Limbaugh repeatedly refers to "Democrat" Party as "a gulag"

We need a few more Beckian buzzwords please.

It would have been an ordinary cyclical recession that would have ended a long time ago had we the courage to dare to do nothing.

With this statement, you are truly nothing more than an idiotic troll. You have qualified for "scroll-over" status.

Have a nice day!

And, you fail to show us an example of Obama's marxist ideas and so on that you claim is your opposition to him.

If we had done nothing, we'd be in a severe depression, even conservative economists say that.

Boy, if they outlawed false talking points, you'd have nothing to say at ALL, would you, BJ. LOL!

No offense, hon, but you are a joke.

Your comments demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding about a great many things. The fact that you try and build arguments off of your political-hackery influenced rantings is equally appalling.

First, your basis for claiming that the recession that the entire globe is under would have ended a long time ago if nothing was done. Your reasoning for this? Based on facts now, not some loony speculation. Would the numbers magically have changed? The rampant speculation suddenly stopped? The dishonest sharking of predatory bank loans simply ceased? Or perhaps your argument says that all those things wouldn’t have been as devastating as they were if people simply hadn’t done anything once the bombs hit and the bubbles burst? Looking at it now, that does indeed seem to be your point.

So do explain what facts lead you to believe that the massive bubbles that burst wouldn’t really have mattered so much, because it was just a cyclical recession, if we hadn’t done a thing. I’m quite interested in hearing what sources you’re getting your numbers and reasoning from, because thus far it’s nearly unheard of to find somebody serious who claims that nothing should have been done to stem the money loss.

The Cloward-Piven strategy is to guarantee a national income to all. Explain how what Obama has done or is doing that even come close to such an outcome. And remember to dodge the slippery slope reasoning, because if you don’t your argument will simply be dismissed as rampant speculation from a partisan hack.

On a different vein, I can only assume that you’re referring to Saul Alinsky when you refer to “Alinskyite tactics”? The same Saul Alinsky who made it his business to find new ways to organize the poor and champion the powerless? The same guy who championed equality for blacks and whites? The man who wrote a book telling the ‘have-nots’ that it was written for them to learn how to take power away from the elites and the ‘haves’? Seems like a goal you conservatives would laud, since you always claim you’re about individual freedoms. Ahhh, but I forget, you’re only about individual freedoms when it benefits the existing elites and wealthy, the enfranchised. When it comes to the ‘lower’ classes, well, they need to just accept that they’re dumb and stupid and they have to accept their lot in life, hmm?

I’d be interested in seeing how you believe Obama is using Alinsky’s methods. You thrown the words out like you know what they mean, but give no substantive demonstrations of such understanding. So by all means, show how his actions have a base in Alinsky’s methods and Cloward-Piven’s methods.

Regarding your insinuation that the Commerce Department numbers are not the actual data, you very well could be right. The government does lie to make itself look better. Both sides do it. However, noticing that fact and then applying it without the benefit of the actual numbers is at best hypocritical. You accuse the government of using guesses or estimates to reinforce their position and then you immediately do the exact same thing by claiming the actual numbers will go downward (or so you think). At least they have the explanations and the numbers distributed for debate. You simply claim they’re lying and then claim that the actual numbers support your point of view, without giving any data whatsoever, or even past historical data. You don’t even give reasoning for why you think the numbers will be lower, other than ‘governments lie’. Yes, they do, but not all the time and not about everything. Find a better argument if you want people to believe that the Commerce Department numbers are bogus.

Only losing 36,000 jobs, as oppose to a previous estimate of more being lost? When put into the proper context then it does indeed sound positive. See, it’s all about the context in which the data lies and the statements exist. Nobody ever claimed that people losing 36,000 jobs was great for those people. What they claimed was that it could have been (and was predicted to be) much worse, so a lesser job reduction number is better news than what was expected. When you cherry-pick your quotes and remove context from statements, you will notice that sooner or later somebody will come along and blow your attempt at ‘proving your point’ out of the water.

Obama did indeed make several claims about the consequences of passing (and not passing) the stimulus. And he was wrong. I would heartily recommend that he close his mouth or add qualification to his statements. Of course, I’d recommend that to every politician since the beginning of time. Stop telling people things that you don’t have certain knowledge of as ‘facts’, at least until you have certain knowledge of those facts yourself. Your claim that the stimulus has created zero private sector jobs? Where are you getting those numbers from? They seem in direct contrast to numerous other studies that have been completed and published. If you’ve done a study yourself, perhaps you should be publishing that too.

Bottom line here is that you seem to have a penchant for trying to use big words to try and intimidate other posters, and you make several claims that are easily refuted by anybody with a working internet connection and some background knowledge. If your speculation at the end of your post illustrates anything at all, it’s that you allow your dubious knowledge to be overshadowed by your consuming desire to demonize the current President and his political party. When you’re a political hack who only admits that his party has done bad things when you qualify that by noting that the other party has done things orders of magnitude worse, your ‘opinion’ becomes degraded into the ‘laughable’ category.

In short: stop posting about things and trying to pass them off as ‘fact’ when your political bias is the main motivator behind your posts.