Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

I see the Obama Administration really did miss the point of the protests.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-15.html

Asked if the White House had any specific response to the tea party protests, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated the tax cuts the president had mentioned, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, the first-time homebuyer tax credit, an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, and an increase in the American Opportunity Tax Credit.

President Obama has pledged -- and Gibbs today reiterated the pledge -- that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone who makes under $200,000 a year as an individual, or $250,000 as a family. How, Gibbs was asked, does that square with President Obama raising cigarette taxes, as he did when he signed the State's Children's Health Insurance Program.

"People make a decision to smoke," Gibbs said. "People get on airlines and pay taxes to land a plane at O'Hare or in Washington. Those people also got a tax cut. I don't know how much they smoke. I guess that depends on the individual consumption with nicotine habits involved in those at tea parties around the country. Maybe on a rainy day such as today, one might light up a few more times in hopes of surviving the drizzle."

Another reporter asked Gibbs if the "tea parties reflect a genuine grass-roots sentiment out there in the country of frustration with the president's tax policies, or is it something contrived?"

Gibbs suggested that the reporter "speak to the organizers, I guess, on ... whether they're contrived ... If you're one of the 95 percent of working families in this country I think it's that earns less than $200,000 a year, you've seen a tax cut. That's not contrived. Those are facts. ... I'll let the organizers of whatever these are speak to their motivations. I think they can be reasonably assured, though, maybe they fall outside the window of making a quarter of a million dollars a year."

Yeah, because people just complained about their individual taxes. Looking at the images there seems to be a lot more being said about debt.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I see the Obama Administration really did miss the point of the protests.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-15.html

Yeah, because people just complained about their individual taxes. Looking at the images there seems to be a lot more being said about debt.

I guess they figured that since it's a tea party, it must be about taxes.

 

[YSSMAN]

EDIT: YSSMAN, I liked the graph you posted previously which didn't name names and didn't suggest things that don't need to be suggested. It's obvious you changed it because it wasn't blatantly suggestive enough.

Actually that was changed mainly to do with me not liking the first graph based on me looking at it a second and third time, and perhaps due to lack of sleep, not connecting if it were the right graph or not. So... I searched for the one that we've used in my classes before.

I did not mean it as a partisan post, but I can see why it can be interpreted as such. Still, an interesting representation of budget deficits in the past 40 years. I wish the Obama stuff would have been added to it to see it in comparison to the Bush figures.

For those who wondered what the original graph was:

...Which after thinking about it, I believe, speaks to a different topic (someone correct me if I'm wrong)...

EDIT:

RE: The Point of the Protests and All That Jazz

Walking around with a sign won't solve the problem, all it is is loud complaining. It's not solving anything. I don't have the answer for what to do because I've just learned to live with the fact America is ran by idiots and will always be ran by idiots. The only thing I can do is move to another country although it's probably not much better. I think politician asshattery is universal.

Whether or not you or I agree with the point of their protests, or the way that they're going about doing it, I think the fact that they all got together and actually you know... Did something... Is important. One of my biggest frustrations with people who complain about how government works, who's in power, etc. is that they never actually go out and do something about it. Seeing these folks out there, it made me feel good, even if I made fun of it and such. I'm glad to see that people still care, and take the time out of their day to go and make their voices heard.

But as I've re-stated numerous times here, this is something that has to continue in order for the message to get out and actually mean something. Otherwise, it just ends up falling on deaf ears, and the rest of America moves on.

So, in general, that is my challenge to Libertarians and other conservatives: Make your movement permanent, engage your political leaders, your friends, and your neighbors. If you want change, you've gotta work for it.

 

[Keef]

Song lyric of the moment

And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Let's hope it doesn't actually come to that.

I see the Obama Administration really did miss the point of the protests.

As the administration(s) (including future ones) and congress continue to ignore our words in the future it'll become more obvious that they're fighting us. Like I just said, let's hope it doesn't come to that.

YSSMAN, that graph is much better. Without naming names it shows that the problem as of late has been government overspending in general. Whoever may be doing it, they're doing it wrong.

Also, at least within that graphs short span compared to my suggestion, it's interesting how unstable the deficit has been since near the end of the Vietnam war. From the beginning of the way and until halfway through it there was a surplus. It wasn't until the end of the war where the deficit started to grow, and since then it has lost all stability and now it's continuing the biggest downward spiral ever.

What sort of policy changes occurred during the Vietnam era? Maybe something to do with ridiculous tax policies? Frivolous spending? I wish that graph went back decades earlier so we could see how stable spending was before then.

 

[FoolKiller]

I wish the Obama stuff would have been added to it to see it in comparison to the Bush figures.

You mean this one?

 

[YSSMAN]

Awesome, thank you very much!

 

[Solid Fro]

But as I've re-stated numerous times here, this is something that has to continue in order for the message to get out and actually mean something. Otherwise, it just ends up falling on deaf ears, and the rest of America moves on.

So, in general, that is my challenge to Libertarians and other conservatives: Make your movement permanent, engage your political leaders, your friends, and your neighbors. If you want change, you've gotta work for it.

July 4th, July 4th, July 4th!

You know about that crazy CNN reporter yesterday? She gets taken to task off air:

 

[Joey D]

I agree this is not just about Obama, but your spending figures are wrong. The first bailout alone was already more than the entire cost of the war in Iraq, and almost as much as the entire cost of the War on Terror(tm) up to that point.. See here: http://costofwar.com/ About $660 billion in Iraq, $850 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan. First Bailout ~$700 billion. Second bailout stimulus (according to the Congressional Budget Office) $787 billion. This does not account for pre-bailout individual bank bailouts and auto industry bailout money.

Oh I realise this is more money than the War on Terror(tm), however once the numbers start getting that big it's all meaningless. I can't even fathom a trillion dollars, or even hundreds of billions. It's all just "a lot of money" to me and it's all wasteful spending which is my point.

Now, I personally recognize that Bush started this and Obama is continuing it. Where I think Obama has done even worse is to unbalance the tax system even more and begin meddling with private industry after the fact. If he did not think they could run their own companies without intervention he shouldn't have given them money to start with.

I believe the war in Iraq was mostly Bush's plan, I don't think however Obama is solely to blame for shelling out the money although he's not getting off scott free with me. I always wonder how much the president actually does and how much is made to look like something they did. Like I said though, it's all about who gives the most amount of money and apparently lobbies pushing for bailouts wrote the most cheques which I find funny.

And at the end of the day many protests are a combination of things, not just yelling at your government. The press showed up, not all press outlets showed the loons, the message got into a lot of homes that hadn't heard it.
This isn't Mission Accomplished by any means, but if news coverage gets just 1% of the viewers to check out a Web site or rethink their opinion then it is a small victory.

Ok say 1% decided they want to do something about it because they saw the protests, I'm guessing there is another 1% who now support the bailout even more because they saw people protesting. It's a double edged sword in my eyes and I don't think protesting like that is the right way to go.

Which is why I constantly bring up the Constitution. It was designed to keep this to a minimum, but we haven't paid attention to it in a while.

Now please I don't want a bunch of flak for this, but I sometimes think the Constitution needs some updating. Obviously it's been pushed to the wayside for a reason and I think as a nation we need to sit back down and decide what's really important to us. I think the economic collapse is a shinning example of how off helter skelter our country is, something needs to change (not Obama change, legitimate change).

I being back my example of the species faced with a new host into the environment. That species can either move, adapt or die off. It's what makes evolution happen and I think it can be applied to just about anything. This goes without saying but a lot has changed since 1787 and by no means could the founding fathers predict what would be going on in the world today. I'm not saying get rid of the founding principals, but I think modernising the document probably would clarify some things.

Obliterating foreign lands is constitutional. Socialism is not.

Both are a hideous waste of money and it's debatable how Constitutional the Iraq war is. I still think my point is valid. All politicians waste money, but I would rather have them waste the money here in American then in some distant land that posed no real threat to us.

Whether or not you or I agree with the point of their protests, or the way that they're going about doing it, I think the fact that they all got together and actually you know... Did something... Is important. One of my biggest frustrations with people who complain about how government works, who's in power, etc. is that they never actually go out and do something about it. Seeing these folks out there, it made me feel good, even if I made fun of it and such. I'm glad to see that people still care, and take the time out of their day to go and make their voices heard.

I'll complain about the government and I'm happy to do something about it, but I'm really under the impression me going to the steps of the capital building with a witty sign and chatting catchy slogans isn't really going to solve anything. I'll do things in my own way, whether it's supporting a politician or I suppose eventually if I get fed up with it all I'll look into moving else where.

I've just always felt protests were a waste of time and effort. I mean look at how many millions of people protested (and still protest) the Iraq War, yet we are still over there doing god knows what.

 

[Danoff]

Both are a hideous waste of money and it's debatable how Constitutional the Iraq war is. I still think my point is valid. All politicians waste money, but I would rather have them waste the money here in American then in some distant land that posed no real threat to us.

I would prefer that they not overstep limitations that were put upon them for very good reasons. War is far easier to justify (within the constraints on government) than socialism.

...and for good reason.

 

[FoolKiller]

Now please I don't want a bunch of flak for this, but I sometimes think the Constitution needs some updating. Obviously it's been pushed to the wayside for a reason and I think as a nation we need to sit back down and decide what's really important to us.

Since it has been well over 100 years since we last kept to the Constitution, I think it is safe to say that it might be a better idea to see if going back to it might not be the new action that we need to consider.

 

[Omnis]

July 4th, July 4th, July 4th!

You know about that crazy CNN reporter yesterday? She gets taken to task off air:

So you post up videos like this, but you still want to call Ron Paul supports kooks? We're all in the same boat and none of us (not you, not me) are kooks. I'm glad to see Campaign For Liberty presence and good americans going after yellow journalism.

 

[Solid Fro]

So you post up videos like this, but you still want to call Ron Paul supports kooks? We're all in the same boat and none of us (not you, not me) are kooks. I'm glad to see Campaign For Liberty presence and good americans going after yellow journalism.

Yes. Those Ron Paul kooks who shout and spit at those who they disagree with:



Disgraceful.

Anyone who acts like those Ron Paul kooks will be thrown out of the boat along with the tea.

THE BEST THING YOU'LL SEE ALL WEEK:







CORRECTION... THIS IS:

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, it looks as if President Obama did not impress France's Sarkozy, but neither did a lot of people.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6106250.ece

In the latest in a stream of accounts from the Élysée Palace, Mr Sarkozy was quoted yesterday as telling an all-party group of MPs that Mr Obama was inexperienced and indecisive. “Obama has a subtle mind, very clever and very charismatic,” the French President said. “But he was elected two months ago and had never run a ministry. There are a certain number of things on which he has no position. And he is not always up to standard on decision-making and efficiency.”

The US President had underperformed on climate change when they met, Mr Sarkozy said, according to an account of the MP’s session in the newspaper Libération. “I told him, ‘I don’t think that you have quite understood what we are doing on carbon dioxide’.”

Mr Sarkozy was apparently irked by media reports that Mr Obama had saved the day in London by persuading President Hu of China to reach a compromise with France over tax havens. Mr Sarkozy’s version is that he shamed Mr Obama into action, telling him: “You were elected to build a new world. Tax havens are the embodiment of the old world.”

Mr Sarkozy was also reported yesterday to have cracked a dubious joke about Europe’s “Obamamania”. According to L’Express news magazine, he mentioned Mr Obama’s planned visit to Normandy for the D-day anniversary in June, saying: “I am going to ask him to walk on the Channel, and he’ll do it.”

This jaundiced view of Mr Obama may have been prompted by the US President’s heartfelt welcome at the G20, Nato and EU summits. “The President is annoyed by what he sees as the naivety and the herd mentality of the media,” wrote Claude Askolovitch, a commentator close to the Élysée Palace.

The end of the short-lived Franco-American honeymoon also reflects a decision to swing France back towards its traditional role as counterbalance to US power, a shift that began with tension over the London economic summit. In the Élysée account Mr Sarkozy played the pivotal role as upholder of principle in the face of ineffectual US leadership. He had telephoned Gordon Brown on the eve of the summit and threatened not to turn up at all if the leaders refused his demand to name and shame tax havens, according to the leaks.

Although Mr Sarkozy has taken France back into full membership of the Nato alliance, over the past week he has picked various quarrels with Washington, demanding, for instance, a separate headquarters for a new European defence force — an idea opposed by Britain and the US. He has criticised Mr Obama for calling for Turkish membership of the EU.

I'm not sure if this looks worse for Sarkozy's attitude or Obama's ability to bring our foreign allies back into good graces. Sarkozy did say stuff about Germany and France too, which I left out of the quote, so it may be him. If so, the man needs a good slap.




But this other story I found is what I truly find disturbing. Apparently under the Obama Administration illegal immigrants caught in workplace raids are just given work visas and sent back to work. WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/17/immigration.raid/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Illegal immigrants detained, then freed to work
By Patrick Oppmann
CNN

BELLINGHAM, Washington (CNN) -- After 11 years of living illegally in the United States, it was not until Gerardo Arreola Gonzalez was nearly deported that he finally received permission to work here.

Arreola was one of 28 illegal immigrant workers arrested in February after agents from U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement raided a car engine repair business.

According to the immigrants, a small army of federal agents surrounded Yamato Engine Specialists in Bellingham Washington, and began searching for workers who could not show they had authorization to work in the United States.

"My blood ran cold," Arreola said in Spanish. "We went to the back door, but they were waiting for us. There was a bus already there, and they put us on it."

As he was being taken to an immigration detention center, Arreola said he thought of his wife and the five children they have had while living here and who are U.S. citizens by birth. He expected to be deported back to Mexico, Arreola said, and he was doubtful about when he would see his family again.

"I would have been there and they would have been here," he said. "I would have had to come back. I couldn't take them there. My children don't know anything about Mexico. They go to school here."

Typically, cases like Arreola's end in deportation. According to ICE, some 5,173 people were arrested last year in similar worksite raids.

However, the Bellingham raid was the first of its kind to take place during the Obama administration. During the presidential campaign, then-candidate Obama's criticism of government immigration policies that split up families had given some people in immigrant communities hope that the raids would end if he were elected.

"Under the Obama administration, we didn't expect it to happen that people would be dragged out in handcuffs," said Rosalinda Guillen, a Bellingham immigrant rights advocate.

Many in the area strongly opposed the raid, Guillen said.

"This is a really heavy Obama-supporting county," she said. "So a lot of folks here had been in involved in the election." Immediately after the raid, she said, "the calls, the e-mails started and networks were activated."

Guillen said the controversy over the raid was featured heavily on Hispanic radio stations and that a charity called Los Niños Fund was created to help the children of the jailed immigrants.

During a hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security the day after the Bellingham raid, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano distanced herself from the action.

Worksite enforcements, she said, should focus "on employers who intentionally and knowingly exploit the illegal labor market." Napolitano promised lawmakers that she would "get to the bottom" of what happened in Bellingham.

Napolitano's comments turned the heat up on the already boiling debate over how immigration policies should be reformed.

"Get to the bottom of what? Law enforcement officers enforcing the law?" asked Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit group that advocates more border security and decreasing the number of illegal immigrants entering the country.

"The message is if you are hiring illegal aliens, 'no problem.' If you are in the country illegally, unless you commit a serious felony we are not going to bother you, so it's a de facto amnesty," Mehlman said. "Even if the administration cannot get an amnesty through Congress this year, what they are going to do is through administrative decisions allow everybody to remain here and send the signal that more people are welcome."

Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said there was no policy shift and that other worksite immigration inspections had taken place since the Bellingham raid.

But Rosalinda Guillen said people in the pro-immigrant rights community were heartened by the fact that shortly after Napolitano ordered a review of the Bellingham case the immigrant workers who were still in immigration detention were released.

"I was just flabbergasted," Guillen said. And the same immigration agents who had arrested the workers, she said, now promised them visas that would allow them to work temporarily in the U.S.

"Homeland Security drove them to the place where they had to go to fill out the paperwork for the work permits," she said "That is totally unheard of."

A spokeswoman for the ICE Seattle office declined to comment on the case because the raid is under review and the investigation into the company where the immigrants worked is still ongoing.

Several days after the workers' release, ICE agents again searched Yamato Engine Specialists.

The company did not respond to repeated CNN requests for comment, but a statement posted on its Web site reads: "It has been and continues to be Yamato's policy to hire people only if they meet the legal requirements for employment."

Several of the workers who were arrested said immigration agents have asked if they suffered any abuse while working for Yamato. Gerardo Arreola Gonzalez said the company did not mistreat him during the months he worked there soldering car engines.

But Yamato did not verify his immigration status when he first arrived at the company, Arreola said.

"I filled out my application and did the interview. They asked if my papers were good," Arreola said. "You say 'yes,' otherwise you don't get the job."

Napolitano, and President Obama need to address this. A defacto amnesty is worse than a Congress-approved one. Obama and Napolitano cannot dictate immigration and deportation policy.

 

[Solid Lifters]

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

Check out mid page 6.

(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers
(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition
stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such
activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to
facilitate criminal activity and violence.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government.

Alright! I finally made it to, "righwing extremist paranoia with hostility toward government." *Sniff* It's so nice to finally have one's hard work recognized."

And LOOK! Idiot members of Hollywood are commenting on we 'disfunctional' people! How lovely.

By Amanda Carpenter on April 17, 2009 into The Back Story


SubscribeLiberal actress and political activist Janeane Garofalo, in all seriousness, said activists who attended tea parties are racists with dysfunctional brains in a recent prime-time television appearance.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."

Olbermann did not once try to challenge her on those assertions.

The actress went on to describe the brain size of typical "right-winger, Republican or conservative or your average white power activist."

"Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with," she said. This isn't the first time she's offered this analysis, either. Ms. Garofalo said similar things about Alaskan GOP Governor Sarah Palin's brain last February in an interview with an environmental blog.

The actress went on to bash the GOP on MSNBC Thursday because it had "crystallized into the white power movement" as well as Fox News, which she said has captured the "Klan demo[graphic]."

"Who else is Fox talking to? Urban older white guys and their girlfriends who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome," she said.

Ironically, Ms. Garofalo is currently playing a role on the drama 24, which is aired by the Fox Broadcasting Company and is popular among conservative circles.

I can't wait to hear from Mos Def, personally! He has such well-thought ideas and beliefs.

EDIT: This sounds interesting...

by Savage!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Savage sues Napolitano for targeting vets
DHS report 'would have admiration of any current or past dictator'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 17, 2009
12:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Radio talk show icon Michael Savage has teamed up with the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., to file a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, challenging the policy, practice, and custom of the United States Government that targets for disfavored treatment those individuals and groups that are considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the complaint announced today said.

The federal agency recently targeted those individuals in its report called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."


According to the federal government, members of the suspect group of people include those who:


Oppose restrictions on firearms


Oppose lax immigration


Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs


Oppose continuation of free trade agreements


Oppose same-sex marriage


Have paranoia of foreign regimes


Fear Communist regimes


Oppose one world government


Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world


Are upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
The case seeks a declaration that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, a court order permanently enjoining the policy and its application to the plaintiffs' speech and other activities, and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

WND had reported earlier on the report and the reaction it has drawn, including just a day ago when the Law Center said it had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the DHS, demanding to know why it calls Americans who oppose abortion, support the 2nd Amendment and dislike lax immigration "extremists."




"This is not an intelligence report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama administration," Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the organization, said of the request.

"It is a declaration of war against the American people and our constitution. It is a prelude to extreme gun control legislation and hate speech laws targeting Christian churches and others who oppose abortion and same sex marriage," he continued. "The federal government should be focusing its attention on the 35 radical Muslim compounds in the U.S. training its followers on how to kidnap and kill Americans."

Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!


Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman for the DHS, said the agency as a matter of policy doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The federal agency's action "encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs."

"The report even admits that the department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called 'rightwing extremists.' Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment," Thompson said.

"Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents," he said.

The action alleges the policy "is a tool of intimidation for federal, state, and local government officials. It provides a basis for government officials to abuse their positions of power to stifle political opinion and opposition."

"Pursuant to the 'Rightwing Extremism Policy,' federal officias will work with state, local, tribal, and private sector entities to conduct surveillance and to gather information in order to deter the activities of those individuals and groups considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the case said.

The agency's intention is to enforce the policy through "state and local fusion centers, which are local intelligence centers created by DHS to combat 'terrorism' and related activities that are deemed to be 'criminal,'" the case said.

Napolitano, on a Fox News appearance today, backtracked a little, saying, "To the extent veterans read it as an accusation … an apology is owed."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95244

 

[Solid Fro]

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf Check out mid page 6.
Alright! I finally made it to, "righwing extremist paranoia with hostility toward government." *Sniff* It's so nice to finally have one's hard work recognized." And LOOK! Idiot members of Hollywood are commenting on we 'disfunctional' people! How lovely. I can't wait to hear from Mos Def, personally! He has such well-thought ideas and beliefs.

We're all EXTREMISTS! I prefer to call myself an XTREMIST! You wouldn't be able to hear Mos Def because he would run away screaming that he doesn't believe the words that are coming out of your mouth and everyone is lying to him.

Oh, poor Garofalo. I was actually beginning to like her character on 24...



You want to know where are all the dysfunctional people are? Turn on Olbermann's show. Idiots like him make Fox New's job easy:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_wednesday_april_15_114271.asp#more

Yes, that is O'Reilly at 3,980,000 viewers at 8PM, almost tripling Olbermann's number. Beck beats him at 5PM, O'Reilly's RERUN beats Olbermann's primetime.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, its good news for Fox. Since Obama has been elected, apparently conservatives "care" again and want to hear their own opinions echoed on a particular network. Generally, not a huge deal. While I find Olbermann entertaining, hes just as crazy as Beck & Co.

As I've said before, its rather sad when the only reliable news sources out there are comedians. They're the only ones left who call people out on both sides, and actually have the guts to ask tough questions. What I would give to have Dick Cheney show up on The Daily Show...

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

In Other (Real) News:

President Obama is at the Summit of the America's currently, and the news coming out of it so far is the possibility of warming relations with the island nation of Cuba. Earlier this week, Obama lifted the Bush-imposed travel bans for Cuban Americans to the island, and as of Friday, speeches and meetings continue to show that there is a distinct possibility that the US may re-engage Cuba.

The United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba," Obama said. "Over the past two years, I have indicated -- and I repeat today -- that I am prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues -- from human rights, free speech, and democratic reform to drugs, migration and economic issues.

We are willing to discuss everything -- human rights, freedom of press, political prisoners, everything, everything, everything they want to talk about," Castro said. "We could be wrong, we admit it. We're human.

Wow. That is... Surprising? Especially on behalf of Cuba. I've been in favor of relaxing relations with Cuba for some time, and seeing these overtures happening, its really cool, and makes me hopeful that the right thing can happen this time. I'll be attempting to keep my eye on this.

Also, from the article:

Obama had planned to use the summit to assert his commitment to reengage with Latin America and emphasize his intent to listen to other leaders.

Recognizing a sore point among Latin Americans, Obama said the U.S. no longer wanted to interfere in the affairs of other countries. But at the same time, he asked that other countries not reflexively demonize the U.S.

"I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States policy should not be interference in other countries. But that also means we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere," he said. "That's part of the bargain. That's part of the change that has to take place."

Interesting as well.

 

[Solid Fro]

WHERE IS THE **** STORM?

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?ei=UTF-8&p=obama+chavez&fr=&c=images

It's wrong when President Bush had man-love for the Saudi king, it was wrong when John Kerry and Nanci Pelosi had a pow-wow with Iran's dictators, it was wrong when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam way back in dinosaur time, and it is wrong when President Obama bows before the Saudi king and partners up with his G from Venezuela.

Of course, I know the answer to my question. The Mainstream Media will cover for their candidate. You won't see any Liberal outrage.

Obama is quite an amateur, isn't he?

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, its good news for Fox. Since Obama has been elected, apparently conservatives "care" again and want to hear their own opinions echoed on a particular network. Generally, not a huge deal. While I find Olbermann entertaining, hes just as crazy as Beck & Co.

Fox has had the highest ratings since September 11th, 2001. The Obama presidency did not put them in the #1 spot. And they have been tripling MSNBC numbers for a very long time. When your main news network gets lower ratings than your business-only network it says something, and it isn't that Fox is feeding conservative anger. Find videos from when Saddam was captured. Everyone had computer imagery showing how a spider hole looks. MSNBC had their anchor climbing around in a wooden model one in the studio.


The fact is, MSNBC just sucks, and has for a very long time. Fox didn't need to do anything to top their ratings.

As I've said before, its rather sad when the only reliable news sources out there are comedians. They're the only ones left who call people out on both sides, and actually have the guts to ask tough questions. What I would give to have Dick Cheney show up on The Daily Show...

Did you just imply that Jon Stewart is 1) a good source for news and 2) balanced?

 

[Keef]

Obama has this look on his face, "yeeeeaaa, I know what you're thinkin, cause I'm thinkin it too..."

 

[Solid Lifters]

WHERE IS THE **** STORM?

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?ei=UTF-8&p=obama+chavez&fr=&c=images

It's wrong when President Bush had man-love for the Saudi king, it was wrong when John Kerry and Nanci Pelosi had a pow-wow with Iran's dictators, it was wrong when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam way back in dinosaur time, and it is wrong when President Obama bows before the Saudi king and partners up with his G from Venezuela.

Of course, I know the answer to my question. The Mainstream Media will cover for their candidate. You won't see any Liberal outrage.

Obama is quite an amateur, isn't he?

Remember this statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy?

"While US President Barrack Obama is very intelligent and charismatic, he is not always at his best when it comes to decisions and efficiency."

I'd say the picture above is best summed up by President Sarkozy's statement.

Hugo Chavez is a terrorist. He's the number one supplier of fully automatic military assault rifles to the Mexican drug cartels, which in NO DOUBT is a direct attack on the people of the United States.

I cannot believe Obama would be so GD STUPID to even be seen near this man, let alone 'bro' shake hands with the man. Unbelievable.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the point was to say that we were looking to re-open diplomatic ties with Chaves and Venezuela, which *gasp* is a good idea. Take note as well of Chaves giving the book about American Imperialism to Obama later on, and how he was brushed away immediately. Or do we want to ignore that too?

 

[Keef]

...book about American Imperialism...

A short "editorial review" on Barnes & Noble mentions "effects and causes of capitalist underdevelopment in Latin America", which to me sounds like the mexicans are butthurt that that the crack dealers down there have control over their economic system, and because of constant drug wars they've never had the opportunity to create a real capitalist economy.

Reviews of the book mention nothing about imperialism of any sort. Many of the reader reviews do suggest that this is an overly dramatic take on Latin American history which is more emotional than it is analytical.

 

[Solid Lifters]

A short "editorial review" on Barnes & Noble mentions "effects and causes of capitalist underdevelopment in Latin America", which to me sounds like the mexicans are butthurt that that the crack dealers down there have control over their economic system, and because of constant drug wars they've never had the opportunity to create a real capitalist economy.

Reviews of the book mention nothing about imperialism of any sort. Many of the reader reviews do suggest that this is an overly dramatic take on Latin American history which is more emotional than it is analytical.

In short, "A book filled with a South American emo's whining about America."


A friend made this post in another forum I like to visit. Good stuff.

Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Para-Military Extremists Riot in Boston Area

AP-Boston
April 20, 1775

Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Para-Military
Extremists Riot in Boston Area

National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of aparamilitary extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed widespread refusalby the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier inthe week. This decision followed a meeting early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily."

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired byone of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered aretreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ring leaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

 

[Keef]

Wow, that's a tense read. That last sentence (don't go to it first, guys) is a real wolllop!

I must say, in a hopefully very far fetched scenario, the government might be able to take away our right to religion, assembly, speech, etc. But they would have their hands full trying to take away citizens' right to own weapons. That'll be the day, buddy.

 

[YSSMAN]

Reviews of the book mention nothing about imperialism of any sort. Many of the reader reviews do suggest that this is an overly dramatic take on Latin American history which is more emotional than it is analytical.

My apologies then for the use of the incorrect description, apparently. Watching/listening to ABC this morning may have confused it. From their blog post:

The book, first published in Spanish in 1971, offers a critique of the consequences of 500 years of European and U.S. colonization of Latin America.

"The division of labor among nations is that some specialize in winning and others in losing," the book begins. "Our part of the world, known today as Latin America, was precocious: it has specialized in losing ever since those remote times when Renaissance Europeans ventured across the ocean and buried their teeth in the throats of the Indian civilizations. Centuries passed, and Latin America perfected its role."

Galeano writes that while the era of "lodes of gold" and "mountains of silver" has passed, "our region still works as a menial laborer. It continues to exist at the service of others' needs, as a source of oil and iron, of copper and meat, of fruit and coffee, the raw materials and foods destined for rich countries which profit more from consuming them than Latin America does from producing them."

At another point in the book, Galeano writes: "Our defeat was always implicit in the victory of others; our wealth has always generated our poverty by nourishing the prosperity of others."

LINK

...So, imperialism and neo-imperialism. Forgot the prefix. Likely an interesting read, at the least. Although South American politics are not my forte, nevertheless, hearing about our little runs of power through the region are fun. American Adventurism Abroad is a good one that focuses not just on South America, but the rest of the world as well, one of a few books my Libertarian professor had us read in our US Foreign Policy class.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, as of 1971 the US had been colonizing Latin America for 500 years? That is a truly amazing scientific achievement if true.

And really, if they aren't descended from Mayans, Aztecs and other native tribes I don't think they should be complaining too much about European colonization 500 years ago.

 

[Keef]

YSSMAN, the "imperialism" spin I've heard on the news as you have is ridiculous! You even quoted passages from the book that cite Latin America's failures to organize sound economic systems. As a matter of fact that's one of the most pathetic pleas for sympathy I've ever heard. All it takes is those few quotes to understand the Barnes & Noble's reader reviews. Interesting reads aren't always unbiased or truthful, and most of the time don't have any facts in them at all. Ask Steven King.

Also, remember that imperialism refers to colonization, like FK said. It has nothing to do with taking advantage of pea-brained drug smugglers who have no idea how much their coffee beans are actually worth. Their fault, not ours.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ask Stephen King.

Us PH's have to stick together.

 

[YSSMAN]

Also, remember that imperialism refers to colonization, like FK said.

It can, but not always. Imperialism refers to the dominance over a given people politically, socially and economically. Colonialism comes out of that idea, but with actual people there forming a new residence. They are very similar, but not completely the same.

The problem with the economic systems that you mention, well, is the fact that we (as well as Europe, in some cases) have been intervening for the past 100+ years throughout Central and South America. The insertion of "economic advisers" and regime change never really allowed their economic systems to grow and prosper.

 

[Keef]

Soooo...where else would you like your coffee to come from, since apparently we're oppressing nations by acquiring it.

Us PH's have to stick together.

The funny thing is I have a Stephen King book sitting about 2 feet away from me right now. Is it more sad that I couldn't be bothered to look, or that I couldn't spell it without looking to begin with?