World Politics - Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : World Politics - Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Vuk

05-08-2009, 17:57

Yes, it's true, I linked to a video in the Huffington post. Strange that you weren't around to lob your smilies when I've also linked to NRO or American Conservative. Strange that I only get flack when linking left, never right. Work the ref, much?

P.S.: Here's a site much more your speed (http://o.bamapost.com/), Vuk.

lol, the difference is though that your talking points came directly from the Huffingtonpost guy's commentary. When you link to conservative sights, it is usually to make fun of them. Lob my smilies? I posted one. :P
I don't think he is the anti-Christ BTW, just Hitler, don't you remember? ~;)

EDIT: I made the post comment in humor BTW Lemur. I based my opinion on your argument (what little bit you insinuated of an argument), not on your choice of sources. I only meant to be funny. :P

Lemur

05-08-2009, 18:01

I wasn't aware of any evil you wouldn't impute to our President. He's not the antichrist? News to me.

Here's a person who was once considered a "conservative" (ever-shrinking circle, that) on mustardgate (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=deee68fd-d510-43d1-8b52-656f064b0aa6):

MUSTARD-GATE
Friday, May 08, 2009 6:38 AM

What kind of a man eats his hamburger without ketchup? That was the big question yesterday on talk radio, after President Obama visited an Arlington, Virginia, hamburger place on Tuesday and ordered his burger with spicy mustard.

First answer: Texans (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/hamburger_with_mustard_and_without_ketchup_cowboy_burger_texas_burger/).

Texans traditionally eat hamburgers with mustard or with mayonnaise (or with both), but without ketchup. This is simply called a “hamburger” in Texas, but is sometimes called a “Cowboy Burger” or a “Texas Burger” outside of Texas.

A hamburger with ketchup is sometimes called a “Yankee Burger.” A hamburger with mayonnaise is sometimes called a “Sissy Burger.”

Dirty Martin’s (in Austin since 1926) serves hamburgers with mustard, pickles, onions, and tomatoes, but it is not known when this combination began. The popular Texas “Whataburger” hamburger chain has served hamburgers with mustard from its founding (1950). The hamburger-with-mustard combination in Texas is attested at least from the 1950s, but the pre-1950s hamburger condiments cannot be firmly established.

Second answer: Republicans. A 2000 survey of members of Congress by the National Hot Dog Council (http://www.hot-dog.org/) found that 73% of Republican lawmakers preferred mustard to ketchup, as opposed to 47% of Democratic lawmakers.

Final answer: traditionalists. Louis' Lunch in New Haven, Connecticut, the restaurant widely believed to have served the first hamburgers ever made in the United States, absolutely forbids ketchup (http://gonewengland.about.com/od/connecticutdining/ss/aalouislunch_5.htm).

Next question?

Vuk

05-08-2009, 18:13

Seamus Fermanagh

05-08-2009, 18:17

That anyone can call "fancy" the sludge which is apparently mustard that americans dump on their food is the most interesting thing.

~:smoking:

Sadly, I've known people who won't put French's or Heinz' yellow mustard on a burger...

...because they though it was too spicy.

:rolleyes3:

By that metric, Colman's would induce cardiac arythmia.

Lemur

05-08-2009, 23:24

Mustardgate is not going away! Check out this blog (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/thou-shall-not-mock-obamas-mustard.html). And here's more coverage from a Website That Dare Not Speak Its Name (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/obama-mustard-attack-beco_n_199953.html) (good video links, however).

Vuk

05-09-2009, 06:55

Vuk

05-09-2009, 08:21

lol, I am really in love with Ann Coulter. (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13379285&ch=4226716&src=news) I generally do not like media personalities (not even Hannity), but that Coulter is something else. :P No wonder the liberals hate her, she is dynamite! As far as water-boarding goes, I got a story about that that I will post on the torture thread.

KukriKhan

05-09-2009, 13:16

Reagan gave Ketchup the Bad Rap. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable)

KarlXII

05-10-2009, 00:03

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-10-2009, 01:05

I'll be honest, I think Mustardgate is the best thing ever in political news coverage.

I'm following this story with relish.

CountArach

05-10-2009, 01:35

Xiahou

05-10-2009, 06:29

Vuk

05-10-2009, 08:59

"Sissy liberals"

Yes she is truly a master of oratory.

If you'll excuse me I'm off to ketchup with the latest in dijongate.

Any fool can make something complicated, it takes a genius to make something simple. ~;)
Seriously though, she is shockingly intelligent, brutally simple and to the point, and totally unforgiving in her analysis's! Everyone I have ever seen who has argued against her has attacked her for her looks, accused her of selling books on her looks (which is funny, as she is ugly enough to frighten a semi truck), attacked her for her oratory, attacked her for being blond, attacked her for being FEMALE, etc. I have never heard anyone make any affective argument against her points or the facts she uses. The closest was some lady on the View, and she did a lousy job, got very much owned, and seemed all too eager to get away from Coulter at the end.

Tribesman

05-10-2009, 11:11

Everyone I have ever seen who has argued against her has attacked her for her looks, accused her of selling books on her looks
Thats strange since most people attack her on the basis that she is incredibly stupid and a liar, her written work has been described as unproffesional, crazy, unhinged......bugger all about her looks really apart from the few questions as to why this woman has an adams apple .
So its another case of "everyone I have ever seen" if I don't look at all :dizzy2:

Vuk

05-10-2009, 11:43

Thats strange since most people attack her on the basis that she is incredibly stupid and a liar, her written work has been described as unproffesional, crazy, unhinged......bugger all about her looks really apart from the few questions as to why this woman has an adams apple .
So its another case of "everyone I have ever seen" if I don't look at all :dizzy2:

What I mean Tribesman is that they say she is a liar and unprofessional, but they cannot attack any specific thing she says, so they go after her sex or looks. Plenty of people say she is a liar, but no one I have heard has made any type of good argument at all against anything she has said.

CountArach

05-10-2009, 11:49

Tribesman

05-10-2009, 13:23

What I mean Tribesman is that they say she is a liar and unprofessional, but they cannot attack any specific thing she says, so they go after her sex or looks. Plenty of people say she is a liar, but no one I have heard has made any type of good argument at all against anything she has said.

Bloody hell ?????? have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?
Hold on I get it , you are using the Vuk definition of good arguement again aren't you:yes:
So because she still writes crap even if most others say it is crap then it isn't really crap becuse she still writes it:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Vuk

05-10-2009, 13:49

Bloody hell ?????? have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?
Hold on I get it , you are using the Vuk definition of good arguement again aren't you:yes:
So because she still writes crap even if most others say it is crap then it isn't really crap becuse she still writes it:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

That is what I mean Tribesy. Plenty of people have said what she has written is crap, but the vast majority of all arguments against her coming from the media and from individuals I have met or talked too (you included) do NOT actually attempt to prove her wrong on anything, but instead simply say "She writes crap", "She is a stupid woman/blond woman", "She sells on sex", etc.
Other writers, both liberal and conservative have their specific arguments challenged all the time, and people try to take them to task on specifics. Almost everyone is content to say about Ann "she is just an out of touch loony", "she writes garbage", etc, with out ever trying to prove that what she writes is garbage. The few who do attempt to seriously debate her get utterly owned. (all that I have seen, but I hold out faith that she is indeen not perfect and must have made at least one mistake in her life) ~;)

Tribesman

05-10-2009, 13:55

That is what I mean Tribesy.
That says a lot .
So.....

have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?

The answer is no:yes:

Banquo's Ghost

05-10-2009, 13:55

A discussion on Ann Coulter and her abilities is properly conducted in another thread.

If I may steer us back to topic, The Economist has a fascinating article (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13610905) examining President Obama's appointment to Education Secretary, Arne Duncan. The fellow seems to have some strong support across the floor, and doesn't seem to be afraid (along with the president) to challenge some shibboleths of the left.

The overview looks encouraging, though a fight with their own Congress may be in the offing. Any thoughts from those closer to the events?

Since moving to the Education Department a couple of months ago he has been a tireless preacher of the reform gospel. He supports charter schools and merit pay, accountability and transparency, but also litters his speeches with more unfamiliar ideas. He argues that one of the biggest problems in education is how to attract and use talent. All too often the education system allocates the best teachers to the cushiest schools rather than the toughest. Mr Duncan also stresses the importance of “replicating” success. His department, he says, should promote winning ideas (such as “Teach for America”, a programme that sends high-flying university graduates to teach in underserved schools) rather than merely enforcing the status quo.

Nor is this just talk. Mr Duncan did much to consolidate his reputation as a reformer on May 6th, when the White House announced that it will try to extend Washington, DC’s voucher programme until all 1,716 children taking part have graduated from high school. The Democrat-controlled Congress has been trying to smother the programme by removing funding. But Mr Duncan has vigorously argued that it does not make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning”. He and Mr Obama will now try to persuade Congress not to kill the programme.

Lemur

05-10-2009, 13:56

Another thoughtful Economist article (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610871) about our current Prez:

The collapse of Detroit’s giants is a tragedy, affecting tens of thousands of current and former workers. But the best way to offer them support is directly, not by gerrymandering the rules. The investors in these firms are easily portrayed as vultures, but many are entrusted with the savings of ordinary people, and in any case all have a legal claim that entitles them to due process. In a crisis it is easy to put politics first, but if lenders fear their rights will be abused, other firms will find it more expensive to borrow, especially if they have unionised workforces that are seen to be friendly with the government.

It may be too late for Chrysler’s secured creditors and if GM’s lenders cannot reach a voluntary agreement, they may face a similar fate. That would establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?

Vuk

05-10-2009, 14:36

A discussion on Ann Coulter and her abilities is properly conducted in another thread.

What about her smokin' bod? :beam:

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-10-2009, 18:33

Lemur

05-10-2009, 18:38

The teachers unions will take him for a long walk off a short pier.
Awww, if you can't make campaign promises and then turn around and tell your base, "Just kidding," what will politics come to?

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-10-2009, 18:40

This Duncan fellow seems grand, I just can't imagine him actually making it. :/

Xiahou

05-11-2009, 02:21

This Duncan fellow seems grand, I just can't imagine him actually making it. :/Meanwhile, they're phasing out vouchers in DC. Call me when they figure out how to translate talk into results.

Duncan can say whatever he wants, as long as he does the teacher's union's bidding, they'll probably be fine with him. :wink:

Xiahou

05-11-2009, 23:43

Obama fires US commander in Afghanistan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan;_ylt=AtrgjUx3_1KiKllVUs9TZv7Zn414)
I thought this excerpt was interesting:
Asked if McKiernan's resignation would end his military career, Gates said, "Probably." But he praised the general's long service, and when pressed to name anything McKiernan had failed to do, Gates demurred.

"Nothing went wrong, and there was nothing specific," he said.So he's finished, not just in Afghanistan, but in the military altogether. What did he do to make the administration want to force him out? I guess I'll have to wait for McKiernan's tell all book. :shrug:

Tribesman

05-11-2009, 23:59

What did he do to make the administration want to force him out?
errrrrr.....
The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.

So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

Xiahou

05-12-2009, 00:05

errrrrr.....
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

The Pentagon.... headquarters of the DoD.... headed by Robert Gates- member of the Obama administration and reporting to Obama- the CinC. :idea2:

Pack up your fishing gear and take it somewhere else please. :yes:

Tribesman

05-12-2009, 00:12

Pack up your fishing gear and take it somewhere else please.

:flowers:

Lemur

05-12-2009, 00:50

I thought this excerpt was interesting:So he's finished, not just in Afghanistan, but in the military altogether. What did he do to make the administration want to force him out? I guess I'll have to wait for McKiernan's tell all book. :shrug:
Here's a somewhat informed take (http://www.slate.com/id/2218160/):

When a Cabinet officer asks for a subordinate's resignation, it means that he's firing the guy. This doesn't happen very often in the U.S. military. McKiernan had another year to go as commander. (When Gen. George Casey's strategy clearly wasn't working in Iraq, President George W. Bush let him serve out his term, then promoted him to Army chief of staff.) Gates also made it clear he wasn't acting on a personal whim. He said that he took the step after consulting with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and President Barack Obama. According to one senior official, Gates went over to Afghanistan last week for the sole purpose of giving McKiernan the news face-to-face.

Gates emphasized at a press conference today that McKiernan didn't do anything specifically wrong but that "fresh thinking" was needed urgently. The United States couldn't just wait until the current commander's term ran out.

An intellectual battle is now raging within the Army between an "old guard" that thinks about war in conventional, force-on-force terms and a "new guard" that focuses more on "asymmetric conflicts" and counterinsurgency.

McKiernan is an excellent general in the old mold. McChrystal, who rose through the ranks as a special-forces officer, is an excellent general in the new mold. He has also worked closely with Gates and Petraeus. (In his press conference, Gates referred to McChrystal's "unique skill set in counterinsurgency.") For the past year, McChrystal has been director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff. More pertinently, for five years before that, he was commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, a highly secretive operation that hunted down and killed key jihadist fighters, including, most sensationally, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Last fall, Bob Woodward reported in the Washington Post that JSOC played a crucial, unsung role in the tactical success of the Iraqi "surge." Using techniques of what McChrystal called "collaborative warfare," JSOC combined intelligence intercepts with quick, precision strikes to "eliminate" large numbers of key insurgent leaders.

This appointment will not be without controversy. McChrystal's command also provided the personnel for Task Force 6-26, an elite unit of 1,000 special-ops forces that engaged in harsh interrogation of detainees in Camp Nama as far back as 2003. The interrogations were so harsh that five Army officers were convicted on charges of abuse. (McChrystal himself was not implicated in the excesses, but the unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.")

-edit-

Another take. (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/11/mckiernan-replaced/)

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-12-2009, 06:55

:flowers:

Knowing the basics of the chain of command of the administration is floral? Why do we let you post here?

Crazed Rabbit

05-12-2009, 07:35

(McChrystal himself was not implicated in the excesses, but the unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.")[/indent]
[/URL]

That's the slogan of a group of government employees sworn to uphold the constitution? Anyone else a wee bit worried?

The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

So you're using the word of the white house as proof the white house didn't interfere?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Another thoughtful Economist article about our current Prez: (dealing with creditors)

*sigh* Such foolish shortsightedness...

CR

KukriKhan

05-12-2009, 14:26

errrrrr.....
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

When Generals get pink-slipped in the US, it's not usually for something they've done, rather a failure to achieve some goal.

My guess is that Gen. McKiernan had been given a major objective to achieve within a defined time-period, and did not get the job done. So now he, and his approach, are both being binned, and they're gonna take a new direction with a new local boss.

Within 30 days, we'll probably also see some other heads roll (i.e. transfers out-of-theater) of some Brigadiers and Colonels, chiefly on the Plans and Ops staffs.

Tribesman

05-12-2009, 15:47

When Generals get pink-slipped in the US, it's not usually for something they've done, rather a failure to achieve some goal.

so its business as usual which makes this a non-issue xiahou posted , shocking eh .

rory_20_uk

05-12-2009, 16:06

I'm confused. Isn't showing willingness to try new tactics a good thing, as opposed to refusing that a strategy isn't working? Again getting someone in who has more experience with the latter in hand seems to be sensible.

Is there a party based element I'm missing?

~:smoking:

KukriKhan

05-12-2009, 16:17

I hope not (and I think this might be what Xiahou feared). Our uniformed guys are supposed to be distinctly a-political, party-wise. I'd hate to see that change.

Rather, I think it's as you say, a change in strategy and tactics, ushered in with a fresh face. That the old guy is retiring from service is, I hope, merely a happy coincidence.

Afghanistan's Karzai was here last week, making the rounds of the TV talk shows, where he was drilled on how ready Afghan forces were to take the lead - a point on which he kinda waffled, calling for more US influence, while decrying civilian losses to bombing attacks.

I suspect that may have been the motivator for the switch in Generals: less bombing, more ground ops.

Lemur

05-12-2009, 17:31

A counterinsurgency expert comments (http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2009/05/mckiernan-out-mcchrystal-in.html) on the general switch:

Now there is a lot of stuff at work here. First, I heard rumors that McChrystal might replace McKiernan only last Friday, when a senior U.S. policy-maker cornered me and asked me what I thought of McChrystal. That's kinda like asking a rifleman in the French Army what he thinks of Napoleon. Although I indeed served under McChrystal's command in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not know him personally and was but one cog in a giant machine at the time.

I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns. I also know that McChrystal and David Petraeus forged a close working relationship in Iraq in 2007 and have much respect for one another. (Prior to 2007, the relations between the direct-action special operations task force and the overall command in Iraq were strained at best.)

Second, let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very public manner. Secretary Gates' exact words: "I have asked for the resignation of General David McKiernan."

Damn.

This tells me that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen. Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack about a shift in strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was ruthless, and they were not about to do the George Casey thing whereby a commander is left in the theater long after he is considered to have grown ineffective.

The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan's head for some time now. Many of the people with whom I have spoken do not think that McKiernan "gets" the war in Afghanistan -- or counterinsurgency warfare in general. There was very little confidence that -- with McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the field.

That all changed today. I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up.

Game on.

-edit-

This topic is too meaty for this thread; I'm spinning it out on its own (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=116956).

KukriKhan

05-13-2009, 15:02

Heh. From a viral email I received this morning:

Dear Mr. President:
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will
squander the money on
lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.

Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with
the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment
fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars
ordered- Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed..

It can't get any easier than that!

If more money is needed, have all members of Congress and their
constituents pay their taxes...

:laugh4:

Marshal Murat

05-13-2009, 21:06

Obama considers his nominees (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D985I63O1&show_article=1)

An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood—people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.

Hasn't Napolitano done enough already?

KukriKhan

05-14-2009, 02:55

Aside from the story itself, and whether we agree or disagree with the final choice...

The article writer: BEN FELLER, is a guy to watch. Being AP, he can spread story quite broadly, and is apparently trusted by "anonymous White House source"s as a good "leak to" asset.

Or...

he totally made the stuff up on his own. Or got purposely lied to. I'm betting 'not', this being a trial balloon, he being the trial balloon releaser.

Lemur

05-17-2009, 22:33

Big, long interview (http://www.newsweek.com/id/197891/page/1) with President 44. Lots of interesting stuff gets touched on, worth a read.

Crazed Rabbit

05-25-2009, 04:13

Obama continues his fight (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5374095/British-banks-revolt-against-Obama-tax-plan.html) against international commerce:

The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they

are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.

Andy Thompson of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) said: "The cost and administration of the US tax regime is causing UK investment firms to consider disinvesting in US shares on behalf of their clients. This is not right and emphasises that the administration of a tax regime on a global scale without any flexibility damages the very economy it is trying to protect."

:wall::wall:

CR

Xiahou

05-26-2009, 04:24

U.S. Budget Gap Is Revised to Surpass $1.8 Trillion (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/economy/12budget.html?ref=business)Anyone want to start a pool on whether or not we can break the $2 trillion mark this year? That's a deficit equaling almost 13% of our GDP...

Economists generally agree a country’s annual deficits should not exceed 3 percent of economic output. Mr. Obama, in his 10-year budget outline in February, projected the United States would fall just below that level in the last months of his term, in the 2013 fiscal year. Many analysts consider his economic assumptions too rosy, however, which casts doubt on his deficit forecast."Many analysts" would be right, since they've already exceeded their projections on spending and tax revenue estimates have already been revised down. Then there's Obama's plans for universal healthcare, which I'm sure will come in under budget- just like Medicare has. :sweatdrop:

So... should we worry yet?

Here's a very uplifting article I read recently, entitled: US Credit Rating Under Fire (http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1059-US-Credit-Rating-Under-Fire.html)
But what's troublesome is that estimates of the deficit continue to skyrocket, and now stand at more than $2 trillion for 2010, which is a nearly 30% increase in just a few months.

These numbers make George Bush's deficits look like chump change, and the problem isn't so much the number as it is the direction and velocity of change.

As government continues to deficit spend they inevitably "crowd out" private borrowing and spending, as taxes must rise dramatically in order to fund the spending.

Treasury has responded to these pressures by shortening duration which makes the intermediate and longer-term much worse, because now you get to add "rollover risk" to the picture as well. Currently, the $12 trillion or so in US Debt has an average duration around 4 years - the shortest on record. This has been undertaken in an attempt to manage interest costs, but that game cannot continue forever, and when it reverses it has the risk of doing so at breakneck speed, dramatically increasing interest cost for the government and doing even more budgetary damage.

Simply put, America's choices for government at the federal level is unsustainable; the ability and demand to spend in a deficit-ramping fashion on a sustained basis, as has happened every year since WWII, cannot continue.

There are solutions but they're bitter medicine: The Treasury must be refilled, deficit spending must cease, and those private parties that have led us into this mess believing these would be rescued with public funds must instead be left out in the cold.

Will we as a nation take these options now, or will the market force them upon us in a few years when it is no longer willing to fund the profligate and even fraudulent cover-ups by attempting monetarily "paper over" the ripoffs and scams perpetrated upon us by the so-called "masters of the financial universe"?

That is the question facing America, and its being asked now.

KukriKhan

05-27-2009, 03:34

Anyone want to start a pool on whether or not we can break the $2 trillion mark this year?

Brilliant. I think you oughtta, mate. Just post a poll with 18 options: June '09 thru Dec '10 (going with your links prediction of a 2010 achievement) (or maybe 24 months thru May 2011, just in case). Award every entrant 1 Xiahou dollar to bet with, winner take all; split in case of a multi-vote. Make it "public" so all can see who voted what.

It could almost serve as a "when will the US be so crushed with debt, which they've always historically serviced, that they eschew servicing, and embrace the economy of Venezuala as their template."

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-27-2009, 05:10

See, I think I've seen the light. Japan's leveraged to the hilt - they have something like 170% of their GDP in national debt. It doesn't matter though! They're fine! We basically have infinite money. I for one hope to get a luxurious welfare package to sit around playing TF2 all day.

Lemur

05-27-2009, 05:43

We basically have infinite money.
A little perspective (http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=1) ...

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819. Yikes! Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?

Xiahou

05-27-2009, 07:09

A little perspective (http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=1) ...

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819. Yikes! Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?
Don't forget our government conveniently leaves out the unfunded liabilities of things like Medicare and Social Security. Last year, Richard Fisher, the head of the Federal Reserve bank in Dallas pegged (http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm) the unfunded liabilities from these programs to be 99.2 trillion!
Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the “funded” entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.

How's that for perspective?
What's funny is that in his budget estimates from his speech last May, put the 2009 deficit around 400 billion. Clearly, he grossly underestimated our government's ability to spend. :sweatdrop:

For a different perspective, you can look at the Treasury Dept.'s 2008 financial statements (http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08stmt.pdf), where they put 2008's "Total present value of future expenditures in excess of future revenue" at a meager $43 trillion. I'm pretty sure the accounting that we use to arrive at our modest $13 trillion dollar debt would probably land any organization other than the government in some regulatory hot water. (Then again, I'm not an accountant- maybe one will pop in here and explain it all to us)

Tribesman

05-27-2009, 07:44

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819.
Its not so much spendthrift, just a demontration that fuelling growth by a combination of low taxation, credit and reducing regulation doesn't work.

Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?
You can try, but due to the right wing approach to business and finance that was practiced there are no real assets to sieze only fictional ones so forclosure doesn't get you anything

Kralizec

05-27-2009, 08:31

A little perspective (http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=1) ...

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819. Yikes! Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?

External debt isn't the same as government debt. External debt is all money owed by citizens, corporations and the government to outside parties (and doesn't take into account money owed to them by outside parties). It's to be expected that Switzerland would have a "bad" rating in that link of yours because of its banks. Or the Netherlands, wich according to that link have an external debt rating of 268% while the government debt is well below 60%.

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-27-2009, 23:55

Louis VI the Fat

05-28-2009, 11:27

Meanwhile in Europe, Obama has returned to America its role as inspirational leader of the world. :sweatdrop:

https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4139/jihad.jpg (https://img34.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jihad.jpg)

Crazed Rabbit

05-30-2009, 06:15

Xiahou

06-02-2009, 03:38

Government run banks? Check.
Government run auto industry? Check (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_automakers_obama_analysis).
Government run healthcare? Coming soon.

The president a month ago forced Rick Wagoner out as GM's CEO. The Treasury Department dictated what bondholders should get for the $27 billion they held in GM debt. Obama's team determined that GM needed to downsize so that it could break even if auto industry car sales remain at 10 million vehicles a year, instead of the 16 million auto sales threshold it needs today.

And on Treasury's instructions, GM will replace a majority of its board members in consultation with the Obama administration.
Obama isn't interested in getting the federal government into the auto industry- nope. It'll just have GM's CEO fired and replaced with one of their choosing. It'll write GM's bankruptcy deal, and it'll choose GM's new board. Totally different from being in the auto industry though. :dizzy2:

So, does anyone see GM returning to profitability in the forseeable future or is it now just an expensive UAW welfare program?

CountArach

06-02-2009, 09:20

So, does anyone see GM returning to profitability in the forseeable future or is it now just an expensive UAW welfare program?
You don't think the UAW would want it to be profitable?

Incongruous

06-02-2009, 10:31

Obama's press secretary slams critical articles from British press. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/05/29/robert_gibbs_should_apologise_to_the_british_press_for_his_sneering_rant)

Ah, such great diplomacy, huh? Really spreading love and the like around the world, isn't he? So classy too, suggesting the press are liars when they don't like you.

CR

While I agree that it was not very classy or diplomatic, he had a point, the British press is in general, bollox. That reply from The Telegraph made me laugh, "take on the status quo in Washington":laugh4:

Obama's team is gonna need to learn a bit quicker tha this, or else it will only serve what will doubtless sonn be a growing sense of resentment.

drone

06-02-2009, 16:51

Government run banks? Check.
Government run auto industry? Check (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_automakers_obama_analysis).
Government run healthcare? Coming soon.

Obama isn't interested in getting the federal government into the auto industry- nope. It'll just have GM's CEO fired and replaced with one of their choosing. It'll write GM's bankruptcy deal, and it'll choose GM's new board. Totally different from being in the auto industry though. :dizzy2:

So, does anyone see GM returning to profitability in the forseeable future or is it now just an expensive UAW welfare program?

I see it panning out like one of the storylines in The Sopranos. Davey Scatino, one of Tony's old friends has a gambling problem, loses his shirt at a high stakes poker game, and Tony covers for him. In exchange, Tony's crew takes over his sporting goods store and cleans it out. The resemblance is uncanny. ~D Obama is doing his city proud.

Crazed Rabbit

06-02-2009, 18:43

You don't think the UAW would want it to be profitable?

Oh, sure, they want it to be. But I'll bet they're just fine with hanging on to all their perks and getting more government money. After all, IIRC they didn't budge in negotiations before GM collapsed.

The guy in charge of GM's dismantling:
A 31 year old guy with no economics or business education, just political campaign experience (mostly).
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese.html?_r=1&em)

I guess we'll have the answer to "Who could possibly run GM worse?"

CR

Lemur

06-04-2009, 04:52

Government run banks? Check.
Government run auto industry? Check (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_automakers_obama_analysis).
Government run healthcare? Coming soon.
Behold Socialism in action (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/socialismchart.png

Crazed Rabbit

06-04-2009, 05:48

Behold Socialism in action (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php):

Don't make me quote how much the nationalized part of the economy has increased, percentage wise, in the last year.

EDIT: Also, that guy you link to uses this chart to refute the allegation that we are headed to socialism. Now, if we're headed there, we are there yet, are we? So the chart is a red herring.

CR

CountArach

06-04-2009, 07:32

Behold Socialism in action (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/socialismchart.png
:laugh4:

I really did lol. Well played Lemur.

Xiahou

06-10-2009, 05:37

Another hard hitting story from the AP:
CAPITAL CULTURE: World hangs on Obama's every bite (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_foodie_in_the_house)
This part really hit home for me...
With all the chatter, and with restaurants often happily revealing Obama menu picks, it's stunning that a central mystery remains: What did the Obamas eat? The restaurant won't spill the (organic) beans, and as for fellow diners, "Everyone gave them space and was too cool to bother them," says Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University who ate at a nearby table.

Cool up to a point, that is. "When they got up, the whole place broke out into spontaneous applause," says Eva Fleischer, who was dining with her husband and friends. "Barack said, 'Hi guys,' and Michelle even touched my friend on her shoulder!"
On a completely unrelated note, a few malcontent journalists are beginning to suggest that fawning media coverage of Obama may actually be a problem.

The Obama Infatuation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102079.html)
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

a completely inoffensive name

06-10-2009, 06:08

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Reagan.

Stop whining about a president you disagree with being idolized. It happens to some degree for every single president. This is why I can not tolerate current Republican talking points, even if I were to agree with some of their policies. It's just slander, lies, ad hominem, slander.

Please Xiahou, I know you are smart enough give me a legitimate argument on why Obama is so far a failure. There is so much you can choose from without bringing up this media blame game again.

Xiahou

06-10-2009, 06:39

Reagan.Do you have any data supporting that? The Pew Study only goes back as far as Clinton. If you have something else, I'd like to see it.

Please Xiahou, I know you are smart enough give me a legitimate argument on why Obama is so far a failure. There is so much you can choose from without bringing up this media blame game again.If I remember correctly, the counter to Republican complaining about Bush's media coverage was that the press is always adversarial. So far, the Obama administration has bucked that trend.
https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6825/1leadpositivecoverage.png

I'd be much happier if Obama did have an intellectually curious media that was willing to ask probing questions instead of heaping praise on Michelle's fashion sense or writing dozens of articles about the Obama's date night.

The author of the second story I linked, Robert J. Samuelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson), is no partisan hack either. Maybe you should give the article another look before dismissing it.
Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

Crazed Rabbit

06-10-2009, 06:40

Reagan.

Stop whining about a president you disagree with being idolized. It happens to some degree for every single president.

Nope, not Reagan. This is a problem because it removes objectivity.

For an indepth analysis, see here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=41380
When Barack Obama decided that questions from the German press about his trip agenda in that country were too pesky, he told the reporters, "So, stop it all of you!" He just wanted them to ask things he wanted to talk about. Well, what politico wouldn't want that?

OK, dad. We'll behave.

And according to a new Pew Research Center poll, we are behaving...like fans. On domestic press, it showed that "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House" with "roughly twice as much" Obama coverage about his "personal or leadership qualities" than was the case for either previous president.

Back in the US, NBC's Brian Williams' two-part "Living Large With the Top Dog" feature on Mr. Obama's life included a plug for Conan O'Brien's new show and mention of cable talkies where Mr. Obama only cited MSNBC personalities. Accident? I don't think so. There were a few probing moments in there, but they were overshadowed by the flash of hanging out in the back of the Auto One limo and having burgers. A little navel-gazing among journalism standards hall monitors about whether the thing had been too soft came and went.

Then, this Sunday in the NYTimes, there was full-on chick-flick swooning over Barack and Michelle Obama's heavily scented "date night" in NY City and its high bar standard effect on our relationship culture, with just a hint of controversy over the taxpayer costs to add some spice. I swear I've seen this movie, only Michael Douglas was the President. Or Harrison Ford. Or one of those cool and languid characters you'd want to like you. George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him.

And in Paris, Mr. Obama talked about how he'd love to take his wife for a romantic tour of the City of Lovers, but couldn't. Then he did. I'm guessing some regular-Joe freedom fries weren't on the menu.

This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not.

But what I'm more worried about is the direct damage Obama is going to do to the economy (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aaaBdVMkjPnU) for no other reason than stupid populism.

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- I’ve finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing “failed” firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business. The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.

Once that happens, their new pay czar Kenneth Feinberg can set the wage for everybody and Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.

I know, it sounds like an exaggeration. But look at it this way. If there were a power ranking of U.S. companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?

And then he's also managing to start a trade war. (http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/648001) This sort of stuff is what set recovery after the Great Depression back by years. It will do serious damage to the world economy if it continues.

Good grief.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

06-10-2009, 07:19

If I remember correctly, the counter to Republican complaining about Bush's media coverage was that the press is always adversarial. So far, the Obama administration has bucked that trend.
https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6825/1leadpositivecoverage.png

I'd be much happier if Obama did have an intellectually curious media that was willing to ask probing questions instead of heaping praise on Michelle's fashion sense or writing dozens of articles about the Obama's date night.

The author of the second story I linked, Robert J. Samuelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson), is no partisan hack either. Maybe you should give the article another look before dismissing it.

But there has not been an intellectually curious media for quite a while now. Everything has been mostly partisan talking points for at least the past decade.

So the media is mostly favoring Obama because they are liberal, so what. That's what news is nowadays, talking heads giving opinions not facts.
(I fully expect that first sentence to be used by itself, out of context.)

When you are expected to provide criticism about the Obama administration, I expect a diagnosis of the flaws within the man's policies not the failures of the news industry to provide an unbiased story.

And I have read Robert J. Samuelson, I actually read his articles frequently in Newsweek. I don't particularly care for him ever since he wrote an article defending lobbying/lobbyists: http://www.newsweek.com/id/174283 (just in case anyone is interested).

Now, the second half of CR's post was what I was looking for (oddly enough CR's posts consistently seem to be interesting to me, just like in a previous gun control debate). A take on his economic policies with a reference to history to provide strength and credibility.

Unless you blame the cause of the media's love of him to be manipulation from the Obama's administration, I think venting about it belongs in a thread about the epic failures of modern journalism not about the Obama Administration itself.

Xiahou

06-11-2009, 01:19

Well, you probably won't appreciate this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbvXH05dot0) either then. It's the assistant managing editor of Newsweek talking about how Obama is like a god.

And I have read Robert J. Samuelson, I actually read his articles frequently in Newsweek. I don't particularly care for him ever since he wrote an article defending lobbying/lobbyistsI don't want to wonder too far off topic, but he's right.

a completely inoffensive name

06-11-2009, 02:14

Well, you probably won't appreciate this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbvXH05dot0) either then. It's the editor of Newsweek talking about how Obama is like a god.

Meh, I never even heard of that guy. I like Jon Meacham who is the head editor and has been on the Colbert Report a couple times. I heard his book about Andrew Jackson, "American Lion" was very good. Unless you have an embarrassing clip of him, I don't really care, like most media I don't have a high expectation unless they prove themselves unbiased and capable.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-11-2009, 03:43

Xiahou

06-11-2009, 04:36

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place Xiahou. If you're holding up the press under Bush as a non-compliant political force, I'll point out that it didn't slow him down all that much (more's the pity).And then I'd point out that's not the point. The media doesn't force an elected official to do anything- what it does is help in shaping opinion and, occasionally informing the public. This is a problem if much of what they're printing is uncritical cheerleading.

If you think that the media under Bush was compliant then there's nothing really to complain about - it's nothing new.If you bothered to read preceding posts you'd see that contention has been studied by Pew and was not found to be accurate. I'm not really seeing the catch 22 or rock/hard place or whatever you're calling it.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-11-2009, 05:29

What's your point then? The media either thinks Obama is god or the antichrist, depending on whether you've flipped to MSNBC or Fox. It doesn't affect reality.

Xiahou

06-11-2009, 06:55

What's your point then? The media either thinks Obama is god or the antichrist, depending on whether you've flipped to MSNBC or Fox. It doesn't affect reality.I thought the above posts were pretty clear on what my point was.

Here, skim this study (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/obamas_first_100_days) and see if anything jumps out at you. I really don't see where anyone but the most rabid Obama fanboy (which apparently includes much of the press) would think that Obama has gotten the same level of critical coverage that past presidents have had- particularly Bush, but even Clinton did not receive the level a favoritism that Obama seems to be enjoying now if Pew is to be believed.

I don't expect the media to collectively sling mud a Obama, but it sure would be nice if his agenda was viewed with a more critical eye and perhaps even a little bit of skepticism. When I look at headlines, half the stories mentioning the president read more like fawning celebrity worship instead of political reporting- see my food article above.

a completely inoffensive name

06-11-2009, 07:42

@Xiahou
Again, why should this be in a thread about the Obama Administration and not in a thread about news organizations and journalism? Talk about his policies, not about the media bending over for him please.

Crazed Rabbit

06-11-2009, 18:08

Obama's economic idiocy (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Administration-Rein-in-pay-apf-15500519.html?.v=6) continues:

US government seeks to rein in executive pay
Democrats want to push administration on US corporate pay strategies

* Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is taking a half-step toward taming U.S. executive pay. Some lawmakers prefer a fuller stride.

Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.

The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.

Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.

Government interference will just result in less efficiency, and a distortion of incentives.

Oh, and the American Medical Association, America's largest physician group, opposes any public insurance plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html), like Obama's:

Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: June 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

I guess the question is - will they listen? I doubt it.

CR

Lemur

06-12-2009, 00:37

Interesting on the AMA, I did little reading (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gwBv2MqIdSiqPhNbF7FcRf8CPyWwD98OMKD80), did not know that their membership had dropped so dramatically. Anyway, based on what I'm reading today, they're in more of a "conditional" opposition, depending on what is in the plan. Makes sense. I haven't seen the details, has anyone?

AMA's leaders agree that the nation's health system is sick. But the group has long opposed government intrusion into health care and believes reform can be achieved by revamping private health insurance plans.

Dr. Nancy Nielsen, AMA's president, says the group wants details on Obama's proposal for a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans.

In a written statement Thursday, she said the AMA "opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates."

But, she added, the AMA "is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress."

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Nielsen sounded more conciliatory than combative. She said AMA shares Obama's concern "that we need to have comprehensive health care reform" that offers everyone affordable, high-quality health insurance.

CountArach

06-12-2009, 01:31

AMA donates more to Republicans (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/american-medical-association-has-long.html) - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.

Xiahou

06-12-2009, 01:42

AMA donates more to Republicans (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/american-medical-association-has-long.html) - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.Holy cow- they donate more to the Republicans??? Then clearly, they are all scumbags- each and every one of them. Now, had they donated more to the Democrats, they'd be saints.....

Some more of the objective insight that I've come to expect from Nate.

a completely inoffensive name

06-12-2009, 03:16

Holy cow- they donate more to the Republicans??? Then clearly, they are all scumbags- each and every one of them. Now, had they donated more to the Democrats, they'd be saints.....

Some more of the objective insight that I've come to expect from Nate.

Who is Nate?

Lemur

06-12-2009, 03:22

Nate Silver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver), the unexpected star of the last election. He's a baseball statistical analyst who took his sports-stats techniques and applied them to politics, with more accurate results than any other public pollster. He's also well-liked by Dems and lefties at the moment, as the bearer of good tidings. From Wikipedia:

Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race that has been resolved.

We'll see if he's as well-liked when the news is bad for the Dems.

Here's his political polling/statistical analysis site. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

a completely inoffensive name

06-12-2009, 04:48

Nate Silver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver), the unexpected star of the last election. He's a baseball statistical analyst who took his sports-stats techniques and applied them to politics, with more accurate results than any other public pollster. He's also well-liked by Dems and lefties at the moment, as the bearer of good tidings. From Wikipedia:

Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race that has been resolved.We'll see if he's as well-liked when the news is bad for the Dems.

Here's his political polling/statistical analysis site. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

Oh thats right, he is the fivethirtyeight.com guy. I checked that website frequently during the election.

CountArach

06-12-2009, 06:33

Lemur

06-12-2009, 18:42

No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool: The Mother of All Absence Notes (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/11/obama_writes_fourth_grader_a_m.html?hpid=artslot)

John Corpus let his 10-year-old daughter, Kennedy, skip her last day of fourth grade at Aldo Leopold Community School to attend a packed town hall meeting where she could see the president of the United States up close. [...]

First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.

Does she need a note? Obama asked.

Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.

"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"

"Kennedy," Corpus replied.

"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.

"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."

Crazed Rabbit

06-12-2009, 20:28

AMA donates more to Republicans (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/american-medical-association-has-long.html) - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.

*rollseyes*

No, I think a better response is sustained laughter.

The leading Senate-side recipient of its campaign contributions since 1998 has been John Ensign of Nevada, to whom the AMA has given $30,000.

Oh noes! $30k! Over ten years, so about $3k a year. Yup, that's pretty massive.

Really though, the idea that simply because they donate more to republicans they are in this for themselves is absurd. And I mean absurd. What, besides partisanship, could cause you to state that the AMA is in it for themselves instead of simply supporting candidates they believe will do the best for health care? Maybe, as doctors, they have an insight into the fact that public health care isn't good?

If you want partisanship in organizations, look to Washington's teacher's union, which donates above 90% (IIRC) to democrats.

No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool:
Yes indeed.

CR

KukriKhan

06-13-2009, 00:45

CountArach

06-13-2009, 08:29

Really though, the idea that simply because they donate more to republicans they are in this for themselves is absurd. And I mean absurd. What, besides partisanship, could cause you to state that the AMA is in it for themselves instead of simply supporting candidates they believe will do the best for health care? Maybe, as doctors, they have an insight into the fact that public health care isn't good?
Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

KukriKhan

06-13-2009, 13:50

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

There's talk of eliminating 'per-patient' compensation, and making payment 'outcome based'. This, the doc's don't like much.

And gets the actuarial guys more involved, figuring the odds that x treatment will have y outcome. The fear is: if the oddsmakers decide that the odds are not good enough, = denial of compensation/funding for that treatment.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-13-2009, 16:20

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

Those damn doctors sitting on their piles of gold and many beautiful women! How dare those capitalist pigs earn a living for themselves on the illnesses of the workers! We must crush them comrade!

Lemur

06-13-2009, 17:50

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.
Grist for a different thread, I suppose, and we'll probably have one up once the new healthcare proposal gets made public.

That said ...

I don't know a single medical professional who's happy with the way things are now. One of the best doctors I knew in NYC stopped taking health insurance entirely, since he couldn't deal with the forms, the bureaucracy and the aggravation. You paid him cash, and you dealt with the insurance trolls.

Important fact: As the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, precious little of that money has made it to doctors and nurses. Their incomes have remained relatively flat, certainly not advancing at 14%-20% per year like our healthcare costs.

Crazed Rabbit

06-14-2009, 18:04

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.
So with nationalization, you lessen their pay and the incentive to become a doctor. Great plan. And if the NHS is any guide, the red tape will become worse. If I recall the one NHS doc here hates it.

One of the best doctors I knew in NYC stopped taking health insurance entirely, since he couldn't deal with the forms, the bureaucracy and the aggravation.

My Uncle-in-law joined the army as a doctor because he couldn't pay rising malpractice insurance (which might have been above $100k a year, I don't remember).

Anyways, more hospitals and medical peoples are opposing Obama: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090614/D98Q5L4O0.html

The president suggests trimming federal payments to hospitals by about $200 billion over the next 10 years, saying greater efficiencies and broader insurance coverage will justify the change. Hospitals, especially those with many poor patients, say the proposed cuts are unfair and will harm the sick and elderly.
...
Obama wants to reduce government payments for such services. He said the devices are used so frequently and efficiently that providers can spread their costs over many patients, requiring less government reimbursement.

The Access to Medical Imaging Coalition, a trade group, disagreed. It said the president's plan would "impair access to diagnostic imaging services and result in patients' delaying or forgoing life- and cost-savings imaging procedures." The group said Obama's efficiency estimates were based on a flawed survey.

And an opinion article by someone at Safeway and the plan they used to keep employee healthcare costs steady (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html) for the last four years (since the plan was implemented):

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.

Now, IIRC, Obama doesn't want insurers to be able to charge people with unhealthy habits more. Apparently it's unfair to the unhealthy. Who cares about the healthy - those who stay fit - or about the practical implications (people will have less incentive to stay fit). :wall:

Also, Obama is choosing some ambassadorships based on who gave him the most money in the campaign: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98OTD380.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday tapped four big Democratic Party donors for plum ambassadorships in Europe and Latin America while naming six career diplomats to posts in Africa, the Mideast and the Pacific.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-14-2009, 20:35

Interesting... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general)

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2009, 17:27

More of Obama's cunning diplomacy AKA angering allies:
America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americas-bermuda-solution-angers-britain-1704147.html)

America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain

Decision to send Guantanamo inmates to British colony sours 'special relationship'

By Kim Sengupta

Senior aides to President Barack Obama accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the UK being informed, it was revealed yesterday.

In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a "special relationship", with barely disguised contempt.

One senior official said: "The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally."

Is this really the improved diplomacy Obama was supposed to bring about?

CR

KukriKhan

06-18-2009, 14:12

On the domestic front: has anyone found yet any simple explanation of what kind of universal health care plan is being proposed/crafted? Or is it all hopelessly complicated? I keep hearing huge sums of money being thrown about (trillions), and the argument seems to be over just how many trillions it's gonna cost.

But what is being bought, exactly? From whom, and for whom?

For me personally currently, I pay about $35 per week (matched dollar-for-dollar by my employer) so that if I get in a car wreck and lose my legs (and car), I don't also lose my job, my house, and my pension to pay for fixing me up. It doesn't cover eyeglasses or dental - I pay for that out of pocket, as needed.

Is what is being discussed to provide everybody with this kind of coverage, working or not, or something more? Or less?

Lemur

06-18-2009, 14:18

Kukri, I don't believe any details or final proposals have been made public. Should be coming soon, though.

-edit-

Nice to see the major insurers digging holes, piling the dirt up neatly by the side, and placing convenient stone markers at the top. I mean, really, what the **** were they thinking (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,5870586.story)?

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. [...] An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses. [...]

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

Experts said it could undermine the industry's efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House.

"Talk about tone deaf," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala said the hearing could hurt the industry's efforts to position itself in the debate.

"The industry has tried very hard in this current effort not to be the bad guy, not to wear the black hat," Begala said. "The trouble is all that hard work and goodwill is at risk if in fact they are pursuing" such practices.

Current polling:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/galluphealthcare0617091.jpg

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-18-2009, 19:18

Barack Obama swatting a fly gets a video and an article in the BBC. Unbelievable. :dizzy2:

Xiahou

06-18-2009, 19:45

Interesting... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general)

That's a scandal that we haven't heard much about. :yes:

Here's a pretty lengthy writeup (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-fires-controversial-inspector-general-.html) on the saga from Jake Tapper.

From what I get, an Inspector General finds that hundreds of thousands of dollars from Americorps were misused by St. HOPE Academy and by Obama ally Kevin Johnson personally. The IG announced that he was referring Johnson and the Academy for criminal charges and both would be ineligible to receive any federal funds until the investigation concludes. The acting Attorney General announced that he reached a settlement that involved the return of about half of the money, including $70k+ from Johnson personally. They were also to admit that they inadequately tracked the federal funds and Johnson agreed to take online courses. The settlement cleared Johnson, as mayor of Sacramento, to receive stimulus funding.

The Inspector General in question claimed he was never informed of the proposed settlement and disagreed vehemently with it. Soon after, the White House fired the IG. That alone might be enough to raise eyebrows, but the grounds of the dismissal are also suspect.
Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.

Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, “the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Ironically, Obama co-sponsored this legislation. The administration has placed the IG on a 30days paid suspension prior to his firing. But, does that meet the legal requirements? By my reading of the above quote, it may not. If it's 30 days review before removal or transfer, a paid suspension sounds a lot like "removal or transfer".

Interesting indeed.

drone

06-18-2009, 19:48

Barack Obama swatting a fly gets a video and an article in the BBC. Unbelievable. :dizzy2:
No, this (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNw_VW9Dlp19RvvaxvSLo5TZRwSQD98SQ0606) is unbelievable.

PETA is so cute. ~:pat:

CountArach

06-19-2009, 01:22

No, this (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNw_VW9Dlp19RvvaxvSLo5TZRwSQD98SQ0606) is unbelievable.

PETA is so cute. ~:pat:
To be honest I don't crush flies for the same reason, unless I am particularly annoyed for some reason.

Mosquitoes on the other hand...

Lemur

06-19-2009, 02:21

PETA, seeing that it's in a hole, decides to dig furiously (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/06/18/update-peta-explains-criticism-over-obama-fly-swat/).

As we all know, human beings often don’t think before they act. We don’t condemn President Obama for acting on instinct. When the media began contacting us in droves for a statement, we obliged, simply by saying that the president isn’t the Buddha and shouldn’t be expected to do everything right—if not for that, we would not have brought it up. It’s the media who are making a big deal about the fly swat—not PETA. However, we took the opportunity, when asked, to point out that we do offer lots of ways in which to control insects of all kinds without harming them. There is even a chapter in PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk’s book, Making Kind Choices, about how to rid your home of “uninvited guests.”

We support compassion for all animals, even the most curious, smallest, and least sympathetic animals. We hope that everyone will take inspiration from Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who included insects in his realm of compassion and would stop to move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth.

I'm so old that I remember when PETA was a respectable organization.

LittleGrizzly

06-19-2009, 02:34

I don't see what thats wrong with what PETA did, it doesn't seem they went out of thier way to condem him for swatting a fly. They're just stating that they would prefer people didn't kill insects so needlessly.. which seems fair to me.

Crazed Rabbit

06-20-2009, 07:21

PETA, seeing that it's in a hole, decides to dig furiously (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/06/18/update-peta-explains-criticism-over-obama-fly-swat/).

I'm so old that I remember when PETA was a respectable organization.

What?! I've heard such fantastic legends before, but surely it cannot have ever been so!

Also on that site is this game: http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/06/18/overlord-ii-demo-probably-wont-win-any-gaming-awards-from-peta/

Which features you directing your minions to club baby seals, and then the hippie elves that protect them, to death.

CR

KukriKhan

06-20-2009, 13:27

So, 106 Billion Bucks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804094.html) for 90 days of war-fighting, AND some domestic programs as well, all off-budget, ala the last administration.

I'm old enough to remember LBJ's "guns 'n butter" duel-funding plan for the war on Viet Nam AND the war on poverty. It worked for awhile, but neither achieved its stated goal. Maybe history doesn't always repeat itself, but I think we need to tread lightly in mixing FoPo and domestic money.

AlexanderSextus

06-25-2009, 14:17

As a libertarian, i'm against the idea of the government providing health care, as i don't think the government should take care of people, but rather that people should take care of themselves.

However, i'm not afraid of it, and if it works, hey why knock it? I just got done watching Sicko and neither England, nor France have problems with it. The fact that the one woman got an inhaler that would have cost her like $120 for $.05 in CUBA of all places was ASTONISHING, to say the least.

Crazed Rabbit

06-25-2009, 18:08

However, i'm not afraid of it, and if it works, hey why knock it? I just got done watching Sicko and neither England, nor France have problems with it. The fact that the one woman got an inhaler that would have cost her like $120 for $.05 in CUBA of all places was ASTONISHING, to say the least.

Moore's movie? That's propaganda.

From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko)

MTV's Kurt Loder criticized the film as presenting cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions.[31] While admitting that the U.S. health care system needs reform, Loder criticized Moore’s advocacy of government control, arguing that many services controlled by the government are not considered efficient by the American public. Loder points to a 2005 documentary, Dead Meat, by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg, which documents long waiting lists for care in Canada. Loder points to calls for reform in Britain and France due to the same rationing.[32]

CR

Kralizec

06-25-2009, 21:04

Well, it's true that Cuba has quality health care.

It's so good in fact that many foreign countries gladly rent doctors and medical personel from Cuba, and because Cuba direly needs money to pay for (among other things) their elaborate health care system, they gladly accept :dizzy2:

rory_20_uk

06-25-2009, 21:18

A fairer comparison is looking at what Switzerland pays and the service they receive.

McKinsey has done some good work on comparing health services. As the UK spends about 9% and the USA about 17%GDP, it should be a hell of a lot better.

~:smoking:

CountArach

06-26-2009, 02:34

Moore's movie? That's propaganda.

From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko)

MTV's Kurt Loder criticized the film as presenting cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions.[31] While admitting that the U.S. health care system needs reform, Loder criticized Moore’s advocacy of government control, arguing that many services controlled by the government are not considered efficient by the American public. Loder points to a 2005 documentary, Dead Meat, by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg, which documents long waiting lists for care in Canada. Loder points to calls for reform in Britain and France due to the same rationing.[32]

CR
A combination of two of the world's greatest sources :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

06-29-2009, 02:18

A combination of two of the world's greatest sources :laugh4:

*looks at CA's source in the Honduras thread*

Anyways, You know Mr. transparency and everything? Apparently the new White House web site is harder to find actual info on than Bush's, and is more oriented towards showing off flattering pictures of Obama. (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/23/obamas-web-site-has-fresh-style-but-data-is-still-/)

Information is harder to find on the Obama Web site than it was on the site created and run by the Bush administration, according to Web site experts.

"It doesn't seem to be quite in line with the notion of the pillars of government 2.0 being openness and transparency. It seems just the opposite," said Mark Drapeau, a columnist for Federal Computer Week who writes frequently on the ways that new technologies can be used by the government.

Mr. Drapeau and others said this might be a short-term trend, as the administration has begun a long-term effort to use new technologies to open up the government that could have a big impact on the way the public interacts with the federal bureaucracy and keeps track of its actions.

The biggest difference is that the Bush Web site archived all its information by year, month and day, with a sidebar menu that allowed a user to view virtually all the information from, for example, a day in 2002 -- speech transcripts along with video and audio of the speech, press releases, official statements, nominations, letters to Congress, executive orders -- with three clicks of the mouse.

The same information on the Obama site, however, is spread across various parts of the Web site. The longer ago something happened, the harder it is to find.

"It's lots of PR and not a lot of data," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, who called the site "brochureware."

CR

CountArach

06-29-2009, 04:55

*looks at CA's source in the Honduras thread*
:laugh4: I just went with what a mate linked me to. Couldn't be bothered to dig through anything else. All of the MSM just say the exact same thing and are incredibly short on details.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-29-2009, 04:58

Moore lies and implies through his teeth. Ever since laughing through half of Bowling for Columbine I never trusted a word the man said again.

Xiahou

07-02-2009, 18:08

KukriKhan

07-03-2009, 02:16

Things get awkward (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/01/cbs_helen_thomas_challenge_gibbs_on_controlled_town_hall_meeting.html) at a press briefing when Gibbs is questioned about Obama's use of pre-packaged "townhall" meetings.

Gibbs is a piece of work, idn't 'e? Kudo's to the off-screen AP guy, who Gibbs is desperately trying to get to, to avoid more Helen exposure: "I think I'll wait until Helen is done". :laugh4:

Six months. Apparently the bloom is off the rose. They got him elected, and are now wondering about the "news" being handed to them. This failure to adequately kowtow to the media (IMO) is a tactical admin error. The admin needs the continued support of television media for at least the rest of this year. After that, the wheels will already be rolling on the programs, and the press can be sidelined as 'nattering nabobs of negativity', as all admins in the past have.

I predict Gibbs gets promoted out of the position. By Labor Day. And by this time next year, journalists, if there are any left in the country, will begin looking at details, instead of entertainment value. Finally.

Crazed Rabbit

07-28-2009, 06:04

A sad display (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/27/2009-07-27_7_months_after_letter_mom_of_murdered_marine_sgt_pietrzak_gets_form_response_fro.html)of communication from the White House:

Seven months after she poured out her heartbreak in a wrenching letter to then President-elect Obama, the mother of murdered Brooklyn Marine Sgt. Jan Pawel Pietrzak finally got a response - a form letter.

"Thank you for contacting President Obama," the note to Henryka Pietrzak-Varga begins. "We hope the issue you brought to the President's attention has been resolved."
...
In her November 2008 letter to Obama, Pietrzak-Varga opened with the words: "Dear President-elect Barack Obama, they killed my son."

Pietrzak-Varga then asked for help in getting to the bottom of the "bestial" murders.

"Death at war at the hands of an enemy is, for a soldier, a patriotic honor," she wrote in Polish. "The death of a soldier in his country and at the hands of his own soldiers ... is a source of endless suffering for his family."

Pietrzak-Varga went on to write that "My son's wife was raped in a bestial way, most likely as my son looked on helplessly."

"Why did this happen? What motivated them? What was it about my son and daughter-in-law that inspired such hatred and loathing?"

In his five-paragraph reply, Kelleher apologized for the delay in getting back to her and urged the Brooklyn mom to send an "updated description of your issue" if "you still need help with a Federal agency."

Kelleher also provided a Web address.

Sheesh.

CR

Xiahou

08-03-2009, 07:41

There's no part of this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_guantanamo_detainees) I don't like. :dizzy2:

The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.

The facility would operate as a hybrid prison system jointly operated by the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration's plan, according to three government officials, calls for:

_Moving all the Guantanamo detainees to a single U.S. prison. The Justice Department has identified between 60 and 80 who could be prosecuted, either in military or federal criminal courts. The Pentagon would oversee the detainees who would face trial in military tribunals. The Bureau of Prisons, an arm of the Justice Department, would manage defendants in federal courts.

_Building a court facility within the prison site where military or criminal defendants would be tried. Doing so would create a single venue for almost all the criminal defendants, ending the need to transport them elsewhere in the U.S. for trial.

_Providing long-term holding cells for a small but still undetermined number of detainees who will not face trial because intelligence and counterterror officials conclude they are too dangerous to risk being freed.

_Building immigration detention cells for detainees ordered released by courts but still behind bars because countries are unwilling to take them.So, on one hand, it makes an even more convoluted mess out of the detainee situation by putting it under the bureaucratic supervision of no less than three cabinet departments, yet at the same time, nothing is changing from the detainee perspective. There's still an "undetermined" number that will be held indefinitely without charge, others will be charged by military tribunal, and others still will be sent to civilian courts. As you may recall, that's not a whole lot different than what was happening in Gitmo. But hey, he promised to close the detention facility in Gitmo, so instead, we can keep them.... in Michigan. :inquisitive:

drone

08-03-2009, 23:56

But hey, he promised to close the detention facility in Gitmo, so instead, we can keep them.... in Michigan. :inquisitive:

Take him to... Detroit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g09GtnWdBjc)

Lord Winter

08-04-2009, 06:07

Xiahou

08-05-2009, 23:36

File this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) under 'slightly creepy'.
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.There's just something inherently wrong about the White House asking people to turn in anyone spreading "disinformation"...:sweatdrop:

Take him to... Detroit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g09GtnWdBjc)Nice find.:laugh4:

Xiahou

08-25-2009, 07:53

Shocking, I know, but extraordinary renditions are continuing under the Obama Administration (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss).
The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.

Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called “diplomatic assurances,” were no protection against abuse.

Ronin

08-25-2009, 11:26

File this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) under 'slightly creepy'.There's just something inherently wrong about the White House asking people to turn in anyone spreading "disinformation"...:sweatdrop:

I would say that the inherently wrong thing is the disinformation in the first place....wouldn´t you say?

Centurion1

08-25-2009, 19:21

I would say that the inherently wrong thing is the disinformation in the first place....wouldn´t you say?

it is there constitutional right to spread whatever they want to. As long as it does not directly harm anyone.

Xiahou

09-01-2009, 06:25

From the McClatchy: Pentagon worried about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3303057)

"I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier," a senior Pentagon official said. "We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war."

Monday's assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later, advisers to McChrystal said. Although the White House took a hands-off approach toward Afghanistan earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said they're now getting more questions about how many troops might be needed and for how long.

Some White House officials said the administration feels it was pressured to send the additional 17,500 combat troops and 4,000 trainers earlier this year, before the administration was comfortable with its plan for Afghanistan , because of the country's election in August.After all the talk on the campaign trail of Iraq being the wrong war and Afghanistan being the right one, it looks like there are some early signs that the administration is already beginning to waver....

Sasaki Kojiro

09-01-2009, 06:39

The afghanistan thing seemed like something he touted so he could criticize the iraq war without looking like a pacifist.

CountArach

09-01-2009, 15:29

After all the talk on the campaign trail of Iraq being the wrong war and Afghanistan being the right one, it looks like there are some early signs that the administration is already beginning to waver....
Good.

Also - see Sasaki.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-02-2009, 03:02

So your mad that Obama can't read every letter sent to him, even ones in polish?

He could have had someone translate it. If you're pouring out that much money in stimulus you can probably afford it (it's a mini-stimulus in itself anyway). And he has time for one letter, one single letter, from the mother of one of the soldiers of whom he is in command. This is especially disgusting after the gruesome details of what happened to the couple.

I'd be insulted if I were a Marine.

Xiahou

09-02-2009, 07:01

The afghanistan thing seemed like something he touted so he could criticize the iraq war without looking like a pacifist.Yeah, I'd agree. But then again, I thought Obama spent most of the campaign trying to (and succeeding) convince voters that he was something he was not.

Papewaio

09-02-2009, 08:19

A politician pretending to be something he is not! Say it is not so. Does, does that mean Clinton did get it on with the pretty little thing in the blue dress :drama2:

I do actually agree with you... the thing with all sales and marketing is that at some point you have to deliver what you promise or expect a real dip in your brand.

Lord Winter

09-02-2009, 08:36

He could have had someone translate it. If you're pouring out that much money in stimulus you can probably afford it (it's a mini-stimulus in itself anyway). And he has time for one letter, one single letter, from the mother of one of the soldiers of whom he is in command. This is especially disgusting after the gruesome details of what happened to the couple.

I'd be insulted if I were a Marine.

I think the blame rides in the bureaucracy reading the mail. Unless if they already had orders to look for the name there's no way you can expect special treatment.

Also the event in question happened in Bush's reign.

ICantSpellDawg

09-03-2009, 00:26

This administration is becoming a nightmare rather quickly. I honestly didn't think Democrats had the balls to incinerate our country.

Can anyone honestly say that the new "pledge to serve our president" video doesn't make your skin crawl?

Lemur

09-03-2009, 19:33

Can anyone honestly say that the new "pledge to serve our president" video doesn't make your skin crawl?
Had to Google that one. Taking a look, it's rather silly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0). A bunch of celebs pledging "allegiance to the funk," etc. Ridiculous? Certainly. Making my skin crawl? Only to the usual extent when Ashton and Demi think that their opinions matter to me.

I note that this video dates to January 2009. Are you referring to something newer?

Adrian II

09-03-2009, 20:44

drone

09-03-2009, 20:55

Well, I hear he drinks the blood of children to stay young and vibrant... :yes:

In reality, there just isn't that much news right now. He's too smart and media-savvy to pull real boneheaded moves in public like Bush did. Congress has been out of session. And apart from outlandish tales told be the righter side of the media, the press seems to be giving him a pass for now. I'm thinking that this will end this winter, once his first year goes by they will start being more critical. At this point, his administration earns a big "Meh". Nothing too bad, but nothing too good either.

Louis VI the Fat

09-03-2009, 21:05

I look in to this thread from time to time to catch the latest Obama gossip, but it disappoints me every time. This month there appears to be something about a letter that's gone wrong. And some anonymous source in the Pentagon saying that Obama is not showing the commitment to the Afghan war that some anonymous source in the Pentagon expects. And .. well that's it, really.

Big deal. :coffeenews:The action is in healthcare. Everything's simply spend on discussing that. Both in the Backroom and in RL.

The good news is that the Republicans don't have anything better than some pimped and sensationalized non-stories to create outrage over Obama with.
Meanwhile, Obama occupies himself with settling dramatised and sensationalized liberal non-stories with beer diplomacy in the White House Garden.

All of which means he is free to throw his weight where it's needed, in healthcare. I even suspect Obama of being politically savvy enough to deliberately avoid controversy for the time being.

drone

09-03-2009, 22:51

Had to Google that one. Taking a look, it's rather silly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0). A bunch of celebs pledging "allegiance to the funk," etc. Ridiculous? Certainly. Making my skin crawl? Only to the usual extent when Ashton and Demi think that their opinions matter to me.

I note that this video dates to January 2009. Are you referring to something newer?

He might be referring to this:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/02/obama%E2%80%99s-classroom-campaign-no-junior-lobbyist-left-behind/

Don Corleone

09-05-2009, 01:08

I don't know Louis. That teflon is peeling in layers now. I don't think anybody in the Backroom would confuse me with an Obama supporter, and even I feel bad for the guy over this. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AGCI3G1&show_article=1) :embarassed:

This is about as low as it gets. The guy tries to talk to kids about working hard, setting goals for themselves and staying in school... and we get... comparisons to North Korea. :no:

Partisanship, at the expense of statesmanship.... I'll grant you Obama has been a bit wounded lately, but you all mark my words, the Republicans seriously overplayed their hand this time and its going to boomerang on them. Yes, the Democrats were petty in 1991, and gave H.W. Bush grief. This was the Republicans' chance to show that they are better than that.....

... or not, as the case may be. What the hell has happened to us? :shame:

Hosakawa Tito

09-05-2009, 01:51

Yeah Don I heard this on talk radio this morning while running errands. This is partisanship run amok and the lies seem to get more outrageous as we go. It's like the GOP is playing to the extreme fringe and will say or do anything. I agree with you that this will boomerang on the Republicans. I mean come on, anyone who is willing to stop a minute and think with their brain can't possibly believe this stuff.

Louis VI the Fat

09-05-2009, 01:58

this. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AGCI3G1&show_article=1)

What the hell has happened to us? :shame:I would say that Silly Season has happened to you..

...but then, these are not supposed to last for decades. So: sheesh! Some people really need to spend some time in Libya, that they can learn to tell the difference between that sort of place and America.

Good grief. He's the president, and it is the start of the new school season?

I wonder - where does partisanship end and divisive attacks on America's most fundamental institutions begin?

Xiahou

09-05-2009, 07:37

In another case of what was surely top notch vetting, Obama had appointed Van Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones) as his Green Jobs Advisor. Recently, it came to light that among many things, he is a 9/11 Truther (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633). (Signatory #46)

He's also described himself as a Communist and revolutionary, and supporter of Mumia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia), the Black Panther who murderd a Philadelphia Police Officer. Basically, the guy is about as far out on the kook left fringe as you can get.

You can listen to him talk about how white polluters steer poison into black communities, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gOmIalJVw). Ever wonder how people get the idea (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true) that environmentalists are just stealth communists? :inquisitive:

In the end, the consensus seems to be that it's the 9/11 Truther label that will do him in, with most predicting he'll be out by Monday. Anyone want to make their own prediction?

seireikhaan

09-05-2009, 13:37

Banquo's Ghost

09-05-2009, 13:59

Well, depends. He might be a loon on several matters, but if he's genuinely qualified in the field of renewable/'green' energy, then I see no reason to dismiss him so long as he keeps his trap shut except for what he's being paid to do.

The simplest reason is that politically, he is going to be a huge liability.

If he has such unusual (and actually quite offensive) views on the events of 9-11, he is hardly likely to have much credibility on global warming. The impacts and causes of the latter are subject to some controversy, and having someone of such sensibilities trying to further an environmental agenda is just grist to the mill of those who would derail the president's policies.

ICantSpellDawg

09-05-2009, 14:26

Banquo's Ghost

09-05-2009, 14:33

I've got a question for all of you Obama voters. Do any of you think he is doing any semblance of a good job so far?

I clearly didn't vote for him and I'm not upset about his foreign policy at all - but on the domestic front I had no idea that he would be this close to epic failure and ineptitude this quickly. I honestly expected a more even keel from the guy I didn't vote for.

Would it be possible for you to enumerate the domestic policies that you think are close to "epic fail"? Particularly those in his manifesto that the majority voted for, rather than just those you disagreed with on principle.

ICantSpellDawg

09-05-2009, 15:28

Would it be possible for you to enumerate the domestic policies that you think are close to "epic fail"? Particularly those in his manifesto that the majority voted for, rather than just those you disagreed with on principle.

The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.

Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.

Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?

I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.

There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.

seireikhaan

09-05-2009, 17:09

The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.
Would any of this have to do with outlandish claims such as "death panels" that keep getting thrown out by the RNC, in blatant attempts to do nothing but stop any reform, regardless of what is in it? Bearing in mind, the Prez is not responsible for legislation anyways. Surely someone as concerned with checks and balances would recognize that it is congress' failing for not settling on adequate legislation? Obama can be a cheerleader or bully, but nothing more.

Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.
I'm assuming you were referring to the situation with the Harvard professor? He was entirely correct in in assessing that the officers behaved poorly. Further, the situations seems fairly resolved and out of the news. Blew by in a week or two, and haven't heard from it since. Not exactly a thunderstorm of activity, especially considering it was the media who felt it was so important despite that it was a brief statement about at the very end of a q&a about healthcare.

Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?
What center? I am hearing of no center. I hear of people screaming "don't socialize my medicare!" and "Those objectors are acting like nazis!" I hear very few in the center, because both republican and democrat are making so bizarre and false claims about the other that everything else is drowned out in our never ending, real life Jerry Springer episode.

As for his communication, he sure seems to be making a pretty strong effort to get his own message out there, whether via email, facebook, etc.... You are correct, however, that rationalization seems not oft-well communicated in these attempts.

I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.

There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.
Again, I do not see how you can blame him for the unity issue- the RNC is being stunningly obstinate. Obama greets the possibility of cutting medicare expenses for the budget hawks, and Steel rejects (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/steele-today-dont-cut-medicare-steele-in-2006-cut-medicare.php) the notion and even goes to the effort to "warn seniors" of the possibility. So even when Obama does try to throw out ideas for Republicans to work with, they're spitting back in his face anyways. I fail to see how he's responsible for that.

ICantSpellDawg

09-05-2009, 17:38

So you blame the Republicans for his failures to date? Or are you saying that there have been no failures?

seireikhaan

09-05-2009, 17:48

So you blame the Republicans for his failures to date? Or are you saying that there have been no failures?
How on earth do you interpret my previous statements like that? I explained what I interpreted point by point, the least you could do is give the courtesy of doing likewise instead of trying to throw me into a corner. I think I've explained my position adequately on your claims, and if you aren't willing to engage in constructive debate, then I am done.

ICantSpellDawg

09-05-2009, 17:58

Would any of this have to do with outlandish claims such as "death panels" that keep getting thrown out by the RNC, in blatant attempts to do nothing but stop any reform, regardless of what is in it? Bearing in mind, the Prez is not responsible for legislation anyways. Surely someone as concerned with checks and balances would recognize that it is congress' failing for not settling on adequate legislation? Obama can be a cheerleader or bully, but nothing more. .

Blaming Republicans instead. I'm sure he'll take the credit if it happens

I'm assuming you were referring to the situation with the Harvard professor? He was entirely correct in in assessing that the officers behaved poorly. Further, the situations seems fairly resolved and out of the news. Blew by in a week or two, and haven't heard from it since. Not exactly a thunderstorm of activity, especially considering it was the media who felt it was so important despite that it was a brief statement about at the very end of a q&a about healthcare.
.

You are saying that the president was right to immediately assume that the officers had behaved poorly. I don't agree; that the officers behaved poorly or that he should have jumped to that conclusion as an auto trigger.

What center? I am hearing of no center. I hear of people screaming "don't socialize my medicare!" and "Those objectors are acting like nazis!" I hear very few in the center, because both republican and democrat are making so bizarre and false claims about the other that everything else is drowned out in our never ending, real life Jerry Springer episode. .

You are claiming that there is no center.

As for his communication, he sure seems to be making a pretty strong effort to get his own message out there, whether via email, facebook, etc.... You are correct, however, that rationalization seems not oft-well communicated in these attempts..

Thanks. Fair.

Again, I do not see how you can blame him for the unity issue- the RNC is being stunningly obstinate. Obama greets the possibility of cutting medicare expenses for the budget hawks, and Steel rejects (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/steele-today-dont-cut-medicare-steele-in-2006-cut-medicare.php) the notion and even goes to the effort to "warn seniors" of the possibility. So even when Obama does try to throw out ideas for Republicans to work with, they're spitting back in his face anyways. I fail to see how he's responsible for that.

Blaming Republicans instead.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-05-2009, 21:09

How on earth do you interpret my previous statements like that? I explained what I interpreted point by point, the least you could do is give the courtesy of doing likewise instead of trying to throw me into a corner. I think I've explained my position adequately on your claims, and if you aren't willing to engage in constructive debate, then I am done.

Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you :whip:

ICantSpellDawg

09-05-2009, 22:16

Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you :whip:

Finally, somebody gets it.

seireikhaan

09-05-2009, 22:38

Blaming Republicans instead. I'm sure he'll take the credit if it happens
Somewhat. I was blaming both republicans and congress as a whole, which is of course controlled by democrats. To say I was blaming Republicans only is selective reading.

You are saying that the president was right to immediately assume that the officers had behaved poorly. I don't agree; that the officers behaved poorly or that he should have jumped to that conclusion as an auto trigger.
Immediately assume? You act as though there were not accounts of it. There was fault on both sides of the incident(the professor and the officers), but frankly, that a man can be held up while getting into his own home is frankly absurd. I would probably be angry myself if such an incident happened.

You are claiming that there is no center.
Hardly. I'm pointing out that nobody can hear the center due to the left/right shout match. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Blaming Republicans instead.
On the instance of your accusation of a lack of unity, yes. The RNC is being quite uncooperative, even when pro-traditional republican pillars of political philosophy are handed out. You did not counter this.

Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you :whip:
If I was unclear, then Tuff should have queried my point in a manner that wasn't aggressive, absurd, and, quite honestly, irritating.

Lemur

09-06-2009, 00:25

Don't mind Sasaki Kojiro, Shinseikhaan. He doesn't participate in conversations much, but he's a real firecracker when it comes to declaring who is and is not communicating adequately. He operates exclusively on the meta-conversational level. It's all terribly postmodern.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-06-2009, 00:46

If I was unclear, then Tuff should have queried my point in a manner that wasn't aggressive, absurd, and, quite honestly, irritating.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. In this case, you are as obama, trying to have an open discussion with people of the backroom, and Tuff is as the RNC, deliberately avoiding such discussion and then blaming you for not having one.

ICantSpellDawg

09-06-2009, 01:04

Yes, I was agreeing with you. In this case, you are as obama, trying to have an open discussion with people of the backroom, and Tuff is as the RNC, deliberately avoiding such discussion and then blaming you for not having one.

Right. Can you honestly say that you are not slightly bummed by Obama's performance in general? Even I thought he'd be a more impressive President. Blame the Republicans alll you wan't, but what did you think was going to happen when he tried to get the policies of the left put in to place? Were we supposed to roll over and like it?

You honestly think that the public option is reasonable and non-partisan? Or what about the reports that the option itself is holding health care reform hostage? "There will be no reform without a public option". BS. They have helped alienate themselves on the issue, take it or leave it. Of course the government will have to subsidize those who are unwilling or unable to pay for their own health care, but a public system is a new entitlement.

Republicans are just another opposition party. You villify them all you wan't, but the emotional arguement that "Republicans are bad and Democrats are your friends" is running out of juice. We want to get back to negotiating ground and we will. It is hard to do that currently so we need to get there through attrition.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-06-2009, 02:50

Right. Can you honestly say that you are not slightly bummed by Obama's performance in general? Even I thought he'd be a more impressive President. Blame the Republicans alll you wan't, but what did you think was going to happen when he tried to get the policies of the left put in to place? Were we supposed to roll over and like it?

I haven't payed much attention to the news and won't until it's time to vote again. You can't tell if most presidents are good until maybe 20 years later. In any case, I do believe that most forward progress is made in small steps, which aren't necessarily impressive.

You honestly think that the public option is reasonable and non-partisan? Or what about the reports that the option itself is holding health care reform hostage? "There will be no reform without a public option". BS. They have helped alienate themselves on the issue, take it or leave it. Of course the government will have to subsidize those who are unwilling or unable to pay for their own health care, but a public system is a new entitlement.

I know very little about it. A shame, but I don't have any effect on the outcome right now anyway :juggle2:

Republicans are just another opposition party. You villify them all you wan't, but the emotional arguement that "Republicans are bad and Democrats are your friends" is running out of juice. We want to get back to negotiating ground and we will. It is hard to do that currently so we need to get there through attrition.

The only time real negotiation occurs in when they need the votes to pass the bill, or when it's not a divisive issue. The party with the votes makes a show of it, and the party without the votes complains about it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-06-2009, 06:02

Van Jones is gone. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjHS8S3jIndU2oI6WHB_KqB-pvwAD9AHJBMG1) Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

Crazed Rabbit

09-06-2009, 07:55

Van Jones is gone. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjHS8S3jIndU2oI6WHB_KqB-pvwAD9AHJBMG1) Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

Indeed. The racist 9/11 'truther' is out and we're all the better for it.

It'll be interesting to see if the major media (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html) finally starts covering it.

CR

Banquo's Ghost

09-06-2009, 09:35

Thank you for the response, Tuff. Apologies for the thread having moved on a bit since I asked.

The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.

I agree that the goal he set out is receding, but this often happens in a democracy where compromise is necessary. I would argue that he was much less radical than I expected him to be, so his inevitable compromises are watering down the proposals towards meaninglessness. My disappointment would be that he does not seem to be as courageous for change as initially hoped, but that is always the case - once governing, reality steps in as the art of the possible.

You say that most Americans recognise the need for reform, but there is precious little evidence of that beyond a vague yearning. Like most electorates, they want something but don't want to face the hard consequences - such as paying for what they desire. The Opposition is exploiting this, rather destructively, in my opinion, rather than formulating a coherent, costed and popular alternative.

President Obama's real problem, it seems to me, is his own side. The Democratic Congress is not whipped (in the Parliamentary sense) and are focussing on personal electability and the usual pork provisions rather than the manifesto commitment to healthcare reform. I think he could do with being harder on them, but as someone else noted, in the end it is Congress that enacts legislation.

However, I don't see the epic fail. President Clinton failed on healthcare reform with a complete wipeout, and yet still got elected for a second term. An Obama failure would indeed be epic, but only for the millions of citizens with no access to healthcare, because no-one of any party will attempt reform for decades.

Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.

I wasn't aware that the president made general racial harmony a key plank of his manifesto. The mere fact that a person of colour was elected to the White House is the revolution. Centuries of racial division are hardly going to be erased by a president.

Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?

I would agree that I don't think he has found his stride yet. Healthcare is a big mire to jump into, but it is probably sensible to get in it early, since if it goes wrong he has a couple of years to recover. The economy is out of most administrations' hands across the world. While I disagree with the stimulus solutions, I am pretty sure that in three or four years' time, things will be looking much rosier and Obama will get the credit. His number one asset is that he is lucky.

I see no evidence that the centre is infuriated. I see lots of people at both ends of the extreme making "infuriated" into a career choice. I suspect most citizens who consider themselves rational and of the centre are quietly despairing at the nature of modern US politics. They are more concerned about their jobs etc than whether Obama is actually Hitler. As noted, in a couple of years when the storm clouds about the economy start lifting, they will vote for President Obama again - less enthusiastically, believing in miracles a little less, but grateful for the sea-change and fearing what the GOP may have frothed itself into.

I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.

Well, you made a point about domestic politics, so I will stick to that area of policy for fear of disagreeing with you on his competence. :beam:

There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.

I fear your great nation is hell-bent on the destruction of its democracy by embracing astonishing lunacies on both sides. As an outside observer, this started in its current horrible form when the Republicans decided to attack a popular President Clinton using impeachment instead of challenging him on policy. That and the stolen election of 2000 invoked a similarly feral attack mentality from the Democratic party, outmatched viciousness for viciousness by the Rove machine.

This increasing contempt for the office of the President is reaching a nadir in this administration. There are things now said as mainstream that I would consider sedition and practically treasonable. The country - now so dependent on media - appears almost unable to source unbiased news and politicians do not appeal to the intellect of the citizenry, but their basest instincts. There is precious little debate from the Opposition, just more and more strident screeching.

This is not a malady that affects only the United States, but your obsession with entirely free speech has exacerbated it to the nth degree. I believe the great groundswell of affection for President Obama that had him elected was that people really did want a change - to intellectual, calm and reasoned leadership. I think he still brings that, and should the screaming from the other side abate, the people will continue to respond to that hope.

(But then it should be recalled that I am an Old World aristocrat, steeped in the belief that the peasantry need not be heeded all that much, and thusly my opinions on your brave New World are entirely irrelevant :beam:).

Hosakawa Tito

09-06-2009, 13:10

This increasing contempt for the office of the President is reaching a nadir in this administration. There are things now said as mainstream that I would consider sedition and practically treasonable. The country - now so dependent on media - appears almost unable to source unbiased news and politicians do not appeal to the intellect of the citizenry, but their basest instincts. There is precious little debate from the Opposition, just more and more strident screeching.

This appears to be the campaigning strategy du jour for all levels of government be they local, state or federal. It's always been there to some degree, but seems to be getting worse every election cycle. The opposition employs divisive opportunity politics that caters to the fears & anger of the lunatic fringe instead of reasonable alternative compromises in order to discredit the party in power. Monied interests don't want significant change to their lucrative piece of the action and lavish "free speech" upon those that enact legislation to protect that interest. In regards to the health care industry that means profits-to-the-nth degree versus humanity. For the political class it's a win-win situation. Whatever happens they keep their platinum parachute health care & pensions.

We need to remove this political self interest and penchant for doing/saying anything to stay in power at our expense.....term limits/pension & health care limits for all politicians.

Tribesman

09-06-2009, 14:33

It'll be interesting to see if the major media finally starts covering it.

That is very sloppy journalism, did they ever consider just looking at the news sources for the news instead of doing a silly internet search?
What is funny though is that if you type those actual words in you get loads of matches , all from wingnut bloggers repeating the examiner "news" story

Louis VI the Fat

09-06-2009, 15:28

There are things now said as mainstream that I would consider sedition and practically treasonable. America's democracy is incredibly sturdy, the people embrace freedom and their state as a core value of Americanism, and there is no international storm brewing. Thank Heavens, because other than that, I sometimes feel like reading extracts directly from Spain, 1935. Lunatuc fringes screaming so loud and intermittently, that the centre gets crushed.

Call me postmodern, but I'm with Sasaki. His take on the RNC is spot on.

(But then it should be recalled that I am an Old World aristocrat, steeped in the belief that the peasantry need not be heeded all that much, and thusly my opinions on your brave New World are entirely irrelevant :beam:).Pah! Admit it...deep down inside, you are a revolutionary. :smash:

Reactionary aristocracism is for trade anyway, for those parvenus without the assured calmness of mind that security of position through anciennity brings.

La Fayette you'd be to America.

Banquo's Ghost

09-06-2009, 16:15

La Fayette you'd be to America.

Sir, you do me too much honour. :bow:

ICantSpellDawg

09-06-2009, 16:16

Thank you for the response, Tuff. Apologies for the thread having moved on a bit since I asked.

No prob. Thanks for the response to my response.

We live in the most powerful nation on earth. The most power hungry people on earth come here to gain the pinnacle prize. Would you expect civility? We arn't some backwater like we were in the 1800's. Jerks arn't playing for peanuts and small fries like they are in the various European countries. We get the real baddies angling for power here.

There will be blood in the streets again, you can almost guarantee it. We are animals after all and we love war.

There is quite a bit to Ron Paul's vision for America - a smaller, state centered power net merely protected by a federalized system from external threats. That's a new concept. You want a more stable United States with less global dominance? Encourage us to get back to our roots.

KukriKhan

09-06-2009, 16:22

Pah! Admit it...deep down inside, you are a revolutionary. :smash:

La Fayette you'd be to America.

Heh. With a healthy dose of de Tocqueville.

Xiahou

09-07-2009, 03:13

Indeed. The racist 9/11 'truther' is out and we're all the better for it.

It'll be interesting to see if the major media (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html) finally starts covering it.

CR
You'll love this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zna_MAe1Ycs). It's a Meet the Press clip, where they, using Van Jones as an example, bemoan how the Internet and bloggers are able to dig up everything about people's history(that they themselves miss). They go on to lament the free flow of information, calling it "an open sewer" and warning people against consuming news without a filter (ie: them). My expression during most of this: :inquisitive:

Sasaki Kojiro

09-07-2009, 03:59

You'll love this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zna_MAe1Ycs). It's a Meet the Press clip, where they, using Van Jones as an example, bemoan how the Internet and bloggers are able to dig up everything about people's history(that they themselves miss). They go on to lament the free flow of information, calling it "an open sewer" and warning people against consuming news without a filter (ie: them). My expression during most of this: :inquisitive:

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject. They weren't bemoaning that van jones was caught out. They don't object to the internet necessarily either, just the way people take information they read their for granted. I think we can all agree with that.

Though I wouldn't place to much trust in what I heard on meet the press either :juggle2:

Lemur

09-07-2009, 04:04

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject.
Full clip. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32713948#32713948)

ICantSpellDawg

09-07-2009, 04:46

Full clip. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32713948#32713948)

A true bastion of objectivity that "Meet the Press" is.

Lemur

09-07-2009, 06:27

A true bastion of objectivity that "Meet the Press" is.
Yup, with screaming leftines such as Rudy Giuliani beating the drum for socialism.

Face it, the people making noise about Obama talking to schoolchildren are out of their minds. And many of the loudest are hypocrites (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/orl-loc-maxwell-greer-obama-090509,0,3762186.column?ref=none).

There once was a political operative who loved to tell crowds he had a simple way of explaining to children the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

"Republicans get up and go to work," he would tell his son. "Democrats get up and go down to the mailbox to get their checks."

This man not only talked to his son about Republican values, he went into public-school classrooms and talked about them as well.

That man is Jim Greer — the same Jim Greer who, as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, just threw a nationwide hissy fit, claiming that the classroom is no place for politics and Barack Obama's "indoctrination."

One Seminole County mother, Barbara Wells, remembers the day Greer spoke to her son's sixth-grade class. "My son said he made some sort of Hillary Clinton joke," she recalled.

But you know what? Wells didn't pitch a fit.

She didn't call up the local TV station to scream about Republican indoctrination.

Instead, she advised her son: "Whatever you are told in life, remember there are two sides to every story."

In fact, Wells didn't even think much about Greer's foray into her son's classroom until she saw him on TV complaining about Obama.

There's no longer any question: Greer is a hypocrite.

Xiahou

09-07-2009, 08:24

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject.Nope. Lemur was nice enough to prove that theory wrong.
They don't object to the internet necessarily either, just the way people take information they read their for granted. I think we can all agree with that.Yeah, the guy just calls it 'an open sewer'. We all know that open sewers have lots of positive qualities too... right? The insipid, self-serving nature of their discussion just wowed me. Using Van Jones(a case in point of them completely dropping the ball and the "open sewer" succeeding where they failed) as a jumping off point was the icing on the cake.

Though I wouldn't place to much trust in what I heard on meet the press either :juggle2:That's the whole point. :yes:

ICantSpellDawg

09-07-2009, 15:18

Yup, with screaming leftines such as Rudy Giuliani beating the drum for socialism.

Face it, the people making noise about Obama talking to schoolchildren are out of their minds
[/INDENT]

Fox news usually has a token liberal in their midst, but I wouldn't hear you argueing for their objectivity. Who were the other guests at the well-rounded table?

Many of the loudest are usually hippocrites. I believe that he is able to address school children. What people are concerned about is the level of audacity in his approach to things. He is taking liberties that other Presidents wouldn't take. More money to government, more power to government. The same guy wants to have an unfiltered one on one with impressionable minds and it can leave people a bit queesy. Sure he can, he is the President, but when consolidating federal authority seems to be his hallmark thus far, an approach on children understandably makes parents who disagree uneasy.

Hell, I havn't gotten over the idea of state funded teachers forcibly gaining parental rights over our children without our consent, but I must be a wingnut.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-07-2009, 19:46

Nope. Lemur was nice enough to prove that theory wrong.

What? :dizzy2:

You talk about Van Jones as well, you know, the fact that in this, in this media age, what he said, by anybody's estimation, was objectionable, to sign a petition saying the government was behind 9/11. But it goes to something that's going on in this information age...

Before this they were talking about obama giving a speech at a school. An unrelated subject.

They were talking about obama giving a speech at a school and then mentioned van jones and transitioned into a new subject.

Yeah, the guy just calls it 'an open sewer'. We all know that open sewers have lots of positive qualities too... right? The insipid, self-serving nature of their discussion just wowed me. Using Van Jones(a case in point of them completely dropping the ball and the "open sewer" succeeding where they failed) as a jumping off point was the icing on the cake.

You can pull the open sewer comment out as often as you like, but do you disagree with what he was saying or just the word choice?

MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, David, I just want to say one thing to pick up on Tom's point, which is the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information, left, right, center, up, down, and requires that kind of filtering by anyone. And I always felt, you know, when modems first came out, when that was how we got connected to the Internet, that every modem sold in America should actually come with a warning from the surgeon general that would have said, "judgment not included," OK? That you have to upload the old-fashioned way. Church, synagogue, temple, mosque, teachers, schools, you know. And too often now people say, and we've all heard it, "But I read it on the Internet," as if that solves the bar bet, you know? And I'm afraid not.

In googling to find the transcript I went through the sean hannity forums and and angry ranting blogger :beam:

That's the whole point. :yes:

Pick a tv news show at random and pick a blog at random and which will be better? The tv news by leaps and bounds. Cherry picking one example of a failure by the msm says very little, however annoying you find their tone. And they don't "lament the free flow of information" and suggest that "all the news should be filtered through them", which you said originally. If I were to cherry pick an example of a failure of internet reporting :smash:

Strike For The South

09-07-2009, 20:29

So a 6 minute speech by Obama is going to undo years of parenting? Our president has a cult of personality but it's filled with people who think he's a supervillan.

Centurion1

09-07-2009, 20:35

The problem is why children should be forced to watch. they also have to do activities like learn his "famous quotes", for a man no one knew about before a few years ago that is pretty ego-centric.

Strike For The South

09-07-2009, 20:52

The problem is why children should be forced to watch. they also have to do activities like learn his "famous quotes", for a man no one knew about before a few years ago that is pretty ego-centric.

I distincly remember watching Bush and Clinton speak in my classrooms. I turned out to be a fully functioning adult.

Mountain meet mole hill

Xiahou

09-07-2009, 23:18

What? :dizzy2: You said:"More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject". They were not talking about Van Jones prior to that. Thus, it was not correct. I don't see how you can still think that much of your statement was correct. :shrug:

They brought up Jones for the sole purpose of talking about how unreliable a source of information the Internet is. That would make as much sense as me using a psychic who exactly predicted what would happen to me today as a jumping off point for how unreliable they are. The example they used was one of their failure and not of the blogosphere. It's nonsensical to use that to start a cautionary lecture about how you shouldn't trust anything on the Internet.

They continue to make themselves look like fools by talking about the chilling effect this has- I believe it was Friedman who said that it shows young people today not to write or say anything, because it will be used against them if they're ever appointed ambassador. He's blindly missing the point- it's not that you can't write anything, it's that you can't write anything patently offensive and idiotic and expect not to hear about it if you become a public figure. I don't see where finding out that an appointee thought the government, that he is being appointed to serve, perpetrated a massive scale terrorist attack on its own people is a bad thing. How is it bad if we find out if people are fringe kooks before they're appointed to office? It's not! Yet, the way they frame the discussion, they leave you thinking it is bad and lamentable. :dizzy2:

They were talking about obama giving a speech at a school and then mentioned van jones and transitioned into a new subject.
Uh-huh. They used Jones as an example to set up their next topic. :yes:

You can pull the open sewer comment out as often as you like, but do you disagree with what he was saying or just the word choice?Yes, I disagree with much of what he says. I agree insofar as you shouldn't take any information as gospel without some kind of verification. But that's nothing unique to the Internet. Really, just referring to the "Internet" and judging it as whole makes shows how clueless they really are. Saying "I saw it on the Internet" is not worse than saying "I saw it on TV". There are lots of things on television that also aren't true. Also, for what it's worth, I don't know anyone who says "I read it on the Internet" or "I saw it on TV" with a straight face when trying to win a point.

In googling to find the transcript I went through the sean hannity forums and and angry ranting blogger :beam:Congratulations. I hope you found a filter for the transcript though, you can't believe what you read on the open sewer.

Pick a tv news show at random and pick a blog at random and which will be better? The tv news by leaps and bounds. Cherry picking one example of a failure by the msm says very little, however annoying you find their tone. And they don't "lament the free flow of information" and suggest that "all the news should be filtered through them", which you said originally. If I were to cherry pick an example of a failure of internet reporting :smash:Even that is a poor comparison. The blogosphere isn't readily comparable to TV stations- the "channels" and subjects are near infinite. If you picked a well-reputed blog and compared it with Beck or Olbermann, I think it would hold up quite well. Yet, if I compared a alien abduction blog with CSPAN, it wouldn't look very favorable.

They never said directly that all information should be filtered through them(and neither did I), they just implied the hell out of it through their tearing down of a competing form of media without ever making even a passing mention or acknowledgement of their own repeated failings.

When I first read the allegations that Jones was a truther, there was an accompanying link to the website of the organization and the statement he signed onto. Compare that to the validation that Meet the Press gave when they covered it....... oh wait, they didn't.

In short, their entire discussion was vacuous and self-serving. :yes:

Sasaki Kojiro

09-08-2009, 01:15

You said:"More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject". They were not talking about Van Jones prior to that. Thus, it was not correct. I don't see how you can still think that much of your statement was correct. :shrug:

They brought up Jones for the sole purpose of talking about how unreliable a source of information the Internet is. That would make as much sense as me using a psychic who exactly predicted what would happen to me today as a jumping off point for how unreliable they are. The example they used was one of their failure and not of the blogosphere. It's nonsensical to use that to start a cautionary lecture about how you shouldn't trust anything on the Internet.

I wasn't :dizzy2: at it being said the were talking about a different subject before the clip you posted. If they had been it would make your argument stronger--so I was surprised that you took it as disproving my "theory" that they used van jones as a segue, especially when you said yourself that he was a jumping off point.

Congratulations. I hope you found a filter for the transcript though, you can't believe what you read on the open sewer.

Yup I used my judgement, exactly as they suggested we do. They didn't say "you need to watch the news" they said "you need to have judgement--and it needs to be taught in schools and churches". They a clearly saying that each person should have an internal filter, and that they shouldn't rely on the internet blindly. I'm glad to see them make that point at all.

Basically you are objecting to them not reporting on van jones very well, and then not specifically saying that people should use their own judgment when it comes to meet the press.

I would object to the first and give them a pass on the 2nd, I don't expect people to criticize themselves. Would be hypocritical.

It doesn't have anything to do with van jones :whip:

Even that is a poor comparison. The blogosphere isn't readily comparable to TV stations- the "channels" and subjects are near infinite. If you picked a well-reputed blog and compared it with Beck or Olbermann, I think it would hold up quite well. Yet, if I compared a alien abduction blog with CSPAN, it wouldn't look very favorable.

You used your judgement to determine that the alien abduction blog was bogus and that the well-reputed blogs were worthwhile. That is what they think people should do, and what I recall you telling me to do back when I was copy and pasting articles from michael moore's website :beam:

ICantSpellDawg

09-08-2009, 01:36

You used your judgement to determine that the alien abduction blog was bogus and that the well-reputed blogs were worthwhile. That is what they think people should do, and what I recall you telling me to do back when I was copy and pasting articles from michael moore's website :beam:

I'm pretty sure that "open sewer" was meant to shine a negative light on the Internet and its ability to disseminate information. I'm pretty sure that their intent was to downplay the web in favor of television. Let them, I feel kind of bad for them after all - It's a losing battle.

Banquo's Ghost

09-08-2009, 07:34

The problem is why children should be forced to watch. they also have to do activities like learn his "famous quotes", for a man no one knew about before a few years ago that is pretty ego-centric.

:laugh4:

I recall that President Bush was busily mind-manipulating children on the morning of 9-11 by reading "The Pet Goat", a propaganda tract about vigilantism in the cloven hooved (and a clear reference to the economic wealth of backwater Islam). Clearly, this was to soften them up for the war in Iraq. Osama bin Laden later pointed out that the president's diversion of impressionable young minds allowed the hijackers more time to carry out their mission, thus proving the Truthers completely and irrevocably right, the more so because OBL now owns little but goats.

There, all three themes of the recent thread brought together. Anyone notice a touch of common absurdity?

Louis VI the Fat

09-08-2009, 12:35

The full text of the US president's back-to-school address, as released in advance by the White House.

Hello everyone, how's everybody doing today? I'm here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we've got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through 12th grade. I'm glad you all could join us today.

Barack Obama school speech in full

Hello everyone, how's everybody doing today? I'm here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we've got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through 12th grade. I'm glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it's your first day in a new school, so it's understandable if you're a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you're in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could've stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.
I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday at 4:30 in the morning.
Now I wasn't too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I'd fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I'd complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I'm here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I'm here because I want to talk with you about your education and what's expected of all of you in this new school year.
Now I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked a lot about responsibility.
I've talked about your teachers' responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.
I've talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don't spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.
I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working where students aren't getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfil your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a senator or a Supreme Court justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.
And no matter what you want to do with your life I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You've got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn't just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.
We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that if you quit on school you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country.

Now I know it's not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.
I get it. I know what that's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn't always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn't fit in.
So I wasn't always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our first lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn't have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don't have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there's not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighbourhood where you don't feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right.
But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home that's no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That's no excuse for not trying.
Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.
That's what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn't speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.
I'm thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who's fought brain cancer since he was three. He's endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer hundreds of extra hours to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he's headed to college this fall.

And then there's Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighbourhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health centre; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she's on track to graduate high school with honours and go on to college.
Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren't any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same. That's why today, I'm calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you'll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you'll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you'll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you'll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don't feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.
I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you're not going to be any of those things.
But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.
That's OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures. JK Rowling's first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
These people succeeded because they understand that you can't let your failures define you, you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one's born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. You've got to practice. It's the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in.
Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counsellor and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.
And even when you're struggling, even when you're discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you don't ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.
So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?
Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down don't let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down don't let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

With apolgies to the moderators. I know I run the risk of being instagibbed for such quoting such seditious, poisenous filth. But I must insist I only repeated it here for educational purposes. In no way, shape or form do I condone the President of the United States indoctrinating innocent children with this terror-communist personality cult. :sweatdrop:

Banquo's Ghost

09-08-2009, 12:49

It's shot through with subliminal codes on public health, foreigners and revolution. If only we could discover the secret trigger word that will send the zombie children hordes into action.

You are SO banned. :no:

Banquo's Ghost

09-08-2009, 13:13

More seriously, The Economist has an interesting article (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14363212&source=hptextfeature) on whether seeking bipartisan legislation is actually dead in the water.

And yet in the Washington think-tanks the passing of Ted Kennedy has revived a different debate. Is bipartisanship still feasible in today’s America? Is it even desirable? Pietro Nivola, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has doubts on both counts. Grand bargains are harder in an age when both parties, but especially the Republicans, have become more ideological and cohesive. Congress no longer contains legions of conservative Democrats from the South or moderate Republicans from the north-east willing to make common cause—or laws. The gerrymandering of electoral districts has slashed the number of swing seats, forcing candidates to nurture their wild-eyed base, rather than reach out to moderates, to win their primaries. Religious polarisation has sharpened the gap between the parties, sucking believers into the Republican camp and driving the secular to the Democrats.

This relates to my perception that the president actually lacks the courage to stand forward on his platform. He got a mandate, and he has the votes in Congress. The USA now has a real party system. Since the GOP confine themselves to hysterical opposition, surely he should drive his agenda through - and sink or swim at the polls in four years.

Given the nature of the attacks on his policies and personality, the real change he should bring is to drop the fig-leaf of "consensus" and do what he promised the electorate. Let the Republicans repeal it if they ever regain power and feel the need so to do (which is rare over this side of the pond - such legislation always proves to be a good way of blaming the opposition for a decade).

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-13-2009, 04:06

Massive anti-spending rally in Washington. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091200971_pf.html)

tibilicus

09-13-2009, 10:01

Massive anti-spending rally in Washington. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091200971_pf.html)

Fascinating. So many people in one place with so little idea how world politics work. They are aware that for a free market economy to not collapse business's have to be kept afloat? Saying that they're probably also oblivious to the fact that every single western government has adopted the same strategy? Why? Because it works. The financial collapse could of been so much worse but luckily it wasn't. I dread to think what would of happened if we had a McCain administration..

Article also offers an interesting insight into just how large the proportion of the electorate is within America who still live in their own little world..

Tribesman

09-13-2009, 10:45

Saturday's demonstrators spanned the spectrum of conservative anger at Obama, including opponents of his tax, spending and health-care plans and protesters who question his U.S. citizenship and compare his administration to the Nazi regime.

So in other words a lot of wingnuts.

Adrian II

09-13-2009, 11:03

The full text of the US president's back-to-school address, as released in advance by the White House.This is worse than some of the sources Fragony uses. Do we really have to read this neonazi filth about children having to educate themselves? Kids should believe in themselves and in their country.. yeah right. Osama bin Laden couldnt have said it better!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-13-2009, 16:46

Fascinating. So many people in one place with so little idea how world politics work. They are aware that for a free market economy to not collapse business's have to be kept afloat?

Businesses don't need to receive government bailouts to stay in business.

Saying that they're probably also oblivious to the fact that every single western government has adopted the same strategy? Why? Because it works.

Nope. It's because politicians need to be seen doing something, regardless of whether it works or not, or they won't be reelected, which is the first goal of almost every politician.

I dread to think what would of happened if we had a McCain administration..

Same thing, lesser extent. He would need votes too.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-13-2009, 16:48

So in other words a lot of wingnuts.

Not really. According to the NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU3ZDA0OWY5YjU1NDg5OWMxOGQ1MTgyNWE0OTkyOTU=), there were precisely two birther signs (that the author saw). Many more communist signs, of course, but surely you remember the protests comparing Bush to a Nazi?

Lemur

09-14-2009, 16:24

According to the NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU3ZDA0OWY5YjU1NDg5OWMxOGQ1MTgyNWE0OTkyOTU=), there were precisely two birther signs (that the author saw).
How would you classify this one?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/racist_tea_party.jpg

Crazed Rabbit

09-14-2009, 16:45

Fascinating. So many people in one place with so little idea how world politics work. They are aware that for a free market economy to not collapse business's have to be kept afloat?

Says one school of thought that has, oddly enough, been proven wrong again and again. The huge spending bill passed in the US is bad even for a keynesian bill, because it will take years for all that money to be spent and then it won't help (keep in mind this is according to keynesian theory). But business certainly don't need to be 'kept afloat' by the government. The weaker ones should be left to go out of business (I'm not saying we shouldn't give some banks more money to lend, however).

What's fascinating is that you haven't even heard of other economic schools of thought, especially since one said school has dominated most governments' policies since the second world war.

Also, I got really peeved at how the various news articles said 'tens of thousands of protesters" when they should have said hundreds of thousands.

CR

Lemur

09-14-2009, 18:39

Also, I got really peeved at how the various news articles said 'tens of thousands of protesters" when they should have said hundreds of thousands.
According to Malkin et al. the number should be millions. According to the socialist Washington D.C. fire dept, it was around 70,000, still a respectable number.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-14-2009, 23:09

How would you classify this one?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/racist_tea_party.jpg

Depends how she meant it really. It could be:

1) Birther
2) Racist
3) Half-true
4) A jibe at someone
5) An attempt at humour

Either way, she seems to have forgotten a word.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-14-2009, 23:44

^^ Looks like "the zoo has an african lion and the white house has a lyin african"

Also, I got really peeved at how the various news articles said 'tens of thousands of protesters" when they should have said hundreds of thousands.

CR

I think they quit doing official tallies ever since the million man march was estimated at 400,000.

Meneldil

09-16-2009, 14:57

Holy crap, I can't believe the POTUS is allowed to make such a speech in front of american children.

USSR of Americanistan, I salute you:shame:

gaelic cowboy

09-17-2009, 18:59

Holy crap, I can't believe the POTUS is allowed to make such a speech in front of american children.

USSR of Americanistan, I salute you:shame:

:laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2009, 16:29

:rolleyes:

Anyway, this is a sort of NotW item, but it's political so here it is:
DNC Promises to "Rain Hellfire" Down On Opponents (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090918/pl_politico/27311)

The increasingly aggressive Democratic National Committee on Friday launched a new “Call ’Em Out” website targeting prominent Republicans for statements they have made about President Barack Obama’s health reform plans.

“Help debunk the outrageous lies and misinformation about health reform,” the site says.

DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said: “The message to opponents of change who would lie or misrepresent the truth should be clear. We are going to respond forcefully and consistently with the facts, and you will no longer be able to peddle your lies with impunity. Through tools like 'Call 'Em Out,' you will be met with a rain of hellfire from supporters armed with the facts and you will be held to account.”

Gee guys, a bit too serious maybe?

CR

Louis VI the Fat

09-18-2009, 17:43

DNC Promises to "Rain Hellfire" Down On Opponents (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090918/pl_politico/27311)If this were a GOP quote, I'd make a lenghty post deconstructing the Christian subtext and how this is destroying America's freedom into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.

However, since it's not, I'll suffice with saying that it's about bloody time too that the Democrats fought back.

Reading the GOP's commentary on healthcare reform made me feel like I'm Tribesman glancing over Fragony's posts: the biggest load of bollox I've read in my life.

Monk

09-18-2009, 19:25

If this were a GOP quote, I'd make a lenghty post deconstructing the Christian subtext and how this is destroying America's freedom into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.

However, since it's not, I'll suffice with saying that it's about bloody time too that the Democrats fought back.

The DNC has been getting fairly active in the last few weeks. I've gotten at least thee calls from them, all asking for money to "debunk republican lies". I can only assume some of that fundraiser $$ went toward this site, course they did stop calling when I told them I was poor and most of my money goes to classes. :laugh4:

Still, I really wouldn't be surprised if there was more of this sorta thing in the coming weeks.

Gregoshi

09-19-2009, 06:29

Hats off to Tribes and Frag for their spot on reenactment of Republican/Democrat bickering. Well done!! :laugh4:

Xiahou

09-19-2009, 06:36

Obama says something (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama) I agree with. ~:eek:

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are," Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here."
-snip-
"There's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition, or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes," Obama told CNN.

To NBC News, Obama put it this way: "It's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another? ... This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions."I'd like to think that's obvious to everyone. But it apparently isn't to some here, and it isn't to Jimmy Carter (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/15/2070242.aspx)either.

Lemur

09-20-2009, 15:02

Obama loses when he allows himself to be positioned as a black president. He's downplayed his race for as long as he's been in politics. So regardless of whatever the truth might be (http://current.com/items/90945659_limbaugh-i-n-obamas-america-the-white-kids-now-get-beat-up-with-the-black-kids-cheering.htm), his positioning is a continuation of a longstanding strategy.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-20-2009, 17:30

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said.

Do you agree with that lemur?

Lemur

09-20-2009, 17:33

Do you agree with that lemur?
Not as stated, no. Sasaki, do you think race plays any role in the rage and fear directed at President 44?

Sasaki Kojiro

09-20-2009, 17:41

I agree with Obama.

Beskar

09-20-2009, 20:02

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/racist_tea_party.jpg
^^ Looks like "the zoo has an african lion and the white house has a lyin african"

I completely disagree, why?

Look closely at the picture of the Lion, it is lying down. So it is a lying African. It makes no mention of any people, just lions.

I think it is talking about Obama's den of Lions where he sends holier than thou' republicans who attempt to prove that God will keep them safe, but tragically, fail.

Louis VI the Fat

09-20-2009, 20:34

That picture is so racist, it's painful to watch. Is there much doubt she thinks Obama doesn't belong in the White House but in a zoo? And she's not alone.

At any rate, considering the continuity and similiarity between what was said about Obama, Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaing (2005-2008), Bill Clinton, and even Carter, race can not be deemed the deciding factor in Republican animosity.

Moreover, race and political preference are not mutually exclusive. Animosity can awaken dormant racism, can be expressed in racist terms by the less eloquent, and lingering racism can attribute to (the vehemence of) anti-Obamamania. Racist or politically motivated - that is not a matter of either / or.

I think Obama gave the right answer. As so often over the past few months, I admire Obama for his calmness of tone. He's a great diplomat. Composed, reflexive, accepting of his political opponents.

In general, the ball has been firmly in the court of the GOP. Obama has at every opportunity showed a willingness to co-operate. In healthcare in particular, Obama and the Democrats have been extending their hand to the GOP for months. The Republicans, in turn, have gone into a reflexive war-mode. Fine, they are under no obligation to work constuctively with the opposition. It does show that it is the GOP that is the party of polarization and extreme partizanship.

Xiahou

09-21-2009, 19:41

Is the Obama Administration politicizing the National Endowment for the Arts (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0918willsep18,0,6113399.story)? Sure sounds (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bshapiro/2009/09/21/demand-congressional-investigation-nea-conference-call-broke-laws/#more-231114) like it. :yes:

Lemur

09-22-2009, 17:14

Xiahou

09-22-2009, 22:35

What does everyone think Obama's going to do about Afghanistan? Apparently the military is getting impatient (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/75702.html) waiting for Obama to make a decision and it's rumored that McChrystal will resign if not given more troops.

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

gaelic cowboy

09-22-2009, 23:11

If he resigns it will hardly be Obama's fault the previous administration pretty much ignored the conflict there allowing the present difficulty to arise.

I suspect Obama will give him his surge but it will not be open ended he will doubtless have to show some results and quick I bet cos it looks like world opinion including US is turnig against having troops there

Sasaki Kojiro

09-22-2009, 23:15

If he resigns it will hardly be Obama's fault the previous administration pretty much ignored the conflict there allowing the present difficulty to arise.

Obama can be blamed for not taking the best action while in office, even if the previous administration started the mess.

The real question is: "what is the correct action"

I suspect Obama will give him his surge but it will not be open ended he will doubtless have to show some results and quick I bet cos it looks like world opinion including US is turnig against having troops there

I would hope it isn't decided by popular opinion.

drone

09-22-2009, 23:22

The real question is: "what is the correct action"

:yes:

And the Ripley option, unfortunately, is not available...

Lemur

09-23-2009, 19:06

The real question is: "what is the correct action"
Looks like there's a lot of head-scratching (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1) going on. This makes sense, although it's deeply repressing:

“A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. “Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election.”

Or as Sully (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/gulliver-in-afghanistan.html) puts it:

You cannot fight a counter-insurgency on behalf of a government that is as corrupt as Karzai's. And you cannot fight a counter-insurgency without vast numbers of troops to protect a population in an extremely remote and ungovernable region. And you cannot fight either without tackling the real source of the terror — in Pakistan.

So we are left with this dire set of alternatives. We either pack up and go home. Or we double-down for a couple of decades to try to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, knowing that, even then, we cannot prevent any single Jihadist plot or attack coming from that region. [...]

But if McChrystal is right, he is strategizing Afghanistan as a semi-permanent protectorate for the US. This is empire in the 21st century sense: occupying failed states indefinitely to prevent even more chaos spinning out of them. And it has the embedded logic of all empires: if it doesn't keep expanding, it will collapse. The logic of McChrystal is that the US should be occupying Pakistan as well. And Somalia. And anywhere al Qaeda make seek refuge.

Most troubling.

Xiahou

09-23-2009, 19:37

Alot of the arguments we hear for getting out of Afghanistan should sound eerily familiar to you all. Most of them are just retreads of the arguments against Iraq.

'The population is against us'
'The leadership is corrupt and unhelpful'
'The country is too disjointed for a coherent government'
ect.

Afghanistan is definitely a different situation from Iraq, but I can't help but roll my eyes when I see the same people pushing the same arguments all over again. Maybe we can't pacify Afghanistan and allow a stable central government to take root... I'm not sure. But many of the critics and all of the anti-war Democrats in congress have long ago burned up any credibility that they had on the issue. (I'm looking at you Harry Reid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g))

Sasaki Kojiro

09-23-2009, 19:42

It's seems a bit of a stretch to say that our options are to leave or to indefinately occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and any number of other countries. We clearly can't do that, so the way the author expresses the dilemma, there is obviously one true solution. That's a red flag that the author is distorting something.

Crazed Rabbit

09-23-2009, 20:15

What Sasaki said. I'm not swayed by Sullivan's logic.

Also, weren't people always giving the US a hard time for divesting itself of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, instead of insuring some form of stable government took root? And now many of the same people are saying we should pull out again? That won't solve anything, and it is cruel to abandon the mess we made.

CR

Lemur

09-23-2009, 20:54

Most of them are just retreads of the arguments against Iraq.
And as we learned in Iraq, if we massively increase troop strength and spread the bribes liberally amongst the tribes, we can buy a temporary lull in violence.

Not sure that's such a great lesson.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

Crazed Rabbit

09-23-2009, 20:56

And as we learned in Iraq, if we massively increase troop strength and spread the bribes liberally amongst the tribes, we can buy a temporary lull in violence.

Not sure that's such a great lesson.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

Are you saying you think Iraq is going to go back to civil-war level violence?

CR

Lemur

09-23-2009, 21:15

Are you saying you think Iraq is going to go back to civil-war level violence?
No, 'cause a great deal of the ethnic cleansing has already taken place, so a return to full-on civil war is unlikely while we are there. But who gets to control what has not been settled, and there are a whole lot of armed people who think their tribe/group should take over. Things should get very hot as soon as we are perceived to be minimized.

The surge/bribe was a great solution to a self-inflicted mess, but the underlying disorder is still there. We established security, fantastic. But until there's a political solution the whole thing can unravel. And that is entirely up to the Iraqis.

If anything, the political situation in Afghanistan is more troubling. Leaving aside the improbability of defeating an enemy who can fall back to a secure base (Pakistan), let's ask the big questions:

What level of political stability would be sufficient for our counterinsurgency goals?
If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
If not, what can we do about it?
How long might it take to achieve minimal political stability?
How long are we prepared to be there, and at what cost?
What will success look like? (Please be realistic, and don't say "A functioning representative democracy," 'cause that is not happening in the next decade.)

-edit-

P.S.: Since I answered your question, CR, could you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-24-2009, 03:53

Czar #2 going down? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/)

Sasaki Kojiro

09-24-2009, 04:06

Where does he find these people? :dizzy2:

Lemur

09-24-2009, 05:42

A little data (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2009/09/health_care_race_and_political.html) for the much-dismissed racial angle:

As evidence of the link between health care and racial attitudes, we analyzed survey data gathered in late 2008. The survey asked people whether they favored a government run health insurance plan, a system like we have now, or something in between. It also asked four questions about how people feel about blacks.

Taken together the four items form a measure of what scholars call racial resentment. We find an extraordinarily strong correlation between racial resentment of blacks and opposition to health care reform.

Among whites with above average racial resentment, only 19 percent favored fundamental health care reforms and 57 percent favored the present system. Among those who have below average racial resentment, more than twice as many (45 percent) favored government run health care and less than half as many (25 percent) favored the status quo.

No such relationship between racial attitudes and opinions on health care existed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton effort.

It would be silly to assert that all, or even most, opposition to President Obama, including his plans for health care reform, is motivated by the color of his skin. But our research suggests that a key to understanding people's feelings about partisan politics runs far deeper than the mere pros and cons of actual policy proposals. [...]

Beneath the arguments about government intrusion into the health care market, death panels, and such, a much more emotionally-laden dynamic is at work. Views about race along with a suite of other visceral matters are linked to people's opinions about health care reform, which likely explains why the present debate has caused a much stronger uproar than it did in 1994.

And yes, I know that correlation is not causation. But the correlation exists, and is worth noting.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-24-2009, 07:14

So their finding is that people who are against affirmative action are more likely to be against government run health care?

Noted. Maybe I'll even buy their book :coffeenews:

Crazed Rabbit

09-24-2009, 07:45

P.S.: Since I answered your question, CR, could you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

Yes, I could.

A little data for the much-dismissed racial angle:

A very little data. I'd like to see the questions they used to determine 'racial resentment' - is being against affirmative action being racially resentful? - and what fraction of their population was 'above average resentful'. And what fraction of the people who didn't want Obama's reform were also 'resentful'.

And back to Lemur's questions about Afghanistan. ~;p

I don't see your choices as the only possibilities - ie that we have to choose between a decade plus of occupation or pulling out. Or that Pakistan is completely secure for the Taliban. I think we should strive to make a functioning, stable, non-Islamist government. If we don't everything we've worked for is wasted. And the Taliban will return to power and continuing supporting al queda. Plus they'll be able to destabilize Pakistan easier. And so, likely, we'll have to go in there again.

I don't think it will take a dozen years of 100,000 troops or other 'the empire must expand or it will collapse' silliness from Sullivan.

As for Iraq - so far the 'lull' has been permanent, and paved the way for a political solution.

CR

Tribesman

09-24-2009, 11:40

As for Iraq - so far the 'lull' has been permanent, and paved the way for a political solution.

If the lull is permanent then how are attacks increasing again month after month?

Lemur

09-24-2009, 13:42

So their finding is that people who are against affirmative action are more likely to be against government run health care?

is being against affirmative action being racially resentful?
Interesting. The authors never mentioned affirmative action, but that's the first thing both of you reached for.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-24-2009, 13:46

Actually I googled "racial resentment".

Lemur

09-24-2009, 14:04

I don't see your choices as the only possibilities - ie that we have to choose between a decade plus of occupation or pulling out.
That's not what I asked.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

What level of political stability would be sufficient for our counterinsurgency goals?
If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
If not, what can we do about it?
How long might it take to achieve minimal political stability?
How long are we prepared to be there, and at what cost?
What will success look like? (Please be realistic, and don't say "A functioning representative democracy," 'cause that is not happening in the next decade.)

Lemur

09-24-2009, 14:35

Actually I googled "racial resentment".
And when I google the term (http://www.google.com/search?q=racial+resentment), I do not see anyone defining "racial resentment" as a cognate for "affirmative action"; rather, seems that when discussing AA folks also discuss RR. Racial resentment /= affirmative action.

Here's a thoughtful counter-post (http://enikrising.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-race-in-modern-politics.html) to the study:

The conclusion, again, is that the question "Is opposition to Obama based on race?" does not have a simple answer. Racial resentment definitely exists in America today, but it's more polarized along party lines than it has been in a long time. Many people who do not like blacks oppose Obama, but they would likely oppose him even if he were white since they're Republicans.

Crazed Rabbit

09-24-2009, 16:16

That's not what I asked.

Lemur, most of your questions I'd be guessing answers.

Interesting. The authors never mentioned affirmative action, but that's the first thing both of you reached for.

I just saw Sasaki use it and it seemed logical. Really, I need more info and a definition of terms before I'm willing to accept what the study says. Funny you try too make something out of it.

EDIT: More of Obama's great diplomacy: Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100011208/barack-obamas-churlishness-is-unforgivable/)

The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
...
Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

09-24-2009, 16:28

And when I google the term (http://www.google.com/search?q=racial+resentment), I do not see anyone defining "racial resentment" as a cognate for "affirmative action"; rather, seems that when discussing AA folks also discuss RR. Racial resentment /= affirmative action.

When you only ask 4 questions it can be...what were the four questions? Usually they ask a few more than that. The divide between "average racial resentment" and "low racial resentment" could easily come down to their opinion of affirmative action. Never trust someone who's selling a book :whip:

Here's a thoughtful counter-post (http://enikrising.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-race-in-modern-politics.html) to the study:

The conclusion, again, is that the question "Is opposition to Obama based on race?" does not have a simple answer. Racial resentment definitely exists in America today, but it's more polarized along party lines than it has been in a long time. Many people who do not like blacks oppose Obama, but they would likely oppose him even if he were white since they're Republicans.

That's what I said, I was just more concise :beam:

Lemur

09-24-2009, 17:08

That's what I said, I was just more concise :beam:
No, that isn't even vaguely what you said. Retread:

So their finding is that people who are against affirmative action are more likely to be against government run health care?

Noted.

The conclusion, again, is that the question "Is opposition to Obama based on race?" does not have a simple answer. Racial resentment definitely exists in America today, but it's more polarized along party lines than it has been in a long time. Many people who do not like blacks oppose Obama, but they would likely oppose him even if he were white since they're Republicans.
--edit-

Crazed Rabbit:

Lemur, most of your questions I'd be guessing answers.
So you made up a question and answered it? That's a fresh take on discussion.

Look, the situation in Afghanistan is not simple, so our discussion of it will also not be simple, unless we want to throw some slogans around and call it a day. I'm sorry if my questions required some guesswork, but I don't see how that precludes a serious discussion of what we want out of Afghanistan, and what we're willing to pay for it.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-24-2009, 17:16

Put it down to postmodernism or whatever it was :bounce:

Lemur

09-24-2009, 17:22

Now now, don't write yourself off. You've shown a tendency to actually engage in the discussions of late, rather than comment on the commentators' comments. This trend should be encouraged! Up with conversation, down with meta-conversation!

Sasaki Kojiro

09-24-2009, 17:55

I'll see if I can find some blogs that support my team's point of view and quote them here. Then when someone disagrees with the said blog I'll demand graphs and research, and ask questions about foreign policy only a handful of people in the world are qualified to answer. Careful indentation and well placed links are a must of course.

Lemur

09-24-2009, 17:56

:laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

09-24-2009, 18:56

Crazed Rabbit:
So you made up a question and answered it? That's a fresh take on discussion.

:rolleyes:

I gave some thoughts of mine on Afghanistan that I thought were relevant. I responded to what you had posted. I mean, really Lemur, you expect me to answer this:

If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?

What's too corrupt? How much is too ineffective? Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?

What's your answer to that Lemur?

CR

seireikhaan

09-24-2009, 19:33

What's too corrupt? How much is too ineffective? Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?

What's your answer to that Lemur?

CR
Well, Karzai's got some real gems (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=8327666) on the record (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQXeIjjy90aFOYj42q5YnZS-fWAw).

Lemur

09-24-2009, 19:48

Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?

What's your answer to that Lemur?
What's wrong with reading security reports? Or The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14505443)? They've been doing a bang-up job (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517294) covering this issue. Or The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0923/p06s10-wosc.html), for that matter?

None of the questions I am posing are blue-sky hey-where-did-that-come-from stumpers. These issues are being debated in public. Counter-insurgency without a legitimate government to support is an exercise in plowing the sea. I thought that was understood.

Crazed Rabbit

09-25-2009, 02:09

What's wrong with reading security reports?

A lack of time. :shrug:

Anyway, what is your answer to that question of yours Lemur?

If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?

Oh yeah, Robert Gibbs dimisses the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph as tabloids. Smooth move, that. (http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0909/gibbs_blasts_tabs_again_5b6efd61-69d5-490a-8518-1ebe155152da.html)

CR

Lemur

09-25-2009, 03:49

Anyway, what is your answer to that question of yours Lemur?

If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
I fear the answer is "no," but I'm hoping somebody will tell me otherwise.

Incongruous

09-25-2009, 05:42

The current pretender to the throne, his father was he most popular choice for leader, the coalition told him to go bugger himself and put up Karzai, a non-entity an stooge of Big Oil.

Fragony

09-25-2009, 11:20

Too funny to not post, our PM with the anointed one. Picture of the year.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/balkiezoenobama.jpg

Tie between Harry Potter and Kermit the frog

Xiahou

09-27-2009, 05:08

McChrystal troops request shelved pending review (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090926/ts_nm/us_afghanistan)
So... apparently they're saying they don't even want to look at McChrystal's proposal until Obama figures out what he wants to do. Don't you think that the assessment of the general in charge should at least plan some role in the decision-making process? :dizzy2:

"Right now the focus is on the strategic assessment itself. It (the troop request) will be shelved until such time that the White House is ready," a defense official said in Washington.

"It is not going to be addressed, or reviewed, or analyzed until the White House is ready to begin discussing it."Well, let's see if the rumors about his resignation turn out to be true....

Banquo's Ghost

09-27-2009, 08:44

McChrystal troops request shelved pending review (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090926/ts_nm/us_afghanistan)
So... apparently they're saying they don't even want to look at McChrystal's proposal until Obama figures out what he wants to do. Don't you think that the assessment of the general in charge should at least plan some role in the decision-making process? :dizzy2:

And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?

That's why the Afghan mission is in so much of a mess already - an invasion without an endgame, supporting a government without a mandate. And since the president is going to have to ask other countries to sacrifice their young men as well, it might be as well to present them with some sort of, you know, plan.

Tribesman

09-27-2009, 12:30

And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?
History suggests otherwise, after all Vietnam didn't have a strategy but was won by simply increasing the amount of soldiers there.

Xiahou

09-27-2009, 19:34

And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?Absolutely. :yes:

There are a few problems with that statement as it applies to the Obama Afghanistan strategy. First, McChrystal was Obama's chosen man to oversee the fight in Afghanistan, replacing the previous general in charge just this May. And what was their reasoning (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/11/our_man_in_kabul_mcchrystal_replaces_mckiernan)? Well, it seemed they had a new strategy for Afghanistan and needed a new general to implement it.
he leadership shift comes as the Obama administration has voiced increasingly urgent concern about the surge in violence in Afghanistan as well as unrest in neighboring Pakistan.

"We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership is also needed," Gates said at a hastily convened Pentagon news conference.

The second problem with what you said is that the White House said that McChrystal's report isn't even being considered until they settle on their new strategy. McChrystal submitted a 66 page report, which I'm pretty sure had more written in it than "More troops!!!". He'd be remiss if he didn't also have a plan on how to use them. Essentially, the White House has said they don't care what he has to say- it's not going to be part of the decision-making process.

So, they had a new strategy this spring. Apparently, it was a miserable failure because they claim now that they have no strategy and need to formulate one. Further, Obama is not interested in the input of the general he appointed when it comes to formulating this strategy. Sounds like BS to me.

ICantSpellDawg

09-27-2009, 22:19

Obama wants to increase the amount of school that kids recieve throughout the year; including weekends and summers. Now I don't necessarily disagree with him, but anyone want to take a guess at how much more money the schools will need? Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?

Lemur

09-28-2009, 00:16

Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?
The only place to extend the school year would be summer, so I don't think oil heating is gonna be a big issue. Then again, it's not as though you're putting forward a serious argument.

Tribesman

09-28-2009, 01:10

So, they had a new strategy this spring. Apparently, it was a miserable failure because they claim now that they have no strategy and need to formulate one.
And what major event has taken place recently which means the situation has now changed?

ICantSpellDawg

09-28-2009, 01:25

The only place to extend the school year would be summer, so I don't think oil heating is gonna be a big issue. Then again, it's not as though you're putting forward a serious argument.

The weekends as well and after 3 PM. What do you mean "only the summer"? What serious arguement? I don't even disagree, our kids are semi-retarded and are in need of a better education. The current school year is based on an agrarian lifestyle that is no longer a reality. Plus, teachers lives are far too easy and they should be worked to the grave.

I'm just saying that the increase in environmental destruction will be untold and immoral due to Air Conditioning.

Xiahou

09-28-2009, 04:27

more school hours != better education

Regardless of that, this is a decision that should not be made by the federal government.

Incongruous

09-28-2009, 06:19

And what major event has taken place recently which means the situation has now changed?

The public got wise on the Whitehouse's act?