Obama - Worst President Ever?

[Furtherman]

[SIZE="2"]This whole thing of BHO sitting in the Oval Office repeatedly saying “I screwed up”, especially just two weeks into office, is quite remarkable. Some may think it positive - ‘refreshing” or “just being human”. I think it’s quite un-presidential. So many have deemed him destined for greatness, but can you see JFK, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, or others saying such a thing?

JFK, FDR, Lincoln and Washington didn't have to. The days of an infallible perception of a leader are over. These days we can find out what is going on with anyone, anywhere in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

So yes, it is a positive thing. Bush might even have had a better public image if he just fessed up to screwing up every once in a while - and that last, wacky press conference doesn't count.

[foodcourtdruide]

JFK, FDR, Lincoln and Washington didn't have to. The days of an infallible perception of a leader are over. These days we can find out what is going on with anyone, anywhere in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

So yes, it is a positive thing. Bush might even have had a better public image if he just fessed up to screwing up every once in a while - and that last, wacky press conference doesn't count.

I go back and forth on this. I'm annoyed that Obama didn't make better choices. Now, instead of focusing on the economy, Iraq, etc. Obama has to do damage control regarding his nominations. Complete fuck up by Obama.

On the other hand, I really hate that the office of the presidency has become an extension of the campaign. The notion of "infallibility" is completely retarded. I'm hoping that Obama approaches mistakes as, "Wow, I screwed up, let's move on in the right direction," Instead of how Bush/Clinton did by covering up their mistake, slinging mud at the other side and continuing to make the same mistake over and over.

[angrymissy]

This is why I don't hang out on message boards, I don't even want to KNOW there are this many stupid people out there. Except for a few, like the cell phone reception post. I hope Obama doesn't take most of your guns, because you seem stupid enough to accidently shoot yourselves, and that might help us save our country.:smoke:

Obama set sig pic limits to 300x100. That fucking bastard.

[EliSnow]

This whole thing of BHO sitting in the Oval Office repeatedly saying “I screwed up”, especially just two weeks into office, is quite remarkable. Some may think it positive - ‘refreshing” or “just being human”. I think it’s quite un-presidential. So many have deemed him destined for greatness, but can you see JFK, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, or others saying such a thing?



Here's a quote from FDR:

Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something.

With regard to the other presidents you mentioned, none of us have lived during their presidency. So unless you are extremely well-read about each president, can you say that none of them ever admitted their mistakes to the American people at some point.

And as a slight divergent tangent, I often have seen people, and I have done it myself, who talk about a current event, and state what they think our founding fathers would think about it. And often it's based upon only a small understanding about those people. For instance, during the Imus, etc. crap, I saw posts saying the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over what happened. Yet, I've seen a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, noting that there was freedom of speech didn't exist during their time, and that he didn't think it would for hundreds of years. He hoped for the ideal, but realized the practical.

[EliSnow]

Obama set sig pic limits to 300x100. That fucking bastard.

I say it was his best move so far!

[A.J.]

This whole thing of BHO sitting in the Oval Office repeatedly saying “I screwed up”, especially just two weeks into office, is quite remarkable. Some may think it positive - ‘refreshing” or “just being human”. I think it’s quite un-presidential. So many have deemed him destined for greatness, but can you see JFK, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, or others saying such a thing?

Although I think that no previous President has been as blunt as Obama was with that remark, other Presidents HAVE admitted mistakes. JFK's famous post-Bay of Pigs press conference remark "There's an old saying that victory had a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan" comes to mind as he alone accepted blame for the disaster.

Oh yeah, and when Clinton eventually admitted his "inappropriate" activity with Monica Lewinsky.

[EliSnow]

Also, have "many" really "deemed him for greatness?"

Yes, many were excited by his message and by the fact that he is the first black president, but other than a few idiots here and there, I can't imagine many have said that he will be a great president or guarantee that he will succeed.

[Furtherman]

Also, have "many" really "deemed him for greatness?"

No.

But the conservative bobble heads like to claim that he has been, yet cannot produce more than a couple of examples than said idiots.

[foodcourtdruide]

No.

But the conservative bobble heads like to claim that he has been, yet cannot produce more than a couple of examples than said idiots.

I always think that THEY are the ones that hold him to the messiah standard, which is quite ironic.

[Gvac]

Most experts estimate that by the end of Obama's term we will be well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country.

[Serpico1103]

Most experts estimate that by the end of Obama's term we will be well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country.

They will be off by four years , we are already on our way.

[Syd]

We're, at current pace, a few months away from double digit unemployment and the Republicans are stopping any sort of government intervention so they can stick with their "CUT TAXES!!!" propaganda.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Here's a quote from FDR:
Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something.
Not trying to be picky, but actually FDR said that during the 1932? campaign, before he was President, and never really admitted any (significant) failures as far as I know. It just wasn’t in his nature.

With regard to the other presidents you mentioned, none of us have lived during their presidency. So unless you are extremely well-read about each president, can you say that none of them ever admitted their mistakes to the American people at some point.
And as a slight divergent tangent, I often have seen people, and I have done it myself, who talk about a current event, and state what they think our founding fathers would think about it. And often it's based upon only a small understanding about those people…

Point well taken – it IS easy to attribute saintlike characteristics to those long gone.

Although I think that no previous President has been as blunt as Obama was with that remark, other Presidents HAVE admitted mistakes. JFK's famous post-Bay of Pigs press conference remark "There's an old saying that victory had a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan" comes to mind as he alone accepted blame for the disaster.
Oh yeah, and when Clinton eventually admitted his "inappropriate" activity with Monica Lewinsky.

fess-ups and non-fess-ups:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14green.html?ref=weekinreview

As I said, it wasn’t just the bluntness of BHO remarks. It was, I think, that he called in the networks one by one for few minutes each and played them with his message in an obvious attempt to put it to bed. It was primarily driven, I think, by him trying to get the stimulus talk back in front and had other circumstances been in place he very likely would not have done it! It was un-presidential, somewhat phony when you take a close look at it, and he has set a remarkable precedent for himself that he should be called on in the future!

And I’m still, still , still wondering why if it is such a screw up, why Daschle and Killefer are gone and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is still there!! What is the difference?

[thejives]

I, for one, think he's handling this great.

After the last guy who's quasi-culpability led us here, stressing the contrast is a good idea.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Also, have "many" really "deemed him for greatness?"

Yes, many were excited by his message and by the fact that he is the first black president, but other than a few idiots here and there, I can't imagine many have said that he will be a great president or guarantee that he will succeed.

But the conservative bobble heads like to claim that he has been, yet cannot produce more than a couple of examples than said idiots.

OK, I’ll concede the point. He might very well be not deemed for greatness. I’ll rephrase: “Many hope – really really hope – that he will be great. But there’s no guarantee, they’re just not sure. And if he’s just good, or above average, they’ll be happy. Greatness will be gravy – if it happens.”

[NewYorkDragons80]

He's the second worst Pres. of the 21st Century, by far.

http://www.phx411.com/wordpress/images/2007/june/bill-clinton-picture.jpg

See what I did there?

[epo]

And I’m still, still , still wondering why if it is such a screw up, why Daschle and Killefer are gone and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is still there!! What is the difference?

Word around the campfire is that Geitner admitted his problems in the vetting process...while Daschle and Killefer didn't. That is rumor though and clearly unconfirmed at this point.

[Gvac]

This administration will be the most corrupt one in the history of the United States!

You'll see!!!

[Last To KNow Man]

We have a black president?!?!?! I had no idea!

[BlackSpider]

We have a black president?!?!?! I had no idea!

We got a BlackSpider...


- It was only a matter of time...

[SonOfSmeagol]

The words of BHO: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”. “tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."

The actions of BHO: at least 17 former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration – about one a day for each day of his administration – so far. Some are listed below.

And, his staff won’t share the OMB waivers required for some of them. And, by stating that some will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the last 2 years – kind if a cop out and I would think also that this will kind of limit their effectiveness.

Ethics with exceptions and selective transparency – not what he promised.

And the “counter points” on the subject about Bush, etc etc and HIS ethics and transparency? An interesting topic, yet so totally not the point here – this is about BHO’s words and promises and measures of how BHO’s actions have or have not lived up to them.


Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

[TheMojoPin]

That argument doesn't hold a lot a lot of weight when you look at what most of the organizations that were being lobbied for. Some, yes, are pretty "business as usual," but the National Education Association? Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids? American Association of Justice? Various social advocacy groups? Ooooh, scary. Look out, the National Council of La Raza is here!

[epo]

[SIZE="2"]Ethics with exceptions and selective transparency – not what he promised.

I believe the rule has been"couldn't lobby in their field within the past 12 months (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27665871/)". I love how people twist shit.

So let's look at these:

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

Different field, eligible.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

Same field, question would be timing.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

Same field, question would be timing....but the Campaign for Kids? Seriously?

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Eligible.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Same field, question would be timing.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Eligible.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Eligible.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Eligible.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Different field, eligible.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Was a lobbyist for them in 2006, eligible.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Eligible.

So realistically the question is Patterson, Lynn and Corr.....not the 11 people you listed.

Wasn't this supposed to be a joke thread?

[midwestjeff]

Back in the days of the Bush presidency, or the good old days as I like to call them,
I used to work 48 hours a week and even up to 60 or 72 at times.
Ever since Obama took over I haven't worked one hour of overtime.
Ant was right, we're doomed.

[epo]

He's probably smoking right now instead of working. We're all doomed!

[albo60s]

Not a good start. Not the worst ever, but on the way??????

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090208/LETTER/902069979/1025&title=Guy%20Pacot:%20Obama%20already%20failing

I had told SDN editor Alex Miller to hold back on my last letter because I wanted to give the Obama administration a fair shot for a month. Well, the events of the last 15 days have been horrendous in my opinion and I could not remain silent any longer.

We have seen tax-cheat after tax-cheat (not to mention multiple illegal alien employment violations) paraded before the senate to be voted on for the Obama cabinet. We have seen at least three appointees withdraw because of either tax-code violations or potentially more serious criminal or ethical violations. I think it both brash and egotistical to present such poorly vetted cabinet appointees. I made at least two appeals to the public in letters before the election of this president’s inability to show good judgment and now have been proven right by his actions in the first two weeks of his presidency. I believe he calculated that he would again receive a free pass from the media, but much to his surprise and mine, that didn’t happen.

We have seen the House proven to be so out of touch with their own constituents by proposing a stimulus plan that is neither stimulating or job-creating in its proposed nature. It is nothing more than a collection of the last half-decade’s voted-down social restructuring measures. A recent Gallup poll shows that this current stimulus plan has only a 38 percent approval rating. We have also seen President Obama’s approval rating decline by 14 points in only two weeks. At this pace he’ll be below President Bush’s last approval rating in a matter of months and not years.

For President Obama to endorse the pork-laden, social-engineering agenda of this current stimulus plan shows that he is just as out of touch with America as the House representatives and proven himself to be nothing more than the far-left liberal that he truly is.

Call Jared Polis and Mark Udall and let them both know that you don’t want them voting for this stimulus plan which is nothing more than a payback to the far-left for electing Obama and his buddies in Congress in the first place.

Mr. President, your performance in your first two weeks in office has proved abysmal. Let us trump you on that, you promised change we can believe in, don’t you think you should start delivering?

[epo]

Not a good start. Not the worst ever, but on the way??????

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090208/LETTER/902069979/1025&title=Guy%20Pacot:%20Obama%20already%20failing

I had told SDN editor Alex Miller to hold back on my last letter because I wanted to give the Obama administration a fair shot for a month. Well, the events of the last 15 days have been horrendous in my opinion and I could not remain silent any longer.

We have seen tax-cheat after tax-cheat (not to mention multiple illegal alien employment violations) paraded before the senate to be voted on for the Obama cabinet. We have seen at least three appointees withdraw because of either tax-code violations or potentially more serious criminal or ethical violations. I think it both brash and egotistical to present such poorly vetted cabinet appointees. I made at least two appeals to the public in letters before the election of this president’s inability to show good judgment and now have been proven right by his actions in the first two weeks of his presidency. I believe he calculated that he would again receive a free pass from the media, but much to his surprise and mine, that didn’t happen.

We have seen the House proven to be so out of touch with their own constituents by proposing a stimulus plan that is neither stimulating or job-creating in its proposed nature. It is nothing more than a collection of the last half-decade’s voted-down social restructuring measures. A recent Gallup poll shows that this current stimulus plan has only a 38 percent approval rating. We have also seen President Obama’s approval rating decline by 14 points in only two weeks. At this pace he’ll be below President Bush’s last approval rating in a matter of months and not years.

For President Obama to endorse the pork-laden, social-engineering agenda of this current stimulus plan shows that he is just as out of touch with America as the House representatives and proven himself to be nothing more than the far-left liberal that he truly is.

Call Jared Polis and Mark Udall and let them both know that you don’t want them voting for this stimulus plan which is nothing more than a payback to the far-left for electing Obama and his buddies in Congress in the first place.

Mr. President, your performance in your first two weeks in office has proved abysmal. Let us trump you on that, you promised change we can believe in, don’t you think you should start delivering?

And your proof is a letter to the editor?

[Serpico1103]

Not a good start. Not the worst ever, but on the way??????

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090208/LETTER/902069979/1025&title=Guy%20Pacot:%20Obama%20already%20failing

I had told SDN editor Alex Miller to hold back on my last letter because I wanted to give the Obama administration a fair shot for a month. Well, the events of the last 15 days have been horrendous in my opinion and I could not remain silent any longer.

We have seen tax-cheat after tax-cheat (not to mention multiple illegal alien employment violations) paraded before the senate to be voted on for the Obama cabinet. We have seen at least three appointees withdraw because of either tax-code violations or potentially more serious criminal or ethical violations. I think it both brash and egotistical to present such poorly vetted cabinet appointees. I made at least two appeals to the public in letters before the election of this president’s inability to show good judgment and now have been proven right by his actions in the first two weeks of his presidency. I believe he calculated that he would again receive a free pass from the media, but much to his surprise and mine, that didn’t happen.

We have seen the House proven to be so out of touch with their own constituents by proposing a stimulus plan that is neither stimulating or job-creating in its proposed nature. It is nothing more than a collection of the last half-decade’s voted-down social restructuring measures. A recent Gallup poll shows that this current stimulus plan has only a 38 percent approval rating. We have also seen President Obama’s approval rating decline by 14 points in only two weeks. At this pace he’ll be below President Bush’s last approval rating in a matter of months and not years.

For President Obama to endorse the pork-laden, social-engineering agenda of this current stimulus plan shows that he is just as out of touch with America as the House representatives and proven himself to be nothing more than the far-left liberal that he truly is.

Call Jared Polis and Mark Udall and let them both know that you don’t want them voting for this stimulus plan which is nothing more than a payback to the far-left for electing Obama and his buddies in Congress in the first place.

Mr. President, your performance in your first two weeks in office has proved abysmal. Let us trump you on that, you promised change we can believe in, don’t you think you should start delivering?

Which poll? All the major polls still show it over 50%, including Gallup.
But, I guess that's what you get when you cite a "source" as reliable as you did.

[epo]

Which poll? All the major polls still show it over 50%, including Gallup.
But, I guess that's what you get when you cite a "source" as reliable as you did.

If you dig into the Gallup numbers, 72% of those surveyed favor some form of stimulus (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx). Of course facts are things that can be hard sometimes.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I believe the rule has been"couldn't lobby in their field within the past 12 months (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27665871/)". I love how people twist shit.

That link, and those rules, were about the TRANSITION, not the administration. Did you even read the article? Seriously, get your facts straight.

His rules for the administration were release in an Executive Order, where he stipulated a similar thing, but 2 year window I believe. Still I go back to his words: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”. Promise made on a serious subject, promise subsequently broken. His promise was first broken after the election during transition (thanks for pointing that out), then with the executive order, then with his own waivers to the executive order.

So realistically the question is Patterson, Lynn and Corr.....not the 11 people you listed.

No, not when you apply the correct rules. However, not the point. Bottom line, they're lobbyists and, lest you forget: " lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House”. Once again - ethics with exceptions. Sweet. Justify it and rationalize it all you want – it is what it is.

Wasn't this supposed to be a joke thread?

Son, it is a joke.

[angrymissy]

In case you didn't know, his middle name is HUSSEIN. We are so screwed.

[angrymissy]

I heard he doesn't even wear a jacket.

It's over.

[sailor]

If you dig into the Gallup numbers, 72% of those surveyed favor some form of stimulus (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx). Of course facts are things that can be hard sometimes.

i don't know where his numbers are from, but he did say "current stimulus plan" so it's dishonest for you to compare that to "some form of stimulus"

[angrymissy]

Albo60s is wrong. The stimulus does not have a 38% approval rating. It's at 52%. 38% OPPOSE the package, ya got it backwards. Here is a nice shiny graph:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rarubasqxuewcaob76hrhg.gif

PRINCETON, NJ -- Fifty-two percent of Americans interviewed Wednesday night are in favor of Congress passing a roughly $800 billion economic stimulus package; 38% are opposed. These figures are nearly identical to those measured in Gallup polling last week, right before passage of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, and are also in line with public support in early January.

[SonOfSmeagol]

That argument doesn't hold a lot a lot of weight when you look at what most of the organizations that were being lobbied for. Some, yes, are pretty "business as usual," but the National Education Association? Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids? American Association of Justice? Various social advocacy groups? Ooooh, scary. Look out, the National Council of La Raza is here!

The point has nothing whatsoever to do with the organizations that were being lobbied for. Nothing. Your response appears to be an attempt to deflect and minimize the central point. I'm surprised that you, of all people, wouldn't look at the situation with a more critical eye and a little more depth.

[midwestjeff]

Here is a nice shiny graph:

Ha. That graph wasn't even close to being shiny. Typical liberal sugar-coating.

[SonOfSmeagol]

SonofSmeagol is wrong. The stimulus does not have a 38% approval rating. It's at 52%. 38% OPPOSE the package, ya got it backwards. Here is a nice shiny graph:

Who? Me? I said what? Whoa there missy.

[epo]

i don't know where his numbers are from, but he did say "current stimulus plan" so it's dishonest for you to compare that to "some form of stimulus"

In the article that I cited from Gallup Polling, this appears:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/s7wzfankjeaens6b1fzrsq.gif

Its not like I can make this shit up.

[angrymissy]

Who? Me? I said what? Whoa there missy.

Fine, the article you posted is wrong. Top notch journalism there from a paper that cannot even check numbers.

They also claim Obama's approval rating has dropped 14% in 2 weeks, another baldfaced lie:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/hp-lvkifhuqehr6gkt2tla.gif

[SonOfSmeagol]

Fine, the article you posted is wrong. Top notch journalism there from a paper that cannot even check numbers.

They also claim Obama's approval rating has dropped 14% in 2 weeks, another baldfaced lie:


Huh? What article that I posted? Hey stop dragging me into this.

[angrymissy]

I'm wrong twas the other guy albalsddbflbasdf60 that posted whatever

I'm half blind you know

I blame Obama

[SonOfSmeagol]

I'm wrong twas the other guy albalsddbflbasdf60 that posted whatever

I'm half blind you know

I blame Obama

Ya, I understand. Not the first, and certainly not the last, to be blinded by him. :laugh:

[angrymissy]

Ya, I understand. Not the first, and certainly not the last, to be blinded by him. :laugh:

His halo permanently damaged my vision. Do you know how bright that shit is? Take it down a notch Messiah!

[thejives]

Is son of smeagol jersey sean?

[SonOfSmeagol]

Is son of smeagol jersey sean?

I know nothing of this “jersey sean”. If he is fact a prick, I’d like to state that I am more than capable of being a prick in my own right. If he is a good guy, again, I’d like to state that I am more than capable of being a prick in my own right.

[sailor]

In the article that I cited from Gallup Polling, this appears:

Its not like I can make this shit up.

re-read what i wrote. you're comparing apples to oranges. heck, i'm not even saying you're wrong or that he's right, i'm making no judgment as to the validity of anyone's statistics, it's not the point i'm making. it's like he said at the end of the bush presidency that 80% of americans are not favorable of the current president and you turned around and said well here's a chart showing that 95 percent of americans are in favor of someone being president.

[SonOfSmeagol]

They also claim Obama's approval rating has dropped 14% in 2 weeks, another baldfaced lie:


I'm pretty sure it was 110% just two weeks ago - so at worst it's still 96%! Not bad!

[lleeder]

Jefferson never said pussy lips.

[Serpico1103]

[SIZE="2"]No, not when you apply the correct rules. However, not the point. Bottom line, they're lobbyists and, lest you forget: " lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House”. Once again - ethics with exceptions. Sweet. Justify it and rationalize it all you want – it is what it is.
Son, it is a joke.

Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Washington who has not lobbied at all.
Is this the promise you are referring to?

[TheMojoPin]

The point has nothing whatsoever to do with the organizations that were being lobbied for. Nothing. Your response appears to be an attempt to deflect and minimize the central point. I'm surprised that you, of all people, wouldn't look at the situation with a more critical eye and a little more depth.

That's actually what I did as opposed to having a blanket Pavlovian reaction to a term without looking at who lobbied for what.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Washington who has not lobbied at all.
Is this the promise you are referring to?

No it is not. His words: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”.

[SonOfSmeagol]

That's actually what I did as opposed to having a blanket Pavlovian reaction to a term without looking at who lobbied for what.

So, let's return to my "blanket Pavlovian reaction" that laid out where, when, and how a serious promise was made and subsequently clearly broken.

You have merely rationalized and justified that broken promise, and somewhat weakly. Nothing more.

[underdog]

No it is not. His words: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”.

How come you didn't put quotations around all his "words"? Did he not say the word lobbyists?

[SonOfSmeagol]

How come you didn't put quotations around all his "words"? Did he not say the word lobbyists?

"One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Spartanburg, SC, 11/3/07)

[Serpico1103]

"One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Spartanburg, SC, 11/3/07)

You are right. We should have voted for McCain.
Some how though I get the feeling that you weren't searching for qoutes that included "WMDs." Just a hunch. Is it a deflection? No. Is Barack perfect? No. Is he better than any other candidate or president in recent history? My opinion, YES.
Will Barack contradict more of his "promises"? Yes. As do all politicians.
When the 4 years are up, than give me your honest opinion of his presidency.

[albo60s]

[QUOTE=Serpico1103;2113803]You are right. We should have voted for McCain.
Is Barack perfect? No. Will Barack contradict more of his "promises"? Yes. As do all politicians.

Finally some words we can believe in!!!!!!!!

:clap:

[SonOfSmeagol]

You are right. We should have voted for McCain.
Some how though I get the feeling that you weren't searching for qoutes that included "WMDs." Just a hunch. Is it a deflection? No. Is Barack perfect? No. Is he better than any other candidate or president in recent history? My opinion, YES.
Will Barack contradict more of his "promises"? Yes. As do all politicians.
When the 4 years are up, than give me your honest opinion of his presidency.

My god, man. Is that the best you can come up with? Truly fucking precious. Especially the "Will Barack contradict more of his "promises"? Yes. As do all politicians."
Contradict? :laugh:

Back to point at hand, though - am I to take it then that you agree that he "contradicted" :laugh: the promise about lobbyists?

As for the "honest opinion of his presidency". I have not attempted to do that yet. I have merely pointed out specific cases of words vs action, and I clearly don't need to wait 4 years to do that!

[Serpico1103]

My god, man. Is that the best you can come up with? Truly fucking precious. Especially the "Will Barack contradict more of his "promises"? Yes. As do all politicians."
Contradict? :laugh:
Back to point at hand, though - am I to take it then that you agree that he "contradicted" :laugh: the promise about lobbyists?
As for the "honest opinion of his presidency". I have not attempted to do that yet. I have merely pointed out specific cases of words vs action, and I clearly don't need to wait 4 years to do that!

To be fair, you would have to check to see what the last promise about lobbyists he made before the election. As people are allowed, and should, change their position.

Apparently you are new to American politics if you are still finding joy in a politician breaking a "promise." Or you are invested in seeing him fail. I didn't vote for him because he promised to keep lobbyists out of every position in his administration. So, I don't care if he does or doesn't. I didn't vote for him thinking he would honor every promise he made. That would be childish and naive. Sorry, I leave that to binary thinking Republicans.
You do have to wait until the end of his term to judge him as president.
I am not a die hard Democrat. I have no blind loyalty to anything. Barack still seems like the best choice we had.

[SonOfSmeagol]

To be fair, you would have to check to see what the last promise about lobbyists he made before the election. As people are allowed, and should, change their position.

Apparently you are new to American politics if you are still finding joy in a politician breaking a "promise." Or you are invested in seeing him fail. I didn't vote for him because he promised to keep lobbyists out of every position in his administration. So, I don't care if he does or doesn't. I didn't vote for him thinking he would honor every promise he made. That would be childish and naive. Sorry, I leave that to binary thinking Republicans.
You do have to wait until the end of his term to judge him as president.
I am not a die hard Democrat. I have no blind loyalty to anything. Barack still seems like the best choice we had.

I would say that him saying that on 11/3/08, the day before the election, might just make that the last promise he made about lobbyists before the election.

My boy, I assure you that I am not new to American politics. But you might be, by thinking that politicians have for hundreds of years NOT been held in excruciating detail to promises they make, and that "joy" is involved. It is serious business. And, if you voted for him thinking that he would NOT honor his promises, and then compound that by subsequently refusing to hold him to promises made, then you do yourself a major disservice.

Your comment about Republicans clearly belies your statement about not being a die hard Democrat. Nothing wrong with that - Stand up! Be proud! Just don’t try to draw me into your vicious web. :laugh:

[disneyspy]

since we just got rid of bush this is the most stupid thread title ever

[jauble]

since we just got rid of bush this is the most stupid thread title ever

You didn't read the first post did you?

[midwestjeff]

since we just got rid of bush this is the most stupid thread title ever

You mean because Bush was the awesomest and no matter who followed him that person would look like the worst?

I feel ya.

[disneyspy]

You didn't read the first post did you?

hell no!

[underdog]

since we just got rid of bush this is the most stupid thread title ever

It was supposed to be a joke thread but it appears most people are too fucking retarded to figure that out.

[epo]

He's smoking and cursing? Our nation's strong values are ruined!

[keithy_19]

Is he better than any other candidate or president in recent history? My opinion, YES.

That's a silly opinion. I don't think that you can make that judgement a month into someones presidency.

May just be me though.

[DarkHippie]

Did he save captain america yet or is he still dead?

[Gvac]

Did he save captain america yet or is he still dead?

Obama doesn't care about this country. Never has. Never will.

Heartless prick.

[keithy_19]

Obama doesn't care about this country. Never has. Never will.

Heartless prick.

He cares about Captain Kenya.

[DarkHippie]

He cares about Captain Kenya.

with the power to summon hordes of flies and run for really long distances

[epo]

Smoking, cursing and now this?

http://weblogs.amny.com/news/politics/newyork/blog/obama%20beer.jpg

We're doomed!

[midwestjeff]

What kind of freak drinks OE from a glass?

And where did the other 28 ounces go?

So many questions, yet zero answers.

[keithy_19]

http://weblogs.amny.com/news/politics/newyork/blog/obama%20beer.jpg


The man with the white hair has clearly fucked Obama.

[Serpico1103]

I would say that him saying that on 11/3/08, the day before the election, might just make that the last promise he made about lobbyists before the election.

My boy, I assure you that I am not new to American politics. But you might be, by thinking that politicians have for hundreds of years NOT been held in excruciating detail to promises they make, and that "joy" is involved. It is serious business. And, if you voted for him thinking that he would NOT honor his promises, and then compound that by subsequently refusing to hold him to promises made, then you do yourself a major disservice.

Your comment about Republicans clearly belies your statement about not being a die hard Democrat. Nothing wrong with that - Stand up! Be proud! Just don’t try to draw me into your vicious web. :laugh:

Lincoln told one state he would free the slaves and told another that he would never free them. Please, this micro-analysis is new to politics, not hundreds of years old.

Please, your passive aggressive nonsense is just that nonsense.
I know Barack is not perfect. Happy, Is that your victory.
I agree more with democratic policies than with Republican, but I would not be loyal just for the party's sake.

Silly and naive. How should I hold Barack to his promises? By posting on a message board?
If he does a bad job, I will vote against him. Simple.

[Serpico1103]

Is it too early for impeachment hearings?
Does he have an alibi for 11/23/63?
And that fake birth certificate. He isn't even a US citizen. Next they will let blacks run for president.
Why didn't Cheney run? He would have showed those evil terrorists who is boss.

[Serpico1103]

I would say that him saying that on 11/3/08, the day before the election, might just make that the last promise he made about lobbyists before the election.

My boy, :laugh:

Keep the "boy"s and the laughs to yourself. Was it 11/3/08 like you say, or 11/3/07 like your source says?
Ended.

Democracy doesn't work. This Republican is a shame. Let's topple this MFer.

[TheMojoPin]

So, let's return to my "blanket Pavlovian reaction" that laid out where, when, and how a serious promise was made and subsequently clearly broken.

You have merely rationalized and justified that broken promise, and somewhat weakly. Nothing more.

Not at all. I'm not happy with all the names of the list, but most of them were working for organizations that clearly don't fit the mold of the sterotypical "evil lobbyist" that you want to pretend is the source of all problems in DC. You REALLY think people lobying for social activism groups are the same as corporate and industrial lobbyists? It's called being realistic.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Keep the "boy"s and the laughs to yourself. Was it 11/3/08 like you say, or 11/3/07 like your source says?
Ended.

It WAS 11/3/07, I stand humbly corrected on that fact!! Ended? I think not. Doesn't change anything really.

Democracy doesn't work. This Republican is a shame. Let's topple this MFer.

You're in serious need of relaxation. You've taken it personal, gone all emotional, and THAT's a shame.

[epo]

Now this President Obama fella is doing press conferences during primetime television? So I don't get "Deal or no Deal?"

How will I survive? You sombitch!

[SonOfSmeagol]

So, let's return to my "blanket Pavlovian reaction" that laid out where, when, and how a serious promise was made and subsequently clearly broken.

You have merely rationalized and justified that broken promise, and somewhat weakly. Nothing more.

Not at all. I'm not happy with all the names of the list, but most of them were working for organizations that clearly don't fit the mold of the sterotypical "evil lobbyist" that you want to pretend is the source of all problems in DC. You REALLY think people lobying for social activism groups are the same as corporate and industrial lobbyists? It's called being realistic.

Ah, more rationalization and justification. Introducing ”flavors” of lobbyists, with your own take on them, does nothing to change the facts. Who is to say “social activism groups” have any less impact than “corporate and industrial lobbyists”. You? The majority? Who? However, it makes no difference to the central point, and is weak anyway. The promise remains broken.

And, just to be clear, where did I say ANYTHING CLOSELY RESEMBLING “the sterotypical ‘evil lobbyist’ that you want to pretend is the source of all problems in DC”. Your words, not mine, sir strawman.

[TheMojoPin]

Ah, more rationalization and justification.

That's a bizarre way to enagage in a debate. What do you expect the opposing side to do with a point they disagree with you on?

Introducing ”flavors” of lobbyists, with your own take on them, does nothing to change the facts.

The "facts" are not as cut and dry as you so desperately want them to be. I'm being realistic. You're not.

Who is to say “social activism groups” have any less impact than “corporate and industrial lobbyists”. You? The majority? Who?

I certainly hope they don't have less impact, since they're often lobbyists for causes I find important and I think are of real importance to us all as opposed to representing corporate interests and basically just tossing money and favors around for political capital.

However, it makes no difference to the central point, and is weak anyway. The promise remains broken.

As several have pointed out, your interpretation of "the promise" is incorrect.

And, just to be clear, where did I say ANYTHING CLOSELY RESEMBLING “the sterotypical ‘evil lobbyist’ that you want to pretend is the source of all problems in DC”. Your words, not mine, sir strawman.

It's rather obviously inferred from your initial "gotcha" post. If many of these people break the mold of the stereotypical "evil lobbyists," and they do, it deflates the crux of your argument that something is seriously wrong with all of these selections. Your argument revoles around the notion of "lobbyists = bad." Without such a sentiment, your argument falls on its face.

[SonOfSmeagol]

That's a bizarre way to enagage in a debate. What do you expect the opposing side to do with a point they disagree with you on?

The "facts" are not as cut and dry as you so desperately want them to be. I'm being realistic. You're not.

I certainly hope they don't have less impact, since they're often lobbyists for causes I find important and I think are of real importance to us all as opposed to representing corporate interests and basically just tossing money and favors around for political capital.

As several have pointed out, your interpretation of "the promise" is incorrect.

It's rather obviously inferred from your initial "gotcha" post. If many of these people break the mold of the stereotypical "evil lobbyists," and they do, it deflates the crux of your argument that something is seriously wrong with all of these selections. Your argument revoles around the notion of "lobbyists = bad." Without such a sentiment, your argument falls on its face.

You have now parsed and spun it to your satisfaction I take it? What a joke. Your "counterpoint" to the original point is in your own mind. Your case is weak - "falls on its face" as it were.


“The words of BHO: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”. “tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."”

“The actions of BHO: at least 17 former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration – about one a day for each day of his administration – so far.”


And let me just say that I predicted this, in another post a while ago, as your M.O., based on experience,

“Again you chose to expand and generalize the topic beyond what I said, and then make statements against things I didn’t even say. Strawman? But I’m sure you’ll explain it away by, for example, saying that the topic deserves much wider consideration because you and others have so obviously pointed that out, then perhaps parsing it some more until satisfied.”

[Bob Impact]

You have now parsed and spun it to your satisfaction I take it? What a joke. Your "counterpoint" to the original point is in your own mind. Your case is weak - "falls on its face" as it were.


“The words of BHO: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”. “tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."”

“The actions of BHO: at least 17 former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration – about one a day for each day of his administration – so far.”


And let me just say that I predicted this, in another post a while ago, as your M.O., based on experience,

“Again you chose to expand and generalize the topic beyond what I said, and then make statements against things I didn’t even say. Strawman? But I’m sure you’ll explain it away by, for example, saying that the topic deserves much wider consideration because you and others have so obviously pointed that out, then perhaps parsing it some more until satisfied.”

I haven't read a word of this for the last 3 pages except the last 3, and all I have to say is: You really like the words parsing and strawman don't you?

[Gvac]

Why is my thread being defiled with serious political discussion?

[Bob Impact]

Why is my thread being defiled with serious political discussion?

Gvac is old! Obama spelled differently is maaob. Mark with a C has Ken doll hair.

[TheMojoPin]

You have now parsed and spun it to your satisfaction I take it? What a joke. Your "counterpoint" to the original point is in your own mind. Your case is weak - "falls on its face" as it were.


“The words of BHO: lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House”. “tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."”

“The actions of BHO: at least 17 former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration – about one a day for each day of his administration – so far.”


And let me just say that I predicted this, in another post a while ago, as your M.O., based on experience,

“Again you chose to expand and generalize the topic beyond what I said, and then make statements against things I didn’t even say. Strawman? But I’m sure you’ll explain it away by, for example, saying that the topic deserves much wider consideration because you and others have so obviously pointed that out, then perhaps parsing it some more until satisfied.”

And once more you completely ignore the further details of the Obama administration's policies towards former lobbyists. Are you just going to keep pretending that they don't exist?

It's fascinating you seem to think direct counterarguments of the issues you bring up are strawmen, yet your refusal to acknowledge them if they debunk or challenge your claims is apparently not.

To you, exploring the details of the issue you bring up is "explaining away." You want this boiled down to simple yes and no talking points. You continual trumpet the quote where he specifically talks about "corporate lobbyists," yet ignore that most of the people on that list are NOT corporate lobbyists. A couple of them arguably are, and I am in no way defending their inclusion if that truly is the case.

[Knowledged_one]

He says uh a lot he must not be smrt

[Gvac]

Gvac is old! Obama spelled differently is maaob. Mark with a C has Ken doll hair.

Thank you!

Although I'd prefer if your non-sequiturs were hurled at Obama.

[Bob Impact]

Thank you!

Although I'd prefer if your non-sequiturs were hurled at Obama.

Hmm.

"Hope & change" shouldn't mean "Hey, I hope this change is worth something when he's out of office!"

Wait that's too political.

Obama is a poopie head.

[Gvac]

Obama is a poopie head.

I've missed you so much!

How ya been, Bob?

[Bob Impact]

I've missed you so much!

How ya been, Bob?

Good sweetie, half deaf and working my ass off. How're you?

[Serpico1103]

It WAS 11/3/07, I stand humbly corrected on that fact!! Ended? I think not. Doesn't change anything really.



You're in serious need of relaxation. You've taken it personal, gone all emotional, and THAT's a shame.

By "Ended", I merely was referring to my continuation of this debate.

However, I do stand by my desire to topple this faulty republic that rules us.

[Gvac]

Good sweetie, half deaf and working my ass off. How're you?

Doing well, thanks. Work was abysmally dead for a few months, but January was rocking and so far February is busy too.

Any new word on the hearing problem?

[Bob Impact]

Doing well, thanks. Work was abysmally dead for a few months, but January was rocking and so far February is busy too.

Any new word on the hearing problem?

Yeah, it's "WHAT?"

Nothing new, i'm used to it now, not too terrible.

[Gvac]

Yeah, it's "WHAT?"

Nothing new, i'm used to it now, not too terrible.

That really sucks bro, but I'm glad you're dealing with it OK.

Maybe you could have a talk with my mom...

[hammersavage]

He just got asked about A-Rod. This is preempting How I Met Your Mother.

Worst president ever.

[west milly Tom]

I changed my mind he's the best president ever.

[SonOfSmeagol]

And once more you completely ignore the further details of the Obama administration's policies towards former lobbyists. Are you just going to keep pretending that they don't exist?

It's fascinating you seem to think direct counterarguments of the issues you bring up are strawmen, yet your refusal to acknowledge them if they debunk or challenge your claims is apparently not.

To you, exploring the details of the issue you bring up is "explaining away." You want this boiled down to simple yes and no talking points. You continual trumpet the quote where he specifically talks about "corporate lobbyists," yet ignore that most of the people on that list are NOT corporate lobbyists. A couple of them arguably are, and I am in no way defending their inclusion if that truly is the case.

Let me just say that that last parsing of yours was truly infuriating. And you know it you dog.

Anyway, you continue to look at the broken promise as, not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps “an evolution of policy”. I do not. You want to minimize and rationalize and justify promises made and broken on serious issues, like it’s subject to debate. I guess I have a hard time with that. Nothing has “debunked” or “challenged” the claim of the promise made and subsequently broken, in stages. It’s not a talking point, it’s a fact and I think he needs to be called on it for what it is.

That all said - as to distinguishing flavors of lobbyists. I don’t think he intended to distinguish between corporate lobbyists and others. But anyway, what if I happen to believe that social activists are more “dangerous” than corporate lobbyists? It’s just a point of view, but corporate power has taken a bit of a hit lately in gov’t and social agenda items seem to be on the rise. A powers shift maybe? With the powers that be, I just might think that non-corporate lobbyists may be a “threat” and not in the long-term interests of the country.

[albo60s]

he can't dribble to his right.

[west milly Tom]

I can't believe I agree with Mr mojo on something. Is it cold in hell tonight?

[SonOfSmeagol]

However, I do stand by my desire to topple this faulty republic that rules us.

Er, ok. Might I ask what model you may have in mind to replace it?

[TheMojoPin]

[SIZE="2"]Let me just say that that last parsing of yours was truly infuriating. And you know it you dog.

Understandable. I'm pointing out things you need to ignore to make your point work.

Anyway, you continue to look at the broken promise as, not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps “an evolution of policy”. I do not. You want to minimize and rationalize and justify promises made and broken on serious issues, like it’s subject to debate. I guess I have a hard time with that. Nothing has “debunked” or “challenged” the claim of the promise made and subsequently broken, in stages. It’s not a talking point, it’s a fact and I think he needs to be called on it for what it is.

And what it is is mostly reflective of the quote you keep harping on. He said corporate lobbyists. Most of the names you listed are not corporate lobbysists. He also said any lobbysists hired had to have a certain timeframe of seperation from their times as lobbysists until their appointment to the administration. Dance around these things all you want, they're what ultimately pulls your argument apart.

That all said - as to distinguishing flavors of lobbyists. I don’t think he intended to distinguish between corporate lobbyists and others.

How can you say that when he specifically said corporate lobbysists? You're now rejecting the quote that was the crux of your argument.

But anyway, what if I happen to believe that social activists are more “dangerous” than corporate lobbyists? It’s just a point of view, but corporate power has taken a bit of a hit lately in gov’t and social agenda items seem to be on the rise. A powers shift maybe? With the powers that be, I just might think that non-corporate lobbyists may be a “threat” and not in the long-term interests of the country.

That's fine, and you could end up being very prescient with that line of thinking. We'll have to wait and see.

[Gvac]

OBAMA STINKS!

[cougarjake13]

OBAMA STINKS!

he's too busy trying to save the economy

he aint got time to shower

[SonOfSmeagol]

Understandable. I'm pointing out things you need to ignore to make your point work.

And what it is is mostly reflective of the quote you keep harping on. He said corporate lobbyists. Most of the names you listed are not corporate lobbysists. He also said any lobbysists hired had to have a certain timeframe of seperation from their times as lobbysists until their appointment to the administration. Dance around these things all you want, they're what ultimately pulls your argument apart.

How can you say that when he specifically said corporate lobbysists? You're now rejecting the quote that was the crux of your argument.

That's fine, and you could end up being very prescient with that line of thinking. We'll have to wait and see.

Ah well. So you say. I’ve ignored so much to make my point work! Right.

He said nothing about timeframes in the quote – only later when the promise was broken and the policy “evolved”. And you are now splitting very very thin hairs. Can not non-profits and not-for-profits be corporations? Look it up. Hence what I said about corporate, and you ran with it. Weak. Still, all told pure corporate lobbyists were involved and broke the promise. I tried to go with you and debate the wider issue and move on and you had to split hairs and end up in another pissing match – to what end? You seem to want to insist that the promise was not broken and it's just not working - time to move on.

[TheMojoPin]

You seem to want to insist that the promise was not broken

Nope. I've simply been pointing out the issue is more complex that you presented it as. I've stated several times now I'm not pleased with several names on that list. I am not, however, naive enough to assume that a public servant is able to follow through on all of their rhetoric. My concern with something like this is whether or not he totally went against what he had said, and he clearly did not. Your desire to view only in the simplistic terms of whether or not he "broke a promise" offers nothing in terms of intelligent analysis and discussion. You want "gotcha" commentary and nothing more.

[Serpico1103]

Er, ok. Might I ask what model you may have in mind to replace it?

Benevolent dictatorship might be avenue to pursue.
I think we just need a fresh start. Our model is ok, but it is like an old car that just keeps getting painted and new technology added onto it. Maybe its better to just start from scratch.

That being said, we get the government we deserve. The US is so large, its issues too complex to expect the average citizen to be involved. Unfortunately, without an active citizenry the system fails.
Proposed changes- shorter campaigns, term limits on congressmen, free air time on media outlets for three major political parties. Complete those and I'll give you more.

[TheMojoPin]

Benevolent dictatorship might be avenue to pursue.
I think we just need a fresh start. Our model is ok, but it is like an old car that just keeps getting painted and new technology added onto it. Maybe its better to just start from scratch.

That being said, we get the government we deserve. The US is so large, its issues too complex to expect the average citizen to be involved. Unfortunately, without an active citizenry the system fails.
Proposed changes- shorter campaigns, term limits on congressmen, free air time on media outlets for three major political parties. Complete those and I'll give you more.

You would have made ol' Thomas Jefferson very proud.

[keithy_19]

free air time on media outlets for three major political parties. Complete those and I'll give you more.

Libertarian, Green, Socialist.



Those, right?

[Serpico1103]

Ah well. So you say. I’ve ignored so much to make my point work! Right.

He said nothing about timeframes in the quote – only later when the promise was broken and the policy “evolved”. And you are now splitting very very thin hairs. Can not non-profits and not-for-profits be corporations? Look it up. Hence what I said about corporate, and you ran with it. Weak. Still, all told pure corporate lobbyists were involved and broke the promise. I tried to go with you and debate the wider issue and move on and you had to split hairs and end up in another pissing match – to what end? You seem to want to insist that the promise was not broken and it's just not working - time to move on.

You seem confused so I will add a bit. You point to a promise made well before the election. That is irrelevant. A candidate may change his position during his campaign so, again, the only promise he could "break" is the last promise he made before taking office.

That might take more effort, but without it your stance is baseless. It may not be "ethical" campaigning, because you only remember his initial "no lobbyists" speech and don't hear the later more nuanced speech. But, that is part of politics and partly the voter's fault. The better candidate does not win, the better campaigner does.
I think before the election he had changed his stance from "no lobbyists" to "lobbyists will not run my administration." In addition, he also allowed for waivers and other ways to soften his stance. Yes, that takes the edge off the "no lobbyists" promise, but your argument is that he broke a promise, a promise he retracted before the election.

[Serpico1103]

Libertarian, Green, Socialist.
Those, right?

Green, Democratic, Republican- the three with the largest support, whichever they are. Three is enough to keep the other two honest. Let's face it. The parties' main objective is to stay in power. They determine policy based on what they think will keep them in power. The Republican party turned to the religious right because it needed their support, not because it "believed" in their issues. The democrats play the same game.

We live in a socialist society already. Or do you prefer capitalist/socialist.
No pure system works, it is a matter of degree, not kind.
I think our system needs to move more towards socialism. Otherwise, I think the current path we are on, growing disparity in economic classes, will lead to revolution. Maybe not a bad thing.
Without unions we would have had a revolution. Without equality for blacks we would have had a revolution. Maybe a little pain up front is better.
Freeing the slaves, unions, equal rights were not done because it was the right thing to do. They were done to protect the society. I think moving slightly more away from capitalism will protect our society.

[Bob Impact]

Freeing the slaves, unions, equal rights were not done because it was the right thing to do. They were done to protect the society. I think moving slightly more away from capitalism will protect our society.

This current crisis is the direct result of economic interventionism, don't confuse companies with Capitalism.

[epo]

We've got a President who is "fist-bumping" random strangers?

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/Obama10p1.jpg

I only wonder what kind of "secret handshakes" those Washington types have taught him already. We're doomed!

[midwestjeff]

Wait a minute..

He's fucking black?

[Gvac]

We've got a President who is "fist-bumping" random strangers?

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/Obama10p1.jpg

I only wonder what kind of "secret handshakes" those Washington types have taught him already. We're doomed!

Looks like some newfangled Black Power salute to me.

Anthony was right all along.

[Serpico1103]

This current crisis is the direct result of economic interventionism, don't confuse companies with Capitalism.

I think the real underlying cause of our societal decay is consumerism, which is a necessary evil of capitalism. This recession is just a speed bump on our way to self-destruction.

I hope Obama bought the Che boxed set. Revolution!

[keithy_19]

Did anyone see the market today? Dammit Obama!

[Westley]

u r all raceist you just dont like him because he is black he just got sweared in a few weeks ago give him a cahnce!

[disneyspy]

u r all raceist you just dont like him because he is black he just got sweared in a few weeks ago give him a cahnce!

thank you,you're not as dumb as your spellin

[hammersavage]

thank you,you're not as dumb as your spellin

You've never met him then.

[DrexlSpivey]

u r all raceist you just dont like him because he is black he just got sweared in a few weeks ago give him a cahnce!


:lol:

[albo60s]

Looks like some newfangled Black Power salute to me.

Anthony was right all along.


Please, just let me sleep until 2010.

[keithy_19]

Please, just let me sleep until 2010.

Is that when Obama kills all the whites? Is it!? ANSWER ME!

[Serpico1103]

Is that when Obama kills all the whites? Is it!? ANSWER ME!

Kills? No. Enslaves? Yes.

[keithy_19]

Kills? No. Enslaves? Yes.

Ya know, I can't say I'm surprised. There's something about him that just made me feel like he might like people with darker skin more.

[keithy_19]

And has anyone ever realized how his kids have names that sound like they could come from the Lion King?

OBAMA IS IN DEBT TO DISNEY!

[FUNKMAN]

wait 4 years at least to let him get out the bushes...

[high fly]

I hear Obama's gonna swap out the national anthem for that ditty the Soviets used to play....

[Dude!]

now i know why obama wanted
caroline kennedy to be the NY senator

she speaks just like him

uhhh....ya know....um.....ya know....uhhhh.....ahhh....ya know....um

im afraid obama's critics were right
without a teleprompter and prepared speech
the guy is practically illiterate

george bush is starting to look like a silver-tongued orator by comparison

[Serpico1103]

now i know why obama wanted
caroline kennedy to be the NY senator

she speaks just like him

uhhh....ya know....um.....ya know....uhhhh.....ahhh....ya know....um

im afraid obama's critics were right
without a teleprompter and prepared speech
the guy is practically illiterate

george bush is starting to look like a silver-tongued orator by comparison

With a teleprompter and a prepared speech GW came off as illiterate.

The revolution is coming.
Obama is just trying to grow a huge socialist beard before he makes his move.

[Furtherman]

This is probably the most embarrassing, hack thread we've had in a while.

[foodcourtdruide]

This is probably the most embarrassing, hack thread we've had in a while.

Agreed.

Not sure where else to post this though.

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters wrote a critique of a media critique written by Jonah Goldberg for USA Today. Goldberg's rhetoric was the same old "THE MEDIA IS FULL OF LIEEEEBERRALS" and Boehlert called him out on it. To Goldberg's credit, he wrote a rebuttal to Boehlert's critique which made some pretty good points. I think it's worth a read.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200902100011?f=h_column

You can see Goldberg's response and Boehlert's rebuttal to Goldberg's response on the bottom.

In the end, I think Goldberg is correct to say, that for whatever reason, the media is trying to create a correlation between Obama and FDR. Which is probably pro-Obama in the end. However, I think he completely exaggerated by saying Obama is going out of his way to compare himself to FDR, if anything he's trying to compare himself to Lincoln. I think Boehlert's assessment that the White House press corps has ended the honeymoon early is also probably true (and actually a VERY good thing) and Goldberg's "White House window" story was pretty stupid.

[Gvac]

This is probably the most embarrassing, hack thread we've had in a while.

Hey!

[Aggie]

FACE! No kiss for you Bill.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/att00000lg2.gif

[Furtherman]

Hey!

With no help from you shit stirrer!

[A.J.]

FACE! No kiss for you Bill.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/att00000lg2.gif

If I had a dollar for every time that happened during their marriage....

[RoseBlood]

FACE! No kiss for you Bill.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/att00000lg2.gif

Hahahahah.. That is priceless.. Love it.. Thanks Ag!~

[high fly]

And has anyone ever realized how his kids have names that sound like they could come from the Lion King?

OBAMA IS IN DEBT TO DISNEY!

Naw, man, he got those names straight from The Communist Manifesto!

[keithy_19]

Naw, man, he got those names straight from The Communist Manifesto!

So...the Lion King names came from the communist manifesto, which is where Obama got his name...meaning...

DISNEY PREDICTED THE RISE OF SIMBA(OBAMA) AND COMMUNISM IN THE UNITED STATES!

[high fly]

And what's up with Obama denying his Irish heritage?
Obviously, Obama is an Irish name....

[high fly]

Now they are saying O'Bama is gonna make Tonk the national card game.
Doesn't he have anything better to do?

[Gvac]

So I guess he's about to spend 8 billion dollars in order to "stimulate" the economy.

How is this maniac still President?

[Serpico1103]

Obama's new plan is to turn old people into Soylent Green.
How old is Gvac?

[scottinnj]

I don't think this administration is a failure. Here's a bit of common sense (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/afghan.detainees/index.html)being displayed by our new commander in chief.

[high fly]

I don't think this administration is a failure. Here's a bit of common sense (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/afghan.detainees/index.html)being displayed by our new commander in chief.


NOT A FAILURE?

ARE YOU BLIND?

We aren't out of Iraq yet, are we?

We don't have national health insurance, do we?

Global warming isn't solved yet, is it?

We still haven't switched over to electric cars, have we?

Americans still don't have personal helicopters that fold up into a briefcase at the touch of a button, do they?


THE MAN IS A COMPLETE DISASTER!

BRING BACK BUSH!

[high fly]

So I guess he's about to spend 8 billion dollars in order to "stimulate" the economy.

How is this maniac still President?



Why doesn't that dumbass realize there is no way the economy can recover without having all the banks fail?
I mean SHIT! that's Economics 101


START THE IMPEACHMENT NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

[A.J.]

The country is falling apart and he goes to the Wizards game last night. Heartless bastard.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/27/Obama%20at%20the%20Bulls.jpg

[ChrisTheCop]

I just got my W-2 at work, and I asked what I was supposed to do with it.

They said, "pay your taxes".

......but


....but.....

OBAMA PRESIDENT NAHHHWW!!

I guess that's next year?

I was gonna throw a big party with all my friends who had just gotten back from Iraq,
but theyre not back yet.

Maybe next year for that too.

[scottinnj]

Why doesn't that dumbass realize there is no way the economy can recover without having all the banks fail?
I mean SHEEEEEEEEET! that's Economics 101

http://blog.turntablelab.com/sheeeet.jpg


START THE IMPEACHMENT NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Fixed

[Gvac]

The country is falling apart and he goes to the Wizards game last night. Heartless bastard.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/27/Obama%20at%20the%20Bulls.jpg

This guy may be the biggest "hooray for me, fuck you" President we've ever had.

[HBox]

The country is falling apart and he goes to the Wizards game last night. Heartless bastard.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/27/Obama%20at%20the%20Bulls.jpg

It was a Wizards-Bulls game. That's more like punishment for not fixing the economy yet.

[scottinnj]

That's just one of his body doubles, pointing out potential "trouble areas" in the arena.

[A.J.]

That's just one of his body doubles, pointing out potential "trouble areas" in the arena.

You mean a "look-alike" because "they all look alike"? That's racist stereotyping. I'm calling Sharpton!

[scottinnj]

You mean a "look-alike" because "they all look alike"? That's racist stereotyping. I'm calling Sharpton!

That comment was directed at the congress. You know, because they wrote a stimulus bill that was so bad, a basketball team could've wrote it.

See what I did there? Now we're sliding down the rabbit hole deeper and deeper!

[A.J.]

I'm still going to have to demand your firing.

[scottinnj]

I'm still going to have to demand your firing.

How about showing some bi-partinship and meet me halfway.....I'll take some sensitivity classes and do a rap song with Chuck D.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Wow! No surprise.

I see this thread has truly manifested itself into the groupthink circle-jerk it was intended to be!

*****YAWN*****

[keithy_19]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090302/120375219.html

So we'll just get nuked by N. Korea.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I must say I really admire the new administration’s approach of reaching out to the Iranians and Chinese, turning over a new leaf, a fresh beginning, a reset. I mean, we’re all in it together right? Brothers and sisters living all for one on this wonderful blue marble we call Earth? Why can’t we all get along for the betterment of mankind, rise above all the differences and conflicts, for the best future of all peoples everywhere? Sweet!

And if that doesn’t work, hell, it’s nice to know, at least for now and if he doesn’t fuck it up, that we can always bomb the towelheads and chinamen into the stone age within twenty minutes time.

[angrymissy]

Fox was reporting that Obama DRANK A BEER at that basketball game.

http://imgsrv.wwl.com/image/DbGraphic/200903/1186317.jpg

For shame Obama, for shame.

[A.J.]

Fox was reporting that Obama DRANK A BEER at that basketball game.

http://imgsrv.wwl.com/image/DbGraphic/200903/1186317.jpg

For shame Obama, for shame.

He makes me sick to my stomach.

[angrymissy]

Look at this sexual harassment.

http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2009/02/obama-wizards-1-360.jpg

[WampusCrandle]

I must say I really admire the new administration’s approach of reaching out to the Iranians and Chinese, turning over a new leaf, a fresh beginning, a reset. I mean, we’re all in it together right? Brothers and sisters living all for one on this wonderful blue marble we call Earth? Why can’t we all get along for the betterment of mankind, rise above all the differences and conflicts, for the best future of all peoples everywhere? Sweet!

And if that doesn’t work, hell, it’s nice to know, at least for now and if he doesn’t fuck it up, that we can always bomb the towelheads and chinamen into the stone age within twenty minutes time.


?

im sorry, why do the Iranians and Chinese need to be reached?

[angrymissy]

?

im sorry, why do the Iranians and Chinese need to be reached?

I don't think you understand. The proper terms are "towelheads and chinamen".

[angrymissy]

He obviously is a part of a secret plot to murder Stevie Wonder as well... I think Michelle is in on it too. Evil.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/steviewonder1R_468x366.jpg

[Knowledged_one]

Chinamen they didnt build the fucking railroad

[high fly]

What's up with that kook Obama trying to bail out the banks?
Doesn't he know the way out of this mess is to allow all the banks to fail?
Why can't that idiot figure out that if we have a financial system there ain't no way we'll ever get out of this mess?

[scottinnj]

Fox was reporting that Obama DRANK A BEER at that basketball game.

http://imgsrv.wwl.com/image/DbGraphic/200903/1186317.jpg

For shame Obama, for shame.

White America should cheer, it's Budweiser and not a 40oz. Colt .45

[Gvac]

I can't wait until the first 100 days are up.

Then the kid gloves come off.

[scottinnj]

Look at this sexual harassment.

http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2009/02/obama-wizards-1-360.jpg

Pimpin ain't easy my brotha!

Don't hate the playa, hate the game!

[Zorro]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter

Kind of strange especially given that he's such an accomplished speaker.

[TheMojoPin]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html



Kind of strange especially given that he's such an accomplished speaker.

This is news?

Like the article says, most presidents have had notes with them when they get up to speak. This is the smarter, 21st Century equivalent.

[west milly Tom]

This is news?

Like the article says, most presidents have had notes with them when they get up to speak. This is the smarter, 21st Century equivalent.



Why don't you marry him?

[keithy_19]

This is news?

Like the article says, most presidents have had notes with them when they get up to speak. This is the smarter, 21st Century equivalent.

Notes enable you to look down. Cocky bastard won't do it like the working man. Fucking Washington elite.

[TheMojoPin]

Why don't you marry him?

Cruel laws that tell me I can't.

[Zorro]

Cruel laws that tell me I can't.

You could snuggle

[TooLowBrow]

An economist said if we didn't do the "stimulus package," we could end EVERYONE'S taxes for the year. True?

[Serpico1103]

An economist said if we didn't do the "stimulus package," we could end EVERYONE'S taxes for the year. True?

Yes. You only pay taxes on income. If you don't have a job, you don't have income, you don't pay taxes. Brilliant plan.

[TooLowBrow]

Yes. You only pay taxes on income. If you don't have a job, you don't have income, you don't pay taxes. Brilliant plan.

you still pay taxes on money spent for goods or services, even if you dont have a job. but youd save money on, lets say groceries, for a year while you tried to get a job.

[kdubya]

you still pay taxes on money spent for goods or services, even if you dont have a job. but youd save money on, lets say groceries, for a year while you tried to get a job.

Sales tax is state tax, not federal

[TooLowBrow]

Sales tax is state tax, not federal

oh

well still there has to be a reason that this economist said that.

maybe he meant we'd lose the federal gas and cigarette taxes

[ToiletCrusher]

New York is going to implement a 3 dollar tax on a case of beer soon. Obama did not do that.

[Gvac]

Is this schmuck still President?

Every morning I wake up expecting to hear he's been given the boot.

[A.J.]

New York is going to implement a 3 dollar tax on a case of beer soon.

"First they came for my beer..."

[west milly Tom]

Here come the Chinese testing Obama already. At least he sent them a strongly worded email: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/09/pentagon-chinese-ships-harassed-unarmed-navy-craft-international-waters/

Somewhat scary even though it's the south china sea.

[ToiletCrusher]

To answer the thread title question... probably.

[TheMojoPin]

Here come the Chinese testing Obama already. At least he sent them a strongly worded email: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/09/pentagon-chinese-ships-harassed-unarmed-navy-craft-international-waters/

Somewhat scary even though it's the south china sea.

There's not much else that can be done.

And personally, I don't fight it all that frightening. It's just posturing. The Chinese aren't in any hurry to get themselves into an actual combat war with another superpower anytime soon. Now, an economic or industril "war," OK.

[Syd]

it's called fucking with the other military for morale

the US subs that shadowed USSR ICBM subs would essentially announce their presence at the same time, fleet wide

everyone does it, get over it, china isn't going to "test" obama

[Jujubees2]

I heard it was Obama, not Yoko, who broke the Beatles!

Bastard!

[JerseySean]

Thread title=starting to be relevant

[TheMojoPin]

Thread title=starting to be relevant

Why, did a released detainee steal your stem cells?

[west milly Tom]

it's called fucking with the other military for morale

the US subs that shadowed USSR ICBM subs would essentially announce their presence at the same time, fleet wide

everyone does it, get over it, china isn't going to "test" obama



Thanks for being so reliable. Anything that makes Obama look bad = get over it. Anything that Bush looked bad for = major dwelling
Predictable. And before you say it dosent make Obama look bad, its a sweeping statement.

[TheMojoPin]

Thanks for being so reliable. Anything that makes Obama look bad = get over it. Anything that Bush looked bad for = major dwelling
Predictable. And before you say it dosent make Obama look bad, its a sweeping statement.

Please explain what any president could or should do differently in this situation or why this situation is such an exception that it demands dramatic response or reprisal.

[JerseySean]

Please explain what any president could or should do differently in this situation or why this situation is such an exception that it demands dramatic response or reprisal.

Cut corperate taxes as we have the second highest in the developed world. Therefore bringing in more foreign investment.

Mandate all mortgages have the option to be renegotiated at 30 years---4%, will stimulate the economy and cut into liabilities for banks.

Cut taxes for small businesses and the middle class---more than $13 dollars a week

[TheMojoPin]

Cut corperate taxes as we have the second highest in the developed world. Therefore bringing in more foreign investment.

Mandate all mortgages have the option to be renegotiated at 30 years---4%, will stimulate the economy and cut into liabilities for banks.

Cut taxes for small businesses and the middle class---more than $13 dollars a week

I'm talking about China non-issue that Milly is harping on.

And why would foreign business invest here? They want the cheapest labor and resources as much as our businesses, and they wouldn't get either here.

And these are already the largest tax cuts in history. How low can we go and expect to stay as "big" as we are?

[west milly Tom]

Cut corperate taxes as we have the second highest in the developed world. Therefore bringing in more foreign investment.

Mandate all mortgages have the option to be renegotiated at 30 years---4%, will stimulate the economy and cut into liabilities for banks.

Cut taxes for small businesses and the middle class---more than $13 dollars a week



Raise corporate taxes as they're not high enough, allow mortgages to fail so you can nationalize the banks, and penalize any small business that makes a buck.

[JerseySean]

I'm talking about China non-issue tha Milly is harping on.

Oh, well I'd like to see your response to why he hasnt done those things.....in response to Chine....maybe Obama should be willing to show teeth as opposed to writing, "please dont hurt us" letters to Russia and begging China to buy American debt.

[JerseySean]

Raise corporate taxes as they're not high enough, allow mortgages to fail so you can nationalize the banks, and penalize any small business that makes a buck.

You forgot......SCARE THE FUCK OUT OF INVESTORS AND WALL ST.....fuck you grandma and your retirement investments, we need to nationalize the banks.

[TheMojoPin]

Oh, well I'd like to see your response to why he hasnt done those things.....in response to Chine....maybe Obama should be willing to show teeth as opposed to writing, "please dont hurt us" letters to Russia and begging China to buy American debt.

No president is going to "show teeth" to China over meaningless dick-swinging like this. We do the same to them. If we were supposed to get worked up over things like this WW3 would have happened decades ago.

[west milly Tom]

No president is going to "show teeth" to China over meaningless dick-swinging like this. We do the same to them. If we were supposed to get worked up over things like this WW3 would have happened decades ago.



Once again you minimize to negate the fact that Obama has shown nothing but weakness in all foregin policy matters so far. But I suppose that's Bush's fault too.

[JerseySean]

No president is going to "show teeth" to China over meaningless dick-swinging like this. We do the same to them. If we were supposed to get worked up over things like this WW3 would have happened decades ago.

Threatening an american vessel is meaning dick swinging? Shows how warped your perspective is...

[JerseySean]

Once again you minimize to negate the fact that Obama has shown nothing but weakness in all foregin policy matters so far. But I suppose that's Bush's fault too.

It is Bush's fault......duh

[TheMojoPin]

Threatening an american vessel is meaning dick swinging? Shows how warped your perspective is...

"Threatening" implies they were going to do something. They weren't. You honestly think some variation of this hasn't happened multiple times already on the part of both sides? Like Syd pointed out, it's a repeat of the same shit the US and Soviets would play during the Cold War. It's posturing.

I can't believe you're seemingly saying you want a US president to pick a fight with China over something like this. Why? How could that possibly outweigh the longterm ramifications? How should they "fight back?"

[TheMojoPin]

Once again you minimize to negate the fact that Obama has shown nothing but weakness in all foregin policy matters so far. But I suppose that's Bush's fault too.

Where did I bring up Bush?

And I don't think Obama has looked strong OR weak on foreign policy since he hasn't been faced with any significant foreign policy decisions yet. Everything we've seen so far has been the curosry diplomatic feelers of a new administration.

[west milly Tom]

"Threatening" implies they were going to do something. They weren't. You honestly think some variation of this hasn't happened multiple times already on the part of both sides? Like Syd pointed out, it's a repeat of the same shit the US and Soviets would play during the Cold War. It's posturing.

I can't believe you're seemingly saying you want a US president to pick a fight with China over something like this. Why? How could that possibly outweigh the longterm ramifications? How should they "fight back?"



I think a strongly worded email did just fine.

[JerseySean]

I think a strongly worded email did just fine.

No the Obama Administration is "protesting" China...

[TheMojoPin]

I think a strongly worded email did just fine.

Still waiting to see what the obvious alternative is that some other president would have done. Come on...lay it on us, daddi-o.

[JerseySean]

Still waiting to see what the obvious alternative is that some other president would have done. Come on...lay it on us, daddi-o.

Its just the fourth foreign policy blunders in as many weeks.

1-Letter to Russia
2-Begging China to buy debt
3-Being too "tired" to give our #1 ally a proper welcome
4-"protesting" China's bullying without making a strong statement

[west milly Tom]

Where did I bring up Bush?

And I don't think Obama has looked strong OR weak on foreign policy since he hasn't been faced with any significant foreign policy decisions yet. Everything we've seen so far has been the curosry diplomatic feelers of a new administration.



Instead of saying that foregin policy decisions so far were insignificant just say weak. It goes to your minimizing any failure again. How'd he handle the missile shield? How about nuclear Iran firing a rocket? How about the treatment his secretary of state is getting everywhere she goes, how about deciding to meet with Syria? All insignificant in your eyes though.

[west milly Tom]

As for what to do in international waters when our intelligence vessels get messed with, I'd send armed escorts or provide air cover, but I'm no president.

[JerseySean]

Since you like to shit on Bush so much.....please see hoe the smarter President handled a situation with China....

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/world/13PLAN.html?ex=1236744000&en=65ba7c87c1d4b8dd&ei=5070

Today, Mr. Bush made a point of repeating the litany of disagreements that the United States has with China, from human rights concerns to the proliferation of Chinese arms.

"We disagree on important basic issues such as human rights and religious freedom," he said. "At times, we have different views about the path to a more stable and secure Asian Pacific region."

He also said flatly that he would "always stand squarely for American interests and American values."

[west milly Tom]

No the Obama Administration is "protesting" China...



Protesting NYU style maaaan.

[TheMojoPin]

As for what to do in international waters when our intelligence vessels get messed with, I'd send armed escorts or provide air cover, but I'm no president.

You'd waste money after the fact sending needless escorts to "protect" a ship that was likely never actually in any danger and is likely to never be in such an encounter again?

[Recyclerz]

How quickly they forget... (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44964)

I could (& will if requested) find other articles that were less charitable in their description of Bush's handling of the incident above but I believe he handled it about right. Anybody who thinks we are in any position to treat China like our bitch is not a serious person.

[west milly Tom]

You'd waste money after the fact sending needless escorts to "protect" a ship that was likely never actually in any danger and is likely to never be in such an encounter again?



Please read whole articles. That vessel was fucked with many times along with others in the region. At one point the ship had to make an emergency stop when it was blockaded without notice.

[Zorro]

You'd waste money after the fact sending needless escorts to "protect" a ship that was likely never actually in any danger and is likely to never be in such an encounter again?

Of course you'd spend money on this...one man's protection is another's stimulus

[TheMojoPin]

Since you like to shit on Bush so much.....please see hoe the smarter President handled a situation with China....

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/world/13PLAN.html?ex=1236744000&en=65ba7c87c1d4b8dd&ei=5070

And yet again, I've said nothing about Bush in this discussion. You guys keep bringing him up.

Secondly, your spelling error is wonderfully ironic.

Thirdly, there's nothing in Bush's statements that's "handling" China or being "tough" or "hardline." It's same the diplomatic answer that we've been hearing for 30 years: "yeah, we disagree with China a lot, but at the end of the day nothing is changing." Personally, I don't and never have expected Obama to rock the boat with China. I don't think any president could or would. Any significant changes in our relationship is going to come from dramatic internal changes with the Chinese government.

[west milly Tom]

How quickly they forget... (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44964)

I could (& will if requested) find other articles that were less charitable in their description of Bush's handling of the incident above but I believe he handled it about right. Anybody who thinks we are in any position to treat China like our bitch is not a serious person.



Did that not happen over Chinese airspace?

[JerseySean]

And yet again, I've said nothing about Bush in this discussion. You guys keep bringing him up.

Secondly, your spelling error is wonderfully ironic.

Thirdly, there's nothing in Bush's statements that's "handling" China or being "tough" or "hardline." It's same the diplomatic answer that we've been hearing for 30 years: "yeah, we disagree with China a lot, but at the end of the day nothing is changing." Personally, I don't and never have expected Obama to rock the boat with China. I don't think any president could or would. Any significant changes in our relationship is going to come from dramatic internal changes with the Chinese government.

Since you talk about the wonders of diplomacy, a harsh statement against the Chinese would be in order now to bust their balls. And FYI-we can treat China like our bitch...its not in either interest. But watch what would happen if we put in place a Chinese embargo...the Chinese govt would be toppled overnight. In the US-China relationship, we hold most of the cards. If Obama got up and called this "unacceptable behavior" and hadnt fucked up the last 3 foreign policy incidents that he had to deal with, maybe I wouldnt be so worried.

[TheMojoPin]

Instead of saying that foregin policy decisions so far were insignificant just say weak. It goes to your minimizing any failure again. How'd he handle the missile shield? How about nuclear Iran firing a rocket? How about the treatment his secretary of state is getting everywhere she goes, how about deciding to meet with Syria? All insignificant in your eyes though.

I'm not "minimizing failure" because for one I don't think he's "failed" yet in that arena because he hasn't been faced with any immediate and important foreign policy situations that had finite resolutions that can be judged as "failures" or "successes." These aren't fucking sports games where there's a time limit and a score and you know for sure who wins or loses, if anyone does at all. Most of the situations you just listed haven't "finished" yet.

The missile shield is a wasteful, outdated load of crap that never should been started up again in the first place. And what's supposed to be done about Iran's rocket claims? Another invasion? Any president would have little combat option when it comes to dealing with Iran right now because our military is spread way too thin, nevermind the fact that military action with Iran would be about the dumbest thing we could manage in the ME a this point in time, especially given their population's demographics as a largely 18-35-year-old and very Westernized populace. If you want to flip out and panic over the yammering of Ahmadinejad, be my guest. He's not in charge, and contrary to the opinion of some, the rulers of Iran aren't suicidal fanatics. Besides, we have little choice bt to wait them out unless other nations can be convinced to side against them. And so what if theyre's a willingness to open communication with Syria? What are we supposed to do, act like parts of the most volatile region of the world right now where we have huge international investment don't exist? You seriously want to maintain the diplomatic version of "I'm not speaking to you because you're mean" in this day and age?

[TheMojoPin]

Since you talk about the wonders of diplomacy, a harsh statement against the Chinese would be in order now to bust their balls. And FYI-we can treat China like our bitch...its not in either interest. But watch what would happen if we put in place a Chinese embargo...the Chinese govt would be toppled overnight. In the US-China relationship, we hold most of the cards. If Obama got up and called this "unacceptable behavior" and hadnt fucked up the last 3 foreign policy incidents that he had to deal with, maybe I wouldnt be so worried.

I can't even begin to break down how ludicrous most of this post is, so, quite honestly, I'm not even going to bother. You just demonstrated such a profound lack of understanding of China and US/China relations and how our economies work that...well, I'm speechless.

[JerseySean]

I'm not "minimizing failure" because for one I don't think he's "failed" yet in that arena because he hasn't been faced with any immediate and important foreign policy situations that had finite resolutions that can be judged as "failures" or "successes." These aren't fucking sports games where there's a time limit and a score and you know for sure who wins or loses, if anyone does at all. Most of the situations you just listed haven't "finished" yet.

The missile shield is a wasteful, outdated load of crap that never should been started up again in the first place. And what's supposed to be done about Iran's rocket claims? Another invasion? Any president would have little combat option when it comes to dealing with Iran right now because our military is spread way too thin, nevermind the fact that military action with Iran would be about the dumbest thing we could manage in the ME a this point in time, especially given their population's demographics as a largely 18-35-year-old and very Westernized populace. If you want to flip out and panic over the yammering of Ahmadinejad, be my guest. He's not in charge, and contrary to the opinion of some, the rulers of Iran aren't suicidal fanatics. Besides, we have little choice bt to wait them out unless other nations can be convinced to side against them. And so what if theyre's a willingness to open communication with Syria? What are we supposed to do, act like parts of the most volatile region of the world right now where we have huge international investment don't exist? You seriously want to maintain the diplomatic version of "I'm not speaking to you because you're mean" in this day and age?

Obama=Blowing it on every aspect of foreign policy...oh yea....and domestic

[JerseySean]

I can't even begin to break down how ludicrous most of this post is, so, quite honestly, I'm not even going to bother. You just demonstrated such a profound lack of understanding of China and US/China relations and how our economies work that...well, I'm speechless.

I was responding to recyclerz who said that we couldnt speak harshly with China....we can if we need to is what I was getting at.

[TheMojoPin]

I was responding to recyclerz who said that we couldnt speak harshly with China....we can if we need to is what I was getting at.

No, we really can't do most of what you listed without basically destroying ourselves. We don't "hold all the cards."

[JerseySean]

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=670365&z=1236370755850

Here is how bad the Obama recovery plan or lack thereof is.....InTrade is actually trading Geithner surviving past 2009

[Recyclerz]

Did that not happen over Chinese airspace?

It was never clear where the original collision happened. Our guys said it was in international air space and Powell's and Bush's "non-apology apology" referred to the plane landing on the Chinese island without permission.

My feelings are that the current incident doesn't amount to much more than the Dale Ernhardt School of foreign policy/military jostling. We have more important things to worry about right now. Poking China in the eye with a sharp stick right now over this doesn't seem to me like the move to make, but people are entitled to disagree.

[JerseySean]

I agree.....and Obama has managed to fuck that up too....

[west milly Tom]

. And what's supposed to be done about Iran's rocket claims? Another invasion? Any president would have little combat option when it comes to dealing with Iran right now because our military is spread way too thin, nevermind the fact that military action with Iran would be about the dumbest thing we could manage in the ME a this point in time, especially given their population's demographics as a largely 18-35-year-old and very Westernized populace. If you want to flip out and panic over the yammering of Ahmadinejad, be my guest. He's not in charge, and contrary to the opinion of some, the rulers of Iran aren't suicidal fanatics.


No they're peaceful mullas.




This shows how truly warped your view is. They don't recognize their neighbors right to even exist. They chant openly destroy Israel at public meetings including their legislation meetings. Get a clue.

[TheMojoPin]

No they're peaceful mullas.




This shows how truly warped your view is. They don't recognize their neighbors right to even exist. They chant openly destroy Israel at public meetings including their legislation meetings. Get a clue.

Way to completely dance around what I said. My statement in no way implies that they're "peaceful mullas."

My point is to recognize reality from rhetoric. The old guard revolutionaries in Iran tlak a good game, but there's little besides their propoganda that they're willing to actually fight it out with Israel. So what if they get a nuke, you say? That's where the "suicidal" part comes in. If Iran uses a nuke, for one, it would damage or cripple the nations around Israel, and actually likely harm Iran itself. Such an attack would turn the region and much of the world against Iran. In short, you have to honestly believe the Iranian rulers genuinely have a death wish and are suicidal fanatics if you think they're realistically ever going to fullscale attack Israel, with a nuke or not.

It's not about being "warped." It's about attempting to look at things somewhat realistically without jumping to histronics.

[west milly Tom]

Way to completely dance around what I said. My statement in no way implies that they're "peaceful mullas."

My point is to recognize reality from rhetoric. The old guard revolutionaries in Iran tlak a good game, but there's little besides their propoganda that they're willing to actually fight it out with Israel. So what if they get a nuke, you say? That's where the "suicidal" part comes in. If Iran uses a nuke, for one, it would damage or cripple the nations around Israel, and actually likely harm Iran itself. Such an attack would turn the region and much of the world against Iran. In short, you have to honestly believe the Iranian rulers genuinely have a death wish and are suicidal fanatics if you think they're realistically ever going to fullscale attack Israel, with a nuke or not.

It's not about being "warped." It's about attempting to look at things somewhat realistically without jumping to histronics.



So you're saying they don't mean what they say. That the years of bitter battles are just words?

[Syd]

Thanks for being so reliable. Anything that makes Obama look bad = get over it. Anything that Bush looked bad for = major dwelling
Predictable. And before you say it dosent make Obama look bad, its a sweeping statement.

So, what should Obama have done? Launched a nuclear strike because China is asserting its brownwater naval ability? They had a barely bluewater capable boat go out and screw with an unarmed ship. The US and the USSR did FAR worse to each other as a measure of sabre-rattling each and every day for several decades and some how, some way, both countries managed not to obliterate the other because their pride was hurt. If people want to go to war over it, so be it. I just wish they would have wanted to go to war over it the thousands of times something similar has happened before. You have a bunch of cowboy commanders that want to keep morale high and run some exercises at the same time and you end up with situations like this, or Russian bombers flying over the Arctic towards North America or you have photos sent from routine spy satellite flyovers sent to heads of state.

Cut corperate taxes as we have the second highest in the developed world. Therefore bringing in more foreign investment.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812)

Tax loopholes already make sure corporations are well taken care of. Why do you the majority of publicly traded companies are incorporated within Delaware?

No they're peaceful mullas.




This shows how truly warped your view is. They don't recognize their neighbors right to even exist. They chant openly destroy Israel at public meetings including their legislation meetings. Get a clue.

Yet Egypt, who has a history of continued violence against Israel and has had considerable amounts of land ceded to Israel, is perfectly fine having nuclear ability. Funny how that works out.

edit:
Might I add that they have....ICBM capabilities!

[TheMojoPin]

So you're saying they don't mean what they say. That the years of bitter battles are just words?

I don't doubt for a second that they hate Israel, but you have to temper that wih a look at their actual record of action over the last 20-25 years in regards to Israel. They've (Iran's leaders) done nothing to indidcate they're willing to give up their control or their lives to back up any anti-Israeli rhetoric, and a fullscale attack on Israel by them or a nuclear attack on Israel by them would involve them likely giving up both.

[JerseySean]

I don't doubt for a second that they hate Israel, but you have to temper that wih a look at their actual record of action over the last 20-25 years in regards to Israel. They've (Iran's leaders) done nothing to indidcate they're willing to give up their control or their lives to back up any anti-Israeli rhetoric, and a fullscale attack on Israel by them or a nuclear attack on Israel by them would involve them likely giving up both.

Doesnt it suck to have to try to defend bad policies? I think its funny how Obama tried so hard to avoid the Clinton first 100 day mistakes and now, he is repeating them. Raising taxes, failing to act on the economy and blunder after blunder on foreign policy.

[TheMojoPin]

Doesnt it suck to have to try to defend bad policies?

What are you talking about? I've been talking specifically about Iran and Israel over the last 25 years. Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my last few posts, and certainly not with the one you quoted.

[Syd]

meanwhile back in reality, the economy shows signs of reaching the bottom as citi shows a profit

but keep on keepin' on, the delusion will certainly feed to the fairy tale of a 2010 republican rebound

[TheMojoPin]

Doesnt it suck to have to try to defend bad policies? I think its funny how Obama tried so hard to avoid the Clinton first 100 day mistakes and now, he is repeating them. Raising taxes, failing to act on the economy and blunder after blunder on foreign policy.

On top of that, the "first 100 days" shit is meaningless and arbitrary. There's nothing that says any president has to have or even can have things drastically changed or "fixed" within the first 100 days. If those are your realistic expectations given the situation the administration faced going in, you're just being willfully obstinant. All of your vague rhetoric keeps trying to take openended and ongoing situations and package them into finite scenarios that can already be judged as failures OR successes. I'm not countering your rants by saying he has succeeded across the board...what I am saying is that most of the stuff you're harping on we have no clue what the resolution or outcome is going to be, or what future developments will occur. If you wat to say why you think they will fail or be detrimental down the line, fine, but to declare all of these things "failures" like you're doing right now is impossible. You can't do it, period.

[A.J.]

On top of that, the "first 100 days" shit is meaningless and arbitrary.

Especially since the majority of staff needed to get anything done don't get confirmed until months later.

[TheMojoPin]

Especially since the majority of staff needed to get anything done don't get confirmed until months later.

Where did the "first 100 days" start? Was it FDR?

[A.J.]

Yes.

[TheMojoPin]

That sonuvabitch.

I thought I remmbered reading that it was him. I also thought I read that it was JFK that really kind of brought it back into the pubic perception and tried to equate himself with FDR and ever since then it's been around for each administration.

[Zorro]

Especially since the majority of staff needed to get anything done don't get confirmed until months later.

That's the Admin's fault. You've got a senate willing to confirm, but Obama keeps sending problematic nominees and nominees withdrawing from consideration or being indecisive and just getting around to critical appointments. I understand they've been out of power for 8 years etc...but you've had since November to think about this. When I looked at his list of "announcements" the bulk were in late February & early March.

[A.J.]

That's the Admin's fault. You've got a senate willing to confirm, but Obama keeps sending problematic nominees and nominees withdrawing from consideration.

Not necessarily. To vet and then confirm all of the hundreds if not thousands of Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Undersecretaries, etc. takes time.

[TheMojoPin]

That's the Admin's fault. You've got a senate willing to confirm, but Obama keeps sending problematic nominees and nominees withdrawing from consideration.

Even if everything goes through as quick as possible it still throws a spanner in the idea that the first 100 days is supposed to mean anything.

The bottom line is that the first 100 days are meaningless as a seperate period of evaluation. They're little different from the rest of the 4 years.

[Zorro]

Even if everything goes through as quick as possible it still throws a spanner in the idea that the first 100 days is supposed to mean anything.

The bottom line is that the first 100 days are meaningless as a seperate period of evaluation. They're little different from the rest of the 4 years.

Obama was the one that stressed his "First 100 days".

[TheMojoPin]

Obama was the one that stressed his "First 100 days".

I don't give a damn what any president says about the first 100 days. I'm smarter than the intended audience.

[A.J.]

I don't give a damn what any president says about the first 100 days. I'm smarter than the intended audience.

I'm tired of the pandering to the "intended audience".

[TheMojoPin]

I'm tired of the pandering to the "intended audience".

A lot of people are, but them there's a lot more votes.

[Dougie Brootal]

I'm smarter than the intended audience.

mod quote?

[west milly Tom]

On top of that, the "first 100 days" shit is meaningless and arbitrary. There's nothing that says any president has to have or even can have things drastically changed or "fixed" within the first 100 days. If those are your realistic expectations given the situation the administration faced going in, you're just being willfully obstinant. All of your vague rhetoric keeps trying to take openended and ongoing situations and package them into finite scenarios that can already be judged as failures OR successes. I'm not countering your rants by saying he has succeeded across the board...what I am saying is that most of the stuff you're harping on we have no clue what the resolution or outcome is going to be, or what future developments will occur. If you wat to say why you think they will fail or be detrimental down the line, fine, but to declare all of these things "failures" like you're doing right now is impossible. You can't do it, period.



So far you've restated your point over and over.that any failure is insignificant, meaningless, and arbitrary. I'm saying, its not. He's made a number of complete blunders already and I'm scared to see what will come next.

[TheMojoPin]

that any failure is insignificant, meaningless, and arbitrary. I'm saying, its not.

Explain how you're not being arbitrary. Explain specifically how the "failures" you've been repeating are obviously failures because, no, you've not done that. You've simply declared them failures seemingy based on you not agreeing ideologically with what was done or not done. That doesn't make something a success or a failure.

I've got no problem calling him out when he fucks up, but so far the things you're harping on are things where we don't know whether it's a fuck up or a success.