| 0 |
Subject: The President Obama
Posted by: Seattle Zen
- [358591721] Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 11:18
Time to start a new thread.
Some think Larry Summers would not be a good choice as Treasury Secretary
But in angering feminists, blacks and environmentalists over time, Mr. Summers has hurt himself with three groups that make up much of the base of the Democratic Party — making him a prime example of the constituent politics that Mr. Obama must maneuver around in coming weeks.
While at Harvard, Mr. Summers sparked a furor by suggesting that innate factors might help explain why more men than women go into scientific fields and excel there. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 656 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:47
|
That was about my answer to the question but not his. His was yes in the short term people would be worse off they would not have adapted to driving more cautiously, but over time they would adapt, drive less find alternatives (walking, trains...) but in the end world would be a better place.
Well, there are lots and lots of countries without safety nets. Meanwhile, we're the greatest country on Earth.
|
| 657 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:53
|
for whatever reason, whatever you linked to on 635 is a broken link for me. i wasnt able to see it earlier today either...
i'm guessing it's some sort of graph regarding bush's ratings..lol
|
| 658 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 15:56
|
just copy the URL from the image properties and paste it into a browser.
|
| 659 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 16:29
|
I really don't understand how conservatives can insist this is a "Christian nation" and then advocate for the removal of social safety nets intended to help the least fortunate.
Talk about the ultimate strawman arguement...perhaps you could point out were anyone in this discussion advocated the removal of all safety nets?
Are those the only two choices?
No safety net vs full blown socialism?
My personal concern is not removing the safety net but finding a way to limit all of the safety hammocks.
The question is during Katrina which was more effective...the $100 the government took from me so they could hand out debit cards so "victims" could buy sneakers, jewelry or fur coats or the $50 I sent to the Red Cross that actually did a hell of a job helping the victims?
Tree:
The approval ratings for the first 100 days had nothing to do with the Iraq war.
The negative stories about Bush started long before the war.
|
| 660 | Perm Dude
ID: 213592312
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 16:31
|
Talk about the ultimate strawman arguement...perhaps you could point out were anyone in this discussion advocated the removal of all safety nets?
This is boikin's point.
|
| 661 | Pancho Villa
ID: 50322248
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 16:56
|
The question is during Katrina which was more effective...the $100 the government took from me so they could hand out debit cards so "victims" could buy sneakers, jewelry or fur coats or the $50 I sent to the Red Cross that actually did a hell of a job helping the victims?
And my question is:
At the time, did you feel the President was pushing a socialist agenda that would bankrupt the country and ruin Amaerica for years to come?
|
| 662 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 18:17
|
PV:
I do recall at the time there was criticicm that FEMA was too slow to react to the crisis and my thought was who the hell cares?
It was my understanding that FEMA processes paperwork that assists victims get low interest loans so they can rebuild.
Perhaps I am wrong, but who needs a loan when your life is in danger or you need a place to sleep and food to eat?
The ideal here would be for the government to coordinate the efforts of private charities and bring it to the attention of the American people to donate money or volunteer.
Lets face it in the end it was the charities and volunteers that made a bad situation bearable.
Are you asking if I think there is too much socialism in America?
Yes.
Since the last depression we have moved steadily towards a socialistic state.
Was Bush a socialist like Obama?
No.
But he didnt do enough to put the brakes on the socialist machine.
The longest running war in America is the War on Poverty.
Trillions of tax dollars spent on poverty and we are no closer to solving this problem than when war was declared.
|
| 663 | Razor
ID: 41323216
Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 02:08
|
I do recall at the time there was criticicm that FEMA was too slow to react to the crisis and my thought was who the hell cares?
You don't care that it took days to evacuate people from the Superdome or that FEMA did not have a plan in place to bring in supplies in a timely fashion? Because that is what the criticism was about.
The rest of your post is just unfocused nonsense. If charities could provide enough assistance to disaster survivors to help them get by, then there would be no need for the government to intervene. It's a flatout lie to suggest that they could provide food, shelter and other necessary supplies to the tens of thousands whose homes were ruined.
|
| 664 | Pancho Villa
ID: 50322248
Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 10:28
|
#662
You kind of missed my point, weykool.
I have no problem criticizing President Obama for programs and spending that further grow government intrusion in our lives, increase our debt and perpetuate a nanny state, as you point out referencing the failed War on Poverty.
My problem is with the drama queen rhetoric that has replaced civil and productive dialogue within the conservative movement.
Bankrupt the country and ruin America for years to come
falls into that category. If you're convinced that statement defines President Obama's objectives, then you've come to a conclusion without providing the necessary foundation to support the statement. This is a classic case of 'emotionalism', which the right applies as a basic weakness of the left.
I've voiced my opposition to Obama and the Democratic Congress's push for social spending. Obama won the presidential election and the Democrats won both houses of Congress, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that they're pushing an increased social agenda.
So I'm not asking you if there's too much socialism in America. I'm saying it would be more effective to frame your opposition in fundamental terms as opposed to emotionally-driven and hysterical rhetoric.
|
| 665 | Pancho Villa
ID: 50322248
Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 10:39
|
Iraq - Obama's fault
This upswing in violence comes on the heels of Obama’s new policies in the Middle East, which call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq starting this summer and lasting until 2011.
An upswing in violence is almost certainly related to Obama’s adjustments in troop numbers...
“I do think that we’re going to see increased violence as the result of Obama’s policies,” he said. “You can’t un-ring a bell. We’re drawing down in Iraq, so the enemy forces in Iraq have been energized by that.”
The upswing in violence caused by enemy forces in Iraq was the result of action by three suicide bombers. It is incomprehensible to believe that three suicide bombers would have been thwarted by a policy of continued troop presence at 2007 or 2008 levels or if McCain had won the presidential election.
Using the term enemy forces in Iraq is a dishonest interpretation of the radical element that enjoys no widespread support among any major group in the country, nor does it realistically evaluate how these elements have been 'energized', which would entail an in-depth examination of the growth of an organization, when, for all intensive purposes, we're dealing with a poorly-organized element that has been driven further and further underground, and whose 'successes' can be attributed to a few individuals bent on indiscriminate mayhem.
Yet, this is what passes for legitimate criticism of President Obama with many of today's conservatives, which shows that they are neither conservative nor patriotic.
|
| 666 | Perm Dude
ID: 26439108
Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:52
|
Save the rich people from Obama's scary social(ist) agenda!
Or, How the Chamber of Commerce Gave Up Critical Thinking Skills.
|
| 667 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, May 12, 2009, 11:02
|
Re: 663
Who's fault was it that there was not a plan in place to either supply the people in the superdome or evacuate them? Is that FEMA's responsibility or the local and state government who provided the superdome as a staging location in the first place?
Should FEMA have been able to react more quickly? Yes. But what is their mission, to provide supplies and evacuations, or to assist the local and state governments in their efforts?
I realize that this issue is stale, but still seems odd to me that the state and local government officials seem to get a free pass on this issue.
|
| 668 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Wed, May 13, 2009, 13:55
|
US strike killed 95 children in Afghanistan
Sounds like more of Bush. I thought this was going to end under Obama.
|
| 669 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, May 13, 2009, 14:03
|
I thought this was going to end under Obama
Who said that?
|
| 670 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Wed, May 13, 2009, 15:28
|
Me.
|
| 671 | TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Wed, May 13, 2009, 17:18
|
I think Obama is making a big mistake by increasing government spending so much when unemployment is high. I don't see how this will stimulate the economy. Because of the high unemployment, govt. revenues will decrease and the govt. deficit will greatly increase. Eventually the government won't find enough investors to borrow money from and will have to start printing money to pay off the interest on its debt. I think this is happening already. This will cause high inflation, a weak dollar, and reduce our standard of living.
I am a conservative and for a smaller government so I may be a bit biased. However, I would be interested others opinions on how all the increased spending will not cause many economic problems.
The American people elected Obama and a Democrat congress, so we will be getting a bigger government with more social programs during his term even though I am against it. However I don't think it is a good idea for these changes to be implemented at this time with the economy in its current state.
|
| 672 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, May 13, 2009, 17:25
|
reduce our standard of living.
I think we are heading there anyway regardless of current administration's policies, though I think they are speeding up the process. Oh the bright side it will only be relative reduction in standard living considering we will still be living way better than we did 10 years ago.
|
| 673 | Perm Dude
ID: 154111317
Wed, May 13, 2009, 18:18
|
I agree.
There are some strong economic reasons for the government to increase its own spending right now, TD, and it has nothing to do with the expectation that Democrats will have a "bigger government with more social programs" (which probably isn't valid anyway--the last Democrat shrunk both). The key is for the government to take steps to make the depression less difficult, to bring about recovery quicker, and to help people in the meantime. It sucks that we have to do it right after such a huge increase in government spending under Bush and the GOP, but we can't pick when economic downturns come about (even though signs seem to point to Republican efforts at reducing oversight and regulation as some of the biggest reasons this currect downturn is so large and steep).
I've no doubt that it the situation was different than Obama would be acting different. But we don't have that choice right now, and stimulating the credit markets seems to be the way to go, even though it'll be painful for everyone in the meantime.
|
| 674 | Building 7
ID: 9329258
Wed, May 13, 2009, 19:05
|
The solution to too much debt is not.......more debt. And Obama is creating record amounts of debt. This Keynesian Ponzi scheme has to come to an end sometime, and the sooner the better. But the problem surfaced late in the Bush administration. So both parties are going to blame each other. Meanwhile the country and our freedoms will go down the crapper. Other than that, everythings good.
Eventually the government won't find enough investors to borrow money from and will have to start printing money to pay off the interest on its debt. I think this is happening already
I think they are printing up money, (actually just some entries on a computer) and using it to buy new treasury notes, also. This is pure inflation of the money supply. And it will cause the dollar to be worth less. But other countries are doing the same. So it may be wise to buy some hard assets.
|
| 675 | Perm Dude
ID: 154111317
Wed, May 13, 2009, 20:13
|
The solution to too much debt is not.......more debt.
In a vaccuum, or even normal circumstances, I'd agree. But we aren't trying to solve the debt problem right now. We're trying to solve an economy that is tanking because of reduced credit right now.
I think they are printing up money, (actually just some entries on a computer) and using it to buy new treasury notes, also.
I haven't seen any evidence of this at all. T-bills still continue to sell out as quickly as they are offered. There is nothing I can find that demonstrates that things are even much slower than usual at T-bill auctions.
|
| 676 | Perm Dude
ID: 284531321
Thu, May 14, 2009, 11:17
|
Washington Times runs a photo of the Obama kids to accompany a story on murdered Chicago schoolkids
|
| 677 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, May 14, 2009, 12:49
|
According to the HuffPo story PD linked:Editor John Solomon told Greg Sargent technology, not a person, was to blame.
"The theme engine, through automation, grabbed a photo it thought was relevant, and attached it to the story," Solomon said, acknowledging that the photo had gone up without a person seeing it. "There was no editorial decision to run it. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we pulled it down." So the excuse is that it was an honest glitch where the software simply turned up a pic that it thought was apropriate. An acceptable excuse, I think, until you come across this link, which notes that the photo of the Obama girls was captioned:ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS The Obama daughters (above) - Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10 - attended the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. This school year 36 of the city's school children have been killed. Obviously, someone at the Times had to write that copy, and in so doing, kowingly associate the Obama daughters with the story.
Simply abhorrent.
|
| 678 | Perm Dude
ID: 284531321
Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:41
|
Even if you accept the excuse on its face, why in the world would any newspaper use a machine to decide the appropriateness of accompanying images? The Washington Times has acknowledged that they use no editorial judgement at all on its photo uses.
|
| 679 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:45
|
agreed and how in world does a program find "appropriate" pictures?
|
| 680 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:47
|
I dunno, but if you can get me one, I'm writing a very thorough investigative report on hot nekkid women.
|
| 681 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:48
|
I think that would be "inappropriate" pictures.
|
| 682 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, May 14, 2009, 13:52
|
I assume every photo in their bank has a series of keywords or key phrases attatched that their matching software searches through for apropriate accompanying photos.
This is the first time I've heard of such a system. I wonder how long they've been using it.
Regardless, the excuse is obviously a pathetic copout.
|
| 683 | rockafellerskank
ID: 2511552911
Thu, May 14, 2009, 18:22
|
Not sure where to put this. I was at The Arizona State University commencement ceremony yesterday where Obama spoke. Now, I didn't vote for Obama and I don't agree with everything he has done so far, but WOW, he gave an excellent speech.
link
text
I have nothing of value to add here, just a comment that I think the nation made the best choice. And, this is coming from a moderate republican.
|
| 684 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Sat, May 16, 2009, 06:46
|
As if 'better than McCain' was a meaningful compliment.
|
| 685 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611
Sat, May 16, 2009, 17:06
|
Obama taps Utah Governor Huntsman to be envoy to China
Brilliant move.
|
| 686 | sarge33rd
ID: 444301616
Sat, May 16, 2009, 17:31
|
As if 'better than McCain' was a meaningful compliment.
I'll use that in reference to shrub too in the future.
|
| 687 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Mon, May 18, 2009, 02:52
|
That works for me just fine.
|
| 688 | Pancho Villa
ID: 424551717
Mon, May 18, 2009, 08:45
|
Huntsman has been a terrific governor, and I hate to lose him, especially since his replacement, Lt Gov Gary Herbert, is more a right wing ideologue Republican.
It shows that Obama wants the best man for this key position, rather than a party lapdog. I doubt Obama will receive any kudos for this appointment from his critics, since most are committed to the position that Obama's goal is to destroy America, which will further marginalize the legitimacy of such criticisms.
|
| 689 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, May 18, 2009, 09:19
|
It shows that Obama wants the best man for this key position, rather than a party lapdog.
Agreed, tho I'm sure he expects nice political dividends, as well. Aside from another opportunity to boast crossing party lines, the GOP hasn't exactly been wholly pro-mormon recently. If this appointment is seen as any kind of outreach to that community, it, combined with the memory of evangelical suspicion of Romney during the 2008 primary season and Michael Steele's recent comments that the Republican base "has trouble with Mormonism" could pull some of that community away from the GOP.
|
| 690 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:30
|
I live near Notre Dame, the backlash against him speaking at commencement was fierce, which seemed surprising given his popularity locally when he was elected.
I was very impressed by his speech at Notre Dame.
Common Ground
I'm similar to RSF, I didn't vote for Obama, but I applaud his handling of the situation, which wasn't to back down from it, but to ask for moderation.
|
| 691 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:46
|
I'm similar to RSF, I didn't vote for Obama, but I applaud his handling of the situation, which wasn't to back down from it, but to ask for moderation.
If he wanted to not back down he should have asked why they spent so much money on Charlie Weies...
In another note did anyone notice that it seems like he plagiarized his own speeches for this one. And why did he speak at ND, there are alot of universities that would have loved to have him speak at there graduation and they would have been much more appreciative.
|
| 692 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:50
|
The only groups Obama seems to be pissing off these days are those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right. The logical conclusion is that Obama is not the hyper liberal that the extreme left had hoped for and that the extreme right characterizes him as. He has not pleased everyone all the time, but he is doing a good job of maintaining a moderate stance while still trying to do what he believes is in the country's best interests, which occasionally has meant making some unpopular decisions (the bailouts, for example).
|
| 693 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, May 19, 2009, 10:01
|
A respectful pro-life rebuttal to Obama's Notre Dame speech.
|
| 694 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, May 19, 2009, 10:16
|
Connor Friedersdorf asks a question that has had me perplexed about many ODS sufferers.
|
| 695 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:32
|
I believe that writer is being disingenuous. There is no contradiction between wishing for a strong military defense and an executive who is not hamstrung in that role... ...and wishing for limited government strictly following the constitutional enumerated functions of government and eschewing those invented in the past century. That argument is so sophmoric it boils down to, 'if you want to put OBL in jail, you must want to give Obama the power to put conservatives in jail'. Those who hold A must accept B? Really?
|
| 696 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:57
|
so sophmoric it boils down to, 'if you want to put OBL in jail, you must want to give Obama the power to put conservatives in jail'.
Those who hold A must accept B? Really?
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The A and B of Friedersdorf's argument are both President Obama, not OBL (or whoever) and random conservatives.
The premise is simple, if you believe Obama is sympathetic to the objectives of Islamist or other anti-American terrorists, then how could you possibly want to hand force upon him the keys to Big Brother's Toolbox.
|
| 697 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, May 19, 2009, 17:29
|
Well, I don't think he needs the powers Cheney used to fight islamism. He doesn't need torture. He probably needs to keep islamist suspects separate as long as there is strong reason to believe they are islamist combatants or islamist leaders. [more separate than PD would prefer obviously, as he's invited them to his neighborhood, if memory serves] But there are clearly things at Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan and rendition sites if not Club Gitmo, that Obama doesn't need. However The conservatives the writer speaks of would by and large believe most of that falls under necessary war powers in the WoT. Therefore they would agree Obama needed those war powers, while at the same time obviously not needing those powers against the majority of conservatives and constitutionalists. I guess the most important point to accertain is to what extent the one set of external war powers could bleed over and empower a domestic tyrant over americans. That the powers that be recently killed the posse comitatus rule, is a very very stark warning signal along those lines. However were tyrants not the threat the founding fathers and modern conservatives/constitutionalists see them to be... ...You wouldn't expect the issue of Obama's war powers to be connected to the issue of Obama's domestic law enforcement powers. Thus you could consistantly hold both positions. I doubt very very much if that writer truly cares how much power Obama accumulates. Show me liberals genuinely worried about Obama's extremist friends or extremist influences in his formative years. The liberals who routinely call christians and the right, 'taliban' on boards such as this, would hand Obama tyranical powers against them in a heartbeat, with glee.
|
| 698 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, May 19, 2009, 18:36
|
Show me liberals genuinely worried about Obama's extremist friends or extremist influences in his formative years.
show me proof positive that these "extremist friends" and "extremist influences" have any true reflection on Obama's words and actions.
oh, right. you have. i'm sure it's in post 43 in this thread and post 114 in that thread, and i'm sure it comes from some rag from someone who knew somebody who had something that was pulled from the butt of someone else who slept with somebody who once knew someone who ate in the same restaurant as someone else, only 18 years before, but the first person scratched something secret in the bottom of the table to late the other person know what the real deal was.
The liberals who routinely call christians and the right, 'taliban' on boards such as this, would hand Obama tyranical powers against them in a heartbeat, with glee.
because, of course, we've seen a lot of that on this board.
then again, why do you care? you're Christian In Name Only.
|
| 699 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, May 19, 2009, 19:03
|
They don't go more than 6 posts over at salon.com tabletalk without calling non-muslim americans taliban. So you know how they would like to treat the other side of the isle.
|
| 700 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, May 19, 2009, 20:11
|
They don't go more than 6 posts over at salon.com tabletalk without calling non-muslim americans taliban. So you know how they would like to treat the other side of the isle.
and i'm sure the same could be said of most, if not all, of the sites you like to frequent, in regards to liberals.
|
| 701 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:19
|
No, you really don't hear serious talk about rounding up liberals, like Obama's favorite college professors at Columbia were prone to do refering to constitutionalists. On the otherhand the power elite are all over that. Ollie was too trusting to realize his tool will be turned on his favorite people.
|
| 702 | Boldwin
ID: 1210341416
Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 17:36
|
Slate, plenty liberal and no friend of mine, explains how Texas can realistically seceded from the union. Something which apparently @20% of it's citizens are chronically in favor of.
I had assumed calls for secession were all people gaming a system Obama had set up to directly petition to the white house, and they were using his own system to pay him an ultimate insult. While Texas will probably not carry thru on this, it's calls for secession definately are on a whole nuther level compared to the other petitions.
|
| 703 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 17:39
|
Sure is. Shows just how utterly looney the TX GOP is and how thoroughly, they have lied to how many.
|
| 704 | Tree
ID: 710581417
Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 19:00
|
Something which apparently @20% of it's citizens are chronically in favor of.
at the rate the GOP is going, that's about how many people will be supporting their candidate in the presidential election in a few years...
Rick Perry is very much opposed to secession. if that man is against it, i can only imagine the loons that for it.
|
| 705 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Nov 14, 2012, 19:22
|
#702: That isn't secession. That's splitting into new states. And from what I've been reading, virtually any attempt to split the state would involve a loss of GOP power.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: The President Obama
|