Boehner just asked Obama to move his speech by one day

[Google]

Lost?

Lost what?

He's the fucking president.

It's time Congressional republicans acknowledged that.

He is A PRESIDENT, not some God and he damn sure is NOT OUR DICTATOR.
That he would even think to play this game when PEOPLE are friggen HURTING, Shows his TRUE Character. and also shows just HOW LITTLE he actually give a shit.

When exactly has President Obama evoked "executive priviledge"?

Like Bush.

Bush Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenas
Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case | Countdown to Crawford | Los Angeles Times
Bush's executive privilege claims most expansive since Watergate - Dems - New York Daily News
Bush v. Congress: The Looming Battle Over Executive Privilege - New York Times

How about signing statements?
How about secret spying on American Citizens?
How about torture of American Citizens?
How about denying Habeas Corpus to an American Citizen?

When you know what the fuck you are talking about..get back to me.

Because Republicans are the ones that govern like fucking dictators when they get into office.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc]Obama on Presidential Signing Statements - YouTube[/ame]

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

The blatant hypocrisy of President Obama demonstrates clearly his opinions of the American people's intelligence.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Senator Obama 2006

 

[mudwhistle]

I began a thread about this, and I should have searched harder to make sure a thread wasn't already started.

After weeks of preseason games, teasing the millions of NFL fans all across America, next Thursday when America goes to tune into the first game of the 2011 NFL season, offering a much needed distraction from the dismal economic reality which America finds itself, pitting the New Orleans Saints against the defending Super Bowl Champions the Green Bay Packers at the historic Lambeau Field they will instead be treated to President Obama’s address to Congress announcing his much anticipated supposed jobs plan.

The inevitable question that will be raised is: what the hell has this man been doing for three years?

The Obama administration originally intended to have the president address the nation on Wednesday, which coincidentally coincides with the GOP’s presidential debate, but after John Boehner denied that request, asking the president to delay one day, the administration capitulated out of fear that the country will see through this transparent attempt to marginalize his opponents.

This begs the question: did President Obama just get bamboozled?

NFL.com news: White House working to avoid clash with NFL's opening game

Fucking with the GOP turned out to be a bad deal for him.

Personally I think everyone is tired of listening to him and all he's doing is inconveniencing everyone for his political aspirations.

 

[Ernie S.]

I began a thread about this, and I should have searched harder to make sure a thread wasn't already started.

After weeks of preseason games, teasing the millions of NFL fans all across America, next Thursday when America goes to tune into the first game of the 2011 NFL season, offering a much needed distraction from the dismal economic reality which America finds itself, pitting the New Orleans Saints against the defending Super Bowl Champions the Green Bay Packers at the historic Lambeau Field they will instead be treated to President Obama’s address to Congress announcing his much anticipated supposed jobs plan.

The inevitable question that will be raised is: what the hell has this man been doing for three years?

The Obama administration originally intended to have the president address the nation on Wednesday, which coincidentally coincides with the GOP’s presidential debate, but after John Boehner denied that request, asking the president to delay one day, the administration capitulated out of fear that the country will see through this transparent attempt to marginalize his opponents.

This begs the question: did President Obama just get bamboozled?

NFL.com news: White House working to avoid clash with NFL's opening game

Maybe the NFL will inform the President that Friday is open.

 

[Sallow]

Is it not arrogant for him to assume that the job plan he has been promising for 2 and a half years is so important that the GOP should postpone a planned event on a week's notice?
Forgive me if I reserve judgment of his speech's importance until it is summarized next Friday morning in some article I find on Drudge. I will not be watching. I've wasted enough of my life listening for even a basic understanding of what needs to be done to create jobs. I'll be watching re-runs of I Love Lucy and fully expect to hear something entirely more relevant to job creation.

No. It's not.

By in large the President has been successful in creating jobs. During his administration more jobs were created then the Bush administration. And that in 3 years.

He's the President. Everyone and his brother has been talking about the Unemployment crisis. And this is on top of a lot of other very real crisises. Republicans aren't helping in the slightest. They offer their solutions..he uses their solutions and they rail on him for using their solutions. I've never seen anything like this.

I really wish the opposition party was about offering alternative ideas. But at this point..it's not. It's about destroying it's opposition. And that's not helping America.

 

[Sallow]

He is A PRESIDENT, not some God and he damn sure is NOT OUR DICTATOR.
That he would even think to play this game when PEOPLE are friggen HURTING, Shows his TRUE Character. and also shows just HOW LITTLE he actually give a shit.

When exactly has President Obama evoked "executive priviledge"?

Like Bush.

Bush Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenas
Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case | Countdown to Crawford | Los Angeles Times
Bush's executive privilege claims most expansive since Watergate - Dems - New York Daily News
Bush v. Congress: The Looming Battle Over Executive Privilege - New York Times

How about signing statements?
How about secret spying on American Citizens?
How about torture of American Citizens?
How about denying Habeas Corpus to an American Citizen?

When you know what the fuck you are talking about..get back to me.

Because Republicans are the ones that govern like fucking dictators when they get into office.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc]Obama on Presidential Signing Statements - YouTube[/ame]

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

The blatant hypocrisy of President Obama demonstrates clearly his opinions of the American people's intelligence.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Senator Obama 2006

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

You're kidding right?

 

[Google]

When exactly has President Obama evoked "executive priviledge"?

Like Bush.

Bush Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenas
Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case | Countdown to Crawford | Los Angeles Times
Bush's executive privilege claims most expansive since Watergate - Dems - New York Daily News
Bush v. Congress: The Looming Battle Over Executive Privilege - New York Times

How about signing statements?
How about secret spying on American Citizens?
How about torture of American Citizens?
How about denying Habeas Corpus to an American Citizen?

When you know what the fuck you are talking about..get back to me.

Because Republicans are the ones that govern like fucking dictators when they get into office.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc]Obama on Presidential Signing Statements - YouTube[/ame]

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

The blatant hypocrisy of President Obama demonstrates clearly his opinions of the American people's intelligence.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Senator Obama 2006

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

You're kidding right?

Three years vs eight years. Surely, you can see the difference.

But that really is besides the point, Obama said he wouldn't use signing statements because it is a end run around congress, an abuse of presidential power.

Way to miss the point entirely.

Once again, it's Bush's fault

 

[Ernie S.]

Is it not arrogant for him to assume that the job plan he has been promising for 2 and a half years is so important that the GOP should postpone a planned event on a week's notice?
Forgive me if I reserve judgment of his speech's importance until it is summarized next Friday morning in some article I find on Drudge. I will not be watching. I've wasted enough of my life listening for even a basic understanding of what needs to be done to create jobs. I'll be watching re-runs of I Love Lucy and fully expect to hear something entirely more relevant to job creation.

No. It's not.

By in large the President has been successful in creating jobs. During his administration more jobs were created then the Bush administration. And that in 3 years.

He's the President. Everyone and his brother has been talking about the Unemployment crisis. And this is on top of a lot of other very real crisises. Republicans aren't helping in the slightest. They offer their solutions..he uses their solutions and they rail on him for using their solutions. I've never seen anything like this.

I really wish the opposition party was about offering alternative ideas. But at this point..it's not. It's about destroying it's opposition. And that's not helping America.

Is that jobs like painting the floor in an unused aircraft hanger or repaving a road to nowhere or one of those green jobs at a company that took a half billion and folded up their tent?
You do realize that a large percentage of the jobs obama "created were census positions, do you not? In many cases those people were laid off and then rehired counting as a "new job" 2 or more times?
The opposition HAS proposed solutions, but they sit in a dusty pile somewhere in Senator Reid's office.

 

[Ernie S.]

When exactly has President Obama evoked "executive priviledge"?

Like Bush.

Bush Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenas
Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case | Countdown to Crawford | Los Angeles Times
Bush's executive privilege claims most expansive since Watergate - Dems - New York Daily News
Bush v. Congress: The Looming Battle Over Executive Privilege - New York Times

How about signing statements?
How about secret spying on American Citizens?
How about torture of American Citizens?
How about denying Habeas Corpus to an American Citizen?

When you know what the fuck you are talking about..get back to me.

Because Republicans are the ones that govern like fucking dictators when they get into office.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc]Obama on Presidential Signing Statements - YouTube[/ame]

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

The blatant hypocrisy of President Obama demonstrates clearly his opinions of the American people's intelligence.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Senator Obama 2006

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

You're kidding right?

Nyah neah ne ne nyeah! 2.5 years vs. 8 years. FOOL!

 

[J.E.D]

Welcome to ignore.

Oh nozies!



By the way, you pontificating pussy, anytime anybody quotes me, you will be graced with my musing all the same (unless the person quoting me is also on your ignore list, you pussy).

Hope that helps.

Hope that helps!

It sure does.

 

[J.E.D]

I excuse you.

It was an honest and easy mistake to make.

You made an assertion and I agreed with you. Who WOULDN'T imagine that it was just sarcasm?

Do me a favor you jack-off. Put me on ignore. Or don't.

Am I supposed to give a crap how you handle your account you sophomoric hack?

Welcome to ignore.

Pussy!

This message is hidden because Wicked Jester is on your ignore list.

 

[Conservative]

Is it not arrogant for him to assume that the job plan he has been promising for 2 and a half years is so important that the GOP should postpone a planned event on a week's notice?
Forgive me if I reserve judgment of his speech's importance until it is summarized next Friday morning in some article I find on Drudge. I will not be watching. I've wasted enough of my life listening for even a basic understanding of what needs to be done to create jobs. I'll be watching re-runs of I Love Lucy and fully expect to hear something entirely more relevant to job creation.

No. It's not.

By in large the President has been successful in creating jobs. During his administration more jobs were created then the Bush administration. And that in 3 years.

He's the President. Everyone and his brother has been talking about the Unemployment crisis. And this is on top of a lot of other very real crisises. Republicans aren't helping in the slightest. They offer their solutions..he uses their solutions and they rail on him for using their solutions. I've never seen anything like this.

I really wish the opposition party was about offering alternative ideas. But at this point..it's not. It's about destroying it's opposition. And that's not helping America.

further proof of your ever more obvious insanity.

Job Creation: Bush vs. Obama - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Let’s look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
During the Bush presidency, net total employment went up by 1.08 million jobs. So far, during the Obama presidency, total employment has been reduced by 3.3 million jobs.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/17/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-more-jobs-created-obamas-first-y/

Nancy Pelosi says more jobs created in Obama's first year than eight years of George W. Bush...
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama administration -- January 2009 through January 2010.

Meanwhile, during eight years under Bush, the economy gained a net 188,000 private sector jobs.

So while job growth under Bush was anemic by historical standards, it was still better than the 4.2 million jobs lost under Obama. That means Pelosi was wrong.

you make this too easy, you little dick-drip.

 

[Conservative]

Obama on Presidential Signing Statements - YouTube

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

The blatant hypocrisy of President Obama demonstrates clearly his opinions of the American people's intelligence.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Senator Obama 2006

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

You're kidding right?

Three years vs eight years. Surely, you can see the difference.

But that really is besides the point, Obama said he wouldn't use signing statements because it is a end run around congress, an abuse of presidential power.

Way to miss the point entirely.

Once again, it's Bush's fault

It was only an abuse of power to Obama if Bush did it. If Obama did it, it was the prerogative of the President to act as he saw fit.

 

[Google]

Welcome to ignore.

Pussy!

This message is hidden because Wicked Jester is on your ignore list.

It is a message board...are you that incensed at what someone writes? You are the reason places like NJ has such absurd 'bullying' laws, a country of over sensitive, lame, metrosexual pussies like yourself.

Ignore me, I'm not missing out on anything

 

[naturegirl]

Is it not arrogant for him to assume that the job plan he has been promising for 2 and a half years is so important that the GOP should postpone a planned event on a week's notice?
Forgive me if I reserve judgment of his speech's importance until it is summarized next Friday morning in some article I find on Drudge. I will not be watching. I've wasted enough of my life listening for even a basic understanding of what needs to be done to create jobs. I'll be watching re-runs of I Love Lucy and fully expect to hear something entirely more relevant to job creation.

No. It's not.

By in large the President has been successful in creating jobs. During his administration more jobs were created then the Bush administration. And that in 3 years.

He's the President. Everyone and his brother has been talking about the Unemployment crisis. And this is on top of a lot of other very real crisises. Republicans aren't helping in the slightest. They offer their solutions..he uses their solutions and they rail on him for using their solutions. I've never seen anything like this.

I really wish the opposition party was about offering alternative ideas. But at this point..it's not. It's about destroying it's opposition. And that's not helping America.

Why do you keep spewing this lie?? I debunked this in an earlier response to you.

FAIL!!!

 

[deepthunk]

Congress never had to deal with an arrogant child before.

Is that code talk for uppity black folk?

You on the the LEFT can call it whatever the hell you like. but WE THE PEOPLE are sick of it.
Obama was playing a GAME with this, HE LOST. He didn't HELP his cause either because THE PEOPLE saw through his thuggery.

You appear to suggest that people on the left are not among “the people” even though they clearly constitute 50% of the population.
Frankly I saw no one but the republicans playing games; clearly the vast majority of “the people” would agree that the economy is a vital issue at this time. The president wanted to address the people about the economy and republicans turned it into a political power play, therefore they are the ones playing games. I don’t see how any reasonable, non-biased individual could see it any other way.
Furthermore I don’t think the white house “lost” anything, what they did was avoid a huge fiasco over a minor issue that would have distracted from the real problems at hand and make everyone in Washington look foolish.

 

[deepthunk]

further proof of your ever more obvious insanity.

Job Creation: Bush vs. Obama - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Dr. Veronique De Rugy And the meaning of “true lies”

True Lies. Aside from being the title of an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie (rather apropos considering that such lies happen to be something republicans like Arnold specialize in), true lies are a political term referring to the use of incomplete, out-of-context facts or data with crucial omissions to mislead and misinform the public.

As senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Dr. Veronique de Rugy is not only an expert in the fore mentioned methods, she has, as any good senior research fellow should, pioneered new ground in developing an altogether new form of true lying, presenting data and then drawing conclusions clearly not supported by the data presented. This new form of true lying depends on presenting complex data to support an erroneous or unsupportable conclusion in the hopes that those one is trying to mislead will be unable to understand the data, and simply assume it supports the conclusion the true liar presents it to support. And Dr. Veronique de Rugy certainly has motive to lie.

Since the conservative think tank, the Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink - an executive vice president at Koch Industries, former president of Koch Foundations and currently the president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, George Mason University has received more than thirty million dollars from the Koch brothers. Perhaps the “good” doctor says it best in her own words “I work for the Mercatus Center and Charles Koch is the chairman of our board and one of our main donors. Also, I am a big fan of Richard Fink”.

The Koch brothers as you may recall are the billionaire oil men who where among the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and whose representatives are rumored to have worked behind the scenes to try and encourage a showdown with labor unions. Over the course of the last ten years the Koch brothers have donated $196 million dollars to conservative causes and the institutions that churn out right wing rhetoric, including Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy, the conservative groups responsible for the founding of the Tea Party. According to Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”

Given the source of the Mercatus Center’s funding, to suggest that Dr. Veronique de Rugy’s research is biased by her political agenda is much like suggesting the earth is round, it’s a forgone conclusion and to suggest anything else is to prove oneself a fool.

In her essay entitled “The Truth About Taxes and Redistribution”, written for the Reason Foundation, an organization devoted to promoting conservative economic policies, Dr. de Rugy states “As you can see [referring to bar graph], the top earning 1 percent of Americans (or 1.4 million returns making more than $380,000) paid 38 percent of federal personal income taxes. However, they made only 20 percent of income.” This statement, along with the graphic it refers too are clearly intended to mislead the laymen into believing that the top one percent of earners pay more than their income in taxes, hence the statement “paid 38 percent of federal personal income taxes. However, they made only 20 percent of income”. The twenty percent figure is the percentage of all income earned in the U.S. by the top one percent of earners, so one percent of the population earned twenty percent (or one fifth) of all the money earned in the U.S. (down from twenty-three percent in 2007, the poor dears), the use of the word “only” in this sentence is clearly intended to downplay the significance of this figure. the thirty eight percent figure is the percentage of their individual income taxes that the top one percent of earners are supposed to pay. By placing these two figures together in graph, and referring to them as she has, Dr. de Rugy is trying to mislead the reader into mistakenly believing the top one percent are required to pay more in taxes than they earn. In reality the thirty eight percent tax would represent less than half their income, if they were required to even pay that.

Not represented in this graph or stated anywhere in this article is the fact the top one percent of earners don’t actually pay thirty eight percent of their earnings in taxes, in fact most, if not all report their personal income as capital gains which are only taxed at a rate of fifthteen percent, and this is before a number of tax breaks they still receive. Dr de Rugy is plainly aware of this fact as she stated it herself, in the article “The Truth About Taxes and Redistribution” when she said “There's lots of income mobility in and out of the "top 400" every year, and most of their income is due to highly fluctuating capital gains (which is taxed lower than ordinary income)”. Evidently doctor de Rugy is only aware of facts when they support the arguments she wishes to make, but rapidly becomes unaware of them when they fail to support another conclusion she wishes to draw.

This hardly the only example of the “good” doctor providing misleading data in order to draw questionable conclusions

In her article titled “The Facts About the Corporate Income Tax”, Dr de Rugy experiments with another, lesser known, form of true lying, presenting data that is completely irrelevant to the conclusions she uses said data to support.

Here doctor de Rugy attempts to prove that raising corporate tax rates will not result in increased revenue. To support this conclusion, Dr De Rugy presents a graph depicting corporate tax collection as a share of the economy side by side with the top marginal corporate rate since 1981. In this article, doctor de Rugy has clearly chosen highly complex data in hopes of confusing the laymen; however all she has actually done is demonstrate that revenue rises and falls as the economy weakens or strengthens. Since taxes are levied as a percentage of income, logic dictates that revenue will rise and fall as said income rises and falls, since corporate income is tied to the economy by a number of factors (such as consumer spending, the bond market, ect), one would expect revenue from corporate taxes to likewise be tied to the economy. Demonstrating the correlation between the general state of the economy and revenue received from corporate taxes does not prove that increasing corporate tax rates won’t increase revenue, in fact the data presented is completely irrelevant to the conclusion drawn.

Last we come to the article “The Facts About Stimulus Spending”, here Dr. de Rugy actually presents data that contradicts the conclusion drawn.

Doctor de Rugy presents a graph in this article depicting the total stimulus money spent from January 2009 to may 2011 overlaying the number of new unemployment claims for the same period. Clearly stimulus spending is represented in this manner with the intention that it appear alarming, since the total money spent over time is represented rather than the rate over time. Because the rate of spending has remained steady, the total spent increases exponentially as a function of time, this may appear alarming to a laymen, or even be misinterpreted as an exponential increase in spending, but in fact only half of the total money allotted to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had been spent when the data represented was correlated. Thought this is misdirection, it was not the contradiction I referred to earlier, however the graph is relevant to my next point.

The graph of new unemployment claims over time is significant in that the data (presented by the doctor herself) clearly shows that there is a notable drop in the rate of increase in unemployment beginning in June 2009, exactly four months after the economic stimulus spending began. Because it takes time for projects to be selected, designs to be approved, contractors to bid and so forth, this delayed response to the start of the economic stimulus spending is to be expected. The rate of unemployment then peaks in October 2009 before declining steadily until April 2011 when skyrocketing fuel prices caused a slight uptick in new unemployment claims. Although it failed to achieve the president’s goal of preventing unemployment from exceeding 8.8 percent, the data clearly shows that stimulus spending did have a direct, positive effect on unemployment rates.

In this article, Dr de Rugy states “Based on this data, it is hard to make the case that doing more of the same will help. Yet that is precisely what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman think we should do. In his view, these dire results are due to a stimulus that was too small.”

However, the data presented clearly shows that stimulus spending did have a positive effect on the job market and thereby had a positive effect on the economy as a whole. Not surprising considering that in this vary same article Dr de Rugy herself states that “In theory, infrastructure spending injects more money into the economy than other types of government spending. In reality, however, politicians rarely include infrastructure spending in stimulus bills.”

Regardless of whether or not politicians include infrastructure spending, the doctor admits that such infrastructure spending does have an impact and the data she has presented shows that the stimulus spending thus far has had just such a positive impact on the economy. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that greater stimulus spending on infrastructure will have a greater positive impact, the data is in contradiction to the conclusion Dr de Rugy presented it to support.

These represent just a few examples of the shameless political bias and fundamental flaws contained in the research conducted by Dr de Rugy. One need only study the doctor’s writing with a critical eye to see that conservative political bias is her single driving motivation to such an extent that her every conclusion is derived solely to support conservative policies, regardless of the facts. Not surprising considering Dr de Rugy’s personal paycheck, as well as a considerable amount of academic notoriety as a senior research fellow, are afforded her, bought and paid for, by the Koch brothers.

Not only is Dr de Rugy the proverbial “poster child” for the total and complete lack of ethics in academia, but in journalism as well since she appears weekly on MSNBC’s Bloomberg report where she is introduced only as a financial expert, with no mention of her ties to the Koch brothers or her shameless rightwing political bias. Two facts which viewers might find highly relevant in light of the fact that Dr de Rugy’s ties to the Koch brothers and her conservative political bias appear to be the sole basis for the conclusions she draws.

Quoted sources are listed in the order in which they appear.

An Interesting Interview - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?pagewanted=all

The Billionaire Koch Brothers’ War Against Obama : The New Yorker

Reason Foundation - The Truth About Taxes and Redistribution

The Truth About Taxes and Redistribution - Reason Magazine

The Facts About the Corporate Income Tax - Reason Magazine

The Facts About Stimulus Spending - Reason Magazine

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly de Rugy is a paid spokesman for the Koch brothers who produces incredibly biased “research” with highly questionable conclusions. She’s like those doctors’ tobacco companies used to hire to go on T.V. and say smoking was perfectly safe. Using her as a source to justify your point is like quoting Stalin to justify fascism, its safe to say the speaker isn’t impartial.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Is that code talk for uppity black folk?

You on the the LEFT can call it whatever the hell you like. but WE THE PEOPLE are sick of it.
Obama was playing a GAME with this, HE LOST. He didn't HELP his cause either because THE PEOPLE saw through his thuggery.

You appear to suggest that people on the left are not among “the people” even though they clearly constitute 50% of the population.
Frankly I saw no one but the republicans playing games; clearly the vast majority of “the people” would agree that the economy is a vital issue at this time. The president wanted to address the people about the economy and republicans turned it into a political power play, therefore they are the ones playing games. I don’t see how any reasonable, non-biased individual could see it any other way.
Furthermore I don’t think the white house “lost” anything, what they did was avoid a huge fiasco over a minor issue that would have distracted from the real problems at hand and make everyone in Washington look foolish.

The economy was the reason he was elected, it's been 2.5 years and now he wants to talk about it? I think one more day won't hurt....

And how is it that we keep hearing about all the jobs that are being "saved and created" yet unemployment is still in the shitter? Sorry but I hope the American people aren't going to buy it again.....

 

[deepthunk]

You on the the LEFT can call it whatever the hell you like. but WE THE PEOPLE are sick of it.
Obama was playing a GAME with this, HE LOST. He didn't HELP his cause either because THE PEOPLE saw through his thuggery.

You appear to suggest that people on the left are not among “the people” even though they clearly constitute 50% of the population.
Frankly I saw no one but the republicans playing games; clearly the vast majority of “the people” would agree that the economy is a vital issue at this time. The president wanted to address the people about the economy and republicans turned it into a political power play, therefore they are the ones playing games. I don’t see how any reasonable, non-biased individual could see it any other way.
Furthermore I don’t think the white house “lost” anything, what they did was avoid a huge fiasco over a minor issue that would have distracted from the real problems at hand and make everyone in Washington look foolish.

The economy was the reason he was elected, it's been 2.5 years and now he wants to talk about it? I think one more day won't hurt....

And how is it that we keep hearing about all the jobs that are being "saved and created" yet unemployment is still in the shitter? Sorry but I hope the American people aren't going to buy it again.....

Well, I think it would be likely that he wants to talk about more recent events, like the standard and poor’s credit downgrade, or the historically unprecedented behavior of the stock market two to three weeks ago when it had, what I would almost term, a market quake. Or perhaps he wants to talk about recent events on the east coast and what effect they might have on the market. Whatever it is the president wants to talk about (I doubt he wants to share muffin recipes or chat about the price of tea in china), I should think the congress can reasonably rearrange its business to accommodate.
As for the jobs market being “in the shitter”, indeed it is, perhaps that’s what he wants to talk about.

 

[naturegirl]

Is that code talk for uppity black folk?

You on the the LEFT can call it whatever the hell you like. but WE THE PEOPLE are sick of it.
Obama was playing a GAME with this, HE LOST. He didn't HELP his cause either because THE PEOPLE saw through his thuggery.

You appear to suggest that people on the left are not among “the people” even though they clearly constitute 50% of the population.
Frankly I saw no one but the republicans playing games; clearly the vast majority of “the people” would agree that the economy is a vital issue at this time. The president wanted to address the people about the economy and republicans turned it into a political power play, therefore they are the ones playing games. I don’t see how any reasonable, non-biased individual could see it any other way.
Furthermore I don’t think the white house “lost” anything, what they did was avoid a huge fiasco over a minor issue that would have distracted from the real problems at hand and make everyone in Washington look foolish.

I agree with Ollie, we've heard the same thing over and over and over and over. He has nothing new to add.............It's Bush's fault, I inherited, I, I, I, me, me, me, I, I, I, me, me, me.

I'm watching the speech Thursday to see how many times he says I and/or me.

 

[Stephanie]

Is that code talk for uppity black folk?

You on the the LEFT can call it whatever the hell you like. but WE THE PEOPLE are sick of it.
Obama was playing a GAME with this, HE LOST. He didn't HELP his cause either because THE PEOPLE saw through his thuggery.

You appear to suggest that people on the left are not among “the people” even though they clearly constitute 50% of the population.
Frankly I saw no one but the republicans playing games; clearly the vast majority of “the people” would agree that the economy is a vital issue at this time. The president wanted to address the people about the economy and republicans turned it into a political power play, therefore they are the ones playing games. I don’t see how any reasonable, non-biased individual could see it any other way.
Furthermore I don’t think the white house “lost” anything, what they did was avoid a huge fiasco over a minor issue that would have distracted from the real problems at hand and make everyone in Washington look foolish.

Keep dreaming but by and large the Majority of people in this country is very Conservative or somewhat conservative. Liberals are A MINORITY in the country.. If it was 50% the Obama's approval wouldn't be down in the 30's in just THREE YEARS. And it damn sure was a game, IF he didn't know that Republicans had a debate planned for that date for HOW LONG NOW? and he didn't stop his handlers from picking that date, then he is even more clueless about what is happening with current events as people accuse him of.