Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

That's easy, and I'm surprised you didn't know the answer: "Do not heed the words of the Antichrist!"

Just say that, and you'll ace the test.

-edit-

More proof that Obama is the son of Satan and a jackal born to woman (as if any were needed): He has subverted Hugh Hewitt. Or maybe replaced him with one of his shape-shifting incubi.

Tom Daschle should be confirmed quickly because (1) his biggest error it looks to me to be the sort of error that a former senior elected official used to riding around in government cars could easily make, while the others look like the screw-ups that a suddenly wealthy former senator could easily make, (2) he wouldn't have endangered his political career and ambitions for this amount of money given the huge income he had coming in, and (3) we absolutely have to fix the confirmation mess or more and more people will flee public service at the highest levels. [...]

Errors on tax returns related to unusual circumstances and nanny issues are simply not the sort of character issues for which confirmation should be denied. Fixing the "confirmation mess" requires some restraint when presented with targets. The GOP should stay fixed on the stimulus bill, and not go chasing Daschle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Duke

I am glad these traitorous leaders of the Republican Party appointed this Black racist, affirmative action advocate to the head of the Republican party because this will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base. As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, “To Hell With the Republican Party!” And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place!

---

LOL! To hell with you too, Duke, and tell them the GOP sent you and doesn't want you back!

CR

Americans approve of most actions by Obama to date...

EXCEPT THE ABORTION DECISION

Maybe guys like me aren't as out of touch as some make us seem? If the Mexico city decision was unpopular, what would FOCA be?

I approve of Obama so far. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if Obama was pro-life or on the fence I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR HIM.

So, while we're discussing new cabinet level appointees, what does anybody know about Eric Holder. He likes giving out get-out-of-jail-free cards to his boss's political donors, but other than that? I heard a quote he gave on NPR this morning that made me a little bit nervous about his views on affirmative action and equal opportunity, as a legal onus, not just a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

A fair question I suppose. I hope this wasn't a litmus test question.

---

Nope, thank god. :P

Don, I don't know enough about Holder to have a valid opinion.

Meanwhile, another candidate drops out because of tax problems. This would be the "Performance Czar." What the **** is a Performance Czar?

That sum included $298 in unpaid taxes, $48.69 in interest and $600 in penalties.

So people are dropping out for errors to the tune of $298? That doesn't seem entirely logical ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Don, I don't know enough about Holder to have a valid opinion.

Meanwhile, another candidate drops out because of tax problems. This would be the "Performance Czar." What the **** is a Performance Czar?

That sum included $298 in unpaid taxes, $48.69 in interest and $600 in penalties.

So people are dropping out for errors to the tune of $298? That doesn't seem entirely logical ...

---

Hold on! Some partisan hack makes excuses as to why he owes 100,000 when someone else drops out for less than 1,000?

:dizzy2:

But hey, maybe it isn't her fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Hold on! Some partisan hack makes excuses as to why he owes 100,000 when someone else drops out for less than 1,000?

---

Nah, apparently it isn't working out so well for Daschle either.

Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday as President Obama’s nominee to lead the Health and Human Services Department, a decision that came one day after Mr. Obama declared that he would stand behind Mr. Daschle as problems over unpaid taxes were scrutinized on Capitol Hill. [...]

The decision to withdraw his nomination as a member of the Obama cabinet comes as the White House battled across several fronts on Tuesday with tax problems of the president’s top political appointees. Mr. Daschle had expressed regret for not paying about $140,000 in back taxes, but on Monday vowed to press ahead.

Obama's really having some trouble with his nominees. I mean, it seems like an awfully high percentage of nominees dropping out, especially for tax trouble.

More of that taxes are good and patriotic for you, but not for me, from the dems. ~;p

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Nah, apparently it isn't working out so well for Daschle either.

Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday as President Obama’s nominee to lead the Health and Human Services Department, a decision that came one day after Mr. Obama declared that he would stand behind Mr. Daschle as problems over unpaid taxes were scrutinized on Capitol Hill. [...]

The decision to withdraw his nomination as a member of the Obama cabinet comes as the White House battled across several fronts on Tuesday with tax problems of the president’s top political appointees. Mr. Daschle had expressed regret for not paying about $140,000 in back taxes, but on Monday vowed to press ahead.

---

Thanks.

This just goes to show what hypocrites politicians are. The party that speaks out against gay sex gets caught doing it, and the party who wants to raise your taxes can't pay their own.

I still want to know what a Performance Czar does. It sounds like something that involves Russia and pornography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I still want to know what a Performance Czar does. It sounds like something that involves Russia and pornography.

---

Close. I believe he is in charge of taking over the Russian botnets and spamming us all with V1@gra emails.

Edit-> wiki provides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Performance_Officer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I still want to know what a Performance Czar does. It sounds like something that involves Russia and pornography.

---

That is a poor name. I would use stamina Czar! :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Wow, we elect a Chicago thug and this happen, I'm soooooo shocked.

---

Soooo true. That white chick who missed $298 in unemployment co-payments over three years? Stone cold gangsta, homes. That's just how she rolls.

I can't help but think they found more skeletons in Daschle's closet and are just using the tax issue to push him out of the running. Clearly, it's been established that tax issues aren't enough to preclude someone from nomination. Daschle wasn't a lobbyist- in name only. He has lots of ties to the healthcare industry and lots of money changed hands there over the years. I'd wager something dirty turned up that the administration didn't want getting out. :shrug:

A take on why Daschle was dropped:

This was not a GOP hit. The Obama administration didn't move because they thought Republican senators would defeat his nomination. They moved because they, and the left, thought Daschle's presence would harm the administration's image and degrade their credibility on health care. It was too easy to write the attack ads "Tom Daschle took $220,000 from the health industry..."

-edit-

Proof that we are in a different era, as Obama utters three words you would never have heard under the Bush Administration: "I screwed up."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I've gotta say- Obama, sure he's big government liberal, but I'm willing to take a wait and see approach. Clinton managed to do some good on a few issues and maybe Obama will do the same. But what really creeps me out is the fact that we now have Joe Biden as VP.... every time I think about that, it still makes my skin crawl. :sweatdrop:

---

Not to restart old debates, but spending under Bush made Clinton look like a small government conservative, and under Clinton the budget had been balanced. And Bush spent far more than he took in in taxes, which creates problems for future presidents, problems that future presidents will get the blame for having to clean up, and reduces their political capital to do anything positive for us.

Oh, I smell a rant coming. Spoilers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bush also was one of the first to suggest these huge economic bailouts, abandoning small government conservative principles when it was no longer politically damaging to do so, and too late, might I add. And there was no oversight. None. And his bailout package did not help us at all.

With Obama's package, the money will have oversight and might actually create jobs. In fact it is guaranteed to create jobs, and that's already much more than Bush's bailout did. If you're going to spend all that money, and as a small government type, I disagree with, at least spend it wisely.

That's why if you're going to have a government, it should be responsible for saving people's lives, not lining the pockets of the rich. Stimulating the economy with trickle down economics and tax breaks to the rich doesn't work, but helping cover the cost of healthcare does several things; encourages people to go see a doctor when they need to, the doctors actually get paid and the hospital doesn't go under, and the money the doctors and hospitals take in gets spent, to a large degree in our local economy.

Point blank, giving tax breaks to people who invest in stocks and buy expensive foreign things, does not stimulate the economy. Giving tax breaks to people who spend basically all the money they have, does stimulate the economy. Giving aid to people who will use it on doctor's bills, which often times go unpaid and have to get covered by local governments ANYWAY, is actually a more efficient use of the money and improves our nation's healthcare.

I'd prefer that over pork barrel spending such as bridges to nowhere, which Palin supported before she opposed. I always found it funny that Palin called the democrats "socialist" when her own state redistributes oil money to the residents of that state. In fact, her town that she was the mayor of, Wassilla, Alaska, doesn't actually function as the administration of fire departments and schools and so forth, basically what the government of Wassilla Alaska did was send out the oil checks, and not much else, according to the current mayor of Alaska herself.

So when you get "small government conservatives" like Bush and co. spending as much or more than "big government liberals" like Bill Clinton, and getting a lot less out of it for their trouble, and you have wingers accusing their opponents of doing something they themselves do to a much greater extent, I have to wonder why. Probably because they are the party of Rush Limbaugh, who is someone that sitting Republican senators and congressmen cannot openly criticize without being forced to apologize or become disenfranchised.

Rush, by the way, accused the Democrats of being unpatriotic and treasonous when they opposed George W. Bush in a time of war, and within Obama's first week, he was already openly expressing his desire that Obama FAIL. Forget how good it would be for the greater good of the country if Obama succeeds in turning our country around, Rush is concerned with the Republican Party, but mostly he's just concerned with himself. Numero Uno: Self-Interest.

What else could Rush possibly say and still be Rush Limbaugh? He cannot support Obama, and the Republicans have no ideas except to limit the stimulus plan and give more tax cuts, which is more of the same, ideas currently rejected by the majority of the public. So he cannot really endorse those plans as the loyal opposition either. All Rush can do is create controversy and hopefully that will generate ratings and loyal listeners, and therefore get more people out to the polls in 2012 voting Republican. In the meantime, he's totally written off the next 4 years and is actively trying to get people to not support our current president and stonewall all progress, thereby extending the depression and putting off our problems until the next Republican is in power.

It's partisanship like that that made me leave the Republican party. There is no room from :daisy: like that in America. I am registered Independent, and until the Republicans actually have a plan of action besides tax cuts (which, to be fair, were done, and they got a fair shake, and it did not solve our problems), I am going to support Obama.

Until he royally messes something up and no longer deserves our support, I am supporting him. Out of the good of our country, I am happy to see many of my fellow orgahs, especially conservatives and Republicans, giving Obama a fair chance. This is to be expected, this place is full of enlightened and fair minded people, and usually not blatant hypocrites.

Even when someone is ideologically opposed to you, if they are the leader of your country you should hope they succeed in their endeavors. I didn't like the reasons for the Iraq war, but I supported the troops and hope they all survive and come home soon. I didn't like Bush's idea for solving the social security mess, but I would have given it a chance, and I would hope he succeeded. I didn't like the use of torture in Gitmo, but I had hoped they would have used the information to stop future attacks (though I am opposed to the mantra "what is good for the many is good for us all", and diametrically opposed to the use of torture on people who never even got a trial by jury, let alone fundamental human rights) and otherwise succeeded in their endeavors to protect this nation. I didn't like the plan of action under Bush, which was fight a war and cut taxes at the same time. That made no sense. But I hoped the stimulus would turn the economy around and we would win the war too.

8 years later, that fair chance, that fair shake, that benefit of the doubt, that loyal opposition, has expired.

Obama deserves at least 4 years of a fair shake in return. And the bitter divisiveness between the parties needs to stop. I for one see no use in having political parties to begin with, but if they refuse to set minor differences in philosophy aside, they need to go to China where opposing the ruling party is a crime. Then they will understand the dangers of hyper-partisanship.

That goes for Democrats, too. Don't browbeat Republicans just for being Republican, or you turn yourselves into the very thing you claim to oppose, and I've no use for hypocrites.

Yak, yak, yak. I don't want to hijack this thread, so if anyone wishes to comment we can take the conversation into a different one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Proof that we are in a different era, as Obama utters three words you would never have heard under the Bush Administration: "I screwed up."

---

And with those three words, gained more of my trust than any defense of improperly vetting Daschle could have possibly achieved.

I wonder if the G.O.P. is paying attention, as that was actually a rather shrewd move on Obama's part. If they continue to press on Obama over the Daschel nomination, they immediately transition from "watching out for the public good and protecting us from influence peddling", to partisan hacks that are just out to score points.

IMHO this, more than any silly ideological argument, is the primary difference between a good or a bad leader.

Under a very strong leader, any philosophy can work. If everyone actually agreed to do it voluntarily, communism works. Just look at all the charitable and volunteer work that religious and secular organizations do without being prompted by governments or without being paid. All you need is good leadership and people willing to follow. Capitalism works under sound and wise leadership from businessmen. Republican trickle-down economics could work, in theory. Democratic soft socialism could work, in theory. Ancient societies which worshipped sun gods and practiced cannibalism seemed to function as a strong society. But only with strong leadership.

A strong leader needs to appear to be invulnerable, but without risking the loss of the support of the people, and the connection to the people. If a leader stubbornly refuses to acknowledge obvious mistakes that they've made, they've lost touch with the people and have lost touch with reality. How can they resolve the errors in their thought process if they refuse to acknowledge they have errors?

A leader who calls a spade a spade is a better leader. Saying "my bad" is not only OK, it's considered basic decency, especially from a leader who is accountable to the people whose interests he represents.

I also like the bipartisan selections for the cabinet, which have been characterized as naked moves to gain power in Congress by one party. I don't see how that is, especially if the person selected to fill their previous position is from the same party. Frankly it seems like more of the same noise that lost an election.

EDIT: And Democratic senators got selected, too. So it doesn't even make sense.

Well, being from New Hampshire, I can shed a little light on the Judd Gregg selection, and it's a litlte more complicated than it might appear at first glance. John Lynch, the Democratic governor, is beloved by folks on both sides of our local aisle. I'd seriously have to question somebody's faculties regardless of their affiliation who wouldn't at least pay the man basic respect.

However, he has made it very clear that he wants Judd Gregg's senate senate seat when his gubenatorial term is up in 2 years. Selecting Bonnie Newman, who had no designs on the office and has pre-agreed to not seek re-election in 2 years was pure brilliance. Bipartisanship AND favoring friends...

I think what the Nancy Pelosis and Barbara Boxers of the world need to come to grips with is that for President Obama, a Democratic Congress for the next few years is a given. But that doesn't mean the President is going to let them set his agenda for them. I think of the old Citibank commercial... not just Visa, Citibank Visa.... Obama is trying to put not just Democrats, but loyal allies in key positions. Very shrewd.

And as far as bipartisanship goes, you should read what's coming out of the Lefty blogosphere about Lynch selecting Bonnie Newman. There is rage, for a guy who arguably is the future face of their party. But people I know and respect are seething that the elusvie 60th seat will have to wait....

I honestly haven't heard much from the Lefty Blogosphere. I figure I can get the left-wing slant from MSNBC.

Olbermann is pretty hardcore with that stuff. He has lucid moments, but more often than not he's just a Republican-hating Limbaugh clone from the Left.

That said, he is pretty good at nailing Limbaugh with his recent naked and unabashed double standard I mentioned regarding the ideals of "supporting a president during a time of war".

Practically anything that is wildly partisan or wingnut-laden, I don't read, I don't want to read. Would you read the political manifesto of the Unabomber? I don't think so, I don't care what his wacky environmental/anti-industrial views are, when he talks about morality and then murders the innocent, he's a :daisy: hypocrite wacko lunatic.

Any right or left winger who consistently sees the world through red or blue glasses or sees the opposing philosophy (as if there were only two) as the devil is an idiot in my opinion, because that blatantly ignores half of the people responsible for our current dilemma. There's enough blame to go around. That's why, in spite of Bush, I can't just declare myself a Democrat. There's plenty of idiots in that party that need to be replaced, and I'd take an experienced, competent, and not frothing-mad Republican over an untested and potentially dangerous lefty Democrat.

That's why I'm not a big fan of Al Franken. Sure Obama needs support, but Franken is a partisan nutjob.



I'm also from New Hampshire, by the way. Just don't live there anymore. 18 years, born and raised.
Live Free or Die, brother.

Well we might hear some more "my bad"s coming from Obama in the near future, if you read the Politico's chronicle of the new presidents missteps and screwups during his first few weeks in office.

Quote:

---

Simply put, the way to exploit a White House moment is not to compete with it.

That kind of PR self control can drive the coverage from the relentless and omnipresent cable outlets back -- again and again -- to that singular event.

But the new White House sometimes runs over its own, central economic message.

For instance, Obama hosted at the White House nearly a dozen corporate executives who support his recovery package on the same day the House passed its version of the legislation on a party line vote.

As a consequence, the support for the legislation from a host of cutting edge technology CEOs was buried amid coverage of the lack of a single House Republican vote in favor of it.

On Monday the White House tried again.

Obama had sought to illustrate the support he has among governors for the stimulus package by inviting Republican Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas for remarks.

But that news was quickly overtaken by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s swearing in ceremony.

Indeed, the Obama team has yet to fully exploit the open and enthusiastic support it has received from such higher profile Republican governors as Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California for his stimulus program.

---

I also like how Obama makes several disastrous nominations, says "oops, my bad" and is praised for it. :laugh4: The stimulus plan also seems to be quickly headed towards disaster as Republicans are successfully labeling as a pork-laden mess and public support for it is plummeting. The mistake there was in letting congressional Democrats craft whatever they wanted with little or no direction from the White House. Obama needs to pick up the learning curve and turn talk into action before the honeymoon is over.

I look forward to being called a horrible person for interrupting the love-in. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

IMHO this, more than any silly ideological argument, is the primary difference between a good or a bad leader.

Under a very strong leader, any philosophy can work. If everyone actually agreed to do it voluntarily lost all natural human instinct and became like a large group of ants, communism works.

---

Fixed!

Quote:

---

Just look at all the charitable and volunteer work that religious and secular organizations do without being prompted by governments or without being paid. All you need is good leadership and people willing to follow.

---

Charity work and the work you do as the central part of your life to support yourself are quite different things.

Quote:

---

I also like how Obama makes several disastrous nominations, says "oops, my bad" and is praised for it.

---

In fairness, its better than pretending said mistake never happened.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I look forward to being called a horrible person for interrupting the love-in. ~;p

---

According to the locals, I believe the love-in officially ended last week. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

In fairness, its better than pretending said mistake never happened.

---

And that's a valid point. However, saying you're sorry doesn't make the screwup go away. He screwed up and admitted it. Ok. Now what?

It just seems to me that many Americans have become fixated with apologies. Apologies are great, but learning from your mistakes is better. If it was between an arrogant jerk who never admitted any mistakes- but learned from it and avoided future goof ups and a guy who admitted his mistakes, but kept on making more... who would you rather have? Hopefully Obama will be the guy to admit he screwed up and will also learn to make better decisions from it. Again, apologies are great, but speaking personally, actions are more important than words. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I've gotta say- Obama, sure he's big government liberal, but I'm willing to take a wait and see approach.

---

So is it safe to say that after two whole weeks, you've waited and seen?

I'm loving your forced choice between "an arrogant jerk who never admitted any mistakes- but learned from it and avoided future goof ups and a guy who admitted his mistakes, but kept on making more." I don't suppose there's any need to delve into the logical flaws in that bit of rhetoric, now is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So is it safe to say that after two whole weeks, you've waited and seen?

---

Well friend, Obama still has a lot of time in office to hopefully do some good. But, so far Obama has made quite a few missteps even for a n00b. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm loving your forced choice between "an arrogant jerk who never admitted any mistakes- but learned from it and avoided future goof ups and a guy who admitted his mistakes, but kept on making more." I don't suppose there's any need to delve into the logical flaws in that bit of rhetoric, now is there?

---

If you finished reading my thoughts, there's no need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Hopefully Obama will be the guy to admit he screwed up and will also learn to make better decisions from it.

---

See? A positive combination of both would be preferable. But then here was the point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Again, apologies are great, but speaking personally, actions are more important than words.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

...I also like how Obama makes several disastrous nominations, says "oops, my bad" and is praised for it. :laugh4:

---

Brilliantly played. He's in his honeymoon, had a stumble, gets to look honorable for taking the blame on himself, but does so during a time-frame when there is no downside to the measure. He disassociated himself from the "mistakes" BY taking responsibility for them -- and simultaneously fed a little red meat to the Bush haters who never got to hear those words from the person they define as the source of evil.

Obama is an adroit politico. Unfortunately, he'll have (is having) more trouble getting his own party in step then side-stepping GOP efforts. What his team wanted for their first big bill was a Reaganesque broad support and a quick passage based on Obama's prestige -- and that was a solid idea. What the administration got was a porcine effort with too much Dem pork in one ugly chunk -- and the House leadership gave the GOP core something to hammer on.

I won't like the bill coming out of the Senate either, and the conference result even less, but something will pass within the month.

Curioser and curioser said Alice.

And now, Hilda Silas.... Hilda Salis confirmation put on hold to investegate tax liens against husband.. Boy, for folks that are big on raising them on the rest of us, do ANY Democrats actually pay taxes? (the ones in office, that is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And now, Hilda Silas.... Hilda Salis confirmation put on hold to investegate tax liens against husband.. Boy, for folks that are big on raising them on the rest of us, do ANY Democrats actually pay taxes? (the ones in office, that is).

---

For the record, this is not a partisan hack or me being led by the masses... this is the VERY reason I have never trusted the Democrats in office. It's not that I don't have a big heart or want to help people. It's that you do enough digging, and you learn that they don't, that government is just one giant Ponzi scheme. After the past 8 years, I have a host of reasons not to trust the Republicans either, so I guess I'm voting Federalist in the next election.

Judd Gregg Withdraws as Commerce Secretary Nominee

Quote:

---

“It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me,” Mr. Gregg said in a statement. “Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.”

---

I never understood why Gregg ever contemplated the nomination to begin with- glad to see he changed his mind. I'd guess the census issue was probably the final straw.

His nomination has been catching flak from minorities over the control of the 2010 census. He apparently opposed some changes for the 2000 census, I guess the heat got to be too much.

Apparently everyone and his dog has a theory about why, exactly Gregg walked away from Commerce. The bloggers are all pontificating, at greater length and with more vehemence than you'll see here. I expect the talking heads on cable to go on about for at least a full 24-hour news cycle.

I don't get the impression that anybody yet has the authoritative take on why Gregg went back to the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

His nomination has been catching flak from minorities over the control of the 2010 census. He apparently opposed some changes for the 2000 census, I guess the heat got to be too much.

---

As far as I know, Obama had already said that the census would be taken out of the Commerce Department and put under the direct control of the White House. I'm sure that didn't sit well with Gregg. I'm not comfortable with it either- some of the sampling ideas I've heard kicked around are very questionable Constitutionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As far as I know, Obama had already said that the census would be taken out of the Commerce Department and put under the direct control of the White House.

---

Gregg was also fully aware of the stimulus bill.

"We need a robust [stimulus package]. I think the one that's pending is in the range we need. I do believe it's a good idea to do it at two levels, which this bill basically does, which is immediate stimulus and long-term initiatives which actually improve our competitiveness and our productivity," -- Judd Gregg

So that leaves pressure from constituents (who wouldn't really be his constituents anymore, so I'm not clear on how hard they could hammer him) and pressure from the GOP, which appears to have decided that any form of cooperation with the Obama Administration is unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So that leaves pressure from constituents (who wouldn't really be his constituents anymore, so I'm not clear on how hard they could hammer him) and pressure from the GOP, which appears to have decided that any form of cooperation with the Obama Administration is unacceptable.

---

Or, as you so graciously sidestepped with catlike agility, maybe it's Obama's plans for the census, as Xiahou has said... oh I don't know, 3 times now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Or, as you so graciously sidestepped with catlike agility, maybe it's Obama's plans for the census, as Xiahou has said... oh I don't know, 3 times now?

---

I have catlike agility? Cool. That's kinda like a superpower, right?

Okay, somebody explain or link to an explanation about this whole census thing. What's the big whup?

I have catlike agility? Cool. That's kinda like a superpower, right?

That depends... do you think normal cats have something kinda like a superpower... ~;)

Oh, get real, you with your speciesist talking points. Everybody knows that when you give a human being animal powers everything gets extra-fancy. Werewolves, for instance, aren't just doggie humans; they're super-powerful monsters. So if Don is going to declare that I have cat-like powers, I think it's perfectly logical to expect my were-cat abilities to be heightened beyond those of the ordinary housecat.

Meanwhile, I think Xiahou should go correct Senator Gregg, since the man clearly doesn't know his own mind. "[D]uring a news conference with reporters, Gregg said 'The Census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue.' "

-edit-

Reading further in that piece, it doesn't seem that any of the previous directors of the Census have a problem with whatever plans are afoot. And apparently the Bush Administration did a lot of coordinating for the 2000 Census. Is this a real issue, or is this Fairness Doctrine Mark 2?

But Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census director from 1998 to 2001, said he worked with White House staff during the 2000 Census on budgeting, advertising and outreach efforts. In an e-mail, Prewitt said he never met with anyone "more senior than a deputy chief of staff, except once when I met with the entire cabinet on how each member could assist in the large outreach effort then underway."

Other former Census directors agreed that coordination with the White House on budgeting and outreach was appropriate while data collection and analysis should be kept separate.

As for potential political interference, “It’s virtually impossible to do something wrong without someone finding out about it,” said Vincent P. Barabba, who ran the 1980 Census. “It’s about as transparent an agency that exists.”

Barbara Everitt Bryant, who served as director during the 1990 Census, said: "I would have liked a little of the bully pulpit help, because one of the big things is just to get everyone to answer the questionnaire. The president would have a lot more clout on that than anything we could have done at the Census bureau."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Okay, somebody explain or link to an explanation about this whole census thing. What's the big whup?

---

Here is some background:

Quote:

---

"The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols," says Mr. Chapman. "You would think an administration that's thumping its chest about respecting science would show a little respect for scientists in the statistical field." He worries that a Census director reporting to a hyperpartisan such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel increases the chances of a presidential order that would override the consensus of statisticians.

The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House will oversee the Census Bureau. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insists there is "historical precedent" for the Census director to be "working closely with the White House."

It would be nice to know what Sen. Gregg thinks about all this, but he's refusing comment. And that, says Mr. Chapman, the former Census director, is damaging his credibility. "He will look neutered with oversight of the most important function of his department over the next two years shipped over to the West Wing," he says. "If I were him, I wouldn't take the job unless I had that changed."

---

As to Gregg's stated reasons- he lists the census as a reason, I suspect he's trying to downplay how much of one it was. The census is one of the biggest responsibilities of Commerce isn't it? I can't imagine he was happy when he found out that it was being taken out of his Dept.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the other threads are wandering a bit. Time to give issues relating to the formation and actions of Obama's administration a home of their own. SF

-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yeah, I saw in Google News that the WSJ piece you quote was the most mainstream source putting this out there. Lots of hits in the Fox News Forum and NewsMax and other rightwingish places. I guess this is the outrage of the week. Helloooooo Fairness Doctrine: The Sequel. Just when you thought Rupert Murdoch's various media organs were done talking about flag pins ....

The first census to be conducted under the auspices of a Democratic President in thirty years comes along, and the rightwing media goes ape. I am Lemur's total lack of surprise. And because some hispanic groups have been agitating for statistical sampling, this means that the Dems are going to gerrymander the entire nation or something, right?

And even though Gregg says the census was not a primary motivation, it really was. Gotcha.

Look, Gregg lobbied for the cabinet post. He wasn't offered it out of the blue. And by all accounts, the Obama Admin was working with him and trying to make things right. Gregg was fully aware of the stimulus bill (for those of you who skipped Macroeconomics 101, "stimulus"="spending"), and he was fully aware of the census brouhaha. Something happened.

I find this at least as suspicious as the dude with the security cameras who just happened to have a loaded weapon ready when four men armed with assault rifles came to "rob" his home.

-edit-

Looking at the issue again: Bruce Chapman, the only named source in the WSJ piece you quote, is firmly linked with the religious right. Specifically, he founded an institute that pushes Intelligent Design. He also never conducted a census, since he was appointed by Saint Reagan a year after the 1980 census.

The person who actually conducted the 1980 census says: “It’s virtually impossible to do something wrong without someone finding out about it,” said Vincent P. Barabba, who ran the 1980 Census. “It’s about as transparent an agency that exists.”

Secondly, what's with the flip-out about White House involvement in the census, anyway? Guess what? The Commerce Department is run by ... (drum roll) ... a political appointee! Who answers only to .... (drum roll) ... the President of the United States! So if you were okay with a census being conducted by the Reagan Administration, and then by the Bush Administration, and then by the Bush Administration ... hmmm ... what's changed?

I think, Lemur, i was more about appearances. Obama wants to be bipartisan so he appoints Gregg, he then promptly strips Gregg of one of his primary responsibilities because he apparently doesn't trust a Republican to do it. It's Obama that politicized it in doing so. Had he wanted to be apolitical or post-partisan or whatever the buzz word is, he would've left it alone.

If there was no need to worry about funny business, why did they change it?

I'm taking a look at what the Department of Commerce actually does. Why is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (including the National Weather Service) part of that department? Should I even ask?

Also, perhaps it's time for us to move our Obama discussion to a new thread. His inauguration was three weeks ago or something near.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

If there was no need to worry about funny business, why did they change it?

---

Haven't the foggiest. I seriously doubt that the only explanation is the one being peddled by the rightwing blogs. In fact, I haven't seen any confirmation that the 2010 census is being "taken away" from commerce outside of the rightwing news sources. According to the Dept of Commerce web site, the census is very much in their purview.

If it walks like a manufactured controversy, and it quacks like a manufactured controversy ...

I do love these Lemur v Xiahou arguments -- sources, well-expressed points of view, just enough "edge" to give it liveliness. Good STUFF!

Stupid me, I pushed forward the idea that the US Postal Service, with it's "visit every address, 6 times per week" mandate, might be better equipped (and cheaper, vs. the independent contractors usually used) to conduct the actual census.

We (the usps) make a few extra bucks in these down times, and save the Gov't a few bucks to boot.

Sadly, I hadn't counted on the politics involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Stupid me, I pushed forward the idea that the US Postal Service, with it's "visit every address, 6 times per week" mandate, might be better equipped (and cheaper, vs. the independent contractors usually used) to conduct the actual census.

We (the usps) make a few extra bucks in these down times, and save the Gov't a few bucks to boot.

Sadly, I hadn't counted on the politics involved.

---

Unfortunately the problem is that then no one counts the homeless. That's the only defence I can think of for using sampling over a head count census-wise.

Lemur, did you see where he mentions the census in his formal statement?

Quote:

---

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

---

You think his remarks in his press conference trump his formal withdrawal wording? Nevermind what he says tho, I'm sure if you keep scouring the blogosphere you'll get to the bottom of this.


Edit: Kukri has started a pattern of coming up with simple answers to questions too confusing for our elected officials.

Postal service isn't really an option. Putting mail in a box is a lot easier than finding people at home to interview. Lots of people won't be home at that moment so you have to come back later, and interviewing takes up time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Postal service isn't really an option. Putting mail in a box is a lot easier than finding people at home to interview. Lots of people won't be home at that moment so you have to come back later, and interviewing takes up time.

---

Actually, for the last 2 headcounts, most of the census was conducted by mail. Lots of census forms got returned, unopened, due to faulty/non-existant addresses (the Commerce Dept had hired a mass-mailing company, to use their mailing database, which turned out to be only about 60% accurate). Nowadays, the USPS maintains a 98+% accurate address database of its own.

The Comm Dept then hired (lowest-bidder) local sub-contractors to do physical interviews with about 10% of their list of "survey received, but not returned" addresses. Those guys were constantly stopping me and my co-workers for directions, they being out-of-towners with no clue where houses were. One such guy shared with me that he got $15 per hour (this was year 2000), roughly the same as I was making.

So we postys were/are already deeply involved in census-taking. Mail volume is down 30% this year, and many of us are having a hard time putting together a 40-hour week. We'd have time, without overtime pay, to conduct 2-3 interviews per day from a list of (say) 20 non-responders. Do a couple a day, and in a month we've got a pretty good sampling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Unfortunately the problem is that then no one counts the homeless.

---

Good point. However, there are homeless shelters that do have street addresses, where that population's numbers could be substantially "captured" via interviews with shelter staff.

I'm not fighting hard for this, especially as it seems the powers-that-be ahve already decided the issue. I'm just saying, we could have done it cheaper, and more reliably, with our already-available resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Edit: Kukri has started a pattern of coming up with simple answers to questions too confusing for our elected officials.

---

That's because most of our elected officials are lawyers with no real idea how things run. :yes:

The New York Times voices concern over Obama's naming of former Citigroup execs to his administration:

Quote:

---

Senior executives at Citigroup’s Alternative Investment division ran up hundreds of millions of dollars in losses last year on their esoteric collection of investments, including real estate funds and private highway construction projects, even as they collected seven-figure salaries and bonuses.

Now the Obama administration has turned to that Citigroup division — twice — for high-level advisers.

---

Quote:

---

“You sort of have to wonder why it is so smart to put them in charge now, if they helped create the mess that we are in,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “They wouldn’t strike me as the natural choice.”

---

Quote:

---

As of last fall Citigroup Alternative Investments managed $49 billion worth of capital from individuals and institutions, investing in nontraditional ventures like a program that builds highways, runs airports and oversees other major public projects for governments.

In the first quarter of last year, the Alternative Investment division lost $509 million and for the whole year, it was part of a larger Citigroup division that lost $20 billion, according to Citigroup.

---

At least one of them received the horrible bonuses we've heard so much about:

Quote:

---

Citigroup paid Mr. Lew, 53, at least $1.1 million in salary and bonus last year, according to a financial disclosure form filed last month. The form noted that he might get an additional undisclosed bonus for his work in 2008 before he started his federal job.

---

Anyone think it's a little bit disingenuous for Obama to setup executives of these companies as economic boogeymen, whose greed caused our crisis when he's hiring them on to his administration? Froman is going to be an economic adviser to the president and Lew will oversee financial matters at the State Dept. :dizzy2:

Vice President Biden apparently doesn't get the special privileges of his predecessor. He is NOT in an undisclosed location, the Naval Observatory is no longer pixelated in Google Maps. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Anyone think it's a little bit disingenuous for Obama to setup executives of these companies as economic boogeymen, whose greed caused our crisis when he's hiring them on to his administration?

---

Actually, if I remember correctly, Obama's criticism of the Wall Street Bailout bonus crew was fairly measured. I think you're conflating President Obama with the Congresscritters who've been grandstanding and making great declarations of shock and shame in the hearings.

It's okay, I know everyone who isn't a Republican looks the same to you.

Hey, check it out! I started a new thread and didn't even know about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, if I remember correctly, Obama's criticism of the Wall Street Bailout bonus crew was fairly measured. I think you're conflating President Obama with the Congresscritters who've been grandstanding and making great declarations of shock and shame in the hearings.

It's okay, I know everyone who isn't a Republican looks the same to you.

Hey, check it out! I started a new thread and didn't even know about it!

---

So you DO have cat-like agility. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, if I remember correctly, Obama's criticism of the Wall Street Bailout bonus crew was fairly measured. I think you're conflating President Obama with the Congresscritters who've been grandstanding and making great declarations of shock and shame in the hearings.

It's okay, I know everyone who isn't a Republican looks the same to you.

---

Whoa, you're right. I thought this was Obama calling the bonuses "the height of irresponsibility" and "shameful". I'd better go see a doctor, clearly I'm hallucinating. :beam:

Obama has been more muted than some of his fellow blowhards in congress, but he hasn't been above piling on. So if it was the height of irresponsibility for Lews to accept a bonus in excess of $1 million, what is it when you appoint him to your administration?

So Commerce is still vacant. Anybody want it?

Going once. :smash:

Going twice. :smash:

OK, I'll take it.

USPS gets the census for 70 million bucks. (We'll save the remainder of the $1B allocated)

NOAA gets 4 more satellites over north america.

I need new numbers guys for the Institute for Standards & Tech, Telecomm and Info Administration, Econ and Stats Admin.

Need sci-guys for Trademark and Patent.

And Chinese and Arabic-speakers/writers for the Intnl Trade Admin.

Any takers?

Wait. I got a speeding ticket in New Mexico (90 in a 70) in 1986, that I might have forgotten about until just now.

Glad to see that the rightwing's most public persona is staying strong for his country: "I want everything he's doing to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail.... I do not want this to succeed."

David "diapers and prostitutes" Vitter lays out the "hope for fail" strategy in greater detail:

According to Vitter, the GOP is basically betting the farm that the stimulus package is going to fail, and the party wants Democrats to go down with it. "Our next goal is to make President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress own it completely," he said. Instead of coming up with serious measures to save the economy, the party intends to devote its time to an "we told you so" agenda that will include GOP-only hearings on the bill's impact in the coming months to highlight the bill's purportedly wasteful elements and shortcomings.

While Vitter seemed to think this was a brilliant new political tactic, voters might be less enthusiastic than Federalist Society members about politicians who spend the next 18 months rooting for the economy to get worse, just to prove a point.

Going back to the unfillable position of Commerce Secretary, I always suspected there was more to the Gregg dropout than was made public. You don't lobby for a position like crazy, then turn around and say you can't take it on "principle." What politician ever turned anything down on principle, anyway?

Details:

[The] former nominee to become commerce secretary, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, steered taxpayer money to his home state's redevelopment of a former Air Force base even as he and his brother engaged in real estate deals there, an Associated Press investigation found.

Gregg, R-N.H., has personally invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Cyrus Gregg's office projects at the Pease International Tradeport, a Portsmouth business park built at the defunct Pease Air Force Base, once home to nuclear bombers. Judd Gregg has collected at least $240,017 to $651,801 from his investments there, Senate records show, while helping to arrange at least $66 million in federal aid for the former base.

“pro-life”: anti- abortion. Most of them are for Death Penalty, hardly “pro-life” stance…:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“pro-life”: anti- abortion. Most of them are for Death Penalty, hardly “pro-life” stance…:laugh4:

---

“pro-choice”: pro- abortion. Most of them are for Gun Control, hardly “pro-choice” stance...:laugh4:

Well, I rarely found the political terms americans use very clever but they keep using them and they own the internet, so what can we do? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, I rarely found the political terms americans use very clever but they keep using them and they own the internet, so what can we do? :shrug:

---

Boycott the internet and go to the barricades!

From Philanthopy.com:

Quote:

---

Obama's Tax Plan Could Cause Giving by the Wealthy to Drop by Several Billion Dollars Annually

---

So, good idea, or great idea? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

From Philanthopy.com:
So, good idea, or great idea? :dizzy2:

---

could

I can think of a boatload of ideas that could cause any number of things. Could is a tad vague, no?

Increasing (or re-instating) taxation on charitable donations seems likely to do so, logically. Heck, charitable donations went down with the economy; with less money available due to increasing taxes, why would it do anything but continue to drop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

could

I can think of a boatload of ideas that could cause any number of things. Could is a tad vague, no?

---

Read the article- all I posted was the headline. Don't just jump on the word "could" in the title and proceed to dismiss all the reasoning that went into it out of hand.

I'd like to think that upper-income folks give to charity purely for the fact that they like helping others and that it being a tax write-off doesn't factor in. But seriously, don't you think the tax advantage plays at least some role? :inquisitive:

The Politico takes notice of Obama's teleprompter addiction:

Quote:

---

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

“pro-choice”: pro- abortion. Most of them are for Gun Control, hardly “pro-choice” stance...:laugh4:

---

It's perfectly valid in regards to issues of life, not issues of arms control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The Politico takes notice of Obama's teleprompter addiction:

---

He's still in that "anything but the last guy" n00bie stage. W did it with Clinton, Billy with HWbush, on back ad infinitum - they've all done that.

-don't fumble your words
-don't fall into "folksie"
-don't invade Iraq
-don't let the WTC fall
-don't bankrupt the country (oops, that might need tweaking) :)

I'm just happy everyone in the world is experiencing "Hope and Change" like we are here in the States; Global economic downturn and another Great Depression (Obamas words) is Change we all can believe in!!!:laugh4:

This is what the world view of a community organizer looks like... enjoy it fellow members of planet earth. :2thumbsup:

My 401K looks awesome!!! Everytime this guy's teleprompter tells him what to say, the DOW drops atleast another 150.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

It's perfectly valid in regards to issues of life, not issues of arms control.

---

Heard that before, and my reaction is the same. :laugh4:

Regardless, I shall give you another example. The issue of the death penalty. As pro-choice people are generally against the death penalty, I see no reason why they would be opposed to a responsible body of people, after due deliberation, passing a death sentence. After all, it is the choice of the people.

I can go on ad nauseum, but I hope that instead of trying to defend your side, you will see my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I'm just happy everyone in the world is experiencing "Hope and Change" like we are here in the States [...]

---

Yup, seems like the vast majority of Americans are hoping and changing as hard as they can:

The poll found a sharp jump in the proportion of Americans who say the nation is "generally headed in the right direction" since Mr. Obama's January inauguration, a period when economic indicators and financial markets have suggested the opposite. The survey shows that 41% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, up dramatically from 26% in mid-January, before Mr. Obama took office, and up from 12% before the election.

The number who say the country is on the "wrong track" is still higher at 44%, but given the economic conditions, pollsters expected it to be much higher.

In the past, similarly sudden improvements in national mood were recorded only after national emergencies that prompted a rallying effect, such as the 2001 terrorist attacks. In this case, the boost is being driven by Democrats and other Obama voters who are pleased with the opening weeks of the administration. Overall, two-thirds of all Americans say they feel "hopeful" about Mr. Obama's leadership and plans, compared with 28% who say they feel "doubtful."

Take this only as seriously as you want to, it is not meant as a prophecy per se, but only as a funny coincidence.
Stalin was named Man of the Year by Time Magazine.
Hitler was named Man of the Year by Time Magazine.
WWII broke out.
Putin was named Person of the Year by Time Magazine.
Obama was named Person of the Year by Time Magazine.
...

Hitler ran on the slogan of change. (Don't have my book with me, but something like: "If you want to keep doing the same thing, vote for the other guy. If you want change, vote for Hitler")
Hitler relied heavily on symbols and taking advantage of a national crisis that he promised to lift Germany out of.
Obama ran on a slogan of change.
Obama relied heavily on symbols and taking advantage of a national crisis that he promised to lift America out of.

The entire world loved Hitler and wanted him elected, because he preached politics of Hope for a new age to the world.
The entire world loved Obama and wanted him elected, because he preached politics of Hope for a new age to the world.

Hitler supported abortion (until he needed a higher population), gun control, more government direction of industry, bigger national government, etc.
Obama supports abortion, gun control, more government direction of industry, bigger national government, etc.

Race factored significantly into Hitler's run.
Race factored significantly into Obama's run.

There was a cult in Russia built around Stalin's personality.
There was a cult in Germany built around Hitler's personality.

There was a cult in Russia built around Putin's personality.
There is a cult in America built around Obama's personality.

Once in power Hitler quickly set out to made deals with Stalin.
Once in power Obama quickly set out to made deals with Putin.



A Historian is a Prophet in reverse - Benjiman Franklin (I think, not sure about that one)

EDIT: Hitler created a massive civilian section of the military that he then used to control the country.
Obama wants to create a massive civilian section of the military...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I'm just happy everyone in the world is experiencing "Hope and Change" like we are here in the States; Global economic downturn and another Great Depression (Obamas words) is Change we all can believe in!!!:laugh4:

This is what the world view of a community organizer looks like... enjoy it fellow members of planet earth. :2thumbsup:

My 401K looks awesome!!! Everytime this guy's teleprompter tells him what to say, the DOW drops atleast another 150.

---

The ignorance of this post is suffocating me. :no:

Vuk, your post is really silly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/...clinton_russia :no:

lol, it was meant to be funny in a way. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The ignorance of this post is suffocating me. :no:

---

Welcome to the Backroom. ~:wave:

You will find that Devastatin' Dave has an idiosyncratic view of some subjects, but is nonetheless loved by all. (Yes, Lemur, it's true :wink:)

We discourage one-line rebuttals that merely rely on a charge of ignorance as their argument. Good form is to demonstrate the member's mistake in a respectful fashion, or with clearly signposted humour (supported by smileys).

Lavrov to Hillary Clinton: You're doing it wrong.

Quote:

---

The Politico reports She handed a palm-sized box wrapped with a bow. Lavrov opened it and pulled out the gift: a red button on a black base with a Russian word peregruzka printed on top.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton asked.

“You got it wrong,” Lavrov said.

Instead of "reset," Lavrov said the word on the box meant “overcharge.”

Clinton and Lavrov laughed.

“We won’t let you do that to us,” she said. Trying to recover, Clinton said the new administration was serious about improving relations with Moscow. “We mean it, and we’re looking forward to it.”

---

I think this is pretty symbolic of the Obama administration's foreign policy thus far. :sweatdrop:

Russian media teases Clinton over 'reset' button

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Lavrov to Hillary Clinton: You're doing it wrong.I think this is pretty symbolic of the Obama administration's foreign policy thus far. :sweatdrop:

Russian media teases Clinton over 'reset' button

---

God, how embarrassing. Atleast the Russians now for a fact now its amatuer hour for the US government...

Welcome to the back room a completely inoffensive name, enjoy my ignorance and I will enjoy your naivity!!!:laugh4:

Sorry to suffocate you, you'll just have to learn to breath through your nose when your mouth is occupied.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

God, how embarrassing. Atleast the Russians now for a fact now its amatuer hour for the US government...

Welcome to the back room a completely inoffensive name, enjoy my ignorance and I will enjoy your naivity!!!:laugh4:

Sorry to suffocate you, you'll just have to learn to breath through your nose when your mouth is occupied.:yes:

---

Louis learned that along time ago :thumbsup:

As for Obama. As much as I want some crazy cataclysmic event to take the lives of my friends and family while I scream "I was right I was right, teh antichrist" I think he will just go the way of James Earl Carter.

Boring but that's what I see. Ho hum