American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I hope that when they relieve your sperm-build-up, it will reduce the swelling and pressure that is cutting off the circulation to your brain. Maybe then you will be better able to provide answers.

Your response to the the question, eloquently posed by none other than Wild Walleye was lacking, to cast it in a generous light.

"My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it."

[QUOTE=Esten]I think he has shown resolve in his efforts to reform healthcare[/QUOTE]If you consider forcing extra-constitutional legislation (containing taxation without representation, a subject I seem to recall covering at some point during my educational travails) on the citizenry (a plurality of which opposed the legislation) as standing up to special interest (in this case, the minority in favor of 'health care reform') you are beyond hope.

[quote=]and his intentions to shift more of the tax burden back to the very wealthy, and there are certainly special interests who oppose those efforts.[/QUOTE]Here, you are almost correct (again, without any knowledge or forethought of why you might actual be correct) If Obama continues his redistributive agenda, Tax payers will be a minority and you could make a case, albeit a specious one, that "tax payers" by being a minority and sharing a common legislative interest (I. E. their taxation) are a special interest. When Obama is finished, you may be correct.

[quote=]I could make a list (eg. Insurance companies, big oil, etc) and I'm sure you can make a list you think he is supporting also, but I would add there is a difference between defending special interests and working with them to achieve broader goals for society.[/QUOTE]Of course there is. If being in bed with Big Oil (which Obama clearly is) the unions and other special interests helps him recast the US as a socialist utopia, it's okay with you. However, in your eyes, politicians, government officials and / or ordinary citizens doing anything that preserves or fosters the perpetuation of the US, its founding documents (i.e. the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. And the rights both assumed and inured by and through them, is sublimation to special interests.

[quote=]The administration's recent support for Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas demonstrates they do not always side with unions.[/QUOTE]You are a poorly read as you are poorly informed.

Obama backed Lincoln because she is the party establishment's candidate. Obama didn't go against the unions. The unions went against Lincoln and Obama's and the party's condidate. They bet big (north of $10mm) against Lincoln because she doesn't support "Card Check" legislation. No doubt having Walmart and Tyson's as two big constituents -- neither of which want to be destroyed by organized labor (a la GM, Chrysler, etc) -- helped her form her opinion on the subject.

[quote=]And this story about the U. S. Chamber of Commerce planning an aggressive last ditch effort to kill the (Obama / Dem supported) financial reform bill, is very telling[/QUOTE]The current administration declared war on both small business and the US Chamber of Commerce. I would not consider USCoC opposition to anything this admin or congress proposes to be anything other than self defense.

You never responded to my questions about your new-found deity, in the form of Gini. Care to expound on Gini's virtues?

Hugs and kisses, enjoy Columbia.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]If you consider forcing extra-constitutional legislation (containing taxation without representation, a subject I seem to recall covering at some point during my educational travails) on the citizenry (a plurality of which opposed the legislation) as standing up to special interest (in this case, the minority in favor of 'health care reform') you are beyond hope.[/QUOTE]When it comes to Esten's understanding of life in america RIGHT NOW, you have already figured him out thoroughly. LOL. Monger On WW. Toymann.

P. I agree that possibly a sperm build up has softened Esten's mind. We will see if his post Columbia monger trip arguements bring greater merit. If not, a build up might not be at the root of the problem. LOL.

Sifting through Esten's posts is more tedious than tying on a 4x tippet at dusk.

Spent some time recently chasing trout (not the trouser variety)

I really need to get you set up with an Argentine Dorado trip sometime soon. Once you get one of those yellow devils on your line you might never Chase after the skinny silver fish again. Tight Lines WW. Toymann.

P. I have included a photo of Rioman's April trophy from the Rio Parana just to wet your appitite. Eat your heart out Exon. LOL.

Pps. The other photo is a pacu that ended up on my line in April. DAMN GOOD EATING! Both fish are slighlty larger than 10 kilos.

[QUOTE=Toymann]I really need to get you set up with an Argentine Dorado trip sometime soon. Once you get one of those yellow devils on your line you might never Chase after the skinny silver fish again. Tight Lines WW. Toymann.

P. I have included a photo of Rioman's April trophy from the Rio Parana just to wet your appitite. Eat your heart out Exon. LOL.

Pps. The other photo is a pacu that ended up on my line in April. DAMN GOOD EATING! Both fish are slighlty larger than 10 kilos.[/QUOTE]When you hook one of those mofo's, you'd better not have your line draped across your index finger (as a chaser of skinny silver fish might become accustomed to doing) learned that many moons ago hooking a 10lbs rainbow and being a little too casual with line maintenance.

[QUOTE=Toymann]I really need to get you set up with an Argentine Dorado trip sometime soon. Once you get one of those yellow devils on your line you might never Chase after the skinny silver fish again. Tight Lines WW. Toymann.

P. I have included a photo of Rioman's April trophy from the Rio Parana just to wet your appitite. Eat your heart out Exon. LOL.

Pps. The other photo is a pacu that ended up on my line in April. DAMN GOOD EATING! Both fish are slighlty larger than 10 kilos.[/QUOTE]That is a nice fish Toymann, did he bite Rioman?

Exon

Used my #12 peyronies to catch this one.

Thats gotta go at least 50 kilos soakin wet. Must have been a hell of a fight on an eight weight dude. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Wild,

If you live long enough, I guess you see almost everything once. This bearded mackerel is a first for me. You got my day off to a great start.

Thanks!

[QUOTE=Shane44]Wild,

If you live long enough, I guess you see almost everything once. This bearded mackerel is a first for me. You got my day off to a great start.

Thanks![/QUOTE]I agree. There's not that much on the web anymore that will cause me to laugh out loud. That one did. Thanks, Stan

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I agree. There's not that much on the web anymore that will cause me to laugh out loud. That one did. Thanks, Stan[/QUOTE]That eye kind of follows you around the room.

No sperm buildup here, though I'm recovering from massive sperm depletion. 10 chicas in 10 days. Some only one hour, most multi-hour and a couple TLN. It was hard work, but somebody's got to do it.

I didn't plan on posting here for awhile, frankly the quality of discussion from the right has been largely (though not entirely) underwhelming. But if others want to continue, I'm happy to chime in.

It's worth repeating, the left and right are not so different as it may appear. The left also recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth and prosperity, and the importance of free markets and individual effort. The fundamental difference as I see it, is that the left believes wealth has become inordinately concentrated in a small sector of society (large corporations and the top 5-10% wealthy) with the poor and middle class not adequately sharing in the prosperity.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Your response to the the question, eloquently posed by none other than Wild Walleye was lacking, to cast it in a generous light.

"My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it." [/QUOTE]Gosh Walleye, you really tore apart my response. And to support your claim that the president is imbued with special interest money, you said... hang on... let me find it... oh yeah right. Nothing to support it. Nada. Zilch.

So, who's case is more lacking?

Today we see the USCoC and Wall Street special interests were unsuccessful in derailing financial reform. This will most likely help Dems and hurt Repubs in the fall. Recent USCoC actions are not helping their public image; they would be better served by replacing their leadership with individuals with a greater sense of patriotism and social responsibility.

Wall Street reform clears Congress.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E0MD20100715[/url]

"Wall Street deployed an army of lobbyists to fight the bill, but they were undermined by the industry's tone-deaf decision to award fat bonuses to executives only months after the government put up $700 billion in bailout funds."

I'll respond to Gini later. PS. Nice fish.

Giggles and shits,

More bleating from a sheep.

[QUOTE=Esten]It's worth repeating, the left and right are not so different as it may appear.[/QUOTE]You could not be more wrong (although you are extremely consistent in your wrong-ness (love those made-up words)

[quote=]The left also recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth and prosperity, and the importance of free markets and individual effort.[/quote] But in the same way that the stripper sees the monger as an ATM.

[quote=]The fundamental difference as I see it, is that the left believes wealth has become inordinately concentrated in a small sector of society (large corporations and the top 5-10% wealthy)[/QUOTE]The left believes in lots of fantasies (e. G. Global warming, nuclear disarmament will make us safe, if we are nice to Iran they won't try to kill us, etc. Even if you were right, wouldn't that mean that wealth becomes concentrated amongst. Gee wilikers. Those who actually create and earn it?

[quote=]with the poor and middle class not adequately sharing in the prosperity.[/QUOTE]Why would one person be entitled to the fruits of another's labor?

[quote=]Gosh Walleye, you really tore apart my response. And to support your claim that the president is imbued with special interest money, you said. Hang on. Let me find it. Oh yeah right. Nothing to support it. Nada. Zilch.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I forgot you can't read, unless it is democrat talking points. I should have sent you an audio file.

[quote=]So, who's case is more lacking?[/QUOTE]You asked, so I'd have to vote that your case sucks ass.

[quote=]Today we see the USCoC and Wall Street special interests were unsuccessful in derailing financial reform.[/QUOTE]Please wow me with one "reform" in this legislation. Can you describe in detail any one function that the financial sector provides?

[quote=] This will most likely help Dems and hurt Repubs in the fall.[/QUOTE]That's like taking it in the pooper from a giant tranny and hoping it turns out to be a real chica.

[quote=]Recent USCoC actions are not helping their public image; they would be better served by replacing their leadership with individuals with a greater sense of patriotism and social responsibility.[/QUOTE]Maybe they could get some of those racist douche bags from the NAACP to come over and tell them how to get rid of all the crackers.

[quote=]"Wall Street deployed an army of lobbyists to fight the bill, but they were undermined by the industry's tone-deaf decision to award fat bonuses to executives only months after the government put up $700 billion in bailout funds."[/QUOTE]That is one of the most idiotic quotes (made by someone other than you) that I have ever heard. It comes from the perspective that "Wall St" was wrong from the start and only spent $ on lobbyists to cover their evil doings and that they were only unsuccessful because of their public opinion gaffe of paying bonuses. This presumes that using lobbyists is bad and that those who employ them are bad and if they hadn't paid bonuses the legislation would have been defeated by the lobbying effort. In the news biz they use to tell you that you need to target (write) your story for audiences with an average comprehension level of an 8th grader. Nice to see that the press no longer needs to dumb down its stories for the ignorant masses. I wonder if Reuters takes this same approach to covering the SEIU or even the New Black Panthers. There are tens of thousands of businesses that never took tarp money or had their bonuses aired on the news that will suffer because of this legislation not to mention the fact that it will costs every last American more to effectuate any type of transaction.

[quote=]I'll respond to Gini later.[/QUOTE]Don't waste your time.

[quote=] PS. Nice fish.[/QUOTE]Only smart thing you said today.

[quote=]Giggles and shits,[/QUOTE]Would be if the stakes weren't so high.

More grunting from a pig.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Why would one person be entitled to the fruits of another's labor?[/QUOTE]News flash for Walleye:

[I]The vast majority of labor and innovation comes from the poor and middle class. [/i]

Of course many of them would not have jobs were it not for the rich. But the rich wouldn't be making fortunes without them either. These are the same workers who receive 50% of total wages while the top decile receives the other 50%. Over the period 2002-2007, their incomes grew only 0.8% per year, while the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.

So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?

[QUOTE=Esten]So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?[/QUOTE]If the others whose labor generates the wealth are so worried about it - why don't they figure out how to make money themselves off of their labor?

What a fallacy to think that those who work for a company, and take no risks themselves, are "entitled" to more because they see the people who put up the money to start and run companies making fortunes. That's called free enterprise. Anyone is free at any time to cut out and start themselves up to try to be successful.

I worked through being a peon in my younger years, to a valued employee who contributed to other's success, to a middle-manager getting bonuses and stock options with people contributing their work to my success. Then I realized I could make more money if I went out and contracted those same services I was now managing to the types of people that employeed me, and I could do it cheaper than it would cost them to hire employees like me.

I have been successful and I have been busted. I have taken risks that paid off and I have taken risks that crippled me financially. They say that often successful businessmen fail a number of times before they hit it big.

When I hit it big, employ maybe hundreds or thousands of people - are they entitled to more because I, personally, am making a lot of money and am wealthy?

Bullshit.

They can get their money the same way I did.

If they can't, then thank god there are people out there who CAN make money and employ those who CAN'T.

That works for all walks of life. The constitution says we are all entitled to "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" as an inalienable right. That doesn't mean that if we aren't happy it's ok to take from those who are.

Men are created equally in terms of everyone coming from the union of a man and a woman and therefore being human and deserving as the same respect and opportunites but it ends there. EVERYONE is entitled to life and liberty, but to find happiness, you're on your own. At least according to OUR constitution. You aren't entitled to happiness, just the pursuit of it. That means that you, yourself, no one else, are responsible for finding that happiness.

If money and status and power and things provide you with happiness, you are free to pursue that all you want - but just because you want it and can't make it doesn't mean that you are entitled to it. If you aren't able to find it, you'd best find happiness elsewhere.

I'm not responsible to bring you happiness.

All of the "you" above was to a generic "you", not Esten, although being human, it includes Esten as well:)