Forum: pol
Page 3215
Subject: The President Obama


  Posted by: Seattle Zen - [358591721] Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 11:18

Time to start a new thread.

Some think Larry Summers would not be a good choice as Treasury Secretary
But in angering feminists, blacks and environmentalists over time, Mr. Summers has hurt himself with three groups that make up much of the base of the Democratic Party — making him a prime example of the constituent politics that Mr. Obama must maneuver around in coming weeks.

While at Harvard, Mr. Summers sparked a furor by suggesting that innate factors might help explain why more men than women go into scientific fields and excel there.
 
1Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 11:25


Here are some photos of the heartfelt celebration that erupted from this historical election.



 
2Wilmer McLean
      ID: 541019711
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 06:33
RE PD 934 in previous pre-election thread (the real Obama):

He called her and she accepted the apology. Not a big deal.

In his first preisdent-elect press conference, the man elected to the most powerful office on the planet off-the-cuff attacked one of the weakest of the weak in society, an 87 year-old broken-hipped widow -- that raises eyebrows.

Yes, there was an apology, but this time Obama can't blame his staff.

There have been a few times that Obama has shown his passive-aggressive behavior to Hillary and McCain. The world will be listening and watching. (In poker, there are "tells.")
 
3Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:27
In poker...What do you make of it when your opponent is always scratching his cheek/or is it flipping you the bird?
 
4Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:35
Wilmer - simple question for you:

are you willing to give Obama a chance to see if he can help turn this nation in the right direction, or are you looking to shred him at every opportunity?
 
5Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 10:01
are you willing to give Obama a chance to see if he can help turn this nation in the right direction, or are you looking to shred him at every opportunity?

What is your opinion of what Obama said?
 
6Perm Dude
      ID: 351091010
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 11:11
Wilmer, you sound like a guy looking to grab onto something, anything, and cherish it like a black pearl to get you through the dark times ahead.

No one expects Obama to be perfect (certainly not Obama). He said something he shouldn't, and apologized to the person, who accepted it. If Nancy Reagan can accept an apology from him, why can't you? How ungenerous are you? Are you mistake-free?
 
7Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 12:07
What is your opinion of what Obama said?

it was clearly meant in jest, but it wasn't funny, and it was of questionable taste.

he then apologized for it, which already gives him one more apology than the current president gave during his entire 8-year abortion of a presidency.

it takes someone of strength and humility to admit when they make a mistake, and quite frankly, i like that aspect of humanity in my leaders.

Obama is a human being, and he's going to make mistakes. he's not God, and thusly, not perfect, although apparently some Conservatives want him to be. if he makes a mistake, i want him to apologize, and not lean back on his hubris.

Alexander Pope put it best - "To err is human, to forgive, divine".

and apparently, you care more about my opinion than your own - what do YOU think about what Obama said, and his apology?

 
8Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:03
what do YOU think about what Obama said, and his apology?

I think Obama is a smart guy and you need only to look at YouTube for his speaking accomplishments. If he knows anything, he knows public speaking. This is like Stephen Hawking getting a math problem wrong.

What I mainly wonder is that is this the type of Obama we get when he's off the script? When the teleprompter is off, what does he do?

This is one those problems where any guy with no history behind him is going to incur. If he had a 20 year track record in government, we would know based on the aggregate of what he has said in the past and dismiss it or put him to fire accordingly.

He had to apologize to Nancy Reagan. You cannot attack, deliberately or otherwise, the widow of a conservative and American icon and expect any sort of cooperation from the other side of the aisle without apologizing.
 
9Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:13
so, in other words, you're implying that the apology wasn't genuine?
 
10Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:30
As a general rule, I rarely believe that apologies are in fact genuine. They are usually driven by other motivators.
 
11Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:54
That wasn't the Obama he knew.
 
12walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 14:30
Well then, Box, Obama or anyone will have a tough time living up to your standards. Plus, I would not confuse public speech making with extemporaneous responses to a press conference. These are two different skill sets. One is dealing with prepared lines, the other with spontaneous thought and responses.

He said something wrong, he apologized.

The issue to me is if there's a PATTERN. If we see this happening over and over, apology or not, there's a problem.

The other issue will be the threshold of acceptance. With Obama, you may get a more candid, more open press conference...with that may come more gov't transparency while at the same time, some potential for more comments that are maybe a bit "too candid."

Let's see what we DO get, consistently, before inferring judgment, cos that would be premature at this junture, yes?
 
13walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:36
NYT, Kristol: The GOP Dog Days (it's about Obama)
 
14Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:40
As a general rule, I rarely believe that apologies are in fact genuine.

sorry to hear that.
 
15Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 10:19
out of curiousity, is anyone here going to attempt to attend the Inauguration?

the girlfriend and i are looking into it, and thinking it's something we really want to do, as it's a pretty major moment of US historical significance.
 
16sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 11:10
from the link in 13:

In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country.

Just the other day, the Rep power-heads declared that the party was TOO 'center' and needed to move even more to the right. Here, this fella is calling the nation 'center-right', which would imply that the party needs to move toward the center. (A correct strategy IMHO.)

Long as the Rep talking-heads are debating which direction they need to go, then the Grand O;e Party, is in for a long period of homelessness.
 
17Baldwin
      ID: 351024115
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 11:19
Maybe next presidential election Obama won't have to deny he's a socialist.
 
18sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 11:32
yeah, cause you'll always deny that you were wrong.

To the extent that a socialist is concerned with the social welfare of the broader citizenry; what precisely is wrong with having some socialist views?

Keep it in context. I'm somewhat socialist. I think safety nets need to be there for when bad things happen to good people. I dont believe in the professional welfare Mom; but feel the need to balance the criticism of her, with the needs of those children who had no choice in the matter, but were borne by that welfare Mom.

I think the entire idea of taking healthcare away from a welfare recipient the moment they go to work is wrong. Thats the last thing they need to lose, yet its the first thing that goes and IMHO serves as a demotivator for many. Get a $450/wk job and lose the $1000/m healthcare.

As far as welfare reform goes, I think that if we reduced the cash benefit by 50 cents for every dollar of take-home pay earned, then food stamps at the same rate and then healthcare benefits were the last to go, at the same rate of reduction; we'd dsee a lot more of those people getting back on their feet. But when grp ins at work will cost them $900/m plus in premiums, it destroys the take home pay of the unskilled almost entirely, and the only they are getting from their labor, is something they had for free before taking the job. On the balance sheet, it makes no sense then to take the job.

 
19Baldwin
      ID: 351024115
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 11:36
Every ratchet step further down the wrungs of socialist dependency make the hope of ever crawling out more impossible.
 
20sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 11:54
I'd flip that upside down, and say that every ratchet step closer to your theocracy, makes recovery less and less likely.
 
21Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 12:33
everytime Baldwin says "Socialist", a kitten dies.
 
22Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 14:04
out of curiousity, is anyone here going to attempt to attend the Inauguration?

No
 
23Baldwin
      ID: 351024115
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 15:02
Sarge

I have no idea what you are thinking with that post, if there was any there.

God's kingdom will come suddenly like a mountain dropping out of the sky. It will not be produced by human hands. It will not ratchet. It does not need to sneak in by deception.
 
24Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 15:25
God's kingdom will come suddenly like a mountain dropping out of the sky. It will not be produced by human hands. It will not ratchet. It does not need to sneak in by deception.

unlike nearly every thing you've typed in this forum lately.
 
25sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 16:01
you dont know what I'm saying there?????

I'm saying that the government you desire, seems to me to be closer to a theocracy than much anything else. Which religion would you formally make the required one for continued good standing as an American?

The ultra-rightwingnuts, trying to shove their moral agenda down the throats of all, via legislation and Constitutional Amendment pose a GRAVE risk to the individual freedoms this nation was founded upon.

While you have an obscene fear of helping the poor to better themselves, I have a sincere fear of being incarcerated if I dont profess to believe in this or that mythology.
 
26J-Bar
      ID: 481061116
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 18:14
Sarge are you really familiar with the welfare programs or just posing? The children's Medicaid is not the first thing that goes when a person with children gets a job.
 
27Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 18:26
I'm saying that the government you desire, seems to me to be closer to a theocracy than much anything else.

I've never interpreted that Boldwin wants a theocracy installed in this country. What I've read is that he believes that God's Kingdom is the only perfect form of "government" and that we're heading down a path that is leading to that according to what the Bible says.

Can you show me where Boldwin says he wants a Christian theocracy installed as the government of the United States?
 
28Baldwin
      ID: 351024115
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 19:05
'Slight' tweak, Boxman.

The timeline is as follows:

The nations are gathered together [presumably in global government] in opposition to God.

That is the state of affairs known armageddon.

Very soon afterwards God's messianic kingdom descends from heaven in 'The Great Day of God Almighty Jehovah' and crushes that government. The trigger will be when the new world order moves to kill off all God's people.
 
29walk
      ID: 139332920
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 19:49
And then I exhale some thc.
 
30sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 20:02
where J-Bar, did I say child medicaid?
 
31Perm Dude
      ID: 5410341116
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 21:02
#28: Just wanted to throw in here that not everyone, and certainly not all Christians, believe in that timeline nor in those conditions.
 
32sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 21:24
understood PD. But 28 does illustrate what I meant by Baldwin seemingly wanting a theocracy. He does enough preaching herein, to make it pretty clear IMHO.
 
33Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 05:42
But 28 does illustrate what I meant by Baldwin seemingly wanting a theocracy.

Can you show me where he said that or did you deduct that on your own?
 
34Baldwin
      ID: 361056125
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 07:02
What Sarge conveniently fails to distinguish, is that I do not predict nor advocate for a democratically elected theocracy.

Preserve life and keep us safe from bullies. Is that too much to hope for from government?

I'm unhappy when the government itself becomes the bully I fear the most.
 
35sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 08:28
which is precisely, what it has been for the past 8 years, and had McCain/Palin won...would have continued for at least the next 4.
 
36Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 09:25
Sarge has ducked that direct question twice now. He's lying. Again.
 
37Perm Dude
      ID: 181014128
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 09:41
I'm not sure what question he's ducking, but Baldwin's point is laughable:

I do not predict nor advocate for a democratically elected theocracy

Of course he does. He just calls it the GOP and supports it on theologically-based grounds. The Democrats he suddenly rails against even when they have the exact same (or better) plan.
 
38Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 11:40
Obama administration to ratchet up hunt for bin Laden
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 181014128
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 11:43
I was watching someone on O'Reilly (I believe) yesterday, essentially saying that this is a lost cause, than we haven't really known where Bin Laden is in years, and since we have no information Obama is unlikely to succeed at it (and saying he's in Afghanistan/Pakistan area is like saying that he's in Virginia).

I was practically screaming at the screen at this point. The reason we don't know more about Bin Laden's whereabouts is we haven't bothered to try to find him. What a crappy self-fulfilling apologist statement.
 
40Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 11:50
Unbelievable that any American would call the hunt for bin Laden a lost cause. Some Americans scream about 9/11 as a justification for everything, but don't want to bother hunting down the actual perpetrators.

Thank God Obama got elected.
 
41sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 12:12
re 36...are your truly that ignorant? I ducked nothing, because I deducted nothing. (Pretty sure you meant deduced.)

And yes, from Baldwins post, it doesnt require a huge leap to see where helongs for a theocracy, even if he is unable/unwilling to make himself admit as much.

Go back to being his shadow. Its what you do best.
 
42Baldwin
      ID: 361056125
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 13:46
Re: theocracy.

I can promise one and all that the rule of the 'Skull and Bones' has no resemblance or relationship to the Kingdom of God except opposition to it.
 
43Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 14:09
Osama Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11. When they asked the FBI why, they said they did not have hard evidence against Bin Laden. He is wanted for the African Embassy bombings where they convened a grand jury and presented evidence and got an indictment. They have not done this for 9/11.
link
 
44boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 14:14
Re:1 I have seen this after many a football game...and despite what you may think they actually do not mean anything and they are usually forgotten by the next day.
 
45Perm Dude
      ID: 181014128
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 14:20
#43: Bin Laden is, indeed, wanted for questioning for 9/11. He just hasn't yet been tried and found guilty like the embassy bombings which landed him on the Most Wanted List.

 
46Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 06:07
WHITE GUILT IS DEAD

By Tom Adkins

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo socialism. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is slain.

I'm feeling a little "uppity". From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright's "God Damn America ," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. All those "black studies" programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Gangsta rappers? Start praising America . Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please…no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah…pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President.

Let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin' butt on the couch and complain "Da Man is keepin' me down," allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actualpain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.

It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful…don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It's filthy.

In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that? Now, Like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it's own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism!

So, listen carefully…Wham!!!
That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.

However, despite my glee, there's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.

Tom Adkins publishes CommonConservative.com
 
47Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 07:58
For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man.


What a shame that Mr. Adkins believes (or argues for the sake of bad satire) that America's racial tensions and the resulting overt and inert symptoms we see in our national psyche have anything to do with some perception that the problem lies with a majority of white people. Odd position from a guy who wants to toss all the outdated ideas.
 
48jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 08:50
I think the financial mess we are in now is the tip of the iceberg.
I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and see what
he does. I hope he will not use ex-Wall Street guys or anybody
that even remotely had anything to do with the sub-prime mess
and all the other related derivates fiasco. I want to see new
faces with new ideas that are not just going to keep giving
money back to themselves or their buddies. I'm so pissed that
those who perpetrated this mess are the ones that are seemingly
walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars. How about
just removing everybody from the Senate and House banking
committees, on both sides, telling them, you all screwed up,
you're out, we're tying somebody new? I don't think Barney
Frank or Chris Dodd should be anywhere near helping with
bailout plans. Has anybody on any side just said, boy, we
screwed up, help us? Until there is some accountability, the
same people, both Dems and Republicans are going to keep
getting the keys to the car, event though they keep getting in an
accident. Paulson is a joke, just continuing to line his old Wall
Street buddies with tax credits and more money. I truly am
praying for our new President, because he is coming into a mess
that I am not sure is fixable.
 
49boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 09:49
What a shame that Mr. Adkins believes (or argues for the sake of bad satire) that America's racial tensions and the resulting overt and inert symptoms we see in our national psyche have anything to do with some perception that the problem lies with a majority of white people. Odd position from a guy who wants to toss all the outdated ideas.

What? I do not think that is what he was saying, though he could of done in way that did not come off as sarcastic, or maybe it was suppose to be.
 
50Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 10:33
I do not think that is what he was saying

Did you read the same column? The title of the column is "White Guilt is Dead". Sarcasm or not, this is also the premise of the column. What is his argument to support this premise? He is not ambiguous:
"This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man."
Is it that you're saying that "white guilt", as Adkins would define it, is not a symptom of racial tension?
 
51boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 10:55
Is it that you're saying that "white guilt", as Adkins would define it, is not a symptom of racial tension? i am not sure what that has to do with it being dead or not. I was asking are you saying that racial tensions do not lie with majority of white people and racial tensions are created by minority?
 
53Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 11:42
are you saying that racial tensions do not lie with majority of white people and racial tensions are created by minority?

Not exactly. The fact that a majority of voters decided that a black man was the better of two options does not mean that these problems have gone away, taking with it, as Adkins demands, the chore (as he seems to regard it) of tolerance.
 
54Baldwin
      ID: 471049135
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 11:59
Honestly I can't figure out a single phrase of that 'discussion' starting with MITH's initial post.

It's a moot point. The discussion is over. Race isn't holding anyone back.
 
55boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 12:08
I am not sure that he was saying that racial tensions have gone away. I think his point, though said in way that is not flattering, is that excuses that are used to explain how minorities are held down are not valid and that Obama's election is the proof.
 
56Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 12:56
is that excuses that are used to explain how minorities are held down are not valid and that Obama's election is the proof.

That's right. And it's moronic. The ways in which minorities have been held down has nothing to do with whether a black man can get elected president. You think middle-class black home buyers are suddenly goingt o be welcomed into all-white neighborhoods with open arms because Barack Obama is the president now? You think employers with a history of discrimination, like the FDNY, for example, will suddenly change their practices? You think rogue police officers will suddenly start treating black civilians with the same respect as white civilians?
 
57Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:25
It's a moot point. The discussion is over. Race isn't holding anyone back.

absurd statement, but not surprising from someone who has already shown tendencies to disapprove of people along racial and religious lines.
 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 4106141
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:30
It wouldn't be the first (or the last) time that someone on the Right has declared racism to be a thing of the past.
 
59jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:45
How big of an effect will Obama's election have on young African-Americans who are living in poor circumstances? Will a gang-banger in East L.A. look at him and say "I can do better"? Will it make them believe they can do better and inspire them to work hard to improve their circumstances? I just wonder if any of you who have close African-American friends have had conversations in that regard. I would think the obvious answer is yes, but to what degree, I have no clue. It certainly is historic and I would hope, despite my not agreeing with his politics, his success will motivate others, of all races really, to aspire to better things.
 
60boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:49
RE: 56...when i read the piece, i read it as stop using race as an excuse and try and be someone. yes there is still racism and there always will be, there is also sexism, sizeism, actractiveism....and they too will always exist, but at some point you have to stop using it as crutch and say hey look if Obama can be president anything is possible. what is sad that you guys are no better than baldwin sometimes you just read things and don't bother to think...maybe you disagree with 95% of what someone says does not mean there is sometimes a bit a truth in it.
 
61Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:59
The thing I keep hearing and reading from black parents is that they no longer have to weigh their sense of honesty and the need to prepare their children for some harsh realities against instilling in them the confidence to believe that they can achieve any goal. Thanks to this election, the highest precedent has now been set. This releases a burden which has long encumbered the collective morale of that community.

It won't be instant, but yes black people I've spoken with and I believe many, many more are confident that this election will be a big leg up to support the progress of black community in America from within.
 
62Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 14:08
boikin

i read it as stop using race as an excuse and try and be someone.

You're entitled to "read it as" however you want. I'll read it as it is written. Here's what he wrote:
if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt.


Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed.


no more ebonics... pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.
Honestly there's so many things wrong with that piece, the issue I took might not even be primary among them.
 
63Perm Dude
      ID: 4106141
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 14:13
#59: Absolutely. And I think this whole thing should be looked up with the same forward-looking attitude. Obama's election isn't the end of racism but is another step (a big one) toward that day.

Racism is still real in this country. Reality isn't a crutch, and denying it isn't helping.
 
64Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 15:36
Will a gang-banger in East L.A. look at him and say "I can do better"? Will it make them believe they can do better and inspire them to work hard to improve their circumstances? I just wonder if any of you who have close African-American friends have had conversations in that regard. I would think the obvious answer is yes, but to what degree, I have no clue. It certainly is historic and I would hope, despite my not agreeing with his politics, his success will motivate others, of all races really, to aspire to better things.

the correlation to this comes from the television show The Wire. while it is a fictional TV show, it's based very much in reality, and the character i'm mentioning below is based on a real life drug dealer.

i don't really want to give too much away about the end of the show, in case anyone here is watching it and i don't want to spoil them, but the tale of Marlo Stanfield, and how it his story in the series concludes, i think ties in pretty nicely to jedman's questions...
 
65Tree
      ID: 12938521
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 02:02
of course, then there's this:
Obama win stirs hope in tough South Los Angeles
 
66nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 06:41
He had to apologize to Nancy Reagan. You cannot attack, deliberately or otherwise, the widow of a conservative and American icon and expect any sort of cooperation from the other side of the aisle without apologizing.

Are you serious? he "attacked" her? He made a joke that referenced back to the Reagan's use of astrologers while in office.

THEY did it, he just made an off hand joke about it. The sad thing is we are so thin skinned that he felt an apology was owed. Especially any minor slight that tarnishes the deity of Reagan.

You think there are Republicans in the congress who said, Obama made a joke about Ronnie's astrologers, we aren't reaching across the aisle until he apologizes?

Put your handkerchief away. They were the kooks who used astrologers. Funny joke by Obama, no apology due. "Attacked"??? Please.

 
67nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 06:43


Maybe next presidential election Obama won't have to deny he's a socialist.

There's a socialist in the White House right now, or haven't you been following the economic crisis the last year?

 
68Boldone
      ID: 2410291417
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 08:50
Not an altogether unfair comment. Which doesn't make Obama any less of a threat.
 
69Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 10:26
Which doesn't make Obama any less of a threat.

A threat to what?

Requisition your home and put you and your family in a workcamp?
Appoint Bill Ayers Secretary of Education so that Marxist philosophy is a requirement for graduation from the nation's universities?
Establish Sharia Law as the law of the land because he's secretly a Muslim?
Nationalize all corporations and appoint only blacks and Hispanics to run them?

For a person who professes to be a man of faith, I see a person who has very little faith in his fellow Americans. You've completely abandoned the Reagan legacy you claim to adhere to and formed an Art Bell wing of conservatism, devoid of rational analysis.

Your current philosophy that Sarah Palin is the second coming of Reagan and Barack Obama the second coming of Stalin(with support and approval of the nation's media) makes it virtually impossible to carry on a political discussion based on reality.

When you decide to champion the principles of Ronald Reagan instead of Joseph McCarthy, you might find that your message resonates more successfully.
 
70Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 15:08
I actually believe Bill Ayer's crowd including all the people Obama gravitated to, meant exactly what they said and have not changed. You have no reason to believe they ever changed. I'm not being extreme, they were and are. I'm not the one taking this view on faith, you are the one discounting what they said based on nothing more than the assumption and wishful thinking that their plans can't really be as bad as they actually stated their intentions were.

 
71bibA
      ID: 010421015
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 16:00
B - Out of curiousity, to what would you attribute your judgementalism and negativity?

Is it a factor of your religous belief? Or, are you also looked upon by your fellows as an extremist?

I have only known one JW personally, and she dropped out when the world failed to end as it was supposed to, about 40 years ago. She was and remained quite judgemental also. Would barely speak to her step daughter because she was not a Witness.
 
72Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 19:25
I believe in good and evil and in objective reality.

This doesn't go down well with the POMO crowd.
 
73Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 19:33
I should add for completeness, that I also believe that almighty God is the only legitimate arbiter of right and wrong. All JW's would agree with those statements.

You will look in vain for another JW as interested as I am in the particulars of who is arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a nack I have and not terribly useful.
 
74tree on the treo
      ID: 361053417
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 20:18
and by objective reality, you mean lies, fabrications, and complete fiction...
 
75Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Sat, Nov 15, 2008, 23:34
No I mean reality that actually exist in the real world regardless of who sees it and who narrates it.
 
76nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 00:04

as interested as I am in the particulars of who is arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a nack I have and not terribly useful.

Please don't ever take up interior decorating as a full time occupation.

Still waiting to hear if you think the Weather Underground pulled off a silent coup getting Obama into the Presidency against the will of the establishment. That would make the grand conspiracy not as strong as you've always professed.

I'm just trying to follow your (cough) logic.

I'm trying to understand how you reconcile the fact there is a huge satanic conspiracy that is all powerful...except, the Weather Underground manged to slip a Presidency by them.

Or did I miss the part where you explained (cough) the Weather Underground is "the conspiracy".



 
77Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 01:29
The 'New World Order' is Satan's imitation 'kingdom of god'. The Bush dynasty is in favor of it. Ayers is in favor of it. They'd all like to impart their slightly divergent spin on it as it launches but that is beyond their full control.
 
78bibA
      ID: 010421015
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 11:29
So Bush and Ayers are part of the same conspiracy. OK.....

Is there anyone among the major players in government (other than Palin) who is not part of the plot to get us?
 
79nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 12:16
So can you just give me a yes or no answer to this question...do you believe the Weather Underground literally have the ability to plant a faithful member of their organization into the Presidency against the will of the establishment?

Do you really believe we've just witnessed that grand a coup? Because the way you've described it implies they do.

Just yes or no. Humor me.





 
80Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 14:38
Let's put it this way. The French strain/philosophy of freemasonry just managed that. Yes.

As an illuminating example the French revolution was perpetrated by the French branch of freemasonry [which, in the language you and I recognize does constitute a conspiratorial power elite coup] against freemasons in power who believed in the divine right of kings, divinci code blasphemy.

The history of England is replete with freemasons [aka power elite] who backed the Scottish claimants vs freemasons [aka power elite] who for self-preservation reasons, backed the English king.

When you see one mafia branch wipe out another mafia branch...it is not proof that the mafia does not exist.

It just illustrates that there are schisms and branches and some lodges having considerably more clout than another, and one branch gaining ascendancy in a time and place.

Also just right and left doesn't fully explain what they are about. There is also 'the dialectic', sort of a conversation/deal making between them and that is how they advance, each side not getting exactly what they wanted, while the little people die in the process.
 
81nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 15:37

So let me see if I understand you now... now you are saying that the Weather Underground is either affiliated with the French Freemasons, or are being used as pawns by the French Free Masons, and they (the French Free masons) were able to plant a member of the Weather Underground as President, against the will of the American establishment?

That's what you just explained right?

Have you tried breathing deeply into a paper bag?

I'll go on record to disagree the Weather Underground managed to plant a President against the will of the establishment, with or without the help of the French Freemasons.

I feel pretty sane making that prediction.

Good look with your morphing theories going forward. Be sure to keep us posted.




 
82bibA
      ID: 010421015
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 16:11
nerve - you've got it figured backwards.

The Weather Underground and the French Free Masons were able to plant their man WITH the consent of the establishment.

See....now it all makes sense.
 
83Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 17:32
Nerve - you've forgotten David Byrne's involvement with all this. by making the music he did in the seventies, he was able to provide a distraction because while the american people weren't paying attention, Jerry Lewis became a hero in france, and of course, everyone knows his involvement with the French Free Masons, and if you don't, well, it's probably best that way.

also complacent is west african singer Youssou N'Dour, because, as a french speaking black person, he was able to be the translator between Lewis, the leaders of the french free masons, and Barack Obama's father, who, as a black man, did not speak a "normal" form of english, but rather a gutteral set of grunts and groans an english dialect.

because of his unique position as a french black man, N'Dour was able to communicate with all these different factions, and because of this success, Peter Gabriel, also heavily involved due to his relationship with the British Free Masons and if you don't know about THAT relationship, well, it's better that way, was able to get N'Dour his first recording contract in America, which allowed him to be a big star.

Also, Gabriel's WOMAD really stands for World Organization Maintaining Authoritarian Domination, and he is truly the man controlling all the puppets. Especially once his WOMAD tour was able to be a part of Woodstock back in the early 1990's, because he was able to infiltrate a much younger segment of the population, one that fifteen years later would help usher in the ERa of Obama and making the 2008 U.S. presidential election look totally legitmate.

I'm sure that's what Baldwin was getting at.
 
84biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Nov 17, 2008, 00:23
I think who ever could possibly manage to get elected president is, in Baldwin's mind, part of the conspiracy. By definition.

Unless it's darling Ann.

Of course she would never sully her monopoly on GOP-codger lust of her ineffectual sensibilities by actually running for anything.
 
85nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Mon, Nov 17, 2008, 02:52

Bili I think who ever could possibly manage to get elected president is, in Baldwin's mind, part of the conspiracy. By definition.

Well I certainly subscribe to the theory that whoever gets to the presidency has been "allowed" to ascent to that position with the consent of certain forces that can manipulate such decisions.

What I scratch my head about is why Baldwin could possibly think the Weather Underground of all groups could wield such power, even with the help of the French Freemasons.

I mean Baldwin has figured out that Obama is a puppet of the Weather Underground but the CIA, FBI etc let that information just slip past them?

Unless it's darling Ann.

Can we imagine he doesn't think Ronnie Reagan was part of the conspiracy either? Or maybe he was put in power by the Irish Free Masons?

 
86Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Mon, Nov 17, 2008, 03:49
Nerve

You are aware that the dollar bill contains the gang signs of the freemasons, but you are unaware of the basic schism within freemasonry?

Get back to me when you understand 'the dialectic'.

This not some morphing theory. I've explained this many times over the years and I've always been consistent.

These occult lying bastards work out their little differences in the form of conversation known as 'the dialectic', sometimes involving hot or cold wars and sometimes involving assassinations within or between countries. Not my idea of an international brotherhood but they settle for it.

The 'dialectic' is how they advance. They take two false ideas, synthesize them into an 'advancement', a new false idea. Their last one is to be 'the new world order', aka [pull out your dollar bill for this] Novus Ordo Seclorum.

There are other occult secret societies involved and I don't pretend to know every little detail but this basic outline I have laid out for years explains enuff to understand the basics of the underlying reality.

 
87Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Mon, Nov 17, 2008, 03:57
It will be interesting to see how closely Obama sticks to 'the party line'.
 
88Boldwin
      ID: 2410291417
      Mon, Nov 17, 2008, 04:04
Let me expand sometimes involving hot or cold wars and sometimes involving assassinations within or between countries to include coups and terror movements.
 
89Boldwin
      ID: 571021718
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 06:42
There is talk of Hillary for Sec of State and I bet the right is discouraging it but I say, let her pull out that Clinton Body Count and just stare them down.
 
90walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 08:52
Yo go, Boldwin.

I think she'd be a good choice. She has strong international recognition and appreciation, and would be impactful. There's issues if competenc, gravitas by the people with whom the sec of state has to deal with (e.g. foreign dignataries), politics, and personal qualities/history. If you add it all up, it's worthy of discussion.
 
91Boldwin
      ID: 571021718
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 08:55
Where does the Sec of State fall in the order of seccession if at all? I forget.
 
92Boldwin
      ID: 571021718
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 08:59
Biden, Pelosi, Byrd, Clinton...hmmmm.

Let me think about that a bit more. Too close for comfort. That is not the inexpendable trio there.
 
93Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 09:57
LOL...yea, because if Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd all die, no one is going to raise an eyebrow and think, "boy, that's weird..."

personally, i'd prefer Clinton stay in the Senate, and basically become the Lion, ala Ted Kennedy...
 
94Perm Dude
      SuperDude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 10:02
The best way to make sure that doesn't happen is to tone down the fear level, Baldwin.

Or Congress can pass a law changing the succession. It isn't in the Constitution.
 
95Boldwin
      ID: 571021718
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 11:13
Succession [for the spelling nazis]
 
96Perm Dude
      SuperDude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 11:14
I believe that is Nazis.

:)
 
97Boldwin
      ID: 571021718
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 11:15
Unexpendable and succession.
 
98Boldwin
      ID: 571021718
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 11:17
Lol...I rarely give bad guys the benefit of caps.
 
99walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 12:12
Very humorous diatribe.
 
100C1-NRB
      ID: 17101168
      Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 13:48
Succession [for the spelling nazis]
I thought this was what you meant secession
 
101Baldwin
      ID: 1110431822
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 08:54
Bill Ayer's prospects are bright.

President and AG are prepositioned.

Holder engineered the pardon of mudering unrepentent FALN communist terrorists while in charge of presenting clemency hearings in the Clinton admin. despite pleas not to from his own Justice dept., the FBI, judge in the case etc.

Those FALN terrorists pardoned, took the life of the father of the writer of that piece, and that father's godson was later killed in 9/11.

Holder...this is the guy you want as AG in the age of terror with a ruling party inclined to handle terror as a law enforcement issue in the courts?

 
102Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 09:55
another post and link by Baldwin, another misleading link.

first off - none of the FALN members offered clemency were convicted in the Fraunces Tavern bombing in your linked article. in fact, NO ONE was convicted of that particular bombing.

secondly - NONE of the sixteen members offered clemency were convicted in any bombings or other crimes in which another human being was even injured, much less killed.

thirdly - ALL had served 19 years or more in prison, which at the time was far longer than the average sentences for similar convictions.

fourthly - Clinton offered the clemency on the condition they renounce violence, and under the advisement of several religious leaders and a dozen Nobel Price winners.

no doubt, this group was a terrorist group that did some henious things, and while the clemency issue can certainly be debated, it helps if the whole story is told, not the partial truths you prefer.

but at least you have something in common with your best friend Hillary Clinton - she eventually came out against the clemency too.
 
103Boldwin
      ID: 541042014
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 17:19
What message exactly does anyone think Holder and Ayers sends the terrorists? Soft landings and a job in the next administration maybe. An appearance on 'Meet the Press' where you can brag about it unrepentently at the very least.
 
104Perm Dude
      ID: 91017209
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 17:34
Ayers has a job offer in the next administration? Or is this another fantasy for which you should check if you are awake before blurting out?
 
105Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 17:42
I, for one, would not mind if Ayers had a job in the next Administration. Is he a lawyer? Perhaps he could replace Stevens on the Supreme Court.
 
106Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 18:20
Is he a lawyer? Perhaps he could replace Stevens on the Supreme Court.

It doesn't matter, he's already better than Thomas and Alito.
 
107tree on the treo
      ID: 361053417
      Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 18:56
baldwin...again you make no distinction between fact and fiction...its so much par for the course for you at this point, its practically predictable...
 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 301015211
      Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 02:30
You don't actually have to be a lawyer to be on SCOTUS.

But this is like the fact that you don't have to be a priest to become Pope (just a confirmed Catholic male). It is as likely that a non-priest would become pope as a non-lawyer be nominated for SCOTUS.
 
109Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 12:12
Then it's settled - Ayers for SCOTUS.
 
110Boldwin
      ID: 541042014
      Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 18:44
I thot we were going to make smoking illegal in government buildings.
 
111Boldwin
      ID: 541042014
      Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 19:16


Via Powerline
 
112nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 05:18

Those FALN terrorists pardoned, took the life of the father of the writer of that piece, and that father's godson was later killed in 9/11.

Holder...this is the guy you want as AG in the age of terror with a ruling party inclined to handle terror as a law enforcement issue in the courts?


Baldwin you need to make up your mind. The "age of terror" reference is mostly due to the events of 9/11. Yet you have been one of the people here who has suggested the events that day may have been actually orchestrated by a domestic conspiracy.

So which is it? Is it truly worth talking about terror in this context when you have suggested it really is our own government who is involved?

 
113Boldwin
      ID: 541042014
      Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 06:30
You tell me. Just because there is more to terrorism than meets the eye, we should let terrorists walk?
 
114Doug
      ID: 4410431619
      Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 13:35
Someone's been watching The Transformers.
 
115Boldwin
      ID: 541042014
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 04:05
You lost me on that transformers remark.
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 541042014
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 04:17
I knew that Rahm Emanuel could give Sid 'Vicious' Blumenthal a run for his money but it looks like SNL has him pegged even better than I did.
 
117Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 06:07
I looked at that video and noticed that it was "unaired" in the title. I wonder why.
 
118boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 11:29
Because it was not funny?
 
119Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 13:08
If that were the criteria for SNL, NBC would air the test screen on Saturday nights.
 
120Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 13:14
So I guess y'all have stooped to advocating that SNL has a leftist agenda?
 
121walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 13:16
They write and rehearse many more skits than what makes it on the final show...just like a movie. I guess that bit was not considered good enough to make the final cut. Stewart and Colbert do poli humor 100x better.
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 1510142423
      Tue, Nov 25, 2008, 01:57
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, hardly a bosom buddy of the Democratic Party, sent out a Press Release with praise about Obama's economic team. It's worth reprinting in full:

U.S. Chamber Vows to Work with Obama’s Economic Team
Experienced Officials Must Move Quickly to Shore up Economy

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue issued the following statement on the announcement of President-elect Barack Obama’s economic team:

“President-elect Obama has chosen a strong, experienced economic team. Restoring the nation’s economic health must be our top priority and the Chamber stands ready to work with the new administration to spur growth and job creation.

“This team brings a wealth of knowledge to Washington and an understanding that any sustainable economic recovery will involve the business sector.

“Tim Geithner has a deep understanding of our capital markets and the experience and credibility to tackle our nation's biggest challenge—restoring our economy and rebuilding our financial markets. He has been directly engaged in all the steps taken so far to address this unprecedented crisis and is well qualified to lead the Treasury Department.

“Larry Summers’ knowledge of economic issues and past experience as Treasury secretary will serve President Obama well. Likewise, Christina Romer and Melody Barnes will bring an understanding that any sustainable economic recovery will involve the business sector.

“For nearly a century the Chamber has successfully worked with both parties through varying economic conditions. Today's challenges are unprecedented and call for strong communication and support between the next administration and the backbone of our nation's economy, America's business community.”

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.


link
 
123nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Tue, Nov 25, 2008, 02:22


I heard lots of positive sentiment about Geithner on Bloomberg over the last year, (well before the nomination) and his work on the Fed for what that is worth.

They need to restock the Fed fast because it was already short 2 members and I think a third has tendered his resignation.



 
124nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Tue, Nov 25, 2008, 23:50

Ah Change Obama asks Gates to stay at Pentagon

This just proves the adage that you don't get to this position unless you are ultimately playing by the insider rules.

I expect to see more of this in the future, thus my consistent cynicism. I'm sure the lefty supporters here will hold their nose and find a way to embrace this choice, bloody hands or not.



 
125Perm Dude
      ID: 201039258
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 00:14
Better than who he replaced. I think Gates is a transitional guy until Anthony Zanni can be hired in a year or two.
 
126Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 10:32
I think holding on to Gates is an exceptional decision. Bloody hands?
 
127Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 11:05
By keeping Gates in place, rather than some new guy having to take months to learn everything and try to garner respect, Obama can immediately start the rapid removal of troops from Iraq. Gates can start the planning now.
 
128bibA
      ID: 2410412419
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 15:07
I am so glad that he is holding Gates.

First of all, it gives credence to Obama's promises that he would be willing to work with both sides of the aisle.

Second, I personally believe that Gates is a strong, independent, and decent person.

Third, I predicted it with four of my very conservative friends, and they each said basically "no way, Obama is too radically left wing". Who knows, maybe they will be willing to give Obama some credit now......riiight.
 
129Razor
      ID: 5310182522
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 19:18
nerveclinic, keeping Gates is one of the wisest and most universally approved moves Obama has made. We are fighting two wars. Gates is a man respected by both sides of the aisle and who is helped bring some measure success to the wars after W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al screwed it up so badly. If you have an objection other than "He's not new," let's here it. I, for one, love the fact that he is a former CIA Director who probably understands that this war on terrorism is as much, if not more, a war that needs to be fought with intelligence agencies rather than hundreds of thousands of troops.
 
130Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 19:33
First of all, it gives credence to Obama's promises that he would be willing to work with both sides of the aisle.

In what way?
 
131Perm Dude
      ID: 610502616
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 19:44
He was highly praised, by both sides, during his confirmation hearing. He was appointed by a Republican president.

Are these signs that Obama is *not* reaching across the aisle?
 
132Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 19:55
It's neutral.
 
133Perm Dude
      ID: 610502616
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 19:58
Retaining a defense sec appointed by the other party, by a guy completely against what that party was doing with the defense, is "neutral."

Do you believe all national defense is neutral?
 
134Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 21:06
From Bill Ayer's house it is indeed quite a stretch to a registered independent.
 
135Perm Dude
      ID: 610502616
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 21:10
It is much farther than you've gone, however. You're still back there in that apartment, years ago.
 
136bibA
      ID: 2410412419
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 21:33
Box - You DON'T believe that Obama keeping George Bush's Secretary of Defense is in any way crossing the aisle?

Had he appointed Wesley Clark, I wouldn't believed that he was attempting to cross the aisle.

What, do you believe that Gates is some kind of radical liberal?
 
137Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 22:11
All the radical liberal candidates were in the 'civil defense' line.

Just what are 'the goals we have set' that he claims neccessitate a civil defense force the size and funding of the miltary?
 
138Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 22:52
it is indeed quite a stretch to a registered independent.

One of those rare times when B allows his real priorities to show past his stated ones.
 
139Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 23:04
Mith is apparently unaware that Gates is a registered independent. That explains his incoherence. What PD's excuse is, I haven't decoded just yet.

 
140Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 23:05
One of the things I like about Gates is that he was one of the few high-level appointees involved in Bush foreign policy who can say he has no responsibility for any neoconservative policies enacted by this administration. And his work prior to his nomination indicates an aversion to neocon politics (at least in the sense in which the term is intended, not the dilution that some here find fashionable) as well.

So it's instructive to note which supposed "conservatives" (who are known to decry "neoconservatism" as the downfall of the American right) judge him by his record and ideology as opposed to his absence from the ranks of the registered Republicans.
 
141Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 23:18
For the record, I didn't see #139 before posting #140. Yes, I can read. Thank you for confirming my point.

Supporting Joe Lieberman's claim to his committee chair and retaining Gates are two examples of Obama reaching across the aisle, despite both men being independant.

In the case of Lieberman, endorsing his removal from the chairmanship would have been seen as a partisan rebuke for Lieberman's support of the McCain campaign. And while it might have made something of a hypocrite of Obama, it wouldn't have been at all out of bounds, politically.

In the case of Gates, he retains an appointee who received consensus approval from the right at the time of his nomination and has only been praised by them during his time at DOD.

There are plenty on the left who have criticized Obama for this pick. I've yet to see any significant criticism from the right. That alone indicates that he has reached across the aisle.
 
142Perm Dude
      ID: 610502616
      Wed, Nov 26, 2008, 23:24
This is the part where Baldwin runs away, throwing excuses left and right, as to why the object of his political scorn isn't truly a party to which he subscribes.

 
143Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Thu, Nov 27, 2008, 00:46
That explains his incoherence. What PD's excuse is, I haven't decoded just yet.

hey PD, welcome to the club. in only a few short days, Baldwin will allow you to join the moron circle with Sarge and myself.

you're a piece of work Baldwin, a true piece of work.
 
144Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Thu, Nov 27, 2008, 03:15
Maybe PD had the same problem MITH had. I thot it was common knowlege.
 
145Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Nov 27, 2008, 06:42
hey PD, welcome to the club. in only a few short days, Baldwin will allow you to join the moron circle with Sarge and myself.

Oh no. You two Politards are in a league of your own. Even with PD's infamous thread about Tony Snow, he is still eight or nine gradients above you two.

As usual, Boldwin clears it up by saying Gates is an independent.
 
146Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Thu, Nov 27, 2008, 07:56
So it's instructive to note which supposed "conservatives" (who are known to decry "neoconservatism" as the downfall of the American right) judge him by his record and ideology as opposed to his absence from the ranks of the registered Republicans. - MITH

I have no opinion about him one way or the other. I was just pointing out that he isn't quite the stretch across. Whose to say he wasn't the stretch across that Bush made?
 
147Razor
      ID: 4810322719
      Thu, Nov 27, 2008, 20:45
You mean both Bushes? The man was appointed by two Republican presidents.

If there is confusion by those on the Right about Gates' place on the political spectrum, it's because the Right has a major identity crisis going on right now.

Keeping Gates in place for the time being is essentially a statement that there will be no major shakeup in DoD or in the wars for now, which is exactly the opposite of what everyone on the right claimed would happen. Oh yes, Obama is going to get us out of Iraq and cut military spending, but he is not going to to do it in an ill-conceived, rushed way, which would be a pretty good way to describe how we got into Iraq in the first place.
 
148sarge33rd
      ID: 2810452218
      Fri, Nov 28, 2008, 22:45
roflmao...

bibA makes a point,
Box questions the validity of thepoint,
PD expands,
Boldwin contests said point,
Box seconds Boldwins stance,
MITH and PD enlighten them,
Tree fuels the fire,
Box takes the bait,

lol does nothing EVER change?
 
149Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Sat, Nov 29, 2008, 07:48
If there is confusion by those on the Right about Gates' place on the political spectrum, it's because the Right has a major identity crisis going on right now. - Razor

You are perhaps too young to remember the convention Rockafeller's name was put in play and the place exploded in protest. [the year Ford was nominated?] Republican In Name Only is not a new phenomenon.
 
150Perm Dude
      ID: 591014290
      Sat, Nov 29, 2008, 09:29
I heard no cries of protest when Gates was nominated. None.
 
151tree on the treo
      ID: 361053417
      Sat, Nov 29, 2008, 10:59
PD....wait for it....here comes the revisionist history post about Gates' nomination....
 
152Perm Dude
      ID: 591014290
      Sat, Nov 29, 2008, 11:25
It seems almost bizarre. Gates is a great pick (and he was a great pick for Bush). Baldwin seems to be making some kind of a strange argument that Gates is not a good pick because he's not Republican enough.

Party identity politics is very 90's.
 
153Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Sat, Nov 29, 2008, 23:40
It no longer matters who is on the bridge. The ship is going down.
 
154tree on the treo
      ID: 361053417
      Sat, Nov 29, 2008, 23:48
the sky is falling. the sky is falling. chicken little!

lol. do you have your placard on a board baldwin? ready to march around times square wearing a sheet and proclaiming "the end is near! the end is near!"

btw, nice typical avoidance on your part...
 
155Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 01:58
Interesting.
 
156Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Dec 03, 2008, 09:31
As usual, Boldwin clears it up by saying Gates is an independent.

"Gates said he has not registered with a political party, but considers himself a Republican, and noting that, until Monday, all of his senior appointments had been under Republican president"
 
157Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Wed, Dec 03, 2008, 10:10
He isn't any more a reach across the aisle than anyone from either party hiring David Gergen.
 
158Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Dec 03, 2008, 11:23
From the 'interesting' link to WND in #155.

But what does Gates have to do with the concept behind the "civilian national security force"?

Gates invented the idea.

Last fall Gates began giving a series of speeches about the need to create a more modern State Department and a "civilian national security force" that could "deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside the military."

Gates' idea was big – seemingly as big as Obama's $439 billion vision: "If we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don't have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated."


Very confusing, which was probably Farah's intent. His attribution of "civilian national security force" in quotations, sans context, runs into the next quote, which indicates a need for militarily trained personnel in international situations(alongside our military).
Since, at present, the government relies on private contractors like Blackwater, who have operated with impunity and outside any accountability to any government entity(and are extremely expensive), how could Gates idea be any more expensive or completely without merit?

There are as many or more than 180,000 private contractors in Iraq today – outnumbering U.S. military forces there – and thousands more in Afghanistan. A significant proportion of the contractors in Iraq – as many as fifty thousand or more – are armed and carrying out military-style security functions, many of them for a welter of U.S. government agencies.

But while the ranks of these private security contractors (PSCs) have grown and with them incidents of serious criminal violations, the U.S. government has failed to establish any effective system for holding PSCs fielded by the U.S. government accountable for their actions. This situation has been most problematic in Iraq. But these issues are not unique to Iraq or Afghanistan, and they will continue after those particular operations are long over.
link
 
159Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Wed, Dec 03, 2008, 13:20
I can't even imagine a single legitimate need for Obama's planned force. I can however think of VERY good reasons for posse comitatus which we unfortunately are no longer protected by.

We need government funded brown shirts why again? It is a crazy crazy idea frought with danger and potential for malicious mischief.
 
160Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Dec 03, 2008, 14:03
I can't even imagine a single legitimate need for Obama's planned force.

We need government funded brown shirts why again?


What planned force? Do you know what you're talking about or are you simply parroting others with Obama Derangement Syndrome? The brownshirt reference makes a response unnecessary. Here's the speech in question.

As president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.


It seems clear that by “civilian national security force,” Obama was referring to the programs in the preceding paragraphs: Americorps, the Peace Corp, the Foreign Service, and the USA Freedom Corps. His point was that it takes more than military power to protect our national security, and that efforts of non-military volunteers can do a world of good. It’s obvious that “civilian national security force” was a turn of phrase to make a contrast with our armed forces.

I suppose what needs to addressed is whether the right is intentionally lying or whether they're just too lazy to provide context to anything Obama, and in this case Gates, has actually said.

>But what does Gates have to do with the concept behind the "civilian national security force"?

Gates invented the idea.
- a lie from Joseph Farah

>expand AmeriCorps..

enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets..

grow our Foreign Service..

double the size of the Peace Corps..
=

"government funded brownshirts" - Baldwin

 
161Boldwin
      ID: 1810312617
      Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 06:25
Those are the initial directions it would take. I have linked to that speech. I've named Americorp in particular. In addition comments from Rahm Emauel and Michele Obama indicate these would be compulsory eventually, voluntary in name only.

The mischief a career Acorn leader can task those resources with is mindboggling. He is far more giddy at the prospect of packing the institutions with hardcore radicals and leading government funded radicalized 'change agent' armies than he is with the prospect of dealing with the next terrorist incident or world crisis.
 
162Tree
      ID: 33112548
      Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 09:32
in college and the few years following, when i was a bit more apt to experiment with hallucinegenics and the like, would have been the perfect time to enjoy a ride in Baldwin's Brain, because it's a trip, man.
 
163Baldwin
      ID: 331145418
      Thu, Dec 04, 2008, 23:04
The Obama camp knew they had a citizenship problem and worked to solve it as an obstacle in 2006.
 
164Tree
      ID: 511113421
      Fri, Dec 05, 2008, 00:03
well, hell, it might as well have been Obama himself!

An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama...

read that aloud. it just sounds silly. it's like "my second cousin's third wife's half-son from her second marriage..."

sheesh. grasp at more straws. i wonder if Obama wasn't black, or if you didn't have this irrational fear he was a muslim, you would feel the same way about this citizenship non-issue.
 
165Perm Dude
      ID: 5211950
      Fri, Dec 05, 2008, 01:10
Nearly every fact stated in that article in wrong. And many words have the sheen of fact but aren't actually facts at all.

The first three paragraphs are an opinion that the natural born requirement be eliminated from the Constitution (a call taken up by people on the Right, as well, to try to get Gov. Arnold a shot at the Oval Office). This has nothing to do with saying that Obama has any kind of citizenship problem (just as it doesn't indicate that McCain has a citizenship problem).

As tree points out, the person making that assertion isn't in the "Obama camp." But lookee--another lawyer in this 1500 lawyer, Chicago-based law firm is! What are the odds?

The next paragraph is an example of a blather of words trying to imply a point which doesn't quite make it. No court, on any level, has actually accepted any suit challenging Obama's citizenship.

The 5th paragraph merely points out "accusations" as though what people say, without proof, carries some weight.

The next paragraph is a strawman. Whether Hawai'i issued COLB to those not born in Hawai'i has no bearing at all whether that particular certificate is valid. And Hawai'i has done more than "seen" his COLB: They actually have it. And it isn't true that they have not released information from it )they have released information from it. What they will not do is release the actual COLB to people who ask for it).

The next paragraph is just like the 5th: A recitation of fact-free accusations.

The rest of the story is merely a cherry-picking of arguments from a paper written by someone who isn't in Obama's camp about the natural born requirement.

The entire article is a bust, framed by a photo of Obama with Odinga.

Even Mona Charen is realizing that Obama is no Huey Newton. But Baldwin continues to nurse his grudges...
 
166Wilmer McLean
      ID: 49114211
      Sat, Dec 06, 2008, 05:27
Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

Washington, DC -- December 2, 2008

Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton Appointment


Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.

Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.

"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."

 
167nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Sat, Dec 06, 2008, 10:41


"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.

An easy remedy would be for Clinton to voluntarily only take the old salary. If the point of the legislation is to prevent corruption, then that would satisfy the intent of the rule and be a reasonable solution.

In fact the law should be rewritten to provide for such.
 
168Perm Dude
      ID: 151157612
      Sat, Dec 06, 2008, 14:01
The prohibition isn't all that cut and dried. The spirit of the law, of course, is to prevent Members from taking Executive positions at salaries which they had an opportunity to approve. The end-around, as nerve points out, has been to simply reduce the salary (this gets at the spirit of the law question). This has happened a couple of times in the past, and has never been Constitutionally challenged. She could also take the seat without salary.

On the larger question, it is my opinion that when Clinton resigns her seat she is no longer subject to the prohibition, but that's not something everyone agrees with.
 
169walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sat, Dec 06, 2008, 14:16
Real Bill Ayers (NYT Op-Ed by Bill Ayers)
 
170Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Dec 06, 2008, 15:18
This obviously doesn't apply to Sen. Clinton. Read Article One, Section Six carefully:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

He is not she :)!
 
171Baldwin
      ID: 481125510
      Sat, Dec 06, 2008, 16:01
Oh now you're all about strict construction, lol.
 
172Perm Dude
      ID: 541149810
      Mon, Dec 08, 2008, 14:42
SCOTUS, without comment, rejects Obama citizenship case
 
173C1-NRB
      ID: 17101168
      Mon, Dec 08, 2008, 16:43
This obviously doesn't apply to Sen. Clinton. Read Article One, Section Six carefully:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

He is not she :)!


I lol.

Oh now you're all about strict construction, lol.

I rofl.
 
174Baldwin
      ID: 571134912
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 18:12
Wiz of Id
 
175Wilmer McLean
      ID: 1611421315
      Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 04:04
The time when Americans elect the President.

from wiki:

December 15, 2008

Electors chosen on Election Day meet in their respective state capitals (or in the case of Washington, D.C., within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President. In 2008, that meeting will be on December 15.

The Electoral College never meets as one body. Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow. The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often each state's Secretary of State or equivalent—who reads the Certificate of Ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. Those present answer to their name, and they then fill any vacancies in their number. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not himself an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.

When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for President of the political party of the Electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for President. In New Jersey, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for Vice President, which follows a similar pattern.

After the voting is complete, the electors complete the Certificate of Vote. This document states the number of electoral votes cast for President and Vice President, and who received those votes. The state election official usually has pre-printed forms ready, and the tellers usually only write down the number of votes cast for appropriate candidates. Five copies of the Certificate of Vote are completed and signed by each Elector. Multiple copies of the Certificate of Vote are signed, in order to provide multiple originals in case one is lost. One copy is sent to President of the U.S. Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States) by certified mail.

A staff member of the Office of the Vice President (here, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate) collects the Certificates of Vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of Congress. The Certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. Alabama through Missouri (including Washington, D.C.) are placed in one box, and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.

January 6, 2008

The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session. Additionally, federal law mandates that such joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election take place on the sixth day of January in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors. The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. The sitting Vice President is expected to preside, but in several cases the President pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings instead. The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote. Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. If there are no objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote and, if applicable, states who is elected President and Vice President. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber.

Cheney or the former Ku Klux Klansman?


 
176Wilmer McLean
      ID: 1611421315
      Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 04:11
*January 6, 2009
 
177Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 12:29
How's that bipartisan cabinet coming along?
 
178Perm Dude
      ID: 2811561611
      Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 12:58
Is that what was promised?
 
179Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 19:00
lol. yep. the guy hasn't had one day in office, and the haters continue to chirp in.

how about trying to be part of the solution, not the problem, or is that too difficult?
 
180Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 09:39
Subject: Dealing with Abusive Messages

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sun, Feb 20, 16:38

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occasionally, an immature user will bombard the forum with inappropriate messages. Usually, moderators are around and quickly clean up the situation, but sometimes this will happen while the board is temporarily unattended. If this happens, please heed the following advice:

(1) Please do NOT respond to any inappropriate messages. Any harsh responses only serve to encourage this behavior. If we show a group resolve to totally ignore these intrusions, we will thwart the craving for attention. Thus, no matter how much you want to respond to abusive messages - PLEASE DON'T. (Consider this a form of "shunning".)

(2) If inappropriate posts are not being addressed, send me an email. I spend a lot of time online, but (believe it or not), not all of it is at this forum.

(3) Users who post profane or disruptive messages will be blocked from the ability to post new messages. If you engage an abuser in a profane exchange, you risk losing your privileges as well.

As we all know, the world is full of jerks who crave attention and who don't know how to conduct themselves in public. Although the overall quality of the messages at this forum is usually quite high, occasional unfortunate episodes have occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. Be assured that they will be dealt with as quickly as is possible. But please let me (and the moderators) handle these situations.

Be strong. Ignore them.

Boxman: Advice taken.
 
181sarge33rd
      ID: 3111221711
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 12:29
I see Box has mastered the skill "copy/paste".

Good for you Box. In how many threads are you going to demonstrate your new found proficiency?
 
182Tree
      ID: 3711581711
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 13:05
i can honestly say that if post 180 is in reference to my 179, it's a total laugher, because there is ZERO abusive about my post. it's actually constructive, whereas the post i referenced was yet another snarky, annoying, useless drive by post.

imho, it's much more apropos for post 177.
 
183nerveclinic
      ID: 26107108
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 13:46

I don't know anything about the guy...Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado...Obama's choice to lead the Interior Department, but he shows up to a press conference with O and he's wearing a frickin' cowboy hat???

I don't care if you are from Colorado, how embarrassing is that for Obama.

Is it halloween?

 
184Tree
      ID: 3711581711
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 14:00
i feel like nearly every photo i've ever seen of Salazar has him wearing a cowboy hat...
 
185Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 20:33
How's that bipartisan cabinet coming along?

not too shabby.

Obama adds another Republican to Cabinet

that's two so far. how many Dems are in Bush's Cabinet?
 
186Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 20:36
Whose the other one and where do you count Gates?
 
187DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 21:07
They spotted him Gates as the first one. Which may or may not be completely sane--but that's a topic for the media bias thread. ;)
 
188Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 21:36
Gates considers himself a Republican, so it doesn't matter where Tree or Boxman consider him.
 
189biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 22:00
Anyone with a lick of sense (i.e. not a wing-nut, i.e anyone of which Baldwin and his ilk would approve) doesn't count as a Republican.
 
190Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 22:56
Whose the other one and where do you count Gates?

Gates was the first Republican on Obama's cabinet. he considers himself a Republican, and until Obama, all his appointments came under Republican presidents.
 
191Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 23:37
Anyone with a lick of sense (i.e. not a wing-nut, i.e anyone of which Baldwin and his ilk would approve) doesn't count as a Republican.

True enough. It's kind of funny and telling that the conservatives on this board don't want to count Gates as a Republican so that they can claim that Obama has not acted in a bipartisan fashion in forming his cabinet while ignoring the fact that Gates is pretty universally well respected and they should be proud to count them as one of their own. Man, it is going to be a while until the GOP recovers and finds an identity...well, one that resonates with the majority, at least.
 
192Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 02:56
Bili, Razor

Last time republicans allowed liberals to define who a republican was, they ended up with McCain as a nominee. Not a recipe for success.
 
193Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 02:57
Rule #1

If Soros backs them, they are not real republicans.
 
194tree on the treo
      ID: 3510493023
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 07:47
i'll agree with you that mccain was not a recipe for success.

anytime someone is as foolish as he, gives up his beliefs completely to pander for votes, and makes one of the worst decisions in the history of vp selections by selecting some one as awful as sarah "failin'" palin, it's not going to turn out well.

the plus side is that just enough people are masturbating themselves into a frenzy that she'll probably run a couple times for president, which should be one entertaining train wreck....
 
195Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 10:05
That's the problem with you, Baldwin. You don't know the difference between a moderate and a liberal. You're political spectrum-blind.
 
196Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 10:14
His notion of "real Republicans" is also quite narrowly dated.

And then there's his idea of mainstream media.

His refusal to discuss the world and current events in any terms other than his warped perspective of such things is one of the downfalls of this forum.
 
197Perm Dude
      ID: 3411241811
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 12:24
Last time republicans allowed liberals to define who a republican was, they ended up with McCain as a nominee

WTF does this mean? Did "liberals" infiltrate the Republican primary system?

McCain ended up as the nominee because Republicans voted for him in the primary. Given how much Republicans have been purging moderate and liberal elements from their own party for many years now, to believe that these people still exist in the GOP to such an extent that the party nominated someone they otherwise would not have is simply laughable.

Baldwin and other wingnuts can't even admit that their own party made a mistake. They have to blame it on some other "liberal" element.
 
198Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 12:43
Last time republicans allowed liberals to define who a republican was, they ended up with McCain as a nominee

McCain became the nominee because of a concerted campaign by 'conservative Christians' to blackball the best Republican candidate because he is a Mormon.

That, and the ridiculous winner-take-all primary system in some of the most important states that was implemented by Republicans, not liberals.
 
199Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:15
Given how much Republicans have been purging moderate and liberal elements from their own party for many years now, to believe that these people still exist in the GOP to such an extent that the party nominated someone they otherwise would not have is simply laughable.

How would you classify Bush? It seems to me that the President who ran as a "Republican" sparingly shows those traits.

I wouldn't go so far as to say people are being expelled in the center or left of the party so much as people on the right of the party are getting told one thing while another gets done.
 
200Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:17
McCain became the nominee because of a concerted campaign by 'conservative Christians' to blackball the best Republican candidate because he is a Mormon.

How was Romney better, or more electable, than McCain?
 
201Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:19
"Republican" sparingly shows those traits.

What, exactly, are "Republican" traits? The notion is a fallacy.
 
202Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:30
How was Romney better, or more electable, than McCain?

No one said he was. Post 189 responded to and correct the historical revision in post 192.
 
203Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:41

How was Romney better, or more electable, than McCain?

What was the #1 issue of this campaign?

Answer - the economy.

Which candidate had a track record of success in the private sector, expertise in economic turnaround situations, proven leadership on multiple levels as an administrator, as well as the squeakiest clean family life?

Now you tell me why McCain was better, or more electable than Romney, especially given this admission:

“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should"

as well as his hawkish stance on the unpopular war in Iraq, his aggressive position regarding Iran, and his embarrassing comments following the Russian/Georgian conflict.

Beyond that, the Baldwin wing of the Republican Party all hate him and consider him a liberal.
 
204DWetzel at library
      ID: 711451812
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:45
201: What, exactly, are "Republican" traits?

Silly me's always assumed it had to do with that pesky (R) after one's name. Sort of like a primary Democrat trait is that pesky (D).

Attempts to disown people who have that (R) or (D) by others within said group are not terribly relevant to the discussion.
 
205Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 13:55
Largely agree, DWetzel, tho I'm not sure why you responded to me instead of the person who attempted to disown others within his group.
 
206Perm Dude
      ID: 3411241811
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 14:13
How would you classify Bush?

Bush ran as a Republican just to the right of his father. He never had any real competition, however, in either of his primary races.

The fact that he sucked as a Republican after he got in office, however, didn't do much for the GOP except to make the party look foolish when they lined up behind him and his policies as a matter of national patriotism.

Despite all this, to this day Republicans, by and large, have waited for the last two years of his lame-duck presidency to level any criticism at all and are still pulling their punches when it comes to criticizing him. Mostly, they just are ignoring him.

It all goes to the same problem by the GOP: Their inability to self-diagnose their problems very well.
 
207dwetzel on BB
      ID: 559392915
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 15:17
Sorry Mith... T'was my way of agreeing with you. It seems blindingly obvious to me and it probably is obvious to anyone not covering their eyes while shouting lalalala, I can't see you.
 
208Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 15:55
I wouldn't go so far as to say people are being expelled in the center or left of the party

Are you going to have us believe you're unfamiliar with the term RINO?

If so, you haven't read many of Baldwin's posts or listened to much conservative talk radio the past 10 years. Maybe this will refresh your memory.

The term originated around 2000, coined by staunch conservative members of the Republican Party who opposed the party's status as a center-right party (center-right by American standards, but firmly right-wing by international standards) and wished to realign it as a wholly conservative party. Some of these Republicans have formed self-declared RINO Hunters' Clubs, devoted to purging those they see as RINOs from the party, or at least to oppose them in the primary elections to keep them from representing the party in general elections or obtaining elective office as Republicans.

A group that frequently does this is the economically-oriented Club for Growth - they ran ads against Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island after these Senators objected to certain aspects of one of President Bush's tax cuts. They also supported the recent primary challenge to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter by Congressman Pat Toomey.
 
209Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 19:11
Precious little purging going on considering the RINO's and neocons have a deathgrip on the levers of power in the Rep party. If anyone is at risk of purging it's the conservatives, unless the party stops listening to and letting the NYT' led MSM influence it at all.
 
210Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 20:42
lol. i swear Baldwin. with what comes out of your mouth, you could make a good living with a megaphone and a tip jar on Times Square. outstanding stuff, chap.
 
211Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 17:34
Big surprise: agenda driven pseudoscience now assured to be in the driver seat.

John Holdren, newly appointed director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the following knee-slapper:
Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.
That would be the same Holdren famous for collaborating with the notoriously wrong-headed Paul Ehrlich well known for his frequent books with new deadlines for catastrophic world starvation and shortages:
Ehrlich is best remembered today for the bet that he made with Julian Simon that the prices of certain commodities selected by Ehrlich would rise--a certainty, Ehrlich believed, given his theory of imminent and catastrophic scarcity of raw materials. The prices all fell.

While nowhere near as famous as Ehrlich, Holdren collaborated with him on two books and several articles, and fully shared Ehrlich's pessimistic theories on the future of the human race. In fact, as John Tierney notes, Ehrlich went to Holdren for advice on which commodities to choose for his losing bet with Simon.
 
212Perm Dude
      ID: 1211122420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 21:14
I really don't think you want to state that pseodoscience is now taking over the Executive Branch. Seriously.
 
213Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 00:49
I most certainly do. Any PC agenda driven phony science fad will now hold full sway over the executive branch.
 
215Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 01:41
Obama magical realism:

In this liberal alternate universe Holdren waves his Barbie Doll magic wand and evolution rules.

In an unfortunate demonstration of the law of unintended consequences the world has turned entirely liberal and unable to tell light from dark, mankind has fallen by the wayside, supplanted by the moth.
 
216Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 02:43
you guys have fun with the loon for the next 10 days, and keep the white coats on speed dial, just in case.

in the meantime, i've got a flight to the Yucatan in 3 hours. catch y'all on the flipside, and have safe, happy, and joyous New Year.
 
217Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 05:50
There has just got to be a Chicxulub joke in there somewhere.
 
218Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 10:10
you guys have fun with the loon for the next 10 days, and keep the white coats on speed dial, just in case.

in the meantime, i've got a flight to the Yucatan in 3 hours. catch y'all on the flipside, and have safe, happy, and joyous New Year.


I was going to start the annual Merry Christmas thread, then I read this.

The President Obama thread has now just become the Merry Christmas thread. There's no topping this.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!

 
219walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:37
NYT, Herbert: Quagmire in Afghanistan

He makes a compelling argument. Can we really make a difference there? Obama wants to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. However, history shows that success there is not likely. The politics are against him changing his mind, but I am curious what others here think about whether we should try harder in Afghanistan or call it a day.
 
220Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:12
As if destroying the domestic auto industry wasn't enuff, let's hamstring every domestic industry just as badly.

You are going to vote for unionization, aren't you?
 
221Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:20
The politics are against him changing his mind, but I am curious what others here think about whether we should try harder in Afghanistan or call it a day.

THAT'S where the enemy is at who attacked us. Kill them all. Go get them.

I really don't give a toss for the whole nation building concept. I just want dead Al Qaeda bodies by the bushel.
 
222Seattle Zen
      ID: 22041812
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:30
Re: 220

It's been 60 years since there has been a single positive labor law passed at the Federal level. Each bill discussed in the story you linked to in your post is long overdue and only reactionary chamber of commerce types are against them. Cheers all around!
 
223DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:43
So, let's review the three pieces of legislation discussed there in 220. (Why bother, rather than just throw out a pithy nonsensical quote? I dunno.)

1. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act seeks to allow wage-discrimination claims from the date on which the violation is discovered rather than 180 days from when the violation occurs.

How can it be argued that this is a bad thing? If a business breaks the law for 10 years, but the employee doesn't catch on until that time, the business gets off scot-free? Is that what we want--incentive for the business not to do the RIGHT thing, but to do the wrong thing and try to get away with it?

Of course, "The Chamber argues the bill would essentially eliminate statutes of limitations in wage-discrimination claims, leading to a barrage of old and expensive lawsuits being brought against employees." Only if they're actually, you know, discriminating. (And yes, there will be some frivolous stupid lawsuits as a result of this. Those happen all the time. Personally, I'd be fully in favor of "loser pays winner's legal expenses" being tossed in to a lot of lawsuits.)

2. "The Paycheck Fairness Act, meanwhile, seeks to allow unlimited punitive and compensatory damage awards under the Equal Pay Act, even when the wage disparity is unintentional. Provisions of the bill would also make it difficult for an employer to defend wage disparities.

That last sentence is a bit vague--I'll be interested in seeing what those are. But as for the rest... isn't that what judges and juries are for? If, hypothetically, a business breaks that law for 25 years, lies, covers it up, and intimidates others into covering it up, then finally gets caught--why should damages be limited?

3. An even more daunting change is waiting in the wings -- the Employee Free Choice Act. The Chamber calls it the Card-Check Act, seeing nothing free about it.

The bill, which has already passed the House in previous sessions -- once co-sponsored by Mr. Obama and vice-president-elect Joe Biden -- would allow a union to be certified once a simple majority have signed union cards.
Never really understood the point there, to tell the truth. If a majority of members want to be in a union, why require another ballot?

3b. The Employee Free Choice Act also contains provisions for a government arbitrator to impose contracts if agreements can not be reached.

"The government will actually appoint a panel of arbitrators who can then step in and literally write every term and condition of the workplace ranging from wages to working conditions to pension contributions"


This one does trouble me a fair amount, to be honest. Would much rather see the business and the union work it out. I do see some potential for abuse (by both sides!!!!) here.
 
224Perm Dude
      ID: 210989
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:51
The Employee Free Choice Act would have those new unions have the same power as current unions, in which mediators are, at times, mandated. What this means in practice is that, when an impass is reached, professional mediators step in to prevent a strike.

Typically, mandatory arbitration is not appealable, and neither side is usually happy to have their terms decided by an arbitrator.

In no case can it be said that arbitration is pro-union as some kind of blanket statement. In fact, the Chamber often backs mandatory arbitration as a means to reduce its members' costs is settling all sorts of disputes.
 
225jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 19:32
Here we are in the midst of a financial meltdown, people are
struggling to hold jobs and we are going to spend $150 million on
the inauguration, dwarfing the $43 million spent on Bush's in 2005
for which he was severely criticized. I don't care how much is
being funded by private individuals, I think it is excessive and just
wrong. We lambasted the CEO's of the Big 3 for flying private jets
to their hearings. I think given our current fiscal crisis, spending
that kind of money on the inauguration is very irresponsible and
sends a similar wrong message.
 
226tree on the treo
      ID: 521142259
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 09:54
I think you have to look at the cost of this inauguration on context, from the massive security costs to the sheer number of people attending...while the cost dwarfs the previous inauguration, the expected attendance dwarfs it even more...
 
227jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 11:28
I should have said which makes the Bush inauguration dwarf the
Obama inauguration. We wouldn't have neeeded all the extra costs
if they said they wanted to scale it back. Companies cut out
Christmas parties and bonuses, cut back on the festivities. I realize
what an historic occasion this is, the first black president, but I
think something could have been done to tone it down instead of
just spitting in our faces that costs don't matter to us, only to you.
 
228Perm Dude
      ID: 20121712
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 18:26
I haven't seen the costs of it yet--nor any breakdowns. Anyone have a link?

The fact is, people are going to go to Washington for this thing. Certainly the new president taking his oath should be a public event, and I'm absolutely certain there are a ton of things we shouldn't be paying for which would dwarf any "extra" costs of this particular innauguration.

"Spitting in our faces" is certainly not going on here, jedman.
 
229Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 19:22
First, the money spent on this is largely from individual donors.

Second, Obama will hopefully have earned this lavish inauguration by getting us out of Iraq early. If he can get us out of Iraq about 10 hours earlier than someone else would have, he'll have saved us the $150 million spent on his party.
 
230jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 20:30
PD, I will admit that spitting in our faces was a little strong, but
I was ticked this morning when I was reading about. I just
googled Obama Inauguration costs and heard it being discussed
Friday on the radio.
To me, it is just another case of government not wanting to cut
itself back during tough times and shows just how much in love
most of the country is with Obama and nothing he does raises
any ire.
Bush has declared a national emergency in DC so there is no
restriction on how many security people he can call out. This is
for a one minute oath of office and an inaugural address that
will be what, 30-40 minutes? Am I really the only one that
thinks this is a little out of whack given the current state of our
economy?
 
231Perm Dude
      ID: 20121712
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 21:05
The number of security people should depend upon the number of people being secured, not the economy, yes?
 
232Perm Dude
      ID: 20121712
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 21:22
I should add that I'm not unmindful of the sentiment, jedman. I felt the same way in January 2005 when Bush had something like 18 inaugural balls, plus dozens of others, while our servicemen and women were dying in Iraq 18 months after the notorious "Mission Accomplished" speech.

But the peaceful transition of executive power that our nation takes for granted is too often overlooked as a bedrock principle of our democracy (and one of the few areas we haven't pissed away) for us to be curmugeons about. How many nations around the earth are torn with strife, killings, delays, rigged elections, and warfare over presidential elections. The government spending money on Inuguration Day is money well spent, as an example of how democracy works.
 
233jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 21:51
It just seems to me you can have a peaceful transition for less than
$150 million. Why not take a page from FDR or Woodrow Wilson
who were sworn in during wars. No big fancy ceremonies, no
inaugural balls, take the oath, give a speech, and then get back to
work. I am not unmindful of the historical significance of Obama's
election. I just want somebody to say we can't afford to do what we
really would like to do, just like the rest of us have to do.
I guess I just see it as a symptom of what is troubling me about
government right now, nobody wants to be the one to say we have
to do without and cut back.
 
234Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 22:21
Woodrow Wilson was never inaugurated during a war that we were currently involved with, though the dates are close.

Wilson's 2nd inauguration was March 5, 1917 while the US declared war on Germany entering WW1 on April 17, 1917.
 
235jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 22:46
Here is what I was referring to.

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested
inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent
Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House,
making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad
and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Weiner and
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President
Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying
that such festivities would be undignified."...

I'm talking about a principle. I did not check the exact dates,
but the idea is the same. I guess Wilson knew it was just a
matter of time.

I've stated my feelings, so I won't continue to harp on this. I
think it just reflects the attitude I discussed above about just
continuing with things as usual. I'll leave the rest of my
concerns about government spending for later after we see if
our new President is successful at getting things turned around,
which I honestly hope he is.
 
236Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 23:05
I guess Wilson knew it was just a
matter of time.


Undoubtedly, and Wilson's sensitivity concerning the situation in Europe is commendable.

And I'm starting to feel that Obama's inauguration is reaching spectacle status as well.

There are positives in that the country, or much of it, is exited to move forward into a new political frontier, and negatives that jedman has noted which are certainly valid on the economic side.
 
237walk
      ID: 139332920
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 14:25
Obama Seeking McCain's Counsel

Apparently, this has been going on for a few months now, and is sorta unprecedented. I like the outreach mucho.
 
238Boldwin
      ID: 52044193
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 14:49
Has he sought the counsel of a 'republican' not on George Soros' payroll?
 
239Perm Dude
      ID: 39031910
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 14:53
Does he have to? Remember: You lost.
 
240Boldwin
      ID: 52044193
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 15:19
You and the media have to stop acting like Obama's cuddling up to Soros' 'plan B constitutes anything significant, anything that should make republicans rethink anything.
 
241DWetzel on BB
      ID: 559392915
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 16:41
Yeah. Shame on the democrats for voting for McCain in the republican primary.

Oh, wait. They didn't. Republicans did. In droves. Ahead of "true Republicans" by a mile.

What do you call a minority within a minority party? Boldwin!
 
242Perm Dude
      ID: 39031910
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 16:57
Yes, Baldwin. Getting whipped in two straight elections shouldn't make the Republicans re-think anything.

You'd be surprised at how much you and I agree on Republican strategy going forward.
 
243Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 16:59
so, Baldwin, short of becoming a hard-core conservative, list three realistic things you'd like to see Obama do that would even remotely ease some of your negativity...
 
244bibA
      ID: 360521914
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 17:04
Baldwin easing his negativity.....isn't there an oxymoron hidden in there somewhere?
 
245Jag
      ID: 460211812
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 18:03
I am thankful, so far, Obama seems to be barely placating the far-left wackos. I believe he knows their policies are dangerous to the economy and he is throwing them a bone by letting openly gay recruits join the armed services.
 
246Perm Dude
      ID: 320341918
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 19:35
At least you aren't calling Obama a "far-left wacko."

Progress made...
 
247Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 21:51
A: Take an oath to uphold the constitution and actually mean it.

 
248Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 00:22
that's a good start. Obama doesn't have to try too hard to do that better than his predecessor did, but, hopefully, his standards will surpass Bush's by a great deal, and not a tiny bit.
 
249Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:36
Rush Limbaugh hopes for a failed Obama Presidency
I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
Our own AZDbacker, now with the Patriot Room (talk about a misnomer!), elaborates on Rush's sentiments:
But I do want his failure to be as epic as Jimmy Carter's was. I want gas lines. I want unemployment. I want New York City, Los Angeles and Detroit to go bankrupt. I want liberals to face the consequences of their destructive tax policies.
 
250tree on the treo
      ID: 521142259
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:48
truly disgusting anti-american sentiments expressed by limbaugh and azdbacker, and no different than the feelings of groups like al-queda.

I don't believe anyone here hoped for a bush failure of those proportions...
 
251boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:55
truly disgusting anti-american sentiments expressed by limbaugh and azdbacker

there is nothing more American that rooting against the other team.


this comment is funny because i like Canada and butter tarts:

Whew! You mean I can come out of hiding now? It is my opinion that eveyone should go out and take snapshots of their life today, cause if Obama is successful no one will recognize this place in four years. It will be Canada.

Hope ya'll like Don Cherry and butter tarts.
 
252Perm Dude
      ID: 12021208
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:58
It isn't "rooting against the other team" to hope for unemployment, poverty, and economic failure across the country.

When the Left said these kinds of things several years into the last administration, they were labeled as "Bush bashers." Obama hasn't been in office a day--what do we call you?
 
253boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 17:07
It isn't "rooting against the other team" to hope for unemployment, poverty, and economic failure across the country.

I am just saying i have sat at countless football games and heard people scream break that guys neck or some other body part and mean it, and that is about as American as it gets. To say that someone speaking there mind is unamerican is pretty unamerican on their part.

When the Left said these kinds of things several years into the last administration, they were labeled as "Bush bashers." Obama hasn't been in office a day--what do we call you?

i think maybe you are quick to judgment, i never once said i agreed with their points, like i said i like Canada its clean and they believe in protecting there environment.
 
254Jag
      ID: 460211812
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 17:08
I am not worried about us becoming Canada, rather a state like Mexico.
 
255DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 21:24
Those who would choose ideology over American success are precisely what is wrong with this country.
 
256Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 22:10
The manufactured [as usual] outrage is [as usual] misplaced.

No one is saying 'I hope Obama's socialism fails'.

It is a proven fact that socialism is a failure. That is a given.

What those who are saying 'I hope Obama fails' mean, is that they hope he fails to socialize america.
 
257Perm Dude
      ID: 12021208
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 22:17
Er, no. Scott is pretty clear on what he's hoping for. He and Rush are both clear: They want Obama to get what he asks for, then have it fail spectacularly.

Your interpretation makes no sense. They want Obama to fail to socialize America, thereby bringing about gas lines and unemployment? No.
 
258Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 22:38
I think they want it to be obvious enuff that the MSM can't sweep it under the carpet and pretend it was a success. Like they did with FDR.

It's not like Obama actually wants america to succeed either. No one who did would hogtie america with kyoto and the numerous other international agreements that he will quickly sell us down the river with.
 
259Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 22:45
What those who are saying 'I hope Obama fails' mean, is that they hope he fails to socialize america.

I want gas lines. I want unemployment. I want New York City, Los Angeles and Detroit to go bankrupt.


No one is saying 'I hope Obama's socialism fails'

I want liberals to face the consequences of their destructive tax policies.

Lest there be any doubt, he actually took the time to explicitly distinguish his position from hoping the country does well in an Obama Presidency:

What do you say? Should we be hoping for the best and wishing him well? Or should we be willing to face a few bad years in the hope of a greater good down the road?


In the comments section he elaborated:

As someone else said somewhere, I only hope he succeeds at maintaining our national security.

According to Scott, this is "Conservatism Today".
 
260Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 22:46
The Obama jokes at the bank today were hilarious I hear. 'If you just would have waited a few more hours Obama would have bought lunch'.

Let the counting of blessings begin. This should be rich.

Birds singing? Sun comes out? Obama.
 
261Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 22:56
for just one day, one day, Baldwin, could you please, pretty please, pull your head from your ass?

Scott and Rush, as mith pointed out, were clear and certain about what they want, and what they want are ugly times for America.

is that what you want too? do you want the same things Rush and Scott are hoping for, as they said in no uncertain terms?

you can mock Obama as much as you want, but the fact remains people are indeed inspired and moved, and many are answering his call to service. hundreds of thousands of people have sent resumes to work under an Obama presidency.

today was amazing. my girl and i sat on her bed and watched the inauguration, and were moved to tears.

tonight, we joined another couple, and then celebrated with about 400 people at SOBs in Manhattan, dancing and drinking and eating and watching the speech all over again.

it really was something special, and one day i hope to have kids and grandkids so that i can let them know how incredible it was to be there for the resurgence of this nation.
 
262Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 23:15
Actually I'm not so sure Rush didn't mean it the way B says. But there's no doubting what AZD means.

Not that the sentiments over at "Patriot" Room are all that rare on the righty blogs. AZD also boasts in the comments section:

"Comments running about 27 to 1 in favor of "fail" at Free Republic."

But no rightist vow of treacherous presidential disloyalty you read today will compare with Mike Hendrix' opus of hate over at Cold Fury. A teaser:
No honeymoon, no “give him a chance,” no respect — nothing. Not from here. That’s the CF pledge, starting right now. And I’ll also be spending some time hacking away at any so-called conservatives who advocate laying off him, too. Insignificant, and ultimately meaningless? Probably. But I have no intention of going gently into that good collectivist night.

Mockery, derision, harsh invective — all but a few of the arrows you expended over the last eight long years ought to be picked up and fired right back at you. And they will be. The only ones from the Lefty quiver we should leave lying are the ones that are simply too filthy — assassination fantasies and threats, rooting for our enemies in wartime, outright lying, treason and sedition — for any decent American to touch. No sense of decency, decorum, or patriotism ever stopped you, of course, or even gave you a moment’s pause for reflection. But we’re better than that.

“Unity,” my chapped ass. Go ye and f*ck yourselves a-runnin’. You get what you give, douchenozzles. And I hereby promise to do whatever small bit I can to see to it.
 
263Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 00:26
Who said the far right was defined by their patriotism? I think placing a desire to proven right over a desire to see the country succeed is the very definition of unpatriotic.
 
264Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 07:15
MITH MITH MITH

Do you really think liberals are in any position to cast stones? Dude, just for honesty' sake think back over all the Bush Deragement Syndrome hate-speech and expect shattered glass there in yer collective glass house.
 
265Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 07:25
Bush earned the disdain after attacking iraq, after "mission accomplished", after attempting to take away our rights and freedoms, after crapping on the Constitution.

no, many of us "liberals" were not fond of Bush after how the 2000 election turned out, but we gave him a chance, and heck, even after 9/11, when the World was literally at our beck and call because of sympathy, everyone was bonded together.

but he squandered that less than 18 months later in the run up to the Attack on Iraq.

Obama hadn't even been sworn in yet when the attack dogs from the right began.
 
266Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 07:32
Do you really think liberals are in any position to cast stones?


It was inauguration day. And while I'm sure that if you dug around long enough you'd find similar sentiments from the fringe left 8 yerars ago.

Tell me mister-shattered-glass-house, did the fact that the right's hands were not clean either stop you from decrying "hateful" or "unpatriotic" "liberals" in January of 2001 as the presidential limo was pelted with eggs on Inauguration day?

All I'm doing is engaging in one of your favorite and most cherished excersizes, except that the shoe is on the other foot. Frankly, it's quite useful to take the opportunity to seperate the lunatic fringe from the moderates. And at least I have the decency to acknowledge that we're dealing with extremists. With you, "liberal" is a sufficient term to describe even the most radical of the left.

Now it's time for you to line up, old baldy. You gonna criticize your favorite little blogger for the unpatriotic hate peddler who openly hopes for America to fail to serve his own political ideology? This is the guy who in th elast month or so you said will be writing one of the top 10 conservative blogs on the web, or some other hyperbolic claptrap, right?
 
267boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 09:47
It was inauguration day. And while I'm sure that if you dug around long enough you'd find similar sentiments from the fringe left 8 yerars ago.

that should not be to hard since Bush had eggs thrown at his car as he drove from inauguration to the white house, but if throwing eggs is considered giving someone a break i guess he got one. I agree with Baldwin Bush was not given much of break either. Tree is right he did get one for the most part over 9/11, but with that said i am not sure how many times people would talk about and show Bush reading to the elementary school students.

If Obama is half the president the Hype would lead you to believe, then these words should hold no meaning.
 
269Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 10:13
I agree with Baldwin Bush was not given much of break either.

Baldwin's twisted point (since you obviously missed it) was that I have no right to complain about these rightist anti-patriots since the fringe left was guilty of similar acts 8 years ago. In his demented world, the whole of the political left is always responsible for the actions of all of it's members, no matter how radically beyond the mainstream's ideals some of them may be. However old baldy will never think of accepting responsibility for (or even acknowledging, usually) the far reactionary right.
 
270Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 10:15
However old baldy will never think of accepting responsibility for (or even acknowledging, usually) the far reactionary right...

That is, the elements of the reactionary fringe right which he doesn't already consider the irrefutable truth.
 
271Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 07:13
I guess we have our answer to the last paragraph in #266.
 
272walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 08:37
Gotta love that MITH. Go go, bro!
 
273Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 10:27
It is a proven fact that socialism is a failure. That is a given.

This is really a silly statement. Every industrialized nation on this planet has some degree of socialism, including the United States, which has a much higher degree of socialism than, say, Japan.

So it is not a given. Currently, the United States borrows money from China, the most blatant example of a socialist country in the world, to stay afloat.

Is this evidence that socialism is a success and capitalism a failure? Not when you accept the irony that much of China's economic success is the result of capitalist principles.

Canada has national health insurance, but are they a more socialist country than the United States? In some ways, yes, in some ways no.
Is Canada a failed state? Great Britain? Sweden?

I take exception to the statement

It is a proven fact that socialism is a failure. That is a given

because no facts are given to prove the claim or even describe the complexities of the term socialism.

Rather than the current trend to make sweeping generalizations that say nothing, why not approach the subject by determining what social programs are failures and what programs are successful?

When I was younger and had no children, it used to piss me off that I had to pay taxes for education, even though I had no children in public school. It was especially upsetting because Utah's traditionally large families paid less than I did, or nothing at all, since a tax deduction was afforded for every child.
There was even talk of a 'head tax' which would have limited deductions to 2 or 3 children.

The conservative, family values crowd squashed any talk of a head tax, although many thought a voucher system would be appropriate.

And, of course, Baldwin has convinced himself that the entire public school system is nothing more than a liberal, socialist exercise in brainwashing, another bit of irony.
 
274boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 10:48
So it is not a given. Currently, the United States borrows money from China, the most blatant example of a socialist country in the world, to stay afloat.

China is probably one of the least socialist countries in the world, they do have governmental controlled/planned economy, but they have little to no social benefits. calling china socialist is like saying Iraq was socialist because it was control by a dictatorship. I think what you are really saying is that dictatorships/oligarchies are better than democracies.
 
275Perm Dude
      ID: 410112116
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 10:55
China is communist, not socialist.

Baldwin still hasn't proven his point. Mostly because he has mis-cast it. Governments, by and large, don't fall entirely into one category or another, and there are elements of the US government which are completely at odds with each other if you tried to map them on some kind of chart. Progressive taxation vs the private right to own guns, for example.

Baldwin is trying to prove a myth.
 
276boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 12:52
China is communist, not socialist. this is not true either, China is communist in name only. Maybe Baldwin hasn't proven his point but clearly you do not even understand what socialism and communism is if you think China is either.
 
277Perm Dude
      ID: 410112116
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 12:55
This is like saying "Saddam Hussein was a dictator in name only."

And no, Baldwin still hasn't proven his point. I don't believe he feels he has to, however--another "irrefutable fact" for which he feels he need not prove or support.
 
278boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 13:18
If china was a communist state you would not be able own factories which you are allowed to do, If you were communist country you do not allow for foreign investment which they allow, if you are a communist country you are sure not allowed exploit workers so that foreigners can make money, oh but they do.

In its strictest sense socialism has never been tried on a large scale, but does in fact work on a micro level. Many indigenous peoples live in socialist systems and excel, tried on large scale it would surely fail. Does this means it has been proven a failure, No, but does this prove it a success no.

Most ideas that are discussing are in the strictest sense not even socialist, progressive taxing is not socialism or free health care is not socialism. While the right to own guns is completely acceptable in a socialist society.
 
280boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 13:37
FYI CanadianHack we are talking about socialism mostly and two i know they are different (not very different) but they are both based on the same principles and clearly just stating that is about the same as It is a proven fact that socialism is a failure. That is a given. If you would like to differ and show evidence go ahead and show that China is anything more than communist in name.
 
281CanadianHack
      ID: 911251015
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 13:54
Socialism and Communism are very different (despite your claim). When you think of a socialist country think of Sweden today. When you think of a Communist country think of Russia under Lenin or Stalin. That alone should tell you they are very different from one another.

Nobody would mistake the political systems in those two countries for each other.

 
282Building 7
      ID: 3111252013
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 13:57
Dick Morris: The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism

Strong predictions here by this political prognosticator. We'll see how many come true.

Excerpt:

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
 
283Perm Dude
      ID: 410112116
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 14:12
Are we talking about the same Dick Morris who insisted Clinton was tied with Obama while he had a 10 point lead in the primary? Who insisted that McCain would pull out a victory because "nearly all the undecideds will break for Senator McCain"?

I believe you are right about this being a historic opportunity for Obama (and he's going in the right direction so far by closing Gitmo, insisting on the rule of law in the treatment of prisoners, in transparency and a limitation on executive priviledge). But Dick Morris couldn't predict an Obama victory within 3 months of it happening.
 
284Perm Dude
      ID: 410112116
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 14:20
FactCheck.org takes on the question of inaugural costs
 
285boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 14:32
Socialism and Communism are very different (despite your claim). When you think of a socialist country think of Sweden today. When you think of a Communist country think of Russia under Lenin or Stalin. That alone should tell you they are very different from one another.

when i think of a vegetable i think of a tomato. that does not make a tomato a vegetable does it? And trust me Sweden is not socialist country if it was my friend would not be employed as a lawyer for ebay, which if i remember correctly is not owned by the Swedish people.
 
286Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 14:51
Perm Dude, Boikin, CanadianHack and Building 7 (via Dick Morris) all prove my point from #273.

Socialism is a complex term that can't be defined in several words, like it is a proven fact that socialism is a failure.

Are we to believe that Morris's examples of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Sweden are failed states?

Compared to what?

 
287boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 15:59
Socialism is no more complex than Capitalism and if you base failure on existence then socialism is a failure since no modern country is socialist and this includes Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. Possibly cuba and some smaller countries as i am not all that familiar with every countries economic polices. Either way it does not matter since none of these countries would be seen as successes.

Morris is confusing the idea of welfare state and socialist state, in general to totally separate ideas. A socialist state works inside the idea of socialist economics, while a welfare state tries to work inside the ideas of capitalist economics. Are those that would like to see the welfare state be used as transition to full socialist state possibly.

On side not if you compare France, Germany, and especially the UK to there historical selves they are failures. Clearly the UK of the mid 1800s was much greater nation that is today.
 
288walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 16:31
Bush Loyalists Critical of Obama's Criticisms

Fascinating. Please comment. I am not surprised, but dismayed that Bush's team still thinks he (they) were correct on Iraq. I also do not buy the false choice about: "If Obama weakens our defenses and we get attacked." What if Obama restores our civility and we don't get attacked"...?
 
289Boldwin
      ID: 17042224
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 16:42
Creeping, it's always sneaking and creeping up slowly.
 
290walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 16:45
I love Massive Attack, Boldwin. Nice one. I saw them last year, too. Have every CD. So cool.
 
291jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 18:51
walk, why would they change their position? I would be totally surprised if they waffled after this many years of adamant defense of their policy.

It would be like thinking all of a sudden Obama decided to keep Gitmo open.
 
292jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 19:58
walk, I agree on not playing the what if games. There will be
enough things actually done to discuss.
I am not happy about the Freedom of Choice act and canceling
the Mexico City policy. I do not want my tax dollars being used
outside of the country to help with abortion counseling and
abortions. Again, don't we need our money kept here to help
with the economy? I cannot imagine that a minor could get an
abortion without consulting a parent, that just makes zero sense
to me.

I think it is a bit hypocritical to sign this big ethics policy and
then turn around a day later and say even the toughest rules
need to have flexibility when discussing two appointees who
were lobbyists. My translation: no lobbyists except the ones we
want. Geithner falls into the same boat IMHO.

How would you feel if you found out that torture was done
under the Obama administration using the above logic?
 
293walk
      ID: 139332920
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 22:14
I hearya, jedman, good points.
 
294jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 11:09
Just hearing on the local conservative talk show that Pres. Obama was the first newly-inaugurated President to not show up at the Medal of Honor Ball in 56 years. 48 Medal of Honor holders were there, half of those currently living. Before I get really disgusted at that, I figured somebody here might know of a good reason he would have done that. Sure seems to me that this ball would be more important than the Youth Inauguration Ball or the Pennsylvania/Delaware ball and sends a wrong message for the incoming Commander in Chief.
 
295Baldwin
      ID: 140312221
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 11:13
Lack of honor?
 
296Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 15:28
This story looked very fishy, as info about the event is difficult to come by.

No information about or references to The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, sponsored by the American Legion, appears on the American Legion website.

This unofficial guide to the Presidential Inauguration lists the 10 official and 122 unofficial inaugural balls and galas and nothing called the Salute to Heroes or Medal of Honor Ball appears on the list.

There was also an event called the Heroes Red White and Blue Inaugural Ball which was on Obama's official schedule.

There was also an event called the Veterans Inaugural Ball, which was cancelled.

There were numerous Medal of Honor recipients at the Commander in Chief's ball, which was an official inaugural event that Obama did attend.

I was about to write a post stating that more likely than not the thing probably didn't happen or was combined with or renamed the Commander In Chief Inauguration Ball or the Heroes Red, White and Blue Inauguration Ball, or the Veterans Inaugural Ball, which had been cancelled.

But then I came across this blogger who claims to have attended the Salute to Heroes and distinguishes that event from the Commander in Chief's Ball and the cancelled Veteran's Ball events.

Fishing around the comments sections of several entries about that story at that blog, I found a poster who claims to have contacted the American Legion about the story and received a response :
The news of this oversight has been blasted all over the country–reaching us here in NH today–so I thought I’d research the event, too. Like CURIOUS, I could find no listing of the ball on the official D.C. website, no postings on American Legion calendars, etc., not even any youtube footage, so I finally wrote a media relations person at the American Legion who responded with this statement, sent via e-mail, a short while ago:
Yes, there was a Salute to Heroes event Tuesday evening (I know, I was there). The first Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet and Ball honoring Medal of Honor recipients was in 1953 on the occasion of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s swearing-in. He, and every subsequent incoming President, with the exception of Barack Obama, has made an appearance.

With regard to this year’s event, here ‘s what I’ve been sending inquiring bloggers:

The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th. The quadrennial event is co-sponsored with fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year’s event which was held in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.

President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”
——-
I should note that he also attached two photos, one faintly showing Biden.

I think it’s also fair to point out the new President and First Lady’s attendance at the Commander in Chief’s ball, and First Lady and daughters’ hosting of a concert for military families prior to election night. I personally NEVER would have passed up the opportunity to meet FORTY-SEVEN Medal of Honor recipients. Maybe that does say something about Obama and his priorities, maybe not, but I hope he or his handlers make wiser decisions in the future. I’m sure he’s aware that his popularity has nowhere to go but down.

 
298boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 15:45
Wow mith what outstanding and interesting research.
 
299Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 15:55
nice MITH. i found it fishy too, since almost any research of it came up with far right wing blogs and message boards.

good stuff. perhaps not the wisest of Obama decisions, but hardly a snub.
 
300jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 16:22
Thanks Mith. I am finding that so much is just thrown out there that at first glance is worse than it really was, which is why I asked for some help. Not a wise decision, but not as bad as I originally thought. I did some research and did not come up with anything other than the snub links.
 
301Perm Dude
      ID: 47047238
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 16:33
I didn't watch much of the many balls (CNN seemed to carry every one--what a bore, IMO). But I did see him at the C-I-C ball which was actually kind of moving. Tickets are free, but only given to active military personnel and the families of the fallen.

The people were clearly thrilled to see him there.

Obama also spent some time talking to some military people from Illinois who were in Afghanistan via sat hookup.
 
302Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 16:44
Agreed, likely a poor decision on the president's part (tho we really have no idea what factors go into that sort of thing - his absence could be entirely valid or entirely not) and I'd certainly understand any Medal of Honor recipients and/or American Legion members feeling slighted by his absence. Kudos to the PR people at the American Legion for taking the high road.

But I think the main thing to remember is that the tradition of attending that unofficial event is an entirely symbolic one that in reality means very little when it comes to how the president honors our veterans.

Ensuring that our military is well commanded, deployed with the most careful discretion, is always at peak readiness and capability and that our enlisted and veterans receive the quality services and benefits they deserve are infinitely more important in determining his record of respect and honor for our armed forces than whether he made the The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball one of the 10 black tie events he popped into on inauguration night.
 
303walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 09:07
Herbert: Charisma

I particularly like the way Obama is trying to make government more transparent and open, from the whitehouse.gov indexing, to public relations, to ethics reforms. I really think he walks the talk on this. 180 from our previous admin (who endorsed a "freedom" agenda while doing things to restrict freedoms).
 
304Baldwin
      ID: 140312221
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 09:17
How about birth records?
 
305Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 10:35
oy. here we go ahead.

it's like a child. "daddy, why does a car need gasoline?"

"because of it fuels the engine."

"but why?"

"because that's how it was engineered?"

"but why?"

"because that's how it works."

"but why?"

and so on.

come on Baldwin. that absurd claim has been stomped to the ground many a times. how about coming up with something new, and something you can actually defend with factual evidence, instead of what you normally do?
 
306Baldwin
      ID: 140312221
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 16:10
So he shouldn't have any problem applying transparency to his own documents.
 
307Perm Dude
      ID: 47047238
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 16:12
There's no reason to think he isn't.
 
308Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 16:40
i realize that the law, and court rulings, and so on and so forth mean nothing to you, but Obama's place of birth in the good ol' U S of A has already been established.

i also realize that applying things like transparency is something you'd only do for those you disagree with or see as some sort marxist or liberal or queer or mexican or whatever.

meanwhile, you'd never consider turning that same magnifying glass on Gitmo or the election of 2000 or Cheney or any of the other teats you suck off of.

i also realize you're desperate to the point that you're constantly changing the topic every time you run into a dead end at the maze you like to run. which, for the past several months, has been quite often.
 
309Baldwin
      ID: 140312221
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 21:15
#307 - PD

What is the matter with you? It is a self-evident fact that the hundreds of thousands of petitioners have not been allowed access to and proof of Obama's birth records.
 
310Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 21:43
just because a bunch of morons sign a sheet of paper demanding they have the right to see something that isn't of public record (and Hawaii birth certificates are NOT a matter of public record), doesn't mean that something isn't truthful.

of course, you, and those morons who signed that petition, apparently, have completely dismissed the fact that the birth certificate was released by the Obama campaign last summer.

what more do you want? that Obama drop his drawers and show you a tattoo of the state of Hawaii on his ass?

the dude is a citizen of the U.S., and he's provided the documentation to prove it. there's nothing else left to prove.
 
311Baldwin
      ID: 13057258
      Sun, Jan 25, 2009, 22:32
A. I didn't sign the petition.

B. He didn't release anything. We haven't seen an authentic document and Annenburg's version may or may not coincide with an authentic document and that document as far as we know can be acquired by someone born outside the states. It is a proof of birth, not a birth certificate.
 
312Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sun, Jan 25, 2009, 23:42
A. never said you did.

B. we've seen the Birth Certificate...

we've have the state of Hawaii verify the existence of the original birth certificate...

there was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser from Obama's parents, in the week following Obama's birth...

keep trying though. infinite monkey theorem.

 
313Baldwin
      ID: 13057258
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 15:31
Here is an example of the complete and utter insufficiency of Obama's answer to this charge so far...
If my daughter was running for President, they could say the exact same thing. My daughter was adopted in Hawaii, her original birth certificate is on file and she has a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth - but she was born in South Korea to Korean nationals.
 
314Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 17:11
some random yaywho whack job responding to a blog post says "oh yea, but Obama could be lying and see, my daughter has a similar birth certificate from Hawaii, even though she was born somewhere else" is no where near sufficient enough evidence to believe that Obama, the state of Hawaii, the director of Hawaii's department of health, Obama's team, and really, anyone else involved, is lying, and only a fool would think it was.

infinite monkey theorem. keep trying.


 
315walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 17:14
Afghanistan Trap

Moving on from unactionable items about Obama's birthplace...

What say us about our role in Afghanistan? I am leaning towards what this individual says, which is that we really cannot win there, even with support from allies. I think our presence is not as highly desired, and the terrain, economy (there is none), corruption and history all create terrible odds for the U.S. and Europe to stabilize this country. However, I realize that leaving it to the Taliban is not a desirable outcome. I am stuck on this one. Thoughts? I think winning in Afghanistan is a whole lot easier said than done, even with another "surge" (i.e. a surge will not work).
 
316Baldwin
      ID: 13057258
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 18:39
I didn't say Hawaii was lying for Obama. They said they weren't telling.
 
317boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 19:28
RE 315: possibly divide the country. from what little i have read it seems that parts of the country are much worse than the others and ethnically splits SW to NE. Maybe the setting up a stable state in half the country would help stabilized the whole region.
 
318Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 23:50
nitpicking Baldwin.

they're not telling, because it's STATE LAW, even though a representative from the state did say she'd seen the actual certificate.

there's nothing to see here, and no issue. glad you agree.
 
319Baldwin
      ID: 13057258
      Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 23:56
When you start your administration on the premise that you can safely ignore the constitution because violating it is 'unactionable' then don't ask anyone to take that oath to uphold the constitution seriously.
 
320Baldwin
      ID: 13057258
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 00:00
*massive sarcasm* Don't worry, any idiot can manage Afganistan better than Bush. /*massive sarcasm*
 
321Perm Dude
      ID: 210182619
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 00:13
Obama isn't ignoring the Constitution. I realize that you are going under the assumption that Obama is not a US citizen (despite having no evidence at all). But your entire point about the certificate is that you haven't seen it personally (which mirrors the wackos' point). "Where's there's smoke we made there must be fire" seems to be your motto here.

Hawai'i is responsible for asserting whether the certificate is genuine. They've done so. End of story.

But please do make the 2012 election about Obama's citizenship. Please.
 
322Baldwin
      ID: 13057258
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 01:26
Hawaii has not verified that Obama meets the constitutional requirements and explicitly and falsely claimed they are not legally allowed to.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Langbert acted on his right to obtain access to the authentic document and requested the same from the State of Hawaii. However, his request was denied in a letter from Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer of the Communications Office of the State of Hawaii who justified the denial by citing state law under a section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes which she claims overrides the federal provisions of FOIA. After exhaustive research Langbert found that the Hawaiian statutes do not contradict federal laws for free public access to information. Rather, “the statute specifically permits divulging birth certificate information to anyone who has a vital interest in the information” and public requests for the birth certificate of a presidential candidate constitutes a vital interest. However, he was further stonewalled after repeated inquiries.


Obama's paternal grandmother does however according to this recording remember the exact Kenya hospital he was born in, which I guess explains why Kenya has since made it illegal to discuss Obama's birthplace with foreigners.

Further his Indonesia education records indicate he was an Indonesian citizen which makes sense since his adoptive father was an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. And a person holding dual citizenship does not meet the constitutional requirements for president.

Further he traveled to Pakistan in 1980 which at the time did not allow USA citizens entry, but they did allow Indonsian citizens entry.

But of course since no USA court to date will hear this case, and the putative watchdogs of democracy, the MSM refuse to function as such, and as long as the majority of American's don't care about the constitution, you can pretend Obama's oath to uphold the constitution holds any merit.

 
323Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 08:37
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Langbert acted on his right to obtain access to the authentic document and requested the same from the State of Hawaii. However, his request was denied in a letter from Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer of the Communications Office of the State of Hawaii who justified the denial by citing state law under a section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes which she claims overrides the federal provisions of FOIA. After exhaustive research Langbert found that the Hawaiian statutes do not contradict federal laws for free public access to information.

so, you're accepting the words of some random guy with a blog over the words of a Hawaiian state official in regards to whether the laws of Hawaii in this matter over ride the federal laws.

as an aside, it's good to see that such an avowed conservative as yourself is continuing to distance himself from the entire states' rights issue, and that you're accepting of Roe v. Wade, since the states have no rights over federal law, by your own insinuations, so good for you coming around on that.

back to the heart of the matter - you seem to be willing to accept the words of anyone who says that Obama is NOT a citizen.

the truth, is not important to you - only that someone say "it's not so. Obama can't be president."

i could start a blog today under a nom-de-plume, make wild claims about Obama's citizenship, and you'd believe it over state officials, national officials, and the President himself - not because it's the truth, but because it is what you want to hear.

Obama's paternal grandmother does however according to this recording remember the exact Kenya hospital he was born in...

well, first off, i suppose we should conveniently ignore the fact that is not Obama's paternal grandmother even referenced on that recording, but rather his paternal grandfather's third wife. yes, she is referred to as Obama's grandmother in family circles, but she's certainly not a blood relative.

as for the phone conversation/radio interview from Obama's grandmother, are you seriously accepting THAT as some sort of gospel?? some grainy audio tape posted up on you tube, with someone else translating for a woman who speaks little or no english!?!?

i remember when people had higher standards for truth - and most, still do.

this again a situation where you're willing to accept anything but the truth, because you don't want the truth.

And a person holding dual citizenship does not meet the constitutional requirements for president.

never mind the fact that Obama isn't likely a dual citizen, you're positively wrong here anyway.

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

never mind the fact that no where else in the Constitution is "natural born citizen" defined, it certainly doesn't say anything about dual citizenship.

Further he traveled to Pakistan in 1980 which at the time did not allow USA citizens entry...

actually, it was 1981. and at that point, the Soviets had already attacked Afghanistan, and Pakistan was an ally to whom we were giving a lot of financial and military aid to.

but, by all means. provide me with something tangible about such a travel ban in 1981 as you indicated - not some blog or some link from a link from a link via WND, but something that is credible, and i'll back off this one and admit to being wrong.

but, so far, the only one here wrong is you.
 
324jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 09:14
Why does the Obama administration think that spending
government money will work to stimulate the economy? Can
somebody show any time in the past where it has worked?



link
 
325Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 09:48
Besides the obvious--the Great Depression?
 
326Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 10:23
A Weekly Standard piece on the stimulus.

The only quibble I have is this:

Conservatives have also jumped on the report by the Congressional Budget Office that about half of the planned $355 billion in infrastructure spending will not occur until after the 2011 fiscal year starts on October 1, 2010. True.

Actually, it isn't true. The report doesn't exist, but was siezed upon by conservatives desperate for ammo.

We're in a desperate liquidity trap right now. Smart spending now will have a multiplier effect.

Done wrong (like Bush's overspending) and we'll end up with nothing. Done right, and we'll have something of lasting societal value while unplugging the credit stoppage by dumping money into the money supply.
 
327jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 10:33
Did spending really stop the Great Depression? Didn't it last for over 7 years?

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” – FDR’s Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

What do you think is being done right in the Obama plan? It sure seems to me that there are a lot of items in the stimulus package that can be argued are not very stimulative.
 
328boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 10:54
Did spending really stop the Great Depression? Didn't it last for over 7 years?

Many modern economists think that the FDR administration's policies at best did nothing to makes things worse or better. In the the depression was ended by WW2. I guess the moral of this story is we need world war.
 
329Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 10:54
There was a big "W" during the Depression. FDR started pumping money in, then when they started pulling back it was like going off antibiotics too early--a very steep drop back.

The sharp and sustained WWII spending is generally what is credited with pulling us out.

I don't think, for a minute, that we're anywhere close to a Depression. But the current credit plug can have a long lingering effect far outside the bounds of where we might normally see it. For example, farmers typically use lines of credit during the spring and summer to cover expenses, then pay it all back in the fall. Less credit going around will squeeze anyone with lines of credit, making it more difficult to buy seed corn, hire temporary workers for planting season, etc.

It sure seems to me that there are a lot of items in the stimulus package that can be argued are not very stimulative.

Absolutely. We all really need to keep an eye on things, because politicians like to load up any spending bill with pork, and (on the other side) businesses like to get free money with few (or no) strings.
 
330Jag
      ID: 160552623
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 11:52
There was a big "W" during the Depression. FDR started pumping money in, then when they started pulling back it was like going off antibiotics too early--a very steep drop back.

A bit of revisionist history there.
Many believe the socialist spending of FDR delayed the recovery. If a government could spend it's way to prosperity, then they would all do it. We are the richest country in the world because of capitalism, period.
 
331Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 12:15
We are the richest country in the world because of capitalism, period.

Nonsense. Many of our our massive industries wouldn't have been possible if not for many of the subsidized major infrastructure programs of the 19th and 20th centuries.
 
332Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 12:16
Many believe the socialist spending of FDR delayed the recovery

Names?

You, of course, miss the point about timing. Governments spend more during economic downturns to lessen the impact of capitalism's natural downward cycles.
 
333boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 13:53
Nonsense. Many of our our massive industries wouldn't have been possible if not for many of the subsidized major infrastructure programs of the 19th and 20th centuries.

which would have not been possible if it was not for the taxes and bonds that were sold because people made from capitalism.

names from:

Why was the recovery from the Great Depression so slow? A number of economists now argue that the NRA and monetary policy were important factors. Some maintain that Roosevelt’s vacillating policies and new federal regulations hindered recovery (Gary Dean Best, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, and Gary Walton), while others emphasize monetary factors (Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, Christian Saint-Etienne, and Barry Eichengreen). The New Deal’s NRA has received much criticism (Gary Dean Best, Gene Smiley, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, Gary Walton, and Michael Weinstein). A now discredited explanation from Alvin Hansen argued that the United States had exhausted its investment opportunities. E. Cary Brown, Larry Peppers, and Thomas Renaghan emphasize federal fiscal policies that were a drag on the return to full employment. Michael Bernstein argues that investment problems retarded the recovery because the older established industries could not generate sufficient investment while newer, growing industries had trouble obtaining investment funds in the depressed environment. Alexander Field argues that the uncontrolled housing investment of the 1920s severely reduced housing investment in the 1930s.

One of the most coherent explanations, which pulls together several of these themes, is what economic historian Robert Higgs calls “regime uncertainty.” According to Higgs, Roosevelt’s New Deal led business leaders to question whether the current “regime” of private property rights in their firms’ capital and its income stream would be protected. They became less willing, therefore, to invest in assets with long lives. Roosevelt had first suspended the antitrust laws so that American businesses would cooperate in government-instigated cartels; he then switched to using the antitrust laws to prosecute firms for cooperating. New taxes had been imposed, and some were then removed; increasing regulation of businesses had reduced businesses’ ability to act independently and raise capital; and new legislation had reduced their freedom in hiring and employing labor. Public opinion surveys of business at the end of the 1930s provided evidence of this regime uncertainty. Public opinion polls in March and May 1939 asked whether the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business was delaying recovery, and 54 and 53 percent, respectively, said yes while 26 and 31 percent said no. Fifty-six percent believed that in ten years there would be more government control of business while only 22 percent thought there would be less. Sixty-five percent of executives surveyed thought that the Roosevelt administration policies had so affected business confidence that the recovery had been seriously held back. Initially many firms were reluctant to engage in war contracts. The vast majority believed that Roosevelt’s administration was strongly antibusiness, and this discouraged practical cooperation with Washington on rearmament.
 
334Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 14:35
which would have not been possible if it was not for the taxes and bonds that were sold because people made from capitalism.

I assume you're being cute and do realize that this does not thwart my counterpoint to Jag's #330. Massive infrastructure subsidies, however they were paid for, were absolutely crucial to the success of American industry in the 20th century.

But if you insist on the illogic that capitalism begat those subsidies, rendering them moot for the purpose of that particular point, you clearly fail to recall that the success 18th and early 19th century industries you refer to (which were agriculture dominated) was highly dependant on slave labor. Not exactly what we call capitalism by today's standard.
 
335boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 14:51
But if you insist on the illogic that capitalism begat those subsidies, rendering them moot for the purpose of that particular point, you clearly fail to recall that the success 18th and early 19th century industries you refer to (which were agriculture dominated) was highly dependant on slave labor. Not exactly what we call capitalism by today's standard.

slave labor clearly fits into the structure of capitalism. I am not even sure what your point is? Are you claiming that US was not built on something that is not capitalism? If so prove it. the south grew cotton sold it to Europe, the north east processed cotton sold it to Europe, the west harvested natural resources sold them to Europe. i know this is over simplified, but still you show me how capitalism did not build this country. If you want to argue that the US's exploitation of natural resources led to its greatness i can probably buy that, but to say government subsidies made the country great is complete joke. Even if you are referring to the 20th century only do you not think it is not possible we would still not be greatest country given that europe was destroyed in two world wars?
 
336Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 14:54
I'm not at all certain what this bitch-slapping is about. Capitalism is the economic engine of our society, but we are rich as a country (as opposed to, say, the capitalism in the Middle East) because of progressive taxation and a social economic network, mostly built up over the last century.
 
337Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 15:11
I am not even sure what your point is? Are you claiming that US was not built on something that is not capitalism?

...to say government subsidies made the country great is complete joke.

I don't know why this is so difficult. No. I simply disagree with Jag's mistaken contention that "We are the richest country in the world because of capitalism, period."

American industries have been subsidized by the government in various ways since the 19th century and particularly through the economic growth of the Greatest Generation, which is the time during which the US became the richest country in the world.

My point is that the economic success of the USA was not a product of "pure capitalism". The US government has provided every type of industry subsidy imaginable, corporate tax breaks and massive infrastructure projects such as the canal, rail and highway and public transit and even public education systems. All were crucial as the US transitioned from an agriculture-based economy in the early 19th century to an industrial one to a world economic superpower.
 
338walk
      ID: 139332920
      Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 20:19
Obama Meets with Congressional Republicans
It was far too early to say whether Mr. Obama’s visit to Capitol Hill would attract any more Republican votes for the economic recovery plan that is scheduled to be considered on Wednesday in the House. But officials from both sides said it was the beginning of a dialogue between Congressional Republicans and the White House that did not exist even when George W. Bush was in the Oval Office.

Even Bush did not reach out...to Republicans when negotiating bills? Whatever. Obama is taking a nice bi-partisan approach early on, engaging the "other side," and not just for 20 minutes. I dunno how it will turn out, but it cannot be a bad thing to have a meeting with those who disagree. Seems common sense, but I guess it's not the norm. Cool that he is making these efforts.
 
339Wilmer McLean
      ID: 41046282
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 03:58
Franklin Delano Roosevelt by Doris Kearns Goodwin Friday, Dec. 31, 1999 Time Magazine...
Though the national economy remained in a depressed state until the war broke out, the massive programs of the New Deal had stopped the precipitous slide and provided an economic floor for tens of millions of Americans.


...

Roosevelt's critics were certain he would straitjacket the free-enterprise system once America began mobilizing for war. Through his first two terms, business had been driven by an almost primitive hostility to Roosevelt, viewing his support for the welfare state and organized labor as an act of betrayal of his class. Indeed, so angry were many Republican businessmen at Roosevelt that they refused even to say the President's name, referring to him simply as "that man in the White House." Yet, under Roosevelt's wartime leadership, the government entered into the most productive partnership with private enterprise the country had ever seen, bringing top businessmen in to run the production agencies, exempting business from antitrust laws, allowing business to write off the full cost of investments and guaranteeing a substantial profit. The output was staggering. By 1943, American production had not only caught up with Germany's 10-year lead but America was also outproducing all the Axis and the Allied powers combined, contributing nearly 300,000 planes, 100,000 tanks, 2 million trucks and 87,000 warships to the Allied cause. "The figures are all so astronomical," historian Bruce Catton marveled. "It was the equivalent of building two Panama Canals every month, with a fat surplus to boot."
...
 
340boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 10:36
By 1943, American production had not only caught up with Germany's 10-year lead but America was also outproducing all the Axis and the Allied powers combined, contributing nearly 300,000 planes, 100,000 tanks, 2 million trucks and 87,000 warships to the Allied cause.

I am sure it is much easier to out produce a germany whose factories are getting bombed nightly.
 
341Jag
      ID: 160552623
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 11:05
By reading what McLean posted, it seems FDR became a republican just before the war.

I just saw a glimpse of the stimulus package on the news and it seemed to be a left-wing bonanza. It looked like a pure Pelosi pork party.

If the Liberals disdain for Bush is close the hatred I have for Pelosi, then I can feel your pain. The thought of her literally makes me ill.
 
342Razor
      ID: 56038210
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 14:54
nearly 300,000 planes, 100,000 tanks, 2 million trucks and 87,000 warships to the Allied cause.

Staggering numbers. Just unbelievable.
 
343Baldwin
      ID: 1904278
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 15:52
1) Obama is taking a nice bi-partisan approach early on, engaging the "other side," and not just for 20 minutes. I dunno how it will turn out, but it cannot be a bad thing to have a meeting with those who disagree. Seems common sense, but I guess it's not the norm. Cool that he is making these efforts.

Unbelievable, what gets posted. The bipartisanship is complete whooey. It's all style, no substance. It's just one side of his mouth. Their idea of a concensus politics is 'republicans were in the room when they were run over and had their table run'.

2) Staggering numbers. Just unbelievable.

Unrepeatable numbers when Obama gets done.

Many of those tanks were built on assembly lines that had been 2 months previously, auto assembly lines. But watch foreign countries save their car companies and we don't.

"They took the corporate jet?" *shock horror disgust*

They are right now preparing to disassemble america's capacity to build F-22 Raptors and the future of american air superiority. So much for lopsided victories.

But astronomical funds are available for foreign aid, illegal alien social services, funding abortions around the world, string museums. It is gonna be a nauseating ride.
 
344Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 16:08
Obama invited Republicans to the White House, and took some of their suggestions and made changes in his plan as a result. I have no idea of what you mean by "roll over." Perhaps you were confusing this with the previous administration, in which Democrats were told by Republicans that "they need not show up."?

The only thing nauseating is the quickness and glee with which the Right gets back on the Hate Wagon.
 
345Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 16:34
i don't know PD, as someone who believes that the Obama and those who lean left are much more on the side of correct than those who lean to the right, the Right Wing Hate Wagon serves to ultimately render that side of the political spectrum even more and more useless.

look at how quickly the attacks come, look at how quickly they are refuted as lies and distortions, and then look at how quickly there is no comment and they move onto the next argument filled with lies and distortions.

the whole citizenship debacle - which only makes those who think there is any merit to it even more foolish - is a perfect example.

i mean, you're talking about a group of people who argue "this is against the constitution" and "that is against the constitution" and when you show them what is and what isn't, they drop the argument. you're talking about a group of people who encourage law breaking in a misguided effort to prove their point.

they're rapidly becoming irrelevant, and stuff like this only hastens it, and that's ok by me.
 
346Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 20:24
Tree and PD will be the first two posters on this board to tell us Obama's citizenship doesn't matter and we should and must ignore that constitutional requirement if and when the truth escapes into the MSM somehow.
 
347Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 20:26
And insisting on that requirement does not in any way constitute hate.
 
348jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 20:44
Here are a few things I got from the Heritage foundation. I do
not like this bill, I do not think it will work. I am not an
economist, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

$1 billion for Amtrak, $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50
million for the National Endowment of the Arts; $400 million for
global warming research; $2.4 billion for clean coal; $650
million for even more digital TV conversion coupons; $600
million for new government cars; $7 billion for modernizing
federal buildings; $150 million for the Smithsonian; and $54
billion for Economic Development Office and Small Business
Administration programs that the OMB or GAO have already
analyzed to be “ineffective.”
All of this deficit spending has a cost. And the Congressional
Budget Office confirmed yesterday that the cost of servicing the
mountains of new debt of all this government expansion pushes
the total price tag of just the existing House spending plans
(before a single cent of Senate waste is added) to over $1 trillion
dollars. In a letter to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) CBO director Doug
Elmendorf writes: “CBO estimates that the government’s interest
costs would increase by $0.7 billion in fiscal year 2009 and by a
total of $347 billion over the 2009- 2019 period.” In other
words, the Pelosi-Obama-Reid Debt Plan already weighs in at
$1.172 trillion.
Other things that upset me so far with the Obama
administration.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new guidelines
Tuesday aimed at eliminating the influence of lobbyists on the
$700 billion financial bailout program.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a Goldman Sachs
lobbyist as his Chief of Staff Tuesday.
Newly minted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently
received a $435,000 severance payment from his old employer,
according to a mandatory financial disclosure statement
released by the Office of Government Ethics.
All six of the law and accounting firms hired by the Treasury
Department to help manage the $700 billion financial bailout
have clients who received the federal money, contracting and
regulatory records show.

I don't know if this counts as hate speech, but I totally disagree
with a lot of what is being pushed on us.

I heard Congressman Issa on a local talk show this morning. His
take on Pres. Obama's visit was he talked more than he listened.
I am waiting to see if there is a podcast coming out that will
have his exact comments. He likened Pres. Obama to Pres. Bush
in that when they thought they were right, things were going to
get done the way he said, without a lot of compromise.

I am glad a lot of Republicans did not approve the package.


 
349jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 20:47
And to find something good about what has happened, again
from the Heritage foundation.

First, we applaud conservatives for sticking together against a
plan that offers no bipartisan solution to America’s economic
problems. While bipartisanship was the talking point du jour this
week, it was not evident in the actual language of the bill which
was written by a precious few. Second, we applaud President
Obama for asking Speaker Pelosi to rightly remove the
provisions for family planning and re-sodding the National Mall.
While countless other projects like this remain, it was a welcome
sight to see the President in total agreement on these two, when
pressed. Third, we applaud the bipartisan spirit in the U.S.
Senate when they joined together to support one more year of
relief from Alternative Minimum Tax. Despite the Obama
Administration urging them not to do so, Senators from both
sides of the aisle were able to see that protecting as many as 24
million working families from tax increases during these tough
economic times, is the right kind of ’stimulus’.


 
350Perm Dude
      ID: 22043278
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 21:20
#346: Nonesense. No one has said it doesn't matter. Nearly everyone has said that the question of his citizenship has been settled.

That's about as big a difference as one can make. Therefore, it is about as big a point to miss that one can.

As expected, Republicans complained about being shut out of the bill process (they weren't) then voted against the bill which had provisions they insisted upon having in there.
 
351jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 21:38
The Republicans offered two alternative bills that were defeated.
If you totally disagree with the bill as it was presented, why
would you vote for it? There is too much unnecessary spending
that is not stimulative. Apparently 11 Democrats felt the same
way.
Until we can read a transcript of what was exactly said in the
meeting between Pres. Obama and the House Republicans, we
can't know for sure how much reaching across the aisle there
really was.
It may be a he said she said thing depending on who is talking
about the meeting.

 
352Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 22:08
Tree and PD will be the first two posters on this board to tell us Obama's citizenship doesn't matter and we should and must ignore that constitutional requirement if and when the truth escapes into the MSM somehow.

completely ludicrous, and another complete and total lie on your part, something you are becoming very skilled in at this point.

no one said it didn't matter. it does matter. and the matter has been settled very clearly, plainly, and obviously.

just because you refuse to accept the truth, doesn't mean it's not the truth.
 
353Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 22:12
No one has said it doesn't matter. - PD

The law firm connected to him has done so preemptively and you will do so after the fact.
 
354walk
      ID: 139332920
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 05:30
It matters, it matters not, it matters, it matters not. The truth is out there, Mulder.
 
355Perm Dude
      ID: 43043298
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 10:16
we can't know for sure how much reaching across the aisle there really was.

The larger point is that we know that Obama met with Republicans. This demonstates reaching across the aisle in and of itself. We can also point to specific things that Republicans said they didn't like that Obama withdrew.

You're right, we don't know the specific words used in their exchanges. But that doesn't mean we can throw our hands up and declare it all a tie.
 
356Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 10:57
I remember Clinton meeting republican congressional members and breaking his agreement with them before they even got back to their offices.

That and four fifty will get you a starbucks capaccino.
 
357Perm Dude
      ID: 370162911
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 12:18
I remember Cheney cursing out a Democratic Senator on the well of the Senate.

What's your point? That you remember bad things about Clinton?

Like Clinton's first budget which passed without a Republican vote yet began the largest economic expansion in American history, we can only hope that Republicans are dead wrong again. Won't stop them from nasty attacks, of course. But America will be the better for it.
 
358nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 12:54


What say us about our role in Afghanistan? I am leaning towards what this individual says, which is that we really cannot win there, even with support from allies.

It's very important we stay in Afghanistan and NOT win, if we win we have to leave, if we leave the CIA loses a huge source of funds for black projects through the manufacturing and exporting of heroin.

Please don't be unpatriotic.


 
359walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 14:36
Some funny stuff there.

Baldwin, your unwillingness to see anything positive makes the discussion so meaningless. It's a shame. While results count, effort and process are factors in those results. When cannot hope to achive bipartisanship without trying.

Conversely, folks are also saying the republican congress intentionally voted no, while simultaneously praising Obama's outreach, so they can blame the Democrat congress on not being flexible. That's a cynical view. Not nearly as cynical as your views on Obama though. That's Bush level sentiment for a guy who has been on the job a week. I guess he must not be a natural born citizen.
 
360walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 14:37
Oy: "When One cannot hope to achieve bipartisanship..."
 
361Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 15:44
Definition of oxymoron: bipartisan socialism.
 
362Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 15:53
Dems put in bill funding abortions worldwide and handing out cash to illegal aliens. How do you look at the other side and ask them to accept that in the spirit of cooperation?

You might as well have Hitler ask Jews 'why oh why they won't support the Warsaw Ghetto or the final solution, just to go along and be friendly'.

Some things are non-negotiable.
 
363walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:17
First (361) one I rolled my eyes, second one (362), I was initially like abortion is debatable (d'oh!, and largely based on a lot of male faith), particularly when you are talking about whether our policy about abortion should affect whether we give federal funds to other countries that practice it (abortion, to some, is not terrorism)...and then the third one, where you compare abortion to the holocaust/final solution is insulting, offensive and a wholly inaccurate analogy -- and you know it. And that stops the discussion. Nice one.
 
364Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:39
Calling people un-persons and murdering them a million a year is as perfect an analogy as you will ever see.
 
365Perm Dude
      ID: 43023112
      Sun, Feb 01, 2009, 14:37
A second appointee with tax problems? Can't blame this one on Obama, however. Daschle hid his tax problem during the vetting process.

Typically I'd say the tax problem is no big deal. But the hiding it from the Obama team is a big deal. If he were hiding it from those on his side, who is to say he won't do the same (or worse) to his perceived political opponents?

Make an example of him and cut him loose.
 
366Perm Dude
      ID: 13119223
      Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 12:28
Obama picks Judd Gregg (R-NH) for Commerce Sect.

The NH governor agreed to select a Republican to replace him in the Senate, which cleared the way for him to go to Commerce.

A win-win, I think.
 
367walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 13:01
Daschle and Killefer both withdraw from their cabinet nominations due to unpaid taxes. WTF? Does anyone in Obama's admin pay taxes? This is bad for credibility. I am glad Daschle withdrew though. He had too many money-making deals with the healthcare industry, and now with the taxes thing, it just is not kosher.
 
368Perm Dude
      ID: 13119223
      Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 13:06
Never like Daschle myself (he was way too oily, and far too close to the industry he was supposed to watch for the government), but his lying about the taxes was what really doomed him in my mind.

Kileffer's problem seemed like small potatoes. She didn't pay some taxes (less than $300 in unemployment tax for one employee) 4 years ago or so, then paid them with a fine and interest. All other taxes were paid, and on time. No biggie, IMO.
 
369nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 13:07


The tax problems are bad enough. What really set's me off though is this...

On another matter, a financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago showed that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the health care industry that Obama wants him to reform.

The speaking fees were just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former senator earned over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.

Among the health care interest groups paying Daschle for speeches were America's Health Insurance Plans, $40,000 for two speeches; CSL Behring, $30,000; the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, $16,000, and the Principal Life Insurance Co., $15,000.


How can someone reform health care when he is makig $30,000 a speech to the industry? Why are our politicians even allowed to do this???

Best government money can buy.

How is this allowed to happen and why do we think we would have the politician doing our work when they are paid off like this?

It's like Cheney making 20 Million a year for Haliburton and then coming back to start the war in Iraq.


 
370Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 20:54
Obama ran a campaign on change? here's something definitely different from the previous administration.

Obama blames himself for mishandling Daschle

President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."

refreshing to hear.
 
371Razor
      ID: 56038210
      Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 21:08
Why are our politicians even allowed to do this???

I have no problem with politicians who are not in office doing whatever they please with their time. If they come back into office, though, they should come under scrutiny for any potential private sector connections that may affect their judgment.
 
372nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Wed, Feb 04, 2009, 00:00

I have no problem with politicians who are not in office doing whatever they please with their time.

The problem is the "revolving door" which creates a perception of Quid Pro Quo.(?) "If you do what we ask while you are in office, there will be a nice job waiting for you when you leave".

A perfect example is Phil Gramm. He championed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which abolished the the Glass Stegal act, while he was a Banking Committe member.

He is widely acknowledged as the main supporter of it's over turn. The over turn of the Glass Stegal act is being sited as one of the primary causes of the current banking crisis.

He was responsible for other "deregulation", including keeping derivatives unregulated, that allowed the banking crisis to spiral out of control.

What is he doing now? Gramm is a vice-chairman of UBS Investment Bank, a financial services company, and massive benefactor from Gramm's financial positions while he was in the Senate, based in Switzerland.


 
373walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Feb 04, 2009, 12:27
Obama's Super Bowl Gathering

It's just common sense, reaching out to colleague and engaging them, whether it's social or "strictly business." It's hard to believe that this stuff is surprising, and that it is not business as usual in the White House. How can you not try to build relationships in this type of role? It allows folks to be candid and invites opposing views, without having to wait for the press corp. Maybe it will not change votes (for laws), and I hope it does not, but it helps to have discussion so that folks understand intent and the rationale.
 
374nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 12:31



The Chosen One?


 
375Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 13:33
I detect the machinations of the liberal media.
 
376nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 17:33

I detect the machinations of the liberal media.

I don't know but it looks a lot like a Catholic prayer card...
 
377Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 17:52
PD has already replaced his with that one.
 
378Perm Dude
      ID: 10117218
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 18:51
What took them so long?
 
379Perm Dude
      ID: 10117218
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 18:53
And, just for laughs:

 
380Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 21:31
 
381Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 21:35
 
382Perm Dude
      ID: 231262119
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 22:06
#380: The captions are pre-written. "No taxation without representation" is about taxation, not spending. And they seem to already have decided that the Obama administration doesn't want the money to go to white people.

Idiots.
 
383Perm Dude
      ID: 231262119
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 22:13
This might not go over well for the haters out there, but the Administration's own numbers (pdf) project more jobs in Republican-held congressional districts than in Democratic ones.
 
384Baldwin
      ID: 9123198
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 23:11
You'll get over it.
 
385Perm Dude
      ID: 231262119
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 23:34
But you won't. That's the point.
 
386Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 09:27
Obama and wealth redistribution.

 
387Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 09:32
Obama reversing Clinton's welfare reform via the 2009 stimulus package.

 
388Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 09:38
Wow, for a guy who repeatedly claims he has no axe to grind with the president you sure are pulling out all the stops with all these disingenuous anti-Obama videos from the campaign.
 
389Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 09:47
Should I take the opposite approach and post praise videos of him? His belief system is extremely relevant given the fact that he's the president and that his 800 billion stimulus is under fire for being wasteful and potentially ineffectual.

Is it not relevant to look at the repealing of Clinton's welfare reform that is in the stimulus package?
 
390Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 09:49
Just because I have no axe to grind does that make him above criticism?

So then now when I question Obama I am out to get him?
 
391Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 10:03
Should I take the opposite approach and post praise videos of him?

Just because I have no axe to grind does that make him above criticism?

How about you do just a few minute's worth of research to see that you aren't attatching yourself to abject propaganda? The video in 386 is largely out of context and I dunbunked the ridiculous claims in the Financial Services Committee hearing video months ago.
 
392Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Feb 22, 2009, 10:20
On Welfare Reform

From the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities - Addressing the Criticisms
 
393Perm Dude
      ID: 571562410
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 12:01
The campaign in a nutshell, revisited.

 
394Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 12:17
PD 393

That article is a solid case in point for the points Boxman and Tree raised this morning in the direction of the Republican Party thread. The writer of that article claims:
This is Obama at his most appealing. He makes a gracious introduction of his rival, who in turn tries to stick in the knife by painting him as wasting taxpayer dollars on needless luxuries.
And the transcript does not contradict that depiction of what McCain said:
"your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One. I don't think that there's any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have -- have cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money."
But when you watch the video of McCain making his point, it's clear that his tone is far different - notably less combative, than one might gather from reading the transcript.

Link to video of the exchange.
 
395Perm Dude
      ID: 571562410
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 12:35
I don't think the tone has to be combative to make the point that McCain, along with many in the GOP in Washington, are mindlessly confrontational to Obama. Given the chance to demonstrate some grace and bipartisanship toward solving a common problem, McCain tries to score a ham-fisted political point.

As Ben Smith points out, however, Obama doesn't actually have to succeed at forcing the GOP into bipartisanship. He just has to try. And, like Reagan who owed much of his success by demonstrating graciousness to political opponents who openly rebuffed it, Obama's political oppoents do themselves long-term harm by refusing to answer the clear voter call on the point.
 
396Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 12:55
In terms of his favorability ratings, I agree with you and Smith (and Emanuel). And I also think that fact will eventually lead to real bipartisanship.

But in this particular case, I don't believe McCain was being 'mindlessly confrontational'. And while I suppose it's not inaccurate to say that he was shooting for a political point, it seems clear enough to me that the president called on McCain knowing the issue that would be raised. Both men referred to a conversation they had prior to that summit in which the issue of Marine One was discussed.

The way Andrew Sullivan describes McCain's comments =supports me, as he refers to McCain's "ill temper". Sullivan obviously wouldn't have so characterized it if he'd seen the video.
 
397Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 13:11
The way Andrew Sullivan describes McCain's comments =supports me, as he refers to McCain's "ill temper". Sullivan obviously wouldn't have so characterized it if he'd seen the video.

But then everyone who reads Sullivan, except for those who've seen the video, goes into McCain bash mode and posts Lord knows how many blogs, message board posts and columns about it. Then the situation just enflames from there.
 
398Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 13:12
I don't think the tone has to be combative to make the point that McCain, along with many in the GOP in Washington, are mindlessly confrontational to Obama.

Are you equally concerned about the mindless sheep on the left that will follow Obama because he's Obama?
 
399Perm Dude
      ID: 571562410
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 13:23
Sheep are better than dicks, when it comes to discourse. But it is important not to overstate who is and is not a "sheep." Giving someone the benefit of the doubt, particularly early on when it is very clear we all need to step up to fix our problems, is not being a sheep. Continuing to strongly support someone who abdicates the principles which caused them to be supported in the first place is sheeplike, but I haven't seen anything like that so far.
 
400Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 13:30
everyone who reads Sullivan, except for those who've seen the video, goes into McCain bash mode and posts Lord knows how many blogs, message board posts and columns about it. Then the situation just enflames from there.

Fortunately I think there's considerable overlap between Daily Dish's and Huffington Post's readership. Just now I sent Sullivan an email with a link to that video and a suggestion that he would not have so characterized McCain in that post if he'd seen it first.
 
401Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Mar 02, 2009, 16:10
How To Take Over The US Financial System

With the populist paparazzi running rampant, we need to explore a Conspiracy Special today. Let's start with the news of AIG [AIG 0.42 --- UNCH (0) ] getting a new cash infusion and a fresh approach to mending that firm. AIG is important as it was the first foray of the US government into taking over a non-bank entity. First, AIG announced a $61.7 billion loss for Q4 2008 and became the title holder of "Biggest Loser" on the corporate earnings ledger. They now have lost over $100 billion over 5 quarters.

Last year, they got $150 billion from the US taxpayer and now they are set to receive an additional $30 billion under a new plan. According to Reuters, AIG posed a "systemic risk" that meant government action was necessary to buttress the insurer and ward off the possibility troubles at the insurer could damage the entire financial system, the Treasury and Fed said. CreditSights reports that the $450 billion CDS portfolio has been reduced to $300 billion, but this is clearly not small enough. For their efforts, the US government gets to take preferred interest in AIG subs American Life Insurance and American Assurance Company Ltd.

Getting to the conspiracy, think back to when US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced his plan to rescue the banking system. One of the key components was putting the top 19 financial institutions through a "stress test" to see how their assets and liabilities would react. If a company didn't pass the test, they would be prompted to raise additional capital before the government would provide them additional funds under TARP 2.

As I (and others) have been writing, this was an unfortunate signaling event to the markets to sell every one of the 19 financial stocks due to the uncertainty. What we didn't know at the time was the extreme stress the FDIC was going to test the banks under: 2009 10.3% unemployment, 2009 -3.3% GDP, and a 2009 47% drop in home prices. (Currently, home prices are down 27%.) The conspiracy theorists believe that this is setting up the financial system to fail.

Why? So they can be rescued by the government using TARP 2 money that gives them wide latitude over controlling the banks. This will aid the government in restructuring the industry to meet social goals instead of profit goals. Given the "Great Re-Ordering" of America's priorities under the Obama budget plan, the theorists believe this is consistent with an over-all plan of the new administration.

I realize this is an extreme view, but the results have been devastating to the financial sector stock prices. Since Geithner announced his plan on February 9th, S&P financials are down 16% and remain under pressure today. Until the cloud of "stress testing" and "nationalization" can be removed from the financial sector, investors will sell these stocks indiscriminately as there is extreme uncertainty over who will survive and who will have their common stock, preferred stock, and debt wiped out.
 
402Perm Dude
      ID: 41221215
      Mon, Mar 02, 2009, 16:23
I realize this is an extreme view

No kidding. Blaming the economic downturn on the government for actually finding out which banks should get a bailout? Extreme, indeed.

What's next--blaming stockholders for selling stocks on companies in the tank?
 
403Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Mar 02, 2009, 17:01
In the old days, the external auditors would provide an annual or on-going "stress test". And then issue a qualified opinion or unqualified opinion......whatever was warranted. Looks like Turbo Tax Timmy is going to be doing that now for the big banks. And they wonder why people are reluctant to buy stocks or loan money.
 
404Perm Dude
      ID: 19246310
      Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 12:28
Idiot reporter interviews idiot wealthy conservatives on Obama's tax plan
 
405boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 14:04
maybe someone can explain part of Obamas tax plan. how does the change in deductions work, if you are making over 250K you deductions are only valued at 28% instead of your actual tax rate how does that work.
 
406Perm Dude
      ID: 19246310
      Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 14:12
The marginal tax rate for those earning over $250K/year will go up, along with a limitation on deductions. Assuming it goes through as presented, the deduction percentage would be capped at 28% of income (that is, you can claim deductions up to this percentage of your gross income).

This does not affect anyone taking the standard deduction, and does not affect anyone making under 250K/year. In fact, for the vast majority of Americans the plan gives tax cuts.
 
407boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 15:03
Ok i did not realize the bracket below 36% was 28%, it makes sense now.
 
408Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 09:47
Lawmaker Calls on Obama to Withdraw Intel Pick

The ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee called on the Obama administration to withdraw its pick for the top intelligence analyst post, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Charles Freeman, a veteran diplomat and former senior Pentagon official, is expected to assume his new job as chairman of the National Intelligence Council in the coming weeks.

He has stirred controversy with several statements, including one in which he said the Chinese government acted too slowly to crack down on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Mr. Freeman has also criticized American policies supporting Israel.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R., Mich.) said in an interview, "I hope that this is one that's withdrawn."

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair is aware of congressional concerns, said his spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi. She praised Mr. Freeman for his "ability to draw upon his intellectual strength and operational experience to lay out insightful, understandable assessments of complex problems."

Ms. Morigi said the post is "one of analysis, not policy." Mr. Freeman will be an honest broker and focus on "our national interest, not that of the various countries and cultures he understands," she said. Mr. Freeman wasn't available for comment, she said.
 
409Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 09:49
So much for the vetting process? A brazillion nominees who don't pay taxes and now the intel guy that apparently thought the Chinese weren't aggressive enough in Tiananmen Square. And you guys think Bush wanted a police state?
 
410Perm Dude
      ID: 5222248
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 10:19
In a Bush Administration these guys would already be into their 10th ass-covering memo.
 
411Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 10:21
Yeah, but at least none of their teenager daughters are pregnant.
 
412Perm Dude
      ID: 5222248
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 10:50
Still, though...
 
413boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 10:54
In a Bush Administration these guys would already be into their 10th ass-covering memo.

LOL
 
414Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 11:10
Yes and PD is on his 103rd ass covering post for Obama.
 
415Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 15:43
I'm sure if this was a liberal questioning Bush's birth, conservatives would be calling for the guy's head.

as is, i just think this guy is an idiot, and probably putting his fellow soldiers in danger by being so stupid...

Officer Calls Obama 'Usurper' President
 
416Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 16:29
I'm sure if this was a liberal questioning Bush's birth, conservatives would be calling for the guy's head.

Why? Out of politics or are you saying there could be something questionable about Bush's birthplace.

Did conservatives target Bill Clinton's natural born citizenship status?
 
417Boldwin
      ID: 581202816
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 16:40
A conservative would feel compelled to provide proof he met the requirements if it were questioned. Out of respect for the constitution. And it's just common sense if you don't have anything to hide.
 
418Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 16:51
I wonder if liberals ever put up a stink about a conservative revealing tax information. I seem to remember that being an issue with McCain.

Is tax status a show stopper to be President? At least it's not for the President's cabinet anyway.

But now that a birth certificate is questioned, the left is in outrage over it? Birth is actually a qualifer to be President. It is relevant to the discussion.
 
419Perm Dude
      ID: 34223612
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 16:53
But now that a birth certificate is questioned, the left is in outrage over it? Birth is actually a qualifer to be President. It is relevant to the discussion.

Actually, it isn't. The question has been raised and settled, but some people simply don't accept it. Like Holocaust deniers, it has been bubbling under the surface for some time, and the fact that it is being asked doesn't raise the question to an acceptable level.
 
420Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 17:14
Where's the vault copy of Obama's birth certificate then? Not some other equivalent document but the actual birth one made when the doctor slapped him on his butt and said here's your baby boy.

Admittedly I haven't been following this. It just seems so asinine that a President wouldn't post his real birth certificate.
 
421Perm Dude
      ID: 34223612
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 17:43
He did post it.

I would think that you would have at least tried to get some background before posting about it. I don't mean that as a slam, but c'mon.

Here's a Factcheck.org piece on it.
 
422 Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 18:36
PD,
Yahoo has it wrong for me.

Send it here.
 
423Razor
      ID: 53243617
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 18:43
A conservative would feel compelled to provide proof he met the requirements if it were questioned. Out of respect for the constitution. And it's just common sense if you don't have anything to hide.

Did McCain?
 
424Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 18:50
Out of politics or are you saying there could be something questionable about Bush's birthplace.

out of politics. there is nothing questionable about Bush's birthplace, much like there is nothing questionable about Obama's birthplace.

A conservative would feel compelled to provide proof he met the requirements if it were questioned. Out of respect for the constitution.

absolute Bullshit. with a capital B, intentionally. the last 8 years saw conservatives feel the need to not provide proof of ANYTHING, not to mention the complete ass wiping they did with the Constitution.

It just seems so asinine that a President wouldn't post his real birth certificate.

he did. some idiots won't accept it. (not calling you an idiot, as you acknowledged to not following this so closely, just to clarify)



 
425Boldwin
      ID: 581202816
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 20:34
You can get a Hawaii 'live birth' certificate for the man in the moon. It proves nothing.
 
426bibA
      ID: 28228317
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 22:54
Where should he get his birth certificate from? If he can't obtain one from his home state without you saying it isn't good enough, what's the use of even producing it?
 
427Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Fri, Mar 06, 2009, 23:18
You can get a Hawaii 'live birth' certificate for the man in the moon. It proves nothing.

by all means, go for it then. get yourself one.

you can't even get the terminology right and your post is further proof that you don't know shit.

a "certificate of live birth" is a long form birth certificate, which contains more information than the "certification of live birth," which is a short form birth certificate.

people like you Baldwin, want the certificate, not the certification. you can't even get the wording right.

however, the state of Hawaii does not offer the long form...


taken from one of the many
factcheck articles on the topic...

The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
 
428Boldwin
      ID: 581202816
      Sat, Mar 07, 2009, 19:50
And I've already provided examples of non-USA born holders of exactly the same certificate. I am thru working to straighten you out. You are bent permanently. If you didn't read it the first time why would you read it now?
 
429Perm Dude
      ID: 34223612
      Sat, Mar 07, 2009, 20:10
Your proof:

1. I've can prove someone murdered someone;

2. Obama can't prove, to my satisfaction, that he hasn't murdered;

3. Ergo, the proof is on him to prove he's not a murderer.

And I've already provided examples of non-USA born holders of exactly the same certificate

So lay it out here Baldwin: Do you believe that Barack Obama was not born in Hawai'i? Put it out there or go away. It isn't enough to express "doubts" or convey some kind of weaniness on the subject. Put it out there.

The Right on this subject is laughable. Really. They have been blown away in the last two elections. They continue to hold out hope, against all evidence, that Obama isn't a citizen. And the reason we should take this complaint by them seriously? Because the Right doesn't believe it. That's all there is--the wacky right simply is unable to believe otherwise.



 
430Boldwin
      ID: 581202816
      Sat, Mar 07, 2009, 21:53
A. He hasn't provided proof.

B. The longer he refuses to provide proof, the lower the odds I'd give that he qualifies.
 
431DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Mar 07, 2009, 22:40
Did the Honolulu newspaper that announced his birth magically determine in 1961 (or whatever year it was) that this conspiracy needed to be hatched? That's pretty darn prescient if you ask me.
 
432Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Sat, Mar 07, 2009, 22:54
A. he has. just because you're bent permanently/too ignorant/too stupid/too racist/too crazy/whatever to accept the proof, doesn't mean it's NOT proof.

B. i'm sure anyone with a brain actually cares. the fact you cling to this shows just how...well...whatever you are...
 
433Boldwin
      ID: 581202816
      Sun, Mar 08, 2009, 05:44
Anyone with your standard of proof could be arrested by someone with a badge from a bubblegum machine.
 
434Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 08, 2009, 09:02
Tree is awfully quick to pull the racist charge out there. That really bothers me because the charge of "He's a racist / anti-Semite" is used to stifle debate on a topic and immediately put someone into defense mode for fear of having their reputation destroyed by the PC Police.

Boldwin doesn't strike me as a bigot.

I'm not saying everybody has got to agree with everybody, but if what you've got is the "racist" charge then I question the quality of your underlying argument.
 
435Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Sun, Mar 08, 2009, 09:44
Boxman - to clarify. i wasn't calling Baldwin a racist there. i was just listing a myriad of reasons why Baldwin *could* be on this wild goose chase of silliness.

while there are times i do feel Baldwin is showing bigotry, in this case it was just one of many in a string of possibilities.

in world where many of the things Baldwin believes bewilder me, some, are from his heart, and how his heart feels. others, baffle me.

this falls into the latter category, because it seems the whole "Obama isn't American" thing is the kind of thing that only someone truly ignorant and stupid would actually attach him or her self too. and i don't consider baldwin to be a stupid man, hence the bafflement.
 
436biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Sun, Mar 08, 2009, 09:46
1) I don't see a debate. I see people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, simply refusing to believe their eyes.

2) I don't understand why anyone with any sincere concern for our national governance cares. Just get over it. He's president. Sorry. Your guy lost. Find something more useful to do than this lame, pointless, exercise based on no evidence at all, as far as I can see.

The internet has a lot of benefits. Giving credence to nonsense arguments like this is not one of them.
 
437walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 08:54
NYT Friedman: This is Not a Test

Pretty powerful stuff saying that we have to put politics aside, act aggressively, and recognize that the banking crisis is central to all things economic -- especially in this country. Friedman says it's our leader who has to move on this. I agree with the view.
 
438Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 10:56
What a clod.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party behaves as if it would rather see the country fail than Barack Obama succeed. Rush Limbaugh, the de facto G.O.P. boss, said so explicitly, prompting John McCain to declare about President Obama to Politico: “I don’t want him to fail in his mission of restoring our economy.” The G.O.P. is actually debating whether it wants our president to fail. Rather than help the president make the hard calls, the G.O.P. has opted for cat calls. It would be as if on the morning after 9/11, Democrats said they wanted no part of any war against Al Qaeda — “George Bush, you’re on your own.”

No but you guys said that about Iraq.
 
439Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 10:58
nope. i don't think one person here advocated for failure in Iraq.

there is a difference in saying "this will fail" and "i hope this fails."
 
440Perm Dude
      ID: 31255118
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 11:03
A better analogy would be Afghanistan, I think. The President's rating were high, Dems and Republicans were united in their support, and no one was talking failure.

That was, of course, well into his term. Rush and the other "failure is an option" Republicans are clearly hoping and praying for an Obama failure, and are doing everything they can to bring it about.

Despite having their asses handed to them in the election, somehow they feel they have the political capital to be obstructionists and are doubling down on the anti-Obama schtick.
 
441bibA
      ID: 4521916
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 13:05
Dems in congress were very supportive of Bush policies re Iraq just after 9-11.

Some of us here may have been quite sceptical about the stated reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. I know I was. (Although I know of no one who advocated a failure in Iraq, the definitions of failure and success there are open to a large debate).

In retrospect, were we who were the sceptics all that wrong?
 
442Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 16:44
this will be another hit and run comment by boxman with little support, much like the silly damage control rant he's on in the hillary thread...
 
443Wilmer McLean
      ID: 55239161
      Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 03:52
Presidential Signing Statements




 
444Wilmer McLean
      ID: 462431712
      Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 03:25
 
445Wilmer McLean
      ID: 462431712
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 04:26


The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

...
 
446Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 08:20
it's easy to paste random videos from the net WM.

how about adding some of your commentary?
 
447Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 08:45
The Obameter at the St. Pete Times is a terrific feature if it's applied objectively. I'd love to see a comparison of how former presidents have fared.
 
448Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 12:59
 
449Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 13:05
as usual, vacuous posts coming from the same people. no merit, just unwarranted cheapshots from those who don't want to actually look at facts.
 
450Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 13:18
Kind of funny, of course the same clip could be used to describe the candidate from the challenging party in any election.

Doesn't beat Burgess Meredith as the political opposition to candidate Obama:
 
451Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 14:14
as crooked as a warped shillelagh...lol

now THAT was funny. thanks MITH. that had me cracking up from the get go.
 
452Perm Dude
      ID: 2223197
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 14:27
That Batman is a a classic!



While I think holding people to their campaign promises is important, I think it is far more important to do the right thing, in the end, given actual circumstances on the ground.

 
454jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 20:57
Sometimes you just have to laugh. Can we do anything right with
Great Britain? I have to think that the longer he is in office, the
better his protocol staff will get. I wouldn't have thought DVD
players were different in Europe.

Can you imagine? It’s movie night at 10 Downing Street, and the
Prime Minister of Great Britain has the popcorn popped and is
ready to break into that set of DVDs that President Obama so
graciously gave him on his recent visit to Washington. Then he
sees the display say ‘error’. It turns out that the DVDs that the
White House deemed fit as a symbolic gift of our relationship
with Great Britain were not coded for the DVD players in Europe.




 
455Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 21:16
wow. we've set relations back 230 years. it's just a matter of time before we're back at war with the Brits.
 
456Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 06:36
Did you hear Obama made a crack about his bowling resembling something out of the Special Olympics? Way to go Prez, make fun of the retarded. I guess this guy would know how Special Olympians bowl given that he's worked with Pelosi and Reid for a while.
 
457Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 08:29
must...

resist...
 
458Frick
      ID: 3410551012
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 08:59
So Obama's staff makes a mistake and sends the incorrect set of DVD's to England.

Would people have the same attitude towards the mistake if it had been Bush's staffers, or would he be lambasted for not paying attention to details?

Regardless it isn't a big deal IMO. I have a guess that these types of mistakes happen often and and only with the proliferation of blogs and the internet do they see the light of day.

In some regards I feel sorry for any politician today. Literally any misstep has the potential to blow up due to the viral nature of the internet.
 
459jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 09:25
Frick, I agree it is not a big deal. I just thought it was funny, that after a big deal was made about the gift in the first place and then it was sort of swept aside, that the darn DVD's then didn't even work.
Bush had plenty of fun made of him for his gaffes and rightly so.

As far as the bowling comments, he was trying to make fun of himself. He probably could have done it a little differently, but again it is no big deal to me. We have all lost too much of our sense of humor and are too worried about political correctness.

Will Farrell has a whole Broadway show about George W. Bush and as far as I understand, it does not portray him in any kind of a good way. If people want to pay to see it, fine.

We have much more serious things to worry about these days, like is Geithner even fit to be Treasury Secretary. For a guy who was so important that his tax problems would be overlooked, I don't have a lot of warm fuzzies about what he is doing.
 
460Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 09:44
The issue with the gifts seems really odd to me. That seems like the type of thing that is normally taken care of by White House staff. I imagine there's something similar a company's PR dept or some type of guest reception dept to assist presidential families with that sort of thing, if not outright handling for them.

I don't mean to imply that I think it's a big deal but I don't think etiquette lapses at the White House are typical and I tend to think there must be long tenured staff to ensure that.
 
461boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 09:56
I wonder if the UK has the same gift policies as the US, if so they probably have to put the DVDs into storage anyways.
 
462Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 11:16
I don't mean to imply that I think it's a big deal but I don't think etiquette lapses at the White House are typical and I tend to think there must be long tenured staff to ensure that.

Must've been the same guy in charge of translating Russian for their botched gift.
 
463Perm Dude
      ID: 32291914
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 11:28
The British have been very touchy lately anyway.
 
464weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 11:29
I aggre that the CD's and the Special Olymics comments are non-issues.
We need to resist the tactics employed during the last 8 years to criticize our leaders for every little thing because we disagree with their policies.
Debate the policies and ignore the non-issues.

I am very concerned about our leaders spending our money and not bothering to take the time to read and comprehend what they are signing.
I am very concerned about a socialist agenda that will spend our country into backruptcy.
I am very concerned about a plan to nationalize and ration healthcare.

Those things concern me...I dont give a rats ass about CD's or SA.
Move on...nothing to see here.
 
465nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 12:29

I just thought it was funny, that after a big deal was made about the gift in the first place and then it was sort of swept aside, that the darn DVD's then didn't even work.

I had this same problem with Xbox Cd's here in Dubai. I brought about 10 games here, when I moved. I had an Xbox I brought with me (Blew that one up by accidentally plugging it into an unfiltered 220V socket, had the converter, just put in the wrong plug)

Anywho, bought a 360 here and none of the games worked because they weren't "European coded". Who knew?

Fortunately the store that sold it to me took the game back (Not always possible in this town)

 
466Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 19:50
Well actually the mentally handicapped bowl better than Obama so his game isn't like the Special Olympics its something worse.

Special Olympics Bowler Offers Obama Bowling Tips

Tim Maloney, a 38-year-old with Down Syndrome who has been bowling for 30 years, said the president needs to practice more if he wants to bring his recent score of 129 anywhere close to his average of 165.
 
467Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 06:40
LET'S GET IT ON!!!

A Special Olympian with five perfect games under his belt has challenged Obama to a bowling match.

So President Barack Obama thinks he bowls like a competitor in the Special Olympics?

He's obviously never met Kolan McConiughey, a mentally disabled man considered one of the nation's top Special Olympics bowlers, with five perfect games to his credit. He'd like to go to the White House and show the president a thing or two about how to roll strikes.

"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," McConiughey said Friday.

................

During an interview with The Associated Press, the 35-year-old McConiughey quickly rolled several strikes with his left-handed hook in a short demonstration of his prowess at Colonial Lanes in Ann Arbor.

In addition to five perfect games since 2005, McConiughey has also had an 800 series and carries a 212 average. He laughed as he joked about the popular president's apparently poor game.
 
468Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 08:02
I bet he probably could have assessed the Iraq WMD program better than the last president, too.
 
469Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 08:49
 
470Pancho Villa
      ID: 352162012
      Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 09:14
I'm a bit confused about Boxman's fixation on Obama's Special Olympics/bowling comment.

I've been under the impression that conservatives consider PC speech to be an element that liberals embrace in their march to destroy the nation.

This should fit in nicely with Rush Limbaugh's admonition, given last June, that Obama is hopelessly lost without a teleprompter.

I've constantly noted, ladies and gentlemen, you take the prompter and the written speeches away from Barak Obama and you have nothing.

Hopefully, this criticism of Obama will take hold beyond the super minority with Obama Derangement Syndrome, so that we will only hear from the President when he has the advantage of a fully prepared speech and a teleprompter at hand.
 
471Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 10:52
ODS. i like that. we should get that added into the general lexicon.
 
472Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Mon, Mar 23, 2009, 13:01
What would happen if Bush did this? I had to get this up here before PD did.

Are you punch drunk?

"I just wanna say that the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money into the auto industry," Obama conceded. As CBS News' Steve Kroft noted in a 60 Minutes talk with Obama last night that just 18 percent of those surveyed support it, Obama said with a laugh: "It's not a high number.''

"You're sitting here. And you are laughing,'' Kroft said. "You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people gonna look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money.' How do you deal with, I mean, explain the...mood and your laughter... Are you punch drunk?"

"No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day," the president explained. "You know, sometimes my team talks about the fact that if you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem, I don't think anybody would have believed it. But we've got a lot on our plate. And a lot of difficult decisions that we're gonna have to make."
 
473Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Mon, Mar 23, 2009, 13:26
did what exactly? prioritize?
 
474Perm Dude.
      ID: 7257237
      Mon, Mar 23, 2009, 13:33
I'm not sure what Boxman is trying to say with that post.
 
475walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Mar 23, 2009, 14:23
I must say, I watched the entire interview last night, and this except is not representative of the rather thoughtful and detailed responses Obama provided. Box, the difference is that Bush really had no clue and Obama has some clue. The severity of the messes he inherited is unprecedented. I sure hope he can fix them, but I think it's quite a tall order. Paul Krugman certainly thinks what he is doing in buying the troubled assets is not a good idea:

Krugman: Financial Policy Despair
 
476DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Mar 23, 2009, 14:44
I'm a bit confused about Boxman's fixation on Obama's Special Olympics/bowling comment.

Me too. I'd have thought he'd be much more concerned about the "defacto leader of the Republican Party" getting the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence mixed up in a recent prepared speech.
 
477Frick
      ID: 3410551012
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 08:18
While the current economic crisis is having real impact on the average citizen, is it a good thing for Obama? The thought popped into my head this morning when I heard a news story talking about Obama's budget. He was quoted as saying the economic crisis is starting to fade, but quick passage of the budget was necessary to continue the progress. Are items being passed due to their worthiness or because people feel they need to do something.

As we have seen with the AIG bonus flap, passing laws, because they want to be seen as doing something is scary IMO.
 
478Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 09:14
Of course Obama is going to say that a quick passage of the budget is necessary. Congress is slow enough as it is. Imagine if he said, "Oh yeah, take your time." Good Lord Allmighty.

It also gives Obama the ability to fear monger and shove things into the budget that people may not support/want/need but he wants for his own purposes.
 
479Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 11:04
March 23, 2009
PJB: The Weimar Solution
By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency,” said Lord Keynes.

Ben Bernanke disagrees. A student of the Depression, the Fed chair appears far more fearful of deflation — a vicious cycle of falling prices, debt defaults, home foreclosures and rising unemployment.

Deflation is what America underwent in the 1930s. A Fed-created bubble burst, causing margin calls to go out to stockholders, who ran to their banks that, besieged, collapsed, wiping out a third of our money. As Milton Friedman, who won a Nobel for his thesis that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, told PBS in 2000:

“For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing … with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.”

“(T)he Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were … urging them to do that. So it was … clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.”

Is Bernanke fighting the war of 1929 in 2009? Surely, today, with the explosion in M1, the basic money supply, there is no shortage of dollars out there, even if they are not circulating fast enough.

To end our recession, Bernanke may be running an even greater risk: hyper-inflation. This has destroyed more nations than deflation or even depression.

Recall: It was French military intervention in the Ruhr in 1923, to force payment of war reparations, and Weimar’s decision to let the currency fall and pay the French in cheap marks that led to the wipeout of the German middle class, the discrediting of that democratic republic and the Munich beer-hall putsch of Adolf Hitler.

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation,” said Ernest Hemingway, “is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”

Which brings us to last week’s shocker.

The Fed will buy up $300 billion in long-term Treasury bonds and spend $750 billion more buying sub-prime mortgages to remove them from the balance sheets of ailing big banks, to get the banks lending again.

Bernanke is printing money to buy U.S. bonds.

This new gusher from the Fed, after the $700 billion TARP bailout, comes on top of a Congressional Budget Office estimate that this year’s deficit will be $1.85 trillion, 13.1 percent of gross domestic product, more than twice the share of the U.S. economy of the largest previous postwar deficit.

Concluding the dollar is being abandoned in a frantic Fed effort to stop the recession, markets reacted instantly. The dollar plunge was the steepest since the Plaza Agreement of 1985. Gold shot up to $950 an ounce. Silver had a 12 percent run-up, the sharpest ever. Oil prices surged above $50 a barrel. Commodity markets advanced.

The Fed seems to have confirmed the fears of Premier Wen Jiabao, who said that China is “definitely a little worried” about the value of the U.S. bonds Beijing has purchased with the dollars piled up from her trade surpluses with the United States.

Can one blame the Chinese? They have already been burned on their U.S. investments. And if the defense of the dollar against its ancient enemy inflation is being abandoned, and protecting the dollar is to take a back seat to the Fed’s fight to avoid deflation, than it is indeed time to get out of the dollar and dollar-denominated assets.

For inflation is theft. It make liars and cheats of governments. By eroding the value of a currency, inflation punishes savers and creditors and rewards debtors. And what nation is the biggest debtor of them all? The United States of America.

Insidiously, inflation consumes the value of cash, savings, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, Treasury bonds and T-bills. Friends who lent America money, who bought our debt in good faith, are robbed and made fools of, while speculators who bet against America by shorting the dollar in the currency markets are vastly rewarded.

Given the $3.6 trillion budget Obama plans, the $1.8 trillion in red ink he will run by Oct. 1 and the trillions the Fed is pumping into the economy, gross domestic product should spike, as it did after the far smaller stimulus package of 2008.

We will feel a healthy glow, and folks will begin to sing, “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

Yet, one senses that we are doing again exactly what we have done before in this generation. Rather than endure the pain and accept the sacrifices to cure us of our addiction, we are going back to the heroin. And this time, with Dr. Bernanke handling the needle, we may just overdose.
 
480Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 13:08
Commentary: Obama a one-term president?

By Alex Castellanos
CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- Things I learned Tuesday night from President Obama's press conference:

Obama and congressional Democrats are angry that greedy Wall Street executives took $165 million in bonuses that the president and congressional Democrats gave them.

We have made them give it back, but they have to keep the trillion-dollar bailout.

Apparently, our education system is worse than we thought. Neither the president nor Democrats in Congress actually read the bailout-bonus bill.

Per-family household debt more than doubled from 1989 to 2007, going from $42,000 per family to $97,000 per family, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Most of it, 85 cents of every dollar, is home equity or mortgage debt. This is not the consumer's fault for borrowing it, nor Congress' fault for legislating it, nor the Fed's fault for enabling it, nor Fannie Mae's or Freddie Mac's fault for packaging it. This is all Wall Street's fault.

It is also all George W. Bush's fault.

Taxpayers living next to a toxic waste dump is a bad idea. Taxpayers buying a trillion dollars worth of toxic assets is good idea.

Taxpayers borrowing a trillion dollars to buy those toxic assets is an even better idea. Though it is still Bush's fault.

Obama isn't on the ballot next year, but Democrats in Congress are. You can make money betting they will lose more than 25 seats, but not as much money as by purchasing toxic assets with taxpayer dollars.

The problem with America's economy is that the last bubble, the "home-mortgage, derivative, credit default swap bubble" popped, as all economic bubbles eventually do. We must never let that happen again.

It is imperative that we re-inflate this bubble immediately.

If we all loan a lot of money we don't have to each other, we will all be more prosperous.

An Obama press conference offers hope to everyone. Both those who want to drive the deficit up and drive it down receive encouragement.

A dollar when given to failed auto companies or hollow banks has great stimulative value for the economy, but there's almost no dampening cost to the economy when the dollar is taken from taxpayers, who will have to pay our debt back.

If he does not drive the deficit down, within this decade, interest on the Obama debt will total more than a trillion dollars a year.

Bush was laughed at for saying, "Yes, we are getting the job done. It's hard work," though it's OK for Obama to say only hard decisions reach his desk.

Enhanced border security was a bad idea when Sen. John McCain and Republicans proposed it but a good idea now that Obama is for it.

Trickle-down economics from Republicans got us into this mess. Trickle-down government from Democrats will get us out of it.

Washington was doing such a great job making things work before the meltdown that we should give it more to do, like running health care, the energy industry, banks, Wall Street and the car business.

Our economy is so complex that millions of Americans can't plan for it, but Timothy Geithner and a couple of other smart guys in Washington can.

Political greed is more noble than corporate greed.

We have to short-change charities that help people, so government can help people.

Wall Street and the U.S. government are too big to fail though the American taxpayer isn't.

The Barack Obama experiment, conducted by this 47-year old man, is the riskiest economic wager the world has ever seen.

Next year, when this experiment in European-style socialism isn't working, the Democrats up for re-election will panic and make the spending this year look like an appetizer. To appear responsible, they then will raise taxes on "upper-income taxpayers" to the stratosphere, paralyzing investment and the economy.

Obama's communications gifts are powerful and poetic -- but round-the-clock campaigning on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," "60 Minutes" and this press conference won't save bad policy. Nothing kills a bad product quicker than good advertising. iReport.com: What did you think of Obama's press conference?

Obama has never built a business, created real wealth or produced tangible prosperity. His understanding of our economy is theoretical and academic.

Obama is a privileged young man who has not yet made many mistakes in his life. Having a president who belongs to the Harvard elite and the community-organizer streets is not the same as having a president who has lived a long life among middle-class Americans and understands them.

Impatience lies not deep beneath the surface of Obama. There is no shortage of self-confidence in this young man. It is a short step from such confidence to arrogance.

Arrogance in a politician is not healthy. Hubris, combined with inexperience, can be fatal. Obama could be a one-term president.

Obama is looking a little older. There would be nothing wrong with acting like it.
 
481Perm Dude
      ID: 30246257
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 13:14
Obama is a privileged young man who has not yet made many mistakes in his life. Having a president who belongs to the Harvard elite and the community-organizer streets is not the same as having a president who has lived a long life among middle-class Americans and understands them.

ROFL! Name a president in our lifetimes who wasn't a member of the "elite."

Alex Castellanos, a GOP media consultant (probably best known for his racist ads for Jesse Helms), seems to be straining very hard to paint Obama with a brush he spent years trying to keep away from Bush. Does he really believe Romney (for whom he consulted in 2008) is middle class?
 
482walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 14:13
Obama took out student loans to go to college. He grew up with a single parent and got a lot of upbringing from his grandparents. This Castellanos guy is so full of bull. He may disagree with Obama's policies, and that is fair (Krugman and other Dems do, too), but misrepresenting him as being elite and wrong cos he understands stuff academically, is off-base. Every leader brings a different perspective to the table. Bush brought none cos he was a bubble boy and lacked knowledge, but most have some wisdom, background or experience.
 
483weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 15:10
Walk:

I think you and PD bring up very valid points about painting Obama's background as "priveleged".
It would be very difficult to get elected to congress, much less the presidency without it.
I agree that we need to focus our disagreements on policies and leave the broad brush label painting aside.

I also think it takes a pretty smart person to get elected president.
For you to use the broad brush that Bush lacked knowledge is equally unfair.
If you disagree with Bush's policies fine.
I didnt agree with everything he did either.
But my guess is Bush is a lot smarter that you or I or any of the other posters who spent the last 8 years trying to sully his reputation using the same broad brush.
 
484Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 15:16
Anti-intellectualism rearing its ugly head. Now reaching the highest levels of education makes you out of touch and elite. Privileged? LOL. Please find a journalist worth a damn.
 
485Boldwin
      ID: 392192513
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 15:31
Outstanding find, Boxman.

All the outrageous contradictory double-thinking underpinning FDRII.

It really all boils down to democrats forcing america to spend more borrowed and fiat money to finance socialist programs that don't work and aren't remotely affordable. In this case, it happened to be socialized housing.
 
486Perm Dude
      ID: 30246257
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 15:45
Outstanding find? He found a Republican media consultant for Romney slamming Obama for being too "elite" and not middle class enough.
 
487Boldwin
      ID: 392192513
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 15:47
Try Fisking the piece instead of slamming the source. You just don't believe in the world of ideas or logic or fair debate on the merits of arguments, do you PD?
 
488Perm Dude
      ID: 30246257
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 16:00
Man, that's funny! The master of the character assasination trying to take me to task for not looking at the "argument" being made--in a piece which is, essentially, a character assasination and doesn't, itself, actually make a factual argument about the press conference.

 
489Boldwin
      ID: 392192513
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 16:02
The factual argument is in the glaring contradictions revealed in that piece. Explain how you hold so many of those self-contradictory ideas justified in your head.
 
490Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 16:09
All the outrageous contradictory double-thinking underpinning FDRII.

comparing Obama to FDR is fine by me. the only four-term president we've ever had.

It's nice to have a president who is actually attempting to do something GOOD for this nation, instead of trying to sully its reputation and strip away the rights of its citizens.

p.s. i like how you think a piece on cnn.com - you know, the MAINSTREAM MEDIA, is a "nice find"...never mind the fact it's on a site that is among the most mainstream of the mainstrean, so it's not exactly a "find", the double standard of YOU praising something released through the MSM is cute.

p.p.s. here's another "nice find".

Commentary: GOP means 'Got 0 Plans'

(CNN) -- I love Alex Castellanos. Heck, somebody has to. Truth is, we've been known to break bread after our CNN gigs. He is engaging and amusing and whip-smart.

But when he said Tuesday night on CNN that President Obama is already looking like a one-term president, he's full of more beans than a burrito at Matt's El Rancho back home in Austin, Texas.

Obama inherited an ungodly mess: a $1.2 trillion deficit, an economy that was careening from recession into depression, a collapse in effective demand, the disintegration of the real estate market and a financial meltdown that spanned the globe and brought multibillion-dollar institutions to their knees. That's not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and the Mexican drug war.

If this were "Sesame Street," the announcer would be saying, "This program brought to you by the letters G, O and P." None of the crises the president is addressing were of his creation. All of them were created or worsened by the Republicans who ran the House of Representatives, Senate and White House for years.

And so the American people turned to Obama to bring change -- and change he has brought. He's moving on all fronts: addressing the housing foreclosure crisis, the banking crisis, the unemployment crisis. Did I mention that all of these crises were courtesy of the Republicans who ran this country for years? Good.

Now the Republicans have what we Texans call the chutzpah to criticize Obama for doing too much. Maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have to be fixing so many problems if the Republicans hadn't created so many problems.

The Republicans are like an arsonist who complains that the fire department is wasting water. Obama is trying to handle an immediate crisis while also laying the foundation for long-term growth. The Republicans are doing neither. They have no plan to stop the loss of jobs or to get capital markets functioning properly -- and they certainly have no plans for health care, education or energy, which are the keys to both long-term economic growth and long-term deficit reduction.

All the energy -- indeed all debate -- is on the progressive side of the aisle. The Obama administration's only intellectual challengers are on the left, where economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and others are offering a vigorous critique and proposing alternative solutions. But where are the Republicans? Doing nothing but complaining. Unless and until they do offer an alternative, they really have no right to whine about the president. For now at least, GOP stands for "Got 0 Plans."
 
491Wilmer McLean
      ID: 492552511
      Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 04:11
Who is Obama advisor Cass Sunstein? Shudders.
 
492bibA
      ID: 512112314
      Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 07:48
I had never heard of Cass Sunstein. A paragraph from Wiki:

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal despite publicly supporting some of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

 
493biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 09:56
Sunstein's an academic. Beats a Wall Street insider in my book.
 
494Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 13:26
Imagine If A Republican Were President
By LARRY ELDER | Posted Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

President Barack Obama, in an appearance on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno, made a self-deprecating but ill-advised joke, in which he referred to the Special Olympics. He quickly apologized. Crisis averted. Fair enough.

But the real story is the media double standard: Imagine the uproar if a President John McCain made the Special Olympics comment.

For that matter, imagine if a President McCain mistook a White House window for a door, his secretary of Treasury had not paid taxes, he granted two dozen waivers to his no-lobbyists-in-government rule and he had promised bipartisanship but got only three across-the-aisle votes for his "stimulus" package.

Imagine if President McCain, after promising a "clean break" from his predecessor, retained "extraordinary rendition," the FISA program, the option of wiretapping without warrants and the option of using "enhanced interrogation techniques.

Or if he promised to close Gitmo, then said it would take as long as a year, but then our European allies refused to take in "detainees" from their own countries.

Or if he reneged on or fudged his promise to have all combat troops out of Iraq within "16 months of his presidency."

Or if he adopted for Afghanistan the same counterinsurgency strategy used in Iraq, which, as a candidate, he'd criticized for not "achieving its objectives.

Or if he used the same "state secrets" argument as did the Bush administration in the same court case, to avoid turning over certain national security documents in an ACLU-brought case on behalf of an alleged torture victim/detainee.

Imagine if — on the campaign trail — a future President McCain had declared a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable" but agreed to engage in negotiations without preconditions, if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the new president he must apologize for 60 years of anti-Iranian activity, if President McCain then reached out to the Iranians in a televised address and, in response, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — who holds ultimate authority in Iran — told him to a) drop animosity and criticism, b) end sanctions, c) unfreeze assets, and d) end "unconditional support" for Israel.

Imagine if President McCain acted "outraged" — as though he, his secretary of Treasury and a party leader (Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.) had not previously known about and approved the controversial AIG bonuses and that executives at Freddie and Fannie, failed institutions now taken over by government, were getting bonuses, too.

Or if, during this recession and after criticizing taxpayer-funded corporate retreats, President McCain and First Lady Cindy McCain threw taxpayer-funded White House parties nearly every night, hiring entertainers such as Stevie Wonder and the Jonas Brothers.

Imagine if, as sitting president, McCain appeared on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno and cracked jokes, while — as the media would have written — "millions of Americans have lost their homes and their jobs with millions afraid they're next, yada, blah, etc."

Or if he tripled the projected annual deficit and intended, within a short period, to double the national debt. Or if he promised to "create or save" an ever-changing number of jobs — never offering a yardstick to define a "saved job."

Imagine that McCain's vice president made a number of gaffes, including not knowing the "recovery" Web site despite going on national television to promote it and revealing on television — through his wife — that he'd had the option of a job as secretary of State or VP — thus showing the administration's extreme disrespect toward the current secretary of state.

Imagine if, of the 18 important sub-Cabinet positions in the Treasury Department, none was filled. Or if, after promising "transparency," McCain wouldn't say where the TARP money had gone and who had gotten it. Or after receiving bailout money, the largest 20 financial institution recipients actually reduced lending — the opposite intent of the program.

Or if after saying that he wasn't a "socialist," McCain defended himself by asserting that "it wasn't on my watch" that we'd bought shares of banks — but omitted that, as senator, he'd supported and voted for it.

Or if he constantly said he'd "inherited" the deficit despite — as a senator — voting for TARP and other programs that had wildly increased it.

Imagine if President McCain ungraciously treated Prime Minister Gordon Brown from the U.K. — our closest and oldest ally — and gave him cheap, tacky gifts apparently picked up from the White House gift shop and someplace like Wal-Mart.

Imagine if, despite a reputation for "eloquence," President McCain relied on teleprompters for even the most minor of statements, verbally stumbling and flailing when the teleprompters malfunctioned.

Or if he broke protocol and tradition by pre-picking and giving notice to the reporters to be called on in press conferences. Or if he admonished the out-of-power party by denouncing a popular talk show host and imploring the opposite party to refuse to listen to him.

Imagine if the media kept referring to him as "popular" when his poll numbers were virtually identical to those of George W. Bush at the 50-day mark in their respective presidencies.

Or if his chief of staff, in a newspaper article about his achievements as a House member, said in front of a reporter that the opposition party could "go f*** themselves."

On the other hand, Cleveland State beat Wake Forest.
 
495Perm Dude
      ID: 54242267
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 13:50
Oh, man. What a load of speculative nonsense.

Imagine if the GOP was for something?
 
496Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 16:44
Or after receiving bailout money, the largest 20 financial institution recipients actually reduced lending — the opposite intent of the program.

Another Republican who doesn't understand the financial crisis at all. The banks got in this mess by lending too much and running out of capital. You give a bank with a balance sheet full of toxic assets money, what are they going to do? What should they do? Recapitalize.
 
497Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 19:48
Actually you don't unfreeze a credit system frozen solid by hording government resources in the back room.

There is only a sliver of truth in what you say in that the tier 1 capital situation was a serious problem some places more than others, but they were NOT handing this stuff to the banks for the express purpose of shoring up their capitalization.
 
498Building 7
      ID: 70243116
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 22:49
What's another name for a bank with a balance sheet full of toxic assets money? How about bankrupt. Or insolvant. They shouldn't be given anything. They should wither and die. Why are they indispensable? They're not, but they are friends with high ranking people at the Treasury, Fed, and Congress. It sucks.
 
499Wilmer McLean
      ID: 132132711
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 02:21
RE: 491

Who is Obama advisor Cass Sunstein?

And welfare for all? Cass Sunstein's case for inalienable economic rights

...
In The Second Bill of Rights, Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who is one of today's academic stars, reopens this debate. He makes a surprisingly plausible case for resurrecting this idea with some modern twists. Recalling FDR's proposal for a "second of bill of rights" protecting basic human needs, Sunstein urges Americans to recognize a new list of constitutional rights, including access to a good education and health care, and the opportunity to work at a fair wage--in essence, economic rights in addition to the largely political rights enshrined in the country's founding documents.

But Sunstein is ambiguous on the nature of these proposed new rights. It's not clear whether these rights would be enforceable in court; in any event, the "Second Bill of Rights" is only a metaphor because Sunstein does not advocate an actual constitutional amendment. If they aren't enforceable and aren't written, what they amount to is a conscious commitment to make these rights part of our conception of America, with the expectation that doing so will force the political system to make good on that commitment.

...


------------------------------------------------

Obama 2001 - WBEZ FM Chicago Public Radio



2:34 in --

...

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...and more basic issues of economic justice in this society....it (Warren Court) didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...that generally the constitution is a charter of negatvie liberties...says what the States can't do to you, says what the Federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the State government must do on you behalf...


------------------------------------------------

from Sunstein link:

...

One such argument is that the welfare state is contrary to the essential American character. Sunstein points out that recognizing these needs as rights has not always been outside the American mainstream. His main evidence comes from the New Deal, and particularly from FDR's thinking about social goals. In a now-forgotten speech that Sunstein spotlights, FDR called for a new Bill of Rights along the lines that Sunstein advocates. Twenty years later, the Warren Court flirted with recognizing constitutional rights to food, shelter, and other necessities. If Nixon hadn't squeaked out a victory in 1968 and appointed four conservative justices, Sunstein contends, the court might well have heeded the advice of liberal constitutional law scholars and recognized economic constitutional rights.

...


Shudders!

 
500Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 03:00
B7

That issue became somewhat less black and white when the government forced them to assume those bad loans at gunpoint.
 
501Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 03:22
Wilmer

Shudder twice.

Just throwing some related google directions out there.

There is an ongoing state by state push for a national constitutional convention. [began long ago over long forgotten issues, I can't even remember why] Last I heard it was on the cusp of having enuff states. I also remember Wyoming [I think it was] mounting a challenge to kill the movement. Crazy as it seems I've also seen an argument from the conservative side [homeland security/getting fiscally unsound congress out of the regional pocket] to resurrect Nixon's/CFR project to break the USA into regions.

I also ran into intelligence experts in Russia claiming such a thing was as good as a done deal, on an 'insiders having decided' level. [Think of the British representative sneeringly deriding Britains who opposed EU unification saying, 'these things were decided decades ago']

There could be an unfortunate confluence of events headed together under the radar here.

Wait till that stuff reaches Obama while he whistfully muses about lost opportunities in the past to make economic issues, constitutional human rights. And in the midst of a radical's once in a lifetime economic opportunity.
 
502Razor
      ID: 53243617
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 12:12
What's another name for a bank with a balance sheet full of toxic assets money? How about bankrupt. Or insolvant. They shouldn't be given anything. They should wither and die. Why are they indispensable? They're not.

One bank is dispensable. So are two or three. But what about all of them? 90% of the wealth in this country is held by the top 20 banks. Letting banks collapse recklessly would collapse the economy. Governments have been bailing out banks for thousands of years because they know that in order for a society to survive, it must have a functioning banking system.

The bank bailouts are infuriating and depressing but also necessary, at least in one form or another. Someone who doesn't mind if we let Citibank and Bank of America fail is someone who doesn't mind unemployment jumping to 20%.
 
503Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 16:33
What's another name for a bank with a balance sheet full of toxic assets money?

The only kind operating according to Barney Frank's rules.
 
504Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 17:12
The bank bailouts are infuriating and depressing but also necessary

Right because if we save the big banks the DOW won't lose half its value. Oh wait...

They should've fattened up the more responsible banks and not apply band aids to severed limbs.
 
505Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 04:11
They should have put the people who warned about this situation in the first place on the banking committee, in charge of fixing it. Not Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who created the mess.
 
506Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 08:38
I wonder why the media is so fixated on blaming the banks and they haven't focused equal ire on the Congressmen who set the rules of the game......
 
507DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:57
Probably because you're full of crap as usual.
 
508Perm Dude
      ID: 172582810
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:59
He's not full of crap. Just biased. He wants to see the blame for everything put onto the Democrats. Since his GOP couldn't win at the polls, he's hoping to "win" some other way.

The truth is that the financial services industry is far too big and powerful.
 
509DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:02
No, I'm pretty sure he's full of crap as usual. Same hypocritical garbage that he and Boldwin spew everywhere, and I'm sick and *$&#@*(&$ tired of it and not going to put up with it any more. He's a hypocritical liar, and Boldwin is worse than that, he's a dangerous lunatic who needs to be put away for society's protection.


You're right about the last sentence, of course.
 
510Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:12
I'm sick and *$&#@*(&$ tired of it and not going to put up with it any more.

Like Bill Cosby said, " 'And tired' always followed sick..."

Good for you that you're sick and tired of it. Way to get fired up over a message board. Go get 'em tiger.

He wants to see the blame for everything put onto the Democrats.

I do? When did I say that? You're the PD here PD, not me.
 
511DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:35
Do the world a favor and jump off a cliff.
 
512Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 14:51
Really? REALLY? Why?
 
513nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 17:39

Not Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who created the mess

Actually Baldwin they aren't considered the main people who caused the mess, but why let the facts get in the way?

If you want to blame congress most economists blame Phil Gramm for championing the repeal of the Glass Stegal act and Bill Clinton who signed the change into law. This was when we had a Republican majority in Congress and our favorite President went along for the ride.



 
514nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 17:43

our favorite President went along for the ride.

Ooopps Freudian slip, should have read "your" favorite President.
 
515Pancho Villa
      ID: 242522912
      Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 11:14
OK, now it makes sense

The prime minister of the Czech Republic says it could have been his taste for the rock group AC/DC -- not his study of economics -- that inspired him to describe President Barack Obama's nearly $2 trillion economic plan as "the road to hell."

"Last week, AC/DC played the Czech Republic," Mirek Topolanek told the Lidove Noviny daily newspaper Friday. "And their cult song 'Highway to Hell' may have influenced me to use, in my very improvised speech, 'the road to hell.'"

A week after seeing the Australian band, Topolanek departed from his prepared text in a speech Wednesday before the European Parliament, which included the phrase "the road to destruction" -- substituting instead the controversial phrase.
 
516Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 11:52
Nerve

What about the repeal of the Glass Stegal act made sub-prime loans multiply? Why wouldn't the market and commercial banks prefer sound packages of real estate investment packages? Higher returns based on higher risk?

It is very clear that the banking committee had that effect. The banking committee insisted FM/FM increase toxic paper to 50% of their production.
 
517Perm Dude
      ID: 12283111
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 14:21
Sounds about right

The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

 
518Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 15:20
waiting for the conservative rebuttal on this. it'll be fun.


::gets popcorn::
 
519Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 15:41
The banking committee insisted FM/FM increase toxic paper to 50% of their production.

50%, eh? Prove it.
 
520Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 16:03
Lol! How many times? I need a filing system in my favorites for every source I've ever used, I get asked to repost so much.
 
521boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 10:43
Re 517, people are idiots, Do we really want the majority deciding policy, given that half the populations IQ is less than 100?

I give W credit for one thing for good and bad he never let the masses dictate the policy and so far for the most part Obama is doing the same.
 
522Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 10:48
Re: 520 - If you would have proven it once, no one would ever have to ask again.
 
523Perm Dude
      ID: 4831617
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 10:55
Well, the majority elects the President, and presumably they do so for policy reasons (and they did so for Bush as well, twice). In a democracy there is some connection between the two.

As for the question itself, I do believe that the financial industry is more to blame than Obama (don't you?).
 
524Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 11:14
For the record, the majority did not elect Bush twice.
 
525boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 11:49
As for the question itself, I do believe that the financial industry is more to blame than Obama (don't you?).

that is really a silly question, that is like blaming your closer for the loss when they gave up 2 runs in game they lost by 10.
 
526Perm Dude
      ID: 4831617
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 11:56
No, this is like blaming your closer after a couple of pitches in a game in which the previous pitcher gave up 5 runs.

The financial services industry has gotten far too big. This is a problem in which both Democrats and Republicans can share some blame, but (if blame need be made) particular emphasis should be placed upon Republicans who (1) were in charge of government for 8 years and (2) literally cheered on as they rolled back government regulations and oversight.

The problems we have are certainly not Obama's.
 
527boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 12:06
The financial services industry has gotten far too big. This is a problem in which both Democrats and Republicans can share some blame, but (if blame need be made) particular emphasis should be placed upon Republicans who (1) were in charge of government for 8 years and (2) literally cheered on as they rolled back government regulations and oversight. this is such a over simplification. So answer this question how is that republicans rolled back government regulations and oversight in every country in the world?
 
528Perm Dude
      ID: 4831617
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 12:15
That's a strawman, boikin. And a bad attempt at a dodge. The worldwide economic problems are merely demonstrating the lack of controls that the financial services industry has, making their problems much worse than they would have been and extending the financial problems all over.

Republicans felt their mandate was to dismantle government oversight in as many areas as possible, in order to give the "free market" free rein. They giddily did so in a bull market, like a bunch of kids playing at driving on a straight clear road in daytime.

Now that the natural business cycles have come around again, its time for the grownups to grab the wheel again. And Americans, by and large, agree with that--it is why Obama was elected in the first place.

He wasn't your choice. I get that. But you'll never solve any problem if you insist that the blame for it lies somewhere it doesn't. Or by excusing behavior which led to it.
 
529Boldwin
      ID: 2033111
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 13:08
But you'll never solve any problem if you insist that the blame for it lies somewhere it doesn't. Or by excusing behavior which led to it.

Then why do you do that, PD?
 
530boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 13:52
PD, a dodge? Seriously so whole worlds problems are blamed on the republicans, where were the British? i guess republicans were overseeing there financial institutes.

He wasn't your choice. I get that. But you'll never solve any problem if you insist that the blame for it lies somewhere it doesn't. Or by excusing behavior which led to it.

you are so good a jumping to the wrong conclusions aren't you? Since he was my choice. maybe you should take you own advice quit blaming people and start looking for real causes instead of fighting the symptoms. While parsimonious answers like the republicans are to blame is easy to sell to masses, it doesn't solve the root causes of the problems.

Now that the natural business cycles have come around again, its time for the grownups to grab the wheel again.

I guess when the cycle comes back around the grow ups can take all the credit for something that was going to happen anyways and then when cycle turns down we can point fingers like we did not know it was coming, because well cycles don't repeat. Make up your mind.
 
531Wilmer McLean
      ID: 36322116
      Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 04:24
Obama inherits a stronger U.S.-Africa legacy from Bush (WorldFocus)

WorldFocus

February 5, 2009



beginning to 1:33, countdown timer. (great info after that, too)
 
532Perm Dude
      ID: 3347318
      Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 14:11
#529: You, who have the most serious causality awareness deficit on the boards, have no basis to even ask the question.

#530: The economic problems we are facing (part of a natural business cycle) have been made far worse by the insistence by the GOP that government has no place in the affairs of business and their attempts, over years, to dismantle oversight, regulation, and safety nets put in place specifically to smooth out the downward cycles.

I'm sorry that isn't clear to you in your attempt to re-direct the blame the GOP should be taking (and that they are, at the polls. Denial and blame is going to continue to push the GOP aside at the national level). Until the GOP can say "Yes, we made mistakes but here's what we've learned from it and here's what we propose" then they will be a PINO (Party In Name Only).

But Republicans have been dodging responsibility for years. I don't expect them to change.
 
533Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 14:29
It's almost like PD gets paid to mention either "GOP" or "Republicans" in a bad light.
 
534Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 10:55
April 2, 2009
PJB: Should We Kill the Fed?
>>> Join the forum discussion on this post... - (33) Posts
By Patrick J. Buchanan

For the financial crisis that has wiped out trillions in wealth, many have felt the lash of public outrage.

Fannie and Freddie. The idiot-bankers. The AIG bonus babies. The Bush Republicans and Barney Frank Democrats who bullied banks into making mortgages to minorities who could not afford the houses they were moving into.

But the Big Kahuna has escaped.

The Federal Reserve.

“(T)he very people who devised the policies that produced the mess are now posing as the wise public servants who will show us the way out,” writes Thomas Woods in “Meltdown.”

Already in its sixth week on the New York Times best-seller list, this eminently readable book traces the Fed’s role in every financial crisis since this creature was spawned on Jekyll Island in 1913.

The “forgotten depression” of 1920-21 was caused by a huge increase in the money supply for President Wilson’s war. When the Fed started to tighten at war’s end, production fell 20 percent from mid-1920 to mid-1921, far more than today.

Why did we not read about that depression?

Because the much-maligned Warren Harding refused to intervene. He let businesses and banks fail and prices fall. Hence, the fever quickly broke, and we were off into “the Roaring Twenties.”

But, the Fed reverted, expanding the money supply by 55 percent, an average of 7.3 percent a year, not through an expansion of the currency, but through loans to businesses.

Thus, when the Fed tightened in the overheated economy, the Crash came, as the stock market bubble the Fed had created burst.

Herbert Hoover, contrary to the myth that he was a small-government conservative, renounced laissez-faire, raised taxes, launched public works projects, extended emergency loans to failing businesses and lent money to the states for relief programs.

Hoover did what Obama is doing.

Indeed, in 1932, FDR lacerated Hoover for having presided over the “greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” His running mate, John Nance Garner, accused Hoover of “leading the country down the path to socialism.” And “Cactus Jack” was right.

Terrified of the bogeyman that causes Ben Bernanke sleepless nights — deflation, falling prices — FDR ordered crops destroyed, pigs slaughtered, and business cartels to cut production and fix prices.

FDR mistook the consequences of the Depression — falling prices — for the cause of the depression. But prices were simply returning to where they belonged in a free market, the first step in any cure.

Obama is repeating the failed policies of Hoover and FDR, by refusing to let prices fall. Obama, with his intervention to prop up housing prices and Bernanke with his gushers of money to bail out bankrupt banks and businesses are creating a new bubble that will burst even more spectacularly.

The biggest myth, writes Woods, is that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression. He quotes Paul Krugman:

“What saved the economy and the New Deal was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.”

This Nobel Prize winner’s analysis, writes Woods, is a “stupefying and bizarre misunderstanding of what actually happened,”

Undoubtedly, with 29 percent of the labor force conscripted at one time or another into the armed forces, and their jobs taken by elderly men, women and teenagers with little work experience, unemployment will fall.

But how can an economy be truly growing 13 percent a year, as the economists claim, when there is rationing, shortages everywhere, declining product quality, an inability to buy homes and cars, and a longer work week? When the cream of the labor force is in boot camps or military bases, or storming beaches, sailing ships, flying planes and marching with rifles, how can your real economy be booming?

It was 1946, a year economists predicted would result in a postwar depression because government spending fell by two-thirds, that proved the biggest boom year in all of American history.

Why? Because the real economy was producing what people wanted: cars, TVs, homes. Businesses were responding to consumers, not the clamor of a government run by dollar-a-year men who wanted planes, tanks, guns and ships to blow things up.

“The Fed was the greatest single contributor to the crisis that unfolds before us,” Woods writes of today, and “more dollars were created between 2000 and 2007 than in the rest of the republic’s history.”

After 9-11, the Fed kept interest rates low — in one year as low as 1 percent. That money flooded into the housing and stock markets. And in 2008, as the Fed tightened, the bubble burst.

Now the money supply is again expanding, to rescue us from a crisis created by the previous expansion. Of Nicholas Biddle’s Bank of the United States, the great Andrew Jackson was eloquent.

“It has tried to kill me,” he said. “But I will kill it.” And he did.

Should not this creature from Jekyll Island, for all its manifold crimes and sins against the republic, also be summarily put to death?
 
535WTC Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:32
Should not this creature from Jekyll Island, for all its manifold crimes and sins against the republic, also be summarily put to death?

YES.
 
536nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 11:21


What about the repeal of the Glass Stegal act made sub-prime loans multiply?


The problem Baldwin is that all this toxic waste, all the garbage derivatives are being held by the same banks that hold all our money.

A regular bank wasn't allowed to take this kind of risk due to Glass Stegal which was written in 1934 after/during the depression.

Now all the big banks that hold our money are allowed to take 30 to 1 leveraged gambles due to the repeal.

The damage would have been contained and minimized without the repeal.

This isn't coming from me, it's coming from dozens of economists who have brought it up during Bloomberg podcasts.



 
537boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 16:42
Denial and blame is going to continue to push the GOP aside at the national level). Until the GOP can say "Yes, we made mistakes but here's what we've learned from it and here's what we propose" then they will be a PINO (Party In Name Only).

PD are you a Republican? Denial and Blame is your main MO...Well at least Blame...

I have proposal if you want to stop future economic disasters maybe people need to learn some basic economic theory, there are three ways to increase productivity A) have more children and/or immigrants b) become more efficient C) acquire more natural resources. If you economic plan does not address these issues you are merely moving the pieces around not making a better economy. One thing that Obama has done right is that he has at least addressed the efficiency part in wanting to go "green", has he chosen an efficient manner to do it, i don't know but at least in that area he is on the right track.
 
538Perm Dude
      ID: 23343612
      Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 16:52
Is the problem the lack of productivity? If not, you'd be solving the wrong problem. The studies I've looked at in the past (which, to be honest, I haven't looked at in a couple of years) all point to increasing productivity on the part of workers in the United States.

Certainly part of the problem can be traced to products (like new houses) for which we enjoy a large surplus--this (I think) is a problem which exists outside of the productivity levels which brought thoses houses into being.

It seems to me that the current economic problems are more because of people (and companies) living beyond their means and getting smacked down in a natural business cycle much harder than usual as a result.
 
539nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 05:48


OMG what a screw up. Obama BOWED to the king of Saudi Arabia.

Why the F%*&$ would our President do that?

That's almost as bad as Bush making out with him and holding his hand.

We owe that freak nothing more then a limp handshake and that's only because he has oil.

 
540boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:04
Is the problem the lack of productivity? If not, you'd be solving the wrong problem.

productivity is not the same thing as efficiency...efficiency is the amount of work per unit time or work per unit resource. productivity is just a measure of total output. with that said i guess you have build a product that others want. that is why you can solve your problems by just having more children to buy up all the excess houses.

It seems to me that the current economic problems are more because of people (and companies) living beyond their means and getting smacked down in a natural business cycle much harder than usual as a result.

I agree with this statement completely, we lived/live in culture of keeping up with the jones and all the regulation in the world will not change that.
 
541Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:41
It was a bubble insured by a ponzi scheme.
 
542Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:59
Retirement Math

By Andrew G. Biggs
Posted: Thursday, March 26, 2009

Publication Date: April 13, 2009

President Obama has said that the financial crisis should end support for personal Social Security retirement accounts. But an array of simulations shows that almost all retirees could have increased their benefits with personal accounts, even considering the current crisis.

The stock market decline has struck hard against retirement savings, but we can be confident that most workers' portfolios will recover. The market crash may have been a knockout blow, however, to the idea of adding personal savings accounts to Social Security, which President Bush saw as the hallmark of his second term.

During the election campaign Barack Obama told prospective voters, "If my opponent had his way, millions of Americans would have had their Social Security tied to [the] stock market this week. Millions would have watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. ... Imagine if you had some of your Social Security money in the stock market right now. How would you be feeling about the prospects for your retirement?"

Obama's question deserves an answer. How would personal Social Security accounts have fared in the current market? Surprisingly, careful analysis shows that even individuals retiring today would have increased their total Social Security benefits by holding a personal account. Here's why.

The numbers put the lie to President Obama's exaggerations of the risks of investing retirement savings in the market.

First consider a plan in which workers could voluntarily invest four percentage points of the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax in a personal account. The account would follow a "life-cycle portfolio," shifting from 85% stocks through age 29 to 15% stocks by age 55. At retirement the account balance would be converted to a monthly annuity.

However, workers who chose personal accounts would also receive reduced traditional Social Security benefits. Those would be cut by the amount the individual contributed to the account, plus interest at the government bond interest rate. This benefit offset would compensate Social Security for the reduced taxes paid by account holders. Total Social Security benefits would increase if personal accounts returned more than the interest rate on government bonds.

To answer Obama, I simulated individuals who held accounts their entire lives and retired this year at age 65. A typical retiree would be entitled to a traditional Social Security benefit of $15,700 per year. For workers who chose personal accounts, this traditional benefit would be reduced by $7,800. However, the worker's personal account balance of $161,500 would pay an annual annuity benefit of $10,100. That's a $2,300, or 15%, net increase in Social Security benefits.

But we can go further. Using stock and bond data since 1871, I simulated 94 additional cohorts of account holders, retiring from 1915 through 2007. By holding personal accounts every single group of retirees would have increased their benefits, by between 6% and 23%, with an average increase of 15%.

Of course, not every worker would hold an account his whole life. If President Bush's 2005 reform plan had passed, many workers would enter the markets precisely as they began to decline. Surely these workers would see big benefit reductions? Under the Bush plan, only workers under age 55 as of 2005 would have been eligible for accounts, so no current retirees would have held accounts. Nevertheless, I ran a third simulation: workers would retire today but begin accounts at different ages. What would have happened to the worker who started an account at age 62, then retired only three years later? At last, we find someone who lost money: Total benefits for such an individual would have declined by 0.1%.

Why so small a loss? Because under the life-cycle portfolio, which would have been automatic under the Bush proposal, workers nearing retirement would hold only around 15% of their assets in stocks. It is possible to find somewhat larger losses for workers who started accounts earlier: A worker who started an account at age 53 in 1990 would have lost 0.7% of his total benefits. But that's the largest loss I was able to produce.

The point here isn't that stocks are a free lunch. In an efficient market the higher returns paid to stocks are nothing more than compensation for their higher risk, and we don't know that future market returns will be as good as those in the past. But accounts do provide a valuable tool to prefund future retirement income and reduce cost burdens on tomorrow's workers. And these numbers put the lie to President Obama's exaggerations of the risks of investing retirement savings in the market.

Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at AEI.
 
543Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 19:03
And that's assuming there actually are SS payments when that ponzi scheme goes belly up.
 
544Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 12:20
The Red President has already sold the country down the river in another massive way...
At the G20 meeting in London, President Obama agreed to create of an international board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporations by dictating executive compensation and approving or disapproving business management decisions.

"By agreeing to the stipulations in this document, President Obama gave the blessing of the United States to the G20 decision to elevate the Financial Stability Forum into the Financial Stability Board," Corsi wrote. "The United States has only one vote in the newly constituted Financial Stability Board, a group that will be largely controlled by European central bankers."

The new global regulator now has the authority to examine all U.S. banks, brokerage firms and corporations – including non-financial companies such as the Big Three automakers – to examine operations and determine risk.

The Financial Stability Board then has the international authority to set policies in these corporations, including compensation packages the private boards of directors in the examined companies decide to pay top executives and senior managers.

Morris charged that the Obama administration, by agreeing to create the Financial Stability Board, has gone beyond nationalizing U.S. corporations, to "internationalize" U.S.-based corporations under the control of this new global regulator.
 
545Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 17:29
Shut Up About The Stress Test Results

I thought Obama's government was about transparency? The President should tell the banks its OK to announce their stress test results during their earnings calls and not be forced to wait until the end of the month.

Federal regulators have told the largest U.S. banks to keep quiet about their performance on government stress tests. They fear investors could punish companies with nothing to brag about.

In letters to the 19 banks undergoing tests of their financial strength, regulators told the companies not to disclose their performance during upcoming earnings announcements, according to industry and government officials who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the process.

The order was the latest in a series of government moves designed to keep good news about strong banks from dooming others to a downward spiral of falling share prices and financial weakness. If banks receiving the highest marks trumpet their results, the fear is investors might push down share prices of those companies that make no such announcements.

Government officials want to announce the results all at once, at the end of the month.

The stress tests are a centerpiece of the Obama administration's ongoing effort to stabilize the banking industry. They subject the banks' books to a series of negative scenarios, including double-digit unemployment and further drops in home values.
 
546Razor
      ID: 41323216
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 13:31
Why do all of your posts on the banking crisis seem to ignore the severity of it?

Transparency is a priority of the new administration. However, it is not the only priority and it is certainly subordinate to ensuring the health of the banking sector at this critical juncture. The collapse of a couple of big banks could have dire consequences throughout the economy.
 
547Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 13:53
We all know they passed. No biggie.
 
548Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 18:03
If the banks failed investors and the public have a right to know. It shouldn't be swept under the rug under the administration feels like announcing it.
 
549Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 18:14
But they haven't failed. And they aren't expected to either.

But since the tests haven't been officially completed yet you should probably wait until the end of the month before decrying the lack of transparency. What's next: "Obama is withholding the 2010 Census numbers!"
 
550Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 18:38
Well if they've passed why sit on it?

Federal regulators have told the largest U.S. banks to keep quiet about their performance on government stress tests. They fear investors could punish companies with nothing to brag about.

Explain that quote.
 
551Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 21:05
It's made up?

The point is that they haven't passed. Yet. But they will.

The problem isn't that the government is holding back information on the stress tests(they won't be done with the tests until the end of the month, so there is nothing to be held back). The problem is that the tests really aren't all that tough.
 
552Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 08:10
Are you saying the AP concocted this story?

In letters to the 19 banks undergoing tests of their financial strength, regulators told the companies not to disclose their performance during upcoming earnings announcements, according to industry and government officials who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the process.

 
553Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 09:15
Wouldn't be the first time information about the federal government has been wrong.

 
554Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 09:54
What would be the reason to fabricate this?
 
555Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 13:46
The truth is that we don't know, exactly, what was said. Or even if. Or if the statement was much more limited. But we do know (and it is common knowledge) that no bank is expected to fail the stress tests, which makes that statement silly, at best.

Why do people make silly statements? Well, who benefits for people who believe them? If I had to guess, I'd point first to those who are opposed to the Administration. A silly, non-factual statement attributed anonymously and which is at odds with the information we do know, and (if believed) makes the Administration look bad. Why, indeed, would anyone make such a statement...?
 
556Razor
      ID: 41323216
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 14:01
From the NYT article:

Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of the results of any bank examination, including the stress tests.
 
557Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 14:38
no bank is expected to fail the stress tests

So why hide it?

I'd point first to those who are opposed to the Administration.

Are you only paranoid because people are out to get you?
 
558Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 14:45
So why hide it?

Who is hiding something? Name some names. All you have is an unnamed source which says banks need to be quiet about the results of something at the end of the month that we already know the answer to.



I'm not paranoid, particularly when pointing out that the Administration's political enemies are not above lying to make their point. Acknowledging that political enemies of the Administration are underhanded and prefer anonymity isn't paranoia.
 
559Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 17:12
Who is hiding something? Name some names

The federal regulators who want the banks to keep quiet.

particularly when pointing out that the Administration's political enemies are not above lying to make their point

So what. Every administration since Washington's has probably had one group or another of opponent's that bad mouth them whether it is true or not.
 
560Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 19:30
Not to wrench this thread back on topic, but I just heard the Obamas are getting a Portuguese water dog and naming it "Bo."

I have a Portuguese water dog named Bo.

WTF?
 
561Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 20:20
very clearly PD, the MSM is to blame. also, the liberal elite. oh, and the jews.
 
562Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Apr 12, 2009, 20:25
I just heard the Obamas are getting a Portuguese water dog and naming it "Bo."

I have a Portuguese water dog named Bo.


Awwwwwwwwww

 
563Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 05:48
PD

And then there's the kinky perm...it's like doppleganger-time.
 
564Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 07:31
Somehow bringing up the dog is "to wrench this thread back on topic". Nevermind the hiding of stress test results until the gov't has given the all clear and supposedly having an administration that wants transparency. No, let's talk about the dog. That must be what the Daily Kos tells all their people at the end of orientation. They give them a Botox epi-pen in case of emergencies and then a "Dummies" type book of ways to change the conversation in a debate.
 
565Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 08:32
That must be what the Daily Kos tells all their people at the end of orientation. They give them a Botox epi-pen in case of emergencies and then a "Dummies" type book of ways to change the conversation in a debate.

You really think this is well-reasoned political debate? Really? When will you realize the reason you guys can't get anyone from your side of the aisle to stick around is that this is what passes for commentary on the right here? Why would any knowledgable, self-respecting conservative looking to take part in political discussion at a respectable level want to enter a forum where that is a typical comment from his side of the aisle?

You really think your head-in-ass and no'shit-sherlock and cheetos photos are in any way clever?

You think the pasted quote above is clever?

Really?

A guy can't note that he happens to have the same (rather uncommon) breed of dog as the president? OK you maybe you rib him or challenge the notion that the dog is more on-topic than bank "stress tests."

But Daily Kos orientations and botox epi-pens and debate for dummies books?

Really?
 
566Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 09:08
Just once, a liberal around here needs to admit they are defeated. The credibility level would go sky high.
 
567Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 09:30
Admit defeat? You mean in debate at thjis forum? In 10 years I don't believe I've ever seen anyone ever concede their "greater argument". But for the record, the liberals here are much more likely to concede their smaller points. For example right in this thread, my first sentence in posts 262 admits that Baldwin might be right (over my initial characterization of what Limbaugh said). Of course a close reading of the transcript confirms that B was in fact mistaken, but it's not like I clung to my points so strongly as to refuse to consider the possibility I was wrong.

I will of course also point out that it was old Baldy who refused to back off his statements in 256, even though he was thoroughly and unequivocally proved wrong in #259. Did he "admit dfeat"? No. He changed the subject.
 
568Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 10:08
In 10 years I don't believe I've ever seen anyone ever concede their "greater argument".

As recently as a few days ago I admitted Coulter was wrong on gun restrictions in NY. And I've lost count on how many times I've disagreed with Bush.

the liberals here are much more likely to concede their smaller points

Wrong, they're in the tank for Obama. Can you honestly say that what PD does is anything less than full blown idol worship of the Obama Administration?
 
569Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 10:21
Do you really think you've won an argument? All you've done is tried to make some half-assed argument that the stress test findings should be made public HALFWAY through because Obama ran on a campaign of bringing transparency back to government while ignoring the fact that it is already against federal law to disclose the results and that the need for transparency does not and should not override more pressing concerns, like maintaining the integrity of the tests and preventing an unnecessary bank scare.
 
570Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 10:25
I can.

Of course, much of my defense of Obama is over the stupid things, like defending against "Obama is a monstrous socialist hellbent on taking away your guns" and other crap.

And I've made no effort to hide the fact that issues-wise and temperment-wise, I've been a supporter of Obama for some time. This is not a political defect.

When Obama does something I disagree with, I say so. But so far there hasn't been much I've found disagreeable, which is what you might expect from someone with whom I find much common ground.

The fact that you found a lot of disagreement with Bush doesn't give you any more standing in a debate. It could be just that Bush simply wasn't a person with whom you had much policy agreement.
 
571Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 10:41
Boxman

Coulter was wrong on gun restrictions in NY... how many times I've disagreed with Bush.

That's terrific that you're objective enough to be willing to occasionally agree that Ann Coulter or George W Bush is wrong about something (not sure that I've ever seen you raise an issue with them on your own - maybe Bush once or twice, certainly never Coulter - but it's better than nothing) but when you say, "a liberal around here needs to admit they are defeated." I think most people assume a person admitting defeat means admitting that he or she is wrong, not acknowledging that a fellow rightist/leftist or a fellow Republican/Democrat is wrong about something.

If by, "Just once, a liberal around here needs to admit they are defeated." all you meant was that you'd like to see a liberal openly disagree with a fellow liberal, I'm quite sure that honest research would show that the liberals here are more likely to challenge their own. And further, we don't have to shelter ourselves by challenging their liberal bona-fides with leftist equivolents of words like neocon and RINO to do it.

"...full blown idol worship of the Obama Administration"? No. There are far worse examples of that than anything that PD has posted here. A good example of idol worship would be how much of the right regards their patron saint, Ronald Reagan. Check out your superhero AZDBacker's blog, Patriot Room, where he has a daily feature in which he posts Ronald Reagan quote each day. Or consider the "Zombie Reagan" movement, which is based on the notion that the decayed corpse of Saint Ronald is better qualified to run the country than whatever liberal or RINO the Zombie Reagan evoker happens to be running down at the time.

Obama has been president for less than 3 months. To accuse someone here of "idol worship" simply for having not yet publicly disagreed with him about anything is ridiculously premature. Can you honestly say that you've never gone 3 months without criticizing GWB here?

And if you want to criticize obsessive Obama-related behavior, the political right far outperforms the left. You will be hard pressed to find the type of fawning that one would call "idol worship" equivolent to the vicious attacks the right has consistantly levied against him in the ongoing agenda to dehumanize him. I've repeated the littany of ridiclous assaults on his character enough times at this forum that I shouldn't have to again.
 
572Pancho Villa
      ID: 233231222
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 10:44
they're in the tank for Obama.

And the right is committed to opposing anything Obama-related or even unrelated.

Yesterday, this column by conservative columnist
Austin Hill provides a good example of the lengths to which the right will go to distort reality in an attempt to demonize Obama.

Here's just one of hundreds of typical comments on the column:


A cowardly President
There is no other explanation for Obama’s lack of action. Diplomacy be damned. It is time for gun boat diplomacy. Captain Philips himself acknowledged that he knew he was taking a risk by sailing into these waters. Now if these pirates are allowed to get away because President “Yellow Stripe” refuses to do anything but flap his lip when an America ship is attacked on the open seas Then every ship under our flag will be an easy target.


Of course, Captain Phillips was rescued, alive and well, later in the day. Yet, I don't see anyone posting on this forum that President Obama, our Commander in Chief, is responsible for saving the hostage and dispatching 4 pirates.

That would qualify as being in the tank for Obama, but it would still be a more honest characterization than the one offered by Austin Hill and applauded by those who are obsessed with hating(not just opposing) the President.
 
573Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 11:04
Are they going to share the stress test results with the banks' external auditors?

Are the auditors seeking this information as a part of their on-going audit requirements.

How do these stress tests done by federal workers differ from an audit done by professional auditors? Why would they be better?
 
574Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 11:45
I don't think they are better at all B7 (in fact, my own take is that the tests aren't really very difficult, and therefore somewhat useless as a diagnostic tool). I think a letter writer to Andrew Sullivan pointed out that when Citi had some difficulty it took over 100 examiners months just to dig through their mortgage transactions--just for one bank.

My own take is that this is all just gloss. Maybe because they are fearful for more bad news.
 
575Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 12:14
The other possibility is that the tests were done to buy time to acquire staff and put together a plan to nationalize the banks. That is how nationalization should occur - quietly and quickly. I don't think it is going to happen, though.
 
576Perm Dude
      ID: 193231017
      Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 19:10
The Failure Hopers look silly. Again.
 
578Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 06:21
Obama has been president for less than 3 months. To accuse someone here of "idol worship" simply for having not yet publicly disagreed with him about anything is ridiculously premature. Can you honestly say that you've never gone 3 months without criticizing GWB here?

Let me know when Obama has lost god-king Xerxes-like status with the liberal posters here and I'll treat them with more respect.
 
579Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 07:34
I think everyone here would be better off you you displayed a bit more self-respect instead.
 
580Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Thu, Apr 16, 2009, 12:14
For all those saying that they are getting a tax cut from Obomba, I'm just curious what they call the reduced ability to deduct your mortgage interest.

If you refi and save $1,000 per year on interest and you are in the 25% bracket, your tax bill will go up by $250.

Now, they are better off because they saved the $1,000, but how many people will actually pocket the $250 they'll need at tax time?

So yes while they are saving money it is misleading to call these things tax cuts unless the percentages Obomba states include the increased liability from a refinanced mortgage.
 
581Perm Dude
      ID: 12325168
      Thu, Apr 16, 2009, 12:42
First of all, don't be a child, Boxman. Use his name.

If you refi and save $1,000 per year on interest and you are in the 25% bracket, your tax bill will go up by $250.

It is hard to respond to such a silly point. If you pay less in mortgage interest because you re-financed then yes, you will be able to deduct less if you itemize because you are actually paying less in mortgage interest income. This is not a tax. The amount of money "saved" on your taxes is tiny, however. The mortgage interest deduction is not a tax credit but a deduction from gross income. The amount of tax change isn't one-to-one with what you pay in mortgage interest, but rather what the tax is on the change in your gross income.

That is why it is silly: If you save, say, $250/year in interest payments, you will "lose" the ability to deduct $250 off your gross income, and the resultant tax on that amount.

[Another reason this is silly: All this is true for any Administration, and any deductible]

Meanwhile, Obama lowered the threshholds for claiming child tax credits, increased standard deductions for taxpayers under $75K/$150K, eliminated taxes for the first $2400 in unemployement income, etc etc.
 
582Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 12:53
Obomba Says Cut 100 Million

The president held his first Cabinet meeting Monday morning and ordered his department heads to draft ways to trim the federal fat.

The $100 million figure represents a drop in the bucket of the president's $3.5 trillion budget proposal, and would do little to erase the more than $1.2 trillion deficit that has become the rallying cry of fiscal conservatives.


100 million? Oh gee thanks. How about 100 million per day everyday for a year?
 
583bibA
      ID: 83301317
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 13:50
Just shocking that Box would find Obama calling for ways to cut expenses to be a negative thing. What a surprise!
 
584Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 14:33
How about 100 million per day everyday for a year?

sure thing. let's pull out of Iraq tomorrow. it'll save seven times that.

you game?

you complaining about obama trying to make cuts after Bush turned a surplus into the largest deficit ever, is amazing.

but yea, pulling out of iraq could easily make your dreams come true.
 
585boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 14:49
you are correct about pulling out of Iraq, but I think you are wrong about the second part i think 2009's is largest deficit ever, but because the year is over it does not count, cause i guess the goverment could win the Lotto or something.
 
586Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 15:07
right. that 2009 deficit was, by and large, inherited from Bush.
 
587Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 15:22
Just shocking that Box would find Obama calling for ways to cut expenses to be a negative thing. What a surprise!

What % of the budget is 100 million?

let's pull out of Iraq tomorrow. it'll save seven times that.

you game?


OK sure. But can you show we spend 700 million per day in Iraq?
 
588Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 15:24
700 million per day in Iraq?

Actually it was over $900 million per day in Iraq for a long time.

It was $87billion every 3 months.
 
589Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 15:39
Added to the amount spent through 2008, it would mean the Iraq war will have cost taxpayers a total of about $694 billion.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this figure is accurate, $694 billion divided by about 75 months since the start of the Iraq War comes to 9,253,333,333 per month, which comes to some $308,000,000.00 per day, or only tripled the $100,000,000.00 per day that Boxman feels would be a more sound budget cut.
 
590Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 15:51
thanks MITH.

i stand corrected. my apologies.

Box, it's only 300 million a day.

still game to pull out out of Iraq to save that money?
 
591Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 16:03
I've been wanting out of Iraq for a while. I don't know what point you're trying to prove with that.

You have to admit 100 million total dollars is a joke and nothing more than a headline and a poor one at that. Let's see Obomba get serious and make it 100 billion or God willing even more.
 
592Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 16:06
100 million is a good start.

it's already much better than the Bush Regime ever did.
 
593Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 17:01
100 million is a good start.

What is that as a % of the annual federal deficit?
 
594tree, on the treo
      ID: 55220277
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 17:12
per a complex algorithm, the percentage is "a good start"....
 
595Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 17:13
Silly squabble. On both sides.
 
596Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 17:32
100 million is a good start.

What is that as a % of the annual federal deficit?


100,000,000 / 1,000,000,000,000 = .0001 or .01%
 
597Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 17:39
lol @ #596.
 
598Frick
      ID: 3410551012
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 19:39
CNN.com

1E8/3.67E12 = 2.72E-5

Or 0.0027%

Granted you need to multiply that by the number of cabinet heads that were effected, 15.

So you get a grand total savings of 0.041%
 
599Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 10:18
Greg Sargent @ The Plumb Line:
An interesting, if subtle, shift in Obama’s tone: He’s taken to openly mocking GOP criticism of his willingness to diplomatically engage hostile foreign leaders.

You saw the new tone on display over the weekend, where Obama was questioned by reporters about the widespread GOP criticism of a warm handshake moment he had with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. GOP Senator John Ensign, for instance, said it was “irresponsible” to be seen “laughing and joking” with him.

Obama replied, in part:
Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.
Obama, in short, ridiculed the very idea that we should see Chavez as a threatening figure, and threw in a bit of mockery of the reporters, to boot.

It’s worth recalling that there was a time when Dems would quake with fear about national security attacks coming from the right, let alone respond to them with outright mockery. In this sense, Obama’s tone underscores how much the political climate has shifted on such matters.

It’s also a sign of his confidence that the public is with him — and has little trust in the Republicans — even on questions of national security. He appears to feel on solid enough ground that he can respond to the basic ideas underlying Republican efforts to depict him as weak with little more than contempt and derision.
 
600Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 10:19
Emphasis mine.
 
601Pancho Villa
      ID: 143302017
      Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 12:36
he can respond to the basic ideas underlying Republican efforts to depict him as weak with little more than contempt and derision.

IMO, Obama's foreign policy positions are his strength, especially in light of the former administration's eagerness to depict nations as 'enemies' without a solid foundation for these depictions.

Obama is more vulnerable in the domestic spending and growth of government issues. Republicans would do well to keep their focus at home after 8 years of overly aggressive and expensive foreign policy misadventures.
 
602Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 20:00
I would be interested to know what PD thinks Obama's vulnerabilities are.
 
603Perm Dude
      ID: 4032209
      Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 23:17
Well, no surprise there. I think he is most vulnerable on those areas with which I have the strongest disagreements with him:

-Farm policy: Spending billions of dollars a year on agribusiness, and millions of dollars a year to grow food that ends up in our gas tanks. Of course, this is one of the few areas where Obama will have support among traditional "red" counties. But strictly on the issue of wasteful massive government spending, the Farm Bill should have a big-ass target.

-NAFTA: He seems to be waffling on NAFTA, which makes his seem to be waffling on free trade. He needs to be firmly on the side of free trade despite this putting him at odds with his union supporters (who are already feeling defensive because of the loss of support for EFCA.

-Torture prosecutions: This seems like a possible third rail to me. By going after CIA people but not higher up, he may make is seem like he is seeking low-level scapegoats (see Abu Ghraib). On the other hand, if he goes after Cheney (or Bush) without some clear smoking gun and laying out a public case beforehand he risks seemingly acting as if Justice were an arm of the White House (hmmm...where would he get that idea).

These are just three off the top of my head. Now, back to work. I wasted two hours today in a dull "Meet the Candidates" meeting and I haven't caught up yet.
 
604Seattle Zen
      ID: 4333221
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 02:23
Torture prosecutions: This seems like a possible third rail to me. By going after CIA people but not higher up, he may make is seem like he is seeking low-level scapegoats (see Abu Ghraib). On the other hand, if he goes after Cheney (or Bush) without some clear smoking gun and laying out a public case beforehand he risks seemingly acting as if Justice were an arm of the White House (hmmm...where would he get that idea).

You may want to get a better grasp of what has happened before you make any decisions on his vulnerabilities here. He has specifically said that CIA agents will not see prosecution. He's going very slow before making a decision on possible prosecution of Executive branch parties. The DOJ's office of professional responsibility is doing its own investigation into the authors of these memos and no decision will be made until that is complete.

There is no way Dick Cheney could be brought up on charges, he has no authority to order the CIA or Defense to torture people. David Addington, however, was co-author of many of these abominations. The highest possible targets are Rumsfeld and GW because they did make the orders authorizing torture. There is no need for a "smoking gun". The memos lay out in exacting detail what sort of torture Americans were allowed to conduct. The argument is soley one of Executive power. Addington and his bunch firmly believe that the President is allowed to ignore any US law circumscribing the Executive's ability to respond to the enemy while at war - and we were/are at war with the Terrorists! That also extends to any international treaty the US signed. Any provision that hampers the Executive in his ability to conduct the War on Terror does not apply in times of war.

Yeah, it's fu*king ridiculous, I know, but they swear by it.

These arguments are losers for the attorneys who made them. I just don't see Rumsfeld or Bush facing charges because they didn't generate the stupid arguments, they just agreed and made them orders.

No one, absolutely no one with any shred of journalistic integrity would try to rehash the whole "politicizing the DOJ" argument and say, "you see, he's doing it too...". Which is why I imagine we'll start hearing just that from Fox News.
 
605Perm Dude
      ID: 4032209
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 03:29
He has specifically said that CIA agents will not see prosecution.

Well, actually, they've been saying a lot of things, and while he said "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution" in the same memo he also says "The United States is a nation of laws."

Obama has already taken some hits for his blanket immunity for the CIA agents--not from the FOX news crowd as you contend would be the people doing the whining, but from leftists and moderate groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights.

If those memos outline illegal behavior as a cover for the Administration who ordered them up, it is difficult to see that they offer any cover for those actually on the front lines slamming prisoners into walls, waterboarding people, and so on.

I understand why Obama made the offer: He doesn't need or want a low-level CIA revolt. But by taking off the table the people who actually carried out the torture (and therefore were in a much better place to know that it was torture or not), he makes himself vulnerable.
 
606Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 09:45
I believe you are incorrect, PD. From what I have seen, Obama is going to leave it up to DoJ to determine if those who wrote the memos are criminally liable. That's what he means when he says, "we're a nation of laws." He wants Colonel Jessup and Markinson, not Private Dawson and Private Downey.
 
607Perm Dude
      ID: 4032209
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 11:26
Obama is going to leave it up to DoJ to determine if those who wrote the memos are criminally liable.

I think that might be correct. But the quote I gave in 605 isn't in reference to the letter writers--it is to the torture givers.
 
608Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 12:21
Do you guys see the possible damage to the country or future Presidents and Administrations that would be caused by marching Bush, Rumsfeld or other high level officials before a judge?
 
609Perm Dude
      ID: 4032209
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 12:30
Not if they are found guilty. Holding officials accountable under the law is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if there is short-term unheavals.

 
610Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 12:56
Do you guys see the possible damage to the country or future Presidents and Administrations...

I do. It's a terrible question to have to grapple with. Lots of ethical and pragmatic factors to consider.

Today on American Morning one of the most thuggish things I've ever heard on Fox News Channel was uttered when one of the hosts (during a tag team assault on Obama that was precisely the opposite of anything resembling fair and balanced coverage) suggested that Obama risks being brought up on criminal charges of his own as a revenge tactic if he should go through with charging Bush officials for torturing prisoners.

Stop and think about that for a moment. Imagine the reaction of some on this forum had Matt Lauer made such a "suggestion".

The fact is it's not easy for anyone, especially the current administration. The further the DOJ pushes foward, the more it will be painted by the torture-apologist-right as all sorts of manner of anti-patriotic liberal activity; they'll cite continued Bush Derangement Syndrome, claim it's revenge for the Clinton impeachment, surely some will seize on the opportunity to declare it the beginning stage of the anti-conservative witch-hunt as laid out by DHS. And to some extent, that last item might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone who thinks Hannity and Coulter and Limbaugh and Beck are unhinged now hasn't seen anything yet. You really think Obama believes it's in his best interest to fuel that?

But we have to look. We have to know how egregious their activity was. And there is definitely a line that, if crossed, must lead to charges. I can't say that I know exactly where that is, but wherever it is, I know for sure that this (if true) is well beyond it.
 
611Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 13:03
Do you believe anyone on the left is capable of measured common sense?

You really think Obama believes it's in his best interest to fuel that?

Yup, he wants to isolate them, draw out reactions and then demonize those reactions.
 
612Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 13:09
Do you believe anyone on the left is capable of measured common sense?

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Tell me, Baldwin, have you spoken out even. one. word. in opposition to the torture conducted by the previous administration?

One word?

Anywhere?
 
613Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 13:17
Do you guys see the possible damage to the country or future Presidents and Administrations that would be caused by marching Bush, Rumsfeld or other high level officials before a judge?

of course. the thought that our president and members of his cabinets committed heinous crimes is one i'd prefer to perish.

but just because someone is a high ranking government official doesn't make them above the law.

the damage of NOT charging those who commit crimes just because of their title or office or position in the government is potentially much more damaging in the long haul, because it'll give carte blanche to future presidents, and, by extension, other nations saying "hey, it was good enough for the U.S., why not us?"
 
614Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 13:28
If the link in 610 is true, yes, Rumsfeld and Cheney should be held criminally liable. I think at the very least that the authors of the memos should be and will be brought to trial. The United States of America is not in the business of torturing to build a case for war.
 
615Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 14:40
Mith: You really think Obama believes it's in his best interest to fuel that?

Baldwin: Yup, he wants to isolate them, draw out reactions and then demonize those reactions.

Interesting that he would rather be able to more easily "demonize" them than leave accessable the legal aparatus Bush set in place to more easily torture them.

I think Obama has a thing or two to learn about establishing New World Order, huh?
 
616Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 06:02
I think he's the leading practitioner which is why foreign funders bankrolled him instead of Hillary.
 
617Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 06:38
AP Poll: Americans high on Obama, direction of US

Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington...

In October 2008, just 17 percent said the country was headed in the right direction. After his victory, that jumped to 36 percent. It dipped a bit in December but returned to 35 percent around the time of his inauguration and has headed upward since.

Obama is keenly aware that his political prospects are directly linked to such numbers. If at the end of his term the public is no more assured that Washington is competent and accountable and that the nation is at least on the right track, his re-election prospects will be doubtful.

Obama himself has conceded as much.

"I will be held accountable," he said a few weeks into his presidency. "You know, I've got four years. ... If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
 
618Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 07:09


 
619Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 07:12
Huh. The ones with Jesus on them go for $8.
 
620Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 07:57
and now i understand why there is that percentage of white america pissed off about Obama...it's that he's now selling more votive candles than that other white guy, Elvis!
 
621Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 08:03
For the record, Republicans are depicted on religious accessories too:
 
622Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 13:22
 
623Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 16:25
 
624weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 17:28
The media fawns over the Obama's for almost a year and the best they can do is 63% and 76%?
Pretty pathetic considering the amount of positive spin put on everything.
It will be interesting to see where the numbers end up when the press turns on him.
 
625Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 17:33
Heh. Among the best numbers ever, and it is "pathetic" eh?

Perhaps your biases need some tinkering.
 
626Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 17:39
Oh... I think you gotta let them eat a cookie once in a while.

Sure, weykool, how embarrassing it must be for Obama to have a paltry 63% approval.

Feel better?
 
627Razor
      ID: 41323216
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 19:29
So weykool, the American public is gullible and dumb, but you see right through the media hype. Please tell us what Obama has done so far to warrant disapproval.
 
628weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 10:45
A multi billion dollar add campaign by the MSM and the best he can do is +7 over the hated Bush?
Yes...pathetic indeed.
Lets also not forget the race issue.
It would be interesting to see what the difference is between blacks who would not have a favorable rating for Bush but would have a favorable rating for Obama no matter what.
My guess would be a +10 swing here.

The people who are being duped are those who only see what the person who puts out the numbers want you to see.
 
629weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 10:48
#627.

Pushing a socialist adgenda that will bankrupt the country and ruin Amaerica for years to come.
When you have a volitile economic crisis you dont solve the problem by throwing gasoline on an open fire.
 
630Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 10:54
hated Bush

I don't believe Bush was "hated" in April of 2001. GWB's disapproval rating was about the same as Obama, far better than, Clinton.

Your position that loyal Democratic Party voters who happen to be black count less for some reason than Democratic Party voters who aren't black is noted.
 
631boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 10:59
I don't believe Bush was "hated" in April of 2001.

you must have forgot how many people said he did not win the election or maybe the protests at his inauguration...he was definitely hated by large portion of the population.
 
632Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:11
Boikin

GWB was despised by a very loud and angry minority at the time. Which is no different from the current anti-Obama crowd. While no eggs may have been thrown on inauguration day this year, I don't recall the political left riling up anything like a quarter-million protestors on any day of April, 2001, either.
 
633boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:25
Mith I think you have selective memory. I agree with weykool to extent that the media up until and couple days after inauguration pretty much fell all over themselves make Obama seem like the greatest thing since slice bread, but with that said i think they have done a pretty good job of being fairly even handed since then.

The coverage of the first lady in Europe was just embarrassing.
 
634Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:31
you must have forgot how many people said he did not win the election or maybe the protests at his inauguration...he was definitely hated by large portion of the population.

What a load of hooey. Yes, people thought he shouldn't have been president. But his approval ratings (in which we can measure the hooey level of your statement) reflect nothing of the sort.

Weycool: This is not a gas fire. Sometimes, when there is a credit crisis, you do, indeed, throw money out there to open up the credit markets.

You are not a dumb person (far from it, from what I've read from your posts over time). But you appear to be acting dumb in this case, by refusing to see that different problems require different solutions.
 
635Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:33
Think the hardcore right would ever support Bush the way the Democrats did after 9/11? Ha!

 
636Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:35
Your position that loyal Democratic Party voters who happen to be black count less for some reason than Democratic Party voters who aren't black is noted.

Where is anybody saying this?

Your feeble attempt at labeling weykool a racist is also noted.

#630 I don't believe Bush was "hated" in April of 2001.

#632 GWB was despised by a very loud and angry minority at the time.(April 2001)

FYI....You lose credibility with conflicting statements like ths.

 
637Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:38
He doesn't need me to label him:

It would be interesting to see what the difference is between blacks who would not have a favorable rating for Bush but would have a favorable rating for Obama no matter what.

Why am I supposed to factor out blacks who wouldn't vote for Bush but would vote for Obama "no matter what"? For what reason do they count less than whites who wouldn't vote for Bush but would vote for Obama "no matter what"?
 
638Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:46
It should be noted that Bush didn't do squat his first 8 months or so in office. He gave his first televised address in August 2001. He made his first judicial appointments in May 2001. He spent much of his first 9 months on "working vacations" in Crawford.

There certainly was some residual anger at the election, and Bush literally did nothing to change the minds of people. Nevertheless, to say that there was a sizable core of "hatred" out there among Democrats time shifts the anti-war protesters back to the beginning of the Bush Administration.
 
639Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:51
#630 I don't believe Bush was "hated" in April of 2001.

#632 GWB was despised by a very loud and angry minority at the time.(April 2001)

FYI....You lose credibility with conflicting statements like ths.


When I said Bush wasn't hated, it was in response to weykool, in the context he used it, in which he intended the term very broadly, as in; "the best he can do is +7 over the hated Bush". The *only* way this sentence makes sense is if he means that Bush was hated by so many people that a mere 7 point improvement is not an impressive approval rating.

So my response, in the context he chose (which I agree, is somewhat sloppy and ambiguous - but let's face it, that's what you get from the right side of this forum these days) was to disagree with the assessment that Bush was hated by a very large portion of people. And indeed, in my very next sentence, I clarified that; GWB's disapproval rating was about the same as Obama, far better than, Clinton.

It's you who loses credibility for taking me out of context, Building 7.
 
640Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:52
Boikin 633
I think you have selective memory. I agree with weykool to extent that the media up until and couple days after inauguration pretty much fell all over themselves make Obama seem like the greatest thing since slice bread

Where are you saying I've denied this?
 
641boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 11:54
What a load of hooey. Yes, people thought he shouldn't have been president. But his approval ratings (in which we can measure the hooey level of your statement) reflect nothing of the sort.

you show me where it says anything about his hated level in that poll?
 
642Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 12:17
Boikin 641
you show me where it says anything about his hated level in that poll?

Again, weykool's point, which you were defending in post 631 was that Bush was hated *by so many people* that a 7 point improvement on his approval rating can only be a disappointment for Obama.

The point that PD and I are both making is that hatred for Bush at the time, while highly visible, was not nearly so widespread as to render a 7 point hike in approval-rating pathetic (as weykool put it).

This is illustrated, as PD notes, by simply looking at the disapprove numbers. For both GWB and Obama at the 100 day mark, about a quarter of the country disapproved, meaning that the portion of people who *hated* them, cannot be more than that.

Now, you might argue that as many as 25% of the population *hating* the president is terrible, but in the context of recent history, that argument is poured from a dribble-glass.
 
643weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 13:07
Clarification:

The "Hated Bush" I was referring to was the MSM who some went so far as to refer to him as "President Select".
Obviously the hate Bush campaign was just getting started otherwise he would not have had a 56% approval rating.
Contrast that with the fawning by the MSM over the last 9 months and billions of dollars spent to make Obama the second coming and it only results in a +7%.....hence the term pathetic.

On the race issue.
Yes, the majority of blacks would support Obama just because he is liberal.
However, the question still is remains....how much of the 63% are black people who are giving him a thumbs up just because he is black?
Is it 2%?...3%?
Racism is racism...no matter what color your skin happens to be.
 
644Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 13:25
weykool, interesting that's what you think racism is. You're wrong, but interesting.

How well do you think Condi Rice or Colin Powell poll with blacks?

As long as the opposition to Obama remains meaningless rhetoric like "pushing a socialist agenda that will bankrupt the country and ruin America for years to come," then Obama will continue to poll well and the angry, clumsy minority will just get angrier and clumsier.
 
645boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 13:45
re 642, i was not defending weykools arguement i was pointing out that thought you were wrong, there is a difference and if anything i was pointing out he was wrong too.

As for Obama time will tell, who cares what his popularity is right now. I think he has made a lot of good decisions and i also think that some of his policies are potently detrimental to country in long term. Do i agree that at times he seems to be moving us towards a European style socialist country, yes. I think the question we need to be asking our selves not if we are moving in that direction, but does it matter. Even if he is not moving us in that direction his successors will be.
 
646Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 13:56
weykool 643
I was referring to was the MSM who some went so far as to refer to him as "President Select".

Obama has had more than his share of negative coverage in the mainstream press as well. We could go back and forth all day citing examples of pundits and columnists who have crossed a line in their criticism. I will point out that during there was no mainstream media outlet in 2001 providing anti-Bush coverage that is anything like the 24-hour hate-fest that we get every day on Fox News Channel in 2009. The New York Times had no feature that approached the daily barrage of Fox and Friends, Megyn Kelly, Glen Beck, Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity. In April of 2001 there was no daily anti-Bush radio programming with anything close to the following and reach of Rush limbaugh.


how much of the 63% are black people who are giving him a thumbs up just because he is black?
Is it 2%?...3%?


Well, 95% of black voters voted for Obama. The average percentage of the black vote going to the Dem candidates in the 7 previous elections is 87%. So, based on that info alone (ignoring every other relevant demographic result which might distort this reasoning, in particular that blacks have been trending away from the GOP in general for something like a decade) you might surmise that 8.5% of the black vote for Obama was due to racism. Given that 13% of Americans are black and assuming they were fairly represented in the approval ratings poll, we arrive at a figure of about 1% (8.5% of 13%) as an answer to your question;

how much of the 63% are black people who are giving him a thumbs up just because he is black? Does it occur to you to ask how many white racists who would otherwise support a Democrat president do not approve of Obama?

boikin 645
i was not defending weykools arguement i was pointing out that thought you were wrong

Wrong about what? As I will now have 3 times, I was responding to weykool in the context I thought he intended. Turns out now it was something about the media, so the point is even more moot now than it was before.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain this selective memory accusation you lobbed.
 
647biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 13:57
What is your definition of "socialism", Boikin?

Literally every single thing that any President including Bush, and even the reddest of GOP dominated Congress ever does redistributes wealth in some direction.

If redistribution of wealth is your definition of socialism then you are confused.

If you are against social safety nets then you haven't thought through the consequences.

If you are only for redistribution up the ladder, than you must be rich. Can I borrow some money?
 
648boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 14:31
And I'm still waiting for you to explain this selective memory accusation you lobbed.

that he was not hated...

What is your definition of "socialism", Boikin? I actually used the wrong term, i was actually thinking of European or Continental capitalism not socialism. whoops i had socialism on the brain.


If you are against social safety nets then you haven't thought through the consequences.

I will answer this with a question that was once posed by my photography professor, if we removed all the seat belts in cars and replaced them with spikes that killed the driver immediately on impact what would the result be?

 
649Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:02
I will answer this with a question that was once posed by my photography professor, if we removed all the seat belts in cars and replaced them with spikes that killed the driver immediately on impact what would the result be?

Traffic accidents would go down as a result of slower and more careful driving. The percentage of fatalities from traffic accidents would go from maybe 0.5% to 100%, more than likely leading to an increase in fatalities as accidents are sometimes unavoidable. Worst of all though is that every driver in America would spend more of their time driving and less of their time living their lives due to a sharp increase in crime.

So to your point, not having any safety nets doesn't prevent people from falling to the bottom. It just makes it worse than when they do, and generally worse for everyone else, regardless if they fall or not.
 
650Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:09
I really don't understand how conservatives can insist this is a "Christian nation" and then advocate for the removal of social safety nets intended to help the least fortunate.

I don't know that boikin has advocated either--just throwing it out there.
 
651boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:11
That was about my answer to the question but not his. His was yes in the short term people would be worse off they would not have adapted to driving more cautiously, but over time they would adapt, drive less find alternatives (walking, trains...) but in the end world would be a better place.
 
652Seattle Zen
      ID: 513492410
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:13
if we removed all the seat belts in cars and replaced them with spikes that killed the driver immediately on impact what would the result be?

Well, I'd hire David Addington to be my personal driver and have him take me on a whirlwind tour of Tijuana...

LOL!
 
653Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:34
Driving is a choice. Demonstrating that making one choice dangerous will make people change their choices (and therefore their behavior) doesn't speak to the need for a safety net to help catch those without choices at all.

A social safety net also is necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of the rest of us. Getting rid of unemployment benefits, food stamps, short-term welfare, and the many other social safety nets would hardly make the rest of us safer, even if you agreed (which I don't) that the circumstances triggering the safety nets were entirely the result of bad choices.

Our country is far greater as a result of taking care of its least fortunate citizens at the times they need it most. Morally and financially.
 
654Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:36
The "Hated Bush" I was referring to was the MSM who some went so far as to refer to him as "President Select".
Obviously the hate Bush campaign was just getting started otherwise he would not have had a 56% approval rating.


it has NOTHING to do with the MSM, although it's a wonderfully convenient excuse to use when any republican/conservative falters.

and i believe it has everything to do with the war in Iraq being a terrible idea, coupled ultimately by a failing economy.

i would be willing to bet that Bush's rating held steady in his first several months in office with almost no decline, skyrocketed when 9/11 happened, began a descent when the run-up to the war was going on (but probably was more of a natural leveling off after the 9/11 spike), went back up again when the war STARTED, leveled off again, and then began a steady descent when people realized the war was an awful awful idea...
 
655Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:44
i would be willing to bet...

Um, see #635. I don't think anyone (else) reading this thread would take you up on that...

:)
 
656Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:47
That was about my answer to the question but not his. His was yes in the short term people would be worse off they would not have adapted to driving more cautiously, but over time they would adapt, drive less find alternatives (walking, trains...) but in the end world would be a better place.

Well, there are lots and lots of countries without safety nets. Meanwhile, we're the greatest country on Earth.
 
657Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:53
for whatever reason, whatever you linked to on 635 is a broken link for me. i wasnt able to see it earlier today either...

i'm guessing it's some sort of graph regarding bush's ratings..lol
 
658Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:56
just copy the URL from the image properties and paste it into a browser.
 
659weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 16:29
I really don't understand how conservatives can insist this is a "Christian nation" and then advocate for the removal of social safety nets intended to help the least fortunate.

Talk about the ultimate strawman arguement...perhaps you could point out were anyone in this discussion advocated the removal of all safety nets?
Are those the only two choices?
No safety net vs full blown socialism?

My personal concern is not removing the safety net but finding a way to limit all of the safety hammocks.
The question is during Katrina which was more effective...the $100 the government took from me so they could hand out debit cards so "victims" could buy sneakers, jewelry or fur coats or the $50 I sent to the Red Cross that actually did a hell of a job helping the victims?

Tree:
The approval ratings for the first 100 days had nothing to do with the Iraq war.
The negative stories about Bush started long before the war.
 
660Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 16:31
Talk about the ultimate strawman arguement...perhaps you could point out were anyone in this discussion advocated the removal of all safety nets?

This is boikin's point.
 
661Pancho Villa
      ID: 50322248
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 16:56
The question is during Katrina which was more effective...the $100 the government took from me so they could hand out debit cards so "victims" could buy sneakers, jewelry or fur coats or the $50 I sent to the Red Cross that actually did a hell of a job helping the victims?

And my question is:

At the time, did you feel the President was pushing a socialist agenda that would bankrupt the country and ruin Amaerica for years to come?


 
662weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 18:17
PV:

I do recall at the time there was criticicm that FEMA was too slow to react to the crisis and my thought was who the hell cares?
It was my understanding that FEMA processes paperwork that assists victims get low interest loans so they can rebuild.
Perhaps I am wrong, but who needs a loan when your life is in danger or you need a place to sleep and food to eat?
The ideal here would be for the government to coordinate the efforts of private charities and bring it to the attention of the American people to donate money or volunteer.
Lets face it in the end it was the charities and volunteers that made a bad situation bearable.

Are you asking if I think there is too much socialism in America?
Yes.
Since the last depression we have moved steadily towards a socialistic state.
Was Bush a socialist like Obama?
No.
But he didnt do enough to put the brakes on the socialist machine.
The longest running war in America is the War on Poverty.
Trillions of tax dollars spent on poverty and we are no closer to solving this problem than when war was declared.
 
663Razor
      ID: 41323216
      Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 02:08
I do recall at the time there was criticicm that FEMA was too slow to react to the crisis and my thought was who the hell cares?

You don't care that it took days to evacuate people from the Superdome or that FEMA did not have a plan in place to bring in supplies in a timely fashion? Because that is what the criticism was about.

The rest of your post is just unfocused nonsense. If charities could provide enough assistance to disaster survivors to help them get by, then there would be no need for the government to intervene. It's a flatout lie to suggest that they could provide food, shelter and other necessary supplies to the tens of thousands whose homes were ruined.
 
664Pancho Villa
      ID: 50322248
      Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 10:28
#662

You kind of missed my point, weykool.

I have no problem criticizing President Obama for programs and spending that further grow government intrusion in our lives, increase our debt and perpetuate a nanny state, as you point out referencing the failed War on Poverty.

My problem is with the drama queen rhetoric that has replaced civil and productive dialogue within the conservative movement.

Bankrupt the country and ruin America for years to come

falls into that category. If you're convinced that statement defines President Obama's objectives, then you've come to a conclusion without providing the necessary foundation to support the statement. This is a classic case of 'emotionalism', which the right applies as a basic weakness of the left.

I've voiced my opposition to Obama and the Democratic Congress's push for social spending. Obama won the presidential election and the Democrats won both houses of Congress, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that they're pushing an increased social agenda.

So I'm not asking you if there's too much socialism in America. I'm saying it would be more effective to frame your opposition in fundamental terms as opposed to emotionally-driven and hysterical rhetoric.
 
665Pancho Villa
      ID: 50322248
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 10:39
Iraq - Obama's fault

This upswing in violence comes on the heels of Obama’s new policies in the Middle East, which call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq starting this summer and lasting until 2011.

An upswing in violence is almost certainly related to Obama’s adjustments in troop numbers...

“I do think that we’re going to see increased violence as the result of Obama’s policies,” he said. “You can’t un-ring a bell. We’re drawing down in Iraq, so the enemy forces in Iraq have been energized by that.”


The upswing in violence caused by enemy forces in Iraq was the result of action by three suicide bombers. It is incomprehensible to believe that three suicide bombers would have been thwarted by a policy of continued troop presence at 2007 or 2008 levels or if McCain had won the presidential election.

Using the term enemy forces in Iraq is a dishonest interpretation of the radical element that enjoys no widespread support among any major group in the country, nor does it realistically evaluate how these elements have been 'energized', which would entail an in-depth examination of the growth of an organization, when, for all intensive purposes, we're dealing with a poorly-organized element that has been driven further and further underground, and whose 'successes' can be attributed to a few individuals bent on indiscriminate mayhem.

Yet, this is what passes for legitimate criticism of President Obama with many of today's conservatives, which shows that they are neither conservative nor patriotic.

 
666Perm Dude
      ID: 26439108
      Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:52
Save the rich people from Obama's scary social(ist) agenda!

Or, How the Chamber of Commerce Gave Up Critical Thinking Skills.
 
667Frick
      ID: 4945458
      Tue, May 12, 2009, 11:02
Re: 663

Who's fault was it that there was not a plan in place to either supply the people in the superdome or evacuate them? Is that FEMA's responsibility or the local and state government who provided the superdome as a staging location in the first place?

Should FEMA have been able to react more quickly? Yes. But what is their mission, to provide supplies and evacuations, or to assist the local and state governments in their efforts?

I realize that this issue is stale, but still seems odd to me that the state and local government officials seem to get a free pass on this issue.
 
668Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 13:55
US strike killed 95 children in Afghanistan

Sounds like more of Bush. I thought this was going to end under Obama.
 
669Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 14:03
I thought this was going to end under Obama

Who said that?
 
670Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 15:28
Me.

 
671TD
      Leader
      ID: 036331011
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 17:18
I think Obama is making a big mistake by increasing government spending so much when unemployment is high. I don't see how this will stimulate the economy. Because of the high unemployment, govt. revenues will decrease and the govt. deficit will greatly increase. Eventually the government won't find enough investors to borrow money from and will have to start printing money to pay off the interest on its debt. I think this is happening already. This will cause high inflation, a weak dollar, and reduce our standard of living.

I am a conservative and for a smaller government so I may be a bit biased. However, I would be interested others opinions on how all the increased spending will not cause many economic problems.

The American people elected Obama and a Democrat congress, so we will be getting a bigger government with more social programs during his term even though I am against it. However I don't think it is a good idea for these changes to be implemented at this time with the economy in its current state.
 
672boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 17:25
reduce our standard of living.

I think we are heading there anyway regardless of current administration's policies, though I think they are speeding up the process. Oh the bright side it will only be relative reduction in standard living considering we will still be living way better than we did 10 years ago.
 
673Perm Dude
      ID: 154111317
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 18:18
I agree.

There are some strong economic reasons for the government to increase its own spending right now, TD, and it has nothing to do with the expectation that Democrats will have a "bigger government with more social programs" (which probably isn't valid anyway--the last Democrat shrunk both). The key is for the government to take steps to make the depression less difficult, to bring about recovery quicker, and to help people in the meantime. It sucks that we have to do it right after such a huge increase in government spending under Bush and the GOP, but we can't pick when economic downturns come about (even though signs seem to point to Republican efforts at reducing oversight and regulation as some of the biggest reasons this currect downturn is so large and steep).

I've no doubt that it the situation was different than Obama would be acting different. But we don't have that choice right now, and stimulating the credit markets seems to be the way to go, even though it'll be painful for everyone in the meantime.
 
674Building 7
      ID: 9329258
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 19:05
The solution to too much debt is not.......more debt. And Obama is creating record amounts of debt. This Keynesian Ponzi scheme has to come to an end sometime, and the sooner the better. But the problem surfaced late in the Bush administration. So both parties are going to blame each other. Meanwhile the country and our freedoms will go down the crapper. Other than that, everythings good.

Eventually the government won't find enough investors to borrow money from and will have to start printing money to pay off the interest on its debt. I think this is happening already

I think they are printing up money, (actually just some entries on a computer) and using it to buy new treasury notes, also. This is pure inflation of the money supply. And it will cause the dollar to be worth less. But other countries are doing the same. So it may be wise to buy some hard assets.
 
675Perm Dude
      ID: 154111317
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 20:13
The solution to too much debt is not.......more debt.

In a vaccuum, or even normal circumstances, I'd agree. But we aren't trying to solve the debt problem right now. We're trying to solve an economy that is tanking because of reduced credit right now.

I think they are printing up money, (actually just some entries on a computer) and using it to buy new treasury notes, also.

I haven't seen any evidence of this at all. T-bills still continue to sell out as quickly as they are offered. There is nothing I can find that demonstrates that things are even much slower than usual at T-bill auctions.
 
676Perm Dude
      ID: 284531321
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 11:17
Washington Times runs a photo of the Obama kids to accompany a story on murdered Chicago schoolkids
 
677Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 12:49
According to the HuffPo story PD linked:
Editor John Solomon told Greg Sargent technology, not a person, was to blame.
"The theme engine, through automation, grabbed a photo it thought was relevant, and attached it to the story," Solomon said, acknowledging that the photo had gone up without a person seeing it. "There was no editorial decision to run it. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we pulled it down."
So the excuse is that it was an honest glitch where the software simply turned up a pic that it thought was apropriate. An acceptable excuse, I think, until you come across this link, which notes that the photo of the Obama girls was captioned:
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS The Obama daughters (above) - Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10 - attended the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. This school year 36 of the city's school children have been killed.
Obviously, someone at the Times had to write that copy, and in so doing, kowingly associate the Obama daughters with the story.

Simply abhorrent.
 
678Perm Dude
      ID: 284531321
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:41
Even if you accept the excuse on its face, why in the world would any newspaper use a machine to decide the appropriateness of accompanying images? The Washington Times has acknowledged that they use no editorial judgement at all on its photo uses.

 
679boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:45
agreed and how in world does a program find "appropriate" pictures?
 
680DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:47
I dunno, but if you can get me one, I'm writing a very thorough investigative report on hot nekkid women.
 
681boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:48
I think that would be "inappropriate" pictures.
 
682Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:52
I assume every photo in their bank has a series of keywords or key phrases attatched that their matching software searches through for apropriate accompanying photos.

This is the first time I've heard of such a system. I wonder how long they've been using it.

Regardless, the excuse is obviously a pathetic copout.
 
683rockafellerskank
      ID: 2511552911
      Thu, May 14, 2009, 18:22
Not sure where to put this. I was at The Arizona State University commencement ceremony yesterday where Obama spoke. Now, I didn't vote for Obama and I don't agree with everything he has done so far, but WOW, he gave an excellent speech.
link

text

I have nothing of value to add here, just a comment that I think the nation made the best choice. And, this is coming from a moderate republican.
 
684Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sat, May 16, 2009, 06:46
As if 'better than McCain' was a meaningful compliment.
 
685Perm Dude
      ID: 174121611
      Sat, May 16, 2009, 17:06
Obama taps Utah Governor Huntsman to be envoy to China

Brilliant move.
 
686sarge33rd
      ID: 444301616
      Sat, May 16, 2009, 17:31
As if 'better than McCain' was a meaningful compliment.

I'll use that in reference to shrub too in the future.
 
687Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Mon, May 18, 2009, 02:52
That works for me just fine.
 
688Pancho Villa
      ID: 424551717
      Mon, May 18, 2009, 08:45
Huntsman has been a terrific governor, and I hate to lose him, especially since his replacement, Lt Gov Gary Herbert, is more a right wing ideologue Republican.

It shows that Obama wants the best man for this key position, rather than a party lapdog. I doubt Obama will receive any kudos for this appointment from his critics, since most are committed to the position that Obama's goal is to destroy America, which will further marginalize the legitimacy of such criticisms.
 
689Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 18, 2009, 09:19
It shows that Obama wants the best man for this key position, rather than a party lapdog.

Agreed, tho I'm sure he expects nice political dividends, as well. Aside from another opportunity to boast crossing party lines, the GOP hasn't exactly been wholly pro-mormon recently. If this appointment is seen as any kind of outreach to that community, it, combined with the memory of evangelical suspicion of Romney during the 2008 primary season and Michael Steele's recent comments that the Republican base "has trouble with Mormonism" could pull some of that community away from the GOP.
 
690Frick
      ID: 4945458
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:30
I live near Notre Dame, the backlash against him speaking at commencement was fierce, which seemed surprising given his popularity locally when he was elected.

I was very impressed by his speech at Notre Dame.

Common Ground

I'm similar to RSF, I didn't vote for Obama, but I applaud his handling of the situation, which wasn't to back down from it, but to ask for moderation.
 
691boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:46
I'm similar to RSF, I didn't vote for Obama, but I applaud his handling of the situation, which wasn't to back down from it, but to ask for moderation.

If he wanted to not back down he should have asked why they spent so much money on Charlie Weies...

In another note did anyone notice that it seems like he plagiarized his own speeches for this one. And why did he speak at ND, there are alot of universities that would have loved to have him speak at there graduation and they would have been much more appreciative.
 
692Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:50
The only groups Obama seems to be pissing off these days are those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right. The logical conclusion is that Obama is not the hyper liberal that the extreme left had hoped for and that the extreme right characterizes him as. He has not pleased everyone all the time, but he is doing a good job of maintaining a moderate stance while still trying to do what he believes is in the country's best interests, which occasionally has meant making some unpopular decisions (the bailouts, for example).
 
693Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 10:01
A respectful pro-life rebuttal to Obama's Notre Dame speech.
 
694Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 10:16
Connor Friedersdorf asks a question that has had me perplexed about many ODS sufferers.
 
695Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:32
I believe that writer is being disingenuous.

There is no contradiction between wishing for a strong military defense and an executive who is not hamstrung in that role...

...and wishing for limited government strictly following the constitutional enumerated functions of government and eschewing those invented in the past century.

That argument is so sophmoric it boils down to, 'if you want to put OBL in jail, you must want to give Obama the power to put conservatives in jail'.

Those who hold A must accept B? Really?

 
696Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:57
so sophmoric it boils down to, 'if you want to put OBL in jail, you must want to give Obama the power to put conservatives in jail'.

Those who hold A must accept B? Really?


I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The A and B of Friedersdorf's argument are both President Obama, not OBL (or whoever) and random conservatives.

The premise is simple, if you believe Obama is sympathetic to the objectives of Islamist or other anti-American terrorists, then how could you possibly want to hand force upon him the keys to Big Brother's Toolbox.
 
697Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 17:29
Well, I don't think he needs the powers Cheney used to fight islamism.

He doesn't need torture.

He probably needs to keep islamist suspects separate as long as there is strong reason to believe they are islamist combatants or islamist leaders. [more separate than PD would prefer obviously, as he's invited them to his neighborhood, if memory serves]

But there are clearly things at Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan and rendition sites if not Club Gitmo, that Obama doesn't need.

However The conservatives the writer speaks of would by and large believe most of that falls under necessary war powers in the WoT.

Therefore they would agree Obama needed those war powers, while at the same time obviously not needing those powers against the majority of conservatives and constitutionalists.

I guess the most important point to accertain is to what extent the one set of external war powers could bleed over and empower a domestic tyrant over americans.

That the powers that be recently killed the posse comitatus rule, is a very very stark warning signal along those lines.

However were tyrants not the threat the founding fathers and modern conservatives/constitutionalists see them to be...

...You wouldn't expect the issue of Obama's war powers to be connected to the issue of Obama's domestic law enforcement powers.

Thus you could consistantly hold both positions.

I doubt very very much if that writer truly cares how much power Obama accumulates.

Show me liberals genuinely worried about Obama's extremist friends or extremist influences in his formative years.

The liberals who routinely call christians and the right, 'taliban' on boards such as this, would hand Obama tyranical powers against them in a heartbeat, with glee.

 
698Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 18:36
Show me liberals genuinely worried about Obama's extremist friends or extremist influences in his formative years.

show me proof positive that these "extremist friends" and "extremist influences" have any true reflection on Obama's words and actions.

oh, right. you have. i'm sure it's in post 43 in this thread and post 114 in that thread, and i'm sure it comes from some rag from someone who knew somebody who had something that was pulled from the butt of someone else who slept with somebody who once knew someone who ate in the same restaurant as someone else, only 18 years before, but the first person scratched something secret in the bottom of the table to late the other person know what the real deal was.

The liberals who routinely call christians and the right, 'taliban' on boards such as this, would hand Obama tyranical powers against them in a heartbeat, with glee.

because, of course, we've seen a lot of that on this board.

then again, why do you care? you're Christian In Name Only.
 
699Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 19:03
They don't go more than 6 posts over at salon.com tabletalk without calling non-muslim americans taliban. So you know how they would like to treat the other side of the isle.
 
700Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 20:11
They don't go more than 6 posts over at salon.com tabletalk without calling non-muslim americans taliban. So you know how they would like to treat the other side of the isle.

and i'm sure the same could be said of most, if not all, of the sites you like to frequent, in regards to liberals.
 
701Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:19
No, you really don't hear serious talk about rounding up liberals, like Obama's favorite college professors at Columbia were prone to do refering to constitutionalists.

On the otherhand the power elite are all over that.

Ollie was too trusting to realize his tool will be turned on his favorite people.

 
702Boldwin
      ID: 1210341416
      Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 17:36
Slate, plenty liberal and no friend of mine, explains how Texas can realistically seceded from the union. Something which apparently @20% of it's citizens are chronically in favor of.

I had assumed calls for secession were all people gaming a system Obama had set up to directly petition to the white house, and they were using his own system to pay him an ultimate insult. While Texas will probably not carry thru on this, it's calls for secession definately are on a whole nuther level compared to the other petitions.
 
703sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 17:39
Sure is. Shows just how utterly looney the TX GOP is and how thoroughly, they have lied to how many.
 
704Tree
      ID: 710581417
      Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 19:00
Something which apparently @20% of it's citizens are chronically in favor of.

at the rate the GOP is going, that's about how many people will be supporting their candidate in the presidential election in a few years...

Rick Perry is very much opposed to secession. if that man is against it, i can only imagine the loons that for it.
 
705Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 19:22
#702: That isn't secession. That's splitting into new states. And from what I've been reading, virtually any attempt to split the state would involve a loss of GOP power.