History in the making. 
Congratulations President Obama
Obama!
i witnessed history and was apart of it by voting for him. it's awesome! usa all the way! we can make it!
He did it
Though I'm not an American and never witnessed an American elections poll, I was eagerly watching all the events of last night. This is the BIG CHANGE in which not only the Americans required but the rest of the world required too, because the previous administrations, especially the administration in the last 8 years, messed everything, created economic crisis, created hostility and has made all the world hate America.
I can asses that Obama is the ideal change with fresh mind and brilliant ideas which will make the Americans remember the days of Ronald Reagan.
CONGRATS OBAMA
Though I'm not an American and never witnessed an American elections poll, I was eagerly watching all the events of last night. This is the BIG CHANGE in which not only the Americans required but the rest of the world required too, because the previous administrations, especially the administration in the last 8 years, messed everything, created economic crisis, created hostility and has made all the world hate America.
I can asses that Obama is the ideal change with fresh mind and brilliant ideas which will make the Americans remember the days of Ronald Reagan.
CONGRATS OBAMA
congrets Obama, and congrets to the USA
I truly hope the change is coming...
I truly hope the change is coming...
It will be a difficult job to back away from the mess the US is in internationally after the last 8 years. A lot of trust will need to be regained. It is unfortunately for me as a republican that we needed to elect a democrat to turn things around, but living outside the US as I do it is the image of the US that affects me the most.
In the half of Pilipino People we would like to congratulate amirican people especially to the frist african amirican president OBAMA they prove they can change , change is the need of amirica.imagine this is indeed a very inspiring day…I went to bed knowing Obama acquired 338 electoral votes when he only needed 270, and now he had managed to collect 349 electoral votes! If we are to ignore the popular vote (which perhaps gave Obama more or less 3 % lead), this is almost a landslide. JOB WILL DONE amirica.
the best candidate did win. by a landslide. i can't wait to see what his administration is capable of now that the democrats have control of the senate and the house. This is going to be a good four years of undoing the damage of the bush administration's 8 years of terror.
on an off note.. how the hell did bush win twice..
on an off note.. how the hell did bush win twice..
Though I did not vote for him, I am excited for the black community; this was a huge step forward!
I think anyone would be better than busch as well!
I think anyone would be better than busch as well!
Am from England and i stayed up until 6am watching it, but always knew Obama was going to win.
| flyfamilyguy wrote: |
|
I think anyone would be better than busch |
Anyone? I can think of several right now that would not be better, and I'm sure there's many I don't know about.
I am glad Obama won actually, I really didn't care because the world will eventually hate whomever is President sometime down the road. We all love bush in the begining but then hated him. I think that there should be no president and have 1 person from every state decided together how the country is run. Like that laws and such are discussed fair. The house of Reps can over ride the president anyhow.... Kinda pointless for a president if you ask me. However this is just my OPINION . Also if you respond to my message I might not answer I only come and post to keep my points up for my hosting 
!
!Let's hope Obama can deliver on what he promised. It's going to take a lot of work to undo all the crap that Bush has done over the last eight years.
I have a lot of confidence in him, but Barack Obama can't make right all the wrongs. I can't imagine the pressure on his shoulders, right now. If I prayed for people, I'd pray for him.
It feels good, though, to know we have a president who's smart and ethical, simultaniously.
It feels good, though, to know we have a president who's smart and ethical, simultaniously.
Just keep looking what he does after Bush....
Gratz Obama~
He has made a history,how about Malaysia?When can Chinese/Indians be the Prime Minister?
I wonder..
He has made a history,how about Malaysia?When can Chinese/Indians be the Prime Minister?
I wonder..
The president of the philippines nextweek will be going to States to meet Obama for Un convention i think personal greatings is to be talk and other matters.
| xaogo wrote: |
| the best candidate did win. by a landslide. i can't wait to see what his administration is capable of now that the democrats have control of the senate and the house. This is going to be a good four years of undoing the damage of the bush administration's 8 years of terror.
on an off note.. how the hell did bush win twice.. |
I say congratulations to President-Elect Obama, but I didn't vote for him. I wanted to vote for the first black leader of America, but I couldn't because of his stance on the issues. I respect Obama and the presidency, but I will not keep silent on the issues. How many of you could do the same if McCain had won?
I don't think the win was a landslide either. It looks huge b/c of the electoral votes, but look at the popular vote. The Republican party got what they deserved b/c they spent like drunk liberals the last 8 years. They need to change and give people the best candidate instead of the lesser of two evils.
-Loyal Opposition Member
OBAMA!
And I DO think it was a landslide. I think if they ever could count the suppressed ballots, the popular vote would look more like the electoral college landslide.
And I DO think it was a landslide. I think if they ever could count the suppressed ballots, the popular vote would look more like the electoral college landslide.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| OBAMA!
And I DO think it was a landslide. I think if they ever could count the suppressed ballots, the popular vote would look more like the electoral college landslide. |
Suppressed ballots?
BOTH sides cheat.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Suppressed ballots? BOTH sides cheat. |
Hey, if that's a joke, you forgot the punchline.
Obama will be president of the America. I think he will be a lot better than Bush. McCain wasn't a good alternative, so I'm glad that he has been elected.
I think that the voters are to much influenced by the media (and other things). Like: Obama is black, so I should vote for Obama, because I'm also black. (And that's not just in America) I think that someone should be chosen because of his statements, not because of all these other things.
So I'm glad with Obama as president, not because he has a coloured skin, but because I agree with (most of) his opinions, and I think he will be a good president.
Ivooo
By the way, I'm not from America, so I couldn't vote.
I think that the voters are to much influenced by the media (and other things). Like: Obama is black, so I should vote for Obama, because I'm also black. (And that's not just in America) I think that someone should be chosen because of his statements, not because of all these other things.
So I'm glad with Obama as president, not because he has a coloured skin, but because I agree with (most of) his opinions, and I think he will be a good president.
Ivooo
By the way, I'm not from America, so I couldn't vote.
As a Pole, I might be happy of Obama's choice.
He seems to be pretty calm and wise, but on the other hand, his foreign policy may be too 'soft', especially in contacts with Russia.
Who knows, may be in few years world will be missing Mr. Bush
He seems to be pretty calm and wise, but on the other hand, his foreign policy may be too 'soft', especially in contacts with Russia.
Who knows, may be in few years world will be missing Mr. Bush
Woo! Democrats FTW!
| handfleisch wrote: | ||||
Hey, if that's a joke, you forgot the punchline. |
Its not a joke, and it definitely isn't funny.
Do you really believe that the democratic party never cheats? Why?
Please tell us what you are talking about, in terms of this silliness about Democrats cheating.
But wait til we finish our just desserts
But wait til we finish our just desserts
Condolences to all of us in the USA ...
from:http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/barack-hussein-obama-50-lies-and-counting/
1.)” Selma Got Me Born ” - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 -
Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth,
who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most
corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga
has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in
Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in Decades.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily ” Salat “
prayers at 5 a.m. according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity
wouldn’t allow her to have been ‘one’ of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African; Swahili - LIAR, your Name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ ( from
which Barack came ) means ‘blessed’ in that language . Hussein is also Arabic, and so is
OBAMA .
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you
were Registered as a MUSLIM and kept that Faith for 31 years, until your wife made you
change, so You could run for Office.
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were Registered as MUSLIM
there, and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for ‘making faces’ ( check your own book ).
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not One teacher says, You could speak that
Language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, You
were There from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language.
What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch Cartoons ?
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa ( surprise ) and
the Middle East ( bigger surprise ), you have never been Anywhere else on the planet and have NO Experience with Our closest Allies .
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content
in High School to be “Barry” Obama, no mention of KENYA and no mention of ‘ struggle to
Identify ‘ - your classmates said You were just fine.
13.) An EBONY Magazine Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the
Article you mention in your Book . It doesn’t, and Never did , exist .
14.) A LIFE Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to
find the Article you mention in your Book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite
saying, “live” on TV, that You would Not have enough Experience by then, and You are all
about, having: ‘Experience First’ .
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but
not many others have 130 ” NO VOTES ” .
17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - LIAR, only when caught by Church groups and democrats,
did you beg to change your mis-vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a ” senior lecturer “, ON LEAVE .
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a “senior lecturer” ON LEAVE !
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, You didn’t Write it,
Introduce it, Change it, nor Create it!
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from Start to
Finish .
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your Bill was Rejected by Your own
Party for its pandering and LACK of all Regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear
Donor, EXELON from which, DAVID AXELROD came .
23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March 2008, State Bills You
sponsored or voted for, have Yet to be released, exposing all the ” special-interests pork “
hidden, within .
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens mess - LIAR, you were Part of a large
group of people who ‘remedied’ Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention Anyone else but
Yourself in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were
just combined into a Proposal which Lost 99 - 0 , and even YOU voted AGAINST Your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own Supporters claim
to have “not seen” BOLD action, on Your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were Not YOUR Bills,
but rather handed ‘ to ‘ You after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist You in a
Future bid for higher Office.
28.) No One Contacted Canada About N.A.F.T.A. - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued
the names and ” a Memo of ” the CONVERSATION, Your Campaign had with Them .
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution Vote on
Terrorism and your good friend ALI ABUNIMAH supports the Destruction of Israel.
30.) I Am Not Acting As President, Yet - LIAR, after the N.A.F.T.A. Memo, a dead
terrorist in the F.A.R.C. in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how You and he, were
working Together on getting F.A.R.C. recognized Officially.
31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed National ads to run 8-12
times per Day, for TWO weeks - and you still : Lost .
32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, No You Didn’t.
33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, NO You did NOT.
34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said: ” let the Delegates decide “.
35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer Caucuses that Limit the Vote,
Confuse the voters, Force a Public vote, and only operate during Small ‘windows’ of time .
36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26 ; most of which
you didn’t write Yourself.
37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to
sue if you Do Not stop Saying this. ( Obama ‘has’ stopped saying this. )
38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used “Tactics” to eliminate
Alice PALMER from running against you.
39.) I Don’t Take P.A.C. Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.
40.) I don’t ‘have’ Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 Lobbyists, and counting.
41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Advertisement - LIAR, your own campaign
worker made the ad’ on his Apple in one afternoon !
42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom who started MySpace issued
a Warning about this advertising, to MySpace clients.
43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with OTHER
people’s Words.
44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U. S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed “A BILL”, in the U. S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t ‘in Office’ to vote against it, unlike Kucinich who seems to be out gutting You, Obama ; AND, you have voted to Fund it Every single time . You also seem to be ’stepping back’, from your Departure date - AGAIN .
46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your ‘plan’ leaves us All to Pay the narrow 15,000,000 who ‘don’t have to’ Buy it.
47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both Companies, You cite as having sent you letters about this Conflict, have ” No Record ” of Any such letter ever being created, or sent.
48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a Flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem.
49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vein of WRIGHT and FARRAHKAN, in relation to their Contempt and hatred of America .
50.) WAL-MART Is a Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your WIFE has received nearly a Quarter of a Million dollars through ” TREEHOUSE “, which is connected to Wal-Mart.
from:http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/barack-hussein-obama-50-lies-and-counting/
1.)” Selma Got Me Born ” - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 -
Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth,
who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most
corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga
has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in
Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in Decades.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily ” Salat “
prayers at 5 a.m. according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity
wouldn’t allow her to have been ‘one’ of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African; Swahili - LIAR, your Name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ ( from
which Barack came ) means ‘blessed’ in that language . Hussein is also Arabic, and so is
OBAMA .
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you
were Registered as a MUSLIM and kept that Faith for 31 years, until your wife made you
change, so You could run for Office.
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were Registered as MUSLIM
there, and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for ‘making faces’ ( check your own book ).
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not One teacher says, You could speak that
Language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, You
were There from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language.
What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch Cartoons ?
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa ( surprise ) and
the Middle East ( bigger surprise ), you have never been Anywhere else on the planet and have NO Experience with Our closest Allies .
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content
in High School to be “Barry” Obama, no mention of KENYA and no mention of ‘ struggle to
Identify ‘ - your classmates said You were just fine.
13.) An EBONY Magazine Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the
Article you mention in your Book . It doesn’t, and Never did , exist .
14.) A LIFE Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to
find the Article you mention in your Book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite
saying, “live” on TV, that You would Not have enough Experience by then, and You are all
about, having: ‘Experience First’ .
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but
not many others have 130 ” NO VOTES ” .
17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - LIAR, only when caught by Church groups and democrats,
did you beg to change your mis-vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a ” senior lecturer “, ON LEAVE .
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a “senior lecturer” ON LEAVE !
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, You didn’t Write it,
Introduce it, Change it, nor Create it!
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from Start to
Finish .
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your Bill was Rejected by Your own
Party for its pandering and LACK of all Regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear
Donor, EXELON from which, DAVID AXELROD came .
23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March 2008, State Bills You
sponsored or voted for, have Yet to be released, exposing all the ” special-interests pork “
hidden, within .
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens mess - LIAR, you were Part of a large
group of people who ‘remedied’ Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention Anyone else but
Yourself in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were
just combined into a Proposal which Lost 99 - 0 , and even YOU voted AGAINST Your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own Supporters claim
to have “not seen” BOLD action, on Your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were Not YOUR Bills,
but rather handed ‘ to ‘ You after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist You in a
Future bid for higher Office.
28.) No One Contacted Canada About N.A.F.T.A. - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued
the names and ” a Memo of ” the CONVERSATION, Your Campaign had with Them .
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution Vote on
Terrorism and your good friend ALI ABUNIMAH supports the Destruction of Israel.
30.) I Am Not Acting As President, Yet - LIAR, after the N.A.F.T.A. Memo, a dead
terrorist in the F.A.R.C. in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how You and he, were
working Together on getting F.A.R.C. recognized Officially.
31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed National ads to run 8-12
times per Day, for TWO weeks - and you still : Lost .
32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, No You Didn’t.
33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, NO You did NOT.
34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said: ” let the Delegates decide “.
35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer Caucuses that Limit the Vote,
Confuse the voters, Force a Public vote, and only operate during Small ‘windows’ of time .
36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26 ; most of which
you didn’t write Yourself.
37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to
sue if you Do Not stop Saying this. ( Obama ‘has’ stopped saying this. )
38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used “Tactics” to eliminate
Alice PALMER from running against you.
39.) I Don’t Take P.A.C. Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.
40.) I don’t ‘have’ Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 Lobbyists, and counting.
41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Advertisement - LIAR, your own campaign
worker made the ad’ on his Apple in one afternoon !
42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom who started MySpace issued
a Warning about this advertising, to MySpace clients.
43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with OTHER
people’s Words.
44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U. S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed “A BILL”, in the U. S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t ‘in Office’ to vote against it, unlike Kucinich who seems to be out gutting You, Obama ; AND, you have voted to Fund it Every single time . You also seem to be ’stepping back’, from your Departure date - AGAIN .
46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your ‘plan’ leaves us All to Pay the narrow 15,000,000 who ‘don’t have to’ Buy it.
47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both Companies, You cite as having sent you letters about this Conflict, have ” No Record ” of Any such letter ever being created, or sent.
48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a Flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem.
49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vein of WRIGHT and FARRAHKAN, in relation to their Contempt and hatred of America .
50.) WAL-MART Is a Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your WIFE has received nearly a Quarter of a Million dollars through ” TREEHOUSE “, which is connected to Wal-Mart.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Please tell us what you are talking about, in terms of this silliness about Democrats cheating.
|
handfleisch, just how blinded are you by your own opinions? I realize that there are immoral people in every group, including the ones I endorse, but you seem to willfully disbelieve that there could be such a thing as an immoral democrat. Specific, proven incidents of cheating are not even required; you only need to notice that they are human to know that at least some out of the millions of them would cheat to get what they want.
| myleshi wrote: |
| Condolences to all of us in the USA ... |
Condolences to you, myleshi. They really go all out to bash Obama on that site huh?
Yes yes, we all know Barack Obama is really a secret muslim terrorist radical communist <insert scary word> <insert scary word> <insert scary word>.
| Quote: |
| handfleisch, just how blinded are you by your own opinions? I realize that there are immoral people in every group, including the ones I endorse, but you seem to willfully disbelieve that there could be such a thing as an immoral democrat. Specific, proven incidents of cheating are not even required; you only need to notice that they are human to know that at least some out of the millions of them would cheat to get what they want. |
I ask for proof, you give a whine. If you have a shred of evidence, please start a separate thread with it. We partyin' on this one!
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
I ask for proof, you give a whine. If you have a shred of evidence, please start a separate thread with it. |
I really am too lazy to look up some decent proof, just to have you criticize the source (because the only sources you trust would not run such a story). Do some research on your own. Really, you should: it'll be an eye-opening experience for you. It certainly was for me when I decided to look for dirt on the people I trusted. Once you do that, and question the things you've so far accepted blindly, then you'll be able to stop being one of the worst participants in the politics forum.
Oh, and please knock it off with the images.
| Quote: |
| Condolences to you, myleshi. They really go all out to bash Obama on that site huh?
Yes yes, we all know Barack Obama is really a secret muslim terrorist radical communist <insert scary word> <insert scary word> <insert scary word>. |
Well, thats the problem isn't it? We know nothing about BHO or his agenda since he has no record to base any sound reasonings on.
Good grief.
Black prophecy
The Presidential change in one of the most powerful countries became the main topic for discussions in Russian blogs. Though the main theme is pretty unusual: bloggers talk of Vanda’s prophecy mostly. It turned out the famous soothsayer predicted 2008 U.S. Presidential election result. Opinions on what exactly she said are different, but everybody thinks she predicted a “black man” win.
“Vanga predicted a black man to become the 44th U.S. President (after George Bush – editorial), and this President will be the last one because America will freeze up or go down in the economics. It probably can divide into the North and South states,” DobryachOk writes.
“Vanga’s prediction sounds like this: when a black President is elected problems come to the U.S.,” an anonymous author says.
“Vanga predicted African American President could lead the U.S. to a miracle and the whole world would win,” nusha states.
“Vanga predicted America would have the crisis and here you are!”
If Vanga really ever said anything about this election, these bloggers are the closest to the truth:
A.K.: “Obama will win for sure; Vanga has already predicted the black U.S. President.”
Cra3Y: “Can anyone at all be white in politics?...”
I just hope all this "prophecy" thing won't be true...
The Presidential change in one of the most powerful countries became the main topic for discussions in Russian blogs. Though the main theme is pretty unusual: bloggers talk of Vanda’s prophecy mostly. It turned out the famous soothsayer predicted 2008 U.S. Presidential election result. Opinions on what exactly she said are different, but everybody thinks she predicted a “black man” win.
“Vanga predicted a black man to become the 44th U.S. President (after George Bush – editorial), and this President will be the last one because America will freeze up or go down in the economics. It probably can divide into the North and South states,” DobryachOk writes.
“Vanga’s prediction sounds like this: when a black President is elected problems come to the U.S.,” an anonymous author says.
“Vanga predicted African American President could lead the U.S. to a miracle and the whole world would win,” nusha states.
“Vanga predicted America would have the crisis and here you are!”
If Vanga really ever said anything about this election, these bloggers are the closest to the truth:
A.K.: “Obama will win for sure; Vanga has already predicted the black U.S. President.”
Cra3Y: “Can anyone at all be white in politics?...”
I just hope all this "prophecy" thing won't be true...
| stel4e wrote: |
| Black prophecy
The Presidential change in one of the most powerful countries became the main topic for discussions in Russian blogs. Though the main theme is pretty unusual: bloggers talk of Vanda’s prophecy mostly. It turned out the famous soothsayer predicted 2008 U.S. Presidential election result. Opinions on what exactly she said are different, but everybody thinks she predicted a “black man” win. “Vanga predicted a black man to become the 44th U.S. President (after George Bush – editorial), and this President will be the last one because America will freeze up or go down in the economics. It probably can divide into the North and South states,” DobryachOk writes. “Vanga’s prediction sounds like this: when a black President is elected problems come to the U.S.,” an anonymous author says. “Vanga predicted African American President could lead the U.S. to a miracle and the whole world would win,” nusha states. “Vanga predicted America would have the crisis and here you are!” If Vanga really ever said anything about this election, these bloggers are the closest to the truth: A.K.: “Obama will win for sure; Vanga has already predicted the black U.S. President.” Cra3Y: “Can anyone at all be white in politics?...” I just hope all this "prophecy" thing won't be true... |
I suppose it would be far too much to ask for the exact original wording of this 'prophesy'...
They have removed the article : http://russianfun.net/interesting-galleries/vanga-predictions-for-this-world/
But of course I can't tell for sure it's something trusted. Personally I don't want to believe all this....
But of course I can't tell for sure it's something trusted. Personally I don't want to believe all this....
Try this one: http://www.aif.ru/society/article/22486
Or just google "Vanga." Sites and blogs abound.
Respectfully,
M
Or just google "Vanga." Sites and blogs abound.
Respectfully,
M
all of us are waiting the change,which Obama promise to make.
Yes. Congrats to Obama and hopefully his term goes well. He faces many huge tasks, and I have a feeling this "honeymoon" period of everyone loving Obama will not last very long.
I just cannot understand why everyone automatically thinks that Obama is going to be good or bad. How can you judge that already? He hasn't even done anything as president yet. Give him a chance to get in there, do what he feels is right, and then you can judge how much you like or dislike him.
I give everyone a chance. Like I said, he faces many problems that must be solved. However, one thing that I could see coming out of him being president is increased positive relationships with other countries and their leaders. Like him or love him (which like I said, I don't know how you could do either yet), you cannot deny that he has a likable personality and a very good speaker.
The inauguration address was good, but do not put it up there as the greatest of all time. It wasn't. But it was very good.
Good luck PRESIDENT Obama......you have my support.
I just cannot understand why everyone automatically thinks that Obama is going to be good or bad. How can you judge that already? He hasn't even done anything as president yet. Give him a chance to get in there, do what he feels is right, and then you can judge how much you like or dislike him.
I give everyone a chance. Like I said, he faces many problems that must be solved. However, one thing that I could see coming out of him being president is increased positive relationships with other countries and their leaders. Like him or love him (which like I said, I don't know how you could do either yet), you cannot deny that he has a likable personality and a very good speaker.
The inauguration address was good, but do not put it up there as the greatest of all time. It wasn't. But it was very good.
Good luck PRESIDENT Obama......you have my support.
True. I was jus thinking today about his inaugural address and how much idealism was in it. I hope he is thick-skinned enough to deal with all the bad things that will no doubt make their way into his office. He may, due to being a good person, have a spontaneous feeling of what needs to be done, but then there will always be a "greater good", which is the constitution and the people of the United States and sometimes he will have to make choices that are contrary to his own personal ones. Also, when you make war on enemies like the terrorists, who fight dirty, and with no rules, then perhaps some of the dirt will attach as well. Not an easy job. But time will tell of course. He has good beginnings and very strong support nationally and internationally, even in the Middle East. Hope he has a very strong security set-up too. Going to be quite challenging for the Obamas but no doubt interesting too.
Barack Obama has a lot of expectations, it works in his favor and against. He is the first Black president but could probably be the last if he doesn't live up. On a bad note, he has to take over in the middle of this terrible economic crisis, but in the same breath, when your at the bottom the only way to go is up, also, following Bush should make him look like a genius in comparison.
I wish him all the best.
I wish him all the best.
| Noremac wrote: |
| Barack Obama has a lot of expectations, it works in his favor and against. He is the first Black president but could probably be the last if he doesn't live up. On a bad note, he has to take over in the middle of this terrible economic crisis, but in the same breath, when your at the bottom the only way to go is up, also, following Bush should make him look like a genius in comparison.
I wish him all the best. |
I think I know what you mean, however, let's not forget he did not start at the bottom. He won an overwhelming majority of votes in almost all of the 50 States of the US. So he started strong. In that way. The environment is very challenging right now, and this is usually when the best of Presidents are shown, also the worst. Time will tell how well Obama will do. So far I don't think he did the right thing with his large bailing out package as that served Big Banks with Rich People in it who will hold on to their money, rather than spending it. I would have preferred him to start NEW Banks for the people in the street he wishes to reach with the bail-out package. There is a saying that if you want to make real change, you have to do things differently from before. By bailing out the Big Banks, he is just propping them up, doing exactly the same thing as before.
Though it's going to take a long time to undo eight years of bad government, Obama is showing what strong and responsible leadership looks like, making the tough but smart decisions while putting some sanity back into the White House. Bush wasted 2 trillion dollars on tax cuts and 1 trillion (and counting) on the Iraq War, and we ended up in recession and financial crisis. Obama is reversing those two mistakes to try to fix this mess:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?_r=1&hp
| Quote: |
| Obama Has Plan to Slash Deficit, Despite Stimulus Bill
WASHINGTON — After a string of costly bailout and stimulus measures, President Obama will set a goal this week to cut the annual deficit at least in half by the end of his term, administration officials said. The reduction would come in large part through Iraq troop withdrawals and higher taxes on the wealthy. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?_r=1&hp
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Though it's going to take a long time to undo eight years of bad government, Obama is showing what strong and responsible leadership looks like, making the tough but smart decisions while putting some sanity back into the White House. Bush wasted 2 trillion dollars on tax cuts and 1 trillion (and counting) on the Iraq War, and we ended up in recession and financial crisis. Obama is reversing those two mistakes to try to fix this mess:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?_r=1&hp |
Maybe you can explain the logic for me here Handfleish, how can Obama go into debt for an added 1-trillion dollars and cut the deficit at the same time? Would like you to explain this to me.
I hope that he will succeed of course, however perhaps you could explain to us how he is going to do it.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Maybe you can explain the logic for me here Handfleish, how can Obama go into debt for an added 1-trillion dollars and cut the deficit at the same time? Would like you to explain this to me.
I hope that he will succeed of course, however perhaps you could explain to us how he is going to do it. |
Why do you ask this when you could get your answer by reading the article I linked to. Or here's a freebie -- another one you could read, this time from the LA Times
http://www.truthout.org/022309K
| Quote: |
| President Obama's Budget Will Seek to Cut Deficit in Half
Sunday 22 February 2009 by: Christi Parsons, The Los Angeles Times His plan would spend less in Iraq and on wasteful programs and end a tax cut for upper-income Americans. He expects it will help him to keep some costly election promises. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
Maybe you can explain the logic for me here Handfleish, how can Obama go into debt for an added 1-trillion dollars and cut the deficit at the same time? Would like you to explain this to me. I hope that he will succeed of course, however perhaps you could explain to us how he is going to do it. |
The title is a bit misleading. It appears his plan is to reduce how much his administration will add to the federal deficit, not actually reduce the overall deficit. The current projection is that his administration's spending will create a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and he hopes to get how much he adds to the total deficit down to $513 billion per year in 2013. Mainly he's hoping to do this by dropping Iraq as a front in the War on Terrorism and increasing taxes. He's also banking that he will be able to "...take steps to make government work more efficiently and eliminate programs that don't work...." While a noble cause, I don't really see him doing that. It seems counterintuitive to me that he would be able to somehow make the federal government any more efficient by throwing more of our money at it.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| While a noble cause, I don't really see him doing that. It seems counterintuitive to me that he would be able to somehow make the federal government any more efficient by throwing more of our money at it. |
Right, and also runs counter to this whole idea of getting extra money to circulate so that it can jumpstart the economy, in the short-term at least. Truthfully though, I can't figure out exactly how it works. The plan is not transparent at all. Guess Buffett always said that if you cannot see whatever you are studying clearly and if it looks complicated, there is a good chance it won't work at all.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| The title is a bit misleading. It appears his plan is to reduce how much his administration will add to the federal deficit, not actually reduce the overall deficit. The current projection is that his administration's spending will create a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and he hopes to get how much he adds to the total deficit down to $513 billion per year in 2013. Mainly he's hoping to do this by dropping Iraq as a front in the War on Terrorism and increasing taxes. |
Obama isn't raising taxes per se, he is in fact cutting taxes for middle class Americans while undoing the disastrous tax-cuts-for-rich Bush strategy. Essentially he will be returning the tax structure to pre-Bush days, a time of prosperity.
Due to the financial mess he inherited, it will be a lot harder for Obama to perform an economic miracle the way Clinton did in balancing the budget and turning a deficit into a surplus. But we can try, yes we can.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Obama isn't raising taxes per se, he is in fact cutting taxes for middle class Americans while undoing the disastrous tax-cuts-for-rich Bush strategy. |
You can put whatever spin you want on it, but the end result is taxes are going up, which hurts everyone. Obama's scheme includes raising the self-employment tax from 12.5% to 35% on many businesses and sole proprietorships (and no, not just the ones with revenue over $200k), thereby destroying one of the great incentives individuals and groups have for starting businesses and creating jobs. And in the end these increases in taxes result in devastating increases on the cost of goods and services, which are hardest on the less economically able.
| jmi256 wrote: | ||
You can put whatever spin you want on it, but the end result is taxes are going up, which hurts everyone. Obama's scheme includes raising the self-employment tax from 12.5% to 35% on many businesses and sole proprietorships (and no, not just the ones with revenue over $200k), thereby destroying one of the great incentives individuals and groups have for starting businesses and creating jobs. And in the end these increases in taxes result in devastating increases on the cost of goods and services, which are hardest on the less economically able. |
It's not spin at all; it's fact combined with having a memory that goes back more than one or two years. Your statement, "the end result is taxes are going up, which hurts everyone" is worse than spin, it's gross oversimplification.
Obama is being careful to not take incentives away from small business startups, etc, and he's giving tax breaks to the middle class. Since at this point the Republicans have no new ideas, suggestions or even viable leadership, and their policies brought disaster, they can't exactly start lecturing us about the minutiae of what they think is wrong with this plan.
Last edited by handfleisch on Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Obama is being careful to not take incentives away from small business startups, etc, and he's giving tax breaks to the middle class. Since at this point the Republicans have no new ideas, suggestions or even viable leadership, and their policies brought disaster, they can't exactly start lecturing us about the minutiae of what they think is wrong with this plan. |
Yes actually they can. If the policy that Obama wants to bring in is wrong then it is wrong. Period. Saying that the Republicans don't have a plan does not make the democrats plan right.
| Quote: |
| Due to the financial mess he inherited, it will be a lot harder for Obama to perform an economic miracle the way Clinton did in balancing the budget and turning a deficit into a surplus. But we can try, yes we can. |
Clinton? Economic miracles? His damn lending plans caused half of the mess we are in right now. Every President inherits a bad economy, or some sort or another of crap. Every president has rotten leftovers he has to deal with when he enters office, Obama's predicament isn't really different from any other presidents.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| Yes actually they can. If the policy that Obama wants to bring in is wrong then it is wrong. Period. Saying that the Republicans don't have a plan does not make the democrats plan right. |
Yes, you're right, they can, and we can then laugh that the Republicans think anyone is going to trust their judgment at this point. Me, I'll take the advice of Nobel laureates, you can keep listening to Cheney and Hannity if you want.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| Clinton? Economic miracles? His damn lending plans caused half of the mess we are in right now. Every President inherits a bad economy, or some sort or another of crap. Every president has rotten leftovers he has to deal with when he enters office, Obama's predicament isn't really different from any other presidents. |
Sorry, that's really not true. Clinton did what no one thought possible at that point, to balance the budget. That's amazing right there. All this revisionist history trying to make the Clinton era look economically bad, and to compare what Obama has inherited to what GWBush inherited -- well, once again it's laughable.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| It's not spin at all; it's fact combined with having a memory that goes back more than one or two years. |
No, it's spin. Your phraseology seems like it's lifted directly from an Obama press release with no real willingness to discuss the underlying issues. You can be assured my memory goes back more than one or two years, but I'll ignore your attempt at an insult to avoid a flame war, though.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Your statement, "the end result is taxes are going up, which hurts everyone" is worse than spin, it's gross oversimplification. |
Ok, so exactly how is taxes going up not a tax increase?
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Obama is being careful to not take incentives away from small business startups, etc, and he's giving tax breaks to the middle class. |
I do agree that he's trying, but I also believe that he's failing. Given the nature of the world, he doesn't get points for effort. Only results. So far the plan that has been railroaded through was light on details, lacked transparency, filled with pork projects and will fail to do what needs to get done. And in the end it puts the US under long-term distress in the form of long-term tax increases, higher inflation, more dependence on Big Government rather than hard work, service cuts in the future, etc. Not really what I would call "careful."
There was no room for debate and collaboration, but rather a "take it or leave it" approach. On top of that there is the assertion that anyone who did not drink the Kool-aid and vote for the bill somehow was advocating doing nothing at all, which is exactly not the case.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Since at this point the Republicans have no new ideas, suggestions or even viable leadership, and their policies brought disaster, they can't exactly start lecturing us about the minutiae of what they think is wrong with this plan. |
I didn't realize Obama suspended the Constitution yet. If he hasn't, then everyone has a right to disagree and elected officials have a duty to speak up when something that is detrimental to the health of the country is going on. And it's not minutiae. Effectively crippling small businesses by almost tripling their tax burden is a big deal.
I think the Republicans should have been allowed to present and debate their points before you claim they have none. Oh wait, they weren't allowed so that Obama, Pelosi and Reed could get their version of the bill passed without any transparency.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| Ok, so exactly how is taxes going up not a tax increase? |
How exactly are taxes going down not a tax decrease? Because that's what's happening.
How exactly are reverting taxes for the rich to Clinton levels an increase? Taxes for the rich will be the same as they were before Bush's disastrous policies. So, no net increase.
The rest of your post is just RW talking points. Please name the pork. While you're at it, why don't you complain about Obama funding the "train to Sin City". http://www.crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/david-shuster-smacks-around-rep-darr
| jmi256 wrote: |
| I didn't realize Obama suspended the Constitution yet. If he hasn't, then everyone has a right to disagree and elected officials have a duty to speak up when something that is detrimental to the health of the country is going on. And it's not minutiae. Effectively crippling small businesses by almost tripling their tax burden is a big deal.
I think the Republicans should have been allowed to present and debate their points before you claim they have none. |
The Repubs had plenty of chance on this bill and they had plenty of chance for eight years. Their weakness right now, believe it or not, is not due to an evil conspiracy to suspend the Constitution or whatever Hannity and Limbaugh are spouting these days -- it's due to the fact that Repubs don't get much respect right now, and that's entirely the fault of their reckless, irresponsible, crazy-assed behavior.
I hope it will open a new era for the US and upon that, for the entire world.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
How exactly are taxes going down not a tax decrease? Because that's what's happening. |
Do you even read the drivel that you keep posting? Granted your source is suspect, but I'd think at least you'd read it. In the very first sentence:
| Quote: |
| Washington - President Obama will offer a plan this week to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term in office, largely by winding down the war in Iraq and raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year, an administration official said Saturday. |
Source = http://www.truthout.org/022309K
Now I know you're going to come back with some quack argument that since the claim in the article is that it affects those making more than $250,000 it's not a real tax increase. But there are other areas that he has said he is increasing taxes as well, such as the self-employment tax. These increases in tax burdens do not offset any decreases he claims to be providing those who barely pay any taxes to begin with. The net result is not zero, but rather an increase in the tax burden overall.
Here is a very, very basic example and I kept the numbers simple so you can understand them (we'll see).
A small company owner makes $200,000 a year and is in the 40% tax bracket. This means he pays $80,000 a year in taxes.
The two individuals he employees (A and B) make $40,000 each and are in the 15% tax bracket ($6,000 in taxes apiece).
So in total the government is taking $92,000 from these three people.
Now say Employee A and B’s taxes are reduced by 15% (to a zero tax liability), and the small company owner’s taxes are increased by 15% (to a 55% tax liability). The two do not offset each other. In fact, the government is now taking more ($110,000).
So now the government has taken more liquidity out of the system, and the business owner is penalized for starting and maintaining a business. Once you factor in costs and expenses, his employees are most likely bring home more than he is, and he's the one who to the risk of starting a business.
Now I apologize if this post sounds short, but if you're going to make an arguement you need to back it up with more than "yes it is."
Yes congrats to Obama! I just hope he can live up to everything he say's he is going to do!
| jmi256 wrote: |
| Now I know you're going to come back with some quack argument that since the claim in the article is that it affects those making more than $250,000 it's not a real tax increase. But there are other areas that he has said he is increasing taxes as well, such as the self-employment tax. These increases in tax burdens do not offset any decreases he claims to be providing those who barely pay any taxes to begin with. The net result is not zero, but rather an increase in the tax burden overall.
Here is a very, very basic example and I kept the numbers simple so you can understand them (we'll see). A small company owner makes $200,000 a year and is in the 40% tax bracket. This means he pays $80,000 a year in taxes. The two individuals he employees (A and B) make $40,000 each and are in the 15% tax bracket ($6,000 in taxes apiece). So in total the government is taking $92,000 from these three people. Now say Employee A and B’s taxes are reduced by 15% (to a zero tax liability), and the small company owner’s taxes are increased by 15% (to a 55% tax liability). The two do not offset each other. In fact, the government is now taking more ($110,000). So now the government has taken more liquidity out of the system, and the business owner is penalized for starting and maintaining a business. Once you factor in costs and expenses, his employees are most likely bring home more than he is, and he's the one who to the risk of starting a business. Now I apologize if this post sounds short, but if you're going to make an arguement you need to back it up with more than "yes it is." |
Thanks so much for this explanation. Wow! Wish someone could put that out to the media for a change! Regarding the comment about the small business guys being penalized, that is EXACTLY what happened in Canada. There were some very good tax incentives in place, so they would tinker the way you explained the above, add incentives in one area, publicize it of course, and hope nobody picks up on it. Very difficult to start a small business these days in Canada along the size you described above. Almost as though they are being penalized for it. Canadians are as anxious about paying taxes as some people are about terrorism in the world. The people in the street use accountants to do their taxes for him, another added burden of course. Go to any Tax Office in Canada and you would find something really fancy, with plenty of people to help you, plenty of leaflets on all the different sections. Product of BIG Government and bureacracy being sponsored by BIG taxes.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| Do you even read the drivel that you keep posting? Granted your source is suspect, but I'd think at least you'd read it.
... Now I know you're going to come back with some quack argument that since the claim in the article is that it affects those making more than $250,000 it's not a real tax increase. |
Hello, earth to jmi256. Come down, take your pills. Okay, now: The current plan is returning taxes on the rich to pre-Bush levels, and lowering taxes on others. Do you understand, therefore, that simply calling the plan a tax increase is, well, drivel?
Thanks for your simple explanation with your creative figures. The line between a designation of rich or not is always going to be arguable, even more so when you use unreferenced factoids while predefining all counter-argument as "quack". But given that no one wants the plan to cut the incentive of small business owners and that, in following the plan as well as any layman can, I read the words of Nobel laureates and other serious analysts, forgive me if I suspect the quackery might be more yours than theirs.
Obamania!
Who'd a thunk it that the cure to the recession is a whole bunch of Obama paraphernalia!?
(sweet... I got to use the word paraphernalia in a post...)
Who'd a thunk it that the cure to the recession is a whole bunch of Obama paraphernalia!?
(sweet... I got to use the word paraphernalia in a post...)
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Okay, now: The current plan is returning taxes on the rich to pre-Bush levels, and lowering taxes on others. Do you understand, therefore, that simply calling the plan a tax increase is, well, drivel? |
Again, when the amount of taxes collected goes up, that's a tax increase. That's exactly what Obama proposes. If you have something that contradicts this, I'd like to see it. Your spin of "returning taxes on the rich to pre-Bush levels" is laughable. What Obama proposes is well beyond past levels. By choking off American businesses, he's looking to kill the the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs.
There are many reasons businesses and the Stock Market don't like Obama.
| Quote: |
|
Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An 'F' Today marks the one-month anniversary of President Obama’s inauguration. In his brief time in office, the president has overseen three massive new spending initiatives — the $787 billion stimulus bill, the trillion-dollar financial stability initiative and, most recently, the $275 billion mortgage assistance program. That’s a lot of activity, and a ton of money, but so far the reaction to the new administration’s programs has been decidedly negative. Investors, among others, have panned the plans; the stock market is off nearly 10% from the day before the inauguration, or more than 800 points on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Yesterday, in fact, we crossed a truly alarming divide. The Dow Jones average closed at its lowest point since October 2002, the bottom of the last bear market. The S&P 500 fell to 779, barely above the intra-day low of 741 of last November. For many market analysts, if the market crashes through that recent benchmark, it will next move significantly lower. Ouch. What is going to turn this beast around, and what should the president do? First of all, let’s dispense with the antiquated notion that only rich people own stocks, and that the market’s ups and downs are unimportant. Almost everyone has a stake in our financial markets, either through owning stocks and bonds directly or through pension plans. Even the neediest Americans who are fed or clothed by charities are hurt when those organizations’ endowments crater or donations dry up. Clearly, it is way too early for any of the new stabilization and stimulus programs to have taken effect. Why then is the consensus so pessimistic? Certainly the political wrangling of the past month has dispelled optimism that President Obama can change the contentious nature of American politics. Both Democrats and Republicans have spurned Obama’s leadership. The free-for-all over the stimulus bill portrayed Congress in the worst possible light — no surprise there — and led Americans to view not only the process but the bill with utter skepticism. Delivering a 1000-page bill to our legislators just two hours before the signing deadline (and then going on a long-weekend holiday before signing it) was outrageous. The mortgage relief plan hasn’t been received much better. Most Americans (ninety two percent, by some estimates) pay their mortgages on time; they’re darned if they know why they should bail out their neighbors. At the same time, Obama’s own administration seems sharply divided between pragmatists and ideologues. For instance, one camp is pushing for protectionist measures while the other recognizes the dire consequences that "Buy American" provisions might deliver. Over the realistic objections of the National Economic Council’s Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, it is said that Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel encouraged Senator Chris Dodd to, at the last minute, attach a punitive pay cap on Wall Street execs into the stimulus bill. This tug of war may also account for the gaping holes in the financial bill delivered with child-like upspeak by Geithner, and similar inadequacies in the new mortgage plan. The housing program stupidly omits an obvious need to insulate mortgage servicers from legal claims that they abridged mortgage-holders rights. Because so many mortgages were packaged and sold off to investors, immunity from lawsuits is a necessity if we want servicers to change mortgage terms. The White House scramble has led to creeping fear that we’re dealing with the Junior Varsity. I’ve even heard people pining for former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — hard to imagine, right? (No one quite misses Bush yet; let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.) Now we need President Obama to quit the campaign trail and start looking presidential. He needs to take ownership of the country’s problems and solutions. We all get that he inherited this mess, but as a candidate he had a lot of answers on how he would manage the clean-up; it’s time to get on with it. He needs to push his initiatives forward as quickly as possible, and create some optimism that spending trillions of dollars will get us out of this crisis. We know that having the government patch up schools or revise mortgages will be untidy and expensive, but the sheer volume of money being thrown at these problems will ultimately have an impact. Even the expectation of help on the way could prove beneficial. I usually try to find some good news to share with wOw readers, and so I am happy to report that yesterday the Conference Board reported that its index of leading indicators rose in January for the second month in a row. The index turned negative in July 2007, heralding the downturn, and appears to have bottomed this past December. Items boosting the index are a strong rise in the nation’s money supply, improved credit spreads, a slight pop in new orders for nondefense capital goods and a modest rise in consumer expectations. My concern is that recent events have squelched that optimism among consumers, and that the nation’s mood is even darker than it was a few months ago. Remember how Obama derided the “politics of fear?” He’s become its greatest champion. |
Source = http://www.wowowow.com/post/liz-peek-barack-obama-economy-stimulus-214454
And there's this CNBC editorial about businesses' perception of Obama.
Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104
| Quote: |
|
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds. That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow. Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years. This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach. Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts. And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less. The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market. Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles. Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner. There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse. |
Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104
jmi256, my impression is that Obama is trying to copy something that has worked a few decades ago with the New Deal, i.e. the making of a mark by a President doing something famous that went down well in "can do" American history. So now he is trying to reinvent "that success" by taking charge as another famous President in the making with lots of "firm" action and speeches, but perhaps this is the time when less interference would have been better, especially when the interference means that Government is going to invest billions of citizens dollars in big failed businesses when Government is not qualified to be in the business of doing business.
| jmi256 wrote: |
|
Again, when the amount of taxes collected goes up, that's a tax increase. That's exactly what Obama proposes. If you have something that contradicts this, I'd like to see it. Your spin of "returning taxes on the rich to pre-Bush levels" is laughable. |
Actually, every analysis I have ever seen has said that this plan
-has as much tax cuts for the middle class as tax "increase" for the rich
-is just letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, so again, it's not an increase
And since you're the one making chicken-little warnings like
| jmi256 wrote: |
| What Obama proposes is well beyond past levels. What Obama proposes is well beyond past levels. By choking off American businesses, he's looking to kill the the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs |
why don't you back it up with some proof not from the hysterical prima donnas at CATO?
| handfleisch wrote: | ||||
Actually, every analysis I have ever seen has said that this plan -has as much tax cuts for the middle class as tax "increase" for the rich -is just letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, so again, it's not an increase And since you're the one making chicken-little warnings like
why don't you back it up with some proof not from the hysterical prima donnas at CATO? |
Once again you are trying to twist the truth. Obama is raising taxes, and most people are clearly aware of it. I and others have given plenty of proof/support toward this stance. If you want to continue arguing the point when Obama himself has said he's increasing taxes, go ahead. Obviously even you don't believe him.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| why don't you back it up with some proof not from the hysterical prima donnas at CATO? |
OK, let's start with the trillion dollars, where do you think it is going to come from Handfleisch? How is Obama going to raise it?
| deanhills wrote: | ||
OK, let's start with the trillion dollars, where do you think it is going to come from Handfleisch? How is Obama going to raise it? |
He'll steal it from the rich, of course, because the average voter doesn't care about tax increases, as long as they only affect those who make more money than they do.
In the long run, though, this will only hurt the economy more by encouraging companies to move overseas and driving prices of goods up.
| jmi256 wrote: | ||
Once again you are trying to twist the truth. Obama is raising taxes, and most people are clearly aware of it. I and others have given plenty of proof/support toward this stance. If you want to continue arguing the point when Obama himself has said he's increasing taxes, go ahead. Obviously even you don't believe him. |
I will take that as a "no" answer to my question. My simple point is that many detractors like to dismiss the plan by misleadingly calling it simply a tax increase, when in fact it is a tax cut for many and a tax increase for some only in the defacto sense, as well as having many other components.
Back on topic!
| handfleisch wrote: |
| I will take that as a "no" answer to my question. My simple point is that many detractors like to dismiss the plan by misleadingly calling it simply a tax increase, when in fact it is a tax cut for many and a tax increase for some only in the defacto sense, as well as having many other components. |
One thing that has come out of all these debates about the taxes is that it is not simple. If it is not simple, it cannot be good.
Handfleisch, why play math with taxes? Does Obama think some people are dumb and others are more intelligent? Is he applying some form of psychologically acceptable taxation, treating one section of the tax payers one way, and another section another? And only those with real brains able to figure out what is really going on? And not always sure about it?
Not to imagine the cost of doing those tax cuts and higher taxes for the wealthy, as of course laywers and accountants will now have to beef themselves up on the new rules so that they can find some escape clauses as that is their job to do.
I propose talking financial crisis / stimulus package on the other threads devoted to that and get back on topic with this one: 
| deanhills wrote: | ||
One thing that has come out of all these debates about the taxes is that it is not simple. If it is not simple, it cannot be good. Handfleisch, why play math with taxes? Does Obama think some people are dumb and others are more intelligent? Is he applying some form of psychologically acceptable taxation, treating one section of the tax payers one way, and another section another? And only those with real brains able to figure out what is really going on? And not always sure about it? Not to imagine the cost of doing those tax cuts and higher taxes for the wealthy, as of course laywers and accountants will now have to beef themselves up on the new rules so that they can find some escape clauses as that is their job to do. |
Good points. Some people are already looking at their businesses and figuring out ways to avoid being taxed unfairly. It's sad that it makes more sense for them to decrease production in order to decrease their tax burden. That's the result of an oppressive and predatory tax structure that penalizes businesses and entrepreneurs for success, though. The article below from ABC News is a few days old, but here’s an except. You can read the full article in the link.
| Quote: |
|
Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan President Would Slap More Taxes on Those Who Make Over $250K to Fund Health Care By EMILY FRIEDMAN March 2, 2009 President Barack Obama's tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar. A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law. So far, Obama's tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all. "We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said. "We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?" The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade. "This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it." Obama's budget proposal calls for $989 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, most of which will be earned from increased taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 and from families who make more than $250,000. The expiration of the Bush administration's tax cuts at the end of 2010 would garner an estimated $338 billion, $179 billion would come from the elimination of some itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers and $118 billion would be brought in from a hike in the capital gains tax. The remaining $353 billion would come from taxes on businesses. Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan. "I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off." "Generally it means being less productive," she said. "The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing." |
Source = http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6975547&page=1
| jmi256 wrote: | ||
The article below from ABC News is a few days old, but here’s an except. You can read the full article in the link.
Source = http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6975547&page=1 |
Thanks jmi256. It is an excellent article.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| I propose talking financial crisis / stimulus package on the other threads devoted to that and get back on topic with this one: |
By the way, what have the photos got to do with the topic of the discussion, as far as I can see they are personal photos and not professional ones?
| deanhills wrote: | ||
By the way, what have the photos got to do with the topic of the discussion, as far as I can see they are personal photos and not professional ones? |
He can't refute the merits of the arguments, so he's just trying the same old trollish/flamebait tactics he always uses:
1. Deny the proof exists (even though you show it to him)
2. Attack the poster (name calling is common)
3. Attack the source (it's especially hypocritical when he cites blogs and
"articles" from Democratic sites, yet claims the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, etc. are all biased against Obama and the Democrats)
4. Try to change subjects (a red herring, such as trying to bring in Bush and/or the Iraq War into the discussion, is usually used)
In this case he's trying #4, but he's just using stupid pictures. When he starts with those, I see that as a good thing. That just means he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
| jmi256 wrote: | ||||
He can't refute the merits of the arguments, so he's just trying the same old trollish/flamebait tactics he always uses: 1. Deny the proof exists (even though you show it to him) 2. Attack the poster (name calling is common) 3. Attack the source (it's especially hypocritical when he cites blogs and "articles" from Democratic sites, yet claims the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, etc. are all biased against Obama and the Democrats) 4. Try to change subjects (a red herring, such as trying to bring in Bush and/or the Iraq War into the discussion, is usually used) In this case he's trying #4, but he's just using stupid pictures. When he starts with those, I see that as a good thing. That just means he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
Hey Jmi, while
1. getting a life, you might want
2. to scroll up and see that I
3. proposed talking economics on the 2 economics threads, and
4. continuing this one as the Congrats Obama one, hence the pictures.
Your points -- your CATO propaganda which you keep repeating, your calling the support for Obama's plans "dismal" -- have all been shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
In the long run, though, this will only hurt the economy more by encouraging companies to move overseas and driving prices of goods up. |
Exactly. The funny thing is that some people actually believe that there is such a thing as a tax on businesses. In reality, a tax on businesses is just an increase in costs for consumers because businesses just pass their costs on to the customer.
So when Obama and the Democrats increase taxes on small- and medium-sized businesses, such as pharmacies, pizza shops, corner stores, dry cleaners, etc., those businesses owners are then forced to increase their prices. Many times these businesses are just barely getting by, and Obama's plan to increase the self-employment tax from 12.5% the 35%-45% range. When he claims to only be increasing taxes on those making over $200,000, that's who it's going to hit hardest. I don't know about you, but I can't really think of a business with any type of inventory, rent, utilities and employees that doesn't make more than $200,000 a year in revenue. Once all those costs are accounted for, the leftover is tiny, and most businesses fail within the first five years, even without Obama's huge tax increase.
On the other end of the equation are consumers. If a business sees a tax increase, they are faced wih two actions: 1. increase revenue, or 2. decrease costs. Increasing revenue means increasing proces for customers. The slice of pizza at the pizza shop that used to cost $2 is now $2.50. and the soda at the corner store that was $1.25 is now $1.50. And so on to pay for the increase in taxes. The sad thing is that these increases do not discriminate and hit those who are least able to bear them the hardest. To the functioning poor, an additional $20 a week in food costs is a disaster.
At the same time, increasing revenue by increasing prices doesn't make sense if 45% of any increase goes to even more taxes. To effectively offset a $1 increase in taxes at a 45% tax rate, a business needs to increase prices by $1.82. Most businesses can’t do this due to customer shock, so they go the other route, decreasing cost. Most small and medium businesses have razor-thin margins on their inventory (only large companies enjoy bulk pricing) and their largest cost tends to be personnel. Therefore, when faced with increased taxes and costs, most businesses will cut the number of employees and/or look for cheaper sources of labor, i.e. off-shoring. That’s why the first thing a company does when faced with a financial crisis is lay off workers, not increase prices. This again has a detrimental effect on the economy because there are now fewer people working.
We now interrupt the pulling of figures from a hat in a drone of Want-to-Failism for this congratulatory interruption:
Last edited by deanhills on Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
| handfleisch wrote: |
| We now interrupt the pulling of figures from a hat in a drone of Want-to-Failism for this congratulatory interruption: |
Yeah, you never want to let things like facts and figures get in the way of the party line.
| jmi256 wrote: |
|
He can't refute the merits of the arguments, so he's just trying the same old trollish/flamebait tactics he always uses: 1. Deny the proof exists (even though you show it to him) 2. Attack the poster (name calling is common) 3. Attack the source (it's especially hypocritical when he cites blogs and "articles" from Democratic sites, yet claims the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, etc. are all biased against Obama and the Democrats) 4. Try to change subjects (a red herring, such as trying to bring in Bush and/or the Iraq War into the discussion, is usually used) In this case he's trying #4, but he's just using stupid pictures. When he starts with those, I see that as a good thing. That just means he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
Based on handfleish's blatant twisting of fact in the thread below, I think we need to add a fifth tactic.
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-104000-2.html
1. Deny the proof exists (even though you show it to him)
2. Attack the poster (name calling is common)
3. Attack the source (it's especially hypocritical when he cites blogs and
"articles" from Democratic sites, yet claims the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, etc. are all biased against Obama and the Democrats)
4. Try to change subjects (a red herring, such as trying to bring in Bush and/or the Iraq War into the discussion, is usually used)
5. Lie and make up "proof" (using quotes and excerpts out of context and in an obviously misleading/untruthful manner)
It's sad to see so much Obama Derangement Syndrome on this site that people cannot tolerate a thread called "Congratulations President Obama". They have to tear it down with hatred and Want-To-Failism. Excuse us if most of the USA keeps on keeping on.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||||||
Hey Jmi, while 1. getting a life, you might want |
^.^
Looks like he switched to #2 there for a minute.
More progress from the Obama White House
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_creates_w.html
| Quote: |
| Obama creates women's council
In his latest gesture on women's issues, President Obama signed an executive order this afternoon creating a White House Council on Women and Girls. “The purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy,” Obama said in a statement. “My administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people. I am confident that Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen will guide the Council wisely as its members address these important issues.” The council, the White House says, "will provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families." |
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_creates_w.html
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
More progress from the Obama White House
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_creates_w.html |
More congratulations are due. The latest in hopeful changes by the Obama admin affects two of the more shameful practices of the US gov't/Bush admin. Obama is fighting the Pentagon by setting stringent prohibitions on use of cluster bombs, getting getting rid of the shameful "enemy combatant" concept the Bush admin used to publicly flout human rights in Gitmo and signaled a reversal in Bush's uncooperative stance towards the UN.
Despite anyone's politics, I think reasonable people can agree that these are things to feel proud about.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN13459303
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/us-national-security-obama-administration
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46093
Had to edit this to include all the good Can-Do news.
Despite anyone's politics, I think reasonable people can agree that these are things to feel proud about.
| Quote: |
| US Drops "Enemy Combatant" as Basis for Detention
Randall Mikkelsen, Reuters: "The Obama administration dropped the term 'enemy combatant' and incorporated international law on Friday as its basis for holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo prison while it works to close the facility. The US Justice Department said it had filed court papers outlining its break from Bush administration detention standards, and said only those who provided 'substantial' support to al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be considered detainable." |
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN13459303
| Quote: |
|
Obama takes US closer to total ban on cluster bombs • Legislation sets tight rules for weapons' use and sale • Campaigners hail decision as 'major turnaround' The United States has stepped closer to a total ban on the use and export of cluster bombs with the signing by Barack Obama of a new permanent law that would make it almost impossible for the US to sell the controversial weapons. The decision was hailed by opponents of the weapons as a "major turnaround in US policy" that overrode Pentagon calls to permit their continued export. The new legislation, tacked on to a huge budget bill, was passed earlier this week by Congress and now sets such stringent rules for the bombs' use, including a ban on sales where they might be suspected of being used where civilians are present, that it seems unlikely the US could export them again. Researchers believe the US has transferred hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions, containing tens of millions of unreliable and inaccurate bomblets, to 28 countries. They are regarded by those who campaign against their use as indiscriminate and dangerous to clear up. Under the new rules, the air and artillery-deployed weapons, which scatter hundreds of bomblets, are required to have a self-destruct failure rate of less than 1%, which few of the US cluster bombs meet, before being cleared for sale. Despite a temporary ban having been in place, the Pentagon made it clear last year that it was keen to see the export of the weapons again. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/us-national-security-obama-administration
| Quote: |
|
Obama Sets New Course at the UN Thursday 12 March 2009 United Nations - After nearly a decade of an often tense and estranged relationship with the United Nations, Washington appears to be taking a much more conciliatory and multilateral approach to the world body. U.S. President Barack Obama formally restored funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) Wednesday by signing a major spending bill, prompting U.N. officials to again welcome the policy shift on women-s health-related rights. In January, Obama issued an executive order lifting an eight-year ban on U.S. funding for overseas family-planning groups and clinics that perform or promote abortion or lobby for its legalisation. |
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46093
Had to edit this to include all the good Can-Do news.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| In January, Obama issued an executive order lifting an eight-year ban on U.S. funding for overseas family-planning groups and clinics that perform or promote abortion or lobby for its legalisation. |
This is not something to congratulate him about. He spent valuable U.S money to promote abortion overseas when it is still a very very very controversial subject here in the states. This money could and should have been spent elsewhere.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||
This is not something to congratulate him about. He spent valuable U.S money to promote abortion overseas when it is still a very very very controversial subject here in the states. This money could and should have been spent elsewhere. |
I guess charity should start at home
! I cannot understand when he has this campaign going "Buy American", yet then has projects like these that run counter to the philosophy of looking after the US first. The only thing that would make sense is that it had been a promise he made during election time.| handfleisch wrote: | ||
|
So now, when enemy troops surrender, I'd have to either shoot them or let them walk away free?
More news of hope and change as Obama reverses another Bush-era disaster. We often talk about our freedoms but in this case the White House is helping Americans to actually exercise those freedoms.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/foia.policy.change/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
| Quote: |
| 'Era of open government' behind information policy reversal
* Story Highlights * Documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act to be more accessible * Guidance issued in 2001 defended decisions to withhold records * New policy is to "ensure greater openness and transparency" By Terry Frieden CNN Justice Producer WASHINGTON (CNN) -- To expand openness and transparency, the Obama administration has rescinded a Bush administration standard on withholding government documents, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday. All Obama administration departments and agencies will release documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act unless doing so is forbidden by law or would harm a government interest, Holder said. In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidance to the Bush administration that the Justice Department would defend decisions to withhold records "unless they lack a sound legal basis." But Holder says the new guidelines are designed to ensure greater openness and transparency. "Now the department will defend a denial only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by [federal laws] or disclosure is prohibited by law," Holder said. The attorney general said the new administration wants to "usher in a new era of open government." Holder said the new rule for officials facing whether to grant a request for information is clear: "In the face of doubt, openness prevails," he said. |
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/foia.policy.change/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
The article is completely misleading. It gives the impression that Bush has been hiding information from the US public before. The Freedom of Information Act is very clear about the release of Personal Information and the exemptions to the Act. That same Act was in force while Bush was in Government. It is still in force under Obama as before with the exact same exemptions. In other words there are certain classes of documentation that cannot be released to the public period and this will continue under Obama:
Last edited by deanhills on Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| Exemptions
The act, however, permits government officials to withhold documents that fall under one of nine exemptions contained in the law. These exemptions address documents: Properly classified in the interests of national defense or foreign policy That are internal guides discussing enforcement strategies, the release of which would risk evasion of the law The disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by other laws Containing confidential or privileged commercial or financial information Protected by litigation privileges, including the attorney-client, work product and deliberative process privileges The release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy Compiled for law-enforcement purpose, the release of which would, or in some instances could reasonably be expected to, create the risk of certain harms Contained in or related to oversight of financial institutions by an agency charged with regulation or supervision of such institutions Containing geophysical and geological information regarding oil wells |
Last edited by deanhills on Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
The latest news of Obama working to reverse the moral collapse of the Bush era -- this time releasing a humanitarian aid doctor the White House kept in Gitmo for nine years.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/65097.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/65097.html
| Quote: |
| Guantanamo detainee to go free after Obama-ordered review
Carol Rosenberg | Miami Herald last updated: March 30, 2009 07:03:56 PM GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — The U.S. government on Monday agreed to release a Yemeni surgeon who reportedly treated al Qaida wounded at Tora Bora in Afghanistan under a new review ordered by President Barack Obama meant to empty the prison camps here by January 2010. Ayman Batarfi, 38, had told a military review panel in 2005 that he was a humanitarian worker who found himself at the battle of Tora Bora in 2001 while Osama bin Laden was in the area, according to a Pentagon transcript. He said he'd met bin Laden while the doctor was burying the dead from American air assaults, but that he did not respect the al Qaida leader, who he called "a coward." Batarfi will be sent to "an appropriate destination country in a manner that is consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States," said Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd in Washington, D.C. Amnesty International described Batarfi as a humanitarian worker, an orthopedic surgeon who was swept up as an innocent Arab trying to flee the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. His lawyers said he was volunteering at a clinic in Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001 when Northern Alliance forces overran the city. Batarfi is held as detainee No. 627. Defense Department records indicate he was born in Cairo, Egypt, to a Yemeni father, captured in Afghanistan and sent to the prison camps here in 2002. |
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Ayman Batarfi, 38, had told a military review panel in 2005 that he was a humanitarian worker who found himself at the battle of Tora Bora in 2001 while Osama bin Laden was in the area, according to a Pentagon transcript. He said he'd met bin Laden while the doctor was burying the dead from American air assaults, but that he did not respect the al Qaida leader, who he called "a coward."
Batarfi will be sent to "an appropriate destination country in a manner that is consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States," said Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd in Washington, D.C. Amnesty International described Batarfi as a humanitarian worker, an orthopedic surgeon who was swept up as an innocent Arab trying to flee the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. His lawyers said he was volunteering at a clinic in Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001 when Northern Alliance forces overran the city. Batarfi is held as detainee No. 627. Defense Department records indicate he was born in Cairo, Egypt, to a Yemeni father, captured in Afghanistan and sent to the prison camps here in 2002. |
More info about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_Saeed_Abdullah_Batarfi#Cleared_for_release
How do people think he will fare at the G20 summit?
| lagoon wrote: |
| How do people think he will fare at the G20 summit? |
| lagoon wrote: |
| How do people think he will fare at the G20 summit? |
Well the world is much more open to the US gov now that Obama is putting some shine back on the country's international reputation with moves to reverse the damage done during eight years of Bush like this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854880575376431.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
| Quote: |
| U.S. to Join U.N. Rights Council
By JOE LAURIA NEW YORK -- The Obama administration said it will stand for election to one of three open seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council, reversing a key decision by the Bush administration. "The decision is in keeping with the Obama administration's 'new era of engagement' with other nations to advance American security interests," a State Department spokesman said. The 47-member Human Rights Council was established in 2006 to replace the 1946 U.N. Human Rights Commission, which had been discredited after some members blocked criticism of their own records. "Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the Council to be balanced and credible," said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. "The U.S. is seeking election to the Council because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights." |
Where were the United Nations during the Genocide in Rwanda? Everyone has probably already forgotten that the United Nations decided to remove its troops. I think we have enough Human Rights Movements for eternity, but we need organizations with teeth to stop genocide while it is happening, not to judge it after the fact. We had a great example of genocide during the Holocaust, recently in Croatia, and still it's ongoing all over the world. What difference is this Human Rights Movement going to do except costing more money and putting more meaningless opinions out for politicians to look good with. Like in this thread. Action speaks much louder than words, and words are all we are getting, at a great price as well, as someone will have to pay membership dues as well.
At the G20 Global Summit, people predicted (and some hoped for) failure. But instead Obama rocked the house.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5096764/G20-summit-Global-financial-crackdown-is-cost-of-solving-crisis.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/President-Barack-Obama-Says-G20-Agreement-Is-Historic-By-Any-Measure/Article/200904115254761
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5096764/G20-summit-Global-financial-crackdown-is-cost-of-solving-crisis.html
| Quote: |
|
G20 summit: Global financial crackdown is cost of solving crisis • New Financial Stability Board as global overseer • Tax havens and hedge funds to be punished • Heavy scrutiny for banks By Edmund Conway Economics Editor Last Updated: 9:06AM BST 03 Apr 2009 Gordon Brown and his fellow world leaders have pledged the biggest crackdown on tax havens, hedge funds and banks in modern history as the price to be paid for the multi-trillion dollar bail-out of the world economy. "The era of banking secrecy is over", the Prime Minister declared, as the Group of 20 leading nations agreed to impose a new range of regulations on banks and non-bank financial institutions as a punishment for contributing to the crisis. Harsh fines and sanctions will be levied on tax havens that refuse to publish details of their accounts; hedge funds will have to provide more detailed accounts in the future; and bankers will have their bonuses more heavily controlled and taxed throughout the world, the communique pledged. The range of new regulations will be implemented by national governments in the coming months, officials said, after the G20 agreed on more significant and far-reaching reforms than had been expected. In what will be interpreted as a victory for the French and German factions, which had emphasised the importance of regulation over new fiscal giveaways, the G20 also ordered the creation of a new Financial Stability Board dedicated to monitoring leverage and inter-connectedness of international financial institutions. US President Barack Obama, who personally helped broker the deal by acting as a mediator between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Chinese delegation, said: "We made enormous strides in committing ourselves to a comprehensive reform of a failed financial system. We must put an end to the bubble and bust economy that [obstructed] sustained growth." |
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/President-Barack-Obama-Says-G20-Agreement-Is-Historic-By-Any-Measure/Article/200904115254761
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama: G20 Agreement Is Historic
Barack Obama has boldly declared the London G20 summit "historic by any measure". The US President confidently addressed reporters at the end of the meeting of world leaders. "It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenge that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response," he announced. --- Sky's US political analyst Jon-Christopher Bua said: "As The White House declares a success and President Obama a diplomat's diplomat, the proof of this international pudding will be what happens next. "It seems that the G20 world leaders were able to agree on some guiding principles as they begin to reform the global financial marketplace. "Transparency and regulation have won out over secrecy and unregulated excess. "With all majors players in agreement on these points there will truly be no place to hide ill gotten gains - the days of financial ponzi schemes have gone the way of Pompeii." |
| handfleisch wrote: |
| At the G20 Global Summit, people predicted (and some hoped for) failure. But instead Obama rocked the house. |
I'm glad the rest of the G20 didn't buy into President Obama's stimulus plan. At least some other nations are being fiscally responsible. Here's a nice little summary of global press reaction from the BBC: G20 Summit: Press Reaction
Here's an editorial about the summit from the LA Times Stimulus Left Them Cold at the G20 Summit
Keep those pom-poms shaking, Handfleisch.
Respectfully,
M
We can't afford to pay for a stimulus. Neither can we afford /not/ to have a stimulus. The most horrific catch-22 situation.
You say:
But your link says:
What's wrong with this picture?
& you keep that blanket wet.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I'm glad the rest of the G20 didn't buy into President Obama's stimulus plan. |
But your link says:
| Quote: |
| The world's press has given a largely positive reaction to the G20 summit's efforts to tackle the global financial crisis. |
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Keep those pom-poms shaking, Handfleisch. |
Quite a number of countries are still in good shape, except we do not hear about that of course as US news seems to be dominating all the News Channels on World TV and its banking excesses are now everyone's excesses. The illusion is that the problems of the United States, UK, Germany, and other countries with banking excesses, are also problems of the world. Not all countries of the world share in these problems. I would say that since the United States is going to borrow 1.3 trillion dollars (no clear picture other than bonds will be up for sale), the US financial woes have to be an enormous opportunity for the rest of the world to invest in the US? I am totally convinced that every country that is represented at the Summit, is there for their own interests only, and possibly the United States must be checking out who will be buying their bonds? No doubt that there is going to be a great reform of the global economy, but possibly the US will turn out to be the world's greatest debtor in all of it, the equivalent possibly of a controlled fire sale?
| handfleisch wrote: | ||||
You say:
But your link says:
|
What's wrong?
A: Thinking the press's opinion about how the G20 summit went is directly correlated to how they liked Obama's stimulus plans.
B: Thinking that the only way the G20 could have efforts to tackle the financial crisis is with Obama-esque stimulus plans.
C: Taking quotes out of context and trying to create a contradiction where there is none.
That'll do to start with.
A better quote to pick out:
| Quote: |
|
Echoing Obama's Republican critics, though, some European leaders said their governments couldn't afford to go more deeply into debt. |
As the hope-for-failure crowd whimpers, Obama continues blazing trails:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/04/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/04/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama's new offensive against nuclear weapons
Barack Obama yesterday announced a radical drive aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons, as the focus of his European visit switched from financial to geopolitical security. "In Prague, I will lay out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said yesterday after arriving in continental Europe for the first time as president. "The spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," he warned, adding that suspected rogue nuclear states, such as North Korea or Iran, may only be persuaded to abandon their quests if the big nuclear powers set an example. "We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead." At Obama's first meeting with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, in London on Wednesday, both agreed on fast-track negotiations to slash their nuclear stockpiles by about a third from the end of this year. Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman, said the president believed "loose nukes", stolen nuclear materials or the acquisition by terrorists of weapons-grade fissile material, were among the gravest risks to the US. |
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
|
Silly Obama, some people can't be persuaded to 'abandon their quests'. What then?
I don't want to see a world where a country like Iran is the only nuclear power, because as I've mentioned before, the only time nukes get used is when only one side has them.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| I don't want to see a world where a country like Iran is the only nuclear power, because as I've mentioned before, the only time nukes get used is when only one side has them. |
| handfleisch wrote: | ||||
You say:
But your link says:
|
Yes, the article to which I linked does say that. However that obviously has nothing to do with what I said. The items in the article that do pertain to my comment are:
- The title: "Stimulus left them cold at the G-20 Summit" (If you look at the hyperlink title on your tab it says, "Obama can't persuade G-20 to deliver more stimulus - Los Angeles Times" )
- "Echoing Obama's Republican critics, though, some European leaders said their governments couldn't afford to go more deeply into debt. The borrowing binge could prove counterproductive too, making it harder for businesses to obtain the capital they need to operate and expand. The G-20 settled on vaguely worded promises to keep trying to restore growth and to keep interest rates low."
The world press coverage has been largely positive. However I made no comment on that nor am I disputing that.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
|
The difference is that I don't seek opportunities to throw a wet blanket on President Obama. If he does something I like, I commend him for it. He made the U.S. Army regulations on interrogation the model for all U.S. agencies. Something I called for last year. He sent U.S. warships into international waters off the coast of China to escort our surveillance vessel, another recommendation of mine (not on this forum) during our recent tiff with the Chinese. He's increasing funding for veteran mental illness treatment.
But I think his fiscal policies, and those of President Bush before him, are dead wrong. I fully expect his economic policies to fail in the long run, even if they have some short-term economic benefits. And I do want certain other policies of his to fail because I vehemently disagree with those policies. If I believed in President Obama's policies I would have voted for him.
As for you, you're a fan of President Obama. He can do no wrong. Your comments are wrought with exuberant emotion, whereas I try to purge any emotional content from all of my comments (unless I make a conscious decision to include emotion for emphasis). Instead of debating on merits you spend much of your time trying to spin everything, your retort to my previous comment is a case in point.
Respectfully,
M
I was thinking of Handfleisch today when I was listening to Obama's famous "Nuclear Speech" in Prague. There were some good things he said, but at some point when he started the "we can" slogan, I started to get irritated, and was wondering whether that irritation could have had anything to do with Handfleisch going into overkill with Obama's perfections in this thread.
Anyway, what a speech. Looks as though this is one area that Obama wants to make a difference in, but sounds very idealistic to me and probably self-serving and EXPENSIVE. He is planning on a large World Nuclear Summit in the United States. Can just imagine the security guys already having headaches about this and El Qaeda taking note of his reference to the danger of one terrorist getting hold of one nuclear missile. Would also appear that he is completely into regulations for everything, including regulations for policing missiles and having watchdog bodies all over the world. Picked up on this with the G-20 Summit as well, looks as though the politicians are creating lots of new jobs for themselves, and again wonder who will be paying for all of this? Totally goes against my grain as the more regulations the more taxes we have to pay and since this is an imperfect world we are living in, no doubt all those watchdog bodies will be in vain, as bad guys will still be there doing bad things, such as war. The effectiveness of the United Nations being a case in point.
Anyway, what a speech. Looks as though this is one area that Obama wants to make a difference in, but sounds very idealistic to me and probably self-serving and EXPENSIVE. He is planning on a large World Nuclear Summit in the United States. Can just imagine the security guys already having headaches about this and El Qaeda taking note of his reference to the danger of one terrorist getting hold of one nuclear missile. Would also appear that he is completely into regulations for everything, including regulations for policing missiles and having watchdog bodies all over the world. Picked up on this with the G-20 Summit as well, looks as though the politicians are creating lots of new jobs for themselves, and again wonder who will be paying for all of this? Totally goes against my grain as the more regulations the more taxes we have to pay and since this is an imperfect world we are living in, no doubt all those watchdog bodies will be in vain, as bad guys will still be there doing bad things, such as war. The effectiveness of the United Nations being a case in point.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| you're a fan of President Obama. He can do no wrong. |
I am surprised you would exaggerate so erroneously and ad hominem-ly. This thread is called Congratulations Obama, so I use it post notices of the fast pace of the president's remarkable achievements, to remind people what there is to congratulate him, and ourselves, about.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| The difference is that I don't seek opportunities to throw a wet blanket on President Obama. If he does something I like, I commend him for it. |
Um, so do I. So what's your problem?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| He made the U.S. Army regulations on interrogation the model for all U.S. agencies. Something I called for last year. He sent U.S. warships into international waters off the coast of China to escort our surveillance vessel, another recommendation of mine (not on this forum) |
Hey I personally called for No Nukes a little while ago, so I guess by your rules I deserve a woo hoo (or does that show too much emotion?) :
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOmBrSJce9WwmkDD2o9EU8KT0RxAD97C81G80
| Quote: |
| Obama launches effort to reduce nuclear arms
By MARK S. SMITH – 36 minutes ago PRAGUE (AP) — President Barack Obama on Sunday launched an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and saying the U.S. has a moral responsibility to lead as the only nation to ever use one. In a speech driven with fresh urgency by North Korea's rocket launch just hours earlier, Obama said the U.S. would "immediately and aggressively" seek ratification of a comprehensive ban on testing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. would host a summit within the next year on reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, and he called for a global effort to secure nuclear material. "Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," Obama said to a bustling crowd of more than 20,000 in an old square outside the Prague Castle gates. "This fatalism is a deadly adversary," he said. "For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable." |
woo hoo!
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
This thread is called Congratulations Obama, so I use it post notices of the fast pace of the president's remarkable achievements, to remind people what there is to congratulate him, and ourselves, about. |
<.<
You use every thread for that...
| handfleisch wrote: |
| I am surprised you would exaggerate so erroneously and ad hominem-ly. |
*does some looking, then some quoting*
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
What other viable solution do you rightwingers propose? |
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
You're hilarious. It's like a Compound Wrongness Disease. And all you can do is keep copying and pasting the same CATO propaganda. |
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
wingnut |
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
wingnut |
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
wingnut |
Oops, I forgot to post this Obama victory at the recent NATO summit.
| Quote: |
| Extra NATO Troops for Afghan Poll
by: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7982821.stm Nato has agreed to boost troop numbers to cover the Afghan presidential election in August, outgoing alliance chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said. US President Barack Obama said his alliance partners would deploy about 5,000 troops and trainers "to advance [Washington's] new strategy". The Nato 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg picked Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen as new secretary-general. |
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||
<.< You use every thread for that... |
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Oops, I forgot to post this Obama victory at the recent NATO summit.
|
I see that as a failure. None of those 5,000 personnel represent combat troops, which is what the administration wanted. Furthermore, they are only guaranteed to be in Afghanistan through the elections (August). So in a few months President Obama will have to go back to NATO to ask for the combat troops that he actually wanted to see other NATO countries commit in the first place.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
I am surprised you would exaggerate so erroneously and ad hominem-ly. This thread is called Congratulations Obama, so I use it post notices of the fast pace of the president's remarkable achievements, to remind people what there is to congratulate him, and ourselves, about. |
I don’t think I exaggerated at all. I honestly believe you behave as a cheerleader for President Obama. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you don’t claim to be otherwise. But since you intended this thread to be nothing but congratulatory remarks about every action of President Obama with no room for dissent I will leave it to that (previous statement regarding the NATO deployment excluded).
I’ll refer any future debate to a separate thread.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Um, so do I. So what's your problem? |
You apparently missed the point. I told you to “keep those pom-poms shaking,” since I believe you to be an Obama cheerleader. You replied, “keep that blanket wet,” implying that I only seek opportunities to criticize President Obama, which I pointed out is not the case. I stand by my statement that in your eyes he can do no wrong. You only seek opportunities to praise him. And even when he fails you spin it into success or use misdirection to try and detract from the topic. All your retort above proved was my point.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Hey I personally called for No Nukes a little while ago, so I guess by your rules I deserve a woo hoo (or does that show too much emotion?) : |
Sure, by all means. I disagree whole heartedly with the President on this issue, but since this thread is not intended for dispute or debate, I’ll start another on the subject ("President Obama Calls for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons").
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||
I don’t think I exaggerated at all. I honestly believe you behave as a cheerleader for President Obama. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you don’t claim to be otherwise.. |
Your quote "He can do no wrong" was the silly part. It's like you think you can read my mind, or know what I have said everywhere.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
But since you intended this thread to be nothing but congratulatory remarks about every action of President Obama with no room for dissent I will leave it to that (previous statement regarding the NATO deployment excluded). I’ll refer any future debate to a separate thread |
I didn't start this thread so I don't control its intention. I said I just use it to post the achievements of Obama, in answer to your charge that I was a cheerleader. Simple as that. You're jumping to conclusions.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Um, so do I. So what's your problem? |
| Moonspider wrote: |
| You apparently missed the point. I told you to “keep those pom-poms shaking,” since I believe you to be an Obama cheerleader. You replied, “keep that blanket wet,” implying that I only seek opportunities to criticize President Obama, which I pointed out is not the case. I stand by my statement that in your eyes he can do no wrong. You only seek opportunities to praise him. And even when he fails you spin it into success or use misdirection to try and detract from the topic. All your retort above proved was my point.
|
Well, fine, but now you're spinning my posts into cheerleading. Like you I can point out that this is not the case, and I can point out that you are indeed a wet-blanket-thrower, for example when you take the historic Obama nuclear reduction plan and use it to post a long negative message over the most minor aspect that you imagine to be wrong with it. Then we go round and round.
Just getting around to noting how Obama basically fired the head of GM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09ford.html?hpw
We live in mighty times.
| Quote: |
| Last month, the presidential task force forced Mr. Wagoner to resign at G.M. and began an effort to replace its board of directors. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09ford.html?hpw
We live in mighty times.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Just getting around to noting how Obama basically fired the head of GM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09ford.html?hpw We live in mighty times. |
Yeah I don't see this as great at all. The government should never have to right to interfere with the free-market. I don't care how bad the economy is. Forcing the board of directors of GM to retire is wrong.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Just getting around to noting how Obama basically fired the head of GM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09ford.html?hpw We live in mighty times. |
Mighty times?
Mighty times for the government!
This is horrible! Even an 'economic crisis' doesn't justify the government interfering like this and assuming new powers. These 'mighty times' are looking like dark days for personal freedom.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| Yeah I don't see this as great at all. The government should never have to right to interfere with the free-market. I don't care how bad the economy is. Forcing the board of directors of GM to retire is wrong. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that my disagreement is a direct consequence of the bail-out principle? Because this would be a profound misunderstanding of my post. Please elaborate.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that my disagreement is a direct consequence of the bail-out principle? Because this would be a profound misunderstanding of my post. Please elaborate. |
| Quote: |
| Forcing the board of directors of GM to retire is wrong. |
I was actually agreeing with what you had said.
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
I was actually agreeing with what you had said. |
Well then, Welcome to the club! I think we should all get our torches and pitchforks and go protest somewhere important.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||||||
Well then, Welcome to the club! I think we should all get our torches and pitchforks and go protest somewhere important. |
Join one of the tea parties on April 15. I'll be attending one here in California.
http://www.teapartyday.com/
Respectfully,
M
Well, I'm currently trying to raise funds for a fleet to sail across to the colonies and collect the 250 years of back-taxes you owe us.
See you on the 15th
See you on the 15th
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, I'm currently trying to raise funds for a fleet to sail across to the colonies and collect the 250 years of back-taxes you owe us.
See you on the 15th |
You may have to queue behind China to recoup debt!
| Moonspider wrote: |
| You may have to que behind China to recoup debt! |
There's a long list of countries we owe. For a complete list, CLICK HERE.
Take a number, pal.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, I'm currently trying to raise funds for a fleet to sail across to the colonies and collect the 250 years of back-taxes you owe us.
See you on the 15th |
As a US military member, I'll see you there ^.^
Good luck with that though!
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Your quote "He can do no wrong" was the silly part. It's like you think you can read my mind, or know what I have said everywhere. |
Okay. That’s true. I’ll rephrase. I have seen no posts from you that imply that you think him anything short of one of the best.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| I didn't start this thread so I don't control its intention. I said I just use it to post the achievements of Obama, in answer to your charge that I was a cheerleader. Simple as that. You're jumping to conclusions. |
Yes , I did jump to that conclusion. My apologies. I address the “cheerleading” below.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
Well, fine, but now you're spinning my posts into cheerleading. Like you I can point out that this is not the case, and I can point out that you are indeed a wet-blanket-thrower, for example when you take the historic Obama nuclear reduction plan and use it to post a long negative message over the most minor aspect that you imagine to be wrong with it. Then we go round and round. |
Maybe we just see things differently.
This is an example from my perspective. If a person says, “Ryan pitched a great game and really threw his best stuff tonight,” that may be a statement of fact and an opinion of his performance during the baseball game.
If a person says, “Wow, Ryan rocked the dome tonight!” That’s a fan cheerleading.
You’re comments in this thread about President Obama:
“If you have a shred of evidence, please start a separate thread with it. We partyin' on this one!”
“Well the world is much more open to the US gov now that Obama is putting some shine back on the country's international reputation”
“But instead Obama rocked the house.”
“As the hope-for-failure crowd whimpers, Obama continues blazing trails:”
Not to mention the posters. Also, cheerleaders tend to demean and call their opposition derogatory names, which you do constantly.
BTW, as I recall President Obama was talking about nuclear weapon elimination, not reduction. And what do you consider “the most minor aspect?” I called it naïve and dangerous. I also said it makes the president and the United States look weak. I think my post made it clear that I believe his policy notion to be irresponsible. What is “minor” about arguing that a U.S. president’s policy is naïve, dangerous, and irresponsible?
If you wish to debate the nuclear policy on it's merits, I invite you to do so in the thread.
Respectfully,
M
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Well, fine, but now you're spinning my posts into cheerleading. Like you I can point out that this is not the case, and I can point out that you are indeed a wet-blanket-thrower, for example when you take the historic Obama nuclear reduction plan and use it to post a long negative message over the most minor aspect that you imagine to be wrong with it. Then we go round and round. |
The Nuclear Speech by Obama had nothing minor in it. It was a major policy speech from the beginning to the end of it. With details that are sure to either rub people with a certain amount of intelligence up the wrong way, or upset others (such as Iran and people in the United States who do not agree with this policy - perhaps this was not a good tactic and he should have rolled this out at a domestic forum in the United States first). He is obviously inexperienced in international speeches, he should have kept his speech to general statements and had his speech much shorter. He could still have impressed his audience with brevity.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Join one of the tea parties on April 15. I'll be attending one here in California. http://www.teapartyday.com/ |
OMG. Really? I am surprised you would fall for the fake-grassroots, right-wing organized, FOXnews promoted "tea party" thing -- this one sponsored by the infamous Donald E. Wildmon, no less. Good article by Mark Ames on how the Tea Parties are a device of a big PR firm funded by the multibillionaire Koch family:
Last edited by handfleisch on Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:39 am; edited 2 times in total
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
As a US military member, I'll see you there ^.^ Good luck with that though! |
Ahh...Mr Bligh assures me that your forces will be no match for his 'men o' war' and a quick broadside from 22 cannon will bring you impudent dogs back into line, under her Gracious Britannic Majesty.
God Save the Queen and down with the rebels.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Maybe we just see things differently. This is an example from my perspective. If a person says, “Ryan pitched a great game and really threw his best stuff tonight,” that may be a statement of fact and an opinion of his performance during the baseball game. If a person says, “Wow, Ryan rocked the dome tonight!” That’s a fan cheerleading. You’re comments in this thread about President Obama: “If you have a shred of evidence, please start a separate thread with it. We partyin' on this one!” “Well the world is much more open to the US gov now that Obama is putting some shine back on the country's international reputation” “But instead Obama rocked the house.” “As the hope-for-failure crowd whimpers, Obama continues blazing trails:” M |
"We partyin". C'mon, a sense of humor, a little joy?
#2 is a fact. The int'l popularity of Obama is overwhelming compared to Bush, and that is helping the US' rep abroad.
"Obama rocked the house" = Did much better than expected.
"blazing trails" : I believe I listed the trail after that. All it means is that he is going in bold, new directions.
Arguable maybe, cheerleading-- not.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Not to mention the posters. Also, cheerleaders tend to demean and call their opposition derogatory names, which you do constantly. |
What? Wingnut? Sorry but it's shorthand for "right wing voice holding forth on extremist, illogical, black-is-white political nonsense" which I don't feel like typing out everytime. Furthermore, when, for example, someone advocates mass sterilization of people, or says that Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer and wants unilateral nuclear disarmament, they demean themselves and the entire discussion -- I am just pointing it out.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| BTW, as I recall President Obama was talking about nuclear weapon elimination, not reduction. And what do you consider “the most minor aspect?” I called it naïve and dangerous. I also said it makes the president and the United States look weak. I think my post made it clear that I believe his policy notion to be irresponsible. What is “minor” about arguing that a U.S. president’s policy is naïve, dangerous, and irresponsible?
If you wish to debate the nuclear policy on it's merits, I invite you to do so in the thread. |
I did reply on that thread, reply whenever you want.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
OMG. Really? I am surprised you would fall for the fake-grassroots, right-wing organized, FOXnews promoted "tea party" thing -- this one sponsored by the infamous Donald E. Wildmon, no less. Good article by Mark Ames on how the Tea Parties are a device of a big PR firm funded by the multibillionaire Koch family: |
And why am I not surprised that you once again think that everything that isn't totally left wing must be completely right wing. Ever heard of the Nolan Chart?
| Xanatos wrote: | ||
And why am I not surprised that you once again think that everything that isn't totally left wing must be completely right wing. Ever heard of the Nolan Chart? |
I agree with you in theory, the left-right view is an overly simplified standard. "Right wing" is often used when really it is just referring to politcial-economic maneuvers of the richest of the rich. However in this case, right wing would seem to fit, as we can see from the link, about the backers of the "Tea Parties":
| Quote: |
| ...the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.
As you read this, Big Business is pouring tens of millions of dollars into their media machines in order to destroy just about every economic campaign promise Obama has made, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. At stake isn’t the little guy’s fight against big government, as Santelli and his bot-supporters claim, but rather the “upper 2 percent”’s war to protect their wealth from the Obama Adminstration’s economic plans. |
On edit, where on your Nolan scale does Fox News or Donald Wildmon's extremist Christian American Family Association fit? Since they are both promoting this political con job, Fox going so far as to call them ""FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." http://mediamatters.org/items/200904080025?lid=988276&rid=25735275
http://www.afa.net/alert_teaparty4_20090323.html
^^It leans more toward the top right.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
What? Wingnut? Sorry but it's shorthand for "right wing voice holding forth on extremist, illogical, black-is-white political nonsense" which I don't feel like typing out everytime. |
And you don't think "right wing voice holding forth on extremist, illogical, black-is-white political nonsense" is derogatory?
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Join one of the tea parties on April 15. I'll be attending one here in California. http://www.teapartyday.com/ |
Update! Besides the fake-grassroots, right-wing organized, FOXnews promoted aspect -- are these your people?
Tea Party at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY Some guy ranting about how the Commies infiltrated America, woman talking about burning books...
More at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33333_At_Glenn_Beck_Tea_Party-_Burn_the_Books
handfleisch wrote:
handfleisch, while your arguments are not technically ad hominem attacks, they are very similar. You keep attacking individuals rather than attacking the Tea Parties themselves or the ideas behind them. Every large group, political or otherwise, will have a few "crack-pots" and fanatics. These people are usually the most vocal in the group, but they rarely make up more than a small minority. But even crazy people have good ideas from time to time and so you should focus your attacks on the ideas, not the individuals.
Also, I know many people attending Tea Parties who are equally mad at all politicians, regardless of party affiliation. It doesn't matter who starts a movement. If enough outsiders join it will quickly change from "Astro-turf" to true grass-roots.
Go here for more information. Also, read some of the posts. You'll see that not everyone is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. We just want the Federal Government to give back some of the power it has taken from the people.[/b]
Last edited by psleang on Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:12 am; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| Moonspider wrote:
Join one of the tea parties on April 15. I'll be attending one here in California. http://www.teapartyday.com/ Update! Besides the fake-grassroots, right-wing organized, FOXnews promoted aspect -- are these your people? Tea Party at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY Some guy ranting about how the Commies infiltrated America, woman talking about burning books... More at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33333_At_Glenn_Beck_Tea_Party-_Burn_the_Books |
handfleisch, while your arguments are not technically ad hominem attacks, they are very similar. You keep attacking individuals rather than attacking the Tea Parties themselves or the ideas behind them. Every large group, political or otherwise, will have a few "crack-pots" and fanatics. These people are usually the most vocal in the group, but they rarely make up more than a small minority. But even crazy people have good ideas from time to time and so you should focus your attacks on the ideas, not the individuals.
Also, I know many people attending Tea Parties who are equally mad at all politicians, regardless of party affiliation. It doesn't matter who starts a movement. If enough outsiders join it will quickly change from "Astro-turf" to true grass-roots.
Go here for more information. Also, read some of the posts. You'll see that not everyone is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. We just want the Federal Government to give back some of the power it has taken from the people.[/b]
Last edited by psleang on Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:12 am; edited 1 time in total
| psleang wrote: |
| You'll see that not everyone is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. |
Quite so. I'm a member of the not-so-vast libertarian conspiracy.
(Despite a certain someone's frequent accusations of right-wingnuttery...)
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Quite so. I'm a member of the not-so-vast libertarian conspiracy. (Despite a certain someone's frequent accusations of right-wingnuttery...) |
Well considering that most people have a hard time defining libertarianism- even if it is very simple- it is not surprising that people lump all of us with the right wingers. They just don't understand.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||||
Well considering that most people have a hard time defining libertarianism- even if it is very simple- it is not surprising that people lump all of us with the right wingers. They just don't understand. |
I find this interesting. Is it possible for you and/or ocalhoun to define libertarianism, not the text book version, but how you identify with it?
| psleang wrote: |
|
handfleisch, while your arguments are not technically ad hominem attacks, they are very similar. You keep attacking individuals rather than attacking the Tea Parties themselves or the ideas behind them. Every large group, political or otherwise, will have a few "crack-pots" and fanatics. These people are usually the most vocal in the group, but they rarely make up more than a small minority. But even crazy people have good ideas from time to time and so you should focus your attacks on the ideas, not the individuals. |
Having some feelings about taxes or the strategy of the Federal gov't is one thing, and participating in these bogus "Tea Parties" is another. I attack the Tea Parties for the reasons I have stated and shown -- that they instigated by the rich and powerful via large public relations firms, promoted and sponsored by Republican-proxy Fox News, and pushed by some of the wackier elements of the rightwing.
You might want to tell me what the "ideas" are you want discussed. The "ideas" in the clip you are mentioning are that the US has been infiltrated by Communists, and that schoolbooks teaching evolution should be burned. Your statement "We just want the Federal Government to give back some of the power it has taken from the people" certainly needs explaining before it could be discussed. What power did the Federal gov't take from you all of a sudden? Your website's ideas include protesting a "pork-filled budget". This last budget had less pork than any in the last 8 years, so it's not a credible "idea".
Which brings up: Where were these Tea Parties when the US need them, when Bush turned a balanced budget into a massive deficit, and wasted the healthy tax surplus money he inherited? I will tell you the answer -- there were none because this Tea Party thing is organized by the same ilk who created the Bush deficit, who made the disastrous tax-cuts-for-rich plan, and who are for wasting billions on the war in Iraq but against investment in the USA's own infrastructure.
| Quote: |
| Also, I know many people attending Tea Parties who are equally mad at all politicians, regardless of party affiliation. It doesn't matter who starts a movement. If enough outsiders join it will quickly change from "Astro-turf" to true grass-roots.
Go here for more information. Also, read some of the posts. You'll see that not everyone is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. We just want the Federal Government to give back some of the power it has taken from the people.[/b] |
I am not saying you or your friends are crackpots, but if you attend these things, you will be volunteering for a program set up to use you like a tool. The chances of well-meaning people like yourself turning these manipulative political rallies into a true grassroots event is nil. The chances of you being naively used by yet another right-wing Swiftboat/smear/spin machine, with goals like protecting the richest 2% from some tiny tax increase, is great. You might want to look before you leap.
| deanhills wrote: |
|
I find this interesting. Is it possible for you and/or ocalhoun to define libertarianism, not the text book version, but how you identify with it? |
Well, it isn't a perfect definition, but for a quick and simple one to sum up libertarian beliefs, it does great:
The best government is the one that governs the least.
Now, on to the main event.
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Having some feelings about taxes or the strategy of the Federal gov't is one thing, and participating in these bogus "Tea Parties" is another. I attack the Tea Parties for the reasons I have stated and shown -- that they instigated by the rich and powerful via large public relations firms, promoted and sponsored by Republican-proxy Fox News, and pushed by some of the wackier elements of the rightwing. |
<.<
Let's say there were some rallies organized for the banning of nuclear weapons. However, they were organized by special interests, the public relations firms thereof, sponsored by the liberal media, and pushed by some of the wackier elements of the left wing...
Would you still support the rallies for getting rid of nukes?
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Your website's ideas include protesting a "pork-filled budget". This last budget had less pork than any in the last 8 years, so it's not a credible "idea". |
I really laughed out loud at that. This budget has an extra $1 trillion of pork slapped into it!
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
who made the disastrous tax-cuts-for-rich plan, |
The rich are the only ones who can get significant tax cuts, because only the rich pay any significant taxes.
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
I am not saying you or your friends are crackpots, but if you attend these things, you will be volunteering for a program set up to use you like a tool. The chances of well-meaning people like yourself turning these manipulative political rallies into a true grassroots event is nil. The chances of you being naively used by yet another right-wing Swiftboat/smear/spin machine, with goals like protecting the richest 2% from some tiny tax increase, is great. You might want to look before you leap. |
But if my goals match theirs (they don't entirely, by the way), then why shouldn't I help them? Protecting the richest 2% from tax hikes? I entirely approve! I'm against ALL tax raises, and for ALL lowering of taxes. I don't want to reduce people's payment to the government, I want to reduce the government's income.
And, no, I'm not all that opposed to volunteering to be used like a tool. Really, you do that anytime you apply for a job, especially my job.
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Having some feelings about taxes or the strategy of the Federal gov't is one thing, and participating in these bogus "Tea Parties" is another. I attack the Tea Parties for the reasons I have stated and shown -- that they instigated by the rich and powerful via large public relations firms, promoted and sponsored by Republican-proxy Fox News, and pushed by some of the wackier elements of the rightwing. You might want to tell me what the "ideas" are you want discussed. The "ideas" in the clip you are mentioning are that the US has been infiltrated by Communists, and that schoolbooks teaching evolution should be burned. |
Once again, you are dismissing an entire 100,000+ person movement based on a few individual crackpots you pulled up on youtube. If you actually watch the video you will see a single nut going off about communists, a single (off-screen) woman who wants to burn college books and a large room full of people staring at them like they are out of their minds. The couple directly in front of the camera is openly laughing at the communist conspiracy theorist! Why do you focus on the one crazy guy and ignore the 50 other sane people?
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Your statement "We just want the Federal Government to give back some of the power it has taken from the people" certainly needs explaining before it could be discussed. What power did the Federal gov't take from you all of a sudden? Your website's ideas include protesting a "pork-filled budget". This last budget had less pork than any in the last 8 years, so it's not a credible "idea". |
I'm sorry. I thought you actually knew something about the ideas behind the Tea Parties and weren't just regurgitating something you read on a liberal blog (I first heard your argument from Paul Krugman...) The Tea Parties are inherently about limiting the powers of the Federal Government. The easiest way to expand government power is through a complicated tax code and that is what is happening as we speak. Deductions are just subsidies (or hidden spending) to favored constituencies. The tax code also discriminates against people based on income. The rich pay a disproportionate tax rate as punishment for productivity and a growing number of americans pay no taxes at all. In fact, more than 40% of americans have zero or negative tax liability. Why care how the Government spends tax dollars when none of those dollars were yours? I think the point is best made in the following quote (it is unclear who first penned this, though some attribute it to a Scottish history professor, Alexander Tytler):
"‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’
‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’
‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,"
And the 67,000 page tax code is only the beginning of our grievances. I don't have time to go into the rest here, but just think of all ways you can apply the words "wasteful, corrupt, ignorant, stupid and unconstitutional" to US politics and that should sum it up.
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Which brings up: Where were these Tea Parties when the US need them, when Bush turned a balanced budget into a massive deficit, and wasted the healthy tax surplus money he inherited? I will tell you the answer -- there were none because this Tea Party thing is organized by the same ilk who created the Bush deficit, who made the disastrous tax-cuts-for-rich plan, and who are for wasting billions on the war in Iraq but against investment in the USA's own infrastructure. |
People only protest when they are really, really mad (excepting bored college students, of course.) Many who favored limited Federal Government were against the spending that occurred during the Bush years, but you might say that Obama's stimuli and bailouts were the straws (anvils?) that broke the camel's back. Regardless, inaction then is no justification for inaction now. The urge to use and abuse power is nonpartisan. That's why many Tea Party discussions begin with a reminder that the protest should remain apolitical if it is to be effective. Tomorrow we will see if this lofty goal can be achieved.
Happy Tax Day! I hope you followed all the rules. But of course, if our Treasury Secretary can't figure out his taxes, what hope do the rest of us have?
| psleang wrote: | ||||||
Once again, you are dismissing an entire 100,000+ person movement based on a few individual crackpots you pulled up on youtube. If you actually watch the video you will see a single nut going off about communists, a single (off-screen) woman who wants to burn college books and a large room full of people staring at them like they are out of their minds. The couple directly in front of the camera is openly laughing at the communist conspiracy theorist! Why do you focus on the one crazy guy and ignore the 50 other sane people?
I'm sorry. I thought you actually knew something about the ideas behind the Tea Parties and weren't just regurgitating something you read on a liberal blog (I first heard your argument from Paul Krugman...) The Tea Parties are inherently about limiting the powers of the Federal Government. The easiest way to expand government power is through a complicated tax code and that is what is happening as we speak. Deductions are just subsidies (or hidden spending) to favored constituencies. The tax code also discriminates against people based on income. The rich pay a disproportionate tax rate as punishment for productivity and a growing number of americans pay no taxes at all. In fact, more than 40% of americans have zero or negative tax liability. Why care how the Government spends tax dollars when none of those dollars were yours? I think the point is best made in the following quote (it is unclear who first penned this, though some attribute it to a Scottish history professor, Alexander Tytler): "‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’ ‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’ ‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy," And the 67,000 page tax code is only the beginning of our grievances. I don't have time to go into the rest here, but just think of all ways you can apply the words "wasteful, corrupt, ignorant, stupid and unconstitutional" to US politics and that should sum it up.
People only protest when they are really, really mad (excepting bored college students, of course.) Many who favored limited Federal Government were against the spending that occurred during the Bush years, but you might say that Obama's stimuli and bailouts were the straws (anvils?) that broke the camel's back. Regardless, inaction then is no justification for inaction now. The urge to use and abuse power is nonpartisan. That's why many Tea Party discussions begin with a reminder that the protest should remain apolitical if it is to be effective. Tomorrow we will see if this lofty goal can be achieved. Happy Tax Day! I hope you followed all the rules. But of course, if our Treasury Secretary can't figure out his taxes, what hope do the rest of us have? |
I particularly liked this comment:
| Quote: |
| And the 67,000 page tax code is only the beginning of our grievances. I don't have time to go into the rest here, but just think of all ways you can apply the words "wasteful, corrupt, ignorant, stupid and unconstitutional" to US politics and that should sum it up.
|
) but perhaps people are too passive and there should be more tea parties than there are.In just the last few days, the Obama admin. has made three significant changes.
Announcing a high-speed rail program, where the USA has lagged far behind Europe
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/
Bringing professionalism to relations with Cuba
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_us_cuba
Having the Environmental Protection Agency declare that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act - a policy the Bush administration rejected.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/
It's so great after years of do-nothing to have some serious can-do in the White House, working to make the US a respected leader again.
Announcing a high-speed rail program, where the USA has lagged far behind Europe
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/
Bringing professionalism to relations with Cuba
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_us_cuba
Having the Environmental Protection Agency declare that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act - a policy the Bush administration rejected.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/
It's so great after years of do-nothing to have some serious can-do in the White House, working to make the US a respected leader again.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| years of do-nothing. |
| handfleisch wrote: |
|
Announcing a high-speed rail program, where the USA has lagged far behind Europe www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/ |
This is horrible! One of the worst things he's done yet!
We'd be spending how much to be able to say our trains are as good as Europe's?
Why not just say, "Sure, our trains aren't as good, but our road system is much better."?
Relieving pollution and congestion? Surely there are less expensive ways to do that.
Spending lots of money collected from everyone that will only benefit limited areas?
Why should South Dakota residents pay for high-speed rails that will surely never even get close to the state? This should be a state government project, not a federal one! If the federal government wants to help the various state governments coordinate with each other, that's fine, but people who will probably never have the opportunity to ride these trains shouldn't pay for them. Ideally, these trains would entirely pay for themselves, from ticket sales. Then, only those who use them would pay for it.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
This is horrible! One of the worst things he's done yet! |
AP Poll: Americans High on Obama, Direction of US.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/23/us/politics/...
| Quote: |
| For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.
Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington. Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. |
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/23/us/politics/...
| Quote: |
| Millions of people jobless. Billions of dollars in bailouts. Trillions of dollars in U.S. debt. And yet, for the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is on the right track. |
Apparently more Americans than not have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
| Quote: |
| The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. It involved telephone interviews on landline and cell phones with 1,000 adults nationwide. |
Because for some reason they think that 1000 people is an accurate representation of over 200 million adults. And lets not forget that most Americans won't actually give interviews with these people and it is likely only certain kinds of people that do, which can skew data. I never trust polls like these- against my views or not- IMO they just aren't reliable.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| I never trust polls like these- against my views or not- IMO they just aren't reliable. |
A good philosophy, but sometimes it's the only way you can get real data on something. The opinion about if the country is 'on the right track' or not, for example.
This one is especially dubious though. They need to have a larger sample size, give hard data (including giving the percentage of people who declined to answer), and tell us the exact wording of the question, along with categories answers were put into, along with examples of those answers.
People, especially politicians, rely too much on these kinds of polls. The best thing you can do as a citizen is refuse to answer any polling questions, no matter how they ask you.
Not only are these polls giving politicians inaccurate data to base decisions on, they're sometimes giving outright manipulated data. Experiments have shown that if you change the wording of a question, even if it obviously remains the same question, you can dramatically change the percentage of answers to the question.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| AP Poll: Americans High on Obama, Direction of US. |
Some would disagree...
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Having the Environmental Protection Agency declare that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act - a policy the Bush administration rejected. |
This is just going to lead to a cap-and-trade fiasco, providing politicians with yet another way to artificially screw with markets. Basically, the consumer will get hit with another tax and Congress will use its power over CO2 allocations to subsidize favored special interest groups. The cycle begins again and US productivity drops a little more. I can't wait till we're all equally miserable.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Not only are these polls giving politicians inaccurate data to base decisions on, they're sometimes giving outright manipulated data. Experiments have shown that if you change the wording of a question, even if it obviously remains the same question, you can dramatically change the percentage of answers to the question. |
^^The ignorant are much easier to govern than the informed.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| ^^The ignorant are much easier to govern than the informed. |
Especially if you fool them into thinking they are informed.
Which is what the right wing press con them into believing.
| lagoon wrote: |
| Which is what the right wing press con them into believing. |
Why politicize it? Duping the populace is a nonpartisan activity.
In fact, I suspect that much of this right vs. left sentiment is encouraged by the government. After all, making sure that people continue to blame one side or the other for all the problems keeps people from blaming the whole government for the problems.
That way, instead of thinking "the government is harming us, we've got to fix it!"
People think "the (republicans/democrats) are harming us, we've got to support the other party!"
| Xanatos wrote: |
| ^^The ignorant are much easier to govern than the informed. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/opinion/03sun2.html
Obama will get to nominate his first Supreme Court justice.
Obama will get to nominate his first Supreme Court justice.
| Quote: |
| Successor To Souter Anticipated By October
Obama Says New Judge Will Blend Respect for Constitution, 'Empathy' Obama Interrupts Briefing to Discuss Souter President Barack Obama interrupted his press secretary's briefing Friday to announce that he had just gotten off the phone with Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who had called to announce his retirement. President Obama said yesterday that he plans to move quickly to name a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, as senators and interest groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum began mobilizing for the first court confirmation battle of his presidency. |
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
| http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/opinion/03sun2.html
Obama will get to nominate his first Supreme Court justice.
|
| deanhills wrote: |
| people would probably be even more critical than they usually are to check up on the things Obama may have missed. |
Like: did he pay his taxes? ^.^
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Like: did he pay his taxes? ^.^ |
Related topics
 |