President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama

This thread is dedicated soley to discussing the new President. This includes his inauguration, policies, etc. If it involves President Obama, discuss it here.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Smiley, I don't know quite how to tell you this, but--- I remember during the GWB years when gas prices went up people asked the same questions about him that you're asking about Obama. Prices are higher on average now, but-- the highest prices I remember were during the Bush presidency, after inflation is considered.

Is not Barack Obama the President in office? Is this not 2012?

So, are we just meant to roll with it all, & watch this present government lead us into hell merely because it may have happened before?

That means its ok now, right?

Simply because Bush had similar problems, it's acceptable now?

Are we supposed to be good sheep, & take on the characteristics of the Eloy, or should Americans seek more accountability from their leaders, & reject the status quo?

Do you accept the 'status quo'?

Or do you feel more can & should be done?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh deary me, calling bullshit bullshit hurts your precious little feelings?

No… Trying to draw me into a food fight over one of your pet peeves —again— just struck me as pointless. What had the subject to do with President Obama? And, specially, what had it to do with anything I'd posted in this thread?

Again I ask: Was this brought on by Sang's reference to the EUTimes "article" or something else?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Smiley, I don't know quite how to tell you this, but--- I remember during the GWB years when gas prices went up people asked the same questions about him that you're asking about Obama. Prices are higher on average now, but-- the highest prices I remember were during the Bush presidency, after inflation is considered.

Is not Barack Obama the President in office? Is this not 2012?

So, are we just meant to roll with it all, & watch this present government lead us into hell merely because it may have happened before?

That means its ok now, right?

Simply because Bush had similar problems, it's acceptable now?

Are we supposed to be good sheep, & take on the characteristics of the Eloy, or should Americans seek more accountability from their leaders, & reject the status quo?

Do you accept the 'status quo'?

Or do you feel more can & should be done?

More can and should be done, but blaming Obama for it all isn't going to get us there from here any more than blaming Bush did when he was in office.

BHO is, after all, only the president. He is not God. He cannot, even with all the power at his disposal, make the oil-producing countries produce more oil at lower prices, or make the speculators on Wall Street behave themselves, or possibly even keep Israel and Iran from going at each other. If that happens, there can be little doubt what will happen to energy prices. If truth be known, the president really has very little power beyond the "bully pulpit". But, he gets the blame for everything as if he personally were running around the world causing all these problems.

In November, we have the general election. In January, the president-elect--- whoever he may be-- gets sworn in. I guarantee that the only changes will be the name of the guy in office (if a Republican wins) and the names of the people saying he really stinks and needs to be run out of town. Other than that-- the same old same old. Whoever the president is, he will hardly get the chair warm before he finds out it's all his fault the world is in the mess it's in, and unless he can fix it within one hundred days of his being sworn in (the typical honeymoon period) he'll be the worst president since the last president from his party. I have a hard time figuring out why anybody would want the job.

I think that you do have a fundemental problem. Obama for all his candidate times yakking about a change is much of the same. Whether torture threatening countries, solving economic fiasco he is much of the same actually. Even in the sphere of freedom of infomation access this is now interspersed with the usual guff of "security" and even if you do manage to get something they have stiffened up the fees. As for Consitutional matters he is no different there either and I think in your context the only one who has been near it has been Dr Paul. Loosening controls over the coroporate actually started under President Clinton and continued from him to the present day! No matter who you elect from the Republican side or continue with the present White House incumbent things will still drift onin economic quagmire, foriegn intereference and so on. Nothing is being learned and the two-party system isn't working. Instead of a choice of parties you have to hope for link-ups inside the 2 who have sewn up the process. And with the Supreme Court refusing to allow blocks on corporate money flowing into politics the lot on the Hill will do as they want.

Ground hog day continues.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Loosening controls over the coroporate actually started under President Clinton and continued from him to the present day!

It started earlier then that, during the Reagan years. Now one of the factors that created the downturn, or least made it worse, was the financial deregulation that occurred during the Clinton and Bush years. Very simply put, it re-legalized financial products outlawed during the Great Depression. Evidently, those presidents failed to learn from history or forgot why they were illegal in the first place - because those types of derivatives posed an unacceptable gamble to the economy. The banks rolled those dice too many times and it came up snake-eyes for all of us. No, Oakdale and Smiley, my response to Howie was never intended to be a full analysis of the downturn.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I have a hard time figuring out why anybody would want the job.

Hence why nobody that should be president wants the job...

As far as the pseudo-conservatives whining about "the race card" goes, racist is as racist does. Don't want people to think you're a racist? Easy! Don't forward racist emails, don't play the song "Barak the Magic Negro" on your radio show (Rush Limbaugh) , and for the love of (insert deity) learn psychology, sociology, genetics, and a little about about standardized testing so you don't confuse the results of a test with actual cognitive ability of other races.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Problems pretty well fixed, except for gas prices.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/141527033.html

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy is improving faster than economists had expected. They now foresee slightly stronger growth and hiring than they did two months earlier - trends that could help President Obama's reelection effort

Unemployment 8% by election day, 7.4% by the end of 2013.

This is way conservatives are digging the old social issues (really old..contraception? Really? ) because they know they no longer have the economy to use against Obama. Yes, some conservatives really against contraception, unfortunately and simply against contraception being covered by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. I have a hard time buying that Santorum really doesn't know that the ACA regs on that issue don't change a damn thing the majority of states, including heavily Catholic , populous states. (Federal law following what states are already doing - Conservatives should have been pleased, no? ) Deep in his religious RC soul, I don't believe he wants people to use contraception. Meanwhile, he's against food stamps, Aid for Dependent Children, etc to help out women who do get pregnant

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

This is way conservatives are digging the old social issues (really old..contraception? Really? ) because they know they no longer have the economy to use against Obama.

During the Jan. 7 New Hampshire debate, Stephanopoulos asked the presidential contenders if states have the right to ban contraception. Romney attacked the question, noting that no state was even considering it and it was therefore a non-issue.

However, weeks later on Jan. 20, the question of contraception burst onto the national scene as a major issue when the Obama administration announced that religiously-based schools, hospitals and non-profits would be required to provide insurance coverage to their employees for contraception.
(source)

Of course, Stephie is a well-known Republican operative! So, he was just laying the groundwork.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Problems pretty well fixed, except for gas prices.

Yeah, the Middle East is all sewn up, & Iran has been neutered.

PHOENIX, February 16, 2012 - President Barack Obama’s reelection efforts received a terrible blow today from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with numbers showing a very grim and poor outlook on the future of America’s economy.

Though the official Department of Labor number shows that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.5% in December 2011 to 8.3% in January 2012, the CBO report states that, “The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent.”

A ‘real’ unemployment rate of 15% is absolutely unacceptable for any president. Especially when running for reelection, on the platform of the same failed policies.

The rate of unemployment has been above 8% since February 2009, making the past three years under President Obama the longest stretch of high unemployment in the United States since the Great Depression.

Additionally, the CBO reports that the unemployment rate in America will stay above 8% through the election of 2012 and even until 2014.

“...the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The share of unemployed people who have been looking for work for more than six months -- referred to as the long-term unemployed -- topped 40 percent in December 2009 and has remained above that level ever since."

When Obama took office in 2009, the official rate was 7.8%. He promised to keep unemployment under 8% when he took office, but only three years into his administration has it finally dropped below 9%.

Historically, presidents do not get re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%.

The only exceptions were Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984. However, unemployment was falling quickly towards the end of his first term, and by the end of his second term it was 5.3%.

If President Obama were a CEO of a major corporation, it’s very likely that with his poor economic showing, he’d be out in a heartbeat. What respectable corporation would keep a poor record like this as its leader?

Furthermore, what country can keep going on like this? America is no longer a place for opportunity and free market.

It’s a place of dismay and poor economic outlook. 85% of small businesses are no longer hiring and only 13% rate the U.S. Economy as good or excellent. This CBO report is just one straw in the pile of economic disasters.

If Obama thinks he can run on this record, he better start looking for a new job in the private sector.

*



The fact that "No U.S. president since World War Two has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 7.2 percent" does not apply to Obama.

Maybe Obama & Sebelius have figured out how to run the new GM cars on condoms???



But then again, being you & your fellow democrats are already revving up the most negative re-election campaign in American history, you might make it a nail-biter!

After all, Obama will be be staying away from running on his record like a Vampire would avoid garlic!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Yeah, the Middle East is all sewn up, & Iran has been neutered.

That's just silly. The middle east hasn't been all sewn since the founding of Israel. No President has been able to neuter Iran since the Carter administration.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

During the Jan. 7 New Hampshire debate, Stephanopoulos asked the presidential contenders if states have the right to ban contraception. Romney attacked the question, noting that no state was even considering it and it was therefore a non-issue.

That's Romney. In his heart of hearts, Santorum is against contraception, in accordance to his religion's outdated teachings on the subject. Now tell me, how is possible for somebody to mock a common typo in whisper as if I don't know the meaning of the words "way" and "why?"* Get a life. That's right, I'm letting the forum know of your whispered pettiness. Be a buffoon, get bitten by a raccoon soon.

*notice the correct punctuation.

Gotta go with Romney, since Smileyfaze isn't running. Not a good depiction of Gingrich, though...he's not that attractive a candidate.

It's beginning to look like the Republicans are determined to re-elect Obama.



Where's Palin when you need her?!

There is a solution to Republicanism...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

That's Romney. In his heart of hearts, Santorum is against contraception, in accordance to his religion's outdated teachings on the subject.

Voters Slowly Realizing Santorum Believes Every Deranged Word That Comes Out Of His Mouth

http://www.theonion.com/articles/voters-slowly-realizing-santorum-believes-every-de,27518/

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Yeah, the Middle East is all sewn up, & Iran has been neutered.

The M.E. and Iran are none of our business.
Israel can defend itself. (As far as I am concerned, they can go "eff" themselves, the arrogant pricks.

Does the state of Israel ever irritate anyone else besides me? Their arrogance knows no bounds. We (the US) keep their economy afloat, we supply them with guns for free (that's socialism btw, Tea Party ppl), we gave them the technology to produce their own nukes, and we even overlook when they STEAL land from Palestinians that the PALESTINIANS RIGHTFULLY OWN, and yet they have the arrogance to thumb their noses at us? What's more, we also give them billions of dollars in aid, and which Israel uses for socialized healthcare. So by default we are paying for Israeli healthcare when we can't even afford our own. Well Israel, methinks you need to play a game of hide-and-go-fornicate-yourself​. If you opt to bomb Iran, you damn sure better be prepared for the consequences. As a friend of mine always says, "If you are going to be dumb, you gotta be tough!". I may disagree with Obama on a lot of issues, but on this one, he has my full support. *flips the bird to Israel*

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Don't want people to think you're a racist? Easy!

Yeah: Submitting a budget that de-funds a highly successful school voucher program in the only federal jurisdiction that qualifies as inner-city and predominantly black isn't racist. It's blatant pandering to the teachers union and liberal orthodoxy. That it actually disadvantages blacks is beside the point.
Someone told a joke about a prominent black man. Ouch! Now that hurts...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

That's right, I'm letting the forum know of your whispered pettiness. Be a buffoon, get bitten by a raccoon soon.

Fixed! Feel better now?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

*notice the correct punctuation.

Quite a tirade there, Dawg... Yearning for an idyllic post-Apocalyptic world, are we?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Yeah: Submitting a budget that de-funds a highly successful school voucher program in the only federal jurisdiction that qualifies as inner-city and predominantly black isn't racist. It's blatant pandering to the teachers union and liberal orthodoxy.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/14/498330dcschoolvouchers_ap.html

House Speaker John Boehner is a big proponent of the voucher program and is likely to try to get the funding reinstated. Students already participating in the program would be allowed to continue under Obama's budget.

Oops. Meanwhile, his budget benefits all schools, not just private schools in one city. Anyway, it's hypocritical of the GOP to express umbrage at this when they cut education at the slightest provocation.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Fixed! Feel better now?

Not yet. Your reading comprehension is still subpar, I'm afraid. More recent evidence the deficiency is your failure to understand how jokes comparing black people to animals is racist. To put it in your primitive vernacular, I'll learn ya up. Maybe I'll send you some reading material you can understand, such as Dick and Jane .

"[…] such as Dick and Jane." What is that, one of those commie pornographic picture books?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Students already participating in the program would be allowed to continue under Obama's budget.

Oops.

How white of him.^* (Of course, he is —you know— half white…?)

The program in question costs less per student than does "educating" them in the D.C. public schools and far out-performs their results. Does Obama's administration have a strict quota for educated blacks? Myself, I don't believe in quotas… And I'd say the more educated blacks the better. You'd disagree? Of course, if by education you mean Gender Studies, Liberation Theology, and Social Justice Studies, you'd be right to disagree…but then you wouldn't, eh?

(One wonders if it isn't the case, that the Left would rather be dead-wrong rather than right…)

When you say "Meanwhile, his budget benefits all schools, not just private schools in one city" I have to assume you mean "all school unions"; of course, you mean it gives money to public schools to continue doing what they've done so well, and phases out funding for those that have excelled.
Race to the bottom, Sang? (You thought it was a criticism, when applied to states and localities competing for employers via tax breaks…)

About my supposed reading comprehension deficit, I swear I'll try to read the Little Red Book (毛主席語錄) again! But you're right: I don't think I'll get it. At least, not without some serious "reeducation".
———————————————————
* Would you purge the vocabulary and history of race relations, too? And limit expression to pre-approved locutions? I remember a congressman raling at the term black hole as racist!
One thing about biddies: They're generally ignorant and stupid. Not a good combination.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

You'd disagree? Of course, if by education you mean Gender Studies, Liberation Theology, and Social Justice Studies, you'd be right to disagree…but then you wouldn't, eh?

You truly have no concept of what happens in colleges and universities, do you? Sure there are a few students in those course, but in general you learn business management, marketing, mathematics, etc. It's not about fruity students learning Marxist didactics from their fruitier professors. It's about learning job skills. Your American university is not 1960's Berkeley. I have no idea where you guys even get this idiotic concept. Santorum, because of his education, most know that and is just trying to appeal to anti-intellectuals such as yourself and Smiley. (His own frat brothers all but flat-out called him liar about what was happening in their university.)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Race to the bottom, Sang?

Hardly. Apparently the results of that program are mixed and in the meantime, it costs 12,000 a year per high school student and 8,000 per elementary student. To improve education throughout the country. we'd do better to analysis the strengths and weakness of both public and private schools and apply the data toward improving the public schools, instead of spending 12,000 per high school students on the GOP's bizarre anti-public school agenda. Since your comprehension level is is low, I'll repeat so you understand. The entire country's education system needs to be improved, not just one city. Then again, that might been the extinction of the GOP as we know it.

Now where have you been thedawgfan regarding your stance on Israel and asking if you are the only one with such a view? I have been saying the same thing for ages here! Apart from it's belligerence it is a deeply divided country and there aremany happening sinside it's territor that infringe on human rights and so on. It's almost like a miniature version of Germany bewteen the two world wars when they wanted more territory and got it by force. It cannot actually exist by itweelf finacially or any other way. Ovetr the years it has ignored international concernesand yet has the sheer gall to moan about others that do the same thing. The present leadership is not just belligerent it is highly dangerous. Unfortunately it has a strong hold on your country through that massive Jewish lobby and the non-Jewish religious Right that is influenced by the area's Biblical history.

The biggest mistake was letting them go ahead and set up a State and displacing thousands and they are still stealing land and property today. It is a pariah of the ME and a loose cannon. Their Prime Minister has already indicated that they are straining at the leash andgoing on the atttack is still an option. Such would have catastrophic results not only in a Middle East maelstorm but unify the internal opposition re Iran. The USA would be dragged into it and the effects will be global and economic as well as war.

I believe it was Mr. Howie that said he was waiting for the prosecutions over Limbaugh maliciously slandering Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut and prostitute for having the audacity to speak before Congress. It might just happen.

Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes by calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke the two derogatory words.
The statute stipulates that anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity” is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Allred explained that the statute recently came to her attention as having never been repealed, and that it could very well apply to Limbaugh’s remarks as his show is broadcast from West Palm Beach.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73829.html#ixzz1ofozioJ1

If he does go to jail, he needs to be in the correctional facility with highest populations of African Americans and Hispanics. No, he wasn't exercising his First Amendment rights; libel and slander were never protected speech. Ms. Fluke, on the other hand,was exercising her's. So many advertisers have left his show that there's now over five and half minutes of dead air time on WABC radio where commercials should be and whole lot of the remaining ad time is full of public service announcements from the Ad Council.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

No, he wasn't exercising his First Amendment rights; liberal and slander were never protected speech.
[emphasis added]

Well, until recently… At least, not in the sense of a protection racket — like we have now.
Liberal slander is, however, both encouraged and protected by the media, and the Obama Justice Department.

Ya gotta love it!
"Liberal and slander"… Freud was onto something!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Limbaugh maliciously slandering Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut and prostitute

Nah. He only "compared" her to such… (You can actually find the distinction made explicitly at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.)
But what do you think we should do about a White House spokesman who calls Rush Limbaugh the "de facto head of the Republican Party"?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Allred explained that the statute recently came to her attention as having never been repealed, and […]

When my brother was in highschool (albeit tutored by a Harvard student…) he discovered a law, still on the books in Mass., that permitted a father to hang his son for disobedience…
But the law in FL wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny, you know. (Not that that would be considered an obstacle to you, Sang, I know.)

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I believe it was Mr. Howie that said he was waiting for the prosecutions over Limbaugh maliciously slandering Sandra Fluke

Of course, in GB, saying something that is demonstrably true can be considered slander…

Interesting: Sang and Dawg both lately finding common ground with Howie… Am I then going too far, cautioning Catholics and Jews to beware? It's a disturbing trend among progressives and libertarians and Orangemen, i'n'it?

As someone keeps reminding us, Diderot famously said, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." What is seldom mentioned is that then men will be free to feed each other to the dogs.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

"Liberal and slander"… Freud was onto something!

Ha, ha

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Nah. He only "compared" her to such… (You can actually find the distinction made explicitly at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.)

You guys are still trying to defend his indefensible. Seriously?

Originally posted by Rush:

“What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her?” Limbaugh said on his radio show on Wednesday. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

The conservative radio host continued on to joke, “OK, so she’s not a slut. She’s ‘round heeled.’”

He directly called her a slut, twice within that bit. Round heel is slang for slut. I don't really think he's going to jail over the incident, though. I just thought it was funny.

I also thought it was funny that one of the users on the Volokh site mentioned in a humorous why about how various liberal journalists and entertainers aren't held to the same standard. It still goes back to "if you don't want people to think you're a (choose the applicable one: sexist pig, racist, homophobe, all-around bigot) don't be one. You don't see Bill Maher making sexist comments, playing racist songs, etc They're "not held to same standard" because they don't pull this stupidity in the first place.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Still making typos of your own, while critizing mine. "All wet" said the sea to the lake.

I guess you could say I "criti-zing" your typos. They are often zing-worthy.
Hm. Which typo of mine do you refer to?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

You guys are still trying to defend his indefensible. Seriously?

No: Just would like you to get a grip... Limbaugh is a talk-show host infamous for his shtick; just like Maher is a comedian infamous for his.
Just as you are curiously thin-skinned, considering how freely you pass out insults.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

You guys are still trying to defend his indefensible...

Are you serious?

You dEMOCRATS are so thin-skinned....Grow a skin boy!

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Hm. Which typo of mine do you refer to?

That whole part where you thought you were whispering to somebody else (most likely Smilely) about me, but directed the whisper to me Do you not get that Limbaugh has a long and sordid history of attacking people for their race and sex, but the Maher, Jon Stewart, etc don't. Interestingly enough, a poster at the Volokh site provided a lengthier transcript of Limbaugh remarks. He meant every word of it. When to listen to the audio, that fact becomes even clearer. Did you know that "conservative" talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou got suspended for calling the late Whitney Houston a "crack ho" after she died. Just what is some of these "conservatives" defect anyway?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

That whole part where you thought you were whispering to somebody else (most likely Smilely) about me, but directed the whisper to me

Er, no, Sang... I used this code:

whisper=all, Sanguinemoon

You can verify this by quoting the entire post and viewing it in your preview window. I've done this before.
(Hm. Quoting the whole post no longer seems to reveal whispers. Too bad, I say. But rest assured, moderators can still see all whispers.)
Well, you can take my word for it or ask any other user. Or you can stick to your presumption. Whatever floats your boat.

Whats the purpose of the all in your statement...I've not seen that before?

I always use:

[whisper= name1, name2, name3]

I don't need to verify. It just didn't seem to make sense that you would mean for me to see that.

Can I correct something here Sanguinemoon. I do know that sometimes we cannot always remember who said what but I didn't make that statement. Don't know them.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Whats the purpose of the all in your statement...I've not seen that before?

The all lets all users see the whisper, obviously (so, the specific addition of Sanguinemoon was superfluous). I've used it to indicate an aside; often preferable to a footnote or other fancy typography. You can also use friends...

@Sang: "It just didn't seem to make sense that you would mean for me to see that." If I limited myself to saying only what makes sense to you, you'd think me dumb!
_________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Do you not get that Limbaugh has a long and sordid history of attacking people for their race and sex [...]

He has never attacked anyone for their race or sex, that I know of.
He has a long history of tweaking the noses of pompous judgemental narrow-minded biddies (of both sexes) on the Left; and on the Right, as well. As he's often said, he uses absurdity to illustrate absurdity.
That may be too subtle for some. Do you prefer, say, Maher calling Palin a c*nt?!

But this is all beside the point: The mission for which Fluke (which apparently rhymes with cluck) was brought to Capitol Hill has been accomplished; at least, as far as most of the media, the Democrats, and you are concerned.
And Limbaugh helped. That's the oops.

The Catholic bishops and serious commentators aren't fooled.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Did you know that "conservative" talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou got suspended for calling the late Whitney Houston a "crack ho" after she died.

Had no idea... Who are they?
Oh, wait: They're "conservative" talk-show hosts. Well, that explains it!
And there's this, from an AP story:

The hosts, who broadcast their show weekday afternoons, will return to the airwaves Feb. 27.

Kobylt and Chiampou often rail against taxes and illegal immigration. The National Hispanic Media Coalition said last year that it targeted the show's advertisers to urge them to stop backing the program.

The group said the hosts promote hate speech and appealed to listeners to call and harass an advocate for immigrant rights about state legislation to give financial aid to illegal immigrant college students.

"A temporary suspension is not enough," Alex Nogales, president and CEO of NHMC, said in a statement. "How many times do John and Ken get to spew their hate, apologize and then do it again after taking off a long weekend? KFI must permanently remove John and Ken from the air. Los Angeles deserves better."
(source)

Didn't we go through most of this, when Imus lost his gig? (He must be a conservative, too! The dirty so-and-so!)

Maybe we can coax Al Franken out of retirement? Now there's a guy that knows how to do radio...

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

He has never attacked anyone for their race or sex, that I know of.

In that case, I suggest that you educate yourself and know more. He even went so far as to tell an African American caller to take the bone out of her nose

Now did he really call her that?

(longer version here He said "speaking of dumb twats." Twat also serves as a general insult that can be applied to both genders. But anyway, he leads into a racist co-ed and than jokes that the she received a marriage proposal from Rush Limbaugh. In the bit, a total of three people are called a twat, two of which were female and the third was a male. Therefore, he wasn't being sexist, just crude.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

And there's this, from an AP story:

All a distraction from the fact the hosts were being both misogynistic and racist, not to mention disrespectful to the dead.

Let me ask you, personally, Sang: Is Louis Farrakhan a racist? Is he an anti-Semite?p.s.,
I'm pretty sure "twat" doesn't begin with a "c". What spell-checker are you using?

Louis Farrakhan a racist and anti-semite? I believe so, yes. I'm not sure what that has to do with, though

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

What spell-checker are you using?

The one that checks to see what really happened, unless you happen to have him actually saying that word. I don't want to see an article that says that he said it, but provides no transcript. I want to see transcript and video of more than a few seconds to get context. "Cunt", even though it's crude term for part of the female anatomy and a vulgar insult, is also applied to men. You do know that, right? I mean you can be forgiven if you didn't; I'm even at a stage where I don't know what younger people's insults are even supposed to mean.

The bottom line is that Limbaugh was the wrong man saying the wrong thing at the wrong time and the advertisers, despite having knowledge of Limbaugh's target audience, agree.

Oh my, is Limbaugh's scandal bringing down the rest of talk radio?

http://www.radio-info.com/news/when-it-comes-to-advertisers-avoiding-controversial-shows-its-not-just-rush

“To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory. More than 350 different advertisers sponsor the programs and services provided to your station on a barter basis. Like advertisers that purchase commercials on your radio station from your sales staff, our sponsors communicate specific rotations, daypart preferences and advertising environments they prefer… They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public.”

Already, as of Thursday 77 of Limbaugh's 86 commercial slots were filled with free public service announcements It looks like even more dead air is coming. Radio stations are bringing to drop him. Granted that's only two, as of the writing of the article, but let's see how many more follow.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

The one that checks to see what really happened

Quite an accomplishment! And yet it doesn't catch mis-spellings?

The bottom line is that President Obama and his HHS Secretary —among many others— don't accept a major part of the 1st Amendment, free exercise of religion. Unsurprisingly, you seem to have serious qualms about a different but also a major part of that Amendment, free speech. Go figure.

They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public.”
[emphasis added]

Of course, this is something you applaud, Sang! And unappologetically. Not to mention, unawares… The so-called Fairness Doctrine couldn't be reinstated, so other means had to be pursued.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

The bottom line is that President Obama and his HHS Secretary —among many others— don't accept a major part of the 1st Amendment, free exercise of religion

Go cry. Women's right to keep their ovaries trumps (what Fluke was really speaking about, not five dollar Walmart generics) any pretend first amendment umbrage, the president offered a comprise that woman could obtain birth control by dealing directly with insurance companies and it would be paid for out of her insurance premiums (some conservatives are asinine enough to think that the taxpayer would pay for it. You guys can't really be that stupid. Then again, yet another study was recently released indicating conservatives, on the average, are less intelligent than the rest of us, so they really might be.)

Anyway, guess what? The President's order didn't change a thing about anyway. Failure to provide contraceptive coverage was found to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 way the hell back in 2000.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

And yet it doesn't catch mis-spellings?

At least I know how to spell "misspellings and punctuate, unlike you. In addition, I know how to read an author's complete article (not just his main points) and understand his racist "intellectual" foundation. It's funny how you don't think I read entire articles, but fail to consider that in order to find the racist tirade, I would have had to be reading more closely and completely than you did. It's not just an author's main points that tell you where he's coming from; in fact, that often slips out in minor points where he's less careful.

Ah, yes. The EEOC, that bastion of bureaucracy-mediated fairness…
———————————————————————

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I know how to read an author's complete article (not just his main points) and understand his racist "intellectual" foundation. It's funny how you don't think I read entire articles, but fail to consider that in order to find the racist tirade, I would have had to be reading more closely and completely than you did. It's not just an author's main points that tell you where he's coming from; in fact, that often slips out in minor points where he's less careful.

I will certainly grant that you expend considerable effort trying to tease out the inner bigot/racist of those you disagree with… But that's your primary focus, isn't it?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

[…] yet another study was recently released indicating conservatives, on the average, are less intelligent than the rest of us […]

Of course! And what measure of intelligence did it use?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

The all lets all users see the whisper, obviously (so, the specific addition of Sanguinemoon was superfluous). I've used it to indicate an aside; often preferable to a footnote or other fancy typography. You can also use friends...

Gotcha!

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

.....that you expend considerable effort trying to tease out the inner bigot/racist of those you disagree with… But that's your primary focus, isn't it?

Yes, even though 'Coony vehemently denies being the dEMOCRAT that he most certainly is, this is a frequently visited maneuver the dEMOCRAT PARTY & it's minions ('Coony being one) uses to play the RACE CARD. I predicted it earlier, & surely these maneuvers will redouble exponentially the closer to the 2012 Elections we get.

In the end, we all should expect this activity as purely typical, the main difference is that the Electorate will only buy so much of it this time, & actually the greatest majority of the false racist claim believers are already in the Obama dEMOCRAT Camp so the impact will probably be minimal, & we may even see a backlash occur here for the first time because these activities will be effectively outed by the GOP who usually don't meaningfully reply to these false accusations.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Of course! And what measure of intelligence did it use?

Hrmmm..I think it might be not having the ability to look at IQ's in African countries being in the 70's and, in some cases, the 60's and not comprehend that such results are more likely to be a function of a design flaw in the test than a reflection of the actual intelligence of the Africans. You get double stupid points if you scream "PC!" when somebody points that out to you.

A more serious answer is that while liberals do tend to have a higher IQ, that's not the end all and be of it. in fact, the test score as little to do with it. So much for trying to catch me in a double standard. Satoshi Kanazawa a libertarian at the London School of Economics and Political Science as written a paper about what he calls " "evolutionarily novel" ideas, such altruism toward non-genetically link people and the ability handle novel situations in general. Get it? Not simply a test score on a exam tests your ability to take exams.
http://open.salon.com/blog/nanatehay/2010/12/11/are_liberals_more_intelligent_than_conservatives

In using the term "evolutionarily novel" Dr. Kanazawa is referencing his Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. In it he contends that, after a changing climate forced our ancestors to move from forest habitats out into the open savannas of East Africa, intelligence evolved as a way of helping humans deal with conditions to which they were unaccustomed. For example, helping those within one's kin group is routine behavior for homo sapiens and is considered to be "evolutionarily familiar", while helping people who are genetically unrelated, by, for instance, being willing to pay a higher tax rate to assist strangers in need, is evolutionarily novel behavior and thus a sign of higher general intelligence. Again in Kanazawa's own words:

"while sharing of food and other resources with genetic kin may be part of universal human nature, sharing of the same resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely to ever meet is not part of evolved human nature. The Savannah-IQ Interaction Hypothesis would therefore predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse liberal political ideology than less intelligent individuals."

I should note here that Dr. Kanazawa considers himself a libertarian, so he is presumably not biased towards thinking liberals are smarter.

....

Some other findings from the study;

Atheists are smarter than believers. The reasons given for this supposition are closely related to the reasons for liberals' allegedly superior intelligence.

Monogamous men are more intelligent than those who aren't monogamous, but the same isn't true for monogamous women. To put it another way, "more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity."

People who identify with TV characters as friends are generally of below-median intelligence (do ya think?).

Less intelligent individuals tend to have more children, even when they don't want to. The premise here is that mastering evolutionarily novel notions such as birth control is too much for some people.

Intelligent people tend to live longer.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

So much for trying to catch me in double standard.

Yes, so much for… You're too smart for that!

Oh no! I made a typo! But you have no real answer, do you? How can you? You're out of your depth and have no recourse but to needle typing mistakes.

Sang, Kanazawa's reasoning in that paper is as flawed as yours… (You might remember discussions of it, when it came out? Heck, even the blog post you cite is from 12/2010. Is it "another" study every time someone refers to it? ) But don't take my word for it: Read it yourself.
Here's a howler, however:

Even in the extreme continuity and constancy of the ancestral environment, however, there were likely occasional problems that were evolutionarily novel and nonrecurrent, which required our ancestors to think and reason in order to solve. Such problems may have included, for example:

1. Lightning has struck a tree near the camp and set it on fire. The fire is now spreading to the dry underbrush. What should I do? How could I stop the spread of the fire? How could I and my family escape it? (Since lightning never strikes the same place twice, this is guaranteed to be a nonrecurrent problem.)

[…]

(The other examples are good, too! I'll take them on, if you ask nicely. But you really should be capable of doing so yourself…)
Kanazawa's flippant attitude is reflected well in his uncritical acceptance of old saws. Lightning strikes wherever it will. The guarantee K. speaks of is the same sort that judges liberalism, atheism and monogamy (for males!) to be more intelligent guides to behaviors that are (were? Hm. That's an interesting quibble…) of evolutionary value than, say, conservatism, theism and polygamy (for males).

No need to conflate them, of course. (Beyond prejudice!)

As the blogger you linked to pointed out:

I should note here that Dr. Kanazawa considers himself a libertarian, so he is presumably not biased towards thinking liberals are smarter. {Oh, don't snip yet!] On the other hand, he champions some notions which are highly controversial, and his work has at times drawn vehement criticism from some of his colleagues, one of whom went so far as to call him "the great idiot of social science."^*

Hm. One wonders why you didn't quote that…

And as Kanasawa himself says, "In this paper I discuss recent theoretical developments in evolutionary psychology and offer one possible explanation of individual values and preferences that I call the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis." (Emphasis added.) Since you can make your point using it, the explanation becomes recieved wisdom; indeed, among your peers it is likely Gospel.
Note, however, that "recent theoretical developments" means Kanasawa's own speculations.

Or, say, this:

The London School of Economics is embroiled in a row over academic freedom after one of its lecturers published a paper alleging that African states were p oor and suffered chronic ill-health because their populations were less intelligent than people in richer countries.

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is now accused of reviving the politics of eugenics by publishing the research which concludes that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. His paper, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, compares IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claims that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.

Paul Collins, a spokesman for War On Want, the international development charity, said the research 'runs the risk of resurrecting the racist stereotype that Africans are responsible for their own plight, and may reinforce prejudices that Africans are less intelligent'.
(source)

You should vet your sources better… (And you really should read more sources. Those I link to, for instance.)
Oh, wait: You only troll for snippets that support your opinions. My bad. Carry on. (I wouldn't try to "catch" you applying a double standard, Sang. Your standards are evident to any who read (decipher? ) your posts.
—————————————
* PZ Myers, if you want to know. As if you're interested. A noted neanderthal, conservative and anti-intellectual!

Meanwhile the idiocy and paranoia on the GOP sides continues unabated:

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/birther_poll_5/

An alarming poll from CBS News and the New York Times last week found that nearly 70 percent of Republicans either believed President Obama wasn’t born on American soil or weren’t sure....

Of course, you picked out the strawman of his arguments. Fair is fair, since I used a decidedly racist section to attack your guy's article. Now I wonder if you can figure out what's really wrong with Kanazawa's arguments. Yes, there is a very serious flaw in it; that strawman about fire wasn't the real issue.

Oh there are other studies not trying to compare conservative vs liberal viewpoints that begin to paint the same picture. Those unwilling to take risks, think "within the box" (read conservative) tend to be less intelligent than those willing to take calculated risks, willing go outside accepted ways of thinking.

Reagan said "It isn't true that liberals are ignorant. It' just that they know so much that isn't so. " There may be a kernel of truth to it, but how is society every supposed to advance unless "liberals" are willing to be wrong sometimes. There was a time when people were unwilling to put forth new ideas (if those ideas were ultimately proven to be correct or incorrect), less they be branded as heretics. It was called the Dark Ages.

Obama wanted higher gas prices, but not the high public disapproval he gets along with it!

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Increasingly pessimistic views of Obama’s performance on the economy — and on the federal budget deficit — come despite a steadily brightening employment picture and other signs of economic improvement, and they highlight the political sensitivity of rising gas prices.

The potential political con­sequences are clear, with the ­rising public disapproval reversing some of the gains the president had made in hypothetical general-election matchups against possible Republican rivals for the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) now both run about evenly with Obama. The findings come just five weeks after Obama appeared to be getting a boost from the improving economy.

Gas prices are a main culprit: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high.

Friday’s employment report showed a gain of 227,000 jobs in the past month, continuing an upward trend and offering the White House something positive to point to. Still, the survey — conducted Wednesday through Saturday — finds 59 percent of Americans giving Obama negative ratings on the economy, up from early last month. Now, 50 percent give him intensely low marks, the most yet in a Post-ABC News poll, and a jump of nine percentage points.

The negative movement has also stalled what had been a gradual increase since the fall in the president’s overall approval rating. In the new poll, 46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.

These groups are also the ones whose shifting support has re-shuffled prospective general-election matchups. Among registered voters, Obama is now on par with Romney (47 percent for the president, 49 percent for Romney) and Santorum (49 to 46 percent). Previously, Obama held significant advantages over both.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Oh there are other studies not trying to compare conservative vs liberal viewpoints that begin to paint the same picture.

Sure there are… Open any issue of Psychology Today.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Those unwilling to take risks, think "within the box" (read conservative) tend to be less intelligent than those willing to take calculated risks, willing go outside accepted ways of thinking.

You've finally answered your own question: Those who aren't Liberal are by definition less intelligent.
Well, of course, we knew that all along!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Yes, there is a very serious flaw in it [Kanazawa's hypothesis]

To what you refer, I don't know. But the main problem his speculations incur is supporting the contention that intelligence (however defined) is evolutionarily advantageous…
———————————————————————————
Too good to pass up:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

but how is society every supposed to advance unless "liberals" are willing to be wrong sometimes [?}

There you have it in a nutshell, Squirrel.
You posit "society" as an entity that can advance, bringing individuals along with it (or consigning them to the scrapheap of history ); hence your preference for coercive government action. I accept that individuals are an end unto themselves…

But who wouldn't want to watch the movie version? (Not that Sang's many diversions aren't entertaining… )

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Oh no! I made a typo! But you have no real answer, do you? How can you? You're out of your depth and have no recourse but to needle typing mistakes.

In related news - the pope is a catholic

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But the main problem his speculations incur is supporting the contention that intelligence (however defined) is evolutionarily advantageous…

In humans, in the present age, intelligence would be so. But try again.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I accept that individuals are an end unto themselves…

And you would incorrect. Do you really think the conditions of society don't impact the individual? Forget his material well-being. As the civilzation degrades, an individual's capacity to achieve his intellectual and creative potential degrades as well for multiple reasons. I'll leave you to ponder that because if I went into detail, you'll just knee-jerk your ill-considered excuse for a rebuttal.