Reagan (R) The Political Right’s Standard

Eh, I treat 'em (right-wing extremists) the same as I would any child...that needs their head examined.

...Where'd I put that tire-iron?

What? ...I'm changing a tire!

...You people are sick!

 

They got nothin'!

 

I can produce a VERY, VERY VERY long list in just one word - Obamacare. I needn't add anything else, but fast and furious, black panthers, Solyndra, Fisker etc. and on and on.

 

I don't know, they got their extremisms. It might not be all warm and fuzzy like truth or what-not, but if brittle shards of glass piercing your hide is what rocks their World...

 

Right-wing manufactured issues do not constitute divisive behavior, at least not in reality. Do you even know what the word divisive means? I'm kind of doubting it given your silly list. Just because the Right-wing doesn't like it doesn't mean Obama is being divisive. Saying things in public like we are going to break him is an example of divisive behavior. Policy is policy like it or not. Saying that you are just plain dumb is divisive and in this case also true.

 

42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. But one should always remember when predicting an election that 66% of the people make up 2/3rds of the population.

I do think that, from a campaign ad aspect, the old Ronnie "Are you better off now talk..." might be a decent path for Romney to try.

 

Manufactured? How many Republicans voted for Obamacare? Man, that really sounds like Mr. congeniality was working well with the other side, doesn't it. Even the vote to hold Holder in contempt produced some Democratic votes.

BTW, how many people voted for Obama's budget? That is another great example of working well with your team a well as the opposition, right? As much as you bitch about the Republican budget, even it got some opposition support.

 

Yeah, associating with Reagan is always a plus in the party, and in both circumstances (Reagan's and Romney's) it wouldn't be an outright lie...but then again, it's not exactly totally truthful either.

Take the price of gasoline stat: I have no doubt that on Inauguration day that was an average price, but it's a deceptive figure. The cost rose dramatically not long before before that day, I believe, and dropped at inauguration day.

Conspiracy theorists probably have ...well, theories, about that... say that maybe the oil industry purposely dropped the price leading up to that specific day just so people could quote such a stat now... but I'll leave that stuff for tom lol (I personally don't think that highly of the industries intellect. Not that they're dumb, I just doubt they are that sinister)...(pauses)...I take it back. The Industry is smart enough to plan that far ahead, and it would be a brilliant strategy... (curls into fetal position) I'm scared now...

(To tom) : By the way, miss ya bud! C'mon back and irritate chat with the far-righties again! They all say they can't enjoy life without you, and that they think you're sexy, and that they want your body..and they want you to let you know that!

Apparently all the far-righties are Rod Stewart... go figure...

 

Always the exaggerator ...My sources inform me that the number is precisely 42.5%.

...give or take .1%

 

I just can't entertain your delusional perspective because you are simply too intellectually lazy to examine the facts but never fail to spew the party line of liars and idiots. It's all you ever do and it is boring.

 

Actually it looks like it dropped dramatically all of the last 6 months of 2008.

And it apparently went from $1.61 (a 5 year low) on Dec 31 to the $1.85 on inauguration day...and has never been below that level since.


http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/2008-us-gas-price-year-in-review.html

 

Damn those pesky facts! They just never seem to fit the far left's narrative, do they?

 

You are right. I cannot possibly conclude that zero opposition votes translates into anything other than being totally completely divisive. Besides Obama's budgets, can you name any other presidents bills to get ZERO votes? EVER?

 

Here, this is just how gullible you are. Basically, you choose to be an uninformed, low-information, kool-aid drinking idiot but are still too dumb to know it.


Just as they did in March in the House of Representatives, Republicans forced a vote on a bill that was supposed to resemble the president's budget, but wasn't actually the president's budget. A Republican Senator submitted it, and called for the vote.
This vote, on a Potemkin "Obama Budget," is not intended to be taken seriously. It's a stunt designed to get a slag into the newscycle, and they tend to work. What happens is a Republican legislator presents a "budget proposal" that's designed to be a satirical presentation of an "Obama budget." Democrats don't vote for it, because they recognize that it bears no resemblance to their budgetary preferences. Back in March, it was Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) who got the Harlequin role in this bit of legislative commedia dell'arte. As Dave Weigel reported at the time, Mulvaney presented the pretend Obama budget with a knowing wink:

"It's not a gimmick unless what the President sent us is the same," Mulvaney snarked. "We are voting on the President's budget. I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it." (Calling a Democratic effort a "Democrat" effort is a minor swipe.)
As House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi succinctly explained at the time, "It was a caricature of the president's budget, so we voted against it."

And you believe them! This is why I have to continually refer to you as dumb. You just keep proving me right.

 

So you are agreeing with me. For 3 years, the president has been incapable of garnering the support for his or any budget. BTW, that includes 2 years where the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Thank you for pointing out just how effective a leader Obama has been!

 

Thank you for proving just what an idiot you are!

 

Keep digging!

 

But would you agree that prices ever since early to mid 2008 have been in a high "flux"... as in steep increases in prices as well as steep declines? And the cause wasn't a political party* (directly anyway), it was the result of the housing bubble bursting, causing the economic crisis we are still clawing our way out of.

Basically my point is that the stat, while technically true, is misleading in the way it is packaged, as it leads people to believe that the Democratic party, and Obama in particular, are at fault for the difference between the price of gasoline on Inauguration day and now.

That Obama had nothing to do with the bubble-burst, the root cause of the fluxuations, is immaterial to the Republican message that he is. And that is an outright lie.

 

The 3 biggest factors in the increased fuel costs would be India/China growth, reduced (as opposed to increased) drilling available to the oil companies, and turmoil in Iran. So we have no control on India/China. Therefore you are correct on that point. There has been only one party in charge of the drilling permits and it name does not begin with an "R". I will not go into all of the particulars having to do with our foreign policy having to do with Iran, but again there is only one party controlling it.

I realize that those two run contrary to you beliefs, but anyone familiar with the oil industry knows they are facts and solely under Obama's control.

 

One can 'Yeah But' it or rationalize it or whatever but, as you acknowledge, the stat is true.

He's the President at the helm and people, rightly or not, lay the blame or praise mostly on the guy in that seat for many, many things. Partly that is because we are naive as an electorate and partly that is because those that run for office blow so much smoke up our collective behinds about how they can 'Change' things and about their Hope and Vision that will make things better for us, etc.

That is why the argument of "Are you better off now that you were 4 years ago...' is such a persuasive one.