More liberal hypocrisy - This time form the liar in chief

[michal1980]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._ransom_in_exchange_for_doing_their_jobs.html


Lets see if anyone compares the usa government budget to a household. The lib's blow their tops. Saying government is the not same thing.


But so far I've heard no one complaining about Obama comparing the shutdown to going to a bank, or buying a house.


Because of course liberals can make analogies, but no one else can.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._ransom_in_exchange_for_doing_their_jobs.html


Lets see if anyone compares the usa government budget to a household. The lib's blow their tops. Saying government is the not same thing.


But so far I've heard no one complaining about Obama comparing the shutdown to going to a bank, or buying a house.


Because of course liberals can make analogies, but no one else can.

You are seriously so, so stupid.

 

[thraashman]

You are seriously so, so stupid.

Completely true. So just let him be. All his posts do is show those who aren't crazy ass far right how silly their position is. Hell, he does more to help the cause of the left than he does the right.

 

[michal1980]

You are seriously so, so stupid.

says Obama's online spokes person.

Your one of the those that anyone mentions 'household' budget goes on a rant.


Yet when challenged, you just resort to name calling.

 

[michal1980]

Completely true. So just let him be. All his posts do is show those who aren't crazy ass far right how silly their position is. Hell, he does more to help the cause of the left than he does the right.

Just like rats you all run for darkness when light is shined down on you. Screaming and yelling along the way.

 

[fskimospy]

says Obama's online spokes person.

Your one of the those that anyone mentions 'household' budget goes on a rant.

Yet when challenged, you just resort to name calling.

To quote a previous reply of me to you about this very issue:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/do-li...-they-just-hate-conservatives/article/2535594

Even your best friend krugfuckman wrote the following "What will happen to our stature if and when China takes away our credit card?"

So its ok for him to make analogies, but not for others. Got it.

Do you not know the difference between an analogy and actually not understanding how budgeting works?

To use an analogy, this is like when Microsoft complained that bundling Netscape was the equivalent of coke having to package in a can of Pepsi with every six pack. In this case our complaint is that conservatives actually think Netscape is made out of soda.

 

[michal1980]

To quote a previous reply of me to you about this very issue:

Your response failed to address any issue at hand.

You don't like the idea of comparing government budgeting to household budgeting because at that leave people might actually have some sort of understanding of the problem.

You want the issue incomprehensible so that you don't have to address the problem.


But lets see if you can actually go after Obama...

"You don't get a chance to call your bank and say, 'I'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an Xbox"

do you and Obama actually think that the negotiations are even on some level comparable to his example?

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't like the idea of comparing government budgeting to household budgeting because at that leave people might actually have some sort of understanding of the problem.

All they'd have is a misunderstanding of the so-called "problem".

Unlike a household, a govt with a sovereign currency that borrows in their own currency can always meet their paper obligations. The US could, if we so choose, deposit sufficient platinum coins with the FRB tomorrow and pay off the debt entirely. Not that I advocate such a thing, but rather point out the reality of "money" in a floating exchange fiat currency system, which we have.

Govt can create or destroy "money" as the representatives of the people see fit.

 

[Bowfinger]

All they'd have is a misunderstanding of the so-called "problem".

Unlike a household, a govt with a sovereign currency that borrows in their own currency can always meet their paper obligations. The US could, if we so choose, deposit sufficient platinum coins with the FRB tomorrow and pay off the debt entirely. Not that I advocate such a thing, but rather point out the reality of "money" in a floating exchange fiat currency system, which we have.

Govt can create or destroy "money" as the representatives of the people see fit.

You do realize he can't begin to grasp any of that, right? He clings to his useless checkbook analogy because that is literally the depth of his understanding of finance and economics.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._ransom_in_exchange_for_doing_their_jobs.html


Lets see if anyone compares the usa government budget to a household. The lib's blow their tops. Saying government is the not same thing.


But so far I've heard no one complaining about Obama comparing the shutdown to going to a bank, or buying a house.


Because of course liberals can make analogies, but no one else can.

I agree it's a terrible analogy. When a family defaults on a financial obligation they lose their credit rating. They get fucked even if they pay some of their bills. But if the US did this, and this is why it's a terrible analogy, it wouldn't just be a disaster for the family but for the entire world. It would be like the biggest and most important family on earth failed destroying the rest of the worlds faith in humanity. It would be like Jesus coming back, the real Jesus, and ripping off a mask to reveal the Devil. It wouldn't be just a disaster for some random family, but a catastrophe for humanity.

Thank you for pointing out how silly Obama was to make that comparison.

 

[Bowfinger]

Completely true. So just let him be. All his posts do is show those who aren't crazy ass far right how silly their position is. Hell, he does more to help the cause of the left than he does the right.

Yep. He is the poster boy for the loud, stupid "conservatives" that makes it seem like all P&N conservatives are stupid. This thread would be a great opportunity for P&N's reasoned conservatives to rebuke Michal and make it clear he is not representative.

 

[umbrella39]

OP... do you think it would be possible... just once... for you to construct an argument that does not rely SOLELY on logical fallacies? Look those two words up, study wiki fallacies, come back next week and attempt a thread where you can make it one sentence without resorting to a straw man, false equivalency, false dilemma, etc...

Opening sentence, couple of supporting sentences, and a conclusion.

COME ON MAN. WE ARE ALL ROOTING FOR YOU. THAT SHORT BUS CAN BE A THING OF THE PAST...

 

[2timer]

What has President Obama said that makes you characterize him as the "liar in chief"? That's a pretty bold assessment, I'm thinking you must have good reason to use that term or you would not have used it.

 

[cubby1223]

What is Obama talking about that American's don't get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs or else face threats? It's called union strikes... or have they renamed them to "fairness requests"?

And Obama & his Democrats in the legislature absolutely signed into law procedures for many Americans to stop paying their mortgage when they believe the bank is charging them too much money.

Guess he has developed amnesia, or diminished recollection syndrome.

The only thing I'm seeing is Republicans finely wising up to the way Democrats play politics and emulating them.

 

[dank69]

Another day, another michal thread with at least one typo in the title.

 

[Texashiker]

You are seriously so, so stupid.

You sure are good at slinging insults around.

I notice you do this a lot when you have no reasonable answer.

As for the opening post, liberals like to make the problem more complicated then it really is.

Like a household, the government should not spend more than it takes in. And it is as simple as that.

 

[nehalem256]

The only thing I'm seeing is Republicans finely wising up to the way Democrats play politics and emulating them.

Yep. Liberalism is inherently an ideology of extortion.

Obama is just butt-hurt that the Republicans realized 2 can play at that game and now the Teahadists got him by the balls.

 

[Texashiker]

Yep. Liberalism is inherently an ideology of extortion.

Kinda like communism, or just common thieves.

You work to build something, then liberals and thieves come along and try to take something from you.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

And all the King's horses, and all the King's men, can't make one plus two, add up to ten.

 

[shadow9d9]

The crazies are out in force!

 

[dank69]

What has President Obama said that makes you characterize him as the "liar in chief"? That's a pretty bold assessment, I'm thinking you must have good reason to use that term or you would not have used it.

I'm a Democrat and I support Obama on a lot of things (not everything, but probably most), but I would never try to pretend that he hasn't lied. Now, a majority of those "lies" come in the form of campaign promises, and a majority of those, if not all, are from his original campaign in 2008, so a majority of those can be chalked up to ignorance. None of that matters to an extreme partisan looking to sling mud at the opposition instead of actually analyzing each situation.

To further illustrate this concept, think about the specific differences in the two following statements:

I did not sleep with your sister. (In reality, I did.)
I will not sleep with your sister. (In reality, I haven't and I don't plan to. A few months later, I broke down in the face of your sister's contant badgering and gave in to temptation.)

First one is a lie, second one is a broken promise. Zero justification for the first one, but the second one may come down to me not knowing myself well enough and/or not knowing what the future holds. To the retarded partisan, however, the second one is a lie and all claims to the contrary are just spin (by the liberal mainstream media, of course).

 

[glenn1]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._ransom_in_exchange_for_doing_their_jobs.html


Lets see if anyone compares the usa government budget to a household. The lib's blow their tops. Saying government is the not same thing.


But so far I've heard no one complaining about Obama comparing the shutdown to going to a bank, or buying a house.


Because of course liberals can make analogies, but no one else can.

Analogies won't help Obama at this point, so let him use all he wants.

 

[nehalem256]

Kinda like communism, or just common thieves.

You work to build something, then liberals and thieves come along and try to take something from you.

Liberalism is basically a crazier form of communism. Where counter-revolutionaries are rewarded instead of sent to Siberia.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What has President Obama said that makes you characterize him as the "liar in chief"? That's a pretty bold assessment, I'm thinking you must have good reason to use that term or you would not have used it.

He lied to everybody (including his own party leadership) about his attempt to cut a deal with big Pharmacy. Should we start a list for you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

 

[halik]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._ransom_in_exchange_for_doing_their_jobs.html


Lets see if anyone compares the usa government budget to a household. The lib's blow their tops. Saying government is the not same thing.


But so far I've heard no one complaining about Obama comparing the shutdown to going to a bank, or buying a house.


Because of course liberals can make analogies, but no one else can.

I think you lack the cognitive abilities to discern an analogy from a false analogy.

1)
Unlike a family, a government doesn't have to "pay off" debt any more than any other corporate entity with going concern and steady cash flow.

2)
Defaulting on one obligation isn't better because you didn't default on all obligations, it still triggers CDS as per ISDA, have collateral impact on other obligations and cause mass sell off as changes underlying assumptions of probability of default.