DeathbyVolcano
Banned
This is one of your worst posts. That's saying something.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
This is one of your worst posts. That's saying something.
RustyNails
Member
It's not necessarily taste of their own medicine. National Security has been the forte of Republican Presidents for the past 50 years. This translated into public generally favoring Republicans over Democrats when it comes to national security. Now this kenyan muslim socialist democrat comes out of nowhere and steals Republicans' greatest perceived asset among the electorate. It's like your employer just hired a new guy who can do your area of work expertise 10 times better. This is why GOP is making such wincing statements.
Yes, Obama deserves credit for the giving the go ahead to take out bin Laden. You got a problem with that?
The Librarian
Banned
I think he was referencing the factually incorrect part of your post (is there ever not one?) in which you say Obama has said CEOs don't deserve the pay they get. Where has he said that?
Edit: For the record, I don't think CEOs deserve the pay they get. The ratio between what a CEO earns and what a worker earns has increased five times over the past thirty years. I don't get it: Have CEOs gotten five times better at their jobs?
Rocket Scientist
Member
Haha, Kosmo knows exactly what GaimeGuy was refering to.
cartoon_soldier
Member
No accelerated withdrawal, bah.
Let us see how Romney reacts to it though. I am assuming he will talk against ether taliban negotiations even though it is clear the afghans want to do that.
Let us see how Romney reacts to it though. I am assuming he will talk against ether taliban negotiations even though it is clear the afghans want to do that.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Really curious about Romney's response. So far his campaign has done some impressive responses to the Obama campaign, such as surprising them on the student loans or Lily Ledbetter law. Will he agree with Obama or double down on nonsense. More importantly, will he pledge to reverse this, or send troops back to Afghanistan
Even Romney had the sense to back down on this one Kosmo. Every time you mention Obama and Bin Laden, the world is reminded about how Obama got the job done. I have no idea why your side is doing this to themselves. It's embarassing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Good lord Obama, ENDORSE the fucking bill
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obama-romney-rubio-dream-act.php
It would be glorious
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obama-romney-rubio-dream-act.php
It would be glorious
I'm fine with him getting credit for it. I actually care about this election less than you would think. If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, I don't really care at all. If they uphold it, I will care a great deal more.
Haha. So awesome.
I find it funny that they are trying to paint hispanics as disappointed or upset that immigration isn't being brought up like as it usually is, that is...nothing more than a carrostick...just like Rubio is trying with a xenophobic faux dream act.
The Librarian
Banned
Still waiting for those Obama quotes about CEOs, Kosmo.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
lalalala he can't hear you lalalal
So, as much as I'm enjoying Obama bashing Mittens over the head with the Bin Laden thing, in the interest of fairness I do have to ask. If you would have told me that a there was a candidate that said that they would go into a sovereign country (without permission) to capture Bin Laden, I would have immediately assumed that a Republican said that. That's not to say that Dems are pussies on national security or anything, but it sounds like doing such a thing would be extremely unwise, and would create more enemies. And yet here we are, with Obama supporting such a thing, and the Republicans(!) supporting the reverse. How did the libs react when Obama said that back in 2007 or 2008 or whatever it was?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Biden was against it, as was Hillary. At the time it seemed like Obama was using it to position himself as tough on terrorism due to his lack of foreign policy experience, and many people called him out for it.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Obama quote on CEO's making too much money.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
That's a reach if anything.
The Librarian
Banned
The president is saying that despite the fact companies are having a bad year, CEOs take home millions of dollars in bonuses. Why are they taking home bonuses if their company is floundering? Why are they being rewarded?
That quote goes against what Kosmo was saying. He was presuming that Obama complains about CEOs who do well and take home millions of dollars, but in that quote Obama is complaining about CEOs taking home millions of dollars...even if their company is doing badly.
Yeah, Kosmo's analogy/claim of hypocrisy doesn't make any sort of sense. An actual analogy to that quote would be if Obama had failed in getting Bin Laden and still went on to try and get votes based off that failure.
Ghost_Protocol
Member
Ok. Someone explain to me what the fuck Ron Paul is doing? Rachel Maddow just talked about how his supporters just fucked everyone in Alaska and Iowa's state GOP legislatures, in spectacular fasion, winning him a bunch of delegates. What is this wily old bastard up to?
Aaron Strife
Banned
If he wins five states, he can force a vote at the convention between Romney and himself.
It gives him a presence that he wouldn't have otherwise.
Getting a prime convention spot. He's just doing old school politicking to influence.
Ghost_Protocol
Member
What does winning a state entail? Getting the most votes, or getting the most delegates? After watching that segment, it sounds like they actually aren't related? Santorum won Iowa, but Paul got the most delegates?
NullPointer
Member
You're damn right.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Where did you find that?
Rachel Maddow was talking about it, but I missed the source, so I just googled and found it.
I believe this is where it originated.
empty vessel
Member
Another one:
You could put Wall Street pay right on top of these. It also makes the infamous U-shape. Even better, this one has Wall Street pay in conjunction with a measure of regulation, both of which give us the U-shape.
There's a lesson in here somewhere. Because humans tend tend to normalize things, it is hard for us to understand how extreme the times we're currently living in really are.
You could put Wall Street pay right on top of these. It also makes the infamous U-shape. Even better, this one has Wall Street pay in conjunction with a measure of regulation, both of which give us the U-shape.
There's a lesson in here somewhere. Because humans tend tend to normalize things, it is hard for us to understand how extreme the times we're currently living in really are.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Another one:
You could put Wall Street pay right on top of these. It also makes the infamous U-shape. Even better, this one has Wall Street pay in conjunction with a measure of regulation, both of which give us the U-shape.
There's a lesson in here somewhere.
But the government works with businesses to enforce regulations on those businesses for the benefit of the businesses. I don't understand.
Man, have you ever read a more disgusting quote:
If the Secret Service scandal teaches us one thing, it is this: a mans private sexual conduct matters when were talking about public office, Fischer wrote. Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.
It's not even hidden bigotry. It's just out and out.
sometimes I wonder if before someone like Bulbo and Kosmo post their so painfully obviously misleading statements about what Obama did or said in any given day they actively forget about all their previous moments where the exact same thing happened. I think they're like the actualization of the goldfish memory myth (only true in this case), with memory spans that actively reset after like a day or something.
how one can one be so intellectually dishonest that they can twist Obama saying 'CEOs of companies that are doing poorly are getting paid too damn much' to 'rich people don't do much to earn their money, bunch of low down lazy assholes!' If you're going to make shit up, you might as well get fancy with it. Really go nuts. How about 'Obama says CEOs should be hung for daring to earn more than the 99%, and their money confiscated for use in expanding the government into your home and every waking hour!' I mean, really get creative, you know? Seems like a waste to be so wrong all the time so obviously to be rebuked one second later with the obvious answer... being creative would at least make it entertaining.
Something Wicked
Member
Only if we could go back to 1979 America. People were living in a true utopia then...
NullPointer
Member
I couldn't see straight after reading that for a few moments. There are no words that I can use to adequately express my disgust.
"Family values"AFA website said:
I don't get it. We shouldn't try and go back to (much) better specific elements from the 70s and before because other, unrelated bad things were happening as well?
I mean nevermind the near endless string of sexual scandals involving politicians who are straight, nevermind that many of them were our own presidents, nevermind that there is just as much potential risk of a straight dude engaging in 'anonymous sex' whilst having access to secret information... no, forget about all that.
If you're gay you're, like, naturally predisposed toward being a grotesque sexual deviant who engages every dude with a dick in a darkened bathroom stall, and you can't have someone like that flopping around all gleefully through the white house spreading his gayness!
The amazing thing is he misses the point he himself is basically raising in his own comment! If the Secret Service scandal has taught has anything it's that... OH YEAH! That straight people like to fuck people too!
The comment is so fucking disgusting that it's almost insane.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I don't think you get the big picture here. In 1979 the fed was a mess, oil prices were skyrocketing, unemployment was high, and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.
then what of the rest of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s?
Interesting. I wonder what Obama was thinking during the time.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And those were linked to the low income disparity at the time?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Possibly trying to win over independents who were fed up with Bush's economic and military ideals, but still wanted someone who would prove to have a strong hand...guess it worked quite well, and honestly, his foreign policy has been his strongest hand to show. Incredible in many ways.
Something Wicked
Member
High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.
Anyway, CEOs' salaries have grown because companies have grown. The larger a company becomes, the more important the decisions of its top figurehead become, hence the deviation of CEO pay versus the average worker's pay. If you think a specific CEO or some member of a major company does not deserve the size of his/her paycheck, then become a shareholder and make your case among your fellow shareholders of that particular company.
However, if even the average CEO of a major US company divvied up half of his/her pay, between the rest of his/her company's employees, each employee would likely receive just $20-80 more per month (before payroll and income taxes). If you think $80/month (well, again there's at least payroll taxes, so more like $75/month) more in your pocket is going to change your life around, please PM me, because that's got to be one hell of a plan.
Not a huge fan of James Fallows, but he does a nice job of taking Mittens to the woodshed of his Jimmy Carter comments:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/even-jimmy-carter/256558/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/even-jimmy-carter/256558/
empty vessel
Member
I must confess to not always being able to tell when you're being sarcastic. For example, unemployment in 1979 was almost exactly the historical average. (Of course, if you stop the graph at 1979, it would have been just a little above average at that time for the post-WWII period (but still below 1950, 1955, 1959, 1962, and 1971-72). Post-1979 has the raised the unemployment bar enough to make 1979 average.) And I'm not really sure what your other assertions mean or how they relate.
Yeah thats a really weird choice the cod games skipped the Reagan/contra era so why actively seek him out?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Er...tax rates have certainly been very high in times of high economic growth and activity in the past
Why have worker wages stagnated? You might have a case for CEO-worker income disparity but not the lack of wage growth overall.
Sure jealousy isn't what you legislate on, but I'm sure this guy can give you quite a few other reasons to legislate on inequality and why it should be reduced.
But keep clinging to the notion that all people who think things have become unequal are just jealous. Makes you look real smart.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked