Comments Posted By sota
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 66 Comments

A SHORT NOTE ON ADDUCING THE POLITICS OF ANYONE BY PERUSING THEIR BOOKSHELF

Washington Post update...perhaps Michelle Obama had nothing to do with any of these books being placed where they are?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2010/02/socialist_books_in_the_white_h.html

Everyone is so quick to play "AHA!"...it's sad and disappointing. I await the Photoshopped pictures of George W. Bush's library choices and accompanying jokes. Maybe there will be a great new controversy erupting here where real pictures of the Obama's reading lists are revealed. The left will call these people Bookers or something else suitably clever.

Comment Posted By sota On 18.02.2010 @ 17:49

REGARDING THOSE TAX CUTS FOR '95%' OF WORKING FAMILIES

You collected that stack of presidential engravings in an environment of government-supplied “externalities”, a legal system that makes contracts enforceable, a road system that makes it easy to get around, a social safety net that keeps poverty-driven crime down and a penal system that tries to keep those that commit crimes anyway out of circulation, the list goes on.

This "list" might be at the heart of the biggest disagreement amongst liberals and conservatives - how much power/reach/responsibility should the federal government have? Conservatives would argue that they gain wealth IN SPITE of that "list" and liberals will argue that they gain wealth BECAUSE of that "list".

It was a good plan, although fairly modest in its workings. It didn’t help the economy much at all and the reason most Americans think their taxes haven’t been cut is probably due to the fact that the average taxpayer’s take home pay was increased by only around $13 a week.

And when they hear through their brother-in-law (who pays no attention to politics) that "you just have to pay it back at the end of the year, anyway", the Obama administration has a communication problem.

When people generically say "tax cut", most think of income taxes. To my brother-in-law, it felt more like an accounting gimmick.

I have met very few tax cuts I didn't like, but a few extra bucks per paycheck is definitely hard to organize rallies around.

But if we’re going to criticize the president, let’s do it for his disingenuousness in claiming credit for tax provisions he had absolutely nothing to do with creating.

I find it hard to get too wound up about that. Every president takes credit for the previous administration's "good times" and blames them for any "bad times" they've inherited. Each one benefits from the previous administration in some way and Obama is no different. Supporters on either side will never admin it (which, again, is just growing more and more tiresome).

Comment Posted By sota On 15.02.2010 @ 07:25

PAUL RYAN'S LONELY VOICE

You write a throw-away grace note about the first black president and the very first comment includes yet another angry white guy spouting barely-disguised racist nonsense. And you’re shocked, shocked when the conversation is hijacked.

Apples are delicious!

Comment Posted By sota On 15.02.2010 @ 06:58

A typical argument these days online (including MANY comment threads on this site):

Apples are a fruit.
Apples are delicious!
No, they're red!
Not all fruits are red!
Apples are!
No, they're delicious!

This is why I am again thinking seriously of turning off the comment function. What's the fricking point? The same commenters comment on each and every post and they all say the same things all the time. It's monotonous. Jesus, Bottoms is as predictable as rain in Seattle. Reynolds ditto. Obamatherd too.

No one bothers to comment on what I write. Each thread ends up being a pissing contest between calling the opponent a racist or a commie. It's pathetic.

Don't you get bored spouting the same nonsense over and over? I suggest you all write down three or four comments that you can simply plug into anything I write. Hell, most of you probably already do that anyway.

ed.

Comment Posted By sota On 14.02.2010 @ 09:33

Like this hasn’t happened around here a couple of billion times already . . .

Of course it has...just like the rants of a couple liberals who trot out their tired arguments no matter what the topic. Both sides have moved from predictable to ignorable. Everyone talks past each other. Nobody listens. It's a great way to have a debate. It's all become a bunch of noise in the echo chambers that nobody else pays any attention to.

Comment Posted By sota On 14.02.2010 @ 09:25

GOING ALL HOFSTADTER ON ME

The poll had me worried about the state of the Republican party, but if the liberal's responses to it are any indication of their best and their brightest, I'm not as worried.

When everyone is covered in stupidity, you don't have to be smart. You just have to be a little smarter then the idiot next to you.

Comment Posted By sota On 4.02.2010 @ 07:45

I think you’d be suprised Rick . . . but only because of how you’ve phrased the questions.

You might be right, but I'm not so sure. The vitriol from both sides is just getting so predictable.

At the "height" of Bush's unpopularity, I suspect one could have asked some pretty blatantly fierce questions and gotten similar percentages. For one, you're being far too kind on the "war for oil" nonsense. I suspect that would still get a lot of "yay" votes if a poll were taken today.

Frankly, I'm just exhausted by both sides. Almost without exception, they're more concerned with "winning" political points (or at least making sure the other side "loses") than they are with actually getting something positive done.

What’s terrifying about the poll you cited is that the questions ARE phrased in the extreme language

I do find some of the results almost not credible, but I have no reason to believe otherwise. It just seems hard to comprehend the level of idiocy that exists on either side at this point.

And that should cause the rational among us to fear the future.

Agreed. I'm not sure there's room for rational voices given the current political climate. Democrats offer me nothing I'm interested in supporting. Republicans are increasingly becoming frustratingly difficult to support. And voting a third party is like emptying the ocean with a syringe.

Comment Posted By sota On 3.02.2010 @ 17:56

THE POTENTIAL ANTI-OBAMA VOTE IN NOVEMBER

Unlike the previous occupant of the White House, this president expressed and paiently worked to have a meaningful bipartisanship relationship with the opposition.

I have to believe that sometimes even YOU don't believe what you're saying.

Comment Posted By sota On 31.01.2010 @ 06:31

No, I don’t believe all Republicans ae proto-Klan members, but enough of them in high profile positions are that it makes it hard for your party to ever shake that association in the minds of anyone with brown skin or a Jewish name.

I'm sorry, I wasn't listening. Did you say something?

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we have larger majorities than Bush did. Now that the GOP has added their Senate seat they can’t continue the game of opposing everything Obama wants to do.

I've noticed. With 60 votes, he sure as heck didn't need a single Republican to get anything he wanted. If his prescription for the country was so sure fire, he could have pushed through an entire rewrite of America during the last year. Did he get everything he wanted this year legislatively? If not, why not? I suppose it was those meanie Republicans (that were virtually powerless) that stymied him?

Comment Posted By sota On 30.01.2010 @ 19:35

WHAT PLANET HAS OBAMA BEEN VISITING THE LAST YEAR?

“not mentioning Word One about the problems caused by Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank in running interference for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the housing collapse”
Congratulations! You have successfully ingested the AM radio talking points, and have brilliantly narrowed your perception so as to be oblivious to 30 years of toxic deregulation that took our economy to the brink of ruin…AGAIN!

Which part of John's assertion do you have qualms about? That Fannie and Freddie played a big part in the collapse of the housing market? Or that Barney Frank (and others) ran interference for them?

In both cases, it's not simply "AM radio talking points" that make that argument.

Comment Posted By sota On 29.01.2010 @ 06:55


 


Next page »


Pages (7) : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7


«« Back To Stats Page