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 .
Don't ask me, I'm not the one who Walked Softly but Carried a Big Stick and perpetuated America's "role" as the policeman of the world. Apparently that particular old bearded guy couldn't tell the difference between carrying a big stick and waving that big stick in everyone's face.
 


I am Messiah of Borg. Designation: 1 of 20. Primary Democratic Junction of Unimatrix One. Resistance is futile.
 
Question:

Why do we get to tell them what to do then?

Not our fault they listen to us. Vaclav Klaus isn't. At least the EU has some Czechs and balances.

I think the current problem on our hands is specifically the fact that this group of leaders is trying to come up with...anything at all. This video illustrates why.



John McManus and his organizations make great videos. I saw him at a meet-up when the debates were in Florida. Makes me wonder why the John Birch Society has such a stigma attached to it. Maybe it's just because of all the pinkos on TV.
 
Not our fault they listen to us. Vaclav Klaus isn't. At least the EU has some Czechs and balances.

Word. Although things should be interesting with this whole North Korea deal. Lets see if the Chinese will get in the way or not...
 
I would like to say that lately I have seen stuff off and on complaining about President Obama giving a bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. Newsflash, so does nearly every other world leader, including Bush, because that is the sign of respect for the office. Some societies just use bows the way we use hand shaking or even everyone standing when the president walks into the room. It is showing respect for the office/title, not the man specifically, or even his policies.


That out of the way:

This WSJ piece is bothering me. I wanted to shrug it off as an opinion piece, but if what it says is half true our president has some explaining to do.

I will preface this by saying that it gives Bush a free pass for his bailouts, which I personally find no better than Obama's bailouts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.


After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
I bolded the part that is getting to me, as the rest is very slanted ranting.

If there is truly any refusal to take back TARP money, now that legislation is going through telling them that they will be facing government controls, it is bordering on a fraudulent scam.

Personally, I am finding this to be some conspiracy rantings, but if not I hope this bank comes forward. This would be criminal, without a doubt.

EDIT:
A little more research has had me find this article.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/companies/goldman_tarp/

Goldman Sachs and the other top banks that were recipients of the first round of TARP funding, including State Street (STT, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), weren't exactly given a choice about signing up when the program was first announced in October.

Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair defended the move at the time, saying it would help stabilize the shaky banking industry.


<Skipping over the article describing if they should return money based on the current economy>


What's more, under the terms of the Treasury's capital purchase program, a bank can only buy out the government's stake as long as the money comes from an equity offering of a similar amount that meets government approval.

And in these market conditions, it seems highly unlikely that banks would be able to raise that much capital.

So, it seems refusal may be because it was setup to not allow anyone to just give the money back without finding a similar loan elsewhere, and they were limited in their ability to refuse.

In light of this I find this new bill retroactively adding government controls to be even worse than I thought.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really worried about Barack. I'm really worried about his cabinet.
 
Here's an old cartoon from the 1934 depression era. I think it applies today.

depressioneracartoon.jpg
 
It was funny until he came to the conclusion that we have a democratic government. This is a republic, bub. But of course, anyone who actually gets anything except a laugh from shows like that is an idiot.

That cartoon is pretty much bang on with that video I posted about types of government. It seems they go in cycles. Republics desolve into oligarchies, and then when people get tired of being whipped they sail the stormy seas, land in the New World, start another republic, which then dissolves into...oh wait.

So guys, where are we sailing to this time?
 
Keith Olbermann explains Glenn Beck. I believe he used the word hypocrisy.



It should be noted; Olbermann, on the lowest rated 24-hour mainstream news network, managed to directly attack three people involved with the highest-rated 24-hour mainstream news network. SO, while he has some truth to what he says about Beck, his motivations are suspect.

I found this video here:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04...nd-theft-auto-rant-pittsburgh-police-slayings

Keith Olbermann Takes On Glenn Beck Over Grand Theft Auto Rant / Pittsburgh Police Slayings
April 9, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Earlier this week GamePolitics pointed out that in 2008 conservative talking head Glenn Beck held video games and popular media responsible for real-world violence.

In the wake of Sunday's horrific murder of three Pittsburgh police officers by a paranoid gun owner, however, Beck has insisted that his own media rants on gun control couldn't be blamed:

Blaming anyone except the nut job for what happened in Pittsburgh is crazy.
In this clip MSNBC's liberal commentator Keith Olbermann points out the obvious contrast between Beck's willingness to blame video games for real-world violence yet reluctance to admit that his own fervent anti-gun control rhetoric may have helped influence the Pittsburgh killer.

And I first saw this starting here:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/07/did-glenn-beck039s-air-rhetoric-fuel-cop-killer039s-rampage

Did Glenn Beck's On-air Rhetoric Fuel Cop Killer's Rampage?
April 7, 2009

Conservative T.V. talking head Glenn Beck has entertained the notion that video game violence leads to the real thing, but in the aftermath of Sunday's triple cop slaying in Pittsburgh, some critics are drawing a connection between Beck's on-air political rants and accused killer Richard Poplawski's horrific rampage.

The Daily Beast reports that the 22-year old Poplawski is a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist who harbored fears that President Obama will seek to establish some type of "new world order" and remove guns from private citizens.

Poplawski is also a Beck fan:

The alleged killer posted a YouTube clip to [white supremacist site] Stormfront of top-rated Fox News host Glenn Beck contemplating the existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps... Three weeks later, Poplawski posted another Youtube clip to Stormfront, this time of a video blogger advocating “Tea Parties,” or grassroots conservative protests organized by Beck and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich against President Barack Obama’s bailout plan...

David Neiwert, a veteran reporter on right-wing militia movements... explained that by co-opting conspiratorial rhetoric from the farthest shores of the right, mainstream conservative talkers can inflame the passions of paranoiacs like Poplawski to a dangerous degree...

"What it does is unhinge fringe players from reality and dislodges them even further. When someone like Poplawski hears Glenn Beck touting One World Government and they’re gonna take your gun theories, they believe then that it must be true. And that’s when they really become crazy.”


End point, Beck is after ratings, plain and simple.


Back to Obama.
 
End point, Beck is after ratings, plain and simple.

Does that make his message invalid?

Nope.

Back to Obama.

What first? Obama bowing bent to shake hands with the Saudi king Abdullah? Obama's non-response to the Maersk Alabama hostage situation? Obama's non-response to North Korea's missile launch? How about unemployment numbers? Deficit numbers?

I hear The King has some really shiny shoes. No one, not even The Messiah, cannot help not to stare at them.
 
Does that make his message invalid?

Nope.
When his own arguments no longer apply when they make him look like an a-hole it definitely calls into question his sincerity.

It reminds me of a certain radio host who constantly argued all drug users should be in jail...until his maid pointed out his own drug use.



What first? Obama bowing bent to shake hands with the Saudi king Abdullah?
Yeah, he should just hold hands with him as they walk through a garden or kiss him on the cheek, repeatedly, after bowing in greeting. I already commented on this. If it was a bow, great he showed a sign of respect for the position. It is no different than when foreign leaders stand as our president walks into the room, because it is what you do to show respect for the office.

Obama's non-response to the Maersk Alabama hostage situation?
They may not have said much publicly, but when a US naval destroyer shows up I don't think you can say the Commander in Chief was non-responsive.

Obama's non-response to North Korea's missile launch? How about unemployment numbers? Deficit numbers?
Everything he has done here seems to be the same things that the previous administration did. A lot of talk about North Korea and a lot of government spending to make the economy worse.

Congrats, you have a new version of Bush, which is likely how McCain would be doing this too.



I don't like how our new president is doing things either, but to act as if he is suddenly the end of our country as we know it is ridiculous.

So far the only think I have seen President Obama do that is drastically different than what McCain would have done is his tax policy.


The fact of the matter is that the blogs, and talking heads have gone as far as to say that Obama will bring about tyranny. They all sound just like the Bush haters did eight years ago. But guess what? It is all the same stupid crap and just because Obama is there doesn't suddenly make it different than it was.

Is he showing his hypocrisy by doing the same crap he condemned Republicans for doing? Yes. Is he trying to be some kind of tyrant? No.
 
Reventón;3361009
There's no response because Obama would rather make news by ordering pizza......





From St. Louis.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-pizza-10-apr10,0,2617102.story

How much Carbon Offset do you need for one pizza, delivered on a jet plane?

Wonder who paid for that....

My grand-children's tax paying children.

When his own arguments no longer apply when they make him look like an a-hole it definitely calls into question his sincerity.

It reminds me of a certain radio host who constantly argued all drug users should be in jail...until his maid pointed out his own drug use.

I agree to disagree. I've actually started to listen to Rush when ever I'm up that early... thanks to the White House's personal attacks on him.

Yeah, he should just hold hands with him as they walk through a garden or kiss him on the cheek, repeatedly, after bowing in greeting.

Are you saying two men cannot hold hands together and show affection?

RACIST! HOMOPHOBE! EQUALITY FOR ALL!:sly:
 
Is everyone like Limbaugh, Beck, Cunningham, etc all complaining about Obama directly, or are their concerns about America's future in general just coinciding with a new president being in office?
 
This thread just became very interesting, some actual defense of Obama from someone other than me. No, I know its a different kind of thing, but still. Wow.

Something that stuck out for me:

Obama's non-response to North Korea's missile launch?

Are you neo cons really that naive about foreign policy? You believe all of that Newt Gingrich, Weekly Standard, Dick Cheyney-approved BS that we "could have been attacked" and that "Americans were at risk" and that we should have made a preemptive strike to prevent it? Really?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Is everyone like Limbaugh, Beck, Cunningham, etc all complaining about Obama directly, or are their concerns about America's future in general just coinciding with a new president being in office?

I think Limbaugh and Beck had irons to burn with Obama, the Democrats and "Liberals" in general. If the Bush Administration had been making the same decisions that are being made now, I have a very hard time believing that any of them would have that big of a problem with it. Of course, I could be underestimating their rationality behind their own BS. Really, if they were that upset about how we're "destroying the constitution" and "instituting tyranny," they'd have been a bit more upset over the civil rights reversals we've had in the past eight years. Oh, right. I forget that "freedom" was attached to it, and there was an R in front of the name of the people who submitted it.

Having a new President, a Liberal Democrat at that, its open season for political attack. The Republicans and the "conservatives" have no problem with eating their own, and while the Democrats may shake fingers at some of the more "conservative" members of the party who are striking out with their own policy decisions, in general, the on-air commentary, political smack-talk, and all that jazz is far less critical than what we've seen on the other side.

Outside of NPR and C-Span, there aren't many legitimate political discussions on air. Although, this Ed Schultz guy has caught my attention recently. Some kind of "lefty" Republican/ "Righty" Democrat from the Mid-West? Hmmm, sounds familiar. Oh well, I usually get my political fix in the morning when I listen to Diane Rehm.
 
The reason you see political commentators all of a sudden up in arms is because of Obama's wild popularity. So far, the only difference between Bush and Obama has been the popularity factor.
 
Are you neo cons really that naive about foreign policy? You believe all of that Newt Gingrich, Weekly Standard, Dick Cheyney-approved BS that we "could have been attacked" and that "Americans were at risk" and that we should have made a preemptive strike to prevent it? Really?
BigStick11.gif


I must have been confused before talking about FDR; both Roosevelts were terrible presidents.

It's a touchy subject, sure, deciding whether to put your image on the line to stop the threat beforehand, or wait until after an attack to take control of the situation. You can go ahead and punch somebody who's talking smack, but he's just going to punch you back eventually. On the other hand, if he knocks your glasses off your face, in my opinion, that gives you the right to slit his throat. When North Korea crosses the line--that line may be American airspace, or an genuine direct threat--then that might actually justify total domination of that puny little country.

My point is that the government's "Americans were at risk" is thoughtful, but that philosophy is also putting America at risk, from pent up frustrations. A kid named North Korea, or whatever, can only be the butt of so many jokes until he walks into your college and starts blowing stuff up.
 
Last edited:
Is everyone like Limbaugh, Beck, Cunningham, etc all complaining about Obama directly, or are their concerns about America's future in general just coinciding with a new president being in office?

Limbaugh has been complaining about Liberals for a very long time. Beck has been complaining about everybody but Libertarians for a very long time. I don't know about Cunningham. Beck has gone as far back as to the founding fathers, not just Obama. I don't pretend to agree with Beck's shenanigans with Ron Paul or criticism of the Bush administration however, his message rings clear to not only Republicans, but Independents and Democrats who voted for "Change©" yet are getting butt raped by Obama's spending. Blaming President Bush is no longer a valid excuse.

Think these talking heads are just populists? They don't matter? It's not your REVOlution? You might be a little surprised come Wednesday.

 

He fails right off the bat. We have a republic form of government, not a democracy. I'd rather not watch the rest of video simply because of that, but I suppose I will...

And yes, the message is sound. Looks like I made a fool of myself there for a second, lol.

Anyways, maybe I should check up on that tea party thing. I don't have do be at work until 3 pm Wednesday.
 
Last edited:
The alleged killer posted a YouTube clip to [white supremacist site] Stormfront of top-rated Fox News host Glenn Beck contemplating the existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps... Three weeks later, Poplawski posted another Youtube clip to Stormfront, this time of a video blogger advocating &#8220;Tea Parties,&#8221; or grassroots conservative protests organized by Beck and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich against President Barack Obama&#8217;s bailout plan...

David Neiwert, a veteran reporter on right-wing militia movements... explained that by co-opting conspiratorial rhetoric from the farthest shores of the right, mainstream conservative talkers can inflame the passions of paranoiacs like Poplawski to a dangerous degree...

"What it does is unhinge fringe players from reality and dislodges them even further. When someone like Poplawski hears Glenn Beck touting One World Government and they&#8217;re gonna take your gun theories, they believe then that it must be true. And that&#8217;s when they really become crazy.&#8221;


Ermm --why do you believe what you you read like its gospel truth ?

The truth --Factual matter is this NUT JOB --was Mad because his dog pissed on floor --if you believe his own WORDS ---

THE MEDIA HOWEVER has taken MIND READING lessons and used their SPECULATION on his MOTIVES --NOT FACTS --to say there is some correlation between his beliefs in Obama being anti Gun --and Glenn Beck being PRO SECOND AMENDMENT --as THEIR explaination on why he went NUTS .

Thats Journalism ?

WTF is wrong with you all ???

These morons have no clue .

Its no longer NEWS it entertainment tonight .

Glenn Beck is a TALKING HEAD --Commentator --NOT a "news Broadcaster "

This moron Oberman tries to pass off his show HOWEVER AS " NEWS "

You know --Journalism ?

Despite the propaganda and tingly feelings and adgenda driven drivel.

You guys need to start questioning everything your beeing FED .

No one is telling you the truth --all the news I am sorry to say is demographicly driven --and BIASED .

Oberman may be a tool --one of the worse examples --But all news shows are suspect .

Please for your OWN good --do not cite these morons as sources.

Your being fed crap on a daily basis --and they think if they repeat it enough its TRUTH .


Tea parties are GRASS ROOTS populist protest against Idiots who sign spending bills withouit reading whats in them then tell US the tax payer --we now OWN a few banks insurance companies and Car manufatuers...

WHERE is that found in the US CONSITUTION ??

I know where " tea parties " are found --that first ammedment .

Where is Government ownership and targeted taxation to individuals of PRIVATE enterprise Found in the UNITED STATES Constitution ?

Why are US representitives we elect NOT reading BILLS that spend TRILLIONS ....of OUR cash and put us and our Grandchildren in debt for decades if not forever ?

Where was the debate ?

.....
 
Last edited:
He fails right off the bat. We have a republic form of government, not a democracy. I'd rather not watch the rest of video simply because of that, but I suppose I will...

I don't think he was talking about the government itself. He was speaking about when the people do get to choose, the politicians looks the other way and ignore the people they represent.

Anyways, maybe I should check up on that tea party thing. I don't have do be at work until 3 pm Wednesday.

Yup. You can check to see if there is one in your city here: http://taxdayteaparty.com/

Bring your friends, family, spread the word on your Myspace or Facebook page.

Where was the debate ?

.....

The Obama administration knew they would lose if they had a debate.

CRISIS!
 
Hmm --One Guy Bush --used terrorist Crisis to effect regime change in Iraq and push an agenda --based on the beliefe that a Democracy in the Middle east would improve the whole region.

The result ?

Iran wants to Nuke Israel off the map ...while Europe gets rich selling them the tools of their own destruction .

Not to mention uncountable innocents caught just trying to live --not caring if they are Gods side .

The Other Guy Obama man ...
he uses an exagerated crisis that the Democratic party engineered to effect social change by FEAR of economic disaster and destroys the United states Future ability to Engage in free market practice ---you know the things that MADE the USA a super power ?

While he is at it --they decide --DESPITE --the fact NUT JOBS are making Nukes and firing missles like its July Fourth for everyone ---and despite the fact people are sincere is their desire to DIE and go to heaven --as long as we go to hell --and have not ownly shown ability but GREAT resilience ---LETS DUMP MISSLE SHIELD .

It cost too much .

so does life insurance .
 
Back