OT How BIG is Obama going to win (in terms of electoral votes)? The numbers represent electoral votes (538 total, 270 to win). Poll: How many of you would have been better of buying an inflated home vs. investing in the stock market (401k, investments)
October 30, 2008 @ 7:23 PM
lol – I take it you’re an
lol – I take it you’re an Obama fan.
We were in Vegas recently and people were wearing Obama shirts everywhere! In the airport, in the casinos, at restaurants. Didn’t see a single McCain shirt.
October 30, 2008 @ 7:34 PM
svelte wrote:lol – I take it
[quote=svelte]lol – I take it you’re an Obama fan.
We were in Vegas recently and people were wearing Obama shirts everywhere! In the airport, in the casinos, at restaurants. Didn’t see a single McCain shirt.[/quote]
Yeah, I think the old worn-out, discredited Republican philosophy of stealing from the middle class and giving to the rich has been banished forever. From now on, we’re going to have a more fair society where everyone is given a chance to succeed.
October 30, 2008 @ 8:13 PM
He’s beaten Ford and Carter
He’s beaten Ford and Carter hands down already, and he’s not even been elected yet!
Workers of the World Unite!
October 30, 2008 @ 9:18 PM
Workers of the World
Workers of the World Unite!
LOL
October 30, 2008 @ 9:19 PM
<
<
October 30, 2008 @ 9:36 PM
He has talked the talk
He has talked the talk alright.. lets see what happens when he actually has to make a decision regarding our national security(yikkkeesss).
October 31, 2008 @ 8:06 AM
Let’s just hope he doesn’t
Let’s just hope he doesn’t get us into a pointless war. I was in Europe when Bush decided to invade Iraq. It’s funny how different the story was on the other side of the pond. They had a UN inspector in the country at the time. They wanted him to be allowed to finish his job. But the bush administration didn’t allow him to finish his search for WMD. I wonder why. We looked like a bunch of war hungry idiots to them. That’s why most of the European countries didn’t want any part of it. And McCain still stands by the war. We should never have started this. I can’t imagine that McCain would be an better at making decisions about our national security. He would be more dangerous to our safety and economy.
April 17, 2011 @ 8:25 PM
tc wrote:Let’s just hope he
[quote=tc]Let’s just hope he doesn’t get us into a pointless war. I was in Europe when Bush decided to invade Iraq. It’s funny how different the story was on the other side of the pond. They had a UN inspector in the country at the time. They wanted him to be allowed to finish his job. But the bush administration didn’t allow him to finish his search for WMD. I wonder why. We looked like a bunch of war hungry idiots to them. That’s why most of the European countries didn’t want any part of it. And McCain still stands by the war. We should never have started this. I can’t imagine that McCain would be an better at making decisions about our national security. He would be more dangerous to our safety and economy.[/quote]
funny how I stumbled on this old post and now Con Lawyer BO bombs Libya without bothering with Con approval.
Change you can believe in, yeah right, Hardy har, BO! Here’s to BO! Nobel Prize Winning fraud!
October 31, 2008 @ 12:07 AM
You actually spent time
You actually spent time constructing this poll?
October 31, 2008 @ 12:31 AM
You missed “Obama is THE
You missed “Obama is THE ONE!”
October 31, 2008 @ 7:21 AM
asianautica, Obama must the
asianautica, Obama must the The One. How do you otherwise, explain that all the political and economic events are lining up for him to be elected president?
It was just announced the 3rd quarter was in recession, another advantage to Obama.
Jesus Christ was Black, you know. 😉
October 31, 2008 @ 7:44 AM
He will be the best President
He will be the best President ever, to bash. He is easy. He is a Marxist, double speaking, racist, anti-Semetic, inexperienced, pandering, pick pocketing and crooked politician. He is the champion! Change will be fun.
October 31, 2008 @ 8:09 AM
I hope this poll isn’t
I hope this poll isn’t representative of Obamocracy. Somebody’s been watching the new Jim Carrey film 🙂
October 31, 2008 @ 10:01 AM
That George Washington guy
That George Washington guy wasn’t so bad.
October 31, 2008 @ 10:32 AM
Someone’s been
Someone’s been brainwashed…
You got your poms poms on TB?
October 31, 2008 @ 11:27 AM
Will the national debt
Will the national debt (general fund, currently 10.5T+) exceed GDP (currently 14.5T+) by the end of obama’s first term?
October 31, 2008 @ 11:29 AM
oops– pretend I didn’t post
oops– pretend I didn’t post the above until Tuesday/wednesday next week.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:43 AM
He may not be the best
He may not be the best President ever, but it’s metaphysically impossible for him to be worse than our current president, so he’ll be quite an improvement.
Obama would have to accidentally nuke London, Tokyo and Beijing to be worse than George W McCain.
October 31, 2008 @ 11:55 AM
kicksavedave wrote:He may not
[quote=kicksavedave]He may not be the best President ever, but it’s metaphysically impossible for him to be worse than our current president, so he’ll be quite an improvement.
Obama would have to accidentally nuke London, Tokyo and Beijing to be worse than George W McCain.[/quote]
I didn’t know McCain won already? Wow, I must be living under a rock.
October 31, 2008 @ 1:41 PM
I forgot to add lazy to his
I forgot to add lazy to his traits.
BHO explains here that he needs to reduce his voter’s expectations of his first term as President.
“Mr Obama himself was the first to realise that expectations risked being inflated”
My feeling is that his supporters are voting about 90% on their expectations, about 2% on qualifications and the rest other. He will be the first President that lets us down before the election.
That One said;
“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece
October 31, 2008 @ 2:06 PM
Obama will get credit for
Obama will get credit for what he does, not what we hope he will do. I hope he turns out to be the best president in modern times, but I’m not holding my breath.
October 31, 2008 @ 2:14 PM
I’m predicting that Obama is
I’m predicting that Obama is going to be Carter all over again. The country will flounder under his ‘leadership’ and a betrayed public will send him packing in 2012, along with his Democratic majority.
Of course, I hope I’m wrong…
October 31, 2008 @ 2:47 PM
He’s facing similar
He’s facing similar circumstances to those that Carter confronted when he took office: Economy was faltering, country was dispirited after Vietnam and Watergate and he promised a change from the status quo that had existed under Ford and Nixon.
The next President would have to be a miracle worker to successfully handle all of the challenges facing him and, in spite of his obvious intelligence, Obama is truly a neophyte when it comes to politics, especially the big league-type politics of the Presidency.
Bush had the same problems. He attempted to bluff his way through the job, but he had little to no actual experience, other than his time as governor of Texas. His business career, such as it was, was nothing to speak of and largely a function of Daddy’s contacts and help. It was no wonder that he turned out to be the disaster he was.
October 31, 2008 @ 3:12 PM
Butleroftwo wrote:I forgot to
[quote=Butleroftwo]I forgot to add lazy to his traits.[/quote]
Wow. Did he just say that?
Not sure how anybody could look at Obama’s career to date and suggest he’s ‘lazy’. Maybe in an alternate reality, racist neo-republican world.
October 31, 2008 @ 3:33 PM
George Washington was the
George Washington was the greatest President.
Eisenhower is my favorite President because he built roads.
Obama can be a great President. Changes in energy systems would be huge. Peace in the Middle East. It’s all related.
The key to failure is the Republican Party, and whether the GOP decides to go ‘apeshit-partisan’ at the expense of the country. My guess is they will.
October 31, 2008 @ 3:45 PM
gandalf: I think the
gandalf: I think the Republican Party is going to have to spend some time in “the wilderness” and re-discover their core values.
McCain isn’t representative of true Republicanism, nor is Palin. This ticket represents pandering to the Far Right and the lunatic fringe.
Another leader will eventually emerge (one always does).
BTW, the “new and improved” Gandalf is starting to frighten me. I miss the profanity and the retorts. Dude, if you’ve starting taking meds, dump ’em. It ain’t worth it!
October 31, 2008 @ 4:10 PM
gandalf wrote:Obama can be a
[quote=gandalf]Obama can be a great President. Changes in energy systems would be huge. Peace in the Middle East. It’s all related.[/quote]
I certainly remember Carter promising both of those things 30 years ago. Perhaps most of you Obama koolaid drinkers weren’t alive then? History is a fickle mistress.
October 31, 2008 @ 3:45 PM
Your personal attacks keep me
Your personal attacks keep me going, gandalf.
BHO is no where near the man you pretend that he is. Other than academia and community service his only job has been a politician. He spent very little time actually working as a lawyer. Do you think that he has ever made a profit on a job or has everything in his life come from a fund of some sort or another?
November 1, 2008 @ 8:39 PM
Butleroftwo wrote:Your
[quote=Butleroftwo]Your personal attacks keep me going, gandalf.
BHO is no where near the man you pretend that he is. Other than academia and community service his only job has been a politician. He spent very little time actually working as a lawyer. Do you think that he has ever made a profit on a job or has everything in his life come from a fund of some sort or another?[/quote]
what have the other presidents done that anyone can hold up as perfect job experience? Reagan was an actor, Carter a governor, GW–ditto, HW–Chair of the CIA (probably the best qualified out there). HW failed at a lot of businesses (on daddy’s dime). McBush divorced his sickly wife, crashed 5 planes, got caught by the enemy, didn’t make admiral so ditched the military to become a senator. So where is the perfect resume for president?
November 1, 2008 @ 11:10 PM
Urban,
Piggington’s is
Urban,
Piggington’s is therapy. Save your money.
November 2, 2008 @ 7:46 AM
Quote:McBush divorced his
[quote]McBush divorced his sickly wife, crashed 5 planes, got caught by the enemy, didn’t make admiral so ditched the military to become a senator. So where is the perfect resume for president?[/quote]
Butleroftwo,
When you say… “got caught by the enemy” it sure implies that you think that POWs are somehow inferior soldiers because they got caught?
I think your little liberal brain needs to find another country to live in until you can show POWs some well deserved respect.
November 2, 2008 @ 5:03 PM
LJ Renter
I only bash BHO.
LJ Renter
I only bash BHO. Some other dude bashed the old guy. You must be referring to his little brain. Please keep it straight.
April 2, 2011 @ 11:09 AM
La Jolla Renter
[quote=La Jolla Renter][quote]McBush divorced his sickly wife, crashed 5 planes, got caught by the enemy, didn’t make admiral so ditched the military to become a senator. So where is the perfect resume for president?[/quote]
Butleroftwo,
When you say… “got caught by the enemy” it sure implies that you think that POWs are somehow inferior soldiers because they got caught?
I think your little liberal brain needs to find another country to live in until you can show POWs some well deserved respect.[/quote]
McCain is a war hero in my book. However, he trashed his first wife and deserves to sit in the back of the bus.
April 2, 2011 @ 12:35 PM
DataAgent wrote: McCain is a
[quote=DataAgent] McCain is a war hero in my book. However, he trashed his first wife and deserves to sit in the back of the bus.[/quote]
None of the pilots I know (and I know a few pilots who are mostly right of center) think that McCain was a war hero. Back during Nam, he got to where he was because he was the Admiral’s son.
Ditching his sick wife for a young, pretty, rich heiress was another act of self-promotion.
McCain became a good senator and somewhat redeemed himself; but he hardly possesses the strength of character of a true soldier and war hero.
October 31, 2008 @ 3:48 PM
Oops. I hit the button
Oops. I hit the button twice.
October 31, 2008 @ 5:56 PM
LOL. Okay, Breeze, no secret
LOL. Okay, Breeze, no secret that you’re a major fan 🙂
I’m surprised you’re not even allowing for a narrow 273/265 McCain victory. I assume that is not even remotely a possibility, in your opinion? Even Intrade allows these odds.
I say this not because I think Obama will lose, but because this race, statistically speaking, seems to be a lot closer than anyone in the media seems to care to acknowledge. Given the margin of error in the polls I’ve been seeing (generally 3.5 – 4%), the large number of undecideds (as much as 8%), and (dare I say it) the Bradley/Wilder Effect, it would appear that there is at least 10% possibility that McCain could win.
You disagree?
October 31, 2008 @ 6:25 PM
I think there is a good
I think there is a good chance it won’t be decided on election day…
http://www.gregpalast.com/block-the-vote/
“The new registrations thrown out, the existing registrations scrubbed, the spoiled ballots, the provisional ballots that were never counted — and what you have is millions of voters, more than enough to swing the presidential election, quietly being detached from the electorate by subterfuge.
“Jim Crow was laid to rest, but his cousins were not,” says Donna Brazile. “We got rid of poll taxes and literacy tests but now have a second generation of schemes to deny our citizens their franchise.” Come November, the most crucial demographic may prove to be Americans who have been denied the right to vote. If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat John McCain at the polls — they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering.
October 31, 2008 @ 7:53 PM
Seriously I’m surpised about
Seriously I’m surpised about the victory laps being run here. I plan to bet a little money down at intrade.
Basically we need to watch where Obama spends his time. McCain has a good chance at Ohio and FL, and Obama has fiercely defended PA lately. This thing has the feel of tightening up and let’s not forget the Bradley/Wilder effect.
October 31, 2008 @ 9:56 PM
“Seriously I’m surpised about
“Seriously I’m surpised about the victory laps being run here. I plan to bet a little money down at intrade.
Basically we need to watch where Obama spends his time. McCain has a good chance at Ohio and FL, and Obama has fiercely defended PA lately. This thing has the feel of tightening up and let’s not forget the Bradley/Wilder effect.”
I think that where Obama and McCain spend their time is definitely telling. As I said above, Obama will likely win. But there are variables that can and may change that. Frankly, this is all entertainment to me. But while I am entertaining myself, this is the way I see the map now:
STATES THAT ARE *TOSS-UPS*, BUT REALLY AREN’T:
MO, AZ and MT: Realclearpolitics has these listed as “toss ups” because McCain has narrow leads. But it will be a cold day in hell when a man who wants to take away gun rights wins any of these states.
STATES MCCAIN WILL PROBABLY LOSE:
VA, CO and NM – Obama has decent leads outside the margin of error. Very likely that he will take all of these.
STATES THAT MCCAIN IS WITHIN STRIKING DISTANCE OF:
NV and NH – It will be tough for McCain to win either one, no doubt. But I expect Obama to take one, McCain to take the other. McCain doesn”t have a shot unless he takes one of these states. But IMO, unlikely either candidate will take both.
STATES THAT ARE TOO CLOSE TO CALL, BUT TRADITIONALLY GO GOP:
North Carolina – this race is very close, but given the margin of error and the fact that there are probably no undecided black voters, and most undecided white voters will doubtless go for McCain, I’m going to say McCain takes this by a narrow margin.
GENUINE *TOSS-UPS*
OH – also very close, within the margin of error. And subject to tremendous amounts of fraud by both parties. History tells us that this state only goes to white Democrats by slim margins, so when the undecideds make their move, it’s hard to see them tipping the scales in Obama’s favor in a race this close in this state. If he hasn’t sold them yet, doubtful he can do it at this late stage. But it’s an economically savaged state, and that helps Obama. We’re going to find out whether pocketbook matters more than race here.
FL – too close to call; a statistical tie. And like OH, this state is always a hard-win for even white Democrats. Anyway, it all comes down to turnout here.
THE STATE THAT WILL DECIDE THIS ELECTION:
PA.
If McCain loses FL and/or OH, PA s irrelevant. He loses the election. If McCain takes OH and FL, PA becomes critical. The fact that McCain and Obama are both spending so much time in PA makes me think that McCain believes OH and FL are his, if only by a narrow margin. He may very well be wrong.
But if he is right, PA will be the decider. PA is hard core redneck territory, esp Western PA. There are a good chunk of bitter Hillary voters, and it has one of the oldest populations in the country. Obama got slaughtered here during the primaries. And Murtha is suddenly in trouble — polls are not favoring him. I think PA is much closer than the media is saying.
If McCain wins OH, FL and PA, the count is 273/265. If Obama wins OH, FL and PA, the count is 286/252.
November 1, 2008 @ 12:38 AM
Partypup, Obama has spent a
Partypup, Obama has spent a lot of time in PA for a state that he is supposed to be comfortably leading. My guess is that they are fully aware that the good poll numbers are not enough. I mean don’t get me wrong you’d rather be up 10, but that there are still so many undecided’s in some of these states that it could break late either way.
The big question is do the fence sitters break Obama? The big energy Obama supporters are likely already with him.
Zogby released a poll with McCain pulling ahead 48-47 (national) in his 3-day tracking poll. I don’t put a lot of stock in that poll either but this things seems to be tightening to me. Rumors of a Reagan-Mondale beatdown I just don’t see happening. Two weeks ago I might have thought it possible. Today I think Obama was in Nevada for instance. Luckily for them they are well-funded.
November 1, 2008 @ 1:20 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:
[quote=CardiffBaseball]
Rumors of a Reagan-Mondale beatdown I just don’t see happening. Two weeks ago I might have thought it possible. Today I think Obama was in Nevada for instance. Luckily for them they are well-funded.[/quote]
Okay but who seriously sees McCain being as crappy a politician as Mondale?
I like Mondale. I am a liberal. But come on. the man is almost as animatronic as the old Chuck E. Cheese or maybe Steve Forbes.
November 1, 2008 @ 1:54 AM
hard to believe that obama
hard to believe that obama has gone from up 12 to down 1 in last week in zogby poll, most accurate right before election? not really, I said month ago why dems would lose. I was bashed, who is crying now? 273 for the win for mc. Note that MO winner wins WH for last 100 years. mc easy win in mo, so will win WH. Next time dems pick white male from south who has I love usa tatoo on his forehead, a solid gold cross on his neck aka Mr T and a socialists suck bumper stick on his Chevy pickup truck.
November 1, 2008 @ 2:14 AM
stock market will have huge
stock market will have huge rally with mccain win on wed. so buy SSO (double S&P) on mon or tues and you could have 20% gain on wed. if seas part and obama wins, market flat since market has factored in the obama depression with huge drop already. anyone see flaw in this trade? this is not a joke, this could really work, with limited downside, no?
November 1, 2008 @ 2:55 AM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.co
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ is now giving McCain a 2.8% chance to win. It’s run by Nate Silver, a dude who got famous predicting baseball results for fantasy leagues based on nothing but numbers and statistics. Yeah, he’s a self-proclaimed Obama supporter, but his methods are all there in the FAQ and open for scrutiny if you disagree with his results.
November 1, 2008 @ 12:51 PM
“http://www.fivethirtyeight.c
“http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ is now giving McCain a 2.8% chance to win. It’s run by Nate Silver, a dude who got famous predicting baseball results for fantasy leagues based on nothing but numbers and statistics. Yeah, he’s a self-proclaimed Obama supporter, but his methods are all there in the FAQ and open for scrutiny if you disagree with his results.”
I agree that by any statistical (and historical) measure, Obama is the overwhelming favorite to win. Bush had Obama’s lead going into 2004, and he won. Granted, by only one state (OH), but he did win.
I think what bears repeating here is that this is no historically *ordinary* election. There are a lot of factors at play that should not allow one to presume victory for Obama. His leads in most battleground states are within the margin of error, and there are still an uncomfortably high number of undecided voters in those states. As Equalizer said, it is quite possible, even likely, that Obama has already persuaded most of the voters he will be able to persuade. If they have not come to his side of the tent by now, after all of the money, man power, media and Palin-bashing that has been amassed against McCain — not to mention the financial meltdown — you simply have to wonder what these people are waiting for. They have every reason to jump to Obama, but they haven’t. That’s the wild card here.
Also, Obama needs major youth turnout to put him over the top. Rachel Maddow admitted on MSNBC yesterday that in FL, at least, the young folks simply aren’t showing up for early voting. Will they come out on November 4th? It’s certainly possible. But the youth are notoriously flaky. And the fact that the media has been pounding a steady drumbeat of inevitability for Obama and defeat for McCain may tempt these slackers to stay home and attend to more *pressing* matters, like updating their iPhone with latest version of iTunes. Evangelicals, on the other hand, may be more fired up than ever by the prospect of an Obama victory. Don’t forget, these folks will stand in line until the Rapture takes them.
On a curious side note, the famous “Obama Girl” (from the viral video) did not even vote in the NY primary because she had a manicure appointment.
Going to be a very interesting Tuesday.
October 31, 2008 @ 5:59 PM
Post deleted
Post deleted
October 31, 2008 @ 6:00 PM
Post deleted
Post deleted
October 31, 2008 @ 10:12 PM
I hate to be cynical, but
I hate to be cynical, but don’t get yer hopes up. the deregulated wild west US financial system has tossed the US economy and taxpayers a lead life preserver in the ocean that will sink us for many years, Palin’s pseudo populism and Obama’s hope nonsense notwithstanding. So much for the free market, I say round all the CEOs of AIG, Ctywide, Goldman, etc., and take em to Guantanamo and give em a taste of their free market wisdom.
Its also rather sad that the issues during the presidential campaign have turned into something that borders on the absurd with the smears and guilt by association (Case in point: Socialism? Pardon me, taxes are by definition redistributions, are MCsame/Palin suggesting getting rid of taxes altogether? Must be catering to the low information “dumb bots” that have not quite realized this yet and appear to be a sufficient proportion of the US idiot population.) The irony is that the MSM does not even question the premise of the bogus socialism accusation, particularly given that Palin’s home state of Alaska lives on socialism from oil company largess and fees from Exxon et al.? Unfrickenincredible!!!
What a …joke, does anyone wonder why we have become what we are?.
Frankly, the only difference between Oman and McSame, other than SCOTUS is that McSame will probably end it all with Nukes flying over some petty dispute with Russia or some other type of nonsense as rash decisions are his bad habit (see, Palin again). With Obama, at least my kids stand a reasonable chance of surviving until they are teenagers, albeit with Chinese overlords…
No one, including Obama, can save this ship when the creditors stop buying T bills, that is when the S… will really hit the fan…..
Happy Halloween.
November 1, 2008 @ 12:13 AM
Breeze, you are as ignorant
Breeze, you are as ignorant as they come. You are so ignorant you are funny.
I think I heard you on the Howard Stern show the other day, you sounded very educated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbH9IYirD0
November 1, 2008 @ 1:17 AM
socrattt wrote:Breeze, you
[quote=socrattt]Breeze, you are as ignorant as they come. You are so ignorant you are funny.
I think I heard you on the Howard Stern show the other day, you sounded very educated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbH9IYirD0
[/quote]
Socrattt, you call lots of people ignorant. Now I don’t like Breeze. He calls me a tard and I call him many nasty things during therapy sessions.
But honestly, just calling people ignorant because you disagree with them is a pretty weak argument.
I hope you have something better to bring.
Usually your arguments are a little more cogent but lately you sound like casca or maybe gandalf off his meds.
Or maybe Allan on angeldust. Now THAT would be a rad debate. (yes I said rad)
November 1, 2008 @ 1:22 AM
socrattt wrote:Breeze, you
[quote=socrattt]Breeze, you are as ignorant as they come. You are so ignorant you are funny.
I think I heard you on the Howard Stern show the other day, you sounded very educated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbH9IYirD0
[/quote]
Here’s another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE
I think this post’s author may have been one of the Obama shills on the beach that day.
November 2, 2008 @ 7:11 AM
If you believe liars and
If you believe liars and frauds are the best, than Obama will be the best ever.
You folks have no idea about this man’s background. I’m from the south side of Chicago not far from where Obama lived. He moved after his politically connected felon friend (Rezko) helped him get a new home.
The man is trash. His friends are trash. Those buying Obama as an agent of change are buying a bill of goods. The only change will be whose pockets get the $. Those buying a new type of politics need only look at his record of partisanship (He nevers bucks his party leadership), flip-flopping (He said he would opt for public funding of his campaign) or non-commitment (He voted present instaed of taking a stand in the Illinois House)and lying (Despite attending Wright’s church by his own estimates over 500 times in 20 years he claimed not to know of Wright having radical views when they were even posted on the Churches’ website. He claims Ayers is just a guy who lived in the neighborhood but Obama was appointed to and sat on boards with this unrepentant terrorist and even started his political career in his living room. Ayers is a man for whom “whatever means necessary” is a life creed.)
This is the man many of you don’t know but are about to vote for.
Take a look at the cesspool that is Illinois and Chicago politics. Is that where you think reformers come from? We’ve probably lead the nation in felons who were former elected officials. In my life 4 governors have gone to prison and a 5th may soon and he has extensive ties to both Rezko and Obama. Obama isn’t a reformer. He wasn’t an agent of change. He is the same old, same old backroom politician that takes from the rich and the poor to line his own coifers.
Best ever?
November 2, 2008 @ 7:34 AM
Felix: Well said. My dad and
Felix: Well said. My dad and uncle are both from Chicago and my dad used to joke about Chicago politics and the Daley machine when I was a kid.
I remember him talking about the voter rolls being padded and dead people voting and stuffed ballot boxes and that sort of nonsense. “Vote early and often” was how he characterized Democratic politics in Chicago.
I opined earlier that I thought Obama’s Rezko connection should be explored in more detail. Here you have two attorneys (Obama and his wife Michelle) involved in a very questionable real estate deal with Rezko and both claim ignorance when it came to reviewing and “understanding” the actual details (which were very fishy).
I agree with your sentiments about both the Ayers and the Wright relationships. Both go to the issue of character, as both Ayers and Wright have expressed fiercly anti-American views and, in Ayer’s case, have acted on them. Ayer’s famously said following the 9/11 attacks that he wished he exploded more bombs during his terrorist days in the 1960s and 1970s. And, yes, he is a terrorist. He has been whitewashed as of late as an “activist”, but his involvement with the Weather Underground is well documented, as well as his activities with them, including the murder of a policeman.
It’s funny how Obama is being sold as an “agent of change” and “post-partisan” politician, when a simple reading of his voting record completely belies both. But, people are ready for a change after eight years of the feckless Bush Administration and the Dems very adroitly packaged Obama for the job.
As the old adage goes: “Be careful what you wish for: You just might get it.”
November 2, 2008 @ 11:25 AM
larry, good post. Obama isn’t
larry, good post. Obama isn’t the messiah, and problems we’re facing are HUGE. But Obama’s a step in the right direction — away from the ideological right-wing and back towards a pragmatic center.
McCain, meantime, is borderline dementia, possible due to brain tumor. (I’m not joking. Check out his left eye next time.) His campaign has been all-slime and no-substance.
Palin? She’s just a freak. She should go back to being Governer of that socialist oil-state up north.
urban, I might border on ‘blunt’ from time to time, but the arguments I’ve made on this board are substantive and direct. The GOP ran the bus into the ditch. Nobody to blame but themselves.
And just so you know I’m not on any sort of medication, Bush Apologists and GOP partisans are brainwashed SHEEP-fuckers.
In fairness, I’ll think of something to say about democrats when they run the bus into a ditch of their own 10 years from now. That’s just how American politics works.
November 2, 2008 @ 11:46 AM
Gandalf: The only problem
Gandalf: The only problem with your logic regarding Obama is there is nothing in his voting record or political bent to suggest he is a centrist. He has been remarkably consistent in his voting and he toes the party line without question. That’s not a knock, that’s a simple statement of fact.
As to the Democratic leadership (speaking of Congress here), do you really find Pelosi, Reid and their ilk all that believable? I mean the pandering exists on both sides of the aisle, as exemplified by the abysmally low approval ratings that Congress is “enjoying” right now.
The problem is that both Dems and Repubs have polarized around calcified reactionary groups (the evangelicals in the case of the Repubs and the leftists for the Dems) and this has created a huge division within the country.
Obama does not represent a move to the center. He speaks of this, but it remains to be proved that this will become his reality.
Thanks for the sheepfucker remark by the way. I was getting nervous with your new etiquette. The old Gandalf is far more enjoyable! Rock on, brother.
November 2, 2008 @ 3:21 PM
Well, I don’t know about
Well, I don’t know about that. Mainstream seems left these days because the right is so fucked up.
You know, I don’t consider myself to be ‘leftist’. But I like Obama’s positions on energy policy, foreign policy and the war on AQ, reforming tax policy, fiscal stimulus targeted at renewable energy and infrastructure, and education. Many of his positions are what we used to term ‘conservative’.
With healthcare, I don’t know what to think, beyond that we have to pay a lot of money for it (employer) and that it’s a giant fucking mess. I don’t think we’re going to have any money for healthcare, to be honest.
And I strongly disagree with Obama’s support for faith-based initiatives. I’m a separation of church and state guy. Worship however you want. Stay the out of government and schools.
Overall, it seems to me as though Obama’s positions are much closer to the views held by the majority of the American people. Certainly closer than the Bush-era GOP, of which McCain is now a ‘certified’ member.
That’s what Tuesday is all about.
With my vote, I say throw the GOP off the back of the truck. Some time in the wilderness will do them good.
November 2, 2008 @ 3:29 PM
One more thing, I think Obama
One more thing, I think Obama offers the best chance of getting past the partisanship of the Clinton-Bush baby boomers.
(See Susan Eisenhower’s op-ed in the Washington Post.)
November 2, 2008 @ 5:59 PM
Gandalf, you must be chained
Gandalf, you must be chained to the Obama channel.
You have invented everything about BO.
Centrist- He has no history of it.
Energy Policy- BO wants to bankrupt the coal industry. Alternative fuels are still many years from being able to supply this growing nation. This is a pipe dream and a loser policy.
Foreign Policy- He is naive and his first reactions are usually wrong like he was with Georgia.
Iraq- He asked to delay withdraw negotiations until he became President. He also wants congress to have their part in the negotiations.
Afghanistan- He is only playing politics with this, He has plenty of time to get something done but has chosen not to. He is playing it safe. Basically voting present.
Tax policy- Government is overhead. Raising taxes is stupid.
Fiscal stimulus- Giving cash to minimum wagers and increasing capital gains tax will stimulate a depression. It takes decades to build bridges so that won’t work either.
Gandalf you lie when you call him a conservative and a centrist and yourself an ex-GOP.
November 2, 2008 @ 7:43 PM
Butleroftwo wrote:
Fiscal
[quote=Butleroftwo]
Fiscal stimulus- Giving cash to minimum wagers and increasing capital gains tax will stimulate a depression. It takes decades to build bridges so that won’t work either.
[/quote]
Newsflash for the dimbulbs: We are in a recession, and quite possibly headed for a depression…, and BTW, yer guys were in charge Doohhh!! I find it incredulous that you think increasing cap gains taxes would cause a depression….are you related to Hoover, man that is some strong kool aid yer drinkin!!!
I won’t address the rest of your inaccuracies other than to mention that as is well documented Georgia initiated the conflagration and got a good spanking as a result of their own actions (don’t let the facts get in the way of a failed ideology I suppose, classic wingnutism).
The wingnuts have nothing left but to employ the same old fear mongering and smearing tactics that worked in the past (they can’t run on ideas since they have none) and hope the rest of us with half a brain are not noticing the sinking ship…but reality has a bad habit of reminding us that the ship is sinking and the wingnuts have unequivocally failed, and although I have no particular love for Obama, you and the rest of the wingnuts deserve to be destroyed on Tuesday for all the wreckage, death and destruction you and your brethren have caused.
November 2, 2008 @ 8:58 PM
Larry: An absolutely
Larry: An absolutely beautifully crafted piece of vapid and insipid polemic. Mercifully short on facts and long on ad hominem.
Having not voted for Dubya on either occasion, I don’t accept him as “my guy”. According to your calculus, one is either an Obama supporter or a wingnut. That completely eliminates any chance of dialogue and conveniently reduces the situation to an ideological deadend in that if one disagrees with you, they’re automatically a brain dead idiot unworthy of response.
As to the accepted and “well documented” facts that Georgia initiated the “conflagration”: Uh, not so much. There is evidence to the contrary, most strongly found in Russia’s issuance of ID cards and passports to ethnic Russians living in Georgia well in advance of hostilities, as well as Russian staging and pre-positioning of munitions and fuel along the border prior to the dust up between them and the Georgians.
Lastly, you don’t find something “incredulous”, you find it “incredible”. Adopting a sneering, pontificatory tone is so much better if your grammar and syntax are correct.
November 2, 2008 @ 9:48 PM
Energy Policy- BO wants to
Energy Policy- BO wants to bankrupt the coal industry. Alternative fuels are still many years from being able to supply this growing nation. This is a pipe dream and a loser policy.
Both their policies are disney land stories. You assume that Red vs Blue is a dichotomy, that Red and Blue, like Republican and Democrat, are opposites. They aren’t. Both receive major monetary support from the same groups of corporate interests. The differences in policy are minuscule, as a close examination of the actual policy decisions and votes of both Obama and McCain will reveal. Obama voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005[2], a pork barrel bill giving subsidies to coal, ethanol, nuclear, and other special interest groups. He also received campaign contributions from Exelon [3], an Illinois-based nuclear company, and has a chief political strategist who also worked as a consultant to the company. Obama supported the “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007,” a bill that gave loans, tax breaks, and subsidies to “clean coal” production, despite the fact that the bill said nothing about requiring the fuel to be produced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions
To say he want’s to bankrupt the coal industry show you really don’t understand politics.
Tax policy- Government is overhead. Raising taxes is stupid.
Another marginal difference in policy, something else for the peasants to fight about.
Fiscal stimulus- Giving cash to minimum wagers and increasing capital gains tax will stimulate a depression. It takes decades to build bridges so that won’t work either.
Depression is baked in the cake.
January 26, 2010 @ 9:01 PM
Pup,
Add to you list cut
Pup,
Add to you list cut taxes. Kennedy did it and it worked.
Brian,
I would rather be Partypup than a flaming asshole like you. You are nothing more than a narcissistic, know it all, bore. I don’t see you attacking any of the men, but you insult an educated, articulate woman.
January 26, 2010 @ 9:10 PM
we’re all going to need to
we’re all going to need to lose weight in order to have a revolution. it’s difficult to picture the obese and overweight revolting. it’s too much walking around….
January 27, 2010 @ 12:06 AM
Christopher Buckley procured
Christopher Buckley procured an early draft of President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union speech.
My fellow Americans,
“Frankly, the economy is not what it should be, which is why the state of the union is a 9.8 instead of a perfect 10. I called in the smart folks in my administration, many of them educated at Harvard, and I put it to them directly. I said, ‘Is this my fault?’ And to a person they said, ‘No, sir! No way!'”
“I said to them, ‘Well then, whose fault is it?’ And they said, ‘It’s the bankers, Mr. President. The scum-sucking, stimulus money-accepting, bonus-awarding, self-regarding swine who inhabit the street of shame and infamy, the harlot’s den known as Wall Street.’”
My fellow Americans,
“I said to them, ‘And what are we going to do about them? We can’t hang them all. We don’t have enough rope. And anyway, rope is expensive and I’m trying to cut the deficit. Ideas, people. I want ideas.’So tonight I can announce to you, my fellow Americans, the creation of a bipartisan commission to study how to kill the bankers in an efficient and hemp-sensitive manner. Now, it is customary on these occasions, after offering the American people bromides and yes, even downright lies about how well the nation is doing, to acknowledge American heroes sitting in the gallery.”
“Unfortunately, no pilots have landed planes in the Hudson River lately, so we don’t have any of them. But there are a number of Dutch artists with us tonight…”
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/the-audacity-of-oops
January 27, 2010 @ 9:39 AM
scaredycat wrote:we’re all
[quote=scaredycat]we’re all going to need to lose weight in order to have a revolution. it’s difficult to picture the obese and overweight revolting. it’s too much walking around….[/quote]
My theory as to why we don’t have street protests like they do in Europe is that we live in suburban wastelands. We’d have to drive into downtown were there’s no parking. And our people can’t even walk across the parking lot from Wal-Mart to Target much less demonstrate for hours or days.
There won’t be a revolution in America. Our best hope in incremental change in the right direction. Let’s just not conserve back in time.
January 27, 2010 @ 10:11 AM
Zeitgeist wrote: but you
[quote=Zeitgeist] but you insult an educated, articulate woman.[/quote]
I’m not insulting partypup. I actually admire her for her lucid views of society. I understand her frustrations.
But I’m challenging her notion that Obama has been co opted by the established powers-that-be; and that he needs to be stopped at all costs.
First, the powers-that-be are powerful for a reason and they don’t give up power easily. They hold the economic reins upon which we all depend. Our survival depends on their prosperity. That’s how capitalism works.
Second, Obama is trying to share some of the prosperity with all Americans. That will be a hard fight.
Third, by “overthrowing” Obama, partypup will end up with system that conserves back in time to when gays were harassed and had no rights at all. A time when auto mileage is 15 mpg. Is that what she really wants?
Intellectuals are generally ahead of their time. They want social improvements that society is not yet ready for.
partypup’s list is long. It will take some time to achieve all those goals. We won’t have everything tomorrow or next year, or even 5 years later.
Putting the Republicans back in power as a protest vote is cutting your nose to spite your face. We’ll end up with government that returns back in time to conserve the status quo.
January 27, 2010 @ 10:29 AM
briansd1 wrote:Zeitgeist
[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist] but you insult an educated, articulate woman.[/quote]
I’m not insulting partypup. I actually admire her for her lucid views of society. I understand her frustrations.
But I’m challenging her notion that Obama has been co opted by the established powers-that-be; and that he needs to be stopped at all costs. [/quote]
Brian, we will agree to disagree here, but I think it’s pretty clear that most of the electorate is waking up and beginning to agree with the assessments that Zeit, Arraya, Allan and I have been making about Obama for quite a while now. I get that you apparently need to see a little more political and economic destruction, a tad more corruption and backroom dealing, before you officially hop off the Kool Aid Train 😉 (jk!)
But I have to say, when posters on Huffington Post have finally given up on Obama, I think the end is near. And I doubt you will stick by your quote above by this time next year.
Just skim the comments to this Huff article, most of which are made by Obama supporters (both current and former). The level of despair and disillusionment is stunning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/obama-allies-struggle-to_n_436996.html
January 27, 2010 @ 11:08 AM
partypup wrote:[but I think
[quote=partypup][but I think it’s pretty clear that most of the electorate is waking up and beginning to agree with the assessments that Zeit, Arraya, Allan and I have been making about Obama for quite a while now. [/quote]
I can see where both you and Arraya are coming from. Like I said you’re ahead of your time. You also have to realize that human nature is not kind. It’s selfish. Most people don’t go for lofty ideas. They go for free lunch buffets (of junk).
Zeit wants Sarah Palin as president. Talk about backroom dealings!! ‘nuf said.
Allan thinks that America is fundamentally Christian and fundamentally conservative. That would mean conserving back in time. No thank you.
BTW, I don’t see how a large socialist/communist style enlistment-to-grave type military industrial complex is conservative (in a founding-fathers sense).
January 27, 2010 @ 11:48 AM
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid
[img_assist|nid=12662|title=Keep drinking the Kool-Aid|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=70|height=100]
January 27, 2010 @ 12:20 PM
Watch out Dems:
“But make no
Watch out Dems:
“But make no mistake: at least at this point, Brown’s no Palin. He may say some goofy things sometimes, but so did Bush, and he chilled in the White House for eight years. And so does Vice President Sen. Joe Biden, and he’s a pretty powerful figure in Washington. With his law degree, his stint in the Massachusetts State Senate, and in what could now be an incredibly influential role in the U.S. Senate, Brown could grow into quite the formidable opponent to Obama in 2012. Honestly, with the sheer lack of sexiness and excitement in the GOP right now, if I were the party leaders I’d have started grooming this guy for a presidential run yesterday. Stay tuned. I suspect BrownWatch is going to get mighty interesting going forward.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/senator-elect-scott-brown_b_433556.html
January 27, 2010 @ 12:33 PM
Question for Partypup-
Do you
Question for Partypup-
Do you think Obama has most of these characteristics?:
[from another thread on Piggington]
Check out the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4. requires excessive admiration
5. strong sense of entitlement
6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9. arrogant affect.
You mentioned the arrogance, shared with many in Washington as well, but what about these other traits?
January 27, 2010 @ 1:29 PM
The above traits more aptly
The above traits more aptly apply to Republican voters who support the elite but don’t have much money or education themselves.
Just for fun here:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
Religious nuts who want to manage other people’s lives.
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Republicans who want war to promote their nutty religious views.
Fat Republican chicks who dress like Britney yet believe that they are virtuous. They believe they’ll find everlasting love.
A jilted Republican housewife whose husband is doing a hot, rich Latina.
3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by other special people
People who can talk to God and hear God speak to them.
4. requires excessive admiration
Palin
5. strong sense of entitlement
Uneducated folks who think that America belongs to them.
6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Bankers.
7. lacks empathy
Poor Republicans on welfare who rail against minority on welfare.
8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
Poor Republicans who have no money or influence so they need to kiss ass hoping for trickle down.
9. arrogant affect.
Think God is with them when in fact he’s with Obama, the one and only one.
January 27, 2010 @ 4:23 PM
Bri-
If I did not know
Bri-
If I did not know better, I would say you’re an autistic savant. You continue to beat the same idee fixe into the ground: OBAMA. OBAMA. OBAMA. Is this your first bromance?
January 27, 2010 @ 8:40 PM
I didn’t bring up politics
I didn’t bring up politics until I felt like I had to respond to the Obama bashing.
January 28, 2010 @ 1:46 PM
BIOB Blame it on Bush:
Obama
BIOB Blame it on Bush:
Obama needs to move to the next envelope:
THE THREE ENVELOPES
A man had just been hired as the new managing director of a large high tech London-based corporation. The managing director who was stepping down, met with him privately and presented him with three numbered envelopes. “Open these if you run up against a problem you don’t think you can solve,” he said.
Things went along pretty smoothly, but six months later, sales took a downturn and the new MD was really catching a lot of heat. About at his wit’s end, he remembered the envelopes.
He went to his drawer and took out the first envelope. The message read, “Blame your predecessor.” The new MD called a press conference and tactfully laid the blame at the feet of the previous MD. Satisfied with his comments, the press – and The City responded positively, sales began to pick up and the problem was soon behind him.
About a year later, the company was again experiencing a slight dip in sales, combined with serious product problems. Having learned from his previous experience, the MD quickly opened the second envelope. The message read, “Reorganise.” This he did, and the company quickly rebounded.
After several consecutive profitable quarters, the company again fell on difficult times. The MD went to his office, closed the door and opened the third envelope. The message said: “Prepare three envelopes.”
January 28, 2010 @ 2:27 PM
Look at the state of the
Look at the state of the economy and the markets in 2008 vs. 2009.
Government action saved us from the precipice.
Even the most hard-core Republican real estate contractors in San Diego would admit that.
January 29, 2010 @ 10:12 AM
partypup, I know you don’t
partypup, I know you don’t like Obama but would you rather protest Obama and have Republicans in place who will stand in the way of social advancement?
At least Obama will bring some measure of gay progress. That’s certainly not in conflict with economic issues which much remain the top priorities.
February 1, 2010 @ 12:21 PM
It seems like they all have
It seems like they all have trouble telling the truth when it comes to the debt:
http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/01/debt_lies_and_the_lying_debt_liars_who_tell_them.php
“One can identify at least three driving factors of our long-term debt crisis. First, there is already a deep disconnect between the services Americans expect to receive and they taxes they support paying. Second, the recession will retard GDP growth for the next few years at least, which will hurt government revenue even as it pressures the government to spend more to counter joblessness. Third in the next ten years as the baby boomers retire, entitlement spending on Social Security and Medicare, especially, will explode.”
February 1, 2010 @ 12:53 PM
Zeit,
I’m curious to know
Zeit,
I’m curious to know your thoughts on Obama’s Q&A at the House Republican Conference last week. Full video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0.
I was surprised to not see any threads popping up here refuting his arguments. I was sure that the anti-Obonga crowd would be out in full force after that performance.
February 1, 2010 @ 1:03 PM
afx114 wrote:Zeit,
I’m
[quote=afx114]Zeit,
I’m curious to know your thoughts on Obama’s Q&A at the House Republican Conference last week. Full video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0.
I was surprised to not see any threads popping up here refuting his arguments. I was sure that the anti-Obonga crowd would be out in full force after that performance.[/quote]
Afx: I thought he acquitted himself quite well, actually. I read an article referring to it as “marital counseling” and it was good to see an event like this, and hopefully there will be others.
It was also interesting to see the more rabid elements of the GOP exposed, but also to see the more reasonable Republicans (and, yes, they exist) posit some good questions to the President, including some eminently reasonable ones about some of his promises, most notably those regarding openness and transparency, and the promise of same.
I’d like to see Obama get serious about budget cuts and go after defense. Until he does this, he simply is not serious in my book. These “discretionary” cuts he mentioned in the SOTU are nothing more than a sop and cheap political theater.
February 1, 2010 @ 1:13 PM
Agreed. It was refreshing to
Agreed. It was refreshing to see policy discussion happening at the source, rather than being filtered through the Blitzers, Olbermanns, Limbaughs and Becks of the world. It was an important look into the factory making the sausages, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll see this again due to one side or the other fearing getting tripe on their face.
February 1, 2010 @ 1:27 PM
afx114 wrote:Agreed. It was
[quote=afx114]Agreed. It was refreshing to see policy discussion happening at the source, rather than being filtered through the Blitzers, Olbermanns, Limbaughs and Becks of the world. It was an important look into the factory making the sausages, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll see this again due to one side or the other fearing getting tripe on their face.[/quote]
Which is a damn shame and for two reasons: The American public desperately needs a civics lesson on how government works, and this venue sure provided one, and there was nowhere to hide during this discussion. It was enlightening and infuriating to see some of these old GOP apparatchiks hoisting the party standard and they should be exposed for the obstructionists they are. That sort of shit doesn’t help their constituents or this country one bit. However, I also saw the more moderate/centrist face of the GOP, too.
I thought Obama was willing to take the hits that were legitimate, but he also dished it right back, which was also fair. No spin, no scripting, just a down-and-dirty policy discussion and one that is missing from our Republic. Sadly, I think you’re right about it not happening again, and mainly because there is no script and no spin, but I’d gladly sign a petition requesting it.
February 1, 2010 @ 1:32 PM
delete
delete
February 1, 2010 @ 2:10 PM
Arraya wrote:delete
Arraya,
[quote=Arraya]delete[/quote]
Arraya, you have so many deleted posts.
Generally, the first thought is the most revealing thought. Now, I’m wondering what you were thinking.
June 1, 2010 @ 1:27 PM
“On the Friday before a long
“On the Friday before a long holiday weekend, the White House issued a statement admitting that President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel arranged for former President Bill Clinton to ask Representative Joe Sestak if he would consider dropping out of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary. Mention was made in their discussion of Sestak’s possible appointment to a prominent, but unpaid, government advisory position if he did decide to drop out.”
“The apologists for the Obama administration will argue that Clinton did not have the authority to offer – much less promise – a position in the executive branch as an inducement for Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. At most, they will argue, there was just a quick feeler from a private citizen, albeit an ex-President.However, the key question was what was promised, if anything, and under whose authority.”
“Emanuel, as a government employee, may have committed a felony under 18 U.S.C. 600 if, through his emissary Bill Clinton, Emanuel communicated a promise of an appointment in the executive branch if Sestak agreed to drop out of the Senate primary and not challenge the Democratic Party establishment’s choice, Arlen Specter.”
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/28/crime-at-the-white-house/
P.S.
While the press neglected to report on the above for the most part, at least the House Judiciary Committee members have noticed:
In addition, a spokesman for Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, who on Friday asked FBI director Robert Mueller to investigate the Sestak matter, says:
“This is just another strike against the Administration’s story. Why bring in a big gun, like former President Clinton, to offer a meager job to Sestak that he wasn’t even eligible to accept? Either the administration is completely incompetent or there is a cover up. That’s why I’ve called for the FBI to get involved. We’re clearly not going to get a straight story from Sestak or the White House without an official investigation.”
I only have one problem with that. Why can’t it be both? Incompetence and cover-ups are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we are now seeing that they seem to happen often in an administration full of unwarranted hubris.
June 1, 2010 @ 2:09 PM
Veritas wrote:”On the Friday
[quote=Veritas]”On the Friday before a long holiday weekend, the White House issued a statement admitting that President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel arranged for former President Bill Clinton to ask Representative Joe Sestak if he would consider dropping out of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary. Mention was made in their discussion of Sestak’s possible appointment to a prominent, but unpaid, government advisory position if he did decide to drop out.”
“The apologists for the Obama administration will argue that Clinton did not have the authority to offer – much less promise – a position in the executive branch as an inducement for Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. At most, they will argue, there was just a quick feeler from a private citizen, albeit an ex-President.However, the key question was what was promised, if anything, and under whose authority.”
“Emanuel, as a government employee, may have committed a felony under 18 U.S.C. 600 if, through his emissary Bill Clinton, Emanuel communicated a promise of an appointment in the executive branch if Sestak agreed to drop out of the Senate primary and not challenge the Democratic Party establishment’s choice, Arlen Specter.”
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/28/crime-at-the-white-house/
P.S.
While the press neglected to report on the above for the most part, at least the House Judiciary Committee members have noticed:
In addition, a spokesman for Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, who on Friday asked FBI director Robert Mueller to investigate the Sestak matter, says:
“This is just another strike against the Administration’s story. Why bring in a big gun, like former President Clinton, to offer a meager job to Sestak that he wasn’t even eligible to accept? Either the administration is completely incompetent or there is a cover up. That’s why I’ve called for the FBI to get involved. We’re clearly not going to get a straight story from Sestak or the White House without an official investigation.”
I only have one problem with that. Why can’t it be both? Incompetence and cover-ups are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we are now seeing that they seem to happen often in an administration full of unwarranted hubris.[/quote]
Neither incompetent, nor a cover-up. There is no there there. There is politics in politics. Surprise. No crime. 18 U.S.C. 600 not applicable because it wasn’t a congressional appointment. Perfecly legal offer of a non-paid position, in exchange for dropping out of the race. Big dog, because it was a big deal. Big dog failed. Virtually identical to what Reagan did publically with Hayakawa almost 30 years ago.
Legally, a whole lotta nothing. But politically it’s better than nothing when repealing HCR is a loser.
June 1, 2010 @ 8:02 PM
You may be right about that,
You may be right about that, but there is a lot of speculation about fall out over the issue:
“The evasiveness over the Sestak job offer is quite telling to us. Look for blame to be placed in the lap of Rahm Emanuel. We are hearing that someone is going down over this issue and to clear the White House air prior to the elections, he will be replaced. I feel family issues are mounting and he will resign to spend more time at home. But all this is speculation, right? Look at the following posts around the net for clues.”
http://politisite.com/2010/05/26/rahm-emanuel-to-be-thrown-under-the-bus-over-sestak-bribe/
So will Rahm be thrown under the bus like Reverend Wright? Don’t you love the Washington Kabuki politics?
June 1, 2010 @ 8:09 PM
Rahm already stated he wanted
Rahm already stated he wanted to become mayor of Chicago. This plays right into his plan.
Can’t help thinking that Obama is very hard to work with. ( not the great unifier ) Who would have thought Rahm would bail this early in his administration.
June 1, 2010 @ 8:31 PM
That’s an interesting theory.
That’s an interesting theory.
June 2, 2010 @ 6:40 PM
It’s not the crime, it’s the
It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up and there is another one in progress:
Andrew Romanoff describes the job ‘offer:’
“Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/andrew-romanoff-details-contac.html?wprss=thefix
It’s the Chicago way. Blago better be careful or he may disappear.
June 2, 2010 @ 6:43 PM
Veritas wrote:It’s not the
[quote=Veritas]It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up and there is another one in progress:
Andrew Romanoff describes the job ‘offer:’
“Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/andrew-romanoff-details-contac.html?wprss=thefix
It’s the Chicago way. Blago better be careful or he may disappear.[/quote]
Yawn.
June 2, 2010 @ 6:44 PM
Aecetia wrote:You may be
[quote=Aecetia]You may be right about that, but there is a lot of speculation about fall out over the issue:
“The evasiveness over the Sestak job offer is quite telling to us. Look for blame to be placed in the lap of Rahm Emanuel. We are hearing that someone is going down over this issue and to clear the White House air prior to the elections, he will be replaced. I feel family issues are mounting and he will resign to spend more time at home. But all this is speculation, right? Look at the following posts around the net for clues.”
http://politisite.com/2010/05/26/rahm-emanuel-to-be-thrown-under-the-bus-over-sestak-bribe/
So will Rahm be thrown under the bus like Reverend Wright? Don’t you love the Washington Kabuki politics?[/quote]
Yawn.
June 2, 2010 @ 7:30 PM
Good Morning danielwis, glad
Good Morning danielwis, glad you are waking up.
June 2, 2010 @ 7:36 PM
danielwis wrote:Aecetia
[quote=danielwis][quote=Aecetia]You may be right about that, but there is a lot of speculation about fall out over the issue:
“The evasiveness over the Sestak job offer is quite telling to us. Look for blame to be placed in the lap of Rahm Emanuel. We are hearing that someone is going down over this issue and to clear the White House air prior to the elections, he will be replaced. I feel family issues are mounting and he will resign to spend more time at home. But all this is speculation, right? Look at the following posts around the net for clues.”
http://politisite.com/2010/05/26/rahm-emanuel-to-be-thrown-under-the-bus-over-sestak-bribe/
So will Rahm be thrown under the bus like Reverend Wright? Don’t you love the Washington Kabuki politics?[/quote]
Yawn.[/quote]
Daniel: Less of a yawn here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02dowd.html?ref=opinion
That thump you’re hearing is Maureen Dowd, the most esteemed liberal doyenne of the New York Times, tossing Obama’s ass under the bus.
Let’s see, Tom Friedman did it about a week and a half ago and now Dowd, the ardent supporter of all that is good and holy within Democratic Party politics, has just followed suit. Well, if Frank Rich pens a column planting a knife between Barry O’s shoulder blades, it’ll be the NYT trifecta.
His handling (or mishandling, more correctly) of the Gulf spill has shown him to be exactly what his critics contended he was: An empty suit. Full of rhetoric and blandishments and unfulfilled promises.
Heckuva a job, Barry!
June 2, 2010 @ 10:00 PM
Good one Allan. Here is
Good one Allan. Here is another interesting connection to ponder:
Fox in the Hen House: BP Exec at MMS-
“In the weeks since BP’s Deepwater Horizon well started spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, there’s been increasing attention to the ‘cozy’ relationship between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the oil industry it’s supposed to regulate. How cozy? Just last summer the Obama administration tapped a BP executive to serve as a deputy administrator for land and minerals management. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last June appointed Sylvia V. Baca to the post, which did not require Senate confirmation. The appointment follows eight years at BP.”
Now isn’t that special. Time to drain the swamp of oil, then of all the Chicago crooks and their cronies.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/bp-mms-revolving-door
June 2, 2010 @ 11:23 PM
Seems to me like the systemic
Seems to me like the systemic failures are all occurring one after another after 8 years of Bush policies.
June 3, 2010 @ 1:28 PM
BIOB What a wimp.
BIOB What a wimp.
June 3, 2010 @ 3:14 PM
Just because we are thugs
Just because we are thugs doesn’t mean we aren’t transparent (thugs):
“White House: Andrew Romanoff Overtures Don’t Mean We Aren’t Transparent- “I do believe we’ve been transparent, yes,” Gibbs told reporters pressing him about revelations that White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina called Romanoff to discuss jobs that “might be available” if Romanoff dropped his primary challenge. (In a response, the White House noted that Romanoff had previously applied for an administration job.)”
“Asked if there had been other such efforts to clear contested primaries, Gibbs replied, ‘not that I’m aware of.'”
http://piggington.com/comment/reply/9445/155369
Two words- Baghdad Bob
January 27, 2010 @ 10:30 AM
Zeitgeist wrote:Pup,
Add to
[quote=Zeitgeist]Pup,
Add to you list cut taxes. Kennedy did it and it worked.
Brian,
I would rather be Partypup than a flaming asshole like you. You are nothing more than a narcissistic, know it all, bore. I don’t see you attacking any of the men, but you insult an educated, articulate woman.[/quote]
Zeit: Or at the very least, don’t RAISE them until we’re further along through this mess.
November 2, 2008 @ 8:46 PM
What EXACTLY do you think
What EXACTLY do you think happened in Georgia, butler? Sounds like you know what you’re talking about. It was a major FP disaster, and has neutered our influence in Europe. What were our options at the time? What factors limited our response?
On the subject of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, what are the differences between Obama’s positions and Gen. Petraeus? Between Obama and establishment Bush41 Republicans? Why did the Bush43 administration sit down for talks with Iran? With North Korea? Did you notice Petraeus gave a speech last month indirectly criticizing McCain foreign policy positions? These things don’t happen by accident.
Another question for you: Where are all the Soviet nukes? Is Al Qaeda in possession of a warhead? Is Iran in possession of nukes? IAEA experts estimate they have 10-15 warheads, obtained from the former USSR. Does that change your perception of the situation? Seriously, how does that change the calculus for you? The bellicosity and posturing has strengthed our enemies.
On the subject of energy, what should we be doing? You seem to know what you’re talking about here. How can we best prepare the country for a post-oil energy supply infrastructure? What EXACTLY are the differences between Obama and McCain on energy policy? What don’t you like about Obama’s proposals? Not sure I understand.
Is there any substance to your POV? Are you just another partisan who will say anything, truth be damned, to promote your party? Most likely, I think you’re one of these types. Another member of the lunatic fringe. I encourage you to prove otherwise though. Contribute something substantive here.
November 2, 2008 @ 8:57 PM
Wow, lujack. Good post.
Wow, lujack. Good post. That’s right on the money. GOP deserves to get destroyed on Tuesday.
Same here, BTW. I’m an Obamacan, not an Obama-maniac. Best path forward. My sincere hope is we can get past the partisanship of the past 15-20 years.
* * *
butler – you don’t ‘stimulate’ a depression. Wrong term. Econ degree, so stuff like this bothers me. ‘Precipitate’ would work. So would ’cause through inaction’. Stimulus, however, would serve to elevate GDP, which isn’t what you’re trying to say, I think. What were you trying to say, anyway? Bunch of talking point jibberish, I suspect.
November 2, 2008 @ 9:04 PM
Gandalf: Speaking solely
Gandalf: Speaking solely about Obama’s voting record, where do you see either centrism or post-partisanship represented?
I know you are staking out a position based on his stump speeches and campaign policy positions, but if we back up to his actual legislative experience, where do you see it?
I do think there are some important questions here that are going unasked, largely because we are being asked to accept, on faith, that Obama will do what he is promising on the campaign trail.
Did you see that half hour paid spot that Obama did? If so, did it make you even remotely uncomfortable? There were things in there that, as a thinking voter, you must have taken issue with. I know I did, especially the programs he was discussing and how they would be paid for.
November 3, 2008 @ 12:14 AM
AFF, first off, it’s somewhat
AFF, first off, it’s somewhat artificial to restrict a discussion of Obama’s post-partisan bent to his senate voting record. How a senator votes on a particular bill is only properly understood in the context of the debate taking place (you know this). Nonetheless:
– Lugar on non-proliferation
– Ethics with Coburn
– Iran divestment with Brownback
– Darfur with Brownback
– Bond on Veterans Health Care
– Hatch on Tithes / Bankruptcy
– Death Penalty Overhaul (Unanimous)
To quote Adam Sandler, “not too shabby” for somebody with no experience. I’ll add to this a couple more observations:
Bush-era GOP has been far-right of middle, and opposing Bush policy is not an indicator of ‘leftism’. It is a sign of intelligence.
Obama has fairly conservative and/or middle-of-the-road positions on several foreign policy and fiscal matters, which have led to a number of endorsements from moderate and establishment GOP leaders.
Credit crisis, Obama’s first step was to call McCain to issue joint set of priorities with McCain, outlining terms for bailout. Instead of working with Obama, McCain canceled campaign to return to DC, called off the debate, then left DC after contributing nothing, etc.
On trip abroad, Obama passed on ample opportunities to criticize Bush or campaign against McCain, abiding by the time-honored tradition “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” McCain, meanwhile, personally attacked Obama while he was abroad.
To each their own, as they say. I’m of the mind that Obama was far more centrist than Hillary or Edwards. And let’s face it, there is NO FUCKING WAY I’m going to vote for some dope-assed mother-fucker from Bush’s GOP after last 8 years. NFW.
November 3, 2008 @ 8:04 AM
Gandalf: I’m not trying to
Gandalf: I’m not trying to turn this into an “either/or” debate, meaning one is either for Obama or for Bush. I’m just focusing on Obama here. As you know, I’m not voting for either Obama or McCain and, in McCain’s case, it has nothing to do with fears of politics as usual. I simply cannot stomach the fact that he has pandered to this extent and the Palin appointment was jaw droppipng. Literally.
Truth be told, the next President is hosed. Jimmy Carter faced similar circumstances back when he was elected, and his Presidency was disastrous. Carter was a USNA grad, former Navy officer, governor of Georgia and highly intelligent and his tenure is repeatedly referred to as “what not to do”.
Obama could be Jesus Christ with twin doctorates in Economics and Foreign Policy and he’d still be screwed. Too much to overcome in terms of problems, both domestically and globally.
November 3, 2008 @ 7:48 AM
NFW I am voting for
NFW I am voting for BHO,
Arraya, BO said himself that with new regulations that would limit or trade GH gasses it would bankrupt a business that wanted to produce energy from coal.
This country has many decades of fuels underground.
Oil, coal and natural gas are all very energy rich and need to be exhausted. BO’s has “Hope” that there is an alternative fuel that can power our nation. It has not been invented yet.
Solar only works five hours a day. It is uneconomical. Without tax breaks it would only power satellites and east African missions.
Wind can be a good source of energy. The problem with wind is that it needs plenty of capital to even compete and it destroys the back country and mountain tops.
Oil, coal and NG can all be used now. We have the technology to use these cleanly. We don’t because of politics. Politics led to the destruction of the nuclear power industry as well. Jackson Brown can be thanked for global warming.
BO uses key words that motivate the uninformed about energy.
Gandalf, thanks for correcting my tong in cheek play on words about stimulus. I will bow down and worship you as a Columbia edumacated econ something or other. I will also let you spout hate towards Georgia. Russia had every right to cross the border with tanks and troops to suppress the violence towards their puppet er I mean ethnic region. I hope you make it to work today and that your crack hangover doesn’t hurt too bad.
November 3, 2008 @ 7:50 AM
One thing is certain:
Womever
One thing is certain:
Womever is elected will absolutely be …
THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER ELECTED THUS FAR IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
November 3, 2008 @ 8:18 AM
Butleroftwo wrote:NFW I am
[quote=Butleroftwo]NFW I am voting for BHO,
[/quote]
I think that’s McCain’s main problem: No one is voting for McCain. Voters are either voting for or against Obama.
I don’t know of one person who is excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency. I know of several — nay tons — of people who are excited about Obama.
November 3, 2008 @ 12:37 PM
butler, actually that was
butler, actually that was pretty funny about the crack hangover. Kudos.
And no problem with the NFW on BHO. America’s a free country. Do what you like. I’m voting for Obama.
AFF, I do agree. Whoever is elected is going to have a rough go of it, and nobody is going to be able to turn things around single-handedly. Speaks to the need for responsible, bi-partisan, competent centrist leadership. More so than any other candidate, Obama offers this path forward.
Incidentally, I genuinely hope the GOP sheds its lunatic fringe over the next couple of years. Well past time for the moderates to step up and assert control. If they don’t, it might signal the end of the GOP as we know it, emergence of an influential third-party.
November 3, 2008 @ 12:44 PM
Gandalf: The GOP doesn’t have
Gandalf: The GOP doesn’t have a choice. I watch Palin with horror. She is embracing a know-nothing mentality with pride and demeaning those that think, or question, the accepted “wisdom” of her position.
Arraya pointed out the similarities to the Nazis on another thread and it’s alarming to admit, but there are some. This sense of absolutism and “do what God says” and “you’re with us or against us”.
We have successfully militarized and polarized this country to a frightening degree. And, sadly, the GOP hasn’t done it alone. The Dems are in there, too. The glee you hear from certain Dems about “getting even for the last eight years” is just as bad.
We are at a crossroads, no doubt about it. Where we go from here is entirely up to us.
November 3, 2008 @ 11:54 PM
TheBreeze wrote:Butleroftwo
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=Butleroftwo]NFW I am voting for BHO,
[/quote]
I think that’s McCain’s main problem: No one is voting for McCain. Voters are either voting for or against Obama.
I don’t know of one person who is excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency. I know of several — nay tons — of people who are excited about Obama. [/quote]
First off it doesnt supprise me at all that you would not know anyone who is excited about McCain, being a loud mouthed liberal in a very liberal state.I know a few, though he lost me with the word “Palin”. McCain is gonna lose, but not Mondale style, so obviously someone must like him.
Second off I would tend to disagree with your point. In the battle ground states this may be true. Voters are deciding on Obama or not Obama. The problem with labeling the whole country in that regard is that the Non-battle ground states are voting on Bush. Nicknames like McSame are not insulting if given in good times. This election turned not on Obama anything, but on the (well deserved) hatred of Bush.
I really tend to hear two things about this election.
1) ‘He cant be worse than that Fucktard Bush.’
2) ‘I have hope he will be better, but little proof.’
So our election is turning on hope and hate, and that is why we have such a messed up election.
November 4, 2008 @ 12:15 AM
DWCAP wrote:TheBreeze
[quote=DWCAP][quote=TheBreeze][quote=Butleroftwo]NFW I am voting for BHO,
[/quote]
I think that’s McCain’s main problem: No one is voting for McCain. Voters are either voting for or against Obama.
I don’t know of one person who is excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency. I know of several — nay tons — of people who are excited about Obama. [/quote]
First off it doesnt supprise me at all that you would not know anyone who is excited about McCain, being a loud mouthed liberal in a very liberal state.I know a few, though he lost me with the word “Palin”. McCain is gonna lose, but not Mondale style, so obviously someone must like him.
Second off I would tend to disagree with your point. In the battle ground states this may be true. Voters are deciding on Obama or not Obama. The problem with labeling the whole country in that regard is that the Non-battle ground states are voting on Bush. Nicknames like McSame are not insulting if given in good times. This election turned not on Obama anything, but on the (well deserved) hatred of Bush.
I really tend to hear two things about this election.
1) ‘He cant be worse than that Fucktard Bush.’
2) ‘I have hope he will be better, but little proof.’
So our election is turning on hope and hate, and that is why we have such a messed up election.
[/quote]
And let’s not forget
3) I want to stick it to “rich” people, whatever the definition of “rich” is.
Of course, the only shafting that are going really see, are the shafting that’s already going on.
Off topic, have you noticed that the insanely rich people are massively selling assets this year and last? I was reading the head of some major VC in the Valley is selling his huge estates. I wonder how many of these people are doing such so now to pay less taxes. Also, it seems like more and more ceo’s are taking that $0 salary…Hmmmmmm……
I wonder if the ultimate joke is gonna be on the rest of us. A bunch of rich people cashing out, sitting on the sideline, living off of their golden parachutes… I guess if you are really rich, you can afford to have a $0 income over the next 4 years, you don’t pay taxes :). Hence, you might even qualify for a tax credit 🙂 I’m just kidding folks….
July 2, 2009 @ 11:40 AM
“Gotta beef with the Obama
“Gotta beef with the Obama administration? Wanna win friends and influence people? Have an agenda you want to promote via a respected news venue?”
“Well, as if it hasn’t been easy enough in the past to spread your propaganda by greasing the media’s sweaty palm, now it’s been made even easier by the Washington Post, which has announced that it is “offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to ‘those powerful few’ — Obama administration officials, members of Congress and the paper’s own reporters and editors’.”
by jedley
Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 07:00:50 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/2/93658/86045
July 2, 2009 @ 11:45 AM
Hey Veritas,
That
Hey Veritas,
That opportunity was cancelled:
“Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was cancelling plans for an exclusive ‘salon’ at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to ‘those powerful few’ — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.”
Too bad, pay to play.
July 8, 2009 @ 9:26 AM
Obamacare shakedown is
Obamacare shakedown is working:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/08/biden.health.care/
(CNN) — Vice President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that a deal has been reached with hospitals to help fund health care reform.
Vice President Biden says “we can’t wait” for health care reform.
“We’re here today to make our health care system healthy again,” Biden said in announcing the agreement.
July 8, 2009 @ 10:57 AM
Zeitgeist, remember that
Zeitgeist, remember that teenage mothers in the bible belt are more likely to lack health care coverage than have it.
Those “wholesome” families will also need welfare and state funded education.
July 8, 2009 @ 11:14 AM
Brian,
Did your parents make
Brian,
Did your parents make you read the Bible? It seems to be a real touchstone for your arguments. I think that families should be more involved in the upbringing of their children than government. I think government should not be involved in schools either. For me less is more. I am not the right wing zealot you imagine. I am more of a laissez-faire oriented person in most matters. I have observed when it comes to Palin and her family you are mean spiritied and a bully. She seems to hit a nerve with you that is at a personal level. Most of my issues with politicians occur when they are infringing on my rights and independence including my ability to make a decent living. With you it is something else.
July 8, 2009 @ 11:37 AM
Zeitgeist wrote:
Did your
[quote=Zeitgeist]
Did your parents make you read the Bible? It seems to be a real touchstone for your arguments.
[/quote]
No, I never read the bible. I always think that I should read it to know that heck people are talking about. Did I attend Catholic mass and I think that the music is beautiful. The services at the born-again churches is something else totally.
I do have plenty of religious relatives and acquaintances. They are the most unstable of them all.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
I think that families should be more involved in the upbringing of their children than government. I think government should not be involved in schools either. For me less is more.
[/quote]
I agree. I’m all for doing away with property taxes and closing down the schools. That would benefit me financially.
With the money I’m now paying in taxes to educate other people’s kids, I could be taking nice vacations and enjoying myself.
People should not have kids unless they can afford to pay for them.
Thing about house appreciation if we got rid of property taxes? The boom would return 😉
[quote=Zeitgeist]
I have observed when it comes to Palin and her family you are mean spiritied and a bully. She seems to hit a nerve with you that is at a personal level. [/quote]
It’s all in good fun. She’s the pit bull with lipstick, remember? I’m just a Labrador. 😉
July 8, 2009 @ 11:52 AM
deleted
deleted
July 8, 2009 @ 12:04 PM
delete
delete
July 8, 2009 @ 12:10 PM
Come on Arraya, your input is
Come on Arraya, your input is always valuable.
July 8, 2009 @ 8:06 PM
Obama: Hey, let’s bypass the
Obama: Hey, let’s bypass the Senate on treaty ratifications:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senate-on-treaty-ratifications/
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Words. Just words.
July 14, 2009 @ 10:48 AM
Doubts About Obama’s Economic
Doubts About Obama’s Economic Recovery Plan Rise Along With Unemployment
“The other risk is that the economy sinks even more than expected right now, compounding the problems policy makers already have. Waiting too long could heighten that danger.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09stimulus.html?ref=us
July 8, 2009 @ 11:58 AM
I cannot disagree with you on
I cannot disagree with you on taxes for others children and I am 100% agreement with you on “people should not have kids unless they can afford them.” However, that would make us China to limit children. Maybe we could screen parents. Even though that would build more government, it might be the one place where more government would be appropriate.
November 3, 2008 @ 1:45 PM
Allan, you got my vote.
Let
Allan, you got my vote.
Let us know if you ever decide to run.
November 3, 2008 @ 5:47 PM
Gandalf: Dude. You’re
Gandalf: Dude. You’re killing me here.
I couldn’t be a politician. I love my country and the truth too much.
November 3, 2008 @ 11:45 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Gandalf: Dude. You’re killing me here.
I couldn’t be a politician. I love my country and the truth too much.[/quote]
That settles it. I am writting Allan From Fallbrook in tomorrow. (j/k allan, you seem like a good guy and I wouldnt wish that horror on anyone.)
November 3, 2008 @ 4:56 PM
Hear Hear Allen!
I second
Hear Hear Allen!
I second Allen’s nomination!
Oink Oink Oink!
CE
November 3, 2008 @ 5:13 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:Hear Hear
[quote=CDMA ENG]Hear Hear Allen!
I second Allen’s nomination!
Oink Oink Oink!
CE[/quote]
ditto
July 14, 2009 @ 3:24 PM
Hilarious !
Hilarious !
July 14, 2009 @ 6:08 PM
The Economy Is Even Worse
The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think
The average length of unemployment is higher than it’s been since government began tracking the data in 1948.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html
July 14, 2009 @ 11:49 PM
What I want to know is this:
What I want to know is this: where is The Breeze? I would love for him to take his own poll now. What say you, Breezy? Are we still on track with the best presidency ever?
LOL. This is too easy.
July 15, 2009 @ 6:42 AM
I voted for Obama but at this
I voted for Obama but at this point it is pretty much guaranteed he will be a one term president.
All the things he campaigned against Bush about he is now actually defending in court so that he too can do them.
Health care. Rather than adopt a system similar to Germany’s, which would save over a trillion dollars in 10 years, he caved in to the Health Care Lobby and is going to adopt a system that is a trillion more expensive!!
And then there is the whole housing bailout thing.
July 15, 2009 @ 3:17 PM
Worst of all time before he
Worst of all time before he is through without question. He might already be viewed that way from what he is already doing, even if he made no other blunders.
His stupidity is great for trading though, cannot complain there. McCain would have made me alot less money.
July 16, 2009 @ 12:27 PM
“Asked if Obama supports the
“Asked if Obama supports the surtax on wealthiest Americans even though it would break a campaign pledge, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only, “It’s a process that we’re watching.”
July 16, 2009 @ 4:26 PM
Offhand to Chris Scoreboard
Offhand to Chris Scoreboard
Your call on the website a few days ago about the bounce was amazing.
Okay back to Obama being the best president ever.
July 28, 2009 @ 3:59 PM
Polls on economy, health care
Polls on economy, health care bring Obama down to earth
July 21, 2009 President Barack Obama’s plans to mount a new appeal for public support on health care reform were brought up short by a spate of new polls showing enthusiasm for his policies — including health care — on the wane.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/51264617.html
July 28, 2009 @ 9:13 PM
yes, He can!
yes, He can!
August 4, 2009 @ 4:23 PM
Read my lips. No new taxes.
Read my lips. No new taxes. Yes we can raise taxes and not just the rich. Be a patriot, pay up and shut up.
*The lead out of the Sunday shows, from AP: “President Barack Obama’s treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.”
August 4, 2009 @ 5:03 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Read my lips.
[quote=Zeitgeist]Read my lips. No new taxes. Yes we can raise taxes and not just the rich. Be a patriot, pay up and shut up.
*The lead out of the Sunday shows, from AP: “President Barack Obama’s treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.”[/quote]
Yes.
Because Barack Obama is as politically astute as Bush 41.
And because his opponent will be as astute as Clinton.
Good luck with that and keep voting Ron Paul.
Makes it easier for the rest of us when you remove yourself from the equation.
August 4, 2009 @ 5:06 PM
I agree that Bush 41 and
I agree that Bush 41 and Obama are both elitists and eventually it catches up with them. I wonder if Obama knows how much a loaf of bread costs or is that a trick question. How about a gallon of gas? Obama has a lot more charisma, but that may wear thin, too. Nothing like sound government fiscal policies to stimulate the economy.
August 7, 2009 @ 1:17 PM
BARACK OBAMA So What’s the
BARACK OBAMA So What’s the Real Unemployment Rate? 6.66 million jobs lost so far and counting.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODUyZGMyNTExYzNlNTUyNzA1ZmIwMzc3MmMxNzEzYWM=
Obama continues to obfuscation campaign:
Of course, if you take the July number of unemployed, 14.5 million, and add that 796,000 of discouraged workers, you get a total of 15,296,000.
In a work force of July’s number of 154,504,000, that’s an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent.
In a work for of June’s number of 154,926,000, that’s an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent.
UPDATE: Apparently we’re in the Economy of the Beast, with 6.66 million lost jobs over 19 months of contraction.
*disclaimer Bush deserves some of the credit here for the job loss.
August 13, 2009 @ 3:24 PM
I bet this blunder was on
I bet this blunder was on purpose:
“One of the biggest policy blunders of the Bush administration was enacting a Medicare prescription drug program that prevented the government from negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical suppliers. The result was a multibillion dollar gift from the federal treasury to the drug industry.”
“In his campaign for the presidency Barack Obama pledged to enact health care reform that would include repealing that ban, and predicted it would save more than $300 billion that could be applied to expanded insurance coverage for Americans.”
“In the past week a series of confusing and contradictory accounts has emerged, the gist of which is that the White House and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry have made a behind-the-scenes deal. In exchange for an $80 billion reduction in drug costs and support for health care reform, the administration would drop provisions to allow Medicare and an expanded Medicaid to negotiate lower drug prices with suppliers.”
“In reaction to the reports, former Clinton Secretary of Labor and University of California at Berkeley professor Robert Reich claimed Obama was yielding to legislative extortion to get a reform bill passed. Initially, representatives of the White House and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America confirmed the outlines of the deal, including a $150 million television ad campaign on behalf of health care reform. After reports of the arrangement triggered a furor of criticism from lawmakers, both sides tried to downplay its significance.”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6570608.html
August 27, 2009 @ 12:28 PM
Unemployment update- Atlanta
Unemployment update- Atlanta Federal Reserve Chief: Real Unemployment Rate is 16%
Update: CBO Now Projects an 2.3 Million Additional Unemployed Next Year, On Top of Already-Expected Millions
http://minx.cc/?post=291408
August 27, 2009 @ 10:15 PM
Hey Gandalf check out the
Hey Gandalf check out the stats. It looks like your guys did not take 10 years to run the bus into the ditch. Oh yeah, it’s still Bush’s fault.
“In fairness, I’ll think of something to say about democrats when they run the bus ito a ditch of their own 10 years from now. That’s just how American politics works.”
Who are the sheep fu@kr$ now? Just askin’.
August 28, 2009 @ 12:34 AM
Veritas wrote:Hey Gandalf
[quote=Veritas]Hey Gandalf check out the stats. It looks like your guys did not take 10 years to run the bus into the ditch. Oh yeah, it’s still Bush’s fault.
“In fairness, I’ll think of something to say about democrats when they run the bus ito a ditch of their own 10 years from now. That’s just how American politics works.”
Who are the sheep fu@kr$ now? Just askin’.[/quote]
From zeros to heroes back to zeros – in 3 years. That’s gotta be a record.
September 14, 2009 @ 10:15 AM
Who owns
Who owns Obama?
http://watchdog.net/p/barack_obama
1 Monir Edwan $24,313 from October 27, 2007 to November 11, 2007
2 Martin Dies $18,400 on June 30, 2007
3 Rafael Vinoly $10,450 from December 19, 2007 to May 28, 2008
4 Jeff Chiacchieri $10,168 from April 3, 2007 to May 5, 2007
5 Robert Jr Blackwell $9,600 from June 8, 2007 to June 21, 2007
Top Contributor Employers
Campaigns disclose the employers of their contributors; this list aggregates them. Use with caution: this list is based on raw FEC data
1 Self $23,798,300
2 Goldman Sachs $315,700
3 Google $291,183
4 Jones Day $246,700
5 Morgan Stanley $244,937
September 14, 2009 @ 12:50 PM
Zeitgeist to me sounds like
Zeitgeist to me sounds like the people described in the piece.
“Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=oh%20boy&st=cse
——
Of all these nuts heckling the congressmen over health-care, I bet you that 3/4 of them don’t even have health care. That’s why they have no teeth.
I think that the “rednecks” should be written off by progressive as a lost cause. No point in trying to save them from themselves.
September 14, 2009 @ 1:08 PM
New Poll: Is Zeitgeist the
New Poll: Is Zeitgeist the best resurrector of dead threads ever?
September 14, 2009 @ 5:21 PM
afx114 wrote:New Poll: Is
[quote=afx114]New Poll: Is Zeitgeist the best resurrector of dead threads ever?[/quote]
LOL. Yeah, I bet you’d like to see this thread disappear forever. Just seeing the words “best president ever” next to “Obama” now is enough to send anyone rolling on the floor laughing their a** off.
But this time lapse video of the little 9/12 tea party event this weekend clearly shows that about a million pissed off Americans aren’t laughing so hard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPud1TeubM&feature=player_embedded
Karl Deninger – Bush basher and former Obama supporter – practically screamed at O’s administration today to pull it’s friggin’neck out of the sand:
“White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the protesters, part of the “tea party” movement, do not represent the views of the broader public when it comes to health care reform.
“I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood,” Axelrod said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “You know, I don’t think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they’re wrong.”
Arrogance is dangerous Mr. Axelrod. We do remember leaked sealed divorce records during senatorial campaigns and other similar dirty tricks, and an awful lot of America is quite sure that you don’t give a good damn what America thinks on this issue or any other. That is why over a million people showed up in Washington DC Mr. Axelrod, and if you ignore their voice, it will simply grow stronger – until you can’t ignore it any longer.”
But I would go a step further. 9/12 was not just about health care reform. It was the biggest ANTI-GOVERNMENT protest in modern American history.
According to the LA Times:
“There were antiabortion protesters and term-limit advocates. Critics of financial bailouts and the federal investigation into CIA interrogation techniques. Marchers who were worried about rekindling inflation and upset about the soaring national debt. Pickets opposed to Obama’s healthcare reform plan and challenging the legitimacy of his election.
If there was a unifying theme, it was the notion that the federal government, starting with the financial bailout last fall and continuing with Obama’s vast economic stimulus plan, has grown too big, too costly and too intrusive.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-capitol-rally13-2009sep13,0,5742055.story
New poll: how long will it be before Obama supporters finally give up the ghost and realize they were duped by a shill, a hack, a charlatan who conned 60 million Americans into *change* they neither wanted nor expected? I was duped by the Dems for 25 years until I got wise to their tricks in 2006. Happy to say that I’ve never been duped by a Republican, because I’ve always tuned out as soon as their lips started moving.
The anger that is rising now ain’t going away. It will build. And BUILD. AND BUILD until Obama (and his blind supporters) can no longer ignore it, until people are flowing into the streets, desperate, angry and demanding of *REAL* change, not the Tony Robbins, teleprompter schtick that merely provides a post-racial excuse to fleece Americans while they’re asleep.
Zeitgeist was right to resurrect this thread. As embarrassing as it may be for Obama supporters, it’s about to get much worse. And burying a thread, my friend, won’t make the truth go away.
September 14, 2009 @ 6:07 PM
Partypup: I think the Dems
Partypup: I think the Dems are displaying not only arrogance, but a high level of tone deafness as well. This is exemplified in the reactions of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Barney Frank, who are not only failing to acknowledge the true feelings you mention above that are driving average American citizens to the streets in protest, but that these protests are fundamentally AMERICAN in nature.
As mortified as I am at times by our politicians and my fellow citizens, I also recognize that there is something intrinsically beautiful about America, in that it allows for such grievances and anger to be communicated and without violence happening, to either the protesters or the politicians and government they’re protesting against.
I think what makes someone like Glenn Beck truly dangerous right now, is that he has tapped into a vein of truly righteous populist anger and its directed against Dems AND Republicans. Average citizens are pissed off, fed up and MOBILIZING. I don’t see violence on the horizon, but I do see a revolution.
I read an article on RealClearPolitics today that discussed the protests, both in terms of sheer size and how truly average the protesters were. These aren’t elements of the lunatic fringe (although, I’m sure they’re there); these are average, working Americans that are coming out and expressing their anger, frustration and displeasure with how things are being run. When these protests reach a critical mass and every day, average Americans realize its OUR country, watch out. It’s been a long time coming and its long overdue.
September 14, 2009 @ 6:23 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I read an article on RealClearPolitics today that discussed the protests, both in terms of sheer size and how truly average the protesters were. These aren’t elements of the lunatic fringe (although, I’m sure they’re there); these are average, working Americans that are coming out and expressing their anger, frustration and displeasure with how things are being run. When these protests reach a critical mass and every day, average Americans realize its OUR country, watch out. It’s been a long time coming and its long overdue.[/quote]
Allan, if I had been within driving distance of DC, I would have attended. I’ve become much more politically vocal in my ripe old age (43). I was practically a fixture at the Prop 8 rallies last year.
You’re right, it’s the demographic of the average protester that should scare every pol in Washington now, including the GOP. Moms, homemakers, pensioners, many of whom actually voted for Obama. Both parties have failed us, and the average American is now waking up to this very sad reality.
September 14, 2009 @ 8:24 PM
Right you are Pup and Allan
Right you are Pup and Allan and they are not scared, they are terrified. The folks that ran one of the smoothest campaigns ever, smoother even than the Clinton machine, is going down in flames and they are in disbelief. Some where above is an Axelrod quote. Dick Morris hired him, so you know he is nothing but an evil henchman. If all of this wasn’t so deadly serious I would find it hilarious. Maybe its the 2000 version of a morality play like John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress where the main character, Christian, encounters characters such as Faithful, Goodwill, and Ignorance on his journey to the Celestial City of Zion. So far we are meeting only ignorance, greed and stupidity. God help the United States.
September 21, 2009 @ 9:29 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Right you are
[quote=Zeitgeist]Right you are Pup and Allan and they are not scared, they are terrified. The folks that ran one of the smoothest campaigns ever, smoother even than the Clinton machine, is going down in flames and they are in disbelief. Some where above is an Axelrod quote. Dick Morris hired him, so you know he is nothing but an evil henchman. If all of this wasn’t so deadly serious I would find it hilarious. Maybe its the 2000 version of a morality play like John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress where the main character, Christian, encounters characters such as Faithful, Goodwill, and Ignorance on his journey to the Celestial City of Zion. So far we are meeting only ignorance, greed and stupidity. God help the United States.[/quote]
Thanks to gerrymandering most politicians are so entrenched that they dont have to worry about being displaced in the next election. All they have to do is make sure they win the nomination of the party – and to do that you just have to pander to the platform and the financial sponsors of the party in thier district. Doesnt matter if those sponsors are Idiotic Bay Area Socialst or Moronic South Carolina Religous Fanatics, just keep ’em happy and get the nomination. The gerrymandered voting district will take care of the rest. Period. Gerrymandering has changed the entire tone of US politics and made politicians accountable to the party rather than the electorate.
September 14, 2009 @ 6:11 PM
Oh come one PP, Don’t be
Oh come one PP, Don’t be fooled by the Fox news revolution, sponsored by JP morgan and hosted by Glen Beck and Gerald Celente. Give me a freaking break.
Bank bailouts are way down on the list of things to be angry about at those rallys. They are much more concerned with keeping poor people from having health care.
They sure got a lot more coverage than the anti-war rallys and that says something.
Damn right wing media.
September 14, 2009 @ 6:20 PM
Arraya wrote:Oh come one PP,
[quote=Arraya]Oh come one PP, Don’t be fooled by the Fox news revolution, sponsored by JP morgan and hosted by Glen Beck and Gerald Celente. Give me a freaking break.
Bank bailouts are way down on the list of things to be angry about at those rallys. They are much more concerned with keeping poor people from having health care.
They sure got a lot more coverage than the anti-war rallys and that says something.
Damn right wing media.[/quote]
I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but what I’m feeling from friends and colleagues in my neck of the woods is: SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG. And I don’t live within 30 miles of a Republican.
As for the anti-war rally, I actually think many people opposed the war but weren’t motivated enough to get out in the streets and express their opposition. But when you’re unemployed, along with you neighbor and his neighbor, that’s another story. You’re right – Glenn and Fox are pushing this. But they are idiots if they think the outrage doesn’t extend to the GOP, as well. When the dam breaks, BOTH parties are going to get their a**es handed to them.
September 15, 2009 @ 12:22 AM
Arraya wrote:Oh come one PP,
[quote=Arraya]Oh come one PP, Don’t be fooled by the Fox news revolution, sponsored by JP morgan and hosted by Glen Beck and Gerald Celente. Give me a freaking break.
Bank bailouts are way down on the list of things to be angry about at those rallys. They are much more concerned with keeping poor people from having health care.
They sure got a lot more coverage than the anti-war rallys and that says something.
Damn right wing media.[/quote]
As everyone probably knows already, I’m pretty left-leaning; but even I am concerned about what’s going on now under the full control of the Democrats.
I LOVE socialized medicine. The problem is that they introduced this before even acknowledging what the economic “crisis” was all about. It’s like they are trying desperately to distract us from the real job at hand: working out the problems in the financial sector and finding the most efficient ways to bring back good jobs that can strengthen the position of America’s middle class.
IMHO, Obama’s administration is certainly no better than the Bush administration WRT the financial crisis. They have swept things under the rug by refusing to enforce mark-to-market rules, and obscuring what’s going on behind closed doors.
In the beginning, Obama spoke correctly about the importance of JOBS and infrastructure, healthcare, and technological investments (which I agree with). Instead, we have the largest bailout packages and govt guarantees **for the financial sector** this country has ever seen. I’ll bet if you take a poll, the vast majority of Democrats would be opposed to this apparent shift in policy.
September 21, 2009 @ 10:46 AM
“When media organs fail to
“When media organs fail to fulfill their basic responsibilities, they degenerate quickly into democracy’s undertaker.” Caroline Glick
The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation – a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/
September 21, 2009 @ 10:40 PM
CA renter wrote:Arraya
[quote=CA renter][quote=Arraya]Oh come one PP, Don’t be fooled by the Fox news revolution, sponsored by JP morgan and hosted by Glen Beck and Gerald Celente. Give me a freaking break.
Bank bailouts are way down on the list of things to be angry about at those rallys. They are much more concerned with keeping poor people from having health care.
They sure got a lot more coverage than the anti-war rallys and that says something.
Damn right wing media.[/quote]
As everyone probably knows already, I’m pretty left-leaning; but even I am concerned about what’s going on now under the full control of the Democrats.
I LOVE socialized medicine. The problem is that they introduced this before even acknowledging what the economic “crisis” was all about. It’s like they are trying desperately to distract us from the real job at hand: working out the problems in the financial sector and finding the most efficient ways to bring back good jobs that can strengthen the position of America’s middle class.
IMHO, Obama’s administration is certainly no better than the Bush administration WRT the financial crisis. They have swept things under the rug by refusing to enforce mark-to-market rules, and obscuring what’s going on behind closed doors.
In the beginning, Obama spoke correctly about the importance of JOBS and infrastructure, healthcare, and technological investments (which I agree with). Instead, we have the largest bailout packages and govt guarantees **for the financial sector** this country has ever seen. I’ll bet if you take a poll, the vast majority of Democrats would be opposed to this apparent shift in policy.[/quote]
I here ya, CAR
However, ee, the thing is, I have found myself in the strange position of AGREEING with many conservatives about Obama’s ruinous decisions regarding the economy. And it’s true, and so interesting, how some of the traditional right-wing folks are sounding more and more like (ha!) leftist anti-capitalists as they talk about how wall street and corporations own this country.
So WHY THE HELL are they letting their very valid points get diluted and hijacked by all the other birther/death panel/racist/socialist nonsense? STOP IT! Do they realize what a powerful coalition there could be in America right now to really change things? Because all of the sudden people from every political stripe realize how hollow and bankrupt the American dream is?
This is one reason I get so angry when I see intelligent people allowing themselves to be distracted by bullshit. All you 9/12 people. Put down the fucking John Galt signs, and the signs about forced abortions, and the signs about “show us your birth certificate.” Pick up the signs that say “audit the fed,” “Where did the 1.5 trillion go,””give us a real stress test,” “get rid of the toxic loans and derivatives.” You’ll find plenty of people to support you.
This is not about OBAMA. This is about the people in this country being pimped out so politicians and financial institutions can maintain their cushy lot in life. It’s about a broken system. If they insist on making it about Obama, THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE. Because if the argument is “Obama is messing up!”, well, where were all you people when BUSH was president, for god’s sake?
September 22, 2009 @ 1:09 AM
Arraya wrote:If they insist
[quote=Arraya]If they insist on making it about Obama, THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE. Because if the argument is “Obama is messing up!”, well, where were all you people when BUSH was president, for god’s sake?[/quote]
I, for one, was standing in freezing cold temperatures in D.C. when Bush was inaugurated in 2004, hurling expletives at his motorcade as it sped by faster than a banana republic dictator escaping after a coup.
I think it’s dangerous to assume that those who loathe Obama did NOT also loathe Bush. Some of us have simply been disgusted beyond measure by the Losers-in-Chief of the past couple of decades. I agree, this is not just about Obama. But as this country is going to hell in a double-wide handbasket on HIS watch (quadrupling in 8 months the amount of debt Bush racked up in 12), I don’t find it very productive to continue to rail against the crook who has already skipped out of office and can’t do a damn thing anymore. That ship has sailed. Makes more sense to me to go after the crook who is currently occupying the Oval Office.
And yes, while the REAL problem and the greater threat is the Fed and the influence of vampire squid organizations like Goldman Sux, I can’t really find it in myself to ignore the guy who has chosen to populate his cabinet with the very clowns who caused this crisis. He hasn’t moved to audit the Fed. He hasn’t stopped throwing money at banks. He hasn’t stopped expanding the Patriot Act. Face it: we’re basically living Bush’s third term.
I think it’s extremely difficult to rant and rail against an institution like the Fed. People simply won’t get it. However, if the rant is directed toward the man – be it Clinton, Bush or Obama, take your pick – who *enables* the Fed and looks the other way while banks loot our nation, I actually believe that will get more traction. Just my opinion. Only time will tell whether the 9/12 folks are actually able to give this thing legs. As you know, I firmly believe that we will see a *revolution* (hopefully non-violent) in this country in our lifetimes. 240 years ago the rallying cry was “No taxation without representation.” And now it’s happening all over again.
History may not repeat, but it sure as hell seems to rhyme.
November 25, 2009 @ 2:04 PM
Russian Professor: Collapse
Russian Professor: Collapse Of America Could Begin Next Month
Of course, he is selling a book. This is an interesting read, though.
Panarin, doctor of political sciences and professor of the Russian Diplomatic Academy Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told journalists during the unveiling of his new book yesterday that President Obama has done nothing to forestall the fast approaching crisis and that it could begin to properly unfold in November.
“Obama is “the president of hope”, but in a year there won’t be any hope,” said Panarin. “He’s practically another Gorbachev – he likes to talk but hasn’t really managed to do anything. Gorbachev at least had been a secretary of a regional communist party administration, whereas Obama was just a social worker. His mentality is totally different. He’s a nice person and talks nicely – but he’s not a leader and will take America to a crash. When Americans understand that – it will be like a bomb explosion.”
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/the-crash-of-america-two-months-left-to-read-the-book-on-us-collapse/
September 21, 2009 @ 11:54 AM
Has Obama done a single thing
Has Obama done a single thing he promised?
Think about it. Millions were going to be saved from foreclosure – almost no one qualifies.
We were going to be saved from Credit Card companies – Next year after the banks had a chance to raise everyones rates.
Health care proposals no one wants…
Millions of jobs were going to be created with the stimulus plan. Where are these jobs?
I don’t really count the bailout since he simply continued policy from the Bush administration.
Face it, Obama had the chance to REALLY represent the people, but frankly I don’t see any real difference between him and the last guy on top of the pile!
January 25, 2010 @ 5:43 PM
I’m guessing someone on this
I’m guessing someone on this forum will assume (by the title of this article) that the author is a NeoCon or a Republican, which I’m sure will come to quite a surprise to the folks at Common Dreams.
It really is hard to keep up with all of the blistering Pampers commentary now. And I think we now need to start a new thread: “Will Pampers be the Worst President – EVER?”
NOTE: Yes, I do call him Pampers – for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has a child 😉
“How to Squander the Presidency in One Year”
“People are hurting, frightened and angry. Obama is suffering badly already because he is not addressing their very tangible concerns. More of the same policy-wise will produce more of the same politically. Going this route, he’d be lucky if the public was kind enough to let him finish his single term as a James Buchanan wannabe, then go home.
…
I think his personal disposition is so strongly controlling of his politics that he would rather preside as a three year lame-duck over a failed one-term presidency, than actually throw an elbow or two and make anyone uncomfortable. Think how unpleasant it would be.
…
Of course, I don’t give a shit about Barack Obama anymore, other than my desire that really ugly things happen to him as payment in kind for the grandest act of betrayal we’ve seen since Benedict Arnold did his thing. But what about the country?
…
This is the country that Obama – the great Hope guy – is bequeathing us.
Dante said “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”.
Better stock up on the mist sprayers, Barack.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7
January 25, 2010 @ 8:04 PM
Partypup: That was an
Partypup: That was an excellent article. There was a great deal of common sense in there, despite the vitriol, and, as a conservative, I can really appreciate the author’s steadfast “turn left” true progressive ideals. Unlike the Leftie posers on this board, he articulates a genuine, policy driven mandate that would have a substantive effect on the country. While I don’t necessarily agree with that mandate, I have respect for someone who strongly holds to their beliefs and has a willingness to call ’em as they see ’em, regardless of politics.
I have to ask you, as a former Dem, what you thought of the article, from a policy advocacy standpoint, as well as what you thought of his observations about Obama personally.
Some of the more reasoned, thoughtful posters, like Gandalf, expressed hope that Obama would lead from the center and avoid “business as usual”. As the author points out, we’re now in Bush’s “third term”, with many of the more odious policies, like rendition, eroded civil liberties, Patriot I and II and the ceaseless wars, on-going or even expanded.
So? What now?
January 25, 2010 @ 8:11 PM
silence of the lambs
silence of the lambs
I haven’t been perusing the threads much but it seems to me that the silence of the “moderate Barack” gandalf speaks volumes…
Maybe it’s just me…
Sounds like everyone is now figuring out how inexperienced our leader is.
January 25, 2010 @ 8:32 PM
I think that there is a lot
I think that there is a lot of hate towards Barack Obama just because…
Those haters will never come around regardless of policy so we might as well write them off.
If you think that Obama is Bush’s third term, how does voting for a Republican such as Scott Brown ameliorate our country?
I think that Scott Brown’s victory was God’s early signal to Obama and telling him to change strategy to win reelection. Remember, Obama is the chosen one, God is on his side.
So far, Obama is still better than any Republican alternative.
I like it that Obama is finally adopting the Volcker plan.
January 25, 2010 @ 9:01 PM
Brian: You do realize that
Brian: You do realize that David Michael Green, the author of the piece (which I would imagine you didn’t read, based on your response here) is NOT a Republican, right? “Common Dreams” is liberal leaning, as is David Green. Actually, its more correct to refer to Green as a Progressive, which is the camp that I thought you were firmly in support of.
Of course, its hard to tell, because you oscillate wildly between “ideas” and “ideals” and “pragmatism”. Given the discursive nature of your responses, I’m not surprised that any divergence from the party line is greeted with “haters” and “those that don’t get it”.
I would think that someone like Professor Green, who teaches Political Science at Hofstra University (you know, that bastion of rightist orthodoxy) doesn’t fall into that “hater” category. Rather, this is a clear-eyed, rational piece that explains, in excruciatingly accurate detail, why the independents and many of the core loyalists, are hitting the exits.
And, for God’s sake, learn to argue! This ceaseless tossing of red herrings, strawmen and baseless premises simply shows the shallowness of your thinking. As does the bouncing between ideals and pragmatism. Pick a side and stick with it. Watch you carom off the walls is giving me a headache.
January 25, 2010 @ 9:16 PM
i just bought some expensive
i just bought some expensive smoked herring in a tin. i wonder if it is red. i’ll eat it for lunch tomorrow.
January 25, 2010 @ 9:48 PM
scaredycat wrote:i just
[quote=scaredycat]i just bought some expensive smoked herring in a tin. i wonder if it is red. i’ll eat it for lunch tomorrow.[/quote]
I love herring in a tin. Too much salt but on top of a salad, it makes a healthy meal. 🙂
January 25, 2010 @ 9:47 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] you oscillate wildly between “ideas” and “ideals” and “pragmatism”. [/quote]
I’m not oscillating.
Good ideas and ideals are great to have.
The pragmatist in me says that Obama is better than any Republican alternative. I’m not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face.
January 25, 2010 @ 9:31 PM
Jees, surveyor. It’s a work
Jees, surveyor. It’s a work day… Things to do, ya’ know. 😉
Truth be told, I’m not pleased with things. Who is? I do think Obama and the Dems made a huge political miscalculation with the focus on healthcare, but not an economic miscalculation. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy and busting up the Big Insurance and Pharma Cartels represents a TAX CUT and STIMULUS for the rest of the economy, small and mid-sized businesses. The insurance market is not a ‘free market’. It’s a racket.
(More importantly, honest people are getting screwed. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer three years ago and her policy was canceled during treatment, not kidding. She paid insurance all her life. She ended up with $80,000 in medical bills, which she could not pay, nor could we, and she had to declare bankruptcy last month. Fortunately, she still has her health.)
Back to politics, economic policy aside, the GOP has managed to capitalize on a weak political opening move from Obama. The GOP has a scorched earth policy. They’re awful for the country, truly awful. Party before Country. But they’ve has been successful in casting Obama-Care as Nazi socialism, whatever, resisting any serious efforts at reform, which would have given Obama political capital, but would have helped the country.
Simultaneously, the Obama Administration, in what can only be viewed as a COLLOSSAL MISTAKE, cozied up to the Wall Street / Financial establishment. It is unbelievable how a President who rode such a populist wave of disgust and desire for change — embraced the Blankfein-Bernanke-Summers-Geithner establishment. I mean, “WTF?!” Hence Scott Brown. Which I think is great, BTW. Elect a Republican for Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s cool. What else are we going to do to get these tone-deaf career politicians to work for the People?
Anyhow, a couple weeks ago, business trip up in the Bay Area, I met up with a friend of mine who works with CA legislature as a senior policy guy, he’s a financial/budget analyst, pretty well-respected, non-partisan. Anyway, I was bitching about Obama selling everybody out with his financial policy. My friend said, “You realize things really hit the fan last year, right? He really had no choice.”
I understand this logically, but not emotionally. The bailout is not fair. It is not right. It is the biggest bunch of bullshit I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, rewarding bad decisions, cheaters and fraudsters. But what if Obama had busted up the banks? They were all, and many still are, bankrupt without all the fed voodoo and fake money.
Can you imagine 10,000 businesses in SD County not having access to their accounts because the banks that were supposed to be holding our assets in good trust lost the money? There would be no funds to cover invoices, no money for payroll. Your neighborhood “Ralph’s” wouldn’t have cash-on-hand for shipments, routine business. What do you think would have happened? What would USA be like with 25% unemployment or war with China?
So I’m conflicted about Obama. I will be satisfied if Year One of the Obama Presidency consisted of ‘holding the fort’. As long as Year 2 consists of putting bankers in jail and breaking up “Too Big to Fail. Time will tell. Summers-Geithner out and Volcker back in is a VERY good sign. I just hope it continues in this direction.
January 25, 2010 @ 9:38 PM
And I’m pleased with foreign
And I’m pleased with foreign policy. Tremendous improvement over Bush the Lesser. Shift focus away from Iraq to more pressing areas of concern.
I tried herring in a can one time. It didn’t taste good.
January 25, 2010 @ 9:50 PM
gandalf wrote:And I’m pleased
[quote=gandalf]And I’m pleased with foreign policy. Tremendous improvement over Bush the Lesser. Shift focus away from Iraq to more pressing areas of concern.
[/quote]
I very much agree.
January 25, 2010 @ 10:17 PM
gandalf wrote:And I’m pleased
[quote=gandalf]And I’m pleased with foreign policy. Tremendous improvement over Bush the Lesser. Shift focus away from Iraq to more pressing areas of concern. [/quote]
Gandalf: Prior to Obama’s election, you and I discussed the many failings of the Bush Administration on the foreign policy front, not the least of which were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given Obama’s extremely strong campaign rhetoric on Gitmo, Iraq, Patriot I and II and rendition, how do you feel about his backing water on every single one of those issues? Even more to the point, what do you think about his stance on these issues, given his legal background and acumen?
Not trying to draw you into anything, but genuinely curious. As I said before, you’re one of the more intelligent and reasoned posters on this board and you don’t substitute polemical bullshit for common sense and logic.
January 25, 2010 @ 11:08 PM
All very good points, Allan.
All very good points, Allan. The setbacks and reversals are striking, and I don’t really know what to make of it.
The cynical view is to cast Obama as a liar and chalk it off to some pre-conceived effort to deceive voters to get elected. That’s what you hear from the GOP propoganda machine. I don’t subscribe to that view.
I suspect the change in position may have been a result of adapting to new information, not entirely intentional. Without resorting to terror alert color codes, I suspect we face a very serious threat matrix.
What do you think?
Regardless, it’s been costly from a political perspective because the liberal left feels discarded, campaign promises on important issues have been broken and the left-side base is beginning to turn away.
January 25, 2010 @ 11:10 PM
Regarding “odious policies,
Regarding “odious policies, like rendition”, “Patriot I and II and the ceaseless wars, on-going or even expanded”, I feel that Obama doesn’t have much choice but to continue the policies while restraining them.
There is a whole military and intelligence establishment of hawks installed by the Bushies and the Chennies that will not let up. It will take time to restrain and marginalize them.
Obama is not is a position to be seen as weak on terrorists so he has to make changes incrementally. It’s not something that he can turn around quickly.
That’s some of the pragmatism that I’m talking about.
Through his sheer personality and goodwill, Obama has certainly built warmer ties with our European allies and in foreign policy circles around the world. That’s a very positive development. Now, at least, others are willing to listen to us rather than walking away with “you broke it, you fix it alone”.
January 26, 2010 @ 9:06 AM
briansd1 wrote:Regarding
[quote=briansd1]Regarding “odious policies, like rendition”, “Patriot I and II and the ceaseless wars, on-going or even expanded”, I feel that Obama doesn’t have much choice but to continue the policies while restraining them.
There is a whole military and intelligence establishment of hawks installed by the Bushies and the Chennies that will not let up. It will take time to restrain and marginalize them.
Obama is not is a position to be seen as weak on terrorists so he has to make changes incrementally. It’s not something that he can turn around quickly.
That’s some of the pragmatism that I’m talking about.
Through his sheer personality and goodwill, Obama has certainly built warmer ties with our European allies and in foreign policy circles around the world. That’s a very positive development. Now, at least, others are willing to listen to us rather than walking away with “you broke it, you fix it alone”.[/quote]
Brian: Again with the strawmen and the red herrings and unsupported/unsupportable premises.
An entire network of hawks installed by Bush and Cheney? Really? Is Wolfowitz still around? Yoo? I hate to break this to you, but Obama has his own cabinet now. His own SecState. His own AG. Utter nonsensical bullshit. Obama campaigned on Gitmo and Patriot and promised (with deliverable dates!) when things would change. There have been no incremental changes at all. If anything its more “business as usual”.
Any positive marks he gets for foreign policy are nearly all attributable to Madame Clinton as SecState. And, in case you haven’t been following the news, that “warm feeling” has pretty much dissipated, leaving these European allies of ours cold. Read the remarks of EU leaders regarding Obama and what a difference a year makes. Another baseless argument and complete devoid of any factual basis.
He promised “hope” and “change” and a “transformative government”. He has either failed to deliver or has backed water and continued the policies of his predecessor. To argue that incremental change (the politics of the possible) is his path is completely debunked by the facts: Gitmo remains open, a full complement of troops remain in Iraq, combat ops in Afghanistan are actually increasing, as are Predator/Reaper strikes in AfPak. Our civil liberties remain in a parlous state, as a former Constitutional Law professor helms the country. Nothing has changed here, either. Business as usual.
Lastly, and this goes to the heart of your laughable premise: Dems control the Presidency, the Senate and the House! He doesn’t have to bargain with anyone! This gives the power of Executive Orders even more thrust. Why not issue some of those?
I know you have a problem with facts and data and like to “argue” using aphorisms, metaphors and sophistry. That’s why I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. To argue that Obama is going to be a great President is frighteningly at odds with the facts. Your continued insistence that all of his detractors are simply “haters”, when the facts clearly show otherwise, points to how powerfully his demagoguery has enraptured you. But, being a Good German has it benefits, too. At least for a while.
January 26, 2010 @ 12:11 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I have to ask you, as a former Dem, what you thought of the article, from a policy advocacy standpoint, as well as what you thought of his observations about Obama personally.
[/quote]
Allan, I thought Green’s observations about his character were spot-on. It was almost as if I were reading words that I had written myself. Unlike Gandalf and Green, I fully knew this would happen once the man was elected. I was 100% certain that he would betray his base in a vain attempt to seek comfort from the Right; I fully-expected him to compromise whenever he hit a roadblock; I had no illusions that he would fight for those who had fought for him. I knew he would have trouble fighting back or standing up because he has no CORE. And that is Obama’s chief problem. Because it doesn’t matter what words or ideas come out of your mouth; if you don’t really believe in them, you will never fight to put them into action. And this is why Obama does not fight.
I know this because as some of you may remember, I was on Harvard Law Review with him (and actually VOTED for him as president based primarily on my desire to be a part of history – a mistake I will never make again). I had not interacted with him a great deal prior to the election, but after he became president and became more visible I was able to observe more of the man. And what struck me about Obama – the thing I still remember about him to this day – was his astounding lack of PASSION. The Obama I knew was NOT the one with the teleprompter in front of millions in a stadium, energized and fired up. The Obama I knew was the strangely detached and somnanmbulant man we all see in one-on-one-interviews and press conferences. He was the antidote to insomnia. He could pontificate on any subject, but he always did so in a clinical, monotonous fashion, without any conviction whatsoever.
You can imagine the heated debates many of us would get into during and after class – whether the topic be discrimination via disparate impact or abortion, everyone I knew on both sides of the aisle always had very strong opinions. I mean, we are talking very bright people here, many of whom had spent years doing other things before coming to law school, with law sometimes being their third or fourth career. They had strong opinions on issues because many of them had LIVED those issues. But here was this community organizer who spoke with the passion of an accountant. There was never one hint of personal investment in a concept, an argument or an idea. And I have to tell you, that always struck me as very, very odd.
And I think we are all seeing that play out now. While others are wondering where the Obama they voted for has run off too, during the campaign I had been wondering who this impostor of radical *hope* and *change* was.
In response to your second question: I actually agree with most of the policy prescriptions in this article. Yes, I am a former Democrat – which means I now have some expectation that my presidential candidates exhibit at least some degree of fiscal sanity – but I also believe that some spending, social and otherwise, is definitely necessary and definitely has its place. That said, I think that in fiscally challenging times one must make the difficult choice of distinguishing between spending that is critical and spending that only exacerbates a bad situation.
My take on some of the policies advocated in Green’s article:
Do the people’s business. Become their advocate against the monsters bleeding them dry – this is something I staunchly believe in, and this is what Obama’s base foolishly elected him to do;
Create jobs – this is imperative, but hard to accomplish when Pelosi grabs the reigns, backloads the disbursement of funds and packs it with pork;
Build infrastructure – also imperative, but also hard to accomplish with a screwball Speaker of the House in control of the purse strings.
Do REAL national health care – not a bailout of the insurance companies. And don’t even think about attempting this until your fiscal house is in order. National health care is a luxury bequeathed to SOLVENT nations, not bankrupt ones.
End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending – unlike many posters on this board, I think the threat of terrorism is highly exaggerated by our government (Allan, I know you disagree with me here). I am really a big old peacenik. If I had my way we’d be following Clinton’s lead and shuttering bases allover the world.
Produce actual educational reform – ’nuff said.
Launch a massive green energy/jobs program – this obviously needs to happen, but let’s be realistic about these jobs: even if the green energy sector sprouted as many jobs as the oil/petroleum sector – and that’s a BIG if – I doubt that would be enough to fill the gaping hole in the U.S. labor force. We need to confront the reality that large numbers of Americans are going to be permanently unemployed for a decade or decades. The jobs that have left our shores will not be returning. All we can do now is try to stop the bleeding. Former vice-chairman of the Fed (and my college macroecon professor) Alan Blinder recently estimated that by 2018 as much as 30% of the U.S. jobs would be sent offshore.
Get serious about global warming – Man-made global warming has now been proven to be a myth. But apparently Green didn’t get the memo, er, emails from East Anglica University. The planet’s climate may well be changing, but it’s part of a cycle, and it ain’t gonna stop if we use paper instead of plastic or plug everyone into a Prius.
Kick ass on campaign finance reform – something any rational, intelligent American from either party wants, and something we will never see unless and until a revolution ends the corporate stranglehold on this nation’s economy, politics and military.
Fight for gay rights – as a gay woman, this is something I obviously fully-support. However, I also recognize that it is not the most pressing issue on this nation’s agenda. A fat lot of good it will do me to have the right to marry my partner if we’re both unemployed and living in a tent.
Restore a fair taxation structure – I actually believe that the IRS is just the collection arm of the Fed, so unless and until the Fed is dismantled I neither expect nor hope to see a fair taxation structure. File that under “pipe dream”.
Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs – this is a lofty goal, but again, given the corporate stranglehold on this country I just don’t see either of these whoring parties tackling this issue. Clinton sold us out with NAFTA, and the band has played on ever since…
Rebuild unions – Unions have outlived their usefulness. They are a hindrance, not a benefit, to the effective functioning of a free market. I’d rather see them all disappear – including the most egregious and pampered Hollywood offenders: SAG, WGA and DGA.
Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives – I’m on board with this. With a Court pitched so hard to the right, we really need progressives just to bring us to the center, which is really where this country belongs and wants to return to.
Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda – yup. But that would require voting out every bozo incumbent – in BOTH parties – this Fall.
Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies – Can’t get behind this because the Dems have now officially whored themselves just as much – if not more – than the GOP. The blatant and shameless bribery, vote-buying and backroom hustling that Dems have engaged in – all in the name of *health care reform* – is probably the most disgusting display of human behavior I have seen since “The Flavor of Love”. Who needs trashy reality TV when we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
January 26, 2010 @ 12:55 AM
partypup wrote: He could
[quote=partypup] He could pontificate on any subject, but he always did so in a clinical, monotonous fashion, without any conviction whatsoever.[/quote]
Give me a break. Are you saying that you can see inside someone’s soul by the way he speaks (like Bush saw Putin’s soul)?
Coming from a gay woman this is strange.
Would you also say that a flaming queen is not trustworthy or reliable because she’s always full of it?
January 26, 2010 @ 8:27 AM
briansd1 wrote:partypup
[quote=briansd1][quote=partypup] He could pontificate on any subject, but he always did so in a clinical, monotonous fashion, without any conviction whatsoever.[/quote]
Give me a break. Are you saying that you can see inside someone’s soul by the way he speaks (like Bush saw Putin’s soul)?
Coming from a gay woman this is strange.
Would you also say that a flaming queen is not trustworthy or reliable because she’s always full of it?[/quote]
I’m not sure how to take your remarks, but they do sound rather homophobic. I’m not sure what or how you expect a gay person to think. And your comment about queens is just totally off the wall. I’m not even going to touch that. And might I add, if your remarks had come from a Republican on this forum, you would be giving them s**t right now. Such is the hypocrisy of a 21st century Democrat. Have you been hanging out with that lobotomy candidate, Marion? 😉
I think my statements speak for themselves. People who don’t argue passionately for anything are less likely to fight for anything. It’s not rocket science. Hell, even you have more passion when debating than anything I’ve ever seen coming from Obama.
January 26, 2010 @ 8:40 AM
harvard law produces a lot of
harvard law produces a lot of graduates, they’re wandering all over the place, some succesful, some not so much…. it’s cool, but i wouldn’t say it’s the sort of crazily outrageous claim that induces disbelief.
January 26, 2010 @ 8:55 AM
scaredycat wrote:harvard law
[quote=scaredycat]harvard law produces a lot of graduates, they’re wandering all over the place, some succesful, some not so much…. it’s cool, but i wouldn’t say it’s the sort of crazily outrageous claim that induces disbelief.[/quote]
THANK YOU, Scaredy. There are 500 Harvard graduates in every class, each year! I have always suspected that Harvard produces more graduates than almost any other school because they want more alums out there, contributing as much dough as possible. Why do you think their endowment is so high?? Very similar to the dollar, in many respects: Harvard has capitalized on a brand “name” that is universally “accepted”. And in spite of the fact that there are thousands of Harvard graduates running around, like digi dollars being printed ad nauseam – this somehow hasn’t devalued the brand. The Law Review, on the other hand, is much more selective: approximately 40 second years and 40 third years.
If one really desires the finest legal education, btw, Yale would be the pick.
January 26, 2010 @ 9:58 AM
scaredycat wrote:harvard law
[quote=scaredycat]harvard law produces a lot of graduates, they’re wandering all over the place, some succesful, some not so much…. it’s cool, but i wouldn’t say it’s the sort of crazily outrageous claim that induces disbelief.[/quote]
the internet has a lot of fake personalities, they post prolifically on forums all the time, some cons are elaborate and detailed, some not so much … it’s fun, but I wouldn’t say it so outrageous to think that someone who posts lots of political rants on a local message board but claims to know the potus may be exaggerating.
January 26, 2010 @ 2:55 PM
pri_dk wrote:scaredycat
[quote=pri_dk][quote=scaredycat]harvard law produces a lot of graduates, they’re wandering all over the place, some succesful, some not so much…. it’s cool, but i wouldn’t say it’s the sort of crazily outrageous claim that induces disbelief.[/quote]
the internet has a lot of fake personalities, they post prolifically on forums all the time, some cons are elaborate and detailed, some not so much … it’s fun, but I wouldn’t say it so outrageous to think that someone who posts lots of political rants on a local message board but claims to know the potus may be exaggerating.[/quote]
Hilarious. What a pity you did not exercise this degree of thought and due diligence before supporting a candidate for Commander-in-Chief with a tissue-paper thin voting record and Mob connections.
Oh, and you might want to pick up a dictionary and familiarize yourself with the definition of words you are using:
“n. rant
1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: “The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy” (Daniel Okrent).
3. Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment.”
Hmmmm…it seems that merely expressing one’s opinions about the failures of our political process now qualifies as a rant? You sound more like a neocon than you realize, my friend.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:38 PM
partypup wrote:1. Violent or
[quote=partypup]1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: […][/quote]
[quote]You’re in a glass house, dude. And I’ve got a stone in my hand.[/quote]
January 27, 2010 @ 9:57 AM
pri_dk wrote:partypup
[quote=pri_dk][quote=partypup]1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: […][/quote]
[quote]You’re in a glass house, dude. And I’ve got a stone in my hand.[/quote][/quote]
[“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”]
— Jesus
I’m paraphrasing, btw. Hence the brackets 😉
I work from a metaphor in the Bible, and that is somehow a rant? Try again. I’ve made many, many posts, dude. And this is the best you can do? Not to mention the fact that I made this post AFTER you claimed that I engage in rants. LOL.
What do you do for a living, btw? Does it involve any level of detail or thought? I’ve shared quite a bit about myself, but I am dying to know more about you, the lawn-chair-masquerading-as-poster.
January 27, 2010 @ 10:45 AM
partypup wrote:What do you do
[quote=partypup]What do you do for a living, btw? Does it involve any level of detail or thought? I’ve shared quite a bit about myself, but I am dying to know more about you, the lawn-chair-masquerading-as-poster.[/quote]
Why would my job be relevant to this discussion?
Are you just asking me to hand you ammunition for more, irrelevant, ad hominem arguments?
I normally don’t much care about any poster’s job/career/education/life. In fact, I believe that normally requests for personal information are outright inappropriate.
But I did ask about your specific claim of being a classmate of the President. I will concede that this could be interpreted as a personal question. You made an extraordinary claim, and curiosity got the best of me. But it was you that introduced this information into the discussion, not me. And I only asked for some verification of your claim. My tone was harsh and sarcastic — which is not normally out-of-bounds for internet banter — but if I offended you, I apologize.
As for my personal details, you can probably dig them up with some detective work. I’ve met some of the other Piggs personally, and my life is not so interesting that I have anything to hide.
But I’m not so foolish as to volunteer personal information to someone on the internet who is “dying to know more” about me.
January 26, 2010 @ 10:31 AM
partypup wrote:
I’m not sure
[quote=partypup]
I’m not sure how to take your remarks, but they do sound rather homophobic. I’m not sure what or how you expect a gay person to think. And your comment about queens is just totally off the wall. I’m not even going to touch that. And might I add, if your remarks had come from a Republican on this forum, you would be giving them s**t right now. Such is the hypocrisy of a 21st century Democrat. Have you been hanging out with that lobotomy candidate, Marion? ;-)[/quote]
My comment was off the wall on purpose. You can’t really tell what a person really believe by the way he speaks, just like you can’t tell if a person is trustworthy by the shape of his nose or whatever.
I know plenty of gay people. Some are “straight” as can be and some are pretty out. But you cannot judge by their exterior.
[quote=partypup]
Fight for gay rights – as a gay woman, this is something I obviously fully-support. However, I also recognize that it is not the most pressing issue on this nation’s agenda. A fat lot of good it will do me to have the right to marry my partner if we’re both unemployed and living in a tent.
[/quote]
If you’re a Harvard lawyer, I don’t see how you would fear living in a tent. You can certainly enjoy a nice marriage and nice family, even if it’s not recognized by the State or the Federal Government.
You may be talking about gay people in general… but gay or straight, couple are now likely to cohabit ate outside of marriage.
I don’t think that fighting for gay rights diminishes our economy’s ability to create jobs.
January 26, 2010 @ 3:31 PM
briansd1 wrote:
partypup
[quote=briansd1]
[quote=partypup]
Fight for gay rights – as a gay woman, this is something I obviously fully-support. However, I also recognize that it is not the most pressing issue on this nation’s agenda. A fat lot of good it will do me to have the right to marry my partner if we’re both unemployed and living in a tent.
[/quote]
If you’re a Harvard lawyer, I don’t see how you would fear living in a tent. You can certainly enjoy a nice marriage and nice family, even if it’s not recognized by the State or the Federal Government.[/quote]
My point was that in the grand scheme of things (and I am a big picture thinker), I consider this country’s fiscal soundness to be of paramount importance now. Nothing even comes close to matching it in terms of priority. Health care? That will mean jack if our debt reaches levels high enough to send interest rate soarings as well as the costs of servicing our debt. We’ll be entering a very, very nasty phase then.
Put it this way: if my house was torched because I’m gay or I couldn’t find employment because of my sexual orientation, that would be a different story. But we’re beyond that now, and as you say, I can enjoy a nice life with my family without being married, which is the very point I was making. Gay people now have significant rights, particularly in CA, and I’m very thankful for that. In times of crisis, I simply chose to pick my battles and prioritize. I prefer not to “boil the ocean” as Obama supporters apparently do.”
January 26, 2010 @ 1:23 AM
partypup, I agree with your
partypup, I agree with your list which I’ve summarized below.
But I don’t see how voting for Republicans would achieve anything.
Changes come incrementally. Humans kind only advances in baby steps. We’ve made much progress in the 20th century and we’ll make more progress in the 21st. But you won’t get everything that you want in your lifetime.
Vote independent if you wish but I don’t see how voting Republican and conserving back in time improves things.
I think that you’re ahead of your time and want more than society (or any one president) can deliver.
———————————————————–
* Do the people’s business.
* Create jobs
* Build infrastructure
* Do REAL national health care
* End the wars.
* Dramatically slash military spending – unlike many posters on this board, I think the threat of terrorism is highly exaggerated by our government (Allan, I know you disagree with me here). I am really a big old peacenik. If I had my way we’d be following Clinton’s lead and shuttering bases allover the world.
* Produce actual educational reform – ’nuff said.
* Launch a massive green energy/jobs program
* Get serious about global warming
* Kick ass on campaign finance reform
* Fight for gay rights
* Restore a fair taxation structure
* Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs
* Rebuild unions – Unions have outlived their usefulness. They are a hindrance, not a benefit, to the effective functioning of a free market. I’d rather see them all disappear – including the most egregious and pampered Hollywood offenders: SAG, WGA and DGA.
* Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives
* Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda – yup.
* Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies
January 26, 2010 @ 9:25 AM
briansd1 wrote:partypup, I
[quote=briansd1]partypup, I agree with your list which I’ve summarized below.
But I don’t see how voting for Republicans would achieve anything.
Vote independent if you wish but I don’t see how voting Republican and conserving back in time improves things. [/quote]
Just for the record – again – I don’t vote Republican. I have tried to make this as clear as I possibly can to everyone who raises this subject with me: I very much want to see both the Democrat and Republican parties disappear. It is highly unlikely that I will ever vote again, based on what I’m observing now, but IF I ever do vote again it would most definitely be for an independent who manages to move me. And for the record, if you know of a Republican whose policy list matches mine, please let me know 😉
[quote=briansd1]
* Launch a massive green energy/jobs program
* Get serious about global warming
[/quote]
As for green jobs: In my mind, “green” does not necessarily equate with global warming. “Green” simply means a more sustainable and prudent use of resources. Regardless of whether our climate is cooling or warming or even staying the same, it is wishful thinking to assume that peak oil will one day not arrive (if it has not already), and that easily-accessible oil will always be at our fingertips. So it is imperative that we begin to move to some form of green energy if we hope to serve the needs of our growing population.
Anyone who still believes in man-made global warming at this point…simply is not paying attention. The evidence against it is now staggering.
January 26, 2010 @ 10:46 AM
partypup wrote:
Just for the
[quote=partypup]
Just for the record – again – I don’t vote Republican. I have tried to make this as clear as I possibly can to everyone who raises this subject with me: I very much want to see both the Democrat and Republican parties disappear.
[/quote]
That’s fine. I admire you for wanting to change things.
[quote=partypup]
It is highly unlikely that I will ever vote again, based on what I’m observing now, but IF I ever do vote again it would most definitely be for an independent who manages to move me. And for the record, if you know of a Republican whose policy list matches mine, please let me know 😉
[/quote]
I don’t see how not voting improves the situation.
I believe it’s better to vote for the most preferable guy (or the least repugnant one).
If you want to affect our world, you’re better off making money and using it to help people.
There are many ways to find happiness and channel energy. I know people who periodically work in villages in developing countries and make a difference that way.
[quote=partypup]
As for green jobs: In my mind, “green” does not necessarily equate with global warming. “Green” simply means a more sustainable and prudent use of resources. Regardless of whether our climate is cooling or warming or even staying the same, it is wishful thinking to assume that peak oil will one day not arrive (if it has not already), and that easily-accessible oil will always be at our fingertips. So it is imperative that we begin to move to some form of green energy if we hope to serve the needs of our growing population.
Anyone who still believes in man-made global warming at this point…simply is not paying attention. The evidence against it is now staggering.[/quote]
I agree here. It doesn’t matter. Whether the warming is cyclical or not, humans are creating a lot of pollution. That’s not healthy. We need to reduce pollution through green tech.
Perhaps cyclical warming overwhelms man-made warming. But humans are contributing at least a small amount to warming. When we burn fossil fuels, the heat goes somewhere, no?
January 26, 2010 @ 11:17 AM
i don’t mean to brag, but I
i don’t mean to brag, but I also met a really famous and powerful person while i was attending a really prestigious school. but to maintain my credibility, i’ll keep the details out of it. but seriously, i did…
for some reason, harvard law denied my application. i guess the class wasn’t quite big enough to bring me in. it would have to be a really huge class, i think…
i am a crackpot, but for unrelated reasons…
January 26, 2010 @ 11:18 AM
Allan, you’ve accuse of me of
Allan, you’ve accuse of me of hypocrisy. I will admit to some of it. Some have more than others.
That’s another human trait. Picture a conservative family that supports the death penalty. Then their son gets sentenced to death. Pretty soon they are pleading for mercy and on TV appealing for a pardon.
Honestly, I believe that I’m more pragmatist than hypocrite (money first, ideals can wait).
Great ideals are very noble. And we should all aspire to something lofty.
But I’m an incrementalist. I believe that people want continuity and economic certainty. Catalytic changes always upset the economic order and set us back economically.
People are most content when they have food to eat and things to buy (even if it’s junk). Government needs to provide that first.
Incremental change in the right direction is the best way to achieve long term change. It’s like compound interest savings. The savings are not much to begin with, but they add up over time.
January 26, 2010 @ 11:20 AM
i also believe not voting is
i also believe not voting is preferable to voting. i believe it is a reaosnable form of dissent, more meaningful than voting for me personally. i do vote on bond issues though.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:24 PM
scaredycat wrote:i also
[quote=scaredycat]i also believe not voting is preferable to voting. i believe it is a reaosnable form of dissent, more meaningful than voting for me personally. i do vote on bond issues though.[/quote]
Agree, Scaredy. These clowns require our participation to legitimize their power. Don’t give it to them. Or better yet, vote for the candidate you truly believe in, regardless of whether or not you think they can win. Because if people actually decide to vote on that basis – and not simply for the half-a**ed, corrupt, better-than-nothing candidate who is considered *viable* because he/she has support from the two gangster parties – the people might actually find a voice that represents them.
January 26, 2010 @ 12:03 PM
briansd1 wrote:Allan, you’ve
[quote=briansd1]Allan, you’ve accuse of me of hypocrisy. I will admit to some of it. Some have more than others.
That’s another human trait. Picture a conservative family that supports the death penalty. Then their son gets sentenced to death. Pretty soon they are pleading for mercy and on TV appealing for a pardon.
Honestly, I believe that I’m more pragmatist than hypocrite (money first, ideals can wait).
Great ideals are very noble. And we should all aspire to something lofty.
But I’m an incrementalist. I believe that people want continuity and economic certainty. Catalytic changes always upset the economic order and set us back economically.
People are most content when they have food to eat and things to buy (even if it’s junk). Government needs to provide that first.
Incremental change in the right direction is the best way to achieve long term change. It’s like compound interest savings. The savings are not much to begin with, but they add up over time.[/quote]
Brian: For argument’s sake, let’s take everything you say at face value. For starters, one cannot argue that Obama will be a great President AND an incrementalist. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive. Plus, as Obama himself has made clear, he isn’t here to be an incrementalist. In point of fact, he’s on pace to pass more large-scale legislation than any President since LBJ. And LBJ sure as hell wasn’t an incrementalist (i.e. the Great Society program).
Second, your argument breaks down in the face of the facts themselves. You cannot open a newspaper, turn on a TV news program, or hit a political blog without reading, seeing or hearing about Obama’s “sweeping” agenda and how he views himself as a change agent of history. When asked the difference between the 1994 mid-terms and the upcoming 2010 mid-terms, he responded: “Me”. He sees himself through the lens of History (capital H) and has repeatedly stated that he’d rather overreach and fail as a one-term President than be a mediocre two-term President.
Third, you conveniently pigeonhole and categorize others as a form of strawman. Partypup’s views are therefore marginalized or negated since she is a gay woman. As a conservative, you routinely claim that I’m league with the GOP, but I haven’t voted Republican since 1996. You don’t respond to the facts, even when they’re obvious, but instead fall back on these discursive solipsisms or thinly veiled ad hominem attacks (“gay”, “All Republicans are missing teeth, love Jesus and vote for Haley Barbour”, etc).
I don’t disagree that people are hypocritical. That’s so obvious as to be a tautology. But, if you expect to be taken seriously, argue seriously and argue the facts, not some Leftie talking points. I stopped voting Republican because I saw the direction the party was going and it sickened me. While I generally don’t agree with many Progressive ideas, I think Professor Green’s article was excellent and I was in accord with much of what he said, especially about the need for spending on large-scale programs. If we’re planning on spending the money anyway, why not put it to good use and revitalize our infrastructure, push Green Tech and a sweeping US Industrial Policy?
Is that in direct contravention to my “conservative” principles? Yup. Is it hypocritical? Nope. Its pragmatic and therein lies the heart of my argument. You’re arguing that Obama has made no mistakes, any criticism of him is from “haters” and, at heart, he’s an incrementalist. However, there are not only no facts to support this argument, but there is considerable data to support the exact opposite.
And, by the way, Pup’s right: It is cataclysmic, not catalytic. I could see where you might be going as an irregular word usage (catalytic is most properly used in a chemical example), but I think cataclysmic more properly sums it up.
January 26, 2010 @ 1:18 PM
Obama campaigned as an agent
Obama campaigned as an agent of change. But he governed as an incrementalist.
He opted for economic continuity with the bailout, and for world security continuity with the wars.
I’m used to politicians promising and delivering only little. But, to me, little is better than nothing and it’s better than conserving back in time.
We didn’t achieve universal suffrage in a few years. We have yet to achieve racial equality. We don’t get equal protection for gays for another while.
In the mean time, we are entering a globalized world and people in emerging nations are demanding economic wealth and consumption that
Americans are enjoying. That will affect our own choices.
As to my point with partypup on the gay issue, I truly don’t see how allowing Scott Brown to win in MA helps gay causes. That’s what I mean by conserving back in time.
I’m a social liberal, but I find that liberals dream too much and they are not focused enough on reality. So they get disappointed and give up easily.
Look at how much more effective social conservatives have been with abortion and gay issues.
I think that Obama will be a good president. He won’t be a great president. For him to become a great president, there has some kind of shock that will force him to be a catalyst for change.
We are far from cataclysmic change. If that were true, people wouldn’t be arguing about buying a house in Temecula, $100/mo Mello Roos, or the next Ford Focus. Those are the voters that matter. People like you, me and partypup don’t matter. All we can hope for is incremental change in the right direction (whatever that maybe). Over time, small changes add up.
January 26, 2010 @ 1:36 PM
briansd1 wrote:We are far
[quote=briansd1]We are far from cataclysmic change. If that were true, people wouldn’t be arguing about buying a house in Temecula, $100/mo Mello Roos, or the next Ford Focus.[/quote]
I gotta agree with this one.
Anyone using the word “cataclysm” (did I get the spelling right?) to describe the USA today lacks any sense of proportion. The great recession of the early 2000s is a hiccup in the course of human history.
It’s like walking into your home after it’s been ransacked and robbed. It’s scary, and it appears to be a hopeless disaster. But the reality is that your family is safe, he house hasn’t burned down, and it can all be cleaned up in time.
It’s a mess, but not a cataclysm.
January 26, 2010 @ 2:23 PM
Its a very simple concept.
Its a very simple concept. Why mainstream economists don’t factor it with their “recovery” pronouncements, well, that will be left up to historians to decipher. Why politicians don’t talk about it, well, it’s just not politically possible. Ain’t no recovery coming and the occidental world has a tremendous amount of debt to pay and mounting.
The elephant in the room:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk&feature=player_embedded
It’s the debtocalypse.
January 26, 2010 @ 3:16 PM
Arraya wrote:
It’s the
[quote=Arraya]
It’s the debtocalypse.[/quote]
Arraya: Is that worse than a cataclysm?
January 26, 2010 @ 3:36 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]
It’s the debtocalypse.[/quote]
Arraya: Is that worse than a cataclysm?[/quote]
Ha… I think it’s up there.
In more oil news:
In an industry famous for being opaque, Total’s CEO Christophe de Margerie speaks openly about the nightmare scenario — oil shortages — that most energy firms prefer to avoid or deny. De Margerie says the possible effects on the world economy of dwindling oil supplies are so great “I am not prepared to shut my mouth.” De Margerie now says increasing world oil production to 90 million barrels a day is “optimistic.”… it’s important to realize, he says during an interview with TIME, “what will happen very soon is that oil supplies will not cover demand”.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1954176_1954175_1954172,00.html#ixzz0de7igoKb
Also: Last week the news about Venezuela’s on-going electricity crisis took a turn for the worse. For weeks the power output from the drought-suffering Guri Lake hydro dam—the supplier of nearly three-fourths of the nation’s electricity—has been operating at just over 50 percent of capacity. Now output from Planta Centro, the nation’s largest fossil-fueled power plant, has declined from its rated 2,000 megawatt capacity down to just 267 megawatts and hasn’t hit 500 megawatts during the last three months. Insiders say it has not been properly maintained for years. To compensate in the short term, Chavez has cut back on steel and aluminum operations that use up to 20 percent of the country’s power. Rolling blackouts currently impact much of the nation. If Chavez diverts power from the 940,000 b/d Paraguana refinery to more pressing uses, some analysts think that the ensuing price spike could drive oil above $100 a barrel.
We are a world on the edge. Pakistan is on the verge of failing, as well.
January 26, 2010 @ 8:15 AM
partypup wrote:I have a
[quote=partypup]I have a Harvard law education and actually know President Obama.[/quote]
I know that many folks want to keep their internet persona’s private, but if one is going to make a claim of that magnitude, it really needs to be backed up.
Please, tell us more about your prestigious credentials.
Perhaps we should rename this thread to: “Is partypup the most accomplished Pigg ever?”
January 26, 2010 @ 8:47 AM
pri_dk wrote:partypup wrote:I
[quote=pri_dk][quote=partypup]I have a Harvard law education and actually know President Obama.[/quote]
I know that many folks want to keep their internet persona’s private, but if one is going to make a claim of that magnitude, it really needs to be backed up.
Please, tell us more about your prestigious credentials.
Perhaps we should rename this thread to: “Is partypup the most accomplished Pigg ever?”[/quote]
This sounds like a red herring. In my response to Allan, that is the only question or comment you have? “Did you really go to Harvard?” I can only assume that you think I am lying, which is really sad, because I have a hunch that if I were an Obama SUPPORTER and claimed to have been a classmate, you wouldn’t doubt my credentials at all. Just a hunch.
That said, why don’t you tell me exactly what you want to know about my so-called “prestigious credentials”? Do you want to know when I graduated? That would be 1991. Do you want to know which section I was in my first year? That would be Section 4. My torts professor was Mort Horowitz; my contracts professor was David Charney (now, unfortunately, deceased); my property professor was Michelman (I have actually forgotten his first name – he was an odd duck); my criminal law professor was Kathleen Sullivan, now Dean of Stanford law School, and my civil procedure professor was David Wilkins.
Now, do I have to outline my second and third year curricula for you, as well?
As for the Review: I wrote a Note on intra-racial discrimination (Walker v. IRS – which I’m quite sure is still the only publication in the history of the Review in which Spike Lee’s film “Do the Right Thing” is cited for support); I also wrote a case comment on CERCLA and the security interest exemption for lender liability. Fascinating stuff. PM me and I’ll send you a copies 😉
As for being “accomplished”: I don’t believe that attending law school or becoming a lawyer makes one “accomplished”. It’s a career, like any other, that happens to produce a great deal of alcoholics and a**holes who make decent money. Truly “accomplished” people, IMO, are those who are comfortable with their bodies, their ideas and their values. They live life with no regrets, and they leave this earth as more evolved souls than when they arrived. I have “accomplished” more with help of my partner and son that I could ever hope to accomplish as a lawyer.
Now, do you have any further comment to my earlier post? Or do you require a copy of my transcript? I’m afraid you’ll have to pay the $25 processing fee that the Registrar now requires 😉
January 26, 2010 @ 4:05 PM
pri_dk][quote=partypup
[quote=pri_dk][quote=partypup]I have a Harvard law education and actually know President Obama.[/quote]
By the way… I am just curious as to why you like to re-phrase the words of other posters rather than directly quoting? You are the only poster on this forum (as far as I know) who does this.
This, in fact, was my exact quote:
“I know this because as some of you may remember, I was on Harvard Law Review with him (and actually VOTED for him as president based primarily on my desire to be a part of history – a mistake I will never make again).”
What you posted is a sloppy, misleading summary of my actually words. This speaks volumes about the thought and attention you give to the detail of your own arguments. As a surface-skimmer, it’s not a wonder that you voted for Obama.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:10 PM
what iwas thinking was if you
what iwas thinking was if you went to harvard law around the time obama did, it’s not unlikely you’d have met the dude. was he one of those guys who everyone knew and who knew everyone in the school? or was he insulated in the law review group. goddamn law review. i hate law revew…snotty bunch of superior sumbitchgrumble grr…
hey through six degrees of spearation we all probably know each other too! and obama!
January 26, 2010 @ 4:20 PM
scaredycat wrote:what iwas
[quote=scaredycat]what iwas thinking was if you went to harvard law around the time obama did, it’s not unlikely you’d have met the dude. was he one of those guys who everyone knew and who knew everyone in the school? or was he insulated in the law review group. goddamn law review. i hate law revew…snotty bunch of superior sumbitchgrumble grr…
hey through six degrees of spearation we all probably know each other too! and obama![/quote]
Obama was a friendly, easy-going guy who did not socialize much other others. He was also quite arrogant, and most who knew him will attest to this. My boss in NY (who was also in Obama’s class) was a supporter, yet he will also tell you that the guy was very arrogant. But arrogance is not necessarily a reason to dislike someone, and I by no means disliked him. I just thought he was hollow at the center and not expressive of his personal beliefs, which was extremely unusual on that campus. I had no idea what he believed in or why because he played everything so close to the vest. This is why I was suspicious when he ran for office on the passionate banner of transformational *change* and the quest to help the forgotten. He just never struck me as a guy who really cared.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
That’s interesting, PP. A
That’s interesting, PP. A friend of mine, out here in DC, wife’s friend was offered a job on Obama’s campaign. She described him quite literally how you are, an arrogant, empty suit.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:36 PM
kinda cool though in a way.
kinda cool though in a way. so many opnionated blowhards in law school full of blather, and themselves. the emptiness, the openness is different, coupled with strong intelligence, it’s a good way to be. i think i’d read an article a long time ago about the politics of the law review at that time and what an incredible peacemaker he was between politically charged students who were loud, obnoxious and cocksure of themselves. maybe it was this emptiness and disconnectedness that led him to be editor of the law review, which is actually a pretty nifty feat. i wonder if he’d have bene president if he hadnt made it to the top fo law review; i bet that mustve been a bigtime confidence booster. like anything’s possible. [law review is for the elite students who, once theya re there, are convinced that they are smarter than 99.9% of the world. the ediotr is the king of them all, sort of…]
January 27, 2010 @ 8:36 AM
partypup wrote: Obama was a
[quote=partypup] Obama was a friendly, easy-going guy who did not socialize much other others. He was also quite arrogant, and most who knew him will attest to this. My boss in NY (who was also in Obama’s class) was a supporter, yet he will also tell you that the guy was very arrogant. But arrogance is not necessarily a reason to dislike someone, and I by no means disliked him. I just thought he was hollow at the center and not expressive of his personal beliefs, which was extremely unusual on that campus. I had no idea what he believed in or why because he played everything so close to the vest. This is why I was suspicious when he ran for office on the passionate banner of transformational *change* and the quest to help the forgotten. He just never struck me as a guy who really cared.[/quote]
Pup, that’s interesting. Twenty-five years ago, I shared quarters for six months with the fellow who was all over the front pages last week as an Obama economic advisor, who’d been unmasked by his mistress of eight years by her posting billboards around the country. Except for the friendly part, I’d describe him as you describe President Zero. At bottom, a phony.
I take exception with your view of not voting as civil protest. William F. Buckley published a collection of essays under the title The Governor Listeth. It’s from James 3:4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. It’s up to us to apply our incremental pressure to the governor to guide the ship of state. Our vote is part of that. And while there is much that I dislike about republicans, there is almost nothing I can agree with on the left, and a third party has no hope of effecting anything short of outright civil revolt.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:34 PM
Ok…I should have used the
Ok…I should have used the little square brackets to indicate that I was paraphrasing. []
This is not uncommon in internet banter, and there are other examples of it on this site (but I’m not going to bother to look one up, so I’ll concede this one to you).
But is there anything that was not accurate in my paraphrase? You do claim to have a Harvard law education, and you do claim to have known Obama, right? How is this “sloppy and misleading?”
BTW, some words used in internet forums have slightly different meanings than than popular speech:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rant
But, if you insist upon using Webster’s definition, then I have to ask, am I being vehemently scolded because I voted for Obama?
January 26, 2010 @ 10:19 AM
partypup wrote:
End the wars.
[quote=partypup]
End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending – unlike many posters on this board, I think the threat of terrorism is highly exaggerated by our government (Allan, I know you disagree with me here). I am really a big old peacenik. If I had my way we’d be following Clinton’s lead and shuttering bases allover the world.
[/quote]
Partypup: I actually don’t disagree with you at all. Our government does a pretty shitty job relative to terrorism. While I don’t think of it as a law enforcement problem, it also doesn’t conveniently fit into the military bucket, either. Many of the resources/agencies that are devoted to this effort don’t work well together and many don’t work at all. As the Christmas bombing debacle illustrated, information sharing continues to be a problem and a simple name misspelling by a DepState desk jockey nearly resulted in hundreds of Americans dying.
All that being said, it is NOT the government’s job to keep us 100% safe, 100% of the time. All of the GOP hacks that assailed Obama for this “failure”, conveniently ignore the fact that the National Security State was largely built on their watch.
What worries me most is the sacrifice of liberty in the name of security and the continued erosion of civil liberties as this transpires. This is what I most damn Obama for. He went on the campaign trail and made this a focal point of his attack on the Bush Administration. This man is a former Constitutional Law professor, for God’s sake! He understands, probably better than anyone, what is truly at stake here and promised repeatedly to undo the damage. Not only has he failed to do so, he’s continued the onslaught and, in some cases, accelerated it.
To argue that he’s planning on incrementally bringing things back is to ignore all facts to the contrary.
January 25, 2010 @ 11:39 PM
I think the “best president
I think the “best president ever” label depends on how you define a good president. Most people would probably define that as leading the country in some grand way, or at the least successfully enacting a certain coherent set of laws and policies, providing direction and focus.
I think that truly great leadership will only be recognized if it is exercised to get through demanding national circumstances that require vision and sacrifice.
Bottom line is I don’t think we are ready as a country to be led by the best president ever because we aren’t as a country at the point where we are ready to make personal sacrifices.
I’d settle for a pretty good president now rather than a great one who picks up the pieces after we hit the wall, but that is probably just hopium. I think Obama missed his chance to be a great president when he folded to the banks. I just don’t see him getting another opportunity.
/ramble
January 26, 2010 @ 1:38 AM
garysears wrote:
I’d settle
[quote=garysears]
I’d settle for a pretty good president now rather than a great one who picks up the pieces after we hit the wall, but that is probably just hopium. I think Obama missed his chance to be a great president when he folded to the banks. I just don’t see him getting another opportunity.
[/quote]
I agree. Obama will be a very good president.
It’s preferable to have a good president now than a great president after a great catalytic crisis.
It’s a lot more comfortable to have incremental changes in the right direction than to fall off a cliff before finding the right direction (you may not survive the fall).
On a related matter, I have a good friend from China and he wants wholesale political changes in China. But can the country survive the changes he wants or will it disintegrate? Is that a risk worth taking?
I argued that it’s preferable that China becomes wealthy first and implements social changes on a step-by-step basis.
The risk of the country disintegrating and millions of people to be thrown further into poverty is too great in my view.
Granted, America is not China, but I’m sure Americans want to preserve their day-to-day comfort rather than risk big changes. That’s why health care reform is scary. People who have insurance are scared to lose it and don’t want change.
People say they want change but they really don’t want it too fast.
January 26, 2010 @ 9:09 AM
briansd1 wrote:
It’s
[quote=briansd1]
It’s preferable to have a good president now than a great president after a great catalytic crisis.
It’s a lot more comfortable to have incremental changes in the right direction than to fall off a cliff before finding the right direction (you may not survive the fall). [/quote]
This is what scares me – that we have now come to the point in this country where high-level mediocrity is acceptable, even in our leadership. This is precisely how we ended up with Obama.
I agree that incremental change is sometimes the way to go (particularly with health care reform), but I also think that that tens of millions of Americans (and most of MA) believe that whatever incremental changes are being made now are in the WRONG direction. So I think you’re going to find yourself part of an increasingly small group of supporters if you truly believe that the “right direction” includes wanton spending, fighting for legislation that the majority believes is not necessary and ill-conceived, engaging in non-transparent, back-door, mob-style dealings to grease the wheels and extending Bush’s reckless foreign policy in the Middle East.
This country – and the world – is at an inflection point. There is a perfect storm of crises brewing around us – economic, climate, geopolitical – and what we need more than anything else is the transformational leader that Obama *sold* himself to the American people as. Because you are only fooling yourself if you think the great catalytic (or did you mean cataclysmic?) crisis is behind us.
Obama’s first year in office wasn’t his toughest; it was his EASIEST. The going only gets rougher from here, my friend, and our president is in way over his head. He simply does not have the constitution to handle what this particular job requires at this particular time. I think Obama would have been a much better president during the 80s, when the going was easy, most things could be papered over, and the world did our bidding. But the country was not *ready* for a president of color then. The irony is that now the country IS ready, but we have the wrong man in office.
January 26, 2010 @ 10:23 AM
partypup wrote:[…] during
[quote=partypup][…] during the 80s, when the going was easy[/quote]
Just skimmed the series of long posts here (all in one morning?) and this is one of a few zingers that caught my eye.
So things were “easy” in the 80s? Ever heard of the Cold War? Remember all those missiles? Thousands of them were pointed at us. What was going on with America’s biggest industries in the 80s? (steel, auto, …) Remember when Reagan’s deficits were going to bankrupt us and Japan was going to take over economically? (today it is China, right?).
There was lots of talk about the decline of the US in the 80s — the same kind of talk one can find now on this forum, over-and-over again.
You obviously have the time to type a lot, so would it be so hard to throw in an occasional fact, statistic, or data point to back up some of these claims? After all, this is Piggington.
January 26, 2010 @ 10:37 AM
Great article, partypup
As
Great article, partypup
As the world burns, American-style corporate kabuki theater goes into overdrive. Manipulating the bases with cherished notions.
[quote]Anyone who still believes in man-made global warming at this point…simply is not paying attention. The evidence against it is now staggering.[/quote]
Come on, 5 decades of peer review climate science and a century of atmospheric science disagrees with you. It’s not doctrine, it’s a well established body of evidence with nothing to disprove it besides AEI and heartland institute talking points. The denial machine is strong and well funded.
I really should coordinate field trip to NOAA so piggs can talk to real scientists and no they are not controlled by Al Gore and George Soros
January 26, 2010 @ 3:04 PM
pri_dk wrote:partypup
[quote=pri_dk][quote=partypup][…] during the 80s, when the going was easy[/quote]
Just skimmed the series of long posts here (all in one morning?) and this is one of a few zingers that caught my eye.
So things were “easy” in the 80s? Ever heard of the Cold War? Remember all those missiles? Thousands of them were pointed at us. What was going on with America’s biggest industries in the 80s? (steel, auto, …) Remember when Reagan’s deficits were going to bankrupt us and Japan was going to take over economically? (today it is China, right?).
There was lots of talk about the decline of the US in the 80s — the same kind of talk one can find now on this forum, over-and-over again.
You obviously have the time to type a lot, so would it be so hard to throw in an occasional fact, statistic, or data point to back up some of these claims? After all, this is Piggington.[/quote]
I’m home sick and killing time. Do you really see me posting here every day? Even your putdowns are pathetic.
As for the 80s: if you truly believe that the Reagan deficit, the Japanese “invasion” in U.S. real estate and the Cold War rival what’s unfolding around us now (Israel threatening war with what may very well be a nuclear Iran, a dollar in danger of losing its reserve currency status, $14 trillion in unfunded liabilities, accelerating climate change, a U.S. that is rapidly losing ground in a world that is multi-polar with political AND economic threats beyond Russia, real unemployment at 20%, the Fed purchasing 80% of U.S. Treasuries in one year (2009), American car manufacturers succumbing to bankruptcy, more Americans on food stamps than anytime since the Depression), then it is no wonder you are an Obama supporter.
You truly have no clue. And no, I don’t need statistics to determine that. Your posts are evidence enough and what I should probably expect from a lawn chair.
January 26, 2010 @ 3:29 PM
pp:
Please find a post where
pp:
Please find a post where I claim unwavering support for Obama and get back to me. (I’ll settle for a post where I claim any support for him.)
Yes, I did vote for him, as did you. You acknowledge that in this very thread.
Yeah, the Cold War was no big deal. Not like it could have killed everyone on the planet. And everything was just fine in the Middle East in the 80s. Beirut was a peaceful resort town.
But OMG, the Fed is purchasing 80% of US Treasuries! Why don’t we have schoolchildren hide under their desks for that!
Definition of the word rant.
January 26, 2010 @ 3:55 PM
pri_dk wrote:pp:
Please find
[quote=pri_dk]pp:
Please find a post where I claim unwavering support for Obama and get back to me.[/quote]
Sure, right after you show me the post in which I claimed your support of Obama was “unwavering”. You are not reading carefully, as usual, or more likely you are not correctly understanding the meaning of words that you use.
[quote=pri_dk](I’ll settle for a post where I claim any support for him.)[/quote]
I assume that a person who votes for a candidate actually supports them. Are you treating presidential elections like “American Idol”? Someone strikes your fancy one day, but not the next?
[quote=pri_dk]Yes, I did vote for him, as did you. You acknowledge that in this very thread.[/quote]
I voted for the dude to be president of a law school journal.
You voted for an empty suit to sit in the Oval Office. And you don’t see the difference?
[quote=pri_dk]Yeah, the Cold War was no big deal. Not like it could have killed everyone on the planet. And everything was just fine in the Middle East in the 80s. Beirut was a peaceful resort town.
But OMG, the Fed is purchasing 80% of US Treasuries! Why don’t we have schoolchildren hide under their desks for that![/quote]
You clearly do not understand the implications. We are now officially running a Ponzi scheme, masquerading as a functioning economy. And the rest of the world, as demonstrated by their astounding distaste for Treasuries now, knows this.
If you think that this won’t have consequences greater than the posturing we saw during the Cold War, you’re dreaming. The likelihood of the U.S imploding from debtocalypse is greater than the likelihood of the U.S. being nuked by Russia.
And yes, I’m still looking for examples of “rants” in my posts, as defined by Merriam-Webster.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:02 PM
partypup wrote:And yes, I’m
[quote=partypup]And yes, I’m still looking for examples of “rants” in my posts[/quote]
See the above.
January 26, 2010 @ 4:12 PM
pri_dk wrote:partypup
[quote=pri_dk][quote=partypup]And yes, I’m still looking for examples of “rants” in my posts[/quote]
See the above.[/quote]
Good God, you really don’t read, do you? This is stunning. You are directing me to another definition of rant, even though I already provided one from a widely-used dictionary.
I will repeat my question once again, and this time please take the time to actually read it:
“And yes, I’m still looking for examples of “rants” in my posts”.
Now be a big boy and do the hard work: point to the actual examples in my posts that support the definition I posted earlier – or even the definition you directed me to.
I think you will find that you and many other posters on this forum are also doing a lot of “ranting”, by these definitions. So please, direct me to examples of “rants” in my post that stand out so much in your mind from those of other posters, including yourself.
You’re in a glass house, dude. And I’ve got a stone in my hand.
January 26, 2010 @ 1:22 PM
Every gun that is made, every
From a Republican. And a general.
It’s way too early to predict how history will view his Presidency, but Obama has kept one campaign promise so far:
http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/26/defense/index.html
Unfortunately, it’s the wrong one.
January 26, 2010 @ 5:54 PM
And lastly, from a Sept. 22
And lastly, from a Sept. 22 comment on this very thread:
[quote]I, for one, was standing in freezing cold temperatures in D.C. when Bush was inaugurated in 2004, hurling expletives at his motorcade as it sped by faster than a banana republic dictator escaping after a coup.
[…]
I think it’s extremely difficult to rant and rail against an institution like the Fed. People simply won’t get it. However, if the rant is directed toward the man – be it Clinton, Bush or Obama, take your pick – who *enables* the Fed and looks the other way while banks loot our nation, I actually believe that will get more traction. Just my opinion. Only time will tell whether the 9/12 folks are actually able to give this thing legs. As you know, I firmly believe that we will see a *revolution* (hopefully non-violent) in this country in our lifetimes.[/quote]
But seriously: The world is about to end, and we are wasting our time on minutia like the definition of the word “rant” …
January 27, 2010 @ 10:23 AM
pri_dk wrote:And lastly, from
[quote=pri_dk]And lastly, from a Sept. 22 comment on this very thread:
[quote]I, for one, was standing in freezing cold temperatures in D.C. when Bush was inaugurated in 2004, hurling expletives at his motorcade as it sped by faster than a banana republic dictator escaping after a coup.
[…]
I think it’s extremely difficult to rant and rail against an institution like the Fed. People simply won’t get it. However, if the rant is directed toward the man – be it Clinton, Bush or Obama, take your pick – who *enables* the Fed and looks the other way while banks loot our nation, I actually believe that will get more traction. Just my opinion. Only time will tell whether the 9/12 folks are actually able to give this thing legs. As you know, I firmly believe that we will see a *revolution* (hopefully non-violent) in this country in our lifetimes.[/quote]
But seriously: The world is about to end, and we are wasting our time on minutia like the definition of the word “rant” …[/quote]
“I think it’s extremely difficult to rant and rail against an institution like the Fed. People simply won’t get it. However, if the rant is directed toward the man – be it Clinton, Bush or Obama, take your pick – who *enables* the Fed and looks the other way while banks loot our nation, I actually believe that will get more traction.”
Again….what does this prove? That I used the word “rant” in one of my posts when discussing the effectiveness of rants and the circumstances in which they do and don’t work??
[quote=pri_dk] the internet has a lot of fake personalities, they post prolifically on forums all the time, some cons are elaborate and detailed, some not so much … it’s fun, but I wouldn’t say it so outrageous to think that someone who posts lots of political rants on a local message board but claims to know the potus may be exaggerating.[/quote]
Oh hey, look. You used the word “rant”, too. I guess that means you were ranting!
You need to drop this, because you’re only exposing yourself for the shallow-thinker you are. If you dropped out of college, please go back and give it another shot. If you never attended, please consider enrolling. Until you get some basic reading comprehension skills under your belt you really aren’t qualified to debate with anyone. And I daresay you shouldn’t be doing anything along the lines of voting.
January 27, 2010 @ 10:03 AM
I give five to one this gets
I give five to one this gets said tonight/.
“It’s the economy stupid” !!
June 3, 2010 @ 4:25 PM
Good grief. Important things
Good grief. Important things happening in the world, and this talking point isn’t one of them. Lesser news.
There are more substantive issues to raise re: Obama Administration — BP, economy, Middle East, banks, etc.
June 3, 2010 @ 4:56 PM
gandalf wrote:Good grief.
[quote=gandalf]Good grief. Important things happening in the world, and this talking point isn’t one of them. Lesser news.
There are more substantive issues to raise re: Obama Administration — BP, economy, Middle East, banks, etc.[/quote]
Gandalf: No disagreement, but its a whole cloth issue. Too many people believed the “transformative change” that Obama preached and a year plus in, its business as usual.
Dubya was blasted for his presidency, and rightfully so, especially in light of the losses we suffered in terms of civil liberties (Patriot I and II), any remaining faith in institutions, businesses and government (subprime, Wall Street meltdown and the complete whiff that followed in terms of regulation and oversight) and in the overall governing competency of our elected leaders (Congress).
Obama essentially came with a mandate to change all that, and it started with the notion of transparency (where, under Dubya, it had been opacity) and a responsive government.
Whether or not the Sestak deal is wrong or illegal, matters far less than the smell its giving off and the sense of an Administration all too willing to cut deals (like they did on healthcare), when we were told things would change under Obama.
So, I think that while this is indeed a lesser issue, it dovetails into the larger issues and the larger questions there, too.
June 3, 2010 @ 5:18 PM
AFF, I don’t think I was one
AFF, I don’t think I was one of the ‘Obama-maniacs’, goofy people saying everything was going to change on an election. And I strongly believe Obama is turning out to be a better alternative than what the GOP has to offer.
Remember that Susan Eisenhower Op-Ed in the WaPost prior to the election? Turns out she was spot-on accurate, exactly right. Obama’s not a wingnut. He’s middle of the road, brokering incremental progress.
For what it’s worth, I’m a bit disappointed in the current course of events. I think we need someone with more ‘transformative’ qualities right now, somebody with more leadership ability, a Roosevelt for example, to kick ass and take names. I think that especially applies to the financial crisis.
June 3, 2010 @ 6:20 PM
gandalf wrote:AFF, I don’t
[quote=gandalf]AFF, I don’t think I was one of the ‘Obama-maniacs’, goofy people saying everything was going to change on an election. And I strongly believe Obama is turning out to be a better alternative than what the GOP has to offer.
Remember that Susan Eisenhower Op-Ed in the WaPost prior to the election? Turns out she was spot-on accurate, exactly right. Obama’s not a wingnut. He’s middle of the road, brokering incremental progress.
For what it’s worth, I’m a bit disappointed in the current course of events. I think we need someone with more ‘transformative’ qualities right now, somebody with more leadership ability, a Roosevelt for example, to kick ass and take names. I think that especially applies to the financial crisis.[/quote]
Gandalf: Again, no disagreement from me. I’d love to see a Teddy Roosevelt emerge and take charge. (Speaking of Teddy, pick up Douglas Brinkley’s “The Wilderness Warrior”, which details Teddy’s extensive environmentalism and national parks program. I just finished it; its a great read).
However, that said, I don’t see anyone in either party of that caliber. While I agree that you weren’t one of the “Obama-maniacs”, there were and are quite a few, and I think this speaks to the great desire in this country for just such a leader. And, unfortunately for Obama, many people expected exactly that from him and in no small part due to his oratory and the sweeping promise of transformative change.
Incremental progress ain’t gonna get it anymore. We need a larger-than-life, trust-busting, “speak softly, but carry a big stick” kinda guy (or gal). We don’t need just another politician: We need a leader.
June 3, 2010 @ 6:53 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Incremental progress ain’t gonna get it anymore. We need a larger-than-life, trust-busting, “speak softly, but carry a big stick” kinda guy (or gal). We don’t need just another politician: We need a leader.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Obama does carry a big stick.
http://tinyurl.com/2aet9ae
June 3, 2010 @ 9:59 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:We
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]We don’t need just another politician: We need a leader.[/quote]
Now would be a good time.
We could also use a generation of Americans who don’t suck.
June 3, 2010 @ 11:23 PM
gandalf wrote:
We could also
[quote=gandalf]
We could also use a generation of Americans who don’t suck.[/quote]
Gandalf: Boy, ain’t that the friggin’ truth?
We’ve gone from a nation that stopped the Nazis and the Soviets and put a man on the moon, to a nation of puling, victim whiners who are shit-scared of their own shadows and expect Big Daddy Gubment to solve all problems.
Of course, being the sunny fucking optimist I am, I also believe in America as being dynamic and capable of not only incredible change (like electing Obama), but incredible feats (Apollo program, Manhattan Project, Transcontinental Railroad).
June 10, 2010 @ 5:40 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, being the sunny fucking optimist I am, I also believe in America as being dynamic and capable of not only incredible change (like electing Obama), but incredible feats (Apollo program, Manhattan Project, Transcontinental Railroad).[/quote]
Allan, I’m glad that you now see that electing Obama was indeed, by itself, incredible change.
July 3, 2010 @ 5:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from
[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, being the sunny fucking optimist I am, I also believe in America as being dynamic and capable of not only incredible change (like electing Obama), but incredible feats (Apollo program, Manhattan Project, Transcontinental Railroad).[/quote]
Allan, I’m glad that you now see that electing Obama was indeed, by itself, incredible change.[/quote]
At this time, 18 months into his presidency it has become obvious that president Obama has mislead us and lied. His policies are not working and he may become one of the worst presidents ever.
July 3, 2010 @ 8:31 PM
To quote Al Jolson: “You
To quote Al Jolson: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
June 3, 2010 @ 10:42 PM
gandalf wrote:AFF, I don’t
[quote=gandalf]AFF, I don’t think I was one of the ‘Obama-maniacs’, goofy people saying everything was going to change on an election. And I strongly believe Obama is turning out to be a better alternative than what the GOP has to offer.
Remember that Susan Eisenhower Op-Ed in the WaPost prior to the election? Turns out she was spot-on accurate, exactly right. Obama’s not a wingnut. He’s middle of the road, brokering incremental progress.
For what it’s worth, I’m a bit disappointed in the current course of events. I think we need someone with more ‘transformative’ qualities right now, somebody with more leadership ability, a Roosevelt for example, to kick ass and take names. I think that especially applies to the financial crisis.[/quote]
I agree, gandalf.
[quote=gandalf]
We could also use a generation of Americans who don’t suck.[/quote]
Obama in many ways represents the newest generations of Americans. Americans are not as activists as they used to be. Young people are now just as happy listening to their iPods and going about their business. People might be against the wars. But they are not being called to serve, so most of the time, the wars are out of sight, out of mind.
I don’t see people agitating for transformative change.
June 3, 2010 @ 11:02 PM
The “he or she” reference
The “he or she” reference makes me shudder–the only she being offered up is terrifying. I would love to see a woman in office, just not She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Legitimized.
I think Obama would be much more effective if he wasn’t facing adversity on the other side of the aisle at every turn. Discourse and debate are key to a vital governing body, but log-jamming and blockading based entirely on political maneuvering doesn’t benefit anyone. Obama isn’t perfect and he’s human but I think his first year would be more illustrious if he weren’t slogging up stream every step of the way.
Really would like to see him crack some heads, but I think he is too much of a consensus builder. Maybe he can re-make himself politically to fit the need? Hope springs eternal…
June 3, 2010 @ 11:23 PM
Shadowfax wrote:The “he or
[quote=Shadowfax]The “he or she” reference makes me shudder–the only she being offered up is terrifying. I would love to see a woman in office, just not She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Legitimized.
[/quote]
Hillary Clinton?
June 4, 2010 @ 1:06 AM
Hey Gandalf,
Glad to see you
Hey Gandalf,
Glad to see you posting again. It’s true there are a lot more important issues to deal with, but after all this is Obama’s first gate- job gate that is. This stuff happens to all of them. It goes with the territory. Being president is not for the faint of heart and supporting a president is not for weaklings. What surprises me the most is after the non stop Bush bashing some well deserved and others not so much, why is anyone surprised that bashing the president will happen to the guy they supported, too. In Adams time, it was practically an art form. I am glad you weighed in to the discussion. You usually have a post that is worth reading.
June 3, 2010 @ 4:57 PM
Back to the OP topic, “Will
Back to the OP topic, “Will Obama be the best President ever?”
Here’s my answer: There are enormous generational problems confronting our country right now. Our politics are completely dysfunctional, baby boomers going through a divorce, bitching and whining about every inconsequential detail, decrying the lack of responsibility and pointing fingers everywhere but the mirror. But back to Obama…
My assessment after a year and a half is that given the magnitude of the challenges, Obama is doing alright, ‘surviving’ is how I’d put it. He’s looking like he’ll end up being a slightly better than average President. He’s no Teddy Roosevelt, for sure — larger than life, defying assassins bullets, taking on railroad barons and busting trusts, but I’d say Obama’s not bad. I’d say he’s doing reasonably well just surviving the current crisis without going over the precipice, weathering it on our feet, wandering to live another day.
July 4, 2010 @ 8:29 AM
gandalf wrote:Back to the OP
[quote=gandalf]Back to the OP topic, “Will Obama be the best President ever?”
Here’s my answer: There are enormous generational problems confronting our country right now. Our politics are completely dysfunctional, baby boomers going through a divorce, bitching and whining about every inconsequential detail, decrying the lack of responsibility and pointing fingers everywhere but the mirror. But back to Obama…
My assessment after a year and a half is that given the magnitude of the challenges, Obama is doing alright, ‘surviving’ is how I’d put it. He’s looking like he’ll end up being a slightly better than average President. He’s no Teddy Roosevelt, for sure — larger than life, defying assassins bullets, taking on railroad barons and busting trusts, but I’d say Obama’s not bad. I’d say he’s doing reasonably well just surviving the current crisis without going over the precipice, weathering it on our feet, wandering to live another day.[/quote]
My sentiments exactly.
Given the quantity and intensity of the shit storm he’s dealing with, Obama get’s a few bonus points.
July 4, 2010 @ 9:05 AM
Forecast is dark and gloomy
Forecast is dark and gloomy with a strong chance of political insanity. Let the circular firing squad begin!
June 4, 2010 @ 12:50 PM
Thanks, aecetia. Enjoy your
Thanks, aecetia. Enjoy your weekend.
June 10, 2010 @ 5:11 PM
The Alien in the White
The Alien in the White House
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal “man-caused disasters” among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama’s moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575294231631318728.html
July 3, 2010 @ 11:03 PM
Anyone who has followed the
Anyone who has followed the housing market from the peak of bubble knows Obama inherited the bad economy and the disastrous unwinnable wars.
The bubble economy was bound to bust. And given the magnitude of the mismanagement, it’s a miracle that the busting did not cause a depression.
It will take both of Obama’s terms and beyond to fix all of our problems.
July 3, 2010 @ 11:17 PM
briansd1 wrote:Anyone who has
[quote=briansd1]Anyone who has followed the housing market from the peak of bubble knows Obama inherited the bad economy and the disastrous unwinnable wars.
The bubble economy was bound to bust. And given the magnitude of the mismanagement, it’s a miracle that the busting did not cause a depression.
It will take both of Obama’s terms and beyond to fix all of our problems.[/quote]
We are sliding into a depression and there won’t be a second term for Obama…
July 4, 2010 @ 2:04 AM
You sound pleased, kcal.
You sound pleased, kcal. Difficult circumstances, for sure.
The problems are bigger than party politics.
I don’t wish for a second great depression.
July 4, 2010 @ 10:21 PM
gandalf wrote:You sound
[quote=gandalf]You sound pleased, kcal. Difficult circumstances, for sure.
The problems are bigger than party politics.
I don’t wish for a second great depression.[/quote]
I agree.
I don’t really understand people wishing for an economic collapse at the cost of millions of people thrown into poverty.
Is wishful political change worth that much human suffering?
As far a real estate is concerned, it’s been hit hard already with 50% off in many markets across the country. Be patient and you’ll get your 50% off, if not in nominal terms, but in inflation adjusted terms.
July 4, 2010 @ 10:48 PM
Brian,
You are beyond naive
Brian,
You are beyond naive if you think the government cares about you at all or people being thrown into poverty. The government exists for itself. It feeds on the blood of taxpayers and none of us matter at all. You better quit worrying about poverty and suffering and think about saving yourself from the government. You are totally brainwashed about reality and still think this is part of the change. It may be a change, but it is probably not the one you voted for. Chaos is a form of change. Wake up!
July 4, 2010 @ 10:55 PM
Many of the voters were
Many of the voters were promised changes. Only now they realize that they were misled and lied to. Unfortunately none of the 2 political parties can be trusted. We are in for some tough times indeed….
July 5, 2010 @ 12:59 PM
kcal09 wrote: Unfortunately
[quote=kcal09] Unfortunately none of the 2 political parties can be trusted. We are in for some tough times indeed….[/quote]
“Game over. Start over.” We hear that a lot from children when they lose.
In real life nothing is 100%.
You have to choose what best fits your ideals and/or your condition.
In real estate, you buy the house that you can afford and best meets your needs. Better not hold your breath for your dream house.
July 21, 2010 @ 12:36 PM
Wow, what a life!
Obama’s
Wow, what a life!
Obama’s presidency has so far been on of the most legislatively productive of any modern president (depending on how you define modern).
I do feel that some people don’t like Obama because he’s the golden boy and everything seems to fall on his lap.
Best viewed in IE:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/12/29/us/politics/20071229_OBAMA_TIMELINE.html?ref=business
August 26, 2010 @ 3:08 PM
David Letterman has blasted
David Letterman has blasted President Obama for taking his sixth vacation as president, and in a new video, David Letterman calls Obama a one-term president.
http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-cleveland/david-letterman-dogs-obama-for-6th-vacation-calls-obama-one-term-president-video-link
August 26, 2010 @ 3:55 PM
Does the president turn off
Does the president turn off his cell phone and tell everyone he’ll be unavailable for a week when he takes a vacation? Does he stop talking or thinking about (inter)national issues?
I thought it was silly when media did that to Bush and I still think it is silly.
August 26, 2010 @ 4:41 PM
Poor baby. Tough life eating
Poor baby. Tough life eating lobster and taking phone calls. I really feel for him.
August 26, 2010 @ 7:44 PM
Vacation days taken by Obama
Vacation days taken by Obama so far: 48
Vacation days taken by Bush at this point in his presidency: 115
source
August 26, 2010 @ 8:00 PM
So what. Bush was obviously
So what. Bush was obviously not a good role model. Your argument is childish. The point is that even some liberals are turning on him. He is going to give Carter a run for his money.
Since you like to be childish, I will join you with my childish comparison:
“Between 2000 and 2008 one of the left’s most cherished ways to ridicule President Bush was to point out how often he went golfing. Bush’s golfing was a clear sign that he was ignoring the work he had to do in Washington and that he just didn’t care they claimed. He was a playboy, a goof off, a time waster. But now that Barack Obama has come to office all of a sudden the left has found that golf isn’t worth noting, even as Obama has played the game more in just under two years than Bush did during his entire eight-year term. The word hypocrisy comes to mind.”
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/08/reminder-obamas-played-more-golf-in-2-yrs-than-bush-did-both-terms/
August 27, 2010 @ 12:01 AM
Aecetia wrote:Your argument
[quote=Aecetia]Your argument is childish.[/quote]
Is this directed at me? Shouldn’t the person who brought up vacation days to begin with be labeled as the childish one? There are plenty of things I’m none too happy about with Obama, but his vacations? Please. If Zeit has to resort to bashing Obama for his number of vacations — which as I pointed out isn’t historically out of the norm (not even close) — perhaps Zeit has ran out of things to rant about. Complaining about a president’s vacations is as interesting to me as complaining that his flag lapel pin isn’t big enough. A more interesting comparison would be who has thrown back more beers since coming into office. But of course Obama wins that one because Bush only drinks O’douls.
Now watch this drive.
</childish>
August 27, 2010 @ 11:51 AM
If the shoe fits.
If the shoe fits.
August 27, 2010 @ 2:05 PM
The vacation argument is
The vacation argument is silly, directed at a president from either party.
Everyone knows Washington is a sh**hole, especially in the summer. Presidents and their families always want to get the hell out of there.
Personally, I’m fine with the Prez of either party getting out of the office and having a change of scenery/staff to get some perspective. Maybe think about problems in different ways, etc.
Whenever I hear someone complaining about it, I think less of *them*, not the president of either party.
August 26, 2010 @ 9:27 PM
Obama’s presidency has so far
Obama’s presidency has so far been on of the most legislatively productive of any modern president (depending on how you define modern).
His legislation is full of holes big enough to drive a fleet of school buses through…
Health insurance for all … In 2014 after his “clients” have sufficient time to raise rates by a large margin. Health insurance for disabled children – now insurers will not insure children at all…
Credit card reform. Rates UP 10% and defaults through the ceiling. Bailouts for corporate bankers (I know started under Bush, but unopposed by Obama) = Giant bonuses and NO reprieve for citizens. Oh and shall we talk about the massively successful foreclosure prevention plans? Millions – I mean a few thousand foreclosures prevented – I mean delayed.
Immigration reform? Oh of course I get it … Wink Wink….
No taxes on the middle class. Well allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not exactly a tax increase eh? Wink Wink!!
Employment? Booming!!! That stimulus money really helped small business and citizens…
Small business failures? Make that a GM a week since Obama took office in Small Business failures.
The fact is that we needed a president who could come in and fix Bushes mistakes, but it turns out of all the terrible things Bush did to America, Obama is the worst!!!
Now lets Chant… Obama Obama Obama… Bahhh Bahhh
July 4, 2010 @ 11:04 PM
One of the changes this
One of the changes this country needs is for people on the right to stop viewing “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as the opposition.
July 4, 2010 @ 11:45 PM
Long live the USA!
Long live the USA!
July 5, 2010 @ 12:15 AM
gandalf wrote:One of the
[quote=gandalf]One of the changes this country needs is for people on the right to stop viewing “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as the opposition.[/quote]
[applause]
Thank you, gandalf.
August 27, 2010 @ 2:20 PM
He is such a failure that he
He is such a failure that he even looks like a dork on a bike;
[img_assist|nid=13813|title=Dork|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=242|height=345]
August 27, 2010 @ 2:59 PM
Butleroftwo wrote:He is such
[quote=Butleroftwo]He is such a failure that he even looks like a dork on a bike;
[img_assist|nid=13813|title=Dork|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=242|height=345][/quote]
Pee Wee Herman
August 27, 2010 @ 3:45 PM
Butleroftwo wrote:He is such
[quote=Butleroftwo]He is such a failure that he even looks like a dork on a bike;
[/quote]
Obama plays basketball and is more athletic than all 5 of the previous presidents combined.
Compare to Mitch McConnell.
August 27, 2010 @ 4:57 PM
What? Didn’t you see Bush
What? Didn’t you see Bush dodge that shoe? Impressive.
August 27, 2010 @ 6:35 PM
BHO makes bush look
[img_assist|nid=13816|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=403]
BHO makes bush look great.
[img_assist|nid=13817|title=Dork again|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=74]
August 27, 2010 @ 7:44 PM
This is what the American
This is what the American people get in return for electing a president without prior experience. McCain was right. The presidency is not and should not be…on-the-job training.
August 27, 2010 @ 9:29 PM
kcal09 wrote:This is what the
[quote=kcal09]This is what the American people get in return for electing a president without prior experience. McCain was right. The presidency is not and should not be…on-the-job training.[/quote]
Totally agree with you and Mc Cain… Problem is, and lets face it besides health reform, Mc Cain would have done the exact same things in office…
So I don’t buy one side or the others that things would be different if “My candidate won”.
I am glad that Obama won so that all these people who that he was the second coming can see how wrong they were about him.
I am also glad that he opened the door for anyone to get the job and that the rest of the world no longer thinks we are bigots in this country.
I tell you who I think one of the most qualifed Dem is now… Hillary… Look at all this good forgien experience she is getting now. Far more experience than Obama.
I can’t stand her but she is getting the experience that a president should have before office.
CE
August 27, 2010 @ 9:45 PM
I have to agree about
I have to agree about Hillary. She is showing what she is made of and she is one tough lady.
August 28, 2010 @ 7:45 AM
Aecetia wrote:I have to agree
[quote=Aecetia]I have to agree about Hillary. She is showing what she is made of and she is one tough lady.[/quote]
Oh hell yes. The way she dodged that sniper fire was, well, Clint Eastwoodish.
Too bad she is dumb as dirt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXbtwq8atkw
August 27, 2010 @ 11:45 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:
Totally agree
[quote=CDMA ENG]
Totally agree with you and Mc Cain… Problem is, and lets face it besides health reform, Mc Cain would have done the exact same things in office…
[/quote]
A few more things that McCain would have done differently:
– Even longer prolongation of the Iraq War
– No financial reform
– No consumer protection
– No stem cell research
– Support for SB1070 in Arizona
– Prop 8 Support
– More Drill Baby Drill
– PALIN THE WHITE HOUSE (that’s a big one). If anything, I’m glad that Obama won because we avoided having Palin as Vice President and maybe President. Our country lucked out big time on this one.
For you guys who are angry with the financial bailouts, imagine all the extra giveaways to Wall Street, had Mc Cain been elected.
August 28, 2010 @ 12:29 AM
Boy I sure feel better now
Boy I sure feel better now after reading that.
August 28, 2010 @ 12:34 AM
briansd1 wrote:CDMA ENG
[quote=briansd1][quote=CDMA ENG]
Totally agree with you and Mc Cain… Problem is, and lets face it besides health reform, Mc Cain would have done the exact same things in office…
[/quote]
A few more things that McCain would have done differently:
– Even longer prolongation of the Iraq War
– No financial reform
– No consumer protection
– No stem cell research
– Support for SB1070 in Arizona
– Prop 8 Support
– More Drill Baby Drill
– PALIN THE WHITE HOUSE (that’s a big one). If anything, I’m glad that Obama won because we avoided having Palin as Vice President and maybe President. Our country lucked out big time on this one.
For you guys who are angry with the financial bailouts, imagine all the extra giveaways to Wall Street, had Mc Cain been elected.
[/quote]
That’s why it’s time to elect an independent candidate who brings some new ideas into the presidency…Who says that it has to be a Dem or Rep?
August 28, 2010 @ 7:57 AM
For you guys who are angry
For you guys who are angry with the financial bailouts, imagine all the extra giveaways to Wall Street, had Mc Cain been elected.
———-
Please, could anyone have given more away to wall street than Obama,Dodd,Franks,Shumer?
McCain would not have bailed out GM nor would he have given the money to AIG to funnel to foreign banks and GS.
Concerning Iraq, Obama promised to have everyone home but we still have 50k troops there so there is another obama lie.
August 28, 2010 @ 9:31 AM
jficquette wrote:McCain would
[quote=jficquette]McCain would not have bailed out GM nor would he have given the money to AIG to funnel to foreign banks and GS.
[/quote]
GM Bailout started under GWB. It was taken to structured bankruptcy under Obama, but the original gov’ment loans were Dec 2008 – which was still Bush.
AIG happened under GWB. Before the Nov 2008 election. You can’t pin that on Obama at all
You can blame Obama for a lot of things – but GM is a stretch and AIG is factually wrong since it happened before he was even elected.
(There’s plenty of blame to go around, but I really get annoyed with Bush’s mistakes being blamed on Obama… He’s made some of his own, but in fairness he did NOT do TARP, GM, or AIG.)
August 28, 2010 @ 10:53 AM
I would agree that there’s a
I would agree that there’s a large amount of “same old” with the two parties.
That’s part of continuity of governance that makes our system stable and predictable.
But we want our country to go in the right direction toward a better society and a more perfect union. That pursuit will never end.
Sure, financial reform was not perfect; but it’s better than nothing. That fact that the financial industry is angry over financial reform and is pouring huge money to elect Republicans (arguably so they can overturn the reforms) shows that, at least, the Democrats are trying to reign in the financial excesses of Wall Street.
Sure health care reform was not perfect; but it’s better than nothing. And it was exactly what the Republicans had proposed previously but now repudiate as socialistic.
I’m a progressive because I want progress in the right direction. Even baby steps forward add up to big progress over years.
What are the Republicans for these days? We don’t know. They are the party of No, Hell No.
The Tea Party are a bunch of angry bitter folks. Enough said.
August 28, 2010 @ 11:35 AM
briansd1 wrote:
The Tea Party
[quote=briansd1]
The Tea Party are a bunch of angry bitter folks. Enough said.[/quote]
I just got back from the Glen Beck shin dig and I’d say they are a bunch of oligarch-funded, emotionally-manipulated, scared and confused folks. I feel bad for them, mostly. It was a bizarre and abstract message they were putting out. A lot of founding father and military worship with “don’t tread on me flags”.
August 28, 2010 @ 12:03 PM
Arraya wrote:briansd1
[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
The Tea Party are a bunch of angry bitter folks. Enough said.[/quote]
I just got back from the Glen Beck shin dig and I’d say they are a bunch of oligarch-funded, emotionally-manipulated, scared and confused folks. I feel bad for them, mostly. It was a bizarre and abstract message they were putting out. A lot of founding father and military worship with “don’t tread on me flags”.[/quote]
Had I been in DC, I would have gone also.
I feel bad for them too. But I’m applying the same standards they apply to others: “you get what you deserve.”
Did you take pictures?
August 28, 2010 @ 4:00 PM
No, no pictures. It was
No, no pictures. It was actually and impromptu trip. We were out getting something to eat and it was a beautiful day, so, we decided to jump on the metro and check it out.
Funny, reading about other’s takes on it and they’re about the same as mine.
http://www.truth-out.org/anger-floods-mall-along-with-glenn-beck62758
August 28, 2010 @ 9:57 PM
Gandalf,
Are you doing all
Gandalf,
Are you doing all those scatological puns on purpose?
Good stuff. You hardly ever join us any more.
September 8, 2010 @ 11:32 AM
“The GOP pushed deep into
“The GOP pushed deep into Democratic-held territory over the summer, to the point where the party is well within range of picking up the 39 seats it would need to take control of the House. Overall, as many as 80 House seats could be at risk, and fewer than a dozen of these are held by Republicans.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100052779/even-americas-liberal-elites-concede-that-obamas-presidency-is-crumbling/
September 8, 2010 @ 2:25 PM
54 days and counting…. tick
54 days and counting…. tick tock Obama. Kind of feel like Capt. Hook.
September 8, 2010 @ 3:12 PM
Dems are done – the left is
Dems are done – the left is fragmenting and leaving the O camp in droves. Te far left hated him from the start and now it’s moved center quickly
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-michael-green/31132/our-long-national-nightmare-isnt-over-its-just-beginning
September 8, 2010 @ 3:42 PM
That was a very interesting
That was a very interesting commentary!
September 8, 2010 @ 6:02 PM
That was a good read, and I
That was a good read, and I think accurately captures some of the frustrations of a lot of people. I agree with a lot of what it says, but I can’t help but wonder how much of it was written in response to the incredible Gallup 10-point GOP lead mentioned in the article. The media and blogosphere couldn’t help itself with it’s “I told you so, Dems are doooooomed” narrative. Interesting that the same media and messageboards seem to have overlooked the fact that the 10-point lead is now gone a week later.
Polls schmolls.
September 9, 2010 @ 2:28 PM
“So much for transparency.
“So much for transparency. Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/
September 10, 2010 @ 12:26 PM
That’s a typo in the title
That’s a typo in the title right? You must’ve meant “the worst president”?
September 10, 2010 @ 10:40 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:”So much for
[quote=Zeitgeist]”So much for transparency. Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/%5B/quote%5D
Gee, I wonder who benefits from this…
September 11, 2010 @ 12:12 AM
Obama was really good at the
Obama was really good at the press conference. I thought he provided good answers to the questions.
Night and day difference between Obama and Bush who always spoke haltingly like someone who wasn’t all there.
I watched nearly all the Bush’s speeches and press conferences like I’m watching Obama’s.
If you won’t watch the entirety of the program and focus on the substance rather than the person, then you can’t claim to be rational and objective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwB0guyuNk
September 11, 2010 @ 12:31 AM
there’s been a lot of
there’s been a lot of discussion re: obama’s cycling style v bush biking style on bicycle chat groups i frequent. there si no disputing that bush was intense, loved to hammer on his mtn bike; obama does have that relaxed, out for a little toodle kinda look to him. Frankly, I think the Obama cycling style is a better message to the American people. get on your bike people, even if you cannot hang with the fast crowd. Just go for a ride. It’s fun. You can ride a dorky old bike and still ahve agood old time even if you’re not hooked up with your heart rate monitor going full throttle.
I am not making this determination base don politics. if Bush was the bike dork and Obama the hammerhead, i’d go for Bush. Bicycles are much bigger than politics, much more important.
This is all about cycling style. I think a long ride at your own pace, not just to get out there and enhance fitness is better all around.
Obama wins the bike competition in my view. A triumph for bike dorks (known as Freds) everywhere…
September 14, 2010 @ 11:27 PM
Another aspect of the Obama
Another aspect of the Obama Presidency-
“If Republicans sweep the House and win key Senate seats in November, it’s not just elected Democrats who will be unemployed — more than 1,500 Democratic staffers could lose their jobs, with layoffs stretching from low-wage staff assistants to six-figure committee aides. While turnover and job loss is a fact of life for those who serve in Congress, a change in party control can be dramatic as committee funding is slashed for the party falling out of power and hundreds of high-salary jobs switch hands.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42115.html#ixzz0zZvfQNXl
September 15, 2010 @ 2:30 PM
We’ll see. The O’Donnell
We’ll see. The O’Donnell torpedo may prove that this time it’s actually the GOP that is adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I always thought it was the Dems who had a monopoly on that skill.
September 21, 2010 @ 8:01 PM
This says it all- “How long
This says it all- “How long will the “bubble view” of both Treasuries and Equites hold up – that is, for how long will people buy both stocks (at ridiculous bubble-spending levels where the government is providing 12% of GDP’s gross amount via deficit borrowing) and bonds (funding said 12% of GDP) before those very same people have sink into their skulls The Admission The President of The United States just made on National Television: WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT TODAY AND STRUCTURALLY NEVER WILL, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DECREASE SPENDING IN THE PROGRAMS THAT CONSUME ALL OF PRESENT TAX REVENUES.”
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=167032
September 21, 2010 @ 8:53 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:. . . The
[quote=Zeitgeist]. . . The Admission The President of The United States just made on National Television: WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT TODAY AND STRUCTURALLY NEVER WILL, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DECREASE SPENDING IN THE PROGRAMS THAT CONSUME ALL OF PRESENT TAX REVENUES.” . . .
[/quote]
Zeitgeist, looks like we need a “fast fix” so IMO, we should start with Social Security reform, beginning tomorrow! That represents the biggest bulk of “entitlements” right there!
Any members of Congress willing to step up to the plate here??
September 21, 2010 @ 10:47 PM
Don’t hold your breath on
Don’t hold your breath on that, but you are right. The entitlements are going to break the back of this country and the young people just starting out are going to pay the price.
September 22, 2010 @ 8:27 AM
bearishgurl wrote:Zeitgeist
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Zeitgeist]. . . The Admission The President of The United States just made on National Television: WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT TODAY AND STRUCTURALLY NEVER WILL, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DECREASE SPENDING IN THE PROGRAMS THAT CONSUME ALL OF PRESENT TAX REVENUES.” . . .
[/quote]
Zeitgeist, looks like we need a “fast fix” so IMO, we should start with Social Security reform, beginning tomorrow! That represents the biggest bulk of “entitlements” right there!
Any members of Congress willing to step up to the plate here??[/quote]
Paul Ryan…
September 22, 2010 @ 8:45 AM
MAYBE IF CONGRESS WROTE THEIR
MAYBE IF CONGRESS WROTE THEIR BILLS IN ALL CAPS WE WOULD NOT HAVE THESE DEFICIT PROBLEMS.
September 23, 2010 @ 10:59 AM
Maybe if Congress actually
Maybe if Congress actually read their bills that would be an improvement. Meanwhile, Obama has created the schadenfreude economy: “The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self- interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money because of new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.”
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/09/23/u-s–returning-to-peasant-mentality.html?sid%3D101
How’s that hopey changey thing working for you all now?
September 23, 2010 @ 8:47 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Maybe if
[quote=Zeitgeist]Maybe if Congress actually read their bills that would be an improvement. Meanwhile, Obama has created the schadenfreude economy: “The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self- interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money because of new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.”
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/09/23/u-s–returning-to-peasant-mentality.html?sid%3D101
How’s that hopey changey thing working for you all now?[/quote]
My guess is that the cash on the sidelines is due to the belief that there will be better deals or higher rates in the future. Everything is priced at a premium these days, with nowhere to go but down (unless the Fed throws money from helicopters…but that will lead to different, and much worse, problems, IMHO).
September 24, 2010 @ 11:46 AM
I guess he needs some more
I guess he needs some more pixie dust. It is wearing thin.
“Six weeks before the election, President Obama couldn’t fill the ballroom at the Roosevelt Hotel, despite cheap tickets on offer. And then he was met by hecklers.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-23/obamas-fire-sale/
December 22, 2010 @ 12:04 PM
Achievements so far:
Sonya
Achievements so far:
Sonya Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Student loan reform
Health Care Reform
Financial Reform
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
START Treaty
Not everything is 100% but better than anything Bush provided in 8 years.
December 22, 2010 @ 12:22 PM
From My perspective
OK Job
From My perspective
OK Job on
[quote=briansd1]
Sonya Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Financial Reform
[/quote]
Good job on
[quote=briansd1]
Student loan reform
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
START Treaty
[/quote]
May even be a spectacular failure on
[quote=briansd1]
Health Care Reform
[/quote]
Luckily for POTUS, he only needs to be better than Palin.
December 22, 2010 @ 1:01 PM
enron_by_the_sea
[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Luckily for POTUS, he only needs to be better than Palin.[/quote]
That’s a pretty low bar…and even he’ll screw that up. His approval rating is still tanking.
December 23, 2010 @ 1:32 PM
meadandale wrote:
That’s a
[quote=meadandale]
That’s a pretty low bar…and even he’ll screw that up. His approval rating is still tanking.[/quote]
How many wins will it take before before the detractors admit that Obama is indeed very smart?
February 23, 2011 @ 8:28 AM
One positive aspect of the
One positive aspect of the Obama Administration is that the Ugly American stigma is fading away. American travelers should be thankful.
March 25, 2011 @ 1:47 PM
briansd1 wrote:One positive
[quote=briansd1]One positive aspect of the Obama Administration is that the Ugly American stigma is fading away. American travelers should be thankful.
[/quote]
Like most of us give a crap if stuffy Europeans look on us favorably. Oh gee…….I’m so glad they think positively about us now.
March 25, 2011 @ 3:41 PM
Djshakes wrote:
Like most of
[quote=Djshakes]
Like most of us give a crap if stuffy Europeans look on us favorably. Oh gee…….I’m so glad they think positively about us now.[/quote]
Sure we do, else we wouldn’t get so offended when they don’t appreciate what we do (or think we do) for the world.
March 28, 2011 @ 10:21 AM
hmmmmmmm. Obama is quite
hmmmmmmm. Obama is quite different after all?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded
March 28, 2011 @ 11:40 AM
sdrealtor wrote:hmmmmmmm.
[quote=sdrealtor]hmmmmmmm. Obama is quite different after all?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded
[/quote]
Key difference. Khadafi is in the process of killing his own people. We can stop him.
Saddam Hussein killed his own people back in the 1990s and Bush Senior did nothing. Action was needed then.
March 28, 2011 @ 12:21 PM
Also no ‘boots on the ground’
Also no ‘boots on the ground’ in Libya. Not yet anyway.
March 28, 2011 @ 12:23 PM
For the record, I like Obama
For the record, I like Obama and I’m glad he’s my President. Its just that eventually they all morph into pretty much the same thing.
March 28, 2011 @ 4:22 PM
“Becoming the most
“Becoming the most hypocritical politician in America is not an easy goal to achieve, but New York’s Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, is up to the task.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/25/now-even-the-loudest-obamacare-cheerlea-305819702/?page=1
March 28, 2011 @ 9:27 PM
sdrealtor wrote:hmmmmmmm.
[quote=sdrealtor]hmmmmmmm. Obama is quite different after all?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded%5B/quote%5D
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/20/bergen.libya.us/index.html
March 29, 2011 @ 1:20 AM
Honest question: Does anyone
Honest question: Does anyone think the U.S. govt would behave any differently if Americans were to gather in large numbers with the intention of overthrowing our own government? Does anyone really believe that they wouldn’t use guns against us?
While Gadhafi is a kook, he’s been there for a long time, and at least we KNOW him, and we know with whom we are dealing. Who’s to say that the person(s) replacing him are going to be any better? Is it because we are destabilizing these countries from within, and already know who we want in charge of these countries (and their oil supplies)?
At a time when everyone is supposedly up in arms about budget deficits, is this really the best use of our money?
I think we are going to regret this one, too.
March 29, 2011 @ 1:51 PM
CA renter wrote:Honest
[quote=CA renter]Honest question: Does anyone think the U.S. govt would behave any differently if Americans were to gather in large numbers with the intention of overthrowing our own government? Does anyone really believe that they wouldn’t use guns against us?
While Gadhafi is a kook, he’s been there for a long time, and at least we KNOW him, and we know with whom we are dealing. Who’s to say that the person(s) replacing him are going to be any better? Is it because we are destabilizing these countries from within, and already know who we want in charge of these countries (and their oil supplies)?
At a time when everyone is supposedly up in arms about budget deficits, is this really the best use of our money?
I think we are going to regret this one, too.[/quote]
Team America…. World Police…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/
America…F….yeah!
March 31, 2011 @ 8:28 AM
flu wrote:CA renter wrote:I
[quote=flu][quote=CA renter]I think we are going to regret this one, too.[/quote]
Team America…. World Police…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/
America…F….yeah![/quote]
AWP is one of my favorite movies. Fwiw, the way they had the leader moving around on his chair from monitor to monitor came from the movie Alien’s where the Lt was watching his people get devoured and scooting around on his chair.
March 29, 2011 @ 4:50 PM
CA renter wrote:Honest
[quote=CA renter]Honest question: Does anyone think the U.S. govt would behave any differently if Americans were to gather in large numbers with the intention of overthrowing our own government? Does anyone really believe that they wouldn’t use guns against us?
.[/quote]
Well, they would start with something like this to discredit the violent extremists protesting
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaGB-4RaaIm8YFOnT83YbRl-ljjA?docId=0cf1509be16249328f1bf119fa506fa1
An Indiana prosecutor said one of his deputies resigned Thursday after admitting he sent an email to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker suggesting the Republican fake an attack on himself to discredit the public employee unions protesting his plan to strip them of nearly all collective bargaining rights.
Johnson County Prosecutor Brad Cooper said Carlos Lam resigned in a phone call about 5 a.m. Thursday after acknowledging that he sent the Feb. 19 email to Walker suggesting “the situation in WI presents a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation.”
March 29, 2011 @ 11:18 PM
Arraya wrote:
Well, they
[quote=Arraya]
Well, they would start with something like this to discredit the violent extremists protesting
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaGB-4RaaIm8YFOnT83YbRl-ljjA?docId=0cf1509be16249328f1bf119fa506fa1
An Indiana prosecutor said one of his deputies resigned Thursday after admitting he sent an email to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker suggesting the Republican fake an attack on himself to discredit the public employee unions protesting his plan to strip them of nearly all collective bargaining rights.
Johnson County Prosecutor Brad Cooper said Carlos Lam resigned in a phone call about 5 a.m. Thursday after acknowledging that he sent the Feb. 19 email to Walker suggesting “the situation in WI presents a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation.”[/quote]
Wow, I hadn’t seen this one.
Funny what these two “anti-union” attorneys come up with to “fix” things.
April 1, 2011 @ 5:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:Achievements
[quote=briansd1]Achievements so far:
Sonya Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Student loan reform
Health Care Reform
Financial Reform
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
START Treaty
Not everything is 100% but better than anything Bush provided in 8 years.[/quote]
You left at least 5 other “accomplishments” out:
1) Destruction of civil liberties? check, and outdone Bush on that one!
2) war powers act violations?: check that box too, and outdid Bush, did not even bother to try to sell the war before the cruise missiles started flying!
3) Lack of meaningful bank reform and wall street cave in, two boxes for that one!
4) Health care reform? ha, more like a gift to the health insurance industry- check that box too BO!
5) Oh, lest I forget to give credit where credit is due, instead of reducing america’s wars BO starts another war, and probably will result in another Afghanistan. 3 boxes for that one!
Yep, BO has surely accomplished a lot, and he found his inner neocon.
August 28, 2010 @ 8:01 AM
briansd1 wrote:CDMA ENG
[quote=briansd1][quote=CDMA ENG]
Totally agree with you and Mc Cain… Problem is, and lets face it besides health reform, Mc Cain would have done the exact same things in office…
[/quote]
A few more things that McCain would have done differently:
– Even longer prolongation of the Iraq War
– No financial reform
– No consumer protection
– No stem cell research
– Support for SB1070 in Arizona
– Prop 8 Support
– More Drill Baby Drill
>[/quote]
Come on.
-Longer Iraq war? I have no idea what you could base that on?
-you mean the financial reform that was written by bank lobbyists?
-Possibly the consumer protection agency, but very easy to neuter as well
-Stem cell research was blocked regardless and Mc Cain was for expanding it.
-May have had an effect on SB1070.
-I doubt it would have mattered on prop 8. Interestingly, Cindy Mc Cain is a pro-gay marriage activist
-Obama opened up drilling two weeks before the spill
So we have a possible minor effect on SB1070 and a consumer protection agency, that may or may not be effective.
In reality, not much difference at all. It’s status-quo we can believe in or political posturing we can believe in
August 27, 2010 @ 11:31 PM
kcal09 wrote:This is what the
[quote=kcal09]This is what the American people get in return for electing a president without prior experience. McCain was right. The presidency is not and should not be…on-the-job training.[/quote]
Does that apply to Meg Whitman also?
Obama is getting good job experience now. So he should be the perfect candidate for a second term. 😉
August 28, 2010 @ 7:42 AM
kcal09 wrote:This is what the
[quote=kcal09]This is what the American people get in return for electing a president without prior experience. McCain was right. The presidency is not and should not be…on-the-job training.[/quote]
Everyone with a brain and could think for themselves knew what he was going to be like.
August 28, 2010 @ 11:18 AM
Damn, there’s a bunch of
Damn, there’s a bunch of frustrated right-wing retards on this board.
August 28, 2010 @ 11:42 AM
gandalf wrote:Damn, there’s a
[quote=gandalf]Damn, there’s a bunch of frustrated left-wing retards on this board.[/quote]
There, I fixed that for you
August 28, 2010 @ 3:53 PM
Ha,ha… that was good, mead.
Ha,ha… that was good, mead. Yeah, some of them too.
With the tea-baggers, we should ship them all to Mexico.
Trade them in for hard-working illegals. That’s a deal.
Tens of thousands of cranky seniors with bowel problems.
Holy shit, do you know how PISSED Mexico would be?
March 29, 2011 @ 8:32 AM
You break it, you own it.
You break it, you own it.
March 30, 2011 @ 1:21 AM
captcha wrote:You break it,
[quote=captcha]You break it, you own it.[/quote]
That has proven to be very true.
March 29, 2011 @ 9:08 AM
Do the ends justify the means
Do the ends justify the means or does is our idea of
Government important?
Watch the video below and answer the question: What happens if we happen to be backing an eventual enemy? (Think Osama bin Laden when he was part of the Muhajadeen in Afganistan)
Bottom line the President is not a King. He need to consult the American People through Congress becasue that is who he is supposed to REPRESENT…..not rule over…….
Come on people quit being lazy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
March 29, 2011 @ 12:33 PM
Better to deal with a known
Better to deal with a known thug, than an unknown. I think we are creating another bin Laden, regardless of good intentions- the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Frankly this is about European oil. I am surprised all the Libs who screamed like stuck pigs about Bush’s war for oil now are surprisingly quiet on the subject. Not!
March 29, 2011 @ 5:49 PM
Obama lied, people died
Obama lied, people died
March 29, 2011 @ 10:46 PM
jficquette wrote:Obama lied,
[quote=jficquette]Obama lied, people died[/quote]
John: Shouldn’t we also be yelling, “Hell, no, we won’t go!”?
March 29, 2011 @ 11:39 PM
Best thread ever.
Best thread ever.
March 31, 2011 @ 8:26 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jficquette]Obama lied, people died[/quote]
John: Shouldn’t we also be yelling, “Hell, no, we won’t go!”?[/quote]
Get Code Pink to crank it up. BTW, whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan?
March 30, 2011 @ 3:39 PM
Unfortunately, after more
Unfortunately, after more than 2 years as a president it has become painfully obvious how incompetent and inexperienced Obama is. Like many others I had high hopes for him but those dreams have been shattered…
March 31, 2011 @ 8:30 AM
kcal09 wrote:Unfortunately,
[quote=kcal09]Unfortunately, after more than 2 years as a president it has become painfully obvious how incompetent and inexperienced Obama is. Like many others I had high hopes for him but those dreams have been shattered…[/quote]
I knew exactly what he was. So did Partypup. Can’t believe how so many people got suckered in.
John
March 31, 2011 @ 11:51 AM
Partypup and you were right.
Partypup and you were right. The media is still definitely in his corner though, no matter what. What the media gods have wrought …. you know the rest, despite the big dip in the polls during a war or is it a kinetic war?
March 31, 2011 @ 9:53 PM
NOPE
NOPE
April 1, 2011 @ 5:02 PM
“If John McCain had won the
“If John McCain had won the 2008 election, and then done everything that Obama has done in exactly the same way, liberals would be raging about such awful policies. I believe that Barack Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left. The millions of young people who jubilantly supported him in 2008, and numerous older supporters, will need a long recovery period before they’re ready to once again offer their idealism and their passion on the altar of political activism.”
end quote, and I agree 1000%, BO is just that, simply awful.
April 1, 2011 @ 5:45 PM
The question now is, will he
The question now is, will he be the worst President ever? The answer is: so far he is…
Inexperienced, undecisive, running this country into the ground. Absolutely horrendous. Unfortunately, we have to wait 2 more years until this changes.
April 2, 2011 @ 10:11 AM
I believe that Obama is a
I believe that Obama is a pretty good president considering the economic challenges we face.
After all the economic excesses, there’s bound be a period of adjustment that has nothing to do with the president. Despite the economic malaise, Obama is making Americans feel pretty good about themselves.
I like Obama’s idealism moderated by his centrist, pragmatic approach to management.
I never believed in revolution or abrupt changes (which always end up costing economic growth and productivity). We are best to slowly but steadfastly move in the right direction. I believe that Obama is doing that.
April 2, 2011 @ 11:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:I believe that
[quote=briansd1]I believe that Obama is a pretty good president considering the economic challenges we face.
After all the economic excesses, there’s bound be a period of adjustment that has nothing to do with the president. Despite the economic malaise, Obama is making Americans feel pretty good about themselves.
I like Obama’s idealism moderated by his centrist, pragmatic approach to management.
I never believed in revolution or abrupt changes (which always end up costing economic growth and productivity). We are best to slowly but steadfastly move in the right direction. I believe that Obama is doing that.[/quote]
He is making most Americans feel miserable. The national debt is mounting and he with his socialist ideas is running the country into the ground. He also broke most of his promises about the war and even started to help the rebels in Libya where we have no business.
April 2, 2011 @ 11:30 PM
sunny88 wrote:
He is making
[quote=sunny88]
He is making most Americans feel miserable. The national debt is mounting and he with his socialist ideas is running the country into the ground. He also broke most of his promises about the war and even started to help the rebels in Libya where we have no business.[/quote]
This might be the funniest thing I have ever read on politics here. Three straight months of decent job growth. Corporate profits (as measured by the S&P 500) at record levels. His actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are virtually identical to his campaign rhetoric. And you can’t name a single “socialist” program initiated in the last two years. He campaigned as a center-left democrat, and has governed as a center-right democrat. Reality sure is a tough pill to swallow for idealogues. But it makes for good comedy.
April 2, 2011 @ 11:36 PM
sunny88 wrote:briansd1
[quote=sunny88][quote=briansd1]I believe that Obama is a pretty good president considering the economic challenges we face.
After all the economic excesses, there’s bound be a period of adjustment that has nothing to do with the president. Despite the economic malaise, Obama is making Americans feel pretty good about themselves.
I like Obama’s idealism moderated by his centrist, pragmatic approach to management.
I never believed in revolution or abrupt changes (which always end up costing economic growth and productivity). We are best to slowly but steadfastly move in the right direction. I believe that Obama is doing that.[/quote]
He is making most Americans feel miserable. The national debt is mounting and he with his socialist ideas is running the country into the ground. He also broke most of his promises about the war and even started to help the rebels in Libya where we have no business.[/quote]
I think most people who voted for Obama wouldn’t mind a bit of socialism, but the type of socialism practiced by Obama is socialism for the bankers, and that’s exactly what he campaigned against. We were supposed to be moving AWAY from having the financial industry rule our country. We want WORKERS to rule, not bankers. Obama has most definitely broken all his promises to us with respect to this “change” thing.
As a fairly left-leaning voter, I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Obama. I knew, even at the time, that partypup made some great points, but was idealistic, and hoping that someone would direct us toward a more sustainable and egalitarian society and economy. I bought the propaganda — hook, line, and sinker. Serves me right for going along with the political machine.
April 6, 2011 @ 3:00 PM
At least you are honest
At least you are honest enough to admit it CAR. I voted for Nixon twice. Good grief!
April 7, 2011 @ 7:16 AM
CA renter wrote:sunny88
[quote=CA renter][quote=sunny88][quote=briansd1]I believe that Obama is a pretty good president considering the economic challenges we face.
After all the economic excesses, there’s bound be a period of adjustment that has nothing to do with the president. Despite the economic malaise, Obama is making Americans feel pretty good about themselves.
I like Obama’s idealism moderated by his centrist, pragmatic approach to management.
I never believed in revolution or abrupt changes (which always end up costing economic growth and productivity). We are best to slowly but steadfastly move in the right direction. I believe that Obama is doing that.[/quote]
He is making most Americans feel miserable. The national debt is mounting and he with his socialist ideas is running the country into the ground. He also broke most of his promises about the war and even started to help the rebels in Libya where we have no business.[/quote]
I think most people who voted for Obama wouldn’t mind a bit of socialism, but the type of socialism practiced by Obama is socialism for the bankers, and that’s exactly what he campaigned against. We were supposed to be moving AWAY from having the financial industry rule our country. We want WORKERS to rule, not bankers. Obama has most definitely broken all his promises to us with respect to this “change” thing.
As a fairly left-leaning voter, I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Obama. I knew, even at the time, that partypup made some great points, but was idealistic, and hoping that someone would direct us toward a more sustainable and egalitarian society and economy. I bought the propaganda — hook, line, and sinker. Serves me right for going along with the political machine.[/quote]
Yeah, let workers, farmers and soldiers rule! It always worked so well!![img_assist|nid=14838|title=Let them reign…|desc=Farmers, soldiers and workers|link=node|align=left|width=130|height=94]
April 7, 2011 @ 9:44 AM
Bump.
Bump.
April 7, 2011 @ 10:45 AM
I will bet that Obama will
I will bet that Obama will get re-elected next year. Anybody wants to wager?
April 7, 2011 @ 11:39 AM
I saw a guy with a
I saw a guy with a handwritten Buck Ofama sign on the back of his ford focus. I told my kid please don’t get angry about politics or ever put a sign like that on your car. People will think youre mental plus it just uncool. You can have an opinion even have strong feelings but no stupid signs and no outrage. He was laughing and promised to remain calm.
April 7, 2011 @ 12:37 PM
The president is more of a
The president is more of a figure head than anything else. It’s like they change the rhetoric but operationally it stays pretty much the same with minor tweaks here an there and major situational changes. Still, politics is more of a show. Put Sarah Palin, Hanna Montana or Dennis Kucinich in charge of the system the president pretends to run, and the country would still be chugging along to it’s own ruin.
April 7, 2011 @ 2:04 PM
Arraya wrote:The president is
[quote=Arraya]The president is more of a figure head than anything else. It’s like they change the rhetoric but operationally it stays pretty much the same with minor tweaks here an there and major situational changes. Still, politics is more of a show. [/quote]
But the message, the language and the culture matter a great deal. They affect politics and people’s perceptions and attitudes.
Minor tweaks make a big difference over the long run. It’s like taking a different path in the labyrinth of life. A minor direction change can take you to a totally different destination.
April 7, 2011 @ 2:33 PM
“The president is more of a
“The president is more of a figure head than anything else. ”
Trump is my vote. Time is now for a hot first lady.
April 7, 2011 @ 4:11 PM
Hobie wrote:”The president is
[quote=Hobie]”The president is more of a figure head than anything else. ”
Trump is my vote. Time is now for a hot first lady.
[/quote]
We haven’t had sophistication in the white house since Jackie.
Given that Mrs. Trump is Eastern European and “sophisticated”, I don’t think it would play too well with the soccer moms and the woman voters in the heartland.
Given the Donald’s frequent marriages and his involvement in casino gambling, I wonder how he would attract support from religious conservatives.
April 7, 2011 @ 5:05 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Given the
[quote=briansd1]
Given the Donald’s frequent marriages and his involvement in casino gambling, I wonder how he would attract support from religious conservatives.[/quote]
Really? You can’t picture religious conservatives being hypocritical? I can’t picture them being anything but.
April 8, 2011 @ 5:17 AM
“Given the Donald’s frequent
“Given the Donald’s frequent marriages and his involvement in casino gambling, I wonder how he would attract support from religious conservatives.”
Just the kind of man we need. The message to all is that if you are not cutting the mustard, you’re outta here. Ask wife #1,2,.. And he likes gold plated and gaudy decorations. This will help make friends with the Arabs.
Plus, he will be watching out for our Native Americans who have been exploited since the white man arrived. ( well maybe they still are but now they are in on the play 😉 Glad you brought this up.
He hardly ever smiles so he communicates the get tough attitude. So now Brian, who would you rather see on TV every night, the Donald or Obama. Much better entertainment. Vote with your TV brian.
April 8, 2011 @ 8:42 AM
Hobie wrote: So now Brian,
[quote=Hobie] So now Brian, who would you rather see on TV every night, the Donald or Obama. Much better entertainment. Vote with your TV brian.[/quote]
I’d rather see Obama.
In this age of HDTV, Obama could used some cosmetic surgery though. His cheek folds are getting more pronounced and he’s not looking attrative on a big TV.
What happened to Diane Sawyer’s face?!!
The Donald is too predictable.
April 15, 2011 @ 11:56 PM
I am sure she is just showing
I am sure she is just showing her age, as you mentioned about Obama in HD on a large screen. Brian, people get old. It just happens and stress ages people, too. I agree with Hobie, the Donald is very entertaining.I am sure he has all the mainstream Republicans worried. Known of them have the courage to speak up the way he does.
April 16, 2011 @ 3:39 PM
I think a Trump/Palin ticket
I think a Trump/Palin ticket would be awesome. Throw in a gold toothed rapper as treasury secretary tossing out hundreds and we have a profitable reality show that encapsulates American values. I would support that for entertainment value.
April 16, 2011 @ 4:29 PM
What’s scary, Arraya, is that
What’s scary, Arraya, is that I can actually see this happening. It’s unreal.
April 16, 2011 @ 4:59 PM
he.. We better be careful or
he.. We better be careful or we will wind up where we are headed. Er, never mind, I think we are already there.
April 16, 2011 @ 5:30 PM
We are there. “Send in the
We are there. “Send in the clowns. Don’t worry they’re here.”
April 16, 2011 @ 6:05 PM
Arraya wrote:I think a
[quote=Arraya]I think a Trump/Palin ticket would be awesome. Throw in a gold toothed rapper as treasury secretary tossing out hundreds and we have a profitable reality show that encapsulates American values. I would support that for entertainment value.[/quote]
Arraya: Its already been done. Watch the movie “Idiocracy”. If we’re not already there, we’re pulling ever closer.
April 7, 2011 @ 1:14 PM
briansd1 wrote:I will bet
[quote=briansd1]I will bet that Obama will get re-elected next year. Anybody wants to wager?[/quote]
I already have several bets with peers that Obama will win. However, an Obama win will depend heavily on the economy in 2012 and the GOP candidate. Right now, the potential GOP candidate pool looks very weak.
April 16, 2011 @ 8:38 PM
DataAgent wrote:briansd1
[quote=DataAgent][quote=briansd1]I will bet that Obama will get re-elected next year. Anybody wants to wager?[/quote]
I already have several bets with peers that Obama will win. However, an Obama win will depend heavily on the economy in 2012 and the GOP candidate. Right now, the potential GOP candidate pool looks very weak.[/quote]
Agreed the fact that the GOP pool now has Trump ostensibly in the crowd of wannabees and big time losers guarantees what low probability the GOP has of putting up a winning candidate. But who knows, things can change in a few years!
Personally, I could care less, Obummer is a disgraceful liar and a wall street errand boy and neocon foreign policy champion. On the other hand, the tea partiers are just the same but more primitive and a lot dumber….
I have no dog in this fight…
April 21, 2011 @ 8:54 PM
mistake
mistake
April 17, 2011 @ 5:36 PM
I agree. He sucks. It’s been
I agree. He sucks. It’s been two years.
Only mitigating consideration is Republicans are piles of shit.
It all pretty much sucks though. Varying degrees of ‘suck’.
April 17, 2011 @ 5:37 PM
im happy.
im happy.
April 17, 2011 @ 6:12 PM
First, perpetrators of the
First, perpetrators of the financial crisis should have been sent to jail and the firms responsible for this disaster should have been forced into bankruptcy and restructured. Reforms should have been implemented. This is not a partisan issue.
Second, I believe Obama has been an ineffective leader. He has the temperament and instincts of a senator, and probably should have remained there. (None of this suggests cranky McCain / or psycho trash Palin would have been better.)
April 17, 2011 @ 11:10 PM
gandalf wrote:First,
[quote=gandalf]First, perpetrators of the financial crisis should have been sent to jail and the firms responsible for this disaster should have been forced into bankruptcy and restructured. Reforms should have been implemented. This is not a partisan issue.
[/quote]
Could not agree more. This is largely what he campaigned on…remember all the talk about “Wall Street fat cats,” and how Obama was going to work on behalf of working people instead of the bankers? Fail!
April 17, 2011 @ 11:56 PM
“It all pretty much sucks
“It all pretty much sucks though. Varying degrees of ‘suck’.” Gandalf you rock! They all suck, some just more so than others!
April 18, 2011 @ 8:21 AM
CA renter wrote:gandalf
[quote=CA renter][quote=gandalf]First, perpetrators of the financial crisis should have been sent to jail and the firms responsible for this disaster should have been forced into bankruptcy and restructured. Reforms should have been implemented. This is not a partisan issue.
[/quote]
Could not agree more. This is largely what he campaigned on…remember all the talk about “Wall Street fat cats,” and how Obama was going to work on behalf of working people instead of the bankers? Fail![/quote]
yep
I knew we’d been fed the bait and switch as soon as Larry Summers and Tim Geithner were named.
[quote=Aecetia]”It all pretty much sucks though. Varying degrees of ‘suck’.” Gandalf you rock! They all suck, some just more so than others![/quote]
yep. They all suck.
Varying degrees of suck.
April 18, 2011 @ 10:04 AM
Aecetia wrote:”It all pretty
[quote=Aecetia]”It all pretty much sucks though. Varying degrees of ‘suck’.” Gandalf you rock! They all suck, some just more so than others![/quote]
Isn’t it a case of glass half full vs. glass half empty. It’s all about perspective.
It’s usually the case that those who suffer a bad case of sour grapes see the glass as half empty.
Unlike kinder-garden, not everybody can win. One party will win and one party will lose.
I think of politics as sports that really matter. I want my team to win. You starts staying that everybody sucks when your team sucks so bad that you’re totally disillusioned.
Nothing is perfect in life. If we looked in the mirror and expected to see a perfect person, we might as well kill ourselves. Survival requires a glass half full perspective, IMHO.
April 18, 2011 @ 11:15 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Isn’t it a
[quote=briansd1]
Isn’t it a case of glass half full vs. glass half empty. It’s all about perspective.
It’s usually the case that those who suffer a bad case of sour grapes see the glass as half empty.
Unlike kinder-garden, not everybody can win. One party will win and one party will lose.
I think of politics as sports that really matter. I want my team to win. You starts staying that everybody sucks when your team sucks so bad that you’re totally disillusioned.
Nothing is perfect in life. If we looked in the mirror and expected to see a perfect person, we might as well kill ourselves. Survival requires a glass half full perspective, IMHO.[/quote]
So Brian – To extend your sports analogy… Would you be happy if the team won then promptly burned the stadium down – with the fans inside?
Sports teams and politicians need to be held accountable for actions after the win/election.
April 18, 2011 @ 4:48 PM
UCGal wrote:
So Brian – To
[quote=UCGal]
So Brian – To extend your sports analogy… Would you be happy if the team won then promptly burned the stadium down – with the fans inside?
Sports teams and politicians need to be held accountable for actions after the win/election.[/quote]
I agree that teams should be held accountable. But rooting for the opposite team that will undo the work of your own team, is not the way to do it.
My point is that all teams don’t all suck equally. Some are better than others (even if moderately better, better is still better).
IMHO, claiming that “they all suck” is a sign of disillusionment (glass half-empty perspective).
April 18, 2011 @ 5:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:
IMHO,
[quote=briansd1]
IMHO, claiming that “they all suck” is a sign of disillusionment (glass half-empty perspective).[/quote]
disillusionment is a good thing. Actually, studies have been done about when Children learn that Santa is not real. They actually are happy and feel more “mature”.
April 18, 2011 @ 6:45 PM
The glass isn’t half empty or
The glass isn’t half empty or half full, it’s at the midway mark, and all that matters is the trend … D. Rumsfeld
April 19, 2011 @ 12:38 PM
walterwhite wrote:The glass
[quote=walterwhite]The glass isn’t half empty or half full, it’s at the midway mark, and all that matters is the trend … D. Rumsfeld[/quote]
I like Rumsfeld. I never believed in the war on Iraq. But his right-sizing of the military was on target.
I like Rumsfeld plain spoken attitude.
April 23, 2011 @ 8:56 AM
briansd1 wrote:walterwhite
[quote=briansd1][quote=walterwhite]The glass isn’t half empty or half full, it’s at the midway mark, and all that matters is the trend … D. Rumsfeld[/quote]
I like Rumsfeld. I never believed in the war on Iraq. But his right-sizing of the military was on target.
I like Rumsfeld plain spoken attitude.[/quote]
Damnit. More and More I find myself agreeing with you. I liked him to though they villanized him pretty good.
I also like it when he had the courage to stand up to the troops and told them to go to war with what they have and not what they wished for.
CE
April 19, 2011 @ 12:42 PM
Arraya wrote:briansd1
[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
IMHO, claiming that “they all suck” is a sign of disillusionment (glass half-empty perspective).[/quote]
disillusionment is a good thing. Actually, studies have been done about when Children learn that Santa is not real. They actually are happy and feel more “mature”.[/quote]
Do you think that adults become more mature when they discover that Jesus isn’t God?
Or is “faith” something good that keeps us looking forward? Or maybe faith is something to keep the unevolved entertained, as you suggested is the case with politics.
April 23, 2011 @ 7:52 AM
UCGal wrote:briansd1
[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
Isn’t it a case of glass half full vs. glass half empty. It’s all about perspective.
It’s usually the case that those who suffer a bad case of sour grapes see the glass as half empty.
Unlike kinder-garden, not everybody can win. One party will win and one party will lose.
I think of politics as sports that really matter. I want my team to win. You starts staying that everybody sucks when your team sucks so bad that you’re totally disillusioned.
Nothing is perfect in life. If we looked in the mirror and expected to see a perfect person, we might as well kill ourselves. Survival requires a glass half full perspective, IMHO.[/quote]
So Brian – To extend your sports analogy… Would you be happy if the team won then promptly burned the stadium down – with the fans inside?
Sports teams and politicians need to be held accountable for actions after the win/election.[/quote]
Didn’t they do that in Detroit when the Pistons won an NBA title?
April 23, 2011 @ 11:45 AM
sdrealtor wrote:
Didn’t they
[quote=sdrealtor]
Didn’t they do that in Detroit when the Pistons won an NBA title?[/quote]
How could a San Diegan forget? The burning car photo (etc.) was taken after the Tigers beat the Padres to win the World Series in 1984.
April 24, 2011 @ 11:41 PM
njtosd wrote:sdrealtor
[quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]
Didn’t they do that in Detroit when the Pistons won an NBA title?[/quote]
How could a San Diegan forget? The burning car photo (etc.) was taken after the Tigers beat the Padres to win the World Series in 1984.[/quote]
because I’m not a san diego guy, I’m a philly guy. Who i might add just enjoyed going to see them sweep the padres. Had a great time partying downtown this weekend! Its come a long way.
April 18, 2011 @ 4:57 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Isn’t it a
[quote=briansd1]
Isn’t it a case of glass half full vs. glass half empty. [/quote]
It’s not that the glass is half empty or it is half full. In reality, the glass is twice as big as it should have been!
April 18, 2011 @ 5:25 PM
briansd1 wrote:.
It’s
[quote=briansd1].
It’s usually the case that those who suffer a bad case of sour grapes see the glass as half empty.
Unlike kinder-garden, not everybody can win. One party will win and one party will lose.
.[/quote]
Translation: Na-ne na-ne poo poo! You lose!
[quote=briansd1].
I think of politics as sports that really matter. I want my team to win. You starts staying that everybody sucks when your team sucks so bad that you’re totally disillusioned.
.[/quote]
I think of it more as professional wrestling. Completely unimportant, crude and designed for keeping the unevolved entertained
April 20, 2011 @ 12:20 PM
Arraya wrote: I think of it
[quote=Arraya] I think of it more as professional wrestling. Completely unimportant, crude and designed for keeping the unevolved entertained[/quote]
Obama is on tour promoting his agenda.
I gotta say, I like watching him on TV, running up the stage. He looks svelte, energetic, athletic and represents my generation more than any other potential presidential candidate out there.
So from an empathy standpoint, I feel like I relate to Obama the most.
I know that’s its shallow but for the “entertainment” value, that’s how I feel.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-19/obama-embarks-on-tour-to-sell-debt-plan-not-dwell-on-s-p-report.html
April 20, 2011 @ 2:21 PM
too bad he nor Bidan couldn’t
too bad he nor Bidan couldn’t find time to console families after the tornadoes, nor the Boy Scout 100th centennial, and ok I’ll stop. But he is out fundraising. There you go Chief.
April 20, 2011 @ 2:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:Arraya wrote:
[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya] I think of it more as professional wrestling. Completely unimportant, crude and designed for keeping the unevolved entertained[/quote]
Obama is on tour promoting his agenda.
I gotta say, I like watching him on TV, running up the stage. He looks svelte, energetic, athletic and represents my generation more than any other potential presidential candidate out there.
So from an empathy standpoint, I feel like I relate to Obama the most.
I know that’s its shallow but for the “entertainment” value, that’s how I feel.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-19/obama-embarks-on-tour-to-sell-debt-plan-not-dwell-on-s-p-report.html%5B/quote%5D
Well, I wish Obama would have a nice STFU and when he’s at Facebook, considering how he’s touting once again increasing takes on $250k+ earners (i.e. individual rich) because “everyone needs to do their share”…. while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing about about the repatriation tax….I mean, I think it’s just ironic that our government is suggesting individuals do this, while a conglomerate like GE paid $0 in taxes in 2010….
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558
It really doesn’t matter. Democraps or Republictards…They’re just both crooks…And the only way to prevent crooks from stealing is to ensure that crooks cannot get along and figure out a consensus on how to steal effectively…
Brown just did a sweetheart deal with the prison unions too…Well, you got what you elected for, California.
April 20, 2011 @ 4:12 PM
flu wrote:
It really doesn’t
[quote=flu]
It really doesn’t matter. Democraps or Republictards…They’re just both crooks…And the only way to prevent crooks from stealing is to ensure that crooks cannot get along and figure out a consensus on how to steal effectively…
[/quote]
Somehow, I don’t believe you when you said “they’re both crooks”. I feel that you will vote for the right wing no matter what. I doubt you would vote for a Democrat for president if Republicans control Congress.
Assuming that economically, Democrats and Republicans are the same, Democrats are socially still better (not ideal but better). Democrats are more socially liberal and willing to adapt to the modern way people live. Republicans are more likely to want to push a socially conservative, religious agenda that intrude on people’s private lives.
Actually, I would give you that socially, Democrats and Republicans are the same. The difference is that Democrats are more socially permissive, whereas Republicans just cannot seem to live what they preach.
I would not have a problem with Republican preaching if they would always stand as fine examples of moral rectitude.
For example, Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting glutton and depraved drug and sex addict. Who can actually take him seriously?
April 20, 2011 @ 4:45 PM
Brian: And yet. And yet you
Brian: And yet. And yet you have a president who is a constitutional scholar supporting torture and the erosion of American civil liberties. You have a president who is not only supporting the questionable policies of his predecessor, but, in some cases, advancing them further.
Say what you will about the Republicans not practicing what they preach (and, yes, it is a very valid criticism), but what about those Democrats that you feel are more socially aware and permissive and “caring”?
Can you honestly say that Obama has really carried through on his campaign promises? Is Gitmo still open? Are Patriot I and II still in effect? Is extraordinary rendition continuing to this day? You know the answer to all three questions is “yes”. So how do you argue that Obama is better than Dubya, at least in respect to torture, war and civil liberties?
April 21, 2011 @ 9:00 PM
Al,
I cannot disagree with a
Al,
I cannot disagree with a single principled point you have made.
Assuming you have firmly the principles which you state, I agree 100%! I cannot support this president anymore. It is time to decide if we as Americans truly believe in the constitution or not, as we are really at an empire tipping point.
Larry
April 21, 2011 @ 9:02 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: And yet. And yet you have a president who is a constitutional scholar supporting torture and the erosion of American civil liberties. You have a president who is not only supporting the questionable policies of his predecessor, but, in some cases, advancing them further.
Say what you will about the Republicans not practicing what they preach (and, yes, it is a very valid criticism), but what about those Democrats that you feel are more socially aware and permissive and “caring”?
Can you honestly say that Obama has really carried through on his campaign promises? Is Gitmo still open? Are Patriot I and II still in effect? Is extraordinary rendition continuing to this day? You know the answer to all three questions is “yes”. So how do you argue that Obama is better than Dubya, at least in respect to torture, war and civil liberties?[/quote]
sorry for the repeat
Al,
I cannot disagree with a single principled point you have made.
Assuming you have firmly the principles which you state, I agree 100%! I cannot support this president anymore. It is time to decide if we as Americans truly believe in the constitution or not, as we are really at an empire tipping point.
Larry
.
April 22, 2011 @ 11:06 AM
larrylujack wrote:
Al,
I
[quote=larrylujack]
Al,
I cannot disagree with a single principled point you have made.
Assuming you have firmly the principles which you state, I agree 100%! I cannot support this president anymore. It is time to decide if we as Americans truly believe in the constitution or not, as we are really at an empire tipping point.
Larry
.[/quote]
Larry, Obama has now proven himself not only unable to lead, but at a loss when it comes to serious governance.
The budget crisis has exposed both the GOP and the president as nothing more than empty suits pandering to the their respective bases. The GOP is shit scared of the Tea Party and Obama is looking to fire up his core constituency with speeches like the one he just delivered.
Say what you will about Rep. Ryan’s budget document being a flawed document (and it is), but its serious, its a start, and its the first time someone has had the balls to stand up and openly declare the size and scope of the problem.
Obama’s response? Come back with an empty, polemical diatribe that completes ignore the problems we’re facing and lays all of the blame at Dubya’s feet and those of the GOP.
Obama wants to go and do what he’s best at: Campaign.
April 22, 2011 @ 12:24 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: And yet. And yet you have a president who is a constitutional scholar supporting torture and the erosion of American civil liberties. You have a president who is not only supporting the questionable policies of his predecessor, but, in some cases, advancing them further.
Say what you will about the Republicans not practicing what they preach (and, yes, it is a very valid criticism), but what about those Democrats that you feel are more socially aware and permissive and “caring”?
Can you honestly say that Obama has really carried through on his campaign promises? Is Gitmo still open? Are Patriot I and II still in effect? Is extraordinary rendition continuing to this day? You know the answer to all three questions is “yes”. So how do you argue that Obama is better than Dubya, at least in respect to torture, war and civil liberties?[/quote]
Allan, as a military man, I’m sure that you understand that it’s very difficult to undo faits accomplis.
Once things are set in motion, the vast apparatus of government and the need to placate different constituencies can make reversal very difficult.
I believe that Obama doesn’t want to look soft on terrorists so that he can move forward other portions of his agenda. It’s fair trade off, IMHO.
The economy is the most important issue so getting economic growth going again is of primary concern (even if that means being lenient on the bankers who caused the crisis).
April 22, 2011 @ 2:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Allan, as a
[quote=briansd1]
Allan, as a military man, I’m sure that you understand that it’s very difficult to undo faits accomplis.
Once things are set in motion, the vast apparatus of government and the need to placate different constituencies can make reversal very difficult.
I believe that Obama doesn’t want to look soft on terrorists so that he can move forward other portions of his agenda. It’s fair trade off, IMHO.
The economy is the most important issue so getting economic growth going again is of primary concern (even if that means being lenient on the bankers who caused the crisis).[/quote]
Brian, as a soldier, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I don’t care how you spin it, Obama, like Bush, is eroding our civil liberties and supporting policies that undermine the Constitution.
Unlike Bush, Obama should know better. He’s more intelligent and has a background as a professor of law with a specific emphasis on Constitutional Law.
If you’re willing to be honest and have a forthright discussion, its going to need to start with you no longer making excuses for President Obama. You argue vehemently about practicing what one preaches and yet, time and again, you make excuses for Obama. If he were Dubya, you’d be openly castigating him for these policies.
I’ll leave you with something to think about. Slovenia has petitioned to join NATO. Obama visited Slovenia and made it abundantly clear that he would push for a rapid approval of Slovenia’s entrance into NATO, provided that Slovenia open multiple “black” sites for rendition. Do a little research and confirm this, if you’d like. How can you possibly argue, as a person of conscience, that this is somehow right?
April 20, 2011 @ 4:42 PM
Arraya wrote:
I think of
[quote=Arraya]
I think of [politics] more as professional wrestling. Completely unimportant, crude and designed for keeping the unevolved entertained[/quote]
I can see it as crude but I think more than a 100,000 Iraqis might feel different as to its importance.
Thats a whole lotta stiffs.
Even if you don’t count the Iraqis, I think the 4500 or so dead Americans might consider the politics important as well.
That is the legacy (and importance) of politics.
It has the potential to get you dead.
I personally measure the success of an administration by how few corpses it produces.
That makes us the most successful (by far) of the winners (or the major losers) of WW2.
Note:
The major players:
US (5m-8m), Imperial Japan (17-25M), USSR (15-30M), German Empire and constituent states (11-15M)
The minor players:
Britain (under siege most of the war), France (gelded early), Spain (allied with Axis), the low countries (gelded early), viking countries (gelded early), Ireland (sympathetic to Axis and technically part of Britain), the colonies
April 20, 2011 @ 4:47 PM
Dan: We lost 5MM – 8MM in
Dan: We lost 5MM – 8MM in WWII? Where on earth did you get that statistic? We only had 16MM under arms in WWII and that would put the casualty rate at somewhere between a low of 30% and a high of 50%.
I think you might want to check your sources and your math.
April 21, 2011 @ 8:30 AM
This is all I have to
This is all I have to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbAeeNgXSzk
April 21, 2011 @ 5:04 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: We lost 5MM – 8MM in WWII? Where on earth did you get that statistic? We only had 16MM under arms in WWII and that would put the casualty rate at somewhere between a low of 30% and a high of 50%.
I think you might want to check your sources and your math.[/quote]
I was saying how many we killed.
Between the Germans and the Japanese, there you go.
I don’t think Japan even had 20M people at that time.
April 21, 2011 @ 8:47 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Arraya
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Arraya]
I think of [politics] more as professional wrestling. Completely unimportant, crude and designed for keeping the unevolved entertained[/quote]
I can see it as crude but I think more than a 100,000 Iraqis might feel different as to its importance.
Thats a whole lotta stiffs.
Even if you don’t count the Iraqis, I think the 4500 or so dead Americans might consider the politics important as well.
That is the legacy (and importance) of politics.
It has the potential to get you dead.
I personally measure the success of an administration by how few corpses it produces.
That makes us the most successful (by far) of the winners (or the major losers) of WW2.
Note:
The major players:
US (5m-8m), Imperial Japan (17-25M), USSR (15-30M), German Empire and constituent states (11-15M)
The minor players:
Britain (under siege most of the war), France (gelded early), Spain (allied with Axis), the low countries (gelded early), viking countries (gelded early), Ireland (sympathetic to Axis and technically part of Britain), the colonies[/quote]
I think your response is intelligent, and it is fairly based, as far as it goes.
Unfortunately, I can fairly say that Obama is a douchebag liar for many reasons.
1) Guantanamo closing, NO
2) Invasions of other countries without congressional approval, NO (see Libya)
3) Habeas corpus?NO.
4) meaningful wall street or bank reform? NO
5) repeal of the FISA telecom act- NO
To sum up, OB has not lived up to the promises he made when he campaigned for election., I give the OB douche a D- only because of DOMA which is still questionable…
April 23, 2011 @ 9:15 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:I
[quote=urbanrealtor]I personally measure the success of an administration by how few corpses it produces.
[/quote]
UR you have to be careful in that remark though because if you judge administrations, or polictical parties, based on that the Democrats have a much high body count on them then the Republicans.
For example Johnson had more civil rights reforms and policies for social development then any other president but he also got 58 thousand Americans killed (and many more Viets).
So all I am saying here is the body count argument for adminstrative effectiveness doesn’t work in any direction.
CE
April 23, 2011 @ 8:46 AM
gandalf wrote:Second, I
[quote=gandalf]Second, I believe Obama has been an ineffective leader. He has the temperament and instincts of a senator, and probably should have remained there. (None of this suggests cranky McCain / or psycho trash Palin would have been better.)[/quote]
Completely agree with that Grey Pilgram. I think the only difference between the two was color and level of energy. I did not vote for Obama because of his inexperience but I am glad that he was elected for two reasons.
One, it gave us some credability, at least for a short time, that we were a country that was willing to move past race.
And two, that it proved he was just as much of a “status quo” as anyone else. Crap. I cannot get over how much people thought this guys was going to be the second coming of political Jesus.
Maybe next time “We won’t get fooled again!” to qoute The Who.
CE
April 24, 2011 @ 12:45 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:
And two, that
[quote=CDMA ENG]
And two, that it proved he was just as much of a “status quo” as anyone else. Crap. I cannot get over how much people thought this guys was going to be the second coming of political Jesus.
[/quote]
Obama is a centrist president who wants to move our country in the right direction one step at time.
Obama is no revolutionary. And that’s why I trust him to manage my money/our economy.
Let’s face it, many Black politicians who came from the ghettos talked a good game, but they were a product of their environment. Martin Luther King had money and women problem. He was a great civil rights leader, but I would never trust such as person with our economy.
Looking back through history, revolutions have always been followed by wealth destruction and economic hardships.
We don’t want revolution… we want evolution in the right direction.
Arraya wants a collapse of the whole system, but he’s yet to explain how that would not be followed by monumental wealth destruction and extreme poverty.
April 24, 2011 @ 6:23 PM
deleted
deleted
April 24, 2011 @ 10:16 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Obama is a
[quote=briansd1]
Obama is a centrist president who wants to move our country in the right direction one step at time.
Obama is no revolutionary. And that’s why I trust him to manage my money/our economy.
We don’t want revolution… we want evolution in the right direction.
[/quote]
Brian: I couldn’t help but notice you studiously ignored answering my questions about Obama’s campaign promises regarding Gitmo, Iraq/Afghanistan, and Patriot I/II. I’m figuring you did so to avoid having to admit to some unpleasant truths about Obama.
Similarly, your assertion that Obama is a centrist rings false and doesn’t square with the facts. He is not in a good position to manage the economy, as evidenced by that joke of a budget he put forth, followed by that ranting tirade of a speech following the Rep. Ryan budget proposal.
He is a fundamentally unserious president and you have two years worth of facts when it comes to his governance, yet you keep repeating the same rhetoric, in spite of those facts.
He has effectively stopped governing (not that he was really governing up till now) and begun campaigning anew. This time, unlike the 2008 campaign, we know Obama and it ain’t pretty. Check the Gallup numbers for Obama amongst Independent voters and then tell me he’s viewed as a centrist.
April 24, 2011 @ 10:27 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: I couldn’t help but notice you studiously ignored answering my questions about Obama’s campaign promises regarding Gitmo, Iraq/Afghanistan, and Patriot I/II.[/quote]
Obama’s failed to meet an awful lot of campaign promises. (Gitmo, for instance.) But other than missing the timing, he’s done exactly what he said he would do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remove combat troops in Iraq and ramp up Afghanistan. Those who expected something different, weren’t paying attention.
April 24, 2011 @ 10:41 PM
SK in CV wrote:Allan from
[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: I couldn’t help but notice you studiously ignored answering my questions about Obama’s campaign promises regarding Gitmo, Iraq/Afghanistan, and Patriot I/II.[/quote]
Obama’s failed to meet an awful lot of campaign promises. (Gitmo, for instance.) But other than missing the timing, he’s done exactly what he said he would do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remove combat troops in Iraq and ramp up Afghanistan. Those who expected something different, weren’t paying attention.[/quote]
SK: I would agree on Afghanistan and disagree on Iraq. The last few months have shown that Obama’s strategy there (and, to be fair, its really Dubya’s strategy, Obama is just following along) is probably a non-starter and will require more of an American presence. Gitmo does remain open. Patriot I/II are still in place. Rendition continues. All of the mechanisms of our shiny, new national security state are in place and our Constitutional Law scholar president has not only done nothing about this, he is actively pursuing the same strategies of his predecessor.
I’d also ask you, being that you’re a CPA, what you think of Obama’s handling of the budget. That last speech of his clearly shows him attempting to fire up his base and was a cleverly written polemic that featured a lot of sturm and drang, but very little in terms of substance. While I’d be the first to admit that Rep. Ryan’s budget needs work, at least Ryan is willing to put the fundamental issue of entitlement reform front and center (and, yeah, I realize he whiffed on Social Security).
Obama, on the other hand, is content to demonize Dubya and the GOP, while offering nothing concrete in terms of a plan. He talks about an “adult conversation”, but then will discuss nothing of substance. His budget is a joke and it features ever more dollars spent on an ever larger welfare state.
April 24, 2011 @ 11:03 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’d also ask you, being that you’re a CPA, what you think of Obama’s handling of the budget. That last speech of his clearly shows him attempting to fire up his base and was a cleverly written polemic that featured a lot of sturm and drang, but very little in terms of substance. While I’d be the first to admit that Rep. Ryan’s budget needs work, at least Ryan is willing to put the fundamental issue of entitlement reform front and center (and, yeah, I realize he whiffed on Social Security).
Obama, on the other hand, is content to demonize Dubya and the GOP, while offering nothing concrete in terms of a plan. He talks about an “adult conversation”, but then will discuss nothing of substance. His budget is a joke and it features ever more dollars spent on an ever larger welfare state.[/quote]
Budget-wise, he’s failed politically (among many of his political failures, including real health care reform, which he had in his grasp) by allowing the Bush tax cut’s for upper income taxpayers to remain in place. His economic team is a disaster. Geitner is both imcompetent and corrupt. Summers has failed at everything he’s ever done.
But despite all that, much like Clinton, he hasn’t done much to seriously fuck up the recovery. (He could have done more to accelerate it.) The ecomony was doomed before he took office. There is nothing he, nor anyone else for that matter, could have done about the almost 5 million jobs lost when residential construction died. He can’t fix that. Nobody can. It all but guarantees a arduously slow recovery at best. And a full recovery will fix close to 1/3 of the deficit. Expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthy will take care of another 1/3.
His speech was fine, so long as he follows through with it.
Where did you get the “even more dollars spent on an even larger welfare state”? I’ve seen the accusation a few times. I don’t know where it comes from.
(And in the big scheme of things, Social Security is not a deficit problem, is relatively healthy, and fixes are simple, and they don’t include extending the retirement age or means testing. There is no reason for it to be currently involved in discussions of debt or deficit. Those that include in those discussions are either ignorant of the facts, or more interested in the politics of Social Security than the economics.)
April 25, 2011 @ 8:26 AM
SK in CV wrote: Budget-wise,
[quote=SK in CV] Budget-wise, he’s failed politically (among many of his political failures, including real health care reform, which he had in his grasp) by allowing the Bush tax cut’s for upper income taxpayers to remain in place.
[/quote]
I agree that an adult conversation about the budget would start at returning to the pre-Bush tax rates.
I also agree that real health care reform was withing Obama’s grasp. But he chose to remain uninvolved while Congress debated.
But at least we have some reform.
[quote=SK in CV]
But despite all that, much like Clinton, he hasn’t done much to seriously fuck up the recovery. (He could have done more to accelerate it.) The ecomony was doomed before he took office. There is nothing he, nor anyone else for that matter, could have done about the almost 5 million jobs lost when residential construction died. He can’t fix that. Nobody can. It all but guarantees a arduously slow recovery at best. And a full recovery will fix close to 1/3 of the deficit. Expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthy will take care of another 1/3.
[/quote]
True that the economy was doomed before Obama took office. Only time could fix that.
I’m not saying that Obama is the best president ever. However, he’s certainly to best of the viable alternatives so far.
April 25, 2011 @ 10:13 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Gitmo does remain open. Patriot I/II are still in place. Rendition continues. All of the mechanisms of our shiny, new national security state are in place and our Constitutional Law scholar president has not only done nothing about this, he is actively pursuing the same strategies of his predecessor.[/quote]
About Gitmo and terrorism, the first step would have been to bring the terrorists to trial in Federal Court in Manhattan.
The Republicans in Congress, rather than show courage, decided to politicize the process.
Yes, this is a political failure on the part of Obama but, at least, he’s trying to move us in the right direction.
Like I said before, once certain powers are given to the security apparatus, it’s hard to reverse course without broad popular support. Because of the weak economy, civil liberties is low on mind of Americans.
Allan, if I remember well, you were blasting Obama for working on repealing don’t ask dont’ tell while the economy is still weak. Imagine the opposition if he were to “weaken” the war on terrorism.
April 25, 2011 @ 10:17 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Yes, this is
[quote=briansd1]
Yes, this is a political failure on the part of Obama but, at least, he’s trying to move us in the right direction.
[/quote]
I have to part ways with you here Brian. As president, he IS the political leader. What he has shown over the last two years is that he is more interested in form over substance. Results, of any kind, are more important than the quality of those results. So we end up with crappy health care reform. Crappy stimulus bills. Crappy budget deals. Almost two years to end DADT. A backdoor ending (no pun intended) to DOMA. He IS the president. He owns the bully pulpit.
I don’t hate his presidency. I just think he’s been highly ineffective. If the economy continues to limp along towards a real recovery (meaning job creation) he will be reelected (partly because it currently appears there will be no credible challenger), and I will vote for him. Not because I expect great things. I didn’t expect greatness last time. But because he’s better than the alternative.
April 25, 2011 @ 1:18 PM
SK in CV wrote:I will vote
[quote=SK in CV]I will vote for him. Not because I expect great things. I didn’t expect greatness last time. But because he’s better than the alternative.[/quote]
I will also vote for Obama because he’s better than the Republican alternative. That goes back to my point that one side is always better than the other. Those who say that “they all equally suck” are generally disillusioned with their own side.
I choose to view this as a glass half-full thing and vote for the better of the two candidates.
April 25, 2011 @ 9:44 PM
SK in CV wrote:briansd1
[quote=SK in CV][quote=briansd1]
Yes, this is a political failure on the part of Obama but, at least, he’s trying to move us in the right direction.
[/quote]
I have to part ways with you here Brian. As president, he IS the political leader. What he has shown over the last two years is that he is more interested in form over substance. Results, of any kind, are more important than the quality of those results. So we end up with crappy health care reform. Crappy stimulus bills. Crappy budget deals. Almost two years to end DADT. A backdoor ending (no pun intended) to DOMA. He IS the president. He owns the bully pulpit.
I don’t hate his presidency. I just think he’s been highly ineffective. If the economy continues to limp along towards a real recovery (meaning job creation) he will be reelected (partly because it currently appears there will be no credible challenger), and I will vote for him. Not because I expect great things. I didn’t expect greatness last time. But because he’s better than the alternative.[/quote]
SK: Well put. What we’re seeing here is a president with a thin resume, a lightweight’s understanding of the larger world and geopolitics, and who’s accustomed to using rhetoric and force of personality to “solve” problems (which, because of that thin resume, he hasn’t really ever had to confront).
If you look at his background and “work” history (such as it is), you won’t find anything of significant substance. In a weird way, he’s actually a lot like Dubya in that sense: Something of an empty suit, who had pretty much everything given to him. Dubya as a result of family, money and upbringing; Obama as a result of cannily working The System.
I won’t debate the merits of voting for him because he’s better than anything that the GOP has put forth yet. One should vote for whom they believe is the better candidate. However, using that logic, Obama simply becomes the lesser of two evils. Hardly a “transformative” president at all. Little to no “Hope” and hardly any “Change”. If that’s your yardstick and you’re happy with the results…
April 25, 2011 @ 10:50 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Well put. What we’re seeing here is a president with a thin resume, a lightweight’s understanding of the larger world and geopolitics, and who’s accustomed to using rhetoric and force of personality to “solve” problems (which, because of that thin resume, he hasn’t really ever had to confront).
[/quote]
Thank you, but I don’t agree with much of any of that. I don’t think he’s a lightweight. He’s a Democrat. And unlike GWB, he’s not an idealogue. He’s intellectually capable, maybe even gifted. Despite his talent at rhetoric, he rarely if ever uses it to achieve political goals (other than getting elected). At least so far, he has viewed the presidency as the mediator in charge. He doesn’t solve problems, he attempts to create an environment where problems will solve themselves. Which leaves it all up to dysfunctional congress, currently (and in the last congress) the incompetent Democratic majority in the Senate, and the irrational and illogical Republican majority in the House.
Like most congressional Democrats, he exhibits the party naivate that has plagued them at least since Will Rogers spoke his famous line. He underestimates both the cohesiveness of the Republicans in congress, and their ability to sell the big lie with impugnity (e.g. higher taxes on the rich is bad for small business). He may get better. And I may end up on a deserted Carribean Island with with my favorite five. It’s a toss up which will happen first.
April 25, 2011 @ 11:09 PM
SK: Which begs the question:
SK: Which begs the question: At what point does the “Mediator-in-Chief” act wear thin?
Geopolitically, and especially as regards the Middle East, he’s a lightweight. He has displayed virtually no grasp of the overall situation there and, save his Cairo speech, has garnered little good will. He has attempted to solve problems piece-meal and has shown no overarching strategic plan. This was illustrated during the abortive Iranian uprising, when he abandoned the Iranian people to their fate; during Egypt; his dithering over the Libyan action (when quick, violent intervention at the beginning would have put Gaddafi from power); and his complete inaction while Syria catches fire. His lack of understanding the larger context of the Palestinian-Israeli situation has also set us back years and has emboldened groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. You’re right when you say he’s no ideologue (Dubya wasn’t, either, by the way, he was simply under sway of the neocons in his administration), he has no central tenets and no fixed policies. Take one look at Hillary Clinton’s face and tell me what a good job Obama is doing.
You argue on one hand that he IS the leader, but, on the other hand, that he’s Mediator-in-Chief. As Harry Truman famously said, “The buck stops here”. Except it doesn’t. His budget speech was littered with contradictions, illusory and unobtainable goals, and shot through with vitriol for the GOP and their “war on the poor, old and infirm”. Naivete? Didn’t sound like it. Sounded like the Dems are firing up their “Greatest Hits of the 1960s” LP.
He is out of touch. He is in over his head. And he has a tin ear when it comes to the will of the people. Which, last time I checked, he was there to advance.
April 28, 2011 @ 6:51 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Geopolitically, and especially as regards the Middle East, he’s a lightweight. […][/quote]
It is so easy to poke holes in any policy applied toward the Mideast – the place is mess and there are never clear solutions.
You say “quick, violent intervention at the beginning would have put Gaddafi from power” – Tell me, have we ever eliminated a leader without a ground invasion? Air power in urban civil wars has limited value. (We are seeing this now with the NATO strikes. Also look to the Israeli fiasco a few years back…)
Not to mention the political land mines – the US invading another Muslim nation? Yeah, that’s going to discourage global terrorism. Another war is hardly the “will of the [American] people” either.
And what is he supposed to do in Syria? Yet another military operation?
Tell me, who does understand the Palestinian-Israeli situation better? (You surely don’t want to say McCain, they guy who doesn’t know the difference between the Shia and the Sunni.)
When we look at the history of the Mideast we see a lot of our boys (and now gals) getting killed during operations that started during Republican administrations. Bush II takes the big prize, Bush I and Reagan are a pretty close tie (yeah, Clinton had a few also.) NONE of these “tough guy” actions have done squat to bring stability to the region or reduce the terrorist threat to the US. Maybe some of these operations did some good, maybe they didn’t – the point is that the outcomes and effects are never very clear when it comes to the Mideast.
The Mideast is as big a mess as ever. But we may actually be at a turning point. And no President gets the the credit. It’s the internet that has educated and emboldened the masses to fight for democracy. It will be an ugly fight; the outcome won’t be positive in every country. And the last thing we want is to become involved in these fights. The best we can do is try to steer them in the right direction when there is opportunity to do so. The influence we can have will involve making a lot of imperfect decisions.
Our involvement in the situations like the current Middle East uprising always come down to some basic alternatives: Do nothing, provide military assistance to one side, or get directly involved in the fighting. The latter choice is unacceptable at this point in history. The other choices will always be less than ideal.
Mideast policy is easy turf for armchair quarterbacks. I’m afraid your comments don’t accomplish much except to expose your lack of objectivity towards Obama.
April 28, 2011 @ 8:33 PM
Pri: Lack of objectivity
Pri: Lack of objectivity towards Obama? Nope. He’s an empty suit who lacks any coherent strategy when it comes to the Middle East, save his occasional oratorical perorations.
Again, I really enjoy people opining on the Middle East, especially when they’ve never set foot there. I like hearing about the “complexity” of the problem and how they expect things to go, but they can’t tell you the difference between a Hashemite Jordanian, or a Lebanese Phalangist, or a Kurd.
They believe the “Arab Street” encompasses Iran, which is Persian, and is possessed of even a modicum of homogeneity, which it isn’t.
You want to discuss this objectively? Spend some time there. Talk to the people. Eat in the cafes and shop in the stores. Get an actual feel for the environment, the politics, the religion and what is really going on at boots on the ground level.
You’re right about two things. First, the outcome of the Arab Spring is going to be messy and ugly and probably not positive. Second, we do need to wield influence, similar to what we did in Eastern Europe prior to The Wall coming down. But, in order to wield influence, you need to have a strategy and this president does not. And, believe me, as much as I think he’s an empty suit, TPTB in the Middle East believe it more fervently.
April 28, 2011 @ 9:07 PM
will this thread ever die?
will this thread ever die? don’t we already know the answer to the OP’s question…? 😉
carry on….
April 28, 2011 @ 9:21 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Again, I really enjoy people opining on the Middle East, especially when they’ve never set foot there. I like hearing about the “complexity” of the problem and how they expect things to go, but they can’t tell you the difference between a Hashemite Jordanian, or a Lebanese Phalangist, or a Kurd.
They believe the “Arab Street” encompasses Iran, which is Persian, and is possessed of even a modicum of homogeneity, which it isn’t.
You want to discuss this objectively? Spend some time there. Talk to the people. Eat in the cafes and shop in the stores. Get an actual feel for the environment, the politics, the religion and what is really going on at boots on the ground level. [/quote]
That I agree completely with.
That’s why it was too too brilliant of the American people to elect Bush who had not been anywhere outside the country prior to being elected president.
April 30, 2011 @ 8:19 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Lack of objectivity towards Obama? Nope. He’s an empty suit who lacks any coherent strategy when it comes to the Middle East, save his occasional oratorical perorations.[/quote]
I’m still waiting for an example of a “coherent strategy” toward the Middle East, or the name of someone who has one, or has ever had one…
[quote]Again, I really enjoy people opining on the Middle East, especially when they’ve never set foot there. I like hearing about the “complexity” of the problem and how they expect things to go, but they can’t tell you the difference between a Hashemite Jordanian, or a Lebanese Phalangist, or a Kurd.[/quote]
Tell me which Presidential candidate, past or future, knows these things, or who has spent a significant amount of time in the Mideast?
[quote]They believe the “Arab Street” encompasses Iran, which is Persian, and is possessed of even a modicum of homogeneity, which it isn’t.[/quote]
Who is “they?” We’re talking about Obama, not “them.” I’m pretty sure Obama knows Iran is Persian.
[quote]You want to discuss this objectively? Spend some time there. Talk to the people. Eat in the cafes and shop in the stores. Get an actual feel for the environment, the politics, the religion and what is really going on at boots on the ground level.[/quote]
Now that’s just downright cliché. Learn about the geopolitics of the Middle East by hanging out in cafes?
BTW, “there” is a huge place. Libya alone is bigger than Alaska.
A huge geographic area; hundreds of millions of people; hundreds of sects, factions, and castes; a dozen languages; and thousands of years of conflict.
But you claim to have a handle on it because you’ve visited “there” a few times?
But back to the armchair quarterbacking: So what SHOULD Obama be doing?
April 30, 2011 @ 9:50 AM
Let’s not be daft. Policies
Let’s not be daft. Policies have not changed between Bush and Obama. I don’t buy “Obama is a lightweight” anymore than “Bush is a dumbass”. They are all surrounded by the same think tanks feeding them information. The “Obama effect” helped a little, but it quickly dissipated. Words are nice, but not enough. The fact of the matter is our whole ME incursion has been a monumental disaster on all levels. And continues to deteriorate. Israel being insistent on expanding territory and continuing it’s ethnic cleansing policy does not help either. AIPAC has congress in it’s pocket so that won’t ever change.
Here is the problem:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky04222011.html
No, they don’t hate us for our freedoms.
But to understand how it got to this level of animosity start here:
Time magazine circa ’52:
April 30, 2011 @ 10:08 AM
pri_dk wrote:
BTW, “there” is
[quote=pri_dk]
BTW, “there” is a huge place. Libya alone is bigger than Alaska.
A huge geographic area; hundreds of millions of people; hundreds of sects, factions, and castes; a dozen languages; and thousands of years of conflict.
But you claim to have a handle on it because you’ve visited “there” a few times?
[/quote]
I know a State Department official who has been been my dad’s friend since they met in Laos in 1960. He and his wife have lived in different parts of the world, on assignment, for decades.
According to this friend, the problem with American foreign policy is that it’s made by political appointees who know nothing about the what really goes on in other countries.
Politics used to stop at the water’s edge; but foreign policy has become partisan since the Republican decided to play the political card and label Democrats weak on our enemies. So political appointees routinely override the advise of long time experts who study the issues.
You can’t jet-set in and out of a country and pretend to know it based on what you hear from other Americans who don’t know the local people and the language.
Another problem is the press corps. You have people like Martha Raddatz and Diane Sawyer who fly to Baghdad for the weekend and report as though they were experts. Of course, the Fox news anchors don’t even bother flying over there. American journalists are no longer living in the country they write about like they did during the Vietnam War.
In California, we may think that we know New York City just from playing tourists a few times in a lifetime. Not even close. It takes years of travel and being on the ground to really understand the culture and the people of a complex city like New York.
How could American military interpreters who spend one year studying Farsi at Monterrey and then spend 6 months in Afghanistan understand the country? Not possible.
Another big problem is Israel. America should defend American interests. We should not blindly support Israel and Israeli policies.
Listening to conservatives clap when there’s any mention Israeli interests is sickening. There should not be a religious agenda as the evangelicals push it.
Dealing with with the Muslim world is highly complex. We should regard it as a complex work in progress that will take decades to solve. Simple answers such as “nuke ’em” are never the solution. People like Limbaugh, Palin, Trump and even Gingrich are doing us all a lot of harm with their “folksy plain spoken” rhetoric.
April 30, 2011 @ 11:18 AM
pri_dk wrote:Allan from
[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Lack of objectivity towards Obama? Nope. He’s an empty suit who lacks any coherent strategy when it comes to the Middle East, save his occasional oratorical perorations.[/quote]
I’m still waiting for an example of a “coherent strategy” toward the Middle East, or the name of someone who has one, or has ever had one…
[quote]Again, I really enjoy people opining on the Middle East, especially when they’ve never set foot there. I like hearing about the “complexity” of the problem and how they expect things to go, but they can’t tell you the difference between a Hashemite Jordanian, or a Lebanese Phalangist, or a Kurd.[/quote]
Tell me which Presidential candidate, past or future, knows these things, or who has spent a significant amount of time in the Mideast?
[/quote]
It’s darn near impossible to find a perfect president. All of them, past, present and future have and will be subject to criticism for virtually everything they do, whether as a result of idealogicial blindness or serious intellectual evaluation. But with regards to the middle east, Bush the father qualified to both of those questions. He got in and out of the first gulf war, and put Sadaam Hussein in a box he probably never would have escaped. Despite the first intifada, he handed Bill Clinton the framework for a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. In fairness to Clinton, to paraphrase Abba Eban, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians ever missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and they blew it. But so did Clinton, in both form and substance. George H.W. Bush’s middle east plan may not have been perfect, but it was coherent, and he fully understood the complexity of the dynamics of the region, and had the right people involved in implementing his policy. Which is not to say I was necessarily a big fan. I didn’t vote for him. Twice.
May 1, 2011 @ 7:54 PM
Except that this president
Except that this president (Obama) managed to get Bin Laden.
Sweeeet.
And I am not kidding.
Turn on the news.
May 1, 2011 @ 9:06 PM
Very exciting.
I know it was
Very exciting.
I know it was the work of thousands of people over ten years and two presidents, but he was the one in office when it happened, he gave the order to “go get him,” and so, yeah, Obama gets the credit.
May 1, 2011 @ 9:43 PM
In reply to the original
In reply to the original question – Yes
May 2, 2011 @ 8:45 PM
SK in CV wrote:pri_dk
[quote=SK in CV][quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Lack of objectivity towards Obama? Nope. He’s an empty suit who lacks any coherent strategy when it comes to the Middle East, save his occasional oratorical perorations.[/quote]
I’m still waiting for an example of a “coherent strategy” toward the Middle East, or the name of someone who has one, or has ever had one…
[quote]Again, I really enjoy people opining on the Middle East, especially when they’ve never set foot there. I like hearing about the “complexity” of the problem and how they expect things to go, but they can’t tell you the difference between a Hashemite Jordanian, or a Lebanese Phalangist, or a Kurd.[/quote]
Tell me which Presidential candidate, past or future, knows these things, or who has spent a significant amount of time in the Mideast?
[/quote]
It’s darn near impossible to find a perfect president. All of them, past, present and future have and will be subject to criticism for virtually everything they do, whether as a result of idealogicial blindness or serious intellectual evaluation. But with regards to the middle east, Bush the father qualified to both of those questions. He got in and out of the first gulf war, and put Sadaam Hussein in a box he probably never would have escaped. Despite the first intifada, he handed Bill Clinton the framework for a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. In fairness to Clinton, to paraphrase Abba Eban, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians ever missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and they blew it. But so did Clinton, in both form and substance. George H.W. Bush’s middle east plan may not have been perfect, but it was coherent, and he fully understood the complexity of the dynamics of the region, and had the right people involved in implementing his policy. Which is not to say I was necessarily a big fan. I didn’t vote for him. Twice.[/quote]
SK: Excellent post. And, right on the money. It would be interesting to have an open discussion on Oslo ’93 and its outcome. It would probably be eye-opening for quite a few posters on this board, especially as it relates to the present problems with Israel and Palestine.
May 2, 2011 @ 9:22 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Excellent post. And, right on the money. It would be interesting to have an open discussion on Oslo ’93 and its outcome. It would probably be eye-opening for quite a few posters on this board, especially as it relates to the present problems with Israel and Palestine.[/quote]
Thanks.
An open discussion online about the I/P conflict? Crazy mofo. I’ll take what you’re having.
In 1974 I sat in an army base in the hills of Samaria and saw the plans of a crazy one-eyed man that set the wheels in motion for perpetual war. In the following 25 years, I walked the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. And Ramallah and Hebron and Gaza City. And Gush Etzion and Kedumim. I find it nothing but depressing discussing almost 20 year old promises of peace. I doubt I’ll be going back. I love most intellectual exercises. This particular subject isn’t one of them.
May 2, 2011 @ 11:01 PM
SK in CV wrote:Allan from
[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Excellent post. And, right on the money. It would be interesting to have an open discussion on Oslo ’93 and its outcome. It would probably be eye-opening for quite a few posters on this board, especially as it relates to the present problems with Israel and Palestine.[/quote]
Thanks.
An open discussion online about the I/P conflict? Crazy mofo. I’ll take what you’re having.
In 1974 I sat in an army base in the hills of Samaria and saw the plans of a crazy one-eyed man that set the wheels in motion for perpetual war. In the following 25 years, I walked the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. And Ramallah and Hebron and Gaza City. And Gush Etzion and Kedumim. I find it nothing but depressing discussing almost 20 year old promises of peace. I doubt I’ll be going back. I love most intellectual exercises. This particular subject isn’t one of them.[/quote]
SK: Very interesting background amid some VERY interesting times.
While the discussion would be depressing, it would also be very enlightening (esp. given your boots on the ground understanding).
I spend a lot of time there and unfortunately the nature of my business (blast engineering for protective design) fits right into the “depressing” category perfectly. On the one hand, I see the direct results of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv and Kassam/Katyusha rocket strikes on the outlying areas. Indirectly I hear of IDF helo and jet “misses” that inflict horrible losses on innocent civilians. It is a place where there are no easy answers, but our (American) understanding of the history, politics and religion is pathetically lacking.
I hear intelligent, educated people here in the US opining about the “poor Palestinians” and laying all of the blame squarely on the US and Israel. Completely missing from that story is how those same Palestinians have been used as pawns and tools by the Syrians, Jordanians and Saudis. Ask a Jordanian how he feels about the Palestinians, or about Jordan’s treatment of the Palestinians and, if you’re an American, the answer will likely surprise you.
Yasir Arafat died a billionaire. A billionaire. How is that possible? The man had no visible means of support, yet died with money in numbered Swiss accounts. Wouldn’t that money have built schools, hospitals, roads, etc? Instead, it was used to foster terrorism, and coerce and control the Palestinian people. And Arafat was supposed to be a “man of the people”.
I’m not excusing the US or Israel, but simply pointing out that the situation is far from simple. My main criticism of Obama and this comes from the last two years of doing business in that part of the world, is that he doesn’t understand the politics, religion or history of the region, especially Palestine and most especially the West Bank. To say that is not to say that George W. Bush was really any better (because he wasn’t). To think that Obama will give a single speech, as he did in Cairo in ’08, and things will magically be better throughout the region is insane, but there are quite a few educated and intelligent Americans who believe just that.
May 3, 2011 @ 12:32 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:To
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]To think that Obama will give a single speech, as he did in Cairo in ’08, and things will magically be better throughout the region is insane, but there are quite a few educated and intelligent Americans who believe just that.[/quote]
I’m gonna highlight the same thing that pri_dk did, because I think he’s right, I don’t think anyone thinks that, nor is it really all he’s done. Both Clinton and Mitchell (as well as Obama) have done a more than adequate job pressing both sides. The Quartet has been pretty silent, other than Blair blathering on every so often.
The problem currently is not Obama and it’s not the team he’s installed, nor is it outside pressure. It is (as it has always been) that any time one side removes a barrier to peace, the other side installs a new one. Abbas appeared to be a reasonable partner, particularly in comparison to Hamas. Israel has been, and continues to be intransigent.
(Just to explain my POV here. Israel holds all the cards and has everything to lose. No peace agreement is suicide by demographics for Israel. Israel SHOULD bend over backwards for a lasting peace. If it means continuing a moratorium on construction in the west bank and e. jerusalum, then do it. Even if it’s unreasonable. The settlements, the brain child of Dayan, have been an ongoing act of war upon the Palestinians for almost 40 years. It is impossible to make peace while making war. Obama applied pressure. Probably as much as is politically palatable in the US. I would have liked to have seen more.)
Now, with the announcement of a pending detente between Fatah and Hamas, my hopes of anything significant happening are even further diminished. It’s hard to imagine a negotiating process for Isreal where the other side wants them dead. Obama can’t fix that.
May 11, 2011 @ 12:09 PM
Here we go again!
“Bank
Here we go again!
“Bank lobbyists say the stepped-up government scrutiny could backfire if financial institutions decide to shrink their operations rather than yield to pressure to do business in areas that don’t make sense for them. ‘It would do a disservice to communities for a bank to suddenly pull back,’ says Robert Rowe, vice-president and senior counsel at the American Bankers Assn.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm
I don’t care for banks or bank bail outs, but this is not going to improve anything in the long run.
May 12, 2011 @ 1:27 AM
Let the financial sector
Let the financial sector shrink. During the bubble the FIRE sector made up about 40% of the economy. It is like a huge parasite sucking the blood from the real economy.
May 25, 2011 @ 9:19 AM
Obama is the Golden Boy for
Obama is the Golden Boy for sure (despite being Black).
It’s not very often that the Queen of England honors a US President by hosting a state visit.
Not only was Obama on state visit, he was invited to stay that Buckingham palace.
I’m sure this is another irritant to those who believe Obama is not legitimate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/europe/25prexy.html
May 25, 2011 @ 10:45 AM
briansd1 wrote:Obama is the
[quote=briansd1]Obama is the Golden Boy for sure (despite being Black).
It’s not very often that the Queen of England honors a US President by hosting a state visit.
Not only was Obama on state visit, he was invited to stay that Buckingham palace.
I’m sure this is another irritant to those who believe Obama is not legitimate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/europe/25prexy.html%5B/quote%5D
Curiously, you left out the fact that he signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey as May 24, 2008 showing just how out of touch he really is…
May 25, 2011 @ 3:09 PM
I write the wrong date all
I write the wrong date all the time. Not a big deal, IMHO.
I find it interesting that the “old world” of Europe has bestowed such honors and adulation on Obama (Nobel Prize, State visit, warm welcome in Ireland, high poll ratings, etc.).
In contrast, conservative red-state Americans seethe at the thought of Obama.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/24/barack-obama-uk-state-visit-in-pictures#/?picture=374933172&index=0
May 26, 2011 @ 6:12 AM
briansd1 wrote:I write the
[quote=briansd1]I write the wrong date all the time. Not a big deal, IMHO.[/quote]
It’s one thing to write LAST years date…we all commonly make that mistake. But we don’t get the year wrong by 3.
Admit it: if GWB had done this it would be the front page story in the MSM and you’d be posting about how stupid our president is.
July 21, 2011 @ 7:35 PM
“During the 2008 presidential
“During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother’s struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/fresh-doubt-cast-obamas-health-care-story
July 21, 2011 @ 8:13 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:”During the
[quote=Zeitgeist]”During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother’s struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/fresh-doubt-cast-obamas-health-care-story%5B/quote%5D
It’s no surprise that he lied about this. He’s lied about virtually everything else. The MSM seems complicit in his falsehoods since most of them just turn a blind eye to anything that would be called objective reporting.
If this country reelects this moron we deserve what we get…
July 21, 2011 @ 10:33 PM
I disagree with most posters
I disagree with most posters here. I think Obama has done a pretty good job so far. He is trying to vitalize the economy by new investments. Taxing the rich will also help to reduce the debt.
He is well respected abroad, especially in Europe and has improved the reputation of the U.S abroad.
July 22, 2011 @ 12:35 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:”During the
[quote=Zeitgeist]”During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother’s struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/fresh-doubt-cast-obamas-health-care-story
[/quote]
I don’t see how Obama lied about anything.
You can have health insurance and still have to fight with your insurance company about your best course of treatment, especially if you have terminal cancer.
My dad has BPH (enlarged prostate). The insurance company wanted him to try the generic drugs before he could take the more expensive, new drugs. That’s the way it should be, IMO; but it’s not what patients want. Patients will always want the newest, most expensive treatment (especially if they’ve seen the ads on TV).
July 23, 2011 @ 8:36 AM
briansd1 wrote:Zeitgeist
[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]”During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother’s struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/fresh-doubt-cast-obamas-health-care-story
[/quote]
I don’t see how Obama lied about anything.
[/quote]
Clearly you didn’t read the article. He stated over and over again that the insurance company was trying to deny medical treatment, which is in fact false.
That’s called “lying”.
July 23, 2011 @ 12:56 PM
meadandale wrote:
Clearly you
[quote=meadandale]
Clearly you didn’t read the article. He stated over and over again that the insurance company was trying to deny medical treatment, which is in fact false.
That’s called “lying”.[/quote]
I did read the article.
There were uncovered expenses which the insurance didn’t pay. There is no mention in the article of what those expenses were.
It sounds like CIGNA denied her disability because of a preexisting condition.
From the article:
July 24, 2011 @ 11:14 AM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale
[quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
Clearly you didn’t read the article. He stated over and over again that the insurance company was trying to deny medical treatment, which is in fact false.
That’s called “lying”.[/quote]
I did read the article.
There were uncovered expenses which the insurance didn’t pay. There is no mention in the article of what those expenses were.
It sounds like CIGNA denied her disability because of a preexisting condition.
From the article:
[/quote]
Her medical insurance company covered her treatment. She wanted them to cover (waive) the deductible, cover uncovered expenses (e.g. probably things like drug copays) and LIVING EXPENSES unrelated to her care.
Yep, sounds EXACTLY like the company refused to treat her.
So, in fact, it wasn’t the health insurance company that she had the dispute with in the end. It was with the disability insurance…which is something totally different. Exactly which provision of Obamacare did anything about disability coverage?
July 24, 2011 @ 2:32 PM
meadandale wrote:
So, in
[quote=meadandale]
So, in fact, it wasn’t the health insurance company that she had the dispute with in the end. It was with the disability insurance…which is something totally different. Exactly which provision of Obamacare did anything about disability coverage?[/quote]
President Obama was simply recounting his mother’s experiences, probably as she told him.
Certainly, when people have terminal illnesses, they have many worries. Dealing with insurance companies can be very stressful, especially when you don’t understand the details.
As it pertains to insurance companies, you may want a certain course of treatment but the insurance companies want you to try something else first. Patients may think of that as denial of coverage.
Obama’s mother may not have been aware of the difference between health and disability coverage. The disability coverage was provided by CIGNA, perhaps the same company that provided the health coverage. That could be a source of confusion on her part.
Remember that people on their death beds are more emotional than rational.
July 24, 2011 @ 3:44 PM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale
[quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
So, in fact, it wasn’t the health insurance company that she had the dispute with in the end. It was with the disability insurance…which is something totally different. Exactly which provision of Obamacare did anything about disability coverage?[/quote]
President Obama was simply recounting his mother’s experiences, probably as she told him.
Certainly, when people have terminal illnesses, they have many worries. Dealing with insurance companies can be very stressful, especially when you don’t understand the details.
As it pertains to insurance companies, you may want a certain course of treatment but the insurance companies want you to try something else first. Patients may think of that as denial of coverage.
Obama’s mother may not have been aware of the difference between health and disability coverage. The disability coverage was provided by CIGNA, perhaps the same company that provided the health coverage. That could be a source of confusion on her part.
Remember that people on their death beds are more emotional than rational.[/quote]
Brian: I remain in absolute awe of your adroitness at the “non-answer answer”.
You did nothing to answer Mead’s question. Other than coming up with a bunch of blather that was completely off-topic and helped obscure the matter more thoroughly.
So, the takeaway is: Momma Obama was ascairt and confused and thus the misunderstanding, correct? There was no LIE on Obama’s part, nor any attempt to game this story for political points? Do I have that right?
One of the major problems in this country is the inability to think critically and process FACTS accordingly. This is why I’ve accused you on numerous occasions of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
August 4, 2011 @ 10:59 AM
Happy Birthday Mr.
Happy Birthday Mr. President:
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/stocks/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/obama-birthday-wish-_n_917811.html
August 4, 2011 @ 11:12 AM
Happy Birthday, indeed!
“With
Happy Birthday, indeed!
August 4, 2011 @ 12:26 PM
Obama looks pretty good for
Obama looks pretty good for his age.
Must the superior mixed genes.
August 8, 2011 @ 10:21 PM
Well, if you’re Obama, you
Well, if you’re Obama, you know you’re screwed when Dana Milbank of the WashPost decides to decamp: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-powerful-man-on-earth/2011/08/08/gIQA49w72I_story.html
Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman have already pretty much left the building, too.
Yikes. Maybe the DNC will nominate Hillary. According to Bill Maher last Friday, she’d’ve been a better choice than Obama.
Rats meet sinking ship.
August 8, 2011 @ 10:31 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Rats, meet sinking ship.[/quote]
I agree…except I’m still on that sinking ship. SOL!
August 8, 2011 @ 10:38 PM
TexasLine wrote:Allan from
[quote=TexasLine][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Rats, meet sinking ship.[/quote]
I agree…except I’m still on that sinking ship. SOL![/quote]
TexasLine: Well, God love ya, amigo! I’d hang on, because I think its gonna be a bumpy ride from here on out.
August 8, 2011 @ 11:36 PM
Paul Krugman was looking a
Paul Krugman was looking a little haggard today on the Newshour.
I feel for him. I share many of his feelings.
But realistically, whose ship is he going to jump on, if not Obama’s ship?
August 8, 2011 @ 11:56 PM
briansd1 wrote:Paul Krugman
[quote=briansd1]Paul Krugman was looking a little haggard today on the Newshour.
I feel for him. I share many of his feelings.
But realistically, whose ship is he going to jump on, if not Obama’s ship?[/quote]
Brian: I don’t disagree that Krugman has nowhere else to go, but, in truth, he isn’t really on Obama’s ship, either. If you read his last few articles, he’s hammering Obama pretty hard, too.
The fact is, in both America and the Eurozone, we’re seeing the last gasps of the welfare state. Its been treated as revealed truth that you can afford an ever-expanding welfare state, but that lie has been laid bare. The European Central Bank (ECB) is insolvent (if you were to correctly value its balance sheet and holdings) and the dominoes are starting to fall. Greece, Portugal and Ireland were containable debt crises; Italy, France and Spain are not.
There are more shocks coming and neither DC nor Brussels has the political will to tell the cold, hard truth of the matter. The truly scary part? The shit has not yet hit the fan in China. Just wait. When that bubble pops, it’ll reverberate around the globe.
August 9, 2011 @ 9:29 AM
Yes, Krugman is my hero. I
Yes, Krugman is my hero. I read him all the time.
Ireland is an important case-study. I thought that Ireland represents the new laissez-faire, low-tax Europe rather than the old dirigiste Continental Europe.
But Ireland was the first to fall.
Then Spain fell not because of government borrowings but because of irresponsbible private bank lending and real estate investments. The same thing happened here in America. Spain is like the Florida of Europe.
Then look at France, they have enjoyed a consistent high standard of living. England, on the other hand, has gone through boom and bust cycles with an ever increasing wealth-gap.
I believe that the private sector has the ability to misallocate funds much quicker than the welfare state. The welfare state is unsustainable because of demographics.
I believe that the systemic problems are beyong right-leaning and left-leaning.
Yes, when the China bubble pops it will reverberate around the globe. That’s scary. I’m hoping the Chinese can quickly engineer a consumer society to help world economic growth.
August 9, 2011 @ 11:47 AM
Unfortunately for China, they
Unfortunately for China, they are facing severe water shortages and that will probably lead to large scale famine. Then where will Walmart buy it’s junk? Maybe Vietnam?
August 9, 2011 @ 12:47 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fact is, in both America and the Eurozone, we’re seeing the last gasps of the welfare state. Its been treated as revealed truth that you can afford an ever-expanding welfare state, but that lie has been laid bare. [/quote]
Well, first off, I think Krugman is a complete moron. His idea of borrowing ad infinitum is nothing short of insane. The portion of the left that follows this line of thinking has a screw loose. Though, it’s just a different type of screw loose than those on the other side of the aisle – who has a religious like and irrational adherence to the “magic of the market”.
With that said, the past several decades have been a debt orgy on a levels. Household debt, corporate, state and national have all sky rocketed from historical norms(across all western states) – and behind all this debt were debt pushers in the growing FIRE economy. This debt was needed to support the economic growth and jobs of the service and FIRE economy which took over for jobs being shipped overseas. As well as the military adventures and new huge new security state(and associated industries) that have popped up.
Second, we can paint lots of narratives for the state of affairs besides a big parasitic “welfare state” that is sucking everybody dry. Which, admittedly, has elements of truth to it but certainly is the not the whole story – not even close.
Leaving ideology aside – lets fast forward a few years. After the death of the “welfare state”, a massive systemic concentration of wealth and property, millions more pushed to the fringes and a growing disillusioned underclass. Undoubtedly, the politics of this will be nothing short of absurd.
Should all the new large swaths disenfranchised protest for more free markets, less government intervention and less social support? Should the portion of the population, that, in historical terms, underwent a lightning quick major demographic shift towards poverty, all internalize their plight as their fault? And say ” Well that just goes to prove that evils of a welfare state?
Seems to me, after the welfare state goes, we’ll have a whole host of new problems, that won’t manifest, in, shall we say, a socially healthy environment.
Something to think about for those on the Right that think the death of the welfare state proves a point, or, will lead to what you think will be a point taken. Also, depending on how you define “welfare state”, it reaches far and wide and supports large portions of the economy. Likewise, for the Left that thinks that a lot of the progressive measures of the 20th century can’t be wiped out – because it can and will – the question is what are you going to do about it?
August 9, 2011 @ 1:20 PM
Arraya wrote:
Well, first
[quote=Arraya]
Well, first off, I think Krugman is a complete moron. His idea of borrowing ad infinitum is nothing short of insane. The portion of the left that follows this line of thinking has a screw loose. Though, it’s just a different type of screw loose than those on the other side of the aisle – who has a religious like and irrational adherence to the “magic of the market”.
[/quote]
Arraya, IIRC, you posted before that money is just a man-made construct that’s meaningless. Only real economic activity matters.
We need to keep economic activity and turnover going so people can work and improve their lives. If money can facilitate the process, then all the better.
So theoretically, even if the monetary system collapses, but if we can keep economic activity alive, then we all the better off.
We want people to keep on building houses so they have shelter, don’t we? Maybe not in overbuilt areas of America, but certainly in the developing world.
August 9, 2011 @ 1:42 PM
Arraya wrote:
Second, we can
[quote=Arraya]
Second, we can paint lots of narratives for the state of affairs besides a big parasitic “welfare state” that is sucking everybody dry. Which, admittedly, has elements of truth to it but certainly is the not the whole story – not even close.
Leaving ideology aside – lets fast forward a few years. After the death of the “welfare state”, a massive systemic concentration of wealth and property, millions more pushed to the fringes and a growing disillusioned underclass. Undoubtedly, the politics of this will be nothing short of absurd.
Should all the new large swaths disenfranchised protest for more free markets, less government intervention and less social support? Should the portion of the population, that, in historical terms, underwent a lightning quick major demographic shift towards poverty, all internalize their plight as their fault? And say ” Well that just goes to prove that evils of a welfare state?
Seems to me, after the welfare state goes, we’ll have a whole host of new problems, that won’t manifest, in, shall we say, a socially healthy environment.
Something to think about for those on the Right that think the death of the welfare state proves a point, or, will lead to what you think will be a point taken. Also, depending on how you define “welfare state”, it reaches far and wide and supports large portions of the economy. Likewise, for the Left that thinks that a lot of the progressive measures of the 20th century can’t be wiped out – because it can and will – the question is what are you going to do about it?[/quote]
Arraya: I think we are witnessing a return to 1930s-style politics and, depending on how the Eurozone crisis is handled, possibly the Weimar Republic.
I don’t think this situation should be defined by Left versus Right politics (although those politics and policies are at the heart of the issue), but rather class. In the US, we’ve managed to paper over stagnant wages, lost industries and a rapidly increasing wealth disparity through that debt orgy you referenced.
I do believe we are rapidly approaching a tipping point and that our leaders are either clueless or powerless, depending on locale or perspective.
I think that groups like the Tea Party are right in the sense of pointing out the financial cliff we’re about to career over, but wrong in other aspects (“Keep your Government hands off my Medicare!”). I think we’re on an unsustainable course when it comes to entitlements, but I also believe that unfettered, poorly regulated capitalism plays a major part as well, especially when you’re letting the fox guard the henhouse. Both the GOP and Dems have shown a willful blindness to the antics of Wall Street and here we sit, three years on, and nothing has changed.
What’s the answer? Hell if I know. But I think we’re due for one mofo of an enema before this is done and the effects will be cataclysmic and multi-generational. Which leads me to believe that all of those years of defense spending and involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might pay some unexpected dividends. Having a well-trained, well-armed and battle-hardened military will pay off in spades if the shit hits the fan globally.
August 9, 2011 @ 2:34 PM
Big difference between today
Big difference between today and 1930s is that the 1930s had genuine hunger and hardship. People literally starved to death.
No chance of that today, in the developed world at least.
Starving people will do desperate things and are willing to see it through to the end because they have nothing to lose.
It’s also a lot easier to blame and hate when you are hungry.
Today’s rioters just want to score some booze and an iPhone. Unemployment leads to boredom which leads to mischief which leads to localized violence but they will never have leadership because they don’t have a cause. They’ll be back to their video games soon enough.
If by some chance did have some real hunger, the government can easily step in and provide the food. There’s just so much more of it today than there was in the 1930s.
Sorry to disappoint, but there ain’t gonna be any global military conflict rising out of this either.
People don’t fight wars for turf any more – you can’t in the nuclear age, and there really isn’t much nationalism and hatred between the parties that could actually wage the wars. Certainly nothing like there was in the 1930s.
The big players have way too many economic dependencies to start shooting each other. Was there a Eurozone in the 1930s?
But what about big bad China? The US and China are completely wrapped up in each other’s financial systems and anyone with money/power has way to much to lose.
I’ve said it before: These days, Wal Mart protects us more than than Lockheed does.
The internet changes things in a big way as well. I poke fun at Facebook, but it has tremendous influence.
In the 1930s it was easy to march off to go kill someone you’ve never met, from a place you’ve never been, and who speaks a language you’ve possibly never heard.
People are less likely to want to kill someone who is on their Facebook friends list. Someone who posts pictures of their kids that are just a click away. Despite the best efforts of Fox news, many of our youth do understand that the guy living in suburban Tehran just wants to raise his family in peace like just like us.
The stuff going on in Lybia, Syria, and other parts of the Middle East aren’t the seeds of a global conflict – it the breaking down of the walls that allowed such conflicts to happen in the first place.
The F-22s will never see a day of combat, unless we decide to do something really stupid again. I really hope we don’t.
August 9, 2011 @ 3:02 PM
pri_dk wrote:
Sorry to
[quote=pri_dk]
Sorry to disappoint, but there ain’t gonna be any global military conflict rising out of this either.
The big players have way too many economic dependencies to start shooting each other. Was there a Eurozone in the 1930s?
In the 1930s it was easy to march off to go kill someone you’ve never met, from a place you’ve never been, and who speaks a language you’ve possibly never heard.
[/quote]
Pri: Never claimed a global conflict, nor a conflict with China (they’re gonna go pop all by themselves).
I was talking about the rise of the far Right and it is going on right now. Look no further than Norway or Russia or England. As the various Eurozone austerity programs kick in, you are seeing a return to hate-oriented politics, specifically those that blame “The Other”.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/why-the-kremlin-aids-the-rise-of-russia-s-far-right-hate-groups.html
Additionally, you are seeing mainstream politics embracing some of the language used by far Right (like Sarkozy in France adopting terms and slogans used by Marine le Pen’s National Front movement).
You don’t think it could happen again? It is, and we’re watching it on CNN, following it on Twitter and posting about it on Facebook. Facebook, the very tool you mentioned as an ameliorating influence, is in fact an accelerant.
August 9, 2011 @ 3:34 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I was talking about the rise of the far Right and it is going on right now. Look no further than Norway or Russia or England. As the various Eurozone austerity programs kick in, you are seeing a return to hate-oriented politics, specifically those that blame “The Other”.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/why-the-kremlin-aids-the-rise-of-russia-s-far-right-hate-groups.html
Additionally, you are seeing mainstream politics embracing some of the language used by far Right (like Sarkozy in France adopting terms and slogans used by Marine le Pen’s National Front movement).
You don’t think it could happen again? It is, and we’re watching it on CNN, following it on Twitter and posting about it on Facebook. Facebook, the very tool you mentioned as an ameliorating influence, is in fact an accelerant.[/quote]
And the Tea Party in America.
Why are reasonable people letting it happen?
August 9, 2011 @ 3:44 PM
Quote:And the Tea Party in
[quote]And the Tea Party in America.
Why are reasonable people letting it happen?[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is letting it happen, except for a few politicians that are trying to use it for short term gain (and the media who want to create a story.)
The Tea Party is already in decline anyway.
Their platform is so inconsistent with itself, it was only a matter of time before he movement would falter and fail.
Cut entitlements in the name of patriotic old folks? Yeah, right.
August 9, 2011 @ 3:35 PM
Look at the last word of you
Look at the last word of you post. You did say “global” – and I think you meant it, because why else would we need the big bad military which you so proudly described?
I agree with your points about the rise of the far Right. There is something going on, but that’s pretty standard during hard economic times. However, this will only cause internal problems, not wars between nations. So we may have more whack-job killings like in Norway (can’t call it “terrorism” though, because only Muslims can be terrorists…)
These right wing/hate groups will never materialize into anything big because they are founded on mistrust. They may go after their neighbours in the same city (or perhaps in the next region in the case of Russia), but will never be capable of raising enough consensus to attack the country next door. These movements could grow in the 1930s because nationalism was much more powerful then – people knew less about the world, and countries were much more racially and culturally consistent.
The internal problems we are seeing – like the riots in England – actually make it less likely that nations will go to war. Hard to raise an army when your own people are fighting against themselves (yeah I know that there were riots in Germany in the 1930s, but there isn’t going to be a leader that can rise up and blame another country to the point of inciting war.)
As for you last paragraph, I have no idea what you are talking about. Facebook is accelerating hate-oriented politics? You must be “friending” the wrong people.
August 9, 2011 @ 4:20 PM
pri_dk wrote:Look at the last
[quote=pri_dk]Look at the last word of you post. You did say “global” – and I think you meant it, because why else would we need the big bad military which you so proudly described?
As for you last paragraph, I have no idea what you are talking about. Facebook is accelerating hate-oriented politics? You must be “friending” the wrong people.[/quote]
Pri: Two things. First, the word “global” was used to mean that a situation could crop up anywhere in the world and we have the means/wherewithal, militarily speaking, to deal with it. Especially if that situation crops up in an area where we have “interests” that need “protecting”.
Second, I did not mean that social networking was spreading hate-oriented politics (although it, along with the internet, is). No, what I meant is that social networking now adds a viral component to the mob mentality. You can mobilize groups instantly, thus hamstringing the ability of police or security forces to respond effectively.
August 9, 2011 @ 4:09 PM
pri_dk wrote:Big difference
[quote=pri_dk]Big difference between today and 1930s is that the 1930s had genuine hunger and hardship. People literally starved to death.
No chance of that today, in the developed world at least.
Starving people will do desperate things and are willing to see it through to the end because they have nothing to lose.
It’s also a lot easier to blame and hate when you are hungry.
[/quote]
No, not a chance of starvation, I agree. But the socio-psycho stress that comes with being on the “bottom” causes illnesses, both, physical and mental. Once the numbers start to build up and they no longer blame themselves. I would assume, to be a formally middle class suddenly on foodstamps is quite the stressful transition. We’ve been adding 350K per month to federal foodstamps for 5 years consistently. I don’t see that getting any better.
[quote=pri_dk]
Today’s rioters just want to score some booze and an iPhone. Unemployment leads to boredom which leads to mischief which leads to localized violence but they will never have leadership because they don’t have a cause. They’ll be back to their video games soon enough. [/quote]
Yeah, just like all the people in Greece are lazy, freeloaders that don’t want to work. I highly doubt they are all people, that are board, and want free stuff. While, certainly, that kind of demonstration in London is not productive. Still, it is the manifestation of deeper issues.
[quote=pri_dk]
If by some chance did have some real hunger, the government can easily step in and provide the food. There’s just so much more of it today than there was in the 1930s.[/quote]
Actually their resource base in the 30s was better than ours is today. They had manpower, capacity and resources to feed everybody. They just did not believe in the welfare state. This ideology gets spun on its head when there are no jobs. It turns into sociopathy. Actually, 50% of the population lived on family farms back then and some went back to live off the land. Those were the safety nets of the past. It’s not an option today.
[quote=pri_dk]
Sorry to disappoint, but there ain’t gonna be any global military conflict rising out of this either..[/quote]
Agreed finances and energy are two intertwined, it just would not work. It would turn to internal chaos. There won’t be any world war type scenarios ever again.
[quote=pri_dk]
The internet changes things in a big way as well. I poke fun at Facebook, but it has tremendous influence. [/quote]
No doubt, the internet is a very powerful social force on a myriad of levels
August 9, 2011 @ 7:23 PM
Arraya wrote:
Yeah, just like
[quote=Arraya]
Yeah, just like all the people in Greece are lazy, freeloaders that don’t want to work. I highly doubt they are all people, that are board, and want free stuff. [/quote]
I have a different perspective on Greece.
Greece has historically been a poor cousin of Europe. Their standards of living should logically be lower.
Upon entering the Euro, the Greek political establishment took advantage of the Euro to borrow enormous sums to bring themselves up to the standards of the French and Germans.
Using borrowed money, the politicians bestowed generous benefits upon themselves and the functionaries.
So, yeah, I think that Greek civil servants who endured cuts are protesting for more money and more stuff. Many are demonstrating for government jobs that should not have existed in the first place.
Greece is a example of government incompetence.
Ireland is different. There, bad loans to the private sector caused the crash.
August 9, 2011 @ 4:32 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Arraya: I think we are witnessing a return to 1930s-style politics and, depending on how the Eurozone crisis is handled, possibly the Weimar Republic.
[/quote]
Yeah, the eurozone is a mess and getting worse. They are all connected financially. As far as 30s style-politics, I think the tendency is there, but it will never take hold. It’s too different a world
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I don’t think this situation should be defined by Left versus Right politics (although those politics and policies are at the heart of the issue), but rather class. [/quote]
Be careful Allan, you don’t want to start to talk in Marxist terms of class struggle;)
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I do believe we are rapidly approaching a tipping point and that our leaders are either clueless or powerless, depending on locale or perspective.
[/quote]
Agreed, they will look worse and worse.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
What’s the answer? Hell if I know. [/quote]
And that is the 64 million dollar question? Me either, though I explore a lot of ideas.
August 9, 2011 @ 5:43 PM
Arraya wrote:
Allan from
[quote=Arraya]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I don’t think this situation should be defined by Left versus Right politics (although those politics and policies are at the heart of the issue), but rather class. [/quote]
Be careful Allan, you don’t want to start to talk in Marxist terms of class struggle;)
[/quote]
Arraya: I think this discussion should include a Marxian dialogue about class struggle. I have no issue with Marx, but I do have an issue with Communism (Big C, in the form practiced by the Soviets and the Chinese). Marx’s operating principles were quickly co-opted and what followed wasn’t really Marxist at all. I know you’ve read your Bakunin and Trotsky (“The Revolution Betrayed”) and Koestler (“Darkness at Noon”).
My only issue with Marx is I think his lazy ass spent too much time on Engel’s couch to correctly opine on the “value of labor”.
August 9, 2011 @ 2:50 PM
Arraya wrote:Well, first off,
[quote=Arraya]Well, first off, I think Krugman is a complete moron. His idea of borrowing ad infinitum is nothing short of insane.[/quote]
If he’s an insane moron, he’s a pretty accurate one. (pdf)
August 9, 2011 @ 3:48 PM
afx114 wrote:Arraya
[quote=afx114][quote=Arraya]Well, first off, I think Krugman is a complete moron. His idea of borrowing ad infinitum is nothing short of insane.[/quote]
If he’s an insane moron, he’s a pretty accurate one. (pdf)[/quote]
Ok, I was a little harsh with moron. I think all economists get hung up on assumptions that are sometimes accurate but other times make no sense what so ever. Modern economics is sophistry with math, IMO. In a sense, with their ideological certainty with these assumptions – they have an insanty to them. I really have grown to despise the institution in general. He parses his words well enough to always be correct. You could point to popular bloggers with a completely different view of economics that probably were equally as correct for different reasons.
August 10, 2011 @ 1:12 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Well, if you’re Obama, you know you’re screwed when Dana Milbank of the WashPost decides to decamp: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-powerful-man-on-earth/2011/08/08/gIQA49w72I_story.html
Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman have already pretty much left the building, too.
Yikes. Maybe the DNC will nominate Hillary. According to Bill Maher last Friday, she’d’ve been a better choice than Obama.
Rats meet sinking ship.[/quote]
I like what Dylan Ratigan has to say in this video clip. BOTH parties are to blame, because they are BOTH bought off. His take on the root causes of our problems, and what Obama should do:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/video-msnbc-dylan-ratigan-meltdown-over-meltdown-031046281.html
August 10, 2011 @ 6:06 AM
I disagree; one party wants
I disagree; one party wants only good for the nation whilst the other is wrongeaheaded and malevolent.
August 10, 2011 @ 7:45 AM
thoughts on this
thoughts on this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=1
August 10, 2011 @ 3:34 PM
zzz wrote:thoughts on this
[quote=zzz]thoughts on this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=1%5B/quote%5D
I don’t agree with the feeling the author has toward serial refinancers/HELOC debt junkies (they should not be allowed to stay in “their” homes), nor do I agree that we need to keep illegal immigrants (who drive our wages down even further) here when we can hardly support our own citizens.
That being said, the article was brilliant. Bravo!!!
August 10, 2011 @ 3:43 PM
walterwhite wrote:I disagree;
[quote=walterwhite]I disagree; one party wants only good for the nation whilst the other is wrongeaheaded and malevolent.[/quote]
Wait a minute….are you still in your “You are not your opinion” mode when you say this? Are you actually trying to say, “One party is wrongeaheaded and malevolent whilst the other wants only good for the nation?”
If so, I agree with you.
August 10, 2011 @ 4:20 PM
eavesdropper
[quote=eavesdropper][quote=walterwhite]I disagree; one party wants only good for the nation whilst the other is wrongeaheaded and malevolent.[/quote]
Wait a minute….are you still in your “You are not your opinion” mode when you say this? Are you actually trying to say, “One party is wrongeaheaded and malevolent whilst the other wants only good for the nation?”
If so, I agree with you.[/quote]
Eaves: Ah, c’mon, you’re better than that. While I have no truck with some of the moronic elements of the GOP, to assert that the Dems are pure-of-heart angels striving valiantly against the forces of evil (and mendacity) is risible and demonstrably false.
We’re governed by the ignorant, venal and corrupt (both sides of the aisle), which perfectly encapsulates the modern America. We have the very government we deserve.
Personally, I’m moving towards the anarcho-syndicalist collective as shown in Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”. In spite of my bad knees, toiling senselessly away in a field of shit actually seems something of a promotion.
August 10, 2011 @ 4:35 PM
No I honestly believe one
No I honestly believe one party is good but I have no idea which one it is. I think it’s the green party but I haven’t actually read their platform. I think I’m going to try to believe the opposite if whatever I think Ii believe till 2012.
August 10, 2011 @ 5:34 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=walterwhite]I disagree; one party wants only good for the nation whilst the other is wrongeaheaded and malevolent.[/quote]
Wait a minute….are you still in your “You are not your opinion” mode when you say this? Are you actually trying to say, “One party is wrongeaheaded and malevolent whilst the other wants only good for the nation?”
If so, I agree with you.[/quote]
Eaves: Ah, c’mon, you’re better than that. [/quote]
Allan, Allan, Allan, no, I’m not. I keep telling you that I’m cheap and tawdry and will sell out to anyone with the price of new soles for my motorcycle boots. I realize that you’ve placed me on a pedestal, but you need to bitchslap me off that bad boy, and get on with your life.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]While I have no truck with some of the moronic elements of the GOP, to assert that the Dems are pure-of-heart angels striving valiantly against the forces of evil (and mendacity) is risible and demonstrably false.[/quote]
Not only that, but also teeth-achingly hilarious.
Read my post again: it was entirely nonsensical (like Procul Harum’s “A Whiter Shade of Pale”), and a play off scaredy’s absolutely brilliant thread “You are not your opinion”.
But I’ll keep it going if it will make you whip out more “thesaurus porn” for me. “Risible”…….have mercy!!
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] We’re governed by the ignorant, venal and corrupt (both sides of the aisle), which perfectly encapsulates the modern America. We have the very government we deserve. [/quote]
We do, indeed. And what scares me is that much of America appears to be threatened by their intelligence, correlating it to years and place of education, thereby calculating their “intellectual elite” quotient. If they only knew….
But I digress….what concerns me is the backlash on intelligence and learning in the U.S. And the rapidly increasing dumbing-down of candidates so that the public can feel better about themselves. Just what I want: Sarah Palin’s “common sense” in the Oval Office. She’ll push the “doomsday” button, thinking she’s ordering thumbtacks from Staples. Russia? Boom! “That Was Easy”.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Personally, I’m moving towards the anarcho-syndicalist collective as shown in Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”. In spite of my bad knees, toiling senselessly away in a field of shit actually seems something of a promotion.[/quote]
A career opportunity in a guaranteed growth industry, with the added bonus of ceaseless cranial nerve I stimulation?? You’ve sold me.
BTW, my husband loves that scene. He laughs so hard every time he sees it that I’m practically forced to administer CPR.
August 10, 2011 @ 10:03 PM
eavesdropper wrote:
Allan,
[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, Allan, Allan, no, I’m not. I keep telling you that I’m cheap and tawdry and will sell out to anyone with the price of new soles for my motorcycle boots. I realize that you’ve placed me on a pedestal, but you need to bitchslap me off that bad boy, and get on with your life.
But I’ll keep it going if it will make you whip out more “thesaurus porn” for me. “Risible”…….have mercy!!
[/quote]
Eaves: I got nothing. The above, combined with your earlier assertion about capturing me in the back of my Mustang, circa 1981, have left me completely helpless (as always).
I’ll continue feeding your sesquipedalian jones as best I can, whilst harboring my own unmentionable thoughts centering on bitchslapping and motorcycle boots while reading you selected passages from Aldous Huxley.
August 10, 2011 @ 10:17 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I’ll continue feeding your sesquipedalian jones as best I can, whilst harboring my own unmentionable thoughts centering on bitchslapping and motorcycle boots while reading you selected passages from Aldous Huxley.[/quote]
If you guys want to talk dirty, you’ll have to get a room. 😉
August 10, 2011 @ 10:30 PM
CA renter wrote:Allan from
[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I’ll continue feeding your sesquipedalian jones as best I can, whilst harboring my own unmentionable thoughts centering on bitchslapping and motorcycle boots while reading you selected passages from Aldous Huxley.[/quote]
If you guys want to talk dirty, you’ll have to get a room. ;)[/quote]
CAR: Perish the thought! I’m a nice Catholic boy. That is a great word, though.
August 10, 2011 @ 11:16 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:CA
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I’ll continue feeding your sesquipedalian jones as best I can, whilst harboring my own unmentionable thoughts centering on bitchslapping and motorcycle boots while reading you selected passages from Aldous Huxley.[/quote]
If you guys want to talk dirty, you’ll have to get a room. ;)[/quote]
CAR: Perish the thought! I’m a nice Catholic boy. That is a great word, though.[/quote]
Very well done, Allan! 🙂
August 10, 2011 @ 11:51 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:CA
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I’ll continue feeding your sesquipedalian jones as best I can, whilst harboring my own unmentionable thoughts centering on bitchslapping and motorcycle boots while reading you selected passages from Aldous Huxley.[/quote]
If you guys want to talk dirty, you’ll have to get a room. ;)[/quote]
CAR: Perish the thought! I’m a nice Catholic boy. That is a great word, though.[/quote]
So exactly what does that mean, Allan? Like you’d be more comfortable in the sacristy?
(Okay, we share a common Catholic heritage, which probably explains that corporal punishment fixation. I plead the Fifth on all other details.)
August 11, 2011 @ 7:55 AM
eavesdropper wrote:…(Okay,
[quote=eavesdropper]…(Okay, we share a common Catholic heritage, which probably explains that corporal punishment fixation. I plead the Fifth on all other details.)[/quote]
I’m just wondering … when is the last time either of you have been to confession??
August 11, 2011 @ 8:34 AM
bearishgurl wrote:
I’m just
[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m just wondering … when is the last time either of you have been to confession??[/quote]
BG: Well… That does presume I’d have SOMETHING to confess. Given that I’m pure as the driven snow, I have no idea what I’d even say to the priest.
August 11, 2011 @ 8:35 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
So
[quote=eavesdropper]
So exactly what does that mean, Allan? Like you’d be more comfortable in the sacristy?
(Okay, we share a common Catholic heritage, which probably explains that corporal punishment fixation. I plead the Fifth on all other details.)[/quote]
Eaves: Speaking of the sacristy: Believe it or not, I used to an altar boy. Yup, true story. If that doesn’t simultaneously shock and frighten you, I don’t know what would.
Yeah, and I’m with you on pleading the Fifth. We won’t be discussing plaid jumpers and knee socks. Or Mary Janes.
August 10, 2011 @ 11:44 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, Allan, Allan, no, I’m not. I keep telling you that I’m cheap and tawdry and will sell out to anyone with the price of new soles for my motorcycle boots. I realize that you’ve placed me on a pedestal, but you need to bitchslap me off that bad boy, and get on with your life.
But I’ll keep it going if it will make you whip out more “thesaurus porn” for me. “Risible”…….have mercy!!
[/quote]
Eaves: I got nothing. The above, combined with your earlier assertion about capturing me in the back of my Mustang, circa 1981, have left me completely helpless (as always).
I’ll continue feeding your sesquipedalian jones as best I can, whilst harboring my own unmentionable thoughts centering on bitchslapping and motorcycle boots while reading you selected passages from Aldous Huxley.[/quote]
Just make sure you keep all those unmentionable thoughts straight, or you could be having visions of a motorcycle boots only-clad Aldous Huxley bitchslapping you…..
As for my husband, I’ll be his EMT for life. My opinion of men, admittedly, had not always been the highest, but he’s a keeper.
August 10, 2011 @ 10:05 PM
eavesdropper wrote:
BTW, my
[quote=eavesdropper]
BTW, my husband loves that scene. He laughs so hard every time he sees it that I’m practically forced to administer CPR.[/quote]
Eaves: As an aside, if you ever decide to opt out of the CPR and the old boy pops off from a myocardial infarction, please let me know. Surreptiously, of course.
July 23, 2011 @ 8:57 AM
meadandale wrote:briansd1
[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]I write the wrong date all the time. Not a big deal, IMHO.[/quote]
It’s one thing to write LAST years date…we all commonly make that mistake. But we don’t get the year wrong by 3.
Admit it: if GWB had done this it would be the front page story in the MSM and you’d be posting about how stupid our president is.[/quote]
If GWB had done it, I doubt you’d be saying anything!
The right and the left each accuse the other of doing exactly what they do.
I too think Obama has done a pretty good job. A better than average President, though I certainly don’t think the greatest President ever. I’ve disagreed with a few of his decisions. But I’ve disagreed with a few decisions of every President.
July 23, 2011 @ 10:29 AM
Brian’s world view of people
Brian’s world view of people he believes in-[img_assist|nid=15152|title=
See no evil|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=75]
July 23, 2011 @ 12:42 PM
svelte wrote:
I too think
[quote=svelte]
I too think Obama has done a pretty good job. A better than average President, though I certainly don’t think the greatest President ever. I’ve disagreed with a few of his decisions. But I’ve disagreed with a few decisions of every President.[/quote]
I never said that Obama is the greatest president ever.
In fact, I think that Obama is too much of a professor. He’s over-thinks things and caves easily when seeking compromise.
Just because I don’t criticize Obama on this forum doesn’t mean that I idolize him.
My defense of Obama is more of a reaction to people like Zeitgeist and the Republicans who can’t say yes to anything at all. For those people, no matter if Obama does exactly what they want, it won’t be good enough for them.
May 2, 2011 @ 8:43 PM
pri_dk wrote:Now that’s just
[quote=pri_dk]Now that’s just downright cliché. Learn about the geopolitics of the Middle East by hanging out in cafes?
BTW, “there” is a huge place. Libya alone is bigger than Alaska.
A huge geographic area; hundreds of millions of people; hundreds of sects, factions, and castes; a dozen languages; and thousands of years of conflict.
But you claim to have a handle on it because you’ve visited “there” a few times?
[/quote]
Pri: No, because I work there. Five or six years ago, the Middle East was maybe 10% of my business. Now, its over 60% and growing.
You don’t need to hit the whole Middle East. Go to Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Karachi and Mumbai. I’d recommend Baghdad, Kabul and Tehran, but you ain’t getting in there, so forget it.
Stop watching Anderson Cooper 360 and the rest of the chattering class and stop reading articles by Tom Friedman and the other know-nothings. Most of the Middle East is covered by journalists who never leave the comfort of their air-conditioned hotels, or, if they do, they’re surrounded by minders and security.
Get a real feel for the place, and then you’ll have a better understanding and your opinion won’t sound like you cadged it from “Newsweek”.
May 3, 2011 @ 7:05 AM
dup
dup
May 3, 2011 @ 7:10 AM
Quote:To think that Obama
[quote]To think that Obama will give a single speech, as he did in Cairo in ’08, and things will magically be better throughout the region is insane, but there are quite a few educated and intelligent Americans who believe just that.[/quote]
Allan, nobody believes “just that.” I challenge you to provide an example of anybody that believes “things will magically get better” because of Obama’s speech.
There are some on the right that would like to dumb-down the left and use these stereotypes for political talking points.
Because they know many people will repeat the talking points without thinking.
April 26, 2011 @ 9:17 AM
SK in CV wrote: Which leaves
[quote=SK in CV] Which leaves it all up to dysfunctional congress, currently (and in the last congress) the incompetent Democratic majority in the Senate, and the irrational and illogical Republican majority in the House.
Like most congressional Democrats, he exhibits the party naivate that has plagued them at least since Will Rogers spoke his famous line. He underestimates both the cohesiveness of the Republicans in congress, and their ability to sell the big lie with impugnity [/quote]
I’ve always said that Democrats are too conciliatory whereas Republicans are too intransigent.
Republicans are a vengeful bunch who will do anything to destroy Democrats, regardless of national interest.
For example, HCR. That was a Republican plan and they opposed it.
I’m tired of weak Democrats. They need to develop some backbone and steamroll over the opposition in the same manner the opposition operates, so we can get some things done.
April 26, 2011 @ 9:45 AM
briansd1 wrote:SK in CV
[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV] Which leaves it all up to dysfunctional congress, currently (and in the last congress) the incompetent Democratic majority in the Senate, and the irrational and illogical Republican majority in the House.
Like most congressional Democrats, he exhibits the party naivate that has plagued them at least since Will Rogers spoke his famous line. He underestimates both the cohesiveness of the Republicans in congress, and their ability to sell the big lie with impugnity [/quote]
I’ve always said that Democrats are too conciliatory whereas Republicans are too intransigent.
Republicans are a vengeful bunch who will do anything to destroy Democrats, regardless of national interest.
For example, HCR. That was a Republican plan and they opposed it.
I’m tired of weak Democrats. They need to develop some backbone and steamroll over the opposition in the same manner the opposition operates, so we can get some things done.[/quote]
Democrats sure weren’t conciliatory when they controlled House, Senate, and the Oval Office….But now that they don’t sweep the government, they sure are much more conciliatory these days….Which is how it should have been all along.
In as much as a GOP dominated House, Senate, Oval Office would be terrible for this country, the other end of the polarized spectrum is equally bad. Thankfully the GOP doesn’t have a decent candidate… I don’t mind Obama doing a second term, because there seems to be enough different cooks in the pot to make sure we have an ineffective government, so they can leave the rest of us (me) alone, which get’s screwed by both parties….
Also, Obama has beat to death this taxing of the “rich” who have a household income of $250k or more. For the matter, in CA this is nothing. It’s not rich. Second, it’s just completely ridiculous to put a bigger tax burden on people when conglomerates like GE pay no taxes and can keep take advantage of expatriation tax benefits that allows them to keep money overseas without having to pay taxes on it if it stays there. Individuals like you and me can’t even do that under our individual names.
You folks who keep holding on to political party ideology really need to wake up….. You’re getting screwed by both parties…..And the bigger screwing happens when one party can effectively shove their agenda down people’s throat….Both parties don’t work for the people…They work for their respective special interest groups….
Read…
Oh the irony….This article below is exactly why I roll my eyes whenever I hear a President or political party talk about “job creation” or “taxing the rich”. Because unless any political party really takes on this issue, there is no incentive in corporations from giving up these benefits, where the bulk of the tax dollars could come from.
And guess what? Neither the Democrats or Republicans are ever going to dare to touch this issue…Political parties don’t control corporations. Corporations control political parties, unless a huge unexpected disasterous event occurs and there’s enough public disgust to challenge imcumbents in office…Then the politicians at most will do their handwaving to the public so they can get elected, while meanwhile cozying up to corporations behind close doors….
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558
The top tax bracket for U.S. corporations stands at 35 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. So how is it possible that a giant of American business, General Electric, paid nothing in federal taxes last year, even as it made billions in profit?
And should the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, be advising the president on business?
For two years, President Obama has been talking about the need for corporate tax reform, declaring that the system is too complicated and that companies pay too much.
“Simplify, eliminate loopholes, treat everybody fairly,” Obama said in February.
For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE’s success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
“Two things are disconcerting. One is, there’s disproportionate amount of profits being reported offshore. And then, even for the profits that are reported onshore, they’re paying less than 35 percent,” said Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor for Tax Analysts.
2010 was the second year in a row that GE recorded billions in profits and paid no taxes.
During that same period, Immelt has been a close advisor to the president on the business community, a relationship that rubs some the wrong way. Immelt serves as the chairman of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
In a statement, General Electric said that it “pays what it owes under the law and is scrupulous about its compliance with tax obligations in all jurisdictions.” The company claims that its zero-dollar tax bill is largely a result of losses at its financial arm, GE Capital, due to the Wall Street meltdown.
White House: Immelt Advises on Jobs, Not Taxes
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president is “bothered” by the idea that a U.S. company could pay no taxes, but he wouldn’t talk about GE specifically. Carney was also quick to say that Immelt’s council advises the president on job growth and not on tax policy.
“It is part of the problem of the corporate tax structure that companies hire, you know, armies of tax lawyers to understand how it works and to take advantage of the various loopholes that exist, that are legal in order to reduce their tax burden,” Carney said.
When President Obama announced his decision to appoint Immelt to the unpaid advisory role on job creation in January, some critics wondered whether the move was appropriate. Under his leadership, GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009. More than half of GE’s workforce is now outside the United States.
April 26, 2011 @ 9:59 AM
I disagree with you flu.
I disagree with you flu.
When the government is ineffective, corporations get to run the show.
For example, financial reform could have been better at placing limits on the banks and protecting consumers.
April 26, 2011 @ 10:29 AM
briansd1 wrote:I disagree
[quote=briansd1]I disagree with you flu.
When the government is ineffective, corporations get to run the show.
For example, financial reform could have been better at placing limits on the banks and protecting consumers.[/quote]
Well ,that’s great you disagree with me…Proof is in the pudding. This administration has been pretty mum lately on BP, don’t you think? And it seems that Obama would name an GE chairman as an economic advisor, don’t you think? And Goldman seems to be doing pretty swell too these days, don’t you think? And if you think that the Democrats really where interested in banking reform, why do you think no real reform ever got passed when this party controlled everything? Either they were incompetent or didn’t want to. (I think it was the later).
If you haven’t realized this, you will eventually. there is no difference between the political parties. Both just want to steal in different ways.
And you haven’t answered by question… Why is it that if the Democrats really care about the middle class, are they aren’t doing anything when it comes to the repatriation tax benefit issue. Why do they think taking more money from more w-2 people (which is probably considerably less that asking corporations to pay for their profits made overseas), and instead continue to allow and even encourage a tax benefit for hiring and retaining resources overseas??????? At least the GOP isn’t hypocritical about this. They have no interest in repealing these things. They don’t care about the middle class….and it’s obvious. But I just find it ironic, that the current Democrats dance around this very issue. When it comes to talk about job creation, the only thing they thing about is creating more public sector “jobs”…And green jobs that frankly never meaningfully materialized.
We are going to look back at the past 4 years, and the question is going to be “where did we spend all our borrowed money”….And it’s no different than the typical overleveraged homeowner-borrower that spent heloced money on crap, and had nothing to show for it in the end.
April 26, 2011 @ 12:19 PM
flu wrote: At least the GOP
[quote=flu] At least the GOP isn’t hypocritical about this. They have no interest in repealing these things. They don’t care about the middle class….and it’s obvious. But I just find it ironic, that the current Democrats dance around this very issue.[/quote]
That’s really all that I need to know.
On the side of the equivocal, you still have a chance.
Remember that the moneyed special interests have a lot of power in Congress. Globalization makes the issue of competition across borders highly complex.
April 26, 2011 @ 1:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:flu wrote: At
[quote=briansd1][quote=flu] At least the GOP isn’t hypocritical about this. They have no interest in repealing these things. They don’t care about the middle class….and it’s obvious. But I just find it ironic, that the current Democrats dance around this very issue.[/quote]
That’s really all that I need to know.
On the side of the equivocal, you still have a chance.
Remember that the moneyed special interests have a lot of power in Congress. Globalization makes the issue of competition across borders highly complex.[/quote]
Brian: Another example of you avoiding answering questions that you don’t like, or that will expose the truth about the Dems.
You don’t think the Dems take contributions from Big Money, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc, etc, etc?
Obama has appointed Geithner, Summers and Immelt (GE). Is this is a coincidence?
Some of the worst financial chicanery since the S&L implosion has taken place, with nary a criminal fraud conviction (unless you count Bernie Madoff, and he really doesn’t count when you compare him to AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, and on and on and on).
You talk about small steps and incremental change, but what about when it comes to criminal fraud? That argument is like saying you go after a murderer by first charging him for jay-walking and then building your way to a murder charge.
Dems are supposed to be caring and permissive and understanding, right? They’re supposed to be the guys that face off against Big Business and protect the rights of the little guy. So, as FLU asks, why aren’t the Dems going after the $20 TRILLION (using Gandalf’s number, so I’m certain its correct) that’s out there?
I don’t expect an answer, Brian, as it will force you to admit that, at bottom, the Dems and the GOP are THE SAME PARTY.
April 26, 2011 @ 2:05 PM
Ezra Klein sums it up by
Ezra Klein sums it up by pointing out that Obama’s policies are largely GOP in origin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html
April 26, 2011 @ 2:05 PM
No.
By definition, they are
No.
By definition, they are different parties.
It can be argued that they use the same play book for the same game with the same result in mind.
Your Dem straw man is as retarded as me trying to apply a silly straw GOP scarecrow to you.
This leads me to the logical conclusion that you are retarded (with possible Francophone socialist tendencies).
But now I have something much much more important to discuss.
Cinco de mayo is about to happen.
This commemorates the battle of Puebla.
Where the farmers and townspeople (and soldiers) of the town of Puebla (which means “town”) rose up and defeated the invading French forces (before being whomped flat a few months later).
The point is that as Mexico was home to a large percentage German and Germanic immigrants (my Mexican side is named Solberg).
This probably explains why there is so much accordion in Mexican music and so many Mennonites in Mexico.
This leads me to the following questions:
-Is it appropriate to goose-step and wear a pointy helmet at cinco de mayo parties?
-is beating up French forces now a Mexican tradition as well?
-Why did neither Bismarck nor Hitler make use of the corn tortilla (described my many war historians as the greatest military invention in history) in the European and Russian theaters?
-Was the sinking of Mexico’s entire Navy en route to Europe during WWII actually intentional?
-Where do we put up the wall to keep out the Germans?
-Is Lou Dobbs French?
-Can I wear a sombrero to Oktoberfest?
I need to know these things Allan.
I need to know.
April 26, 2011 @ 2:42 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:No.
By
[quote=urbanrealtor]No.
By definition, they are different parties.
It can be argued that they use the same play book for the same game with the same result in mind.
Your Dem straw man is as retarded as me trying to apply a silly straw GOP scarecrow to you.
This leads me to the logical conclusion that you are retarded (with possible Francophone socialist tendencies).
But now I have something much much more important to discuss.
Cinco de mayo is about to happen.
This commemorates the battle of Puebla.
Where the farmers and townspeople (and soldiers) of the town of Puebla (which means “town”) rose up and defeated the invading French forces (before being whomped flat a few months later).
The point is that as Mexico was home to a large percentage German and Germanic immigrants (my Mexican side is named Solberg).
This probably explains why there is so much accordion in Mexican music and so many Mennonites in Mexico.
This leads me to the following questions:
-Is it appropriate to goose-step and wear a pointy helmet at cinco de mayo parties?
-is beating up French forces now a Mexican tradition as well?
-Why did neither Bismarck nor Hitler make use of the corn tortilla (described my many war historians as the greatest military invention in history) in the European and Russian theaters?
-Was the sinking of Mexico’s entire Navy en route to Europe during WWII actually intentional?
-Where do we put up the wall to keep out the Germans?
-Is Lou Dobbs French?
-Can I wear a sombrero to Oktoberfest?
I need to know these things Allan.
I need to know.[/quote]
Dan: Jeez, where to begin? Oh, and thanks for calling me retarded. Really. I feel even better about myself now.
In no particular order:
You cannot build walls to keep out Germans (see “Maginot Line, The” for reference).
Yes, you can wear a sombrero to Oktoberfest. There are several pictures of Hitler and Eva Braun wearing sombreros in celebration of Oktoberfest, and they were notorious for their splashy Cinco De Mayo festivities held in Berlin in the early 1940s. I believe there is even a picture of Hermann Goering sporting a false Pancho Villa mustachio and wearing bandoliers of ammo.
Given that Mexico’s entire navy consisted of three tuna boats and a decommissioned NYC tug boat (the “Mary O’Hara” out of Brooklyn Navy Yard), I don’t think its sinking during WWII constitutes a serious question. There is also a counterargument that this “navy” was swamped during a particularly bad storm following the 1944 Spring Break Party at South Padre Island.
I cannot speak for Bismarck or Hitler, but its historical fact that Napoleon DID use corn tortillas, especially during the 1812 invasion of Russia. They were used to help control the shot pattern of canister charges used by French cannon and French military history records their efficacy during the battles of Smolensk and Moscow.
It is ALWAYS appropriate to wear a pointy helmet (Pickelhauben) and goose-step. Regardless of venue.
I don’t know about Lou Dobbs being French, but feel free to beat him on GP.
EDIT: Beating up on the French is pretty much already in everyone’s military tradition. Like the Vietnamese, Moroccans, Prussians, Algerians, etc.
April 26, 2011 @ 3:17 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I don’t expect an answer, Brian, as it will force you to admit that, at bottom, the Dems and the GOP are THE SAME PARTY.[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that they are the same party because they are different parties.
But we are the same country so, of course, there will be overlap of interests.
Protecting our corporations and ensuring that they thrive is of our national interest. Keeping stock prices high helps pensions funds and the portfolios of all Americans.
The key is to make sure that our corporations can compete in a globalized world while balancing that with the welfare of our citizens.
IMHO, government exists to ensure continuity to our way of life (our economic and political system and our establishment) and maintain and expand prosperity for all.
I believe that the Democrats are measurably better than Republicans at moderating the greed of corporations by making the corporations surrender some benefits and compromise for the national interest.
Looking back at history, the French Revolution happened, in part, because the monarchy was unable to rule the aristocrats who refused to pay taxes and surrender some privileges to the national interest. That resulted in a collapse (rather than evolution) of the system to the detriment of all. A period anarchy and poverty followed. I believe we would see similar results in America with Republicans in charge.
April 27, 2011 @ 3:45 AM
flu wrote:briansd1 wrote:I
[quote=flu][quote=briansd1]I disagree with you flu.
When the government is ineffective, corporations get to run the show.
For example, financial reform could have been better at placing limits on the banks and protecting consumers.[/quote]
Well ,that’s great you disagree with me…Proof is in the pudding. This administration has been pretty mum lately on BP, don’t you think? And it seems that Obama would name an GE chairman as an economic advisor, don’t you think? And Goldman seems to be doing pretty swell too these days, don’t you think? And if you think that the Democrats really where interested in banking reform, why do you think no real reform ever got passed when this party controlled everything? Either they were incompetent or didn’t want to. (I think it was the later).
If you haven’t realized this, you will eventually. there is no difference between the political parties. Both just want to steal in different ways.
And you haven’t answered by question… Why is it that if the Democrats really care about the middle class, are they aren’t doing anything when it comes to the repatriation tax benefit issue. Why do they think taking more money from more w-2 people (which is probably considerably less that asking corporations to pay for their profits made overseas), and instead continue to allow and even encourage a tax benefit for hiring and retaining resources overseas??????? At least the GOP isn’t hypocritical about this. They have no interest in repealing these things. They don’t care about the middle class….and it’s obvious. But I just find it ironic, that the current Democrats dance around this very issue. When it comes to talk about job creation, the only thing they thing about is creating more public sector “jobs”…And green jobs that frankly never meaningfully materialized.
We are going to look back at the past 4 years, and the question is going to be “where did we spend all our borrowed money”….And it’s no different than the typical overleveraged homeowner-borrower that spent heloced money on crap, and had nothing to show for it in the end.[/quote]
Good post, flu.
April 27, 2011 @ 9:47 AM
CA renter wrote:flu wrote: We
[quote=CA renter][quote=flu] We are going to look back at the past 4 years, and the question is going to be “where did we spend all our borrowed money”….And it’s no different than the typical overleveraged homeowner-borrower that spent heloced money on crap, and had nothing to show for it in the end.[/quote]
Good post, flu.[/quote]
Economic collapse averted.
Growth resumed.
Wars were likely avoided.
The European Union is still whole and the Euro still stands.
Price of oil did not collapse still providiving good revenues to the Middle Eastern countries to continue with reform, or at least provide the minimum to their citizens, thus avoiding revolution.
Millions of people throughout the world saved from poverty and joblessness.
Lives went on without being upended. Retirement plans proceeded along, etc…
I don’t know… But I think that our money bought some pretty good things.
April 27, 2011 @ 4:48 PM
Brian,
There is a BIG
Brian,
There is a BIG difference between pushing these issues into the future (and making them even more expensive and damaging when we do eventually deal with them) vs. fixing them.
Nothing has been fixed. Not only have they not been fixed, they have been made worse. Pay attention to what the commodity and currency markets are doing right now. It is worse than it was in 2008, and we are trillions of dollars deeper in debt because of it. Nothing has been fixed.
April 28, 2011 @ 10:52 AM
this is getting
this is getting better…..hope & change working miracles
http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
AND
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11-04-25_washington_bubble21.jpg
April 28, 2011 @ 12:45 PM
CA renter wrote:
Nothing has
[quote=CA renter]
Nothing has been fixed. Not only have they not been fixed, they have been made worse. Pay attention to what the commodity and currency markets are doing right now. It is worse than it was in 2008, and we are trillions of dollars deeper in debt because of it. Nothing has been fixed.[/quote]
What’s your definition of worse?
The financial system is healthy again. The economy is growing.
By and large, our standard of living has been maintained or improved. Had the economy been allowed to collapse, we would have been less able to care for and educate the future generations of citizens.
World GDP is growing so millions of workers around the world have escaped poverty.
Yes, our national debt is greater, but with a growing economy, and the right policies, we have the ability to pay it down.
April 28, 2011 @ 12:55 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA renter
[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Nothing has been fixed. Not only have they not been fixed, they have been made worse. Pay attention to what the commodity and currency markets are doing right now. It is worse than it was in 2008, and we are trillions of dollars deeper in debt because of it. Nothing has been fixed.[/quote]
What’s your definition of worse?
The financial system is healthy again. The economy is growing.
By and large, our standard of living has been maintained or improved. Had the economy been allowed to collapse, we would have been less able to care for and educate the future generations of citizens.
World GDP is growing so millions of workers around the world have escaped poverty.
Yes, our national debt is greater, but with a growing economy, and the right policies, we have the ability to pay it down.[/quote]
bold added for emphasis.
April 28, 2011 @ 1:23 PM
First, is Cinqo de Maio the
First, is Cinqo de Maio the new shark?
Second, I voted for Obama and drank the damn Kool Aid. I feel betrayed. He needs to get a backbone and start kicking some ass. You don’t correct the financial crises by putting the Wall St foxes in the henhouse. Yes, he inherited the problem but then he just went along with the same GOP solution.
Third, I agree that both parties, while logically separate, are equal in their aims: the complete disregard for doing anything that benefits their voting consituents but complete devotion to their money backers (lobbysts, corporations etc.). And yes, the tax breaks for the rich and corporations have to end. $250k should not be the top of the scale–maybe 2- to 4- times that should be the starting point? There are a lot of people making $500k who really don’t contribute much to the tax rolls. SOmetimes they don’t even count it as income–so tax reform needs to be addressed. And the big-O has been largely silent about that until just recently. He let the Bush cuts go through and now he’s squawking. I can’t even think through this it makes me so mad!
Fourth, I probably will re-elect the bastard because it’s the lesser of two evils. Beside the Kool Aid induced haze, there was no way in hell I would have voted for a McCain/Palin ticket. And voting for anyone else, as we have seen, is just a vote for the enemy…
April 28, 2011 @ 5:08 PM
Shadowfax wrote:First, is
[quote=Shadowfax]First, is Cinqo de Maio the new shark?
Second, I voted for Obama and drank the damn Kool Aid. I feel betrayed. He needs to get a backbone and start kicking some ass. You don’t correct the financial crises by putting the Wall St foxes in the henhouse. Yes, he inherited the problem but then he just went along with the same GOP solution.
Third, I agree that both parties, while logically separate, are equal in their aims: the complete disregard for doing anything that benefits their voting consituents but complete devotion to their money backers (lobbysts, corporations etc.). And yes, the tax breaks for the rich and corporations have to end. $250k should not be the top of the scale–maybe 2- to 4- times that should be the starting point? There are a lot of people making $500k who really don’t contribute much to the tax rolls. SOmetimes they don’t even count it as income–so tax reform needs to be addressed. And the big-O has been largely silent about that until just recently. He let the Bush cuts go through and now he’s squawking. I can’t even think through this it makes me so mad!
Fourth, I probably will re-elect the bastard because it’s the lesser of two evils. Beside the Kool Aid induced haze, there was no way in hell I would have voted for a McCain/Palin ticket. And voting for anyone else, as we have seen, is just a vote for the enemy…[/quote]
Shadowfax: Good to see you posting again, and, yes, Cinco De Mayo is the new shark.
On a more serious note, you sound very much like nearly all of my Liberal/Independent friends. Hugely frustrated and betrayed by a president that they really believed would be transformative.
What’s really interesting is that those same Independents not only voted GOP in 2010, but would vote GOP for president in 2012, if the GOP put forth a candidate that’s worthwhile. The name I’ve heard from more than a few is Chris Christie (and the GOP would have to draft him into the job).
I’m not going to bang away on Obama, we all should have seen this coming, if for no other reason than the man’s resume and work experience. To put someone that inexperienced and unprepared at the helm, during one of the worst shitstorms in American history has produced a predictable outcome. However, Obama has done himself zero favors. He vacillates, doesn’t fight when the chips are down and has squandered huge amounts of political capital and good-will that he could have put to use jump-starting the economy, pushing healthcare and rebuilding America’s image around the world, especially in the Middle East.
And, Brian, before you pipe up that America’s image in the Middle East is any better, I’m calling bullshit right now. Just got back from there and, let me tell you, shit ain’t any better and in a lot of ways, its a helluva lot worse. So, don’t come at me with any anodyne nonsense about Obama and how much the “Arab Street” loves him: THEY DON’T.
April 28, 2011 @ 1:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:
What’s your
[quote=briansd1]
What’s your definition of worse?
The financial system is healthy again. The economy is growing.
By and large, our standard of living has been maintained or improved. Had the economy been allowed to collapse, we would have been less able to care for and educate the future generations of citizens.
World GDP is growing so millions of workers around the world have escaped poverty.
Yes, our national debt is greater, but with a growing economy, and the right policies, we have the ability to pay it down.[/quote]
Brian, I’m sorry–this is all rubbish. Unemployment is high, foreclosures are high, pensions are being underfunded or discontinued, union workers are losing their benefits (and their rights to collectively bargain). What universe are you getting these assessments from? It’s not the reality I am seeing on the ground…
April 28, 2011 @ 2:38 PM
Shadowfax wrote:briansd1
[quote=Shadowfax][quote=briansd1]
What’s your definition of worse?
The financial system is healthy again. The economy is growing.
By and large, our standard of living has been maintained or improved. Had the economy been allowed to collapse, we would have been less able to care for and educate the future generations of citizens.
World GDP is growing so millions of workers around the world have escaped poverty.
Yes, our national debt is greater, but with a growing economy, and the right policies, we have the ability to pay it down.[/quote]
Brian, I’m sorry–this is all rubbish. Unemployment is high, foreclosures are high, pensions are being underfunded or discontinued, union workers are losing their benefits (and their rights to collectively bargain). What universe are you getting these assessments from? It’s not the reality I am seeing on the ground…[/quote]
When have you ever EVER heard Brian even hint at his precious democrats making a mistake. Never. Why do you expect him to now. Hard evidence can be placed in front of him as has been done several times in this thread and he dances around them.
April 28, 2011 @ 5:17 PM
Djshakes wrote:
When have you
[quote=Djshakes]
When have you ever EVER heard Brian even hint at his precious democrats making a mistake. Never. Why do you expect him to now. Hard evidence can be placed in front of him as has been done several times in this thread and he dances around them.[/quote]
Dj: Well, that’s because he can’t. To do so would be to admit that Obama isn’t perfect and that the Dems, in their own way, are just as bad as the Republicans.
So, yeah, he dances around the facts, or responds with fluffy, light and meaningless ripostes that are generally completely fact-free.
To say that the economy is improving is not only laughable, but its completely at odds with conventional wisdom and report after report stating the contrary.
Brian will argue that Obama has undone all of Dubya’s ill-will in the world, especially the Middle East, but that’s hooey, too, and completely at odds with the reality on the ground.
That’s why he always falls back on creeping incrementalism: He can point at that and argue that “these things take time” and “some change is better than no change”, which also ignores that you don’t give a heart attack victim aspirin to get him going again, you hit him with the paddles and as much juice as possible.
Obama is our Vacillator-in-Chief and a totally empty suit. He does some pretty speechifying, but when it comes to the hard business of government, he’s out to lunch. And the signs of this are everywhere, you just need to look.
April 28, 2011 @ 6:01 PM
Hobie to buy SK a beer !
Hobie to buy SK a beer ! Cheers to seeing the light 🙂
And to Allen as well ! Nice discussion.
April 28, 2011 @ 10:30 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dj: Well, that’s because he can’t. To do so would be to admit that Obama isn’t perfect and that the Dems, in their own way, are just as bad as the Republicans.
[/quote]
I’ve explained why Democrats are better than Republicans.
All those on the right can say is that “Dems are just as bad as Republicans.”
If that is the case, then why bother voting for Repubicans? Simply keep the Democrats and be done with it.
Why is it that that you have nothing good to say about your side?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To say that the economy is improving is not only laughable, but its completely at odds with conventional wisdom and report after report stating the contrary.
[/quote]
From the Professor’s newsletter:
From Calculated Risk with charts:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/04/advance-report-real-annualized-gdp-grew.html
Weak growth, but growth nonetheless.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian will argue that Obama has undone all of Dubya’s ill-will in the world, especially the Middle East, but that’s hooey, too, and completely at odds with the reality on the ground.
[/quote]
Nobody can, in a short amount of time, undo the damage perpetrated by Bush. Eight years of tearing down will take decades of rebuilding.
But Obama has undone some ill-will. As a Senator, Obama drew a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin. Which US President can claim that? Bush restricted his appearances to screened audiences.
April 28, 2011 @ 4:04 PM
Shadowfax wrote:
Brian, I’m
[quote=Shadowfax]
Brian, I’m sorry–this is all rubbish. Unemployment is high, foreclosures are high, pensions are being underfunded or discontinued, union workers are losing their benefits (and their rights to collectively bargain). What universe are you getting these assessments from? It’s not the reality I am seeing on the ground…[/quote]
I never said that the stimulus and bailout money was all well spent. But we did get some significant things for the money. Averting economic collapse and avoiding social upheaval throughout the world was well worth it, IMHO.
By GDP figures, our economy is growing. Of course, the benefits have been accruing at the top.
That’s why we need policy adjustments for the benefit of those at the lower social economic levels. Democrats are much more likely to deliver in this area than Republicans.
If you take a world view, the benefits of intervention by governments around the world are even greater. In China alone, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, millions of workers were furloughed and prevented from returning to their jobs in the cities as Western companies canceled orders.
As economies regained normalcy, millions upon millions of workers became employed again. These are workers who live on only a few dollars a day.
I believe that allowing our economy and the economy of the world to collapse would have resulted in a humanitarian disaster.
April 28, 2011 @ 4:11 PM
briansd1 wrote:Shadowfax
[quote=briansd1][quote=Shadowfax]
Brian, I’m sorry–this is all rubbish. Unemployment is high, foreclosures are high, pensions are being underfunded or discontinued, union workers are losing their benefits (and their rights to collectively bargain). What universe are you getting these assessments from? It’s not the reality I am seeing on the ground…[/quote]
I never said that the stimulus and bailout money was all well spent. But we did get some significant things for the money. Averting economic collapse and avoiding social upheaval throughout the world was well worth it, IMHO.
By GDP figures, our economy is growing. Of course, the benefits have been accruing at the top.
That’s why we need policy adjustments for the benefit of those at the lower social economic levels. Democrats are much more likely to deliver in this area than Republicans.
If you take a world view, the benefits of intervention by governments around the world are even greater. In China alone, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, millions of workers were furloughed and prevented from returning to their jobs in the cities as Western companies canceled orders.
As economies regained normalcy, millions upon millions of workers became employed again. These are workers who live on only a few dollars a day.
I believe that allowing our economy and the economy of the world to collapse would have resulted in a humanitarian disaster.[/quote]
Funny, you weren’t saying this before….You were wishing RE prices would come down and crater.
Did you buy a lot of real estate recently and don’t want prices to fall, so that people can pay you rent?????
Funny how people’s tune change once they have skin in the game….. 🙂
April 24, 2011 @ 10:38 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:He
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]He is a fundamentally unserious president and you have two years worth of facts when it comes to his governance, yet you keep repeating the same rhetoric, in spite of those facts.[/quote]
I have a good friend who I have generally seen eye to eye on most political matters including our intense dislike of GB (see last president)
When it comes to Obama, the man can do NO wrong. Despite being the only president I am aware of who has been in office during not one not two but THREE independent wars, and despite the fact he had been in the presidency only a month or two had clearly EARNED his Nobel Peace Prise. The Gitmo failure he had his reasons. Credit card reform? My rates went up 15% because banks felt I was a bad risk all of a sudden. ObamaCare – See everyone will have health insurance, ignoring the fact health insurance costs have gone UP 50% since his law was deemed to have passed in Congress.
I just DON’T get what Obama Sheeple see in this charismatic idiot. His reasoning seems to be that this “proves” he is not a racist, and that I was NOT a racist for disliking GB I AM a racist for not liking the current president. Go figure????
April 25, 2011 @ 3:23 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Arraya wants
[quote=briansd1]
Arraya wants a collapse of the whole system, but he’s yet to explain how that would not be followed by monumental wealth destruction and extreme poverty.[/quote]
No, again, I would prefer a quick collapse to one that drags out over a decade. If I had to guess I would say in less than five years it will be played out. It conceivably could go out 15 but doubtful. I prefer it sooner than later.
Now, there has been a half dozen or so governmental, military and independent think tanks that have done reports on peak oil. The US has done two. And a bunch of online pontificators. They all pretty much say the same thing more or less. Frankly, I find the subject fascinating in all it’s complexity.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52068
German military leaked report
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138-2,00.html
The interesting thing about probably the most socioeconomic, transformational event in the history of humanity, is you will not find one mention of it in any economic academic journal. They are out to lunch.
The global economic structure won’t survive in it’s current form. As far as wealth destruction, well, the way I see it that is inevitable, though we will fight it.’
April 18, 2011 @ 5:07 PM
That’s a bad engineering
That’s a bad engineering joke…As much as I like math and engineering jokes, that doesn’t even employ a crucial ingredient, THE PUN!
April 22, 2011 @ 8:58 PM
Slovenia is NATO member since
Slovenia is NATO member since 2004. Slovenia is supposed to participate in repatriation of some of the Guantanamo detainees (which makes little sense – Muslims are tiny minority in Slovenia and generally are of Bosnian descent and speak no Arabic). Supposedly the president of Slovenia got to meet Obama in return.
April 22, 2011 @ 11:32 PM
captcha wrote:Slovenia is
[quote=captcha]Slovenia is NATO member since 2004. Slovenia is supposed to participate in repatriation of some of the Guantanamo detainees (which makes little sense – Muslims are tiny minority in Slovenia and generally are of Bosnian descent and speak no Arabic). Supposedly the president of Slovenia got to meet Obama in return.[/quote]
Captcha: Huh. Well, I obviously got the NATO part wrong, then. But the information on the black sites came from a very reliable source. And Slovenia was not tasked in terms of repatriation from Gitmo, but as a rendition site (like Poland). That doesn’t have shit to do with repatriation, but is for a different reason entirely.
April 25, 2011 @ 10:57 AM
A job poorly done can
A job poorly done can sometimes be far worse than the job not done at all.
April 25, 2011 @ 1:21 PM
jstoesz wrote:A job poorly
[quote=jstoesz]A job poorly done can sometimes be far worse than the job not done at all.[/quote]
I view political progress as building sweat equity in real estate. Sometimes you have to tear down past mistakes, but so long as you renovate in good taste, and you maintain the house in good condition, you will add value to the house.
April 25, 2011 @ 9:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:jstoesz
[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]A job poorly done can sometimes be far worse than the job not done at all.[/quote]
I view political progress as building sweat equity in real estate. Sometimes you have to tear down past mistakes, but so long as you renovate in good taste, and you maintain the house in good condition, you will add value to the house.[/quote]
So what is the healthcare bill and fin reg? Pergo, or worse, shag?
April 25, 2011 @ 8:55 PM
If unemployment numbers
If unemployment numbers continue in a down ward direction, as they have in recent months, he will likely get re-elected. If he gets us out of at least one of the wars, ends the Bush tax cuts on those making over 250K, he will likely have decent job ratings. The above will solidify his base and please independents. We’ll see…
April 25, 2011 @ 9:10 PM
Right, if he can make it
Right, if he can make it another 18 months without the economy popping a gasket, he should slip right in.
I’ll give it a 50/50
August 9, 2011 @ 4:27 PM
The good guys can mobilize
The good guys can mobilize instantly also:
http://news.yahoo.com/londoners-strike-back-operation-riot-clean-155127609.html
August 9, 2011 @ 10:53 PM
First I want to say I never
First I want to say I never liked Bush and it is obvious Obama inherited a cluster F from him. Not even a T Partier could blame him for events which took place before he became president.
However…
Since being president I have seen NO effort whatsoever to improve the small business environment or general economic outlook for ANY average American who does not work for a Union.
We are in a time of utter crisis and need real leadership. We need a Winston Churchill or at least someone who can make the case to the American people the sacrifices that need to be made if we are to survive as a nation. Sacrafices that need to be made by ALL Americans not just young ones or old ones. Changes about the way we see what we think is “owed” to us. Changes about how we see our independence and responsibilities as individuals and real issues like self reliance.
To be sure my family has suffered a lot during this downturn. I have personally lost several hundred thousand dollars and we are scared about the future like many, but even having not held a job in three years we persevere and have scratched out a decent living doing software contracts here and there and other self reliant income sources. IMO this is what is REALLY means to be an American. Not an expectation of a cushy job and an engorged pension, but hard work, ingenuity and perseverance!
These are NOT virtues Obama appears to support and thus as an American who not only spouts but actually lives by these values, there is no way I could begin to support him OR his predecessor.
August 10, 2011 @ 10:36 PM
Hilarious!!
Both of you
Hilarious!!
Both of you missed your true calling…