BS.

It's funny how people are.

_________________

I hope "liberals" does not include those on this board, because just about all of us here have expressed distaste for several things the administration has done thus far. It's a bit far-fetched to say we've made our conclusions yet. On the other hand, I haven't heard one compliment about Obama OR his administration from Joxur.

Well I'm flattered you care about my opinion so much. If you guys would like, I could setup a newsletter. In the meantime, this story is quite reassuring, isn't it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Brown.html

Is the Telegraph a right wing blog? heh



Seriously, though, this is the most amusing part.

Ah, I see you're deviating from your norm again and giving Obama some praise. Oh wait.

Heh, the question is not where you get the final "unbiased" source from, but where you get the original link to that source.

As an example, I'm sure you frequently visit that one Seattle blog you linked to a while back when you complained about Ron Sims being selected. No doubt whatsoever.

CAN'T READ MY POKER FACE

PS: It's annoying how euros don't use punctuation in naming. Get your shit right, retards.

So?

Seriously, what do you expect? President seems stressed after getting elected right into a huge economic disaster? Wow, big shock.

The funny part is that I'm 99% sure that if there were an article about Obama seeming happy and jovial, you'd call him out for not taking things seriously enough.



Jeez, way to disrespect other nations, Britain. Hot new info, you don't rule the world anymore either. You sound like a kid that didn't get the color Power Ranger they wanted for Christmas.

Frankly, I would be "very fucking concerned" if the President was getting plenty of sleep and seemed to have the entire situation in hand. That would raise a red flag for me, because this is not by any stretch of the imagination a simple problem that requires little effort. This is something that HAS to be demanding on our leadership if they are truly putting forth any meaningful effort.

Anyway, Joxur's definitely correct on one count here, that's not a right wing blog - it makes too much sense and sounds good.

Am I the only one who sees the wonderful stupidity in this statement?

Obama loves his sheep Orme, he has quite a few.

No you're not alone... But because of the way the press has such a boner for Obama, he will be regarded as one of the best.

Maybe I should explain irony. Skycrasher is not a moron for being an Obama sheep.

Skycrasher is a moron because he criticizes people for judging Obama too early. Then, he proclaims Obama will be regarded as one of the greatest presidents ever.

I'm a bit bummed I had to explain it

ProTip: Skycrasher just says fucked up shit to get people riled up. 'Round these here parts we call 'em trolls.

I got it, Orme!



It probably wasn't an intentional troll, it was just an amusing bit of pot calling the kettle black.

no, it was a troll. i don't understand how you are unfamiliar with it

_________________

I think you may be giving Sky too much credit in this case, Binks.

Saying stupid shit isn't hard. The entire state of Tennessee has already mastered this feat.

Go a state or two to the south/southeast and Tennessee will appear to be a paradise of genius.

southwest*

Though southeast works too in the case of Georgia. /duck /dodge

couldn't pass this one up.

Who should we believe. Venen, or Warren Buffet?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfi ... etted.aspx

You're making it too easy, Venen.

When you pick quotes where the speaker redefines the playing field before making his point, you're really not helping your case, Jox.

You could be the official Asterisk Czar, able to explain away points that damage Obama in ways that only you understand. I hope you paid your taxes! For a while Leo was doing all of that work during the election. I guess he passed the torch. Sadly, the farm team isn't as good as the all stars.

You know the point Buffett was making. Your claim that he redefined it is specious, because to use his point about saying "war is a terrible thing to waste", he specifically said we're IN an economic war.

Please, by all means, explain exactly what Buffett was trying to say.

What the hell is this thread even about at this point?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Sure. The original quote was - bolding mine -

This was a reply to:

Now you trundle onto the scene, and grace us all with:

And then use this to attempt to discredit Venen. Now, I'll be the first to say that Venen does enough of his own discrediting, but at least play above the table here.

What you just did here was take a motivational phrase (Crises are opportunities to excel!) and turn it into political rhetoric (War makes it easy to do what we want!) by using a third party to redefine the situation.

"Coloring books are fun when you go outside the lines!" "Going outside the lines is a sign of an aberrant behavior." "OMG, SYUNI JUST SAID COLORING CAUSES ABERRANT BEHAVIOR!"

And I'm done, sir. With this topic, and frankly, with your bullshit.

First, I notice you haven't tried to explain Buffett's quote. Still waiting for that.

Second, you are positing that it's ME who is turning a quote from Emanuel and Clinton to mean something it doesn't. However, in your own post, you say the words "an opportunity to excel". Those are your words, not Emanuel's or Clinton's. How can you criticize my interpretation, which leans negative, when your own interpretation leans similarly to the positive?

The difference is that I backed up my point with an expert, someone who is a big Obama supporter and, presumably, has some credibility in being able to criticize Obama. You haven't.

Since you never responded to my challenge to explain Buffett, I don't hold out much hope you will take this one on, either. Here's my next question. Since I lean towards the negative interpretation, and you lean towards the positive, would you say the Obama team's actions support my interpretation, or yours?

Here, let me give you my answer in advance. It will help you determine how to answer, since you'll simply pick the opposite.

As Democrat behavior has recently shown, with all the negative rhetoric from Obama, his administration and Congressional Democrats, I'd say that my interpretation (and Buffett's) makes a whole lot more sense - that crisis are opportunities to ram things through the process. Given that the stimulus, pork omnibus bill and budget all have bi-partison detractors, I'd say that the speed with which the administration has moved, and even puclicly admitted has its shortcomings, supports my theory (and Buffett's) that they have been rammed through the process.

Now you have three options as I see them.

1) Take your crayons and go home. You'll be in good company.
2) Respond with name calling and not answer any of my challenges.
3) Try to answer my questions, of which I guarantee you there will be a response.

Before I begin, let's cover all our bases here. 2) You're a big poopyhead, and 1) I've got a date with the Sesame Street Big Book of Grover.

That done, 3) there is no need to explain Buffet. What he said is perfectly clear, and in the terms of his conversation, he is correct. Do these words please you?

My complaint was that you were re-explaining the stance of Rahm using Buffet's words. You know that. But hey, let's keep going.

I do not see that this is a 'war' as the problems are self-generated due to bad paper and worse practices. Now, if China or another large investor were to begin leveraging? I'd agree it's a war. Please, if you see it another way, expand.
It is Buffet's opinion that this is a war. It is Rahm's opinion that it is a crisis. I don't know anything about your upbringing, but I was taught that times of adversity are opportunities.

I admit, it's occasionally fun to watch you froth and foam against the mindless Obama zombie horde. At times, I've taken a shot or two. But, while I play one on Lanys, I'm no Obama apologist, and I'm willing to give him until the 11th of September before I shred him. After all, wasn't that how long it took for Bush to become a hero?

You're attacking my post because Buffett uses a common teaching method to make his point clear, and instead of attacking the point, which you AGREE with, you're attacking the style. Crazy stuff.

The reason it's so important to me and why it might not be for you is because Bush and Cheney used 9/11 and the later wars to advance all manner of aggressive interpretations of the law, put in place policies that were barely vetted (like the Patriot Act) and generally got us into the mess we're in. All because a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So, again, I ask you, which side should we be on? The optimistic or pessimistic interpretation of their words?

joxur practicing trolling

_________________

I'm just waiting for Joxur to come out and scream "BARACK OBAMA IS A FAGGOT NIGGER TERRORIST, HAHA U ALL LOSE CUZ U VOTED FOR HIM" when something goes wrong.

"TOLD U SO!!!!!!!!"

that is the best quote ever... I knew sky would see the light

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

The twist of words that Buffet used is hardly important to my point, which Joxur apparently missed. I think Buffet actually summed it up entirely, an economic war is INDEED a terrible thing to miss an opportunity on: I'd prefer to take that opportunity to try and fix the mess =) The latter portion of his quote, of course, was more or less his interpretation of what might happen as a result of said taken opportunity by the Obama admin.

And Joxur further elaborates on exactly how stupid he is right here for us:



They also could have "used" 9/11 as an "opportunity" to expand our freedoms, disabling FISA for example, and allowing the world to continue to stick with us and use THAT support to make the world a better place instead of alienating ourselves by invading Iraq.

A little pro-tip for ya there, champ: An opportunity as a result of a disaster 99 percent of the time will yield more than one option. The opportunity to help people is not a narrow-minded, single-objective, single-person concept. It's an opportunity to do many things, both the potential to do good things and the chance to do bad things. The choice is what matters, not whether or not it's an opportunity.

In short, we should be on the "reasonable" interpretation of their words: We have no idea what they're going to do with said opportunity, so there's no reason to rush to judgement before the fact.

More appointee news:

Source: Obama official on leave after FBI raids
Obama technology official on leave after FBI raids his old DC office, arrests 2
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Source-Ob ... 23083.html

Third Top Treasury Pick Withdraws From Consideration
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/03 ... p-tre.html

Meanwhile, of the dozens of top treasury staffers, that all require the Obama administration to submit nominations before they can be appointed by the senate, only the top spot has been filled. These are the positions that require a nomination:

They should put an ad on craigslist.

_________________

Wanted:
Executive personnel for various upper management positions. No experience required. Must be drug and disease free. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE HAVE PAID YOUR TAXES!

Send resume to:
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20005

PS - please don't have any outstanding warrants either.

What's the difference between Obama and Jesus?


Jesus could build a cabinet.

:drum:

Hmm. hate to say I told you so, but...

Panetta: Too Dangerous To Release Torture Tape Docs
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpa

I'll bet your're *totally* up in arms about it.