Russian Obama Mockery

[R. Chapman]

GlimmeJim wrote: ..." Put it completely pragmatically. Look where he started, and look where he has ended up. He didn't have an President/Governor/Senator for a father, or even a political family. Why is success in business, acquired by often questionably moral means, lauded. But success in a more public venue, which is by definition a much more contentious and vulnerable position, spat upon? Unless it more closely conforms to your idea of political reason, then it's worth defending at all costs and at the expense of rationality" ...

I will try to express my views in words that all can understand:

As to where Obama started, he started in the system and on the program. Hand outs were the norm throughout his life. He was raised by his grandmother and sponsored later in his younger life by minders that put him forward to further their political agendas. As for the public venue being much more contentious and vulnerable, ask yourself, what must you do to fail in a government administrative position? Especially a position where you bestow largess to people who have no desire to succeed?
Obama is without a doubt an orator, how hard do you think it is for a man of color who (as people said about Colin Powell) "speaks so well" to get elected in Chicago, especially after he has spread government largess throughout his supporters? How do you get fired from a government job? Obama doesn't have to be and isn't accountable for his words or actions. You may say: "Well if he is so bad, how did he get re-elected?" the answer is pretty simple, he made promises he couldn't keep, gave away more money and called it jobs, he expanded the federal workforce but required no effort or productivity. He made "make work" projects that burned through federal money and brought little improvements but many votes. As the President, Obama, has made false promises before and during his term of office, has blamed everyone but himself, has surrounded himself with yes men and has unabashedly spent money on himself and his family that is so blatant that it is a cliché.

Nobody seems willing to ignore the "race card" and hold Obama's feet to the fire. What should he care about the decisions he makes or the promises he breaks, he is only in it for 8 years.

We laude success in business because it produces goods and services, it produces wealth and it produces security. Many times it is a matter of luck, good ideas, good timing and the proper use of others that gender success in business. The proper and judicious use of land, labor, capital coupled with entrepreneurship and consumer demand often leads to success but there is no guarantee. Using the labor, ideals and efforts of others (whether rewarded or not) often leads to success but to turn these efforts into profits requires capital and management. We view success in many ways, but it is often measured by dollars. In most cases, dollars don't just appear, they are created by "risk" and as often said, the greater the risk, the greater the reward but only in the cases when the risk "pays off" and managing risk is one of the factors that we often deem as success.

On the other hand, success often comes with two simple words: "Thanks, Dad!"

I would suggest that you read a book, "The Millionaire Next Door" to further understand the process of success and wealth accumulation. I would not suggest that you read "Atlas Shrugged", it would make no sense to you.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1407084996.991605.jpg

[Glimmerjim]

GlimmeJim wrote: ..." Put it completely pragmatically. Look where he started, and look where he has ended up. He didn't have an President/Governor/Senator for a father, or even a political family. Why is success in business, acquired by often questionably moral means, lauded. But success in a more public venue, which is by definition a much more contentious and vulnerable position, spat upon? Unless it more closely conforms to your idea of political reason, then it's worth defending at all costs and at the expense of rationality" ...

I will try to express my views in words that all can understand:

As to where Obama started, he started in the system and on the program. Hand outs were the norm throughout his life. He was raised by his grandmother and sponsored later in his younger life by minders that put him forward to further their political agendas. As for the public venue being much more contentious and vulnerable, ask yourself, what must you do to fail in a government administrative position? Especially a position where you bestow largess to people who have no desire to succeed?
Obama is without a doubt an orator, how hard do you think it is for a man of color who (as people said about Colin Powell) "speaks so well" to get elected in Chicago, especially after he has spread government largess throughout his supporters? How do you get fired from a government job? Obama doesn't have to be and isn't accountable for his words or actions. You may say: "Well if he is so bad, how did he get re-elected?" the answer is pretty simple, he made promises he couldn't keep, gave away more money and called it jobs, he expanded the federal workforce but required no effort or productivity. He made "make work" projects that burned through federal money and brought little improvements but many votes. As the President, Obama, has made false promises before and during his term of office, has blamed everyone but himself, has surrounded himself with yes men and has unabashedly spent money on himself and his family that is so blatant that it is a cliché.

Nobody seems willing to ignore the "race card" and hold Obama's feet to the fire. What should he care about the decisions he makes or the promises he breaks, he is only in it for 8 years.

We laude success in business because it produces goods and services, it produces wealth and it produces security. Many times it is a matter of luck, good ideas, good timing and the proper use of others that gender success in business. The proper and judicious use of land, labor, capital coupled with entrepreneurship and consumer demand often leads to success but there is no guarantee. Using the labor, ideals and efforts of others (whether rewarded or not) often leads to success but to turn these efforts into profits requires capital and management. We view success in many ways, but it is often measured by dollars. In most cases, dollars don't just appear, they are created by "risk" and as often said, the greater the risk, the greater the reward but only in the cases when the risk "pays off" and managing risk is one of the factors that we often deem as success.

On the other hand, success often comes with two simple words: "Thanks, Dad!"

I would suggest that you read a book, "The Millionaire Next Door" to further understand the process of success and wealth accumulation. I would not suggest that you read "Atlas Shrugged", it would make no sense to you.

You're right. I never could make sense of nonsense. I'll read "The Millionaire Next Door" if you read "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.
"Thanks Dad"? What recent president does that apply to? You get, um, three guesses. Maybe four or five. However many it takes you.
I could go through your post and pick it apart piece by piece, but it's easier to just say it is all ridiculous. Give me your idea of a recent President, say the last 40 years, that didn't fail to come through on some campaign promises, didn't make statements of questionable veracity during his tenure, and faced a more contentious opposition party.
I'll wait.

[RonE]

You asked about differences and I pointed them out. Please don't start with the sour grapes.

As to who probably kept most of his campaign promises, I would have to say Nixon. Who did a lot for the underprivileged and for the country in general, I would say Eisenhower. Who made us proudest to be Americans, I would say Reagan. Who reacted best in a crisis, perhaps Bush II (Unless you consider Reagan in the Air Traffic Controllers Strike). Who got out when the getting out was good, Johnson.

As to "Thanks, Dad!" you are probably referring to Bush II and Kennedy.

As to: I could go through your post and pick it apart piece by piece, but it's easier to just say it is all ridiculous. Get to picking!

[capt1972]

You're right. I never could make sense of nonsense. I'll read "The Millionaire Next Door" if you read "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.
"Thanks Dad"? What recent president does that apply to? You get, um, three guesses. Maybe four or five. However many it takes you.
I could go through your post and pick it apart piece by piece, but it's easier to just say it is all ridiculous. Give me your idea of a recent President, say the last 40 years, that didn't fail to come through on some campaign promises, didn't make statements of questionable veracity during his tenure, and faced a more contentious opposition party.
I'll wait.

[RonE]

GJ, here is mine, show me yours.........


Not yet shipped


Delivery estimate: Thursday, August 7, 2014 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 by 8:00pm


Track Package



Outliers: The Story of Success

Gladwell, Malcolm

Sold by: Amazon.com LLC

[Botiz630]

Jim, I'm curious as to why you suggested that Ron read Outliers?

[clampdaddy]

I don't understand what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with how smart he is or where he came from. Putin is a bad ass. Obama is a sissy. The Ruskies like to poke him in the eye about it. We think its funny when he gets poked in the eye.

[SpinnerMan]

I'll read "The Millionaire Next Door" if you read "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

You really should read it. It's a good book. I put the Outliers on my reading list.

Another good book to read and it is short is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.

[RonE]

I'll read "The Millionaire Next Door" if you read "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

You really should read it. It's a good book. I put the Outliers on my reading list.

Another good book to read and it is short is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.

I just ordered Outliers and have read Thomas Sowell.

[Glimmerjim]

Jim, I'm curious as to why you suggested that Ron read Outliers?

Because I think it sums up a lot of Obama's objectives, Botiz. The concept of taking those steps necessary to most allow for growth of the most disenfranchised, often times synonomous with Social Programs, descending rapidly into Welfare Programs and then to "Takers". When Ron is speaking of Obama specifically, it's obvious that he is speaking of liberals in general, as most of his policies that are most objected to are quite liberal.
I think Gladwell addresses this issue of disparate opportunity in a fascinating and well-exemplified manner.

[Glimmerjim]

GJ, here is mine, show me yours.........


Not yet shipped


Delivery estimate: Thursday, August 7, 2014 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 by 8:00pm


Track Package



Outliers: The Story of Success

Gladwell, Malcolm

Sold by: Amazon.com LLC

I get all my books online to read on my iPad, Ron. I'll order it now, but I don't know how to confirm it other than to discuss it with you once I'm done.
I think you'll find Outliers interesting, Ron! And not really contrary to your views, just explains some concepts of liberals attempts to bolster opportunity for the least positioned of our society.

Another interesting program at the moment that in my opinion applies to many of the same factors re personal success through more open opportunity than entitlement is the KIPP Program. Google and read a little about it if you get a chance. Damned good stuff, IMO.

[Glimmerjim]

I don't understand what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with how smart he is or where he came from. Putin is a bad ass. Obama is a sissy. The Ruskies like to poke him in the eye about it. We think its funny when he gets poked in the eye.

That's cool if that's all it is, cd, but I just get frustrated when it's so much fun to dredge Obama through the gutter slime, but a word against a staunch Republican, or, Heaven forbid, Ronald Reagan, gets the same reaction as telling someone their Mom gives good head!

[AKPirate]

[RonE]

Another interesting program at the moment that in my opinion applies to many of the same factors re personal success through more open opportunity than entitlement is the KIPP Program. Google and read a little about it if you get a chance. Damned good stuff, IMO.

I couldn't find anything on the funding of the KIPP schools, but like charter schools everywhere, I suspect that the students district pays KIPP the pro-rata cost to the district to educate the student. Along with that, there are government grants that are easily available to anyone that can say something in the nature of "We need government help in making sure that these poor black children are entitled the same as those people from outside the COMMUNITY". Then, get some bleeding heart liberal to start a foundation and I can see where the founders of KIPP are probably on easy street. The fact that KIPP is successful says something in their favor, many charter schools are worse than the public schools that they try to replace.

Indirectly I have some little experience in the education business.....My wife is a retired school district superintendent from the California public school system.

[RonE]

I don't understand what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with how smart he is or where he came from. Putin is a bad ass. Obama is a sissy. The Ruskies like to poke him in the eye about it. We think its funny when he gets poked in the eye.

That's cool if that's all it is, cd, but I just get frustrated when it's so much fun to dredge Obama through the gutter slime, but a word against a staunch Republican, or, Heaven forbid, Ronald Reagan, gets the same reaction as telling someone their Mom gives good head!

I know several moms that give good head.

[Glimmerjim]

I don't understand what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with how smart he is or where he came from. Putin is a bad ass. Obama is a sissy. The Ruskies like to poke him in the eye about it. We think its funny when he gets poked in the eye.

That's cool if that's all it is, cd, but I just get frustrated when it's so much fun to dredge Obama through the gutter slime, but a word against a staunch Republican, or, Heaven forbid, Ronald Reagan, gets the same reaction as telling someone their Mom gives good head!

I know several moms that give good head.

[Glimmerjim]

Another interesting program at the moment that in my opinion applies to many of the same factors re personal success through more open opportunity than entitlement is the KIPP Program. Google and read a little about it if you get a chance. Damned good stuff, IMO.

I couldn't find anything on the funding of the KIPP schools, but like charter schools everywhere, I suspect that the students district pays KIPP the pro-rata cost to the district to educate the student. Along with that, there are government grants that are easily available to anyone that can say something in the nature of "We need government help in making sure that these poor black children are entitled the same as those people from outside the COMMUNITY". Then, get some bleeding heart liberal to start a foundation and I can see where the founders of KIPP are probably on easy street. The fact that KIPP is successful says something in their favor, many charter schools are worse than the public schools that they try to replace.

Indirectly I have some little experience in the education business.....My wife is a retired school district superintendent from the California public school system.

You probably have some good insight on the whole thing from an administrative POV, Ron. There was an article in today's Sac Bee about a superintendent that is transferring from Seattle to Sacramento City School District. He got a 3 year contract at $290K/yr, and if he completes his contract, will earn around $233K/yr in retirement pension! He was apparently a teacher and super here in CA for a long while, went to Seattle, then came back. That gives a big boost to his retirement pension due to it now being based on the higher income figure and 3 more years of employment.
Wow! Hope your wife did as well!

[clampdaddy]

I don't understand what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with how smart he is or where he came from. Putin is a bad ass. Obama is a sissy. The Ruskies like to poke him in the eye about it. We think its funny when he gets poked in the eye.

That's cool if that's all it is, cd, but I just get frustrated when it's so much fun to dredge Obama through the gutter slime, but a word against a staunch Republican, or, Heaven forbid, Ronald Reagan, gets the same reaction as telling someone their Mom gives good head!

Come on now Jim. You guys had eight years of belly laughs and rabbit punches on our last president. It's our turn to vent.

[Glimmerjim]

I don't understand what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with how smart he is or where he came from. Putin is a bad ass. Obama is a sissy. The Ruskies like to poke him in the eye about it. We think its funny when he gets poked in the eye.

That's cool if that's all it is, cd, but I just get frustrated when it's so much fun to dredge Obama through the gutter slime, but a word against a staunch Republican, or, Heaven forbid, Ronald Reagan, gets the same reaction as telling someone their Mom gives good head!

Come on now Jim. You guys had eight years of belly laughs and rabbit punches on our last president. It's our turn to vent.

but Bush was......












You absolutely hated me for a second there, didn't you cd?

[SpinnerMan]

just explains some concepts of liberals attempts to bolster opportunity for the least positioned of our society.

So why do these liberal ideas NOT work?

Clearly, there is a fatal flaw somewhere. What is that flaw?

Typically, it is a complete and total rejection of common sense and basic economics.

They feel that if they are clever enough, they can work around the economic law of supply and demand, which is particularly challenging when few even truly understand the concept. It's like trying to be an engineer, but not fully grasping Newtonian physics nor letting it get in the way of a "good" idea.

Then you have people like Paul Krugman that try to argue that by tapping into quantum theories and unique, rare, and unusual conditions that only really ever exist in the lab, we can come up with some massively complicated solution which they want and when it fails, they demagogue their political opponents and never question their own hair-brained theories that violate the basic economic law of supply and demand. It takes a very intelligent person to really make the dumbest of all ideas seem plausible, which really means so complex and convoluted that they have a never ending and ever more complex explanation as to why they are right in theory and why their failure in practice is not a reputiation of them or their cockamamie theories.

So while Obama works on his theories of how to deal with Putin and builds his ever more complex web.



Putin takes a more practical approach of achieving his ends.



And who gets what they want and who gets confused and angry like a spoiled child?

[AKPirate]

obama bday.jpg

[Glimmerjim]

obama bday.jpg

A round of golf. With his schedule he never gets to and I hear he likes it!

[clampdaddy]

obama bday.jpg

A round of golf. With his schedule he never gets to and I hear he likes it!

Yeah. His schedule has been slammed with all of those darn DNC fund raisers.

[3legged_lab]

obama bday.jpg

Immigration papers served and a one way plane ticket. That oughta help him free up his schedule. You're welcome.

[Glimmerjim]

obama bday.jpg

A round of golf. With his schedule he never gets to and I hear he likes it!

Yeah. His schedule has been slammed with all of those darn DNC fund raisers.

Life's a bitch but somebody has to do it!

[SpinnerMan]

See Jim. Isn't mocking Obama a lot more fun than trying to defend him? Obama certainly makes it easy to mock him.

[Glimmerjim]

See Jim. Isn't mocking Obama a lot more fun than trying to defend him? Obama certainly makes it easy to mock him.

It's way easier, too!

[SpinnerMan]

See Jim. Isn't mocking Obama a lot more fun than trying to defend him? Obama certainly makes it easy to mock him.

It's way easier, too!

That's about where most conservatives were at about this point in Bush's administration.

[Glimmerjim]

See Jim. Isn't mocking Obama a lot more fun than trying to defend him? Obama certainly makes it easy to mock him.

It's way easier, too!

That's about where most conservatives were at about this point in Bush's administration.

I just don't know if anyone can come along and do the necessary job, Spin, I honestly don't. There is just too much turmoil in the world, divisiveness in our system, complexity of issues, etc. I really don't care who wins the next election when it comes to Dem vs Rep. Hillary would be a disaster, other than the experience that Bill could provide. And I have yet to see anyone from the Rep field that looks capable of making positive changes. What do you think about 2016? I have a couple of thoughts, but I am holding them tight for a while. Will the economy be the central issue again? Will the Dem's continue to win via the minority vote?

[SpinnerMan]

just don't know if anyone can come along and do the necessary job, Spin, I honestly don't. There is just too much turmoil in the world, divisiveness in our system, complexity of issues, etc.

That is EXACTLY what they said about things after Jimmy Carter, but someone did come along that did a vastly superior job.

There are two keys. One short-term and one long-term.

The short term key is ELECT SOMEONE QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This does not guarantee success because of the reason you say. However, electing someone who has never been the chief executive of a massive organization has all but zero chance of success.

Secondary to that is that that person cannot aspire to make wide sweeping changes to something that is as you describe. It is a fool's errand which is why Obama looks like such a fool and it was a big part of why Bush crashed and burned when he went from regulator to manipulator and fixer of the economy.

This is why Bill Clinton failed during the first 2 years. He wanted to institute Hillarycare which would have created turmoil and chaos and the economic stagnation, unemployment, etc. that comes with it. His failure to institute sweeping changes in his first 2 years and the election of a Congess that would not allow it, combined with his actual qualification for the job at hand is why the country did well. If only he had not committed perjury and lied directly and purposefully to the nation, we may have taken the threat of Osama seriously and not looked at it as him wagging the dog. Maybe he would have taken it more seriously if he did not put himself into such criminal hot water that lead to his impeachment, disbarment, being found in contempt of court, loosing a large civil lawsuit, etc.

The long-term solution is to descope the federal government. If it can be done at the state level, then it should be done at the state level. Romneycare x 50 if that is what you want and not Obamacare imposed on 50 states. Education, drugs, welfare, unemployment, social security, ... virtually ever domestic issue should be primarily handled at the state, local, or family level with the federal government having a small niche that only they can fill such as ensuring that states are not flooded with foreigners illegally entering their state.

We should not do that in sweeping overnight changes. It should be done by freezing the federal budget in absolute dollars. Inflation will cut the purchasing power at around 3% per year. Then descope by 3% per year. After 5 years we have cut the government by 14%, 10 years by 25%, and 25 years about 50%, which is where my gut tells me we should be. However, this approach allows us to adjust to the changes (states can decide how to deal with the changes, the economy digests the changes, etc.), we see the impacts and unintended consequences, both good and bad, and its not simply hope and change, but actual rational decisions.

What do you think about 2016?

I think we are going to get an unqualified president. I am not bullish on America's future. I think we have crossed a line where populism, cronyism, acceptance of corruption and law-breaking (see opinions on violation of immigration laws and acceptance of tax cheats) and me-firstism has passed a critical mass and our long-term trend is down. I do think the slope is not too steep that I can run out the clock before it does too much harm to me and my wife since we have a pretty good chunk of wealth and will accumulate a lot more over the next decade or two as necessary.

I think the winner of the Republican primary will be a reaction to the status quo and will be someone seriously lacking. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, none of them are anywhere close to read for the job. Go be governor and come back in 10 years or so when you are actually ready for the job.

I don't see anyone on the left that is qualified coming out of the Democrat primary. Bill Richardson was probably one of the most qualified people to run for office in a long time and he gained zero headway. I may have voted for him over McCain. I know I would have IF Congress was not in Democrat hands. I think Hillary is not an overwhelming favorite. If I had to bet even money, I'd put my money on her. At 2 to 1 for the field against her, I don't know which way I go and 3 to 1, I take the field.

What I hope is that we elect someone that has been governor for a couple terms, has real practical experience outside of government as well (not nearly as important), who understand and promotes American values and actively defends of American interests abroad (very important and a huge failure of Obama) and understands why small decentralized government work (actually least important if Congress has sufficient presence of these type of people as it did when Bill Clinton was successful).

My preferred candidates at this time, probably in order of preference, but this could easily change a lot when I get to no more about them: Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, then with a sizable gap Mitt Romney, Rudy Giulliani, Mitch Daniels, John Kasich

Hillary would be a disaster, other than the experience that Bill could provide.

People cannot provide experience. It cannot be done. Obama could have had Bill at his side everyday and he still would have failed to to a complete lack of experience.