Are you for real?

Do you not see that you are literally gaslighting by attempting to paint an individual, who organized a stunt aimed at intimidating another person in public, as the victim of the incident?

I don't even give a shit about gamergate or the feminism/anti-feminism celebrity battle that you, clearly, have taken a side on. I don't support anyone involved because all of the participants appear to be acting like asshats. But any objective viewer can see that one side made a bold move to aggressively provoke an opponent and succeeded in their goal of getting a response. It was bullying and abusive and it illicited an undignified response.

Let me reiterate, I am not your opposition in your crazy war. But I have to point out that it is a perplexing bit of mental acrobatics for you to attempt to perpetuate a false reality by accusing an intended victim of trying to perpetuate a false reality.

That's a clown move and if you had any integrity you would pause a moment for a little self examination.

Actually, the video is about manipulation.

But yes, he's kind of dumb. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with his politics (hell, I don't even know what he truly believes). There are plenty of conservatives that I think are brilliant. It's just very obvious from hearing him talk that Trump is dumb. The vocabulary of a middle-school kid, the lack of knowledge about history an adult should posses (let alone the President), lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of self-awareness, etc.

He's extremely confident and arrogant, and this has helped him succeed. I know people like that from my childhood. You think they're so stupid they wouldn't even graduate high school, but they somehow end up successful.

They bet big because they don't question themselves, so they go all in, and sometimes they win. Meanwhile, a lot of extremely smart people constantly doubt themselves, are too self conscious, etc. to make any bold moves.

But of course when you bet big, you lose sometimes too. And we've seen Trump lose a BILLION dollars in a boom economy in the fucking CASINO business.

It's a bold move that may well cost him votes. On this score, Obama has more to fear from 'centrist' white independent voters than African Americans or Latino voters.

Ultimately though, this issue will not drive his election or Romney's. The economy and some foreign issues are too important.

Since when does being pro-same-sex-marriage get you elected in the US? It's a bold move, especially because it's an election year.

Oh that's an easy one how bout his lame signing statement on the NDAA.

>> ^longde:

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:
Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.

Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.

Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.

>> ^longde:

I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

Here is more on this.

quote:
In a bold move compassionately advocated by Twain scholar Dr. Alan Gribben and embraced by NewSouth, Mark Twain’s Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn also replaces two hurtful epithets that appear hundreds of times in the texts with less offensive words, this intended to counter the “preemptive censorship” that Dr. Gribben observes has caused these important works of literature to fall off curriculum lists nationwide.

>> ^jwray:
Police is plural, so there shouldn't be an s on your "makes".


Obviously missing "car" or "man". I call typo, not ignorance.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
It is pretty amazing how little force is applied.


It is a minivan traveling at high speed. He probably could have spit on it and thrown it into a spin.

Joe is right, but he's still not as bright as he could be. People are calling Obama timid in order to gain political points, not because they actually want him to be making bold moves right now. They are simply being contrarian because people who don't like Obama will be happy that they are insulting him. They have no plan of action, as shown time and time again. Just blowing smoke.

Clyde Cash or Clyde the Cat? Maybe his girlfriend got a cat and is also stealing his comics and now he's jealous and mad?

Did anybody understand wtf he was talking about?
And why is this in the Happy channel? It's not happy...except the first and last lines.

Oh, and he was on TV:


Edit:
I did some researching and apparently Clyde Cash sent a letter to Chris Chandler's dad telling him stuff Chris has been doing. Pretty bold move. You can read the letter in the description of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-w9EEyj12E

Hes gone back to the bow tie.
Bold move tucker....bold.

BTW, the discard? Bold move, Schmawy.