Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Omnis]

Even if they did... they're just words. Words words words.

People should look at policy.

 

[Solid Fro]

Words... words, just words... where have I heard that before?



Just words! Words mmm, mmm, mmm, just words! Praise the all mighty Jesus, just words!

The more I read this the more I realise we elected our current president --like we do "American idol " contestants ...

He dances on Ellen, plays a bit of basketball, has sexy abs. He got's a funny name, he doesn't looks like those other guys on the dollar bills, did I mention he's black?

I expect when the 2010 elections come up --many DEMS will be unemployed as the pedulum swings in reverse --now that many have found out what " " CHANGE " Really means .

Only if Republicans go back to their Conservative roots and get rid of this Progressiveness.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm also curious what people think of Sotomayor.

It was a decent pick, certainly better than the (possible) rumored choice of my Governor, Jennifer Granholm (D-MI). She has made some questionable rulings previously, however what I have understood with some stories on the radio and in print, she has had a habit of reversing them when she realizes they were wrong.

I think it will be interesting to see what comes of the hearings next month, but I do believe that some of the Republicans are barking up the wrong tree politically if they want to appeal to the Hispanic vote.

As I keep saying: Both parties suck, particularly at this free market thing.

Yeah. Although not totally relevant, how's Rand Paul doing in KY? I still say guys like he and his father should be running the GOP...

Only if Republicans go back to their Conservative roots and get rid of this Progressiveness.

Lulz. Lets focus on an increasingly regional, and otherwise shrinking group of people. That will win national elections!

 

[FoolKiller]

Although not totally relevant, how's Rand Paul doing in KY?

Not bad, he's already raised $70,000 in just four weeks and Politico said yesterday that he has a good chance. But as everyone involved is waiting to see if Jim Bunning will run or not there isn't any official campaign yet from any potential candidates, so media coverage, for everyone, is almost non-existant. Unless you are following his Web site it seems like there is nothing happening.

 

[Solid Fro]

Lulz. Lets focus on an increasingly regional, and otherwise shrinking group of people. That will win national elections!

Really? And focusing on moderate Republicans will win national elections?

Lulz.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Obama is going to sign the Tobacco Bill

The House moved quickly Friday to pass the Senate’s tobacco bill and send it to the White House, where President Obama promised to sign it.

Mr. Obama, who himself has struggled to quit smoking, said the measure would “protect our kids and improve our public health.” Appearing in the Rose Garden just moments after the House vote, he said the tobacco legislation was “a bill that truly defines changes in Washington” and one that “changes the way Washington works and who it works for.”

The law would for the first time give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products, which kill more than 400,000 people in this country each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The House vote on Friday was 307 to 97, and followed Senate passage of the measure 79 to 17 on Thursday. A key to Senate passage was a vote earlier in the week to overcome a filibuster, by a two-vote margin.

Under the law, the F.D.A. will be able to set product standards and ban some chemicals in tobacco products, but not totally ban addictive nicotine. The F.D.A. will set up a new tobacco regulatory office financed by industry fees, which are expected to be $85 million in the first year and as much as $700 million annually within 10 years.

The F.D.A. would have the power not only to consider changing existing products, but also to ban new products unless the agency found they contributed to overall public health.

The F.D.A. is charged with imposing a ban within 15 months on tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, a measure that is likely to draw court challenges from the tobacco industry, saying it violates the First Amendment.

Also, within one year, the industry will be banned from claiming products are “light,” “mild” or “low tar,” terms that have been found to mislead smokers into thinking the products are safer when they are not.

The law provides that by 2012, new, graphic warning labels must be designed and approved by the F.D.A. and occupy 50 percent of the space on each package of cigarettes. According to David Adelman, a tobacco industry analyst for Morgan Stanley, the larger warning is a key part of the new legislation, exposing the industry to increased financial risk through lower sales.

“The newer warning label requirement in the Senate bill could compromise the graphics appearance of all U.S. cigarette brands,” Mr. Adelman wrote in a note to investors on Friday.

The Senate required a larger warning than the one provided for in a bill the House had previously passed and required that it contain “color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.” That is likely to include photographs of cancerous and diseased tissue, similar to those that run on cigarette packs in Canada.

Seeking to combat youth smoking — Mr. Obama noted that an additional 1,000 or so Americans under the age of 18 become regular smokers each day — the legislation will quickly ban most flavoring in tobacco and raise penalties for sales of tobacco to under-age buyers.

But in a political compromise, it exempted one flavoring, menthol, which masks the harshness of tobacco and accounts for about one-quarter of the market.

Some antismoking groups, particularly those representing African-Americans, had wanted the law’s ban on tobacco flavorings to include menthol. Mentholated brands are preferred by three-quarters of black smokers, who also have a disproportionate share of lung cancer.

Menthol is to be studied by the F.D.A. by 2011, though, and the agency will have the power to ban it, if the evidence warrants.

The tobacco legislation was supported by the Altria Group — the parent of Philip Morris, which produces the dominant Marlboro brand — and was opposed by other major cigarette makers, which argued it would protect Philip Morris and stifle innovation.

Last year, the House passed similar legislation, but the Senate did not act in the closing weeks of Congress in the fall. At the time, President George W. Bush threatened a veto.

Antismoking advocacy groups like the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network were praising Congress on Friday.

“This bill is proof positive that the tobacco industry is no longer running the show on Capitol Hill and that the health of Americans is a top priority for our elected officials,” the group’s chief executive, John R. Seffrin, said in a statement.

NY Times

I wonder how long until tobacco gets banned.

 

[TrievelA7X]

If Bin laden er ahem osama, er, barrack...
if this president guy was a rapper, he'd be half white, but since he's been elected pres, he's just black? you gotta be kidding me.

 

[Tornado]

Really, this Democrat run Congress is just fantastic. SRSLY.

 

[Solid Fro]

If Bin laden er ahem osama, er, barrack...
if this president guy was a rapper, he'd be half white, but since he's been elected pres, he's just black? you gotta be kidding me.

You sound like those people who voted for Obama only because he is black. You sound like those people who called President Bush every name in the book.

Obama bin Laden? So 2008.

It's so easy to grill the current administration on their failures. Don't go to the gutter.

 

[Omnis]

It's so easy to grill the current administration on their failures. Don't go to the gutter.

Yeah, Dick Cheney is busy eating Sudanese babies down there. Oh!

 

[Solid Fro]

Sudanese babies are fantastic! So tender, they fall off the bone. Mmmm-mmmm!

 

[TrievelA7X]

You sound like those people who voted for Obama only because he is black. You sound like those people who called President Bush every name in the book.

Obama bin Laden? So 2008.

It's so easy to grill the current administration on their failures. Don't go to the gutter.

I just said if he was a rapper, he'd be half white.... what are you thinking? you do know he's half-white right? his mother is white, father black. I'm tired of people calling him black, and ignoring the fact that he's not. he's half black, and half white. (Are we that desperate to prove that we're not racists that we feel a need to treat him differently?)
what has he failed so far? And how did I go to the gutter? He shares names with people who tried to destroy our country, if you don't expect jokes, you're in for a suprise. just take it for what it is: A Joke.

 

[Keef]

I care more about capitalizing the first letter in all my sentences than what color the President is. Same thing with anyone else who keeps up on the times. There are more important things to consider.

 

[Solid Fro]

you do know he's half-white right? his mother is white, father black.

Yes, I know. The President is just like me.

I'm tired of people calling him black, and ignoring the fact that he's not. he's half black, and half white. (Are we that desperate to prove that we're not racists that we feel a need to treat him differently?)

Yes, we all know he's mixed. Obama has black skin, it's just easier to say he's black. Duh.

what has he failed so far?

Have you watched the news lately?

And how did I go to the gutter? He shares names with people who tried to destroy our country...

Gutter ball!

 

[TrievelA7X]

Yes, I know. The President is just like me.



Yes, we all know he's mixed. Obama has black skin, it's just easier to say he's black. Duh.



Have you watched the news lately?



Gutter ball!

Given the things those two men (osama bin laden & saddam hussien) have done in recent years, you don't find this the most ironic event in history?
But these are my points, as follows.
1. I do not dislike Obama
2. I do not like Obama, he is a politician.
3. If he was a rapper, Many, Many black (and some white) Americans would discredit him.
4. Since he is president though, some (or all) of those people hail him as "the first black president" and act like it's the greatest thing to ever happen.
5. That is completely hypocritical, and I hate hypocrites.

So you see, in another twist of irony, I'm angry with the very people you initially said I sounded like.

 

[Solid Fro]

So you see, in another twist of irony, I'm angry with the very people you initially said I sounded like.

Don't sound like them then.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Don't sound like them then.

sure thing bud. There' this sig a guy has you should read... nm.

 

[Solid Fro]

B******* ATTRACTS FLIES



Not giving up on aspects of system that worked? Free market economy... nope, that didn't work. Strong anti-terror policies... no, of course not. Obama's NCAA bracket, ptttth no way.

 

[YSSMAN]

Today Was An Interesting Day for Foreign Policy Fans

Although Iran is on the mind of most of Washington (more on that later), President Obama met with the ROK President Lee Myung-bak earlier this morning to talk trade policies and the ongoing issues with the DPRK. Its good to know that the US and ROK are back to an even head as to what they want to do on the issue; Keep pushing for tough diplomacy, in the face of increasingly hostile rhetoric from the North. One of the more interesting points was on the trade policy issues, which I haven't found much information for. Obama had been known to say that he thought it was too favorable for Korea previously, but what that will mean in this situation - I do not know.

As for the unfolding situation in Iran, Obama has continued to attempt to keep an implied neutral stance on the issue. It is still an intensely complex and otherwise touchy situation for the US, especially within the context of future diplomatic relations with Iran. Its pretty clear that the White House has a "preferred" side in the situation, but the attempt to keep out of Iranian business certainly is the better option for the time being. From today on CNBC:

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.

The second thing that I think's important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, `Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.' And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it's important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have--nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That's not going to go away, and I think it's important for us to make sure that we've reached out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations...l



Also, interesting as well was the apparent hand the State Department had in delaying a network update for Twitter in Iran globally. It has been one of few, very few services that have been allowing news to leak out of the country, and an interruption of service certainly would be unfortunate for those getting word out. Good on the State Department for making the early push, even moreso to the Twitter team for keeping the service up, timing the repairs, and keeping a delicate service together that has been a critical piece of information sharing recently.


New News Tonight

Obama is extending benefits to same-sex partners who are employees of the Federal Government.

No real solid details as of now, but a good move on his behalf. A shame of course that we still haven't reversed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the like.

 

[Keef]

Myung-bak

Mmm, young back.

How the heck did the State Department know when Twitter was scheduling and update for Iran? That's scary. Do they keep tabs on all these networking sites with multinational accounts, or something? Do they have access to information from these companies that us folk do not? That's strange...

 

[YSSMAN]

If my understanding is correct, it was a scheduled update that Twitter was doing on their global services. They pushed it back, this post saying it was a decision made by their networking partner, NTT. Twitter usually warns their users on their homepages that services will be down at any given time, otherwise, you usually figure it out when the "Fail Whale" shows up.

The service was apparently timed so that Twitter wen't down around 1AM Iranian time, about 5PM EST.

 

[Keef]

All Hail...

So it was a decision by the company, not the government. Good. That doesn't raise as many eyebrows.

 

[Solid Fro]

[:HEADLINE MISSING:]





No positive stories, just reality.

 

[Keef]

Where is John Stossel when you need him.

Wouldn't it be funny if the government tried to stifle a reporter like Stossel if they made a report about that stuff? That would be all the confirmation the country would need.

 

[Solid Fro]

Where is John Stossel when you need him.

He should get his own show on Fox News. Every Friday night. ABC is too busy r***ing the President.

WE ARE COMING

 

[Omnis]

Speaking of ABC, they are now completely government-controlled. No journalism over there, except for the Isle of Stossel of course.

Breaking news from the drudge report: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot1.htm

and the story on YAL: http://blog.yaliberty.org/2009/06/abc-refuses-opposition-ads-during-its-white-house-broadcast/

Two days ago we reported on ABC’s White House special, which will cover the topic of health care overhaul and will be ran by Obama Administration officials. This is essentially state-run news, since a network channel will be giving up control over the content and substance to political officials in the administration.

In an effort to combat this outrageous power grab, Conservatives for Patient Rights is seeking to run ads during this special broadcast to give the viewers a different point of view regarding universal health care. The Republican National Committee also has requested permission to have a representative participate and give their take on the issue…but ABC denied both requests.

 

[YSSMAN]

The irony of this is hilarious. Or is it only a problem because its not basic-cable news?

 

[FoolKiller]

The irony of this is hilarious. Or is it only a problem because its not basic-cable news?

I fail to see the irony. Or do you think that popular partisan conservative commentary shows are the same as state-run "news" shows? Will ABC make sure it is stated somewhere that this is not an official ABC news report, as required by law if a commercial entity has a controlled and sponsored "report" or will it be presented fully as news? Hell, will it even be presented as commentary, as all partisan cable news shows are labeled?

But ABC is not alone in this. Jeff Immelt of GE is instructing all NBC stations to put a positive spin on Obamacare because he is angling to have GE Healthcare be the sole administrators of all healthcare records.


We have reached a point where it becomes obvious who in business are doers and innovators and who are looters. When Jack Welch ran GE he told government the only way they would be involved would be if they paid him for it. Now Jeff Immelt begs the government for money and gets in bed with administration officials to make sure policy, not work, brings them money.


I really shouldn't have added the Atlas Shrugged audiobook to my iPod.

 

[YSSMAN]

I fail to see the irony.

Hmm. I guess all that "unprecedented access" that Fox News had during the Bush years has already been forgotten.




Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole shindig with ABC is a Q&A session with President Obama, who will be answering questions from ABC viewers, correct? I mean, we can't expect curve balls. There hasn't been a sitting President who has had a good one in a very long time - no part of the press, no matter how "ballsy," will do it. Regardless of where they come from. The critiques I've been reading on this ABC situation mostly follow on the lack of paid advertisements that will challenge whatever message will be put out in the interview. Frankly, that's up to ABC, and apparently they have had long-standing policies that go against it. If they want to risk looking too friendly to the Obama Administration, that's up to them.

But really, these media pissing-contests are just silly. We've gone on, and on, and on for pages in here about this and that, how one side is unfair, and how the other is "too nice," and it always seems to come back to the same unresolved point.

If Fox News wants to play to the Conservative base, let them. If MSNBC wants to do the opposite for Liberals, does it really matter? Has CNN really gained anything by trying to be "in the center?" Frankly, it makes neither any more legitimate than the other. The attacks between the networks themselves just end up making them look even worse. Just what are they trying to prove to themselves and their viewers? Oh, that they're "more important." Right.

Still, these days people should be smart enough to use the tools given to them to find the message they want, and more importantly, be smart enough to hear some kind of differing facts or opinions as well. I really can't think of a single non-biased source left here in the US, maybe outside of CQ Weekly. Otherwise, you're stuck with your given echo-chambers that do little to forward the political discussions of the day.

* Total Side Note *

Once again, The Daily Show comes through with a really good conversation with Mike Huckabee on Pro Life/Pro Choice issues. A great line said by Huckabee tonight was that issues like this (something I think that is reflective of politics in general right now) is that they end up creating "more heat than light," never really getting to the crux of a problem at all. Outside of some outstanding differences on a few select topics, Huckabee has a lot of good, pragmatic approaches to his views on things; It is a trait I admire in some (definitely not all) of our political leaders - regardless of how their ideology may differ from my own. I think Rachel Maddow would be the political opposite of Huckabee in that sense, which is likely why I enjoy her so much as well.





But really, the point I'm getting at is that all of us here are likely to see stuff that we disagree with on a daily basis. Its up to us, as viewers, and as responsible citizens to cut through the crap ourselves and form our own opinion. And *gasp* it seems likely that anyone's opinion could be very different to yours, or to mine, or to anyone else's.

 

[Omnis]

ABC News is a broadcast news show. Fox News is a cable news network with political commentary shows.

But that's besides the point... Fox News doesn't have anything to do with the fact that ABC News is now state-run "journalism"