The Goat Pen

I'm 70% on point with eCat's whole post.

IB's post amused me for its "there is no rational, lucid reason justifying re-electing" Obama. There's no reason to go into debate at that point.

Crashcourse is right on point on our gradual glidepath to deleveraging without hitting a second recession as a tremendous accomplishment. Adding 3,000,000 (I think it's 3) private sector jobs in the last 2.5 years isn't bad either.

There are many things people can complain about with Obama, but to say there is not a single logical reason one could argue for his re-election is laughable, myopic and Foxy.

"President Obama is an example of the Peter Principle. He was promoted way above his head."

IB was promoted to the village idiot and even that was way over his head....

I don't trust Romney to veto anything. Romney does what the approval ratings tell him to do, not the GOP.

I'm not sure I follow you on the point regarding Gingrich, Santorum or Paul. There was no clear favorite among republicans, and honestly I don't think the voters are going to rally behind "anyone but Obama". I'm not saying they'll vote for Obama, I don't think they'll vote at all.

I don't trust Romney period. He's slimy. E & crash pretty much summed it up. Obama is gonna get another 4 years, that's already a given. Will he go through another 4 years of backlash because he won or will the repubs actually represent the people who elected them?

Jungle Rat wrote:I don't trust Romney period. He's slimy. E & crash pretty much summed it up. Obama is gonna get another 4 years, that's already a given. Will he go through another 4 years of backlash because he won or will the repubs actually represent the people who elected them?

I don't trust anyone. But I'm still voting in November.

The GOP are the only ones who have even bothered to offer a budget in the last 4 years. The Senate refuses to even let Paul Ryan's budget come up for a vote. They CAN'T let it come up for a vote because then they'd have to vote on it and that vote would be "no." Then the Dems would be the ones obstructing and the President loses his main argument against this Congress.

Spending a trillion we don't have every year, is not a budget. That is living on credit. That is what our ex-wives do to our credit cards when they simply have to have a closet full of shoes they do not need.

eCat wrote:I don't trust Romney to veto anything.

He had almost 1000 vetoes in 4 years as Governor. Every single one of them were "over-ridden" by the Dem controlled State House on Beacon Hill. As a Republican Gov in Massachusetts, his vetoes counted for nothing.

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154583216 ... e-big-deal

NPR wrote:Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously.

What the fuck could he do? He didn't run the state, the Dem State reps did.

Dems do not control 85% of Congress the way they do Beacon Hill. Mitt's vetoes will count as President.

Bklyn wrote:Crashcourse is right on point on our gradual glidepath to deleveraging without hitting a second recession as a tremendous accomplishment.

Second recession? We re still in the first one. We have millions and millions of people who haven't worked in years. A coworker of mine, she just ended her engagement because her fiance couldn't find a job in two years. I feel terrible for that guy.

you don't even know how to spell "labor."

innocentbystander wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:I don't trust Romney period. He's slimy. E & crash pretty much summed it up. Obama is gonna get another 4 years, that's already a given. Will he go through another 4 years of backlash because he won or will the repubs actually represent the people who elected them?

I don't trust anyone. But I'm still voting in November.

The GOP are the only ones who have even bothered to offer a budget in the last 4 years. The Senate refuses to even let Paul Ryan's budget come up for a vote. They CAN'T let it come up for a vote because then they'd have to vote on it and that vote would be "no." Then the Dems would be the ones obstructing and the President loses his main argument against this Congress.

Spending a trillion we don't have every year, is not a budget. That is living on credit. That is what our ex-wives do to our credit cards when they simply have to have a closet full of shoes they do not need.

Good Job! Good Effort! Good Job! Good Effort!

innocentbystander wrote:

Bklyn wrote:Crashcourse is right on point on our gradual glidepath to deleveraging without hitting a second recession as a tremendous accomplishment.

Second recession? We re still in the first one. We have millions and millions of people who haven't worked in years. A coworker of mine, she just ended her engagement because her fiance couldn't find a job in two years. I feel terrible for that guy.

Sounds like your coworker is a cunt. Best break of that dudes life.

yep @ Cletus.

If you're telling me that we're still in the recession from 2008, then you are oblivious to economics...but you are a slave to rhetoric, it seems.

I think I saw Obama cough near a baby. That man has no shame. He must hate babies.

"A coworker of mine, she just ended her engagement because her fiance couldn't find a job in two years. I feel terrible for that guy."

Seems like everybody that comes near you ends up with a ruined relationship. Including your wife and fambly. Or should I say, especially your wife and family. God, the thought of your family is enough to drive someone to suicide. And I'm sure it already has in many of their cases. Why couldn't it be you?

Op Ed wrote:

sardis wrote:Problem is we don't have the stomach to bomb the shit out of anything. We've proved we can not occupy and impose our will on certain people. See Korea, Vietnam, Irag, Afghanistan. We have to eliminate them, and when I mean eliminate, I mean eliminate their villages that harbor them. Not precision bombing and then send our guys in there to police, I mean utterly destroy.

One vote for genocide.

sardis wrote:Thank God Op Ed wasn't in charge in WWII...

To the best of what you know, do you see a difference between the strategic balance of power and threat to this nation during WW-II and our current war on terra?

innocentbystander wrote:A coworker of mine, she just ended her engagement because her fiance couldn't find a job in two years.

Couldn't you get him a job flipping burgers too?

eCat wrote:Obama is the most efficient killing machine against terrorists we've had or will likely have as president in the next 20 years and he strikes me as the type who wouldn't lose a minutes sleep initiating a good ole CIA coup against a banana republic or assassinating a dictator. His generous use of drones in countries we are not at war takes balls the size of church bells and is the kind of big stick policy that Karl Rove masterbates in the shower over. That isn't appealing to the modern democratic base, especially as the nobel peace prize winner. And to the disdain of the GOP, his tactics against the terrorist are all generally low cost and don't line the pockets of sole source military contractors like Haliburton.

Obama does not only kill "terrorists", he kills lots of "militants".

"Militants" are unarmed civilians from ethnic groups we would prefer to exterminate, and their deaths tend to turn other "militants" into "terrorists".

Here's vote #2.

sardis wrote:Problem is we don't have the stomach to bomb the shit out of anything. We've proved we can not occupy and impose our will on certain people. See Korea, Vietnam, Irag, Afghanistan. We have to eliminate them, and when I mean eliminate, I mean eliminate their villages that harbor them. Not precision bombing and then send our guys in there to police, I mean utterly destroy.

Well said, sir. That being as it is we need to get out of that business.

Cletus wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:Second recession? We re still in the first one. We have millions and millions of people who haven't worked in years. A coworker of mine, she just ended her engagement because her fiance couldn't find a job in two years. I feel terrible for that guy.

Sounds like your coworker is a cunt. Best break of that dudes life.

Recessions and depressions used to bring families closer together, make marriage stronger since all people could do is rely on family and their spouse. Nowadays (pretty much since the 1990 Recession) recesions tend to END marriages and families, tend to separate them. This is a combination of great affluence brought about by the Reagan administration of the 1980s and No-Fault-Divorce of the 1970s.

Far too many women out there are gold-diggers. They marry, not for love, BUT INSTEAD to increase their lifestyle. These are typically women who (in their young adulthood, pre-marriage) have a lot of shoes in the closet, women who have made multiple trips to the caribbean in their 20s, women who always have credit cards charged to the max, women who have nothing to show for their working life (no assets) but debt and boat load of excuses. When they marry, they tend not to say two of the vows: "...for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer." Or if they DO SAY THEM they conveinently forget them when times get a little tough in the family. I would say almost all of the divorces that I have seen in our counseling center (at least 90%), were the result of the wife divorcing her husband because he lost his job/business/earning power, whatever. I try to talk them out of doing this but these women listen to their girlfriends who tell them to dump their husbands and keep the kids (and the house.) Too oftern I have even gotten into it with the fathers of the women divorcing their husbands. One dad told me to mind my own business. I told this guy (in his 60s) that it was my business since his former son-in-law came to me when his daughter asked his son-in-law for a divorce. Typical responses from the 60+ year old Babt Boomer dads whose daughters are leaving their marriages is "shut the fuck up, she knows what she is doing and her husband was a loser." My response is what makes them a loser, what just because they lost a job? One of these dads even tried to take a swing at me, fortunately he is old and he missed and I restrained these screaming old man until the cops could arrest him.

This is what the Baby Boomer generation, the 70s no-fault-divorce laws, and the 80s wealth creation, has wrought for women born after 1965. They all think their special and far too many of them AREN'T willing to work hard at making a marriage work. Because they all so special, marriage for them is ONLY for the better, NEVER for the worse.

Op Ed wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:A coworker of mine, she just ended her engagement because her fiance couldn't find a job in two years.

Couldn't you get him a job flipping burgers too?

I asked her if she couldn't have him come in with our next customer service recruiting class (random drug testing at the firm means we let a lot of CSRs go, routinely, creating openings), and she told me that even if he did, it was too late. She just couldn't take it anymore, and had to move on with her life. Very sad.