Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
So tell me what would happen in a theoretical situation where all those 175 people really did simply quit their jobs, on the same day. What would come of that?
That also sounds like something from pure fiction. They won't do it all at once but as other companies have openings with pay similar to what these guys just lost, some of them overseas, they will all be leaving. I mean, would you flip burgers at McDonald's for minimum wage if Wendy's will pay you $10 plus stock options?
 
If they cannot offer competitive wages they cannot hire the best and brightest. Sure, we can argue that these guys are obviously not that as they participated in the actions that precipitated the recession, but how can you bring in guys that do fit that bill if other companies can just hand them twice the compensation?

Well, you kinda bring up the point that I would try to make here...

Here is the deal: These guys were given bailout money because they were supposedly "too big to fail." Now, they are having their ability to hire and keep quality executives handicapped. If they are too big to fail why would you want to put them at a competitive disadvantage when trying to hire the leaders of the company?

It certainly is a bit of a paradox, isn't it? I'd say it would come down more to how a company is run in the first place, and sadly in many cases it is not a meritocracy as it otherwise should be. I'd venture a guess that a majority of the executives at the companies currently under the thumb of the Treasury didn't get there based on their hard work. If the "best and the brightest" were there in the first place, as you said, it seems unlikely we would have been in the mess anyway.

Furthermore, what businesses are going to be luring them away anyway? If you're in the banking or investment industry, the majority of companies are already in trouble. As I recall, isn't Goldman-Sachs the only one without government money on the books?


I can't believe I am hearing a government interventionist program being defended as protecting free market competitiveness.

Funnily enough, the Liberals are already fed-up with Geithner as well. Or, that's what my reading suggests as of late.


ALSO:

I found this nifty diagram posted on Laughing Squid earlier today, Left vs Right, which really holds no major relevance to the topic of discussion, but is kinda fun to look at.


Clicky to Make Biggie
 
It certainly is a bit of a paradox, isn't it? I'd say it would come down more to how a company is run in the first place, and sadly in many cases it is not a meritocracy as it otherwise should be.
The moment they accepted handouts (something which a few claim was forced upon them) they became nothing more than looters no better than a drug addict whining about a welfare check in my opinion. But that does not change a few of the issues in this case.

I'd venture a guess that a majority of the executives at the companies currently under the thumb of the Treasury didn't get there based on their hard work.
And how do you suppose these people got there? It isn't like this is Ford and they are inherited positions. I have no doubt that there was some advantages gotten through networking, or what some call "the good ole boy network," but a man who knows many people in the industry well is also valuable as he has an advantage in business dealings.

But if by some run of idiocy the board hired these men on and they screwed it up then they should have just failed in the first place. That is how a free market weeds out leadership gained without merit.

If the "best and the brightest" were there in the first place, as you said, it seems unlikely we would have been in the mess anyway.
I said you could argue that. I made no definitive statement as to what kind of CEOs they were. As heads of banks they are heavily influenced by the Federal Reserve and I am firmly in the camp that believes that is where the central blame belongs. Fed policy put these institutions in a situation where they could either not play along and die now, possibly face Fed and SEC inquiries (mob style), or they play along and grumble about how the Fed is screwing them all over down the road.

I know that situation because I deal with it all the time as a department manager. Someone 1,000 miles away tells me how to do something and I can either prove I am smarter and lose my job now or go along and hope that I can adjust enough to keep us from being screwed in the long run. The problem is that any of these guys that are honest have been playing this game for 20+ years now and you will eventually hit a point where you can't fix it anymore.

The other thing to consider here though is that this does not apply to just the CEOs. This applies to the top 25 of each company. Do you really think all 175 of these people didn't see an issue arising? Some of these people weren't even tied to the decision making that led to their trouble. These people will be the first out the door because no one wants to be punished for something they had nothing to do with or were not listened to when they pointed out warning signs.

And do not forget that Obama didn't arbitrarily give his administration permission to do this to just these executives. He arbitrarily gave his administration permission to do this to all employees all the way down to the hourly wage bank teller. How far will that go? How much affect on benefits will they have? Better yet, can they pull back health care benefits to make his public option more appealing or to create equality with all those people he is trying to help out?

Furthermore, what businesses are going to be luring them away anyway? If you're in the banking or investment industry, the majority of companies are already in trouble. As I recall, isn't Goldman-Sachs the only one without government money on the books?
To start: This is only seven companies. There are many more banks than that worldwide and a lot of media talk has mentioned them going to work for overseas banks.

As for who would hire them in banking because they are all in trouble: Look around. CEOs don't have to stay in one industry. Only Detroit has the unspoken rule that you don't leave Detroit. A former VP from GE runs Home Depot. Steve Jobs is on the board at Disney. Carl Icahn runs half the Fortune 500 list. Back to GE: they have investment, consumer industrial products, consumer electronics, and media. You think their executives have experience in all of those? No, they get plucked up from teams in one branch and go full on corporate, or even move from one group to the next. I can guarantee you that after this GE's financial side of things (which is affected by this) will be where you send executives to either learn or die. Business leadership rarely requires that you fully understand the details of that business, as the main trick is to learn the trends. As Detroit is showing, sometimes it is better to not keep the same old guys doing the same old crap for generations. A bank executive could possibly bring some new life to a retail company.



But all of this is actually an aside to the low-handed tricks that led up to this. Nowhere in the TARP plan was the government controlling salaries and benefits part of the deal. Obama walked in and began changing the deal, Vader style. Pray he doesn't alter it any further. This deal is getting worse all the time.

If you have car loan that you signed off on and then later they came to you and said what kind of gas you could buy, adding it to your loan agreement without running it by you first, would that be right? A mortgage lender adding on a stipulation that you can only use certain types of furniture? Student loans adding on a stipulation that you can only work certain kinds of jobs?

No, if any of these situations happened there would be media fallout, not Robin Roberts on GMA commenting how you still have more than you need, only to later harass Chris Cuomo for showing bias toward the Yankees with "just the facts." There would be anti-trust investigations, class-action lawsuits, and President Obama himself would be condemning the practice.

But here no one cares because this is just the big, evil corporations, and everyone forgets that these big, evil corporations employ thousands of everyday, average people who will feel the brunt of these actions.
 

Clicky to Make Biggie
I don't like it. There's many generalizations and assumptions. It seems like it was designed by a liberal mind, which is probably was. Not all conservative people live in the boonies and go to church. Not all liberals are atheists who live in a fancy condo downtown. You get the idea.
 
Wow, even CBS is calling the Obama Administration out on lies and obfuscation.




As to what started all this, there is this AP report:

STIMULUS WATCH: Stimulus jobs overstated by 1,000s
Oct 29 03:18 AM US/Eastern
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.
The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

—A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.

—A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.

—A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.

There's no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report. But administration officials seized on the 30,000 figure as evidence that the stimulus program was on its way toward fulfilling the president's promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

The reporting problem could be magnified Friday when a much larger round of reports is expected to show hundreds of thousands of jobs repairing public housing, building schools, repaving highways and keeping teachers on local payrolls.

The White House says it is aware there are problems. In an interview, Ed DeSeve, an Obama adviser helping to oversee the stimulus program, said agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.

"If there's an error that was made, let's get it fixed," DeSeve said.

The White House released a statement early Thursday that it said laid out the "real facts" about how jobs were counted in the stimulus data distributed two weeks ago. It said that had been a test run of a small subset of data that had been subjected only to three days of reviews, that it had already corrected "virtually all" the mistakes identified by the AP and that the discovery of mistakes "does not provide a statistically significant indication of the quality of the full reporting that will come on Friday."

The data partially reviewed by the AP for errors included all the data presently available, representing all known federal contracts awarded to businesses under the stimulus program. The figures being released Friday include different categories of stimulus spending by state governments, housing authorities, nonprofit groups and other organizations.

As of early Thursday, on its recovery.org Web site, the government was still citing 30,383 as the actual number of jobs linked so far to stimulus spending, despite the mistakes the White House has now acknowledged and said were being corrected.

It's not clear just how far off the 30,000 claim was. The AP's review was not an exhaustive accounting of all 9,000 contracts, but homed in on the most obvious cases where there were indications of duplications or misinterpretations.

While the thousands of overstated jobs represent a tiny sliver of the overall economy, they represent a significant percentage of the initial employment count credited to the stimulus program.

Tom Gavin, a spokesman for the White House budget office, attributed the errors to officials as well as recipients having to conduct such reporting for the first time.

In fact, the AP review shows some businesses undercounted the number of jobs funded under the stimulus program by not reporting jobs saved.

Here are some of the findings:

—Colorado-based Teletech Government Solutions on a $28.3 million contract with the Federal Communications Commission for creation of a call center, reported creating 4,231 jobs, although 3,000 of those workers were paid for five weeks or less.

"We all felt it was an appropriate way to represent the data at the time" and the reporting error has been corrected, said company president Mariano Tan.

—The Toledo, Ohio-based Koring Group received two FCC contracts, again for call centers. It reported hiring 26 people for each contract, or a total of 52 jobs, but cited the same workers for both contracts. The jobs only lasted about two months.

The FCC spotted the problem. The company's owner, Steve Holland, acknowledged the actual job count is closer to five and blamed the problem on confusion about the reporting.

The AP's review identified nearly 600 contracts claiming stimulus money for more than 2,700 jobs that appear to have similar duplicated counts.

—Barbara Moore, executive director of the Child Care Association of Brevard County in Cocoa, Fla., reported that the $98,669 she received in stimulus money saved 129 jobs at her center, though the cash was used to give her 129 employees a 3.9 percent cost-of-living raise. She said she needed to boost their salaries because some workers had left "because we had not been able to give them a raise in four years."

—Officials at East Central Technical College in Douglas, Ga., said they now know they shouldn't have claimed 280 stimulus jobs linked to more than $200,000 to buy trucks and trailers for commercial driving instruction, and a modular classroom and bathroom for a health education program.

"It was an error on someone's part," said Mike Light, spokesman for the Technical College System of Georgia. The 280 were not jobs, but the number of students who would benefit, he said.

—The San Joaquin, Calif., Regional Rail Commission reported creating or saving 125 jobs as part of a stimulus project to lay railroad track. Because the project drew from two pools of money, the commission reported the jobs figure twice, bringing the total to 250 on the government report. Spokesman Thomas Reeves said the commission corrected the data Tuesday.
Where do I get a job studying the sex lives of female college freshmen? I woudl have done that for free when I was in college.

I'm not sure Anita Dunn can start accusing everyone of not being real news. They definitely can't attempt to block everyone from interviews either. I mean, you have CBS and the AP calling you out and fact checking.

Heck, even CBS came to Fox News' defense when they attempted to block an interview:


So what do we do about that now?


So, what is the White House's deal here lately?
 
Obama: Stimulus saved or created 640,000 jobs. We gave it an extensive review this time and all previous errors are fixed.
Associated Press: No they aren't.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300
STIMULUS WATCH: Salary raise counted as saved job
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO
– 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

That type of accounting was found in an earlier AP review of stimulus jobs, which the Obama administration said was misleading because most of the government's job-counting errors were being fixed in the new data.

The administration now acknowledges overcounting in the new numbers for the HHS program. Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office, said the Obama administration was reviewing the Head Start data "to determine how and if it will be counted."

But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.

"If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

The latest stimulus report, released Friday, significantly overstates the number of jobs spared with money from programs serving families and children, mostly the Head Start preschool program. The report shows hundreds of the programs used nearly $323 million to provide pay raises and other benefits to their existing employees.

The raises themselves were appropriate — the stimulus law set aside money for Head Start salary increases — but converting that number into jobs proved difficult. The Obama administration told Head Start officials to consider a fraction of each employee as a job saved.

"That's more than ridiculous," said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Many Head Start programs around the country went further, counting everyone who received a raise as a job saved.

"It's a glitch in the system," said Ben Allen, the research director at the National Head Start Association. "There was some misunderstanding among some in the Head Start community about completing the reporting requirements."

Allen said a cost-of-living adjustment "may not be viewed traditionally as a job saved, but one could interpret it that, by providing COLA, you're retaining staff."

The Bergen County Community Action Program in Hackensack, N.J., noted the nearly $213,000 it received went to cover raises for existing staff only, but it also reported saving 85 jobs.

At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.

"I would say it's confusing at best," she said. "But we followed the instructions we were given."

Ed DeSeve, who oversees the stimulus at the White House, said the Head Start numbers "represent a few percent of all jobs reported" and said the problems would probably be balanced out by other errors that underreported jobs.

"So we don't expect any corrections to this data to meaningfully impact the total 640,000 direct jobs," DeSeve said.

More than 250 other community agencies in the U.S. similarly reported saving jobs when using the money to give pay raises, to pay for training and continuing education, to extend employee work hours or to buy equipment, according to their spending reports.

Other agencies didn't count the raises as jobs saved, reporting zero jobs.

Last week's stimulus report claimed 640,000 jobs saved or created by the economic recovery plan so far. Those jobs came from 156,614 federal contracts, grants and loans awarded to more than 62,000 recipients, worth a total of $215 billion.

Obama has promised the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year, and the data released Friday represented the first head count toward that goal

I want to requote something here:
"If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.
What kind of stupid math is that? I hire, fire, and determine raises as part of my job. Never once did I consider a raise to be a replacement for laying someone off. A raise means I didn't even think your job was in trouble. If that is how they do things at HHS, giving raises to people they should be getting rid of, then this is just a big waste. Put that money toward hiring someone you want to give a raise to as a reward.



And did anyone watch V last night? I though I saw a message being laid on pretty strong, especially when the health care stuff came into it, but apparently I am not alone.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-tc-tvcolumn-v-1102-1103nov03,0,7062976.story

'V' aims at Obamamania

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.

"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," observes one character. "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."

The bandwagon in this case is conspicuously saucer-shaped. "V" starts with the arrival of a couple of dozen ships from outer space, piloted by creatures who look like humans except a lot prettier. "Don't be frightened," says their luminously beautiful leader Anna (Morena Baccarin, "Serenity"). "We mean no harm."

The aliens -- who become known as V's, for visitors -- quickly enthrall their wide-eyed human hosts.

A handful of dissidents hold out against the rapturous reception given the V's. Some are simply uneasy, such as the youthful priest Father Jack (Joel Gretsch, "The 4400"), who sharply criticizes the Vatican's embrace of the V's as divine creations: "Rattlesnakes are God's creatures too."

With or without the political sheen, "V" is sweeping television storytelling at its best. Whether you choose to view it as a blood-and-guts war story, a spy thriller (unlike the original show, these V's are perfect replicas of humans, so you never really know who might be sitting beside you at the bar), a high-stakes family drama (as households divide over the intentions of the V's), a religious allegory (the V's make a crippled man walk, filling up churches again) or just a sci-fi throwback to the days of "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" and "The Thing," "V" is irresistible. This bandwagon is definitely worth jumping on.
So, is Obama V?

And before some post 80s kid lacking knowledge comes along:

No, I am not even attempting to compare Obama to this V.
dda936929be365688524d0e9bc144bd787b0850f_128.jpg


Rather, this V:
v_lizard2.jpg
 
The one thing that struck me today was how everyone is attempting to make a big deal out of the races yesterday in New Jersey and Virgina as a reflection of the nine months that Obama has been in office. Corzine was not a well-liked governor, regardless of party, and Virginia is so purple now that I wouldn't have been surprised by either outcome. The Conservatives are overjoyed by wins that mean little in the grand scheme of things (after all, these were moderate Republicans who won), and the Liberals are busy worrying about how they're losing ground with their leadership. Its all a bunch of meh in the grand scheme of things.
 
The one thing that struck me today was how everyone is attempting to make a big deal out of the races yesterday in New Jersey and Virgina as a reflection of the nine months that Obama has been in office. Corzine was not a well-liked governor, regardless of party, and Virginia is so purple now that I wouldn't have been surprised by either outcome. The Conservatives are overjoyed by wins that mean little in the grand scheme of things (after all, these were moderate Republicans who won), and the Liberals are busy worrying about how they're losing ground with their leadership. Its all a bunch of meh in the grand scheme of things.
Had the administration not stuck their names on those elections by supporting the Democratic candidates (you could even get a recorded call from President Obama in Virginia) then I doubt anyone would have thought more about it than you did. But if you had said that Obama has openly thrown his support behind a guy in January you would think that clinches the election. The fact that the voters went against the suggestions of Obama shows that his influence is either falling away, or never existed to begin with. It might be a bunch of meh, but it is a morale booster for republicans. It means that they don't need to fear losing every time the president tells voters to do something.

It is also a sign to Democrats that just because the president tells the American people what he says is the right thing and that we should all just blindly follow along that we won't listen. It is a wake up call that they might lose jobs for supporting the president's unpopular plans.

Apply that message to other things and perhaps the president will have to listen to those he has told to shut up or open letters in the NYT signed by hundreds of economists. It may also be a sign that town hall events and protests are not filled with a bunch of staged plants and racists.

But as I said, if the president hadn't gotten involved it would have just been a sign that Republicans have gotten back some voters. Now Democrats have to ask, did the president's involvement hurt? The answer is unclear, which is more stressful than a yes for mid-term candidates.
 
The one thing that struck me today was how everyone is attempting to make a big deal out of the races yesterday in New Jersey and Virgina as a reflection of the nine months that Obama has been in office.
Part of the problem is because Obama made a big deal about it (See: New York Government position), but yeah, taken by themselves they aren't that surprising. Honestly, I'd be surprised if Corzine actually thought he was really going to win. It really didn't matter who he was running against.
 
Sarah Palin probably could have won in New Jersey. Although she'd only do the job part time and quit in two years.


BTW: Shes coming to Grand Rapids on the 18th, and she'll be across the street from where I work. My head may explode.
 
I think that I really, really, really like the Southern Avenger.

He sums up Obama and his outspoken supporters quite well in this piece

 
Who watched Obama's speak about the Fort Hood shooting?
He came out with a big smile saying, "I'm so happy about the dinner party I had last night blah blah blah.
I want to thank blah blah blah. Oh, and some soldiers died today."
WHAT THE HELL! Now he pissed off lots of people now. And this one guy on a radio talk show, I think it was Rush Limbaugh, the caller said "My daughter is a soldier at Fort Hood, and I don't know what exactly happened to her. But Obama didn't even care this shooting one bit. My daughter could have been shot and killed, and he's smiling about it."
Obama is an 🤬
Who wants a president who does not even care when things like this happens. If your family member died in Fort Hood, he's going to have a smile on about it. They will be pissed off at him as ever.
 
Who watched Obama's speak about the Fort Hood shooting?
He came out with a big smile saying, "I'm so happy about the dinner party I had last night blah blah blah.
I want to thank blah blah blah. Oh, and some soldiers died today."
WHAT THE HELL! Now he pissed off lots of people now. And this one guy on a radio talk show, I think it was Rush Limbaugh, the caller said "My daughter is a soldier at Fort Hood, and I don't know what exactly happened to her. But Obama didn't even care this shooting one bit. My daughter could have been shot and killed, and he's smiling about it."
Obama is an 🤬
Who wants a president who does not even care when things like this happens. If your family member died in Fort Hood, he's going to have a smile on about it. They will be pissed off at him as ever.
What a load of absolute rubbish 👎 Are you refering to this? Does it not occur to you that it is necessary protocol to address the intended audience for the intended purpose, as well as whatever else might be happening in the world too? And are you talking about the same Obama who saluted the coffins of homecoming dead just last week - something his predecessor never did once? This is just pointless bashing with no substance whatsoever.
 
That is the video I am talking about. And why is it that everyone who has posted about my remarks are against me???
 
What a load of absolute rubbish 👎 Are you refering to this? Does it not occur to you that it is necessary protocol to address the intended audience for the intended purpose, as well as whatever else might be happening in the world too? And are you talking about the same Obama who saluted the coffins of homecoming dead just last week - something his predecessor never did once? This is just pointless bashing with no substance whatsoever.

Think he's a republican by any chance? :lol:
If McCain got elected and did the exact same thing he wouldn't bat an eyelid.
 
Who watched Obama's speak about the Fort Hood shooting?
He came out with a big smile saying, "I'm so happy about the dinner party I had last night blah blah blah.
I want to thank blah blah blah. Oh, and some soldiers died today."
WHAT THE HELL! Now he pissed off lots of people now. And this one guy on a radio talk show, I think it was Rush Limbaugh, the caller said "My daughter is a soldier at Fort Hood, and I don't know what exactly happened to her. But Obama didn't even care this shooting one bit. My daughter could have been shot and killed, and he's smiling about it."
Obama is an 🤬
Who wants a president who does not even care when things like this happens. If your family member died in Fort Hood, he's going to have a smile on about it. They will be pissed off at him as ever.
Hey, remember when President Bush made a joke about how those WMDs have to be somewhere, while speaking at a dinner in Washington, as the bodies of dead soldiers were being flown home from Iraq?

Same thing.
 
Hey, remember when President Bush made a joke about how those WMDs have to be somewhere, while speaking at a dinner in Washington, as the bodies of dead soldiers were being flown home from Iraq?
For what its worth, I originally thought that bit was pretty funny. I still do, but now it is one of those "uncomfortable" laughs.
 
For what its worth, I originally thought that bit was pretty funny. I still do, but now it is one of those "uncomfortable" laughs.
I am not saying anything negative against Bush for that (although I could). Those dinners are where the president is expected to roast himself a bit.

My point is that Obama isn't being insensitive, because he was speaking at an event unrelated Fort Hood. I have plenty of issues with Obama, but following polite protocol is not one of them.
 
If there is ever a sign that the president is not bringing change, and it is angering his supporters, it is this:

warpres.jpg
 
Who is this Savage guy on the radio? His show was such a trainwreck of oddness that I felt compelled to listen regardless of the hilarity of the opinions presented.
 
Who is this Savage guy on the radio? His show was such a trainwreck of oddness that I felt compelled to listen regardless of the hilarity of the opinions presented.
Michael Savage, who is the only radio political commentator abrasive enough to make my 95-year-old grandmother cuss when describing them. She describes others as just horrible or nasty but she called him an outright a-hole.
 
If there is ever a sign that the president is not bringing change, and it is angering his supporters, it is this:

warpres.jpg

I'd be so happy if the left got as pissed at Obama as they did at Bush.

Everyone is pretty pissed at him already, but a lot of people are still clinging to the cult of personality. Here's a funny comment my chem professor made: after he did a joules to kilojoules conversion he said, "There, now that number should be easier to manage. Maybe if they put the national debt in kilodollars it wouldn't be so bad either." :lol:
 
Well, Afghanistan is a tricky situation in the first place. Regardless of what Obama said we were going to do, people were going to be pissed. For the most part, I see the decision he has made as a pretty reasonable one... But that being said, there are no easy answers here. Its a country that has essentially never had any kind of stable leadership, being pushed and pulled by countless factions, all of which has been in a state of war for more than three decades.

Yeah, its going to be complicated.
 
Back