President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama

This thread is dedicated soley to discussing the new President. This includes his inauguration, policies, etc. If it involves President Obama, discuss it here.

Originally posted by HumbleBee:

And I am aware that people pre-judge newly placed presidents. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous. Skepticism on the other hand is expected.

Yeah, but some people mistake skepticism for prejudice. I'm skeptical of all politicians, including Obama. And then again, some people are ideologically opposed to Obama. Nothing wrong with that.

I have been thinking about all of those presidents who are left-handed (or caggy-handed in Mercian dialect). I think I may have an explanation...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uOLGrXOtuwQ

Originally posted by HumbleBee:

Thank you for correcting me, DawgFan.

No problem.

I thought I'd post this most humourous article I found out about while perusing Youtube.

It trips me the heck out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7771937.stm

An appeal claiming Barack Obama is too British to become president of the United States has been rejected by the US Supreme Court.

The lawsuit claimed he should be disqualified because, it claimed, he acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

This meant he was not a "natural-born" US citizen, as the US constitution requires, it alleged.

Mr Obama's birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii.

The issue was addressed by Mr Obama's aides during his presidential campaign, when they posted online his birth certificate - which was verified by Hawaiian officials.

This lawsuit, brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio, gained a high profile because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for discussion.

It conceded that Mr Obama was born in Hawaii - but contended that he still held foreign citizenship at birth.

It read: "Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth', just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

Kenya was part of British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.

A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari - the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case - means that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I thought I'd post this most humourous article I found out about while perusing Youtube.

It trips me the heck out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7771937.stm

An appeal claiming Barack Obama is too British to become president of the United States has been rejected by the US Supreme Court.

The lawsuit claimed he should be disqualified because, it claimed, he acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

This meant he was not a "natural-born" US citizen, as the US constitution requires, it alleged.

Mr Obama's birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii.

The issue was addressed by Mr Obama's aides during his presidential campaign, when they posted online his birth certificate - which was verified by Hawaiian officials.

This lawsuit, brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio, gained a high profile because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for discussion.

It conceded that Mr Obama was born in Hawaii - but contended that he still held foreign citizenship at birth.

It read: "Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth', just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

Kenya was part of British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.

A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari - the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case - means that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.

This is easy to ascertain, does he drink tea?

Originally posted by Daveski17:

This is easy to ascertain, does he drink tea?

Or wear a bowler.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Daveski17:

This is easy to ascertain, does he drink tea?

Or wear a bowler.

I suppose we shall see if he does...

Bipartisan spirit of "change" was brief!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4331839/Barack-Obama-picks-a-fight-with-Rush-Limbaugh-as-bipartisan-spirit-crumbles.html

"Mr Obama has told Republicans in Washington to stop listening to the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, risking a new culture war with conservative voters.

His exhortation came as he enraged other Republicans by reversing George W Bush's ban on funding international aid to charities that perform or provide information about abortions.

After less than a week in office, Mr Obama's presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days.

He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.

His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in socialism.

With characteristic robustness, he said: "We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over and grab our ankles... because his father was black, because he's the first black president, we've got to accept this."

After the euphoria of his inauguration, Mr Obama's team have been handed a cold dose of political reality. A series of controversial policy decisions, mistakes and unforeseen events has brought home the difficulty of bridging the divisions in Washington.

Mr Obama has pledged to end the culture wars on social issues that have riven American politics for a generation and did not allow television cameras to film him signing the executive order reversing the Bush abortion funding ban on aid agencies abroad, in order not to provoke pro-life groups.

When he finally did sign the order he issued a statement in a bid to placate abortion critics by promising to "reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies." He added: "It is time that we end the politicisation of this issue."

But despite his efforts, the reaction was brutal. Family groups accused him of plotting the "infanticide" of African children. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, president of the American Values pressure group, said: "It is both sad and infuriating that in the same week President Obama extended new rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and began planning to release men whom we know have murdered Americans, he is preparing to sentence innocent children to death through abortion."

Meanwhile the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve the first human trials of embryonic stem cells, anathema to the Christian right, has intensified the bubbling culture war.

Republicans are also angry that the economic stimulus plan contains funding for contraceptives and other Democratic pet projects that might take years to have any effect on the downturn. The moderate conservative columnist David Brooks, who dined recently with Mr Obama, wrote: "The bill is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach - rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact."

Republicans are also criticising Mr Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp with no plan for the detainees still incarcerated there and for forcing the CIA to follow stricter rules on interrogations. The revelation last week that 60 former inmates have returned to terrorism - and that one is now deputy leader of al Qaeda's Yemeni branch - was unfortunate timing for the President.

Other elements of Mr Obama's political morning after, like most hangovers, are self-inflicted. Having announced new ethics rules banning lobbyists serving in his administration, the president was immediately forced to make an exception for his deputy defence secretary William Lynn, who has lobbied for the defence industry giant Raytheon.

The president has also reacted badly to his first taste of tougher questioning from the previously supine Washington press corps - becoming visibly irritated, during a visit to journalists' offices in the White House, when asked a substantive question about the ethics affair.

The White House's failure to arrange for television cameras to record Mr Obama's second swearing in, held on Wednesday night because he and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts botched the wording at his inauguration, infuriated broadcasters.

That incident has also sparked a predictable backlash from the Christian right, with commentators like Fox News host Glenn Beck suggesting, inaccurately, that Mr Obama might not be a legitimate president because he did not use a Bible for the second swearing in.

A Democratic strategist who has run two presidential campaigns told The Sunday Telegraph: "What can I say? 'Welcome to Washington, Mr President'.

"They knew what to expect but they've had it all their own way for so long that the speed of it may have come as a surprise. The Obama people like a scrap, they've proved that throughout the year, none more than the president. But they know they're in a fight now. And it probably won't let up for eight years."

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

"They knew what to expect but they've had it all their own way for so long that the speed of it may have come as a surprise. The Obama people like a scrap, they've proved that throughout the year, none more than the president. But they know they're in a fight now. And it probably won't let up for eight years."

I don't think one could put it more succinctly

The Republican economic model is so obviously wrong that paying it any heed is a waste of time. I would add that too many Democrats have genuflected to that same idol.

The best thing to do is go on with what he and his advisors have planned and let the chips fall. Otherwise, he plays the let's come together tune, and we'll never know whether a carefully crafted program of government spending is useful during times such as these. If too many Americans won't go along, well, let'em eat cake and elect a tax cutting, deregulating flunky and see how that works. Oops! They did that twice with Bush, didn't they?

Frankly, one of our perennial problems here is the mushy notion that we need to dump partisanship and all get along. Crap.

And, I might add, if people and the market know best how their tax dollars ought to be spent, I'm willing to go along just so long as I can opt out of most of our military spending. I want a line item veto.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Frankly, one of our perennial problems here is the mushy notion that we need to dump partisanship and all get along. Crap.

This mushy notion only applies when the Republicans are out of power.

As for military spending, yes it can and should be cut. There is no reason for the American military to spend more than all the other militaries in the world combined. This has led to the creation of our mighty military-industrial empire with a "need" to often impose ourselves in other countries affairs.

Originally posted by BernG:

This mushy notion only applies when the Republicans are out of power.

As for military spending, yes it can and should be cut. There is no reason for the American military to spend more than all the other militaries in the world combined. This has led to the creation of our mighty military-industrial empire with the a "need' to often impose ourselves in other countries affairs.

There's a handful of truth in your first statement. Most of that cooperative talk is window dressing. I remember times of real comity in the senate, but that's the exception.

On the second,

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Bipartisan spirit of "change" was brief!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4331839/Barack-Obama-picks-a-fight-with-Rush-Limbaugh-as-bipartisan-spirit-crumbles.html

"Mr Obama has told Republicans in Washington to stop listening to the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, risking a new culture war with conservative voters.

His exhortation came as he enraged other Republicans by reversing George W Bush's ban on funding international aid to charities that perform or provide information about abortions.

After less than a week in office, Mr Obama's presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days.

He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.

His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in socialism.

With characteristic robustness, he said: "We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over and grab our ankles... because his father was black, because he's the first black president, we've got to accept this."

After the euphoria of his inauguration, Mr Obama's team have been handed a cold dose of political reality. A series of controversial policy decisions, mistakes and unforeseen events has brought home the difficulty of bridging the divisions in Washington.

Mr Obama has pledged to end the culture wars on social issues that have riven American politics for a generation and did not allow television cameras to film him signing the executive order reversing the Bush abortion funding ban on aid agencies abroad, in order not to provoke pro-life groups.

When he finally did sign the order he issued a statement in a bid to placate abortion critics by promising to "reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies." He added: "It is time that we end the politicisation of this issue."

But despite his efforts, the reaction was brutal. Family groups accused him of plotting the "infanticide" of African children. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, president of the American Values pressure group, said: "It is both sad and infuriating that in the same week President Obama extended new rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and began planning to release men whom we know have murdered Americans, he is preparing to sentence innocent children to death through abortion."

Meanwhile the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve the first human trials of embryonic stem cells, anathema to the Christian right, has intensified the bubbling culture war.

Republicans are also angry that the economic stimulus plan contains funding for contraceptives and other Democratic pet projects that might take years to have any effect on the downturn. The moderate conservative columnist David Brooks, who dined recently with Mr Obama, wrote: "The bill is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach - rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact."

Republicans are also criticising Mr Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp with no plan for the detainees still incarcerated there and for forcing the CIA to follow stricter rules on interrogations. The revelation last week that 60 former inmates have returned to terrorism - and that one is now deputy leader of al Qaeda's Yemeni branch - was unfortunate timing for the President.

Other elements of Mr Obama's political morning after, like most hangovers, are self-inflicted. Having announced new ethics rules banning lobbyists serving in his administration, the president was immediately forced to make an exception for his deputy defence secretary William Lynn, who has lobbied for the defence industry giant Raytheon.

The president has also reacted badly to his first taste of tougher questioning from the previously supine Washington press corps - becoming visibly irritated, during a visit to journalists' offices in the White House, when asked a substantive question about the ethics affair.

The White House's failure to arrange for television cameras to record Mr Obama's second swearing in, held on Wednesday night because he and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts botched the wording at his inauguration, infuriated broadcasters.

That incident has also sparked a predictable backlash from the Christian right, with commentators like Fox News host Glenn Beck suggesting, inaccurately, that Mr Obama might not be a legitimate president because he did not use a Bible for the second swearing in.

A Democratic strategist who has run two presidential campaigns told The Sunday Telegraph: "What can I say? 'Welcome to Washington, Mr President'.

"They knew what to expect but they've had it all their own way for so long that the speed of it may have come as a surprise. The Obama people like a scrap, they've proved that throughout the year, none more than the president. But they know they're in a fight now. And it probably won't let up for eight years."

The Christian right will never be happy unless its all their way. They are perfectly happy to have us sit under their Middle Age morality and science - before contraceptives and stem cell research. They had their chance under Bush and have shown us they will turn on anyone who does need cater to all their needs. The nation is better off without them. I wish they would join their like minded compatriots in Saudi Arabia or Iran instead of tormenting everyone in the US with their nonsense.

I don't know how many released from Gitmo are now so-called terrorists. Quite a coincidence that this "news" came out at this time.

Consequently, the right wing is now whining that Obama is changing the rules and that he has limited torture. How stupid do they think we are? The Gitmo "failures" are a direct result of Bush administration policies set up to deal with the detainees. It also proves that torture does not work, for the torture did not identify those who are going back to their old ways. This proves that we need to change how we deal with them - something Obama is willing to do.

And as for Fat Boy. Like he really gives a damn about anything besides his money or his "prestige". In the 50's we decried our enemies and marginalized them as communists. Now its socialists. It seems many Americans have not learned from the McCarthy era.

Personally, i think both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should be chucked in jail for at least 15 years. Both "effed" up the economy in their own ways. Bill with his "let's house any damn body regardless of income" philosophy and his lies and Bush for his Empirical and almighty waste of cash wars along with his lies. Both really anger me at the moment. I'll graduate from college soon and what will I do for a job? What good will my major do me? (Note that I live in the poorest state in the US) I'll have to do like everyone else and try to find a minimum wage job and try to support myself with that. I swear to the FSM.....

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Personally, i think both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should be chucked in jail for at least 15 years. Both "effed" up the economy in their own ways. Bill with his "let's house any damn body regardless of income" philosophy and his lies and Bush for his Empirical and almighty waste of cash wars along with his lies. Both really anger me at the moment. I'll graduate from college soon and what will I do for a job? What good will my major do me? (Note that I live in the poorest state in the US) I'll have to do like everyone else and try to find a minimum wage job and try to support myself with that. I swear to the FSM.....

Mr. Dawgfan: With your degree (B.A. in liberal arts?) you could take few teacher training classes, up here in Chicago and teach in the Chicago Public Schools. Think positive....maybe you could be a staffer or a page at the state Capitol in Mississippi. I know you love the south, but the big $$ is up north or maybe in Atlanta. And if you can get more funding, just stay in school and get your Masters Degree.
Carbondale is nice weather and it has lots of for you

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Personally, i think both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should be chucked in jail for at least 15 years. Both "effed" up the economy in their own ways. Bill with his "let's house any damn body regardless of income" philosophy and his lies and Bush for his Empirical and almighty waste of cash wars along with his lies. Both really anger me at the moment. I'll graduate from college soon and what will I do for a job? What good will my major do me? (Note that I live in the poorest state in the US) I'll have to do like everyone else and try to find a minimum wage job and try to support myself with that. I swear to the FSM.....

If you're talking about the CRA, here's Krugman's take on it

Watertown, Conn.: Do you agree that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is the cornerstone of subprime lending, the root cause of financial meltdown?

Paul Krugman: No, and I'm glad someone brought that up. CRA has been in existence since 1977; plus, it only applies to depository institutions (regular banks). Meanwhile, we had a subprime bubble that mostly took place after 2002, with most of the loans made by institutions that weren't subject to the CRA.

That's why everyone who's looked at this honestly says that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crisis.

The attempt to blame it all on the CRA is just an attempt at blame-shifting -- an attempt to make liberals and nonwhite people the villains of a story that is actually about runaway financial institutions and the free-market ideologues who refused to regulate them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/12/11/DI2008121102406.html

I agree this is not a good time to graduate from college. With lack of jobs, house prices falling, many losing their retirement income, you might say the American dream is kaput for now.

However, as was stated, they are looking for teachers. NYC also pays a decent salary. I hope they are still looking.

Originally posted by operainchicago:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Personally, i think both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should be chucked in jail for at least 15 years. Both "effed" up the economy in their own ways. Bill with his "let's house any damn body regardless of income" philosophy and his lies and Bush for his Empirical and almighty waste of cash wars along with his lies. Both really anger me at the moment. I'll graduate from college soon and what will I do for a job? What good will my major do me? (Note that I live in the poorest state in the US) I'll have to do like everyone else and try to find a minimum wage job and try to support myself with that. I swear to the FSM.....

Mr. Dawgfan: With your degree (B.A. in liberal arts?) you could take few teacher training classes, up here in Chicago and teach in the Chicago Public Schools. Think positive....maybe you could be a staffer or a page at the state Capitol in Mississippi. I know you love the south, but the big $$ is up north or maybe in Atlanta. And if you can get more funding, just stay in school and get your Masters Degree.
Carbondale is nice weather and it has lots of for you

Thanks for the suggestion(s) operainchicago!

Originally posted by BernG:

If you're talking about the CRA, here's Krugman's take on it

One side: the CRA is the root of all evil. Another side: Greedy capitalist pigs run amok on Wall Street unregulated by the knowledgeable, caring hand of government brought the ruin. The truth: a little, or a lot, of both. Consider too that the just-confirmed Secretary of the Treasury was right in the middle of it with Citigroup.

Nobel Prize notwithstanding, I've never been crazy about Krugman's analyses. Surpluses are wonderful, deficits are evil. Or is it the other way around? For Krugman, it seems to depend on the party of the person in the White House at the moment.

The US housing bubble was not the cause of the current international financial crisis, and subsequent recession, at most it was the trigger. This legalislation in turn could not have caused the housing bubble, though I can't say to what degree it contributed to it, whether has fulfilled its legislative goals, whether in short it has been a good or bad piece of legalislation.

A recession is a wonderful thing to some, but bad news to more. It definitely isn't good to anyone leaving college. It can be good to someone who has left college and landed a good job, there might be more job insecurity, but also less competition from the new, and now unemployed former students. It is also a good time to buy a house, less so to sell one.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Bipartisan spirit of "change" was brief!

So Obama told Republicans to break free from the mindset of a fascist demagogue who is only out to undermine "the bipartisan spirit of change", and that means that the "bipartisan spirit of change" was brief? Huh?

That's like saying that if one is intolerant towards intolerance, one is as bad as those whose intolerance one is opposed to. Insane.

No, to move on beyond bipartisanship, extremists like Limbaugh need to be sidelined.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We need change, but we don't need any friggin' Obama cult.

What about the anti-Obama cult?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Prediction: after Obama is safely elected, there'll be an avalanche of tidbits to leave you wondering, "wow, why didn't someone look into that earlier?" I'd almost bet on it.

Nice prediction there. Not biased at all, are we?

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We need change, but we don't need any friggin' Obama cult.

What about the anti-Obama cult?

Maybe more of an anti-Obama-cult cult. Obama cultists are kinda creepy.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Prediction: after Obama is safely elected, there'll be an avalanche of tidbits to leave you wondering, "wow, why didn't someone look into that earlier?" I'd almost bet on it.

Nice prediction there. Not biased at all, are we?

Biased or not, I still stand by it.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

So Obama told Republicans to break free from the mindset of a fascist demagogue who is only out to undermine "the bipartisan spirit of change", and that means that the "bipartisan spirit of change" was brief? Huh?

That's like saying that if one is intolerant towards intolerance, one is as bad as those whose intolerance one is opposed to. Insane.

No, to move on beyond bipartisanship, extremists like Limbaugh need to be sidelined.

"Need to be sidelined"? You mean censored? You mean "shut up"? You see, that's creepy. I don't much care for Limbaugh, but when a group of people have to have complete assent with no dissension whatsoever, we're in trouble. Limbaugh's no more a "fascist" than Obama is a "communist".

Originally posted by BernG:

The Christian right will never be happy unless its all their way.

There are all-or-nothing types on both sides. Hence the weirdness of a President trying to reduce the audience of a friggin' talk show host.

Originally posted by jax:

The US housing bubble was not the cause of the current international financial crisis, and subsequent recession, at most it was the trigger. This legalislation in turn could not have caused the housing bubble, though I can't say to what degree it contributed to it, whether has fulfilled its legislative goals, whether in short it has been a good or bad piece of legalislation.

A recession is a wonderful thing to some, but bad news to more. It definitely isn't good to anyone leaving college. It can be good to someone who has left college and landed a good job, there might be more job insecurity, but also less competition from the new, and now unemployed former students. It is also a good time to buy a house, less so to sell one.

I honestly believe the western world has been in a recession since the late 19th century. Any upturns in the economy have been sporadic & not long lasting.

Originally posted by jax:

The US housing bubble was not the cause of the current international financial crisis, and subsequent recession, at most it was the trigger.

If we take everything to do with US housing out of the picture, do we still get the financial crisis and recession?

Iceland might make the case for your argument, but I'm not sure.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by jax:

The US housing bubble was not the cause of the current international financial crisis, and subsequent recession, at most it was the trigger.

If we take everything to do with US housing out of the picture, do we still get the financial crisis and recession?

Iceland might make the case for your argument, but I'm not sure.

Apologies to whomever this may offend : "Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant."

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by BernG:

The Christian right will never be happy unless its all their way.

There are all-or-nothing types on both sides. Hence the weirdness of a President trying to reduce the audience of a friggin' talk show host.

Nothing weird about Obama. He's simply telling the truth about Limbaugh.

Also, Obama is not all or nothing. He's even gone over to the congress to meet and try to work with the Republicans.

Limbaugh is not simply a talk show host. He's a dangerous demagogue who constantly stirring the pot of the base portion of our society. I'm glad that some have the guts to stand up to that racist panderer of hate.

Originally posted by BernG:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by BernG:

The Christian right will never be happy unless its all their way.

There are all-or-nothing types on both sides. Hence the weirdness of a President trying to reduce the audience of a friggin' talk show host.

Nothing weird about Obama. He's simply telling the truth about Limbaugh.

Also, Obama is not all or nothing. He's even gone over to the congress to meet and try to work with the Republicans.

Limbaugh is not simply a talk show host. He's a dangerous demagogue who constantly stirring the pot of the base portion of our society. I'm glad that some have the guts to stand up to that racist panderer of hate.

Oh, come on. Olbermann at MSNBC is in the same class, only over on the other side. There's something to be said for freedom of speech, you know? No one is forced to listen to either Limbaugh or Olbermann or Matthews. Let a hundred flowers bloom... Anyway, I'm not for labeling commentators as "enemies of the people" to be silenced. Simply refuting them with reasonable arguments should be enough.

And Obama doesn't NEED to work with the Republicans, except to provide some cover. The Democrats can do it pretty much all on their own, like in '93. If the Democrats believe in the stimulus bill, let them pass it and take either sole credit or sole responsibility.

a little additional info

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. 
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)  
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)


DUHHH

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Simply refuting them with reasonable arguments should be enough.

Olbermann and Limbaugh and Matthews? Reasonable arguments? You jest.

But you're right. Nobody forces anybody to watch or listen.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Biased or not, I still stand by it.

How do you stick by something you'd almost bet on? Do you almost stick by it?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Biased or not, I still stand by it.

How do you stick by something you'd almost bet on? Do you almost stick by it?

Well, I'm not a betting guy. But we do have this from the Politico:

DOES HE REALLY THINK AFGHANISTAN IS WINNABLE?

DO DEFICITS MATTER?

HOW FAST IS TOO FAST IN IRAQ?

WHAT’S IN THE FILES?

DO UNIONS WEAR WHITE HATS?

CAN U.S. POWER SAVE DARFUR?

HOW MUCH DOES HE HAVE TO PLACATE THE LEFT?

Genuine bafflement, apparently, from the writers. Mind you, this is not only after the election, but after the inauguration. It shows how vapid our political campaigns are. I don't remember these subjects being brought up or kicked around that much, but I do remember lipsticks on pigs. Granted, we don't really know all that much about any new president, but it seems to me we know far less about this one than most. Of course, I'll hope for the best.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

You mean censored?

I am very much against any censorship at all.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

What about the anti-Obama cult?

Maybe more of an anti-Obama-cult cult. Obama cultists are kinda creepy.

So cultists are only bad if they are Obama cultists? The anti-Obama (cultist) cultists are allowed to be cultists because they don't support Obama?

Remember: it's only bad if Obama does it!

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Nice prediction there. Not biased at all, are we?

Biased or not, I still stand by it.

Except the prediction failed.

"Need to be sidelined"? You mean censored? You mean "shut up"?

Nope. He didn't ask the demagogue to shut up. He asked people to break free from the demagogue's demagoguery. He never said that the demagogue can't speak freely.

I don't much care for Limbaugh, but when a group of people have to have complete assent with no dissension whatsoever, we're in trouble.

Obama never said anything about "no dissension what so ever". There's a difference between asking people to break free from extremism and now allowing dissent at all. In fact, Obama picked people for his administration that did not agree with him.

Limbaugh's no more a "fascist" than Obama is a "communist".

Indeed. But Limbaugh is the demagogue who keeps labeling Obama as a socialist/communist.

There are all-or-nothing types on both sides. Hence the weirdness of a President trying to reduce the audience of a friggin' talk show host.

There is nothing weird about countering Limbaugh's polarization. And it's funny that you talk about "all-or-nothing types", seeing as you were unable to tell the difference between distancing oneself from extremism, and allowing no dissent what so ever

Originally posted by Denny77:

a little additional info

What on earth is the relevance of this wall of text?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Granted, we don't really know all that much about any new president, but it seems to me we know far less about this one than most. Of course, I'll hope for the best.

You mean the way we knew about Bush before his first election. How in the world could we know how anybody would govern before the fact?

As for the Politico piece, it's what the media do. I don't have a problem with it, basically, but we're one week and a day into the damned administration, fer Chrissake, and every nimrod in the country is writing history.

I think when you made your prediction that you were making reference to skeletons from the past. Am I wrong?

Every decision in the world is subject to revisions, hiccups and backward steps, except for Bush policies which were always correct...but for "Mission Accomplished!" Obama will be no different.

Originally posted by operainchicago:

Ahem guys! Topic is B.O. not sports

OK. I found right guard works well.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

What about the anti-Obama cult?

Maybe more of an anti-Obama-cult cult. Obama cultists are kinda creepy.

So cultists are only bad if they are Obama cultists?

They're the main cultists I see at the moment. Of course, there are Palin cultists and Reagan cultists etc, but these don't have very many representatives in the media now, do they?

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Except the prediction failed.

He's only been in office for 8 days. The point was, there was a tremendous lack of media curiosity into Obama's political background, which will eventually come out in full (to get back to Jaybro's question as well). I'm by no means an Obama-hater, but jeeez the media let us down in this past election cycle.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Nope. He didn't ask the demagogue to shut up. He asked people to break free from the demagogue's demagoguery. He never said that the demagogue can't speak freely.

Pretty much the same thing. It's ridiculous for any president to take on any media-entertainment figure to begin with, however it's worded.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Limbaugh's no more a "fascist" than Obama is a "communist".

Indeed. But Limbaugh is the demagogue who keeps labeling Obama as a socialist/communist.

Which still doesn't make Limbaugh a fascist. I'm sick and tired of this b.s. cheapening of language for some political purpose, whether that hyperbole comes from the right or left.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

There is nothing weird about countering Limbaugh's polarization. And it's funny that you talk about "all-or-nothing types", seeing as you were unable to tell the difference between distancing oneself from extremism, and allowing no dissent what so ever

Do you think Olbermann is an "extremist"? Should Obama distance himself from MSNBC? Nahhhhhh. 'Course not. The "extremists" are always on the other side.

Look, Limbaugh and Olbermann are just about equally influential; that is, not much at all.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

That's like saying that if one is intolerant towards intolerance, one is as bad as those whose intolerance one is opposed to. Insane.

The insanity comes in when we try to determine what exactly is "intolerant", and who it is that's doing the defining. Pretty soon, "intolerant" becomes whatever doesn't square with whatever political party's platform.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by Denny77:

a little additional info

What on earth is the relevance of this wall of text?

It is for those with a background in mathmatics. 2+2=4
Just to show that all the hype by Obama and his socialist clients is a lie.
You will find as time goes on the worthwhile use of such information. If the America public had a clue he wouldn't have been elected.
If you don't know what the info indicates then I would suggest you find out,or curl up and enjoy the hiatus the world is about to endure.

In any case the conclusions you have arrived,about the usefulness of such info,has little to do with Obama.This debate as of now was not about my use of this board.

Take a bite:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Denny77:

Just to show that all the hype by Obama and his socialist clients is a lie.

What on earth are you on about? Obama, a socialist?

Jesus Christ. Quit the inane nonsense already. The fascist propaganda is getting old.

If the America public had a clue he wouldn't have been elected.

So you know better than everyone else, do you?

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

If the America public had a clue he wouldn't have been elected.

So you know better than everyone else, do you?

Everyone does. Or at least everyone thinks so.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Everyone does. Or at least everyone thinks so.

The only thing the complainants forget is that before the 2006 election, Bush could have passed legislation to pickle babies in brine. Somehow the Republicans failed to handle the problems mentioned by Denny77. Between 2006 and now Bush could have bombed anything the Democrats sent forward, and the Republicans in the Senate could have talked anything to death...and would have. The next thing the Republicans will complain about will be the reforms that Democrats establish to control criminal speculation. Nice to have it both ways.

When the inauguration address was going on was the time I got into JFK airport it was an almost mythical atmosphere! Many people were gathered around TV screens, looking on in awe, clapping etc. Then in the Taxi ride it was on too, and finally when I to to my accommodation the staff where all talking about it. After dumping my stuff I went out into the streets of New York and there were vendors everywhere selling Obama stuff! At the Institute of Black research on Malcolm X Boulevard in Harlem they had a huge great section about Obama. There's certainly a lot on the guys shoulders! Although it could very much end in disappointment considering his cabinet is basically a rehash of the Clinton one. His package seems more of a token then anything. But hey hopefully I'm wrong, hope so, for all are sakes!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Nice to have it both ways.

We should have it more than 2 ways. A third way would be nice as well! (You know where I'm going with this Jaybro )

Originally posted by Jaybro:

DON'T THINK OF IT AS DYING, said Death. JUST THINK OF IT AS LEAVING EARLY TO AVOID THE RUSH.
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)

I'd say rather, that to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure!

With a finacial crisis spaeked off IN America tens of millions on the poverty level and may before the present debacle and millions desperate for health care, President Obama needs a pair of hiking boots for this mountain to climb. I suspect the goodwill that is being dished out mostly in desperation will possibly take him comfortably into two terms. The only doubt on this horizon is that if he doesn't fulfill the high expectation the next Presidential Election may not be quite a gap thing as presently guessed?

Though I disagree with this author's political orientation -- especially the typical "oh, well" attitude toward the Iraq war -- the following passage does have the ring of truth to it:

Some will speculate that the outbreak of hatred and euphoria in our politics is the result of the transformation of left-liberalism into a religion, its promulgation as dogma by our universities, and students' absorption of their professors' lesson of immoderation. This is unfair to religion.

At least it's unfair to those forms of biblical faith that teach that God's ways are hidden and mysterious, that all human beings are both deserving of respect and inherently flawed, and that it is idolatry to invest things of this world -- certainly the goods that can be achieved through politics -- with absolute value. Through these teachings, biblical faith encourages skepticism about grand claims to moral and political authority and an appreciation of the limits of one's knowledge, both of which well serve liberal democracy.

In contrast, by assembling and maintaining faculties that think alike about politics and think alike that the university curriculum must instill correct political opinions, our universities cultivate intellectual conformity and discourage the exercise of reason in public life. It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning -- after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336391229335459.html

Originally posted by street_spirit:

When the inauguration address was going on was the time I got into JFK airport it was an almost mythical atmosphere! Many people were gathered around TV screens, looking on in awe, clapping etc. Then in the Taxi ride it was on too, and finally when I to to my accommodation the staff where all talking about it. After dumping my stuff I went out into the streets of New York and there were vendors everywhere selling Obama stuff! At the Institute of Black research on Malcolm X Boulevard in Harlem they had a huge great section about Obama. ...

Personally, I don't think that sort of thing is healthy. But that's just me, I guess.

Why did you throw out the other guy when, by all reports, he was finally housetrained?
Eight years wasted.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Everyone does. Or at least everyone thinks so.

The only thing the complainants forget is that before the 2006 election, Bush could have passed legislation to pickle babies in brine. Somehow the Republicans failed to handle the problems mentioned by Denny77. Between 2006 and now Bush could have bombed anything the Democrats sent forward, and the Republicans in the Senate could have talked anything to death...and would have. The next thing the Republicans will complain about will be the reforms that Democrats establish to control criminal speculation. Nice to have it both ways.

Could of could......of should....would of of all old news. Bush is gone. Get over it.
As far as demmies passing any reform that is a laugh. As for housing crisis... demies were out there telling goof balls to lend to any poor slob who came down the pike.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by Denny77:

Just to show that all the hype by Obama and his socialist clients is a lie.

What on earth are you on about? Obama, a socialist?

Jesus Christ. Quit the inane nonsense already. The fascist propaganda is getting old.

If the America public had a clue he wouldn't have been elected.

So you know better than everyone else, do you?

Keep the lord out of it... and on second thought watch where the money is really going and who is really going to pay. .....or who is going to print more money..... or how many jobs his great program will create. The gubermint has HALF OF THEM NOW.

What I said was about future events and if I turn out to be wrong I will the happiest between the two of us. I realize your objection to my post but I FOR SURE AM NOT A FASCIEST.... .....and if I were, what does that have to do with anything.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by Denny77:

Just to show that all the hype by Obama and his socialist clients is a lie.

What on earth are you on about? Obama, a socialist?

Jesus Christ. Quit the inane nonsense already. The fascist propaganda is getting old.

If the America public had a clue he wouldn't have been elected.

So you know better than everyone else, do you?

Keep the lord out of it... and on second thought watch where the money is really going and who is really going to pay. .....or who is going to print more money..... or how many jobs his great program will create. The gubermint has HALF OF THEM NOW.

What I said was about future events and if I turn out to be wrong I will the happiest between the two of us. I realize your objection to my post but I FOR SURE AM NOT A FASCIEST.... .....and if I were, what does that have to do with anything.

Being a socialist myself, I can tell you. He really isn't 'one of us'...

Being a socialist myself, I can tell you. He really isn't 'one of us'... [/quote]



Den says:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Being a long extinct Goldwater conservative I thought it was a compliment.