 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:39 PM Could you translate that last statement of yours into some commonly known language, Amos? ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:21 PM A nice, undiscriminating, blanket negative emotive reaction, demonstrating a clear understanding of the most undifferentiated sort. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:57 PM What I have the greatest regrets about...although I do like Obama pretty well...is that we will never get to see what Chongo would have done, once elected. I think the results would have been truly astounding. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:02 PM Oh goody, another 'cut and paste' from the CFR! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:34 AM Grade: A- Obama has taken on an incredibly ambitious agenda in the Middle East, against long odds. He managed the recasting of Iraq policy brilliantly, emerging with solid bipartisan consensus around his plan to draw down forces and withdraw by the end of 2011. His personal outreach to the Muslim world has been stellar, tapping into his potential to be a transformative figure in America's relations with the Islamic world -- and he has backed that up with concrete policy changes on hot issues such as Guantanamo and torture. He has consistently emphasized the U.S. commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, and especially to the two-state solution... although I worry that some people in the administration are too wedded to a West Bank first, Fatah only strategy that is very likely to fail. I don't have a great deal of hope that there can be much progress with this Israeli government or with the divided Palestinian leadership. But Obama has delivered on his promise to engage directly with rivals such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, putting some meat on his earlier convictions about the value of such diplomacy. Grade: A- President Obama is off to a very good start. In substance and tone, he has put on offer a more respectful and consensual brand of U.S. leadership, and backed it up with astute public diplomacy. Obama has made clear that he wants to improve America's relations with allies and adversaries alike -- but that allies must do more to share burdens with the United States and that adversaries must stand down from confrontational and destabilizing policies. Obama is headed in the right direction if he is to restore U.S. legitimacy abroad and secure the teamwork needed to address international challenges. He gets the minus only because it is too soon to give anyone a straight A; the hard part -- implementation -- awaits. Charles Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow for Europe studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. I am less confident about the direction of his policy on two key issues: Iran and Afghanistan. The contours of his engagement with Iran are not yet clear, and there could be some serious negative fallout if the administration opts for a narrow dialogue on the nuclear program on a short clock, rather than a broad dialogue over the full set of regional issues. I worry at the number of key positions which remain unfilled. And I don't really understand the logic of the new "Af-Pak" strategy, or see any reason to believe that the additional troops or the new strategy are likely to significantly change the situation there. But overall Obama has demonstrated tremendous instincts thus far on foreign policy, delivering just the approach he promised during the campaign and putting a lot of potential issues into play. Marc Lynch, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, blogs at lynch.foreignpolicy.com. .... From Foreign Policy journal These were not the best or the worst grades given in the article which included a dozen commentatorrs. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:21 AM The original of that quote, just in case it seems ambiguous...such a LONG time back... |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:00 AM And on the Mudcat, no-one knows you're a dog. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:27 PM Well, dang it, I am not going to post my email address on a public forum with a few hundred people logging in on it every day. I'm not crazy. ;-) I prefer that the world not be able to beat a path to my doorway. Far as I can see, what you have to do is become a member and send me a PM, and we can take it from there. It's easy to become a member. So easy that my dog could probably do it if he could type. You could even become a member just temporarily...say for three weeks...under any darn name you make up. And then you can PM me through Mudcat. And we can talk. That's my suggestion. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:02 PM Little Hawk, As you know, I'm not a member, and therefore, don't have access to your e-mail address. Care to share it? |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:09 PM Come on, you can do better than that! Haven't you had enough of bullying women(?)?? |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:26 PM The frog is your conscience, trying to speak your language... A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:31 PM I cup my ears, and listen into the dark stillness....only the scattered sounds of crickets and an occasional frog...........hmm. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:04 AM Oh, bullshit. I googled the topic and gave you the first bunch of links I found........I know...but...did you read them?..I did. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:14 AM Oh, bullshit. I googled the topic and gave you the first bunch of links I found. Do your own damned homework, why don't you? Deception, smeption. Mayhap the accusation is a sad confession. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:39 PM Clever...Nice list....only one was due to the TARP funds....out of how many hundreds of billions?? Most of them were by religious people, a sheriff, and a mortgage guy. Another attempt of deception. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:13 PM This couple was saved from foreclosure. Lend America plans to save thousands of homes from foreclosure. Local religionists helping people prevent foreclosure Dallas man saved from foreclosure by a mortgage comapny Lady's home saved by Obama program Nonprofits helping prevent foreclosures Goldman Sachs trader saves 36 families' homes from foreclosure Wayne County sherriff saves homes from foreclosure Google is your friend. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM I'm not sure it applies to Canadians, Little Hawk. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:18 PM I can't think of anyone... |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:15 PM By the way, has anyone checked out the corrupted crap going on with Diane Feinstien, her husband, and the TARP money??? Here's the short of it. She goes to the FED(or someone in it), askes for a bunch of money(several tens of millions), to put into her husband's business, which he takes and buys up all the stock, with the funds received, so now he has controlling stock...that now shoots up, and he makes a cool, several tens of million more....and get this...the business...selling homes that were foreclosed on...for a commission!! Incidently, does anyone here know someone, or knows someone who knows someone, or knows someone who knows someone, who knows someone, that got a penny for refinancing their home..or got help from going into foreclosure???.....Just wondering..........(hands stuck in pockets, rolling eyes, whistling a wandering tune) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:54 PM "The hundred-day mark tends to fall during a period when Americans are still evaluating a new president. The danger period for most presidents comes later in their first year in office," Holland explained. "Bill Clinton, for example, still had good marks after his first 100 days, but his approval rating had tanked by June of 1993. Ronald Reagan's approval rating stayed over 50 percent until November of his first year in office, but once it slipped below that mark, it stayed under 50 percent for two years. So Obama's current rating certainly does not indicate that he is out of the woods yet." "I do not know the exact formulations behind all the decisions Mister Will sees fit to curdle and bitch about" Why not? Where is all that openness and transparancy that Obama the Candidate promised??? "You sure to love to suck on the bilious teat, Brucie. And George Wills and Krauthammer, your other fountain head of bilious wisdom, have plenty of bad humor, bitterness, and dripping sardonic turns of phrase to spare. A pure river of bitter bile to sate the most disenchanted and jaded appetite for negative nabobbery." Again, you attack people rather than reply to the ideas presented. Are you so certain that you have no other recourse? It seems that you dare not argue facts or ideas, but feel you can get people to agree with you by telling them how awfull the ones who disagree with you are. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:25 PM SO far, Obama has waded into the messiest inherited mishmash of bad work any President has had to face--except, perhaps, Lincoln--and has continued to stay as balanced and as productive as he could be expected to be. He is pushing forward the things he said he would, and as predicted, it is proving less easy to actually do than it was to describe. But we knew that, and he knew it. It seems to me more folks would do well to encourage him to do the right thing instead of just finding any old rotten egg they can pull out of their embittered and jaded nightmares to throw at him whenever they feel vituperative. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:19 PM You sure to love to suck on the bilious teat, Brucie. And George Wills and Krauthammer, your other fountain head of bilious wisdom, have plenty of bad humor, bitterness, and dripping sardonic turns of phrase to spare. A pure river of bitter bile to sate the most disenchanted and jaded appetite for negative nabobbery. But I for one am very glad George Will is not the President. I do not know the exact formulations behind all the decisions Mister Will sees fit to curdle and bitch about, but I am willing to bet that the decisions were taken in a more reasoned and evenhanded way than he could imagine. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:52 PM Well, let's hope that just for your peace of mind, BB, Obama becomes wretchedly unpopular with the American public as soon as possible. ;-) I'm talking less than 20% popularity rating. Pray for it every night before bed, and it may yet happen. As for Biden, my impression is that most people are barely thinking about him at all these days (unlike his predecessor Mr Cheney who had a very noticeable profile), so aren't polls on his popularity a little hard to guage in any meaningful way at this point? He's hardly even registering on the radar. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 04:53 PM Obama's approval rating high, but will it last? Story Highlights 64 percent of Americans in various polls approve of Obama's work so far Rating is similar to recent predecessors' around 100-day mark Approval tends to slip later in the year, CNN polling director says By Paul Steinhauser CNN Deputy Political Director WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two out of three Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, according to an average of the most recent national polls. President Obama is still being evaluated on how he does his job, CNN's polling director says. In a CNN Poll of Polls compiled Thursday, 64 percent of those questioned in various surveys say they approve of how Obama is handling his duties as president. Twenty-eight percent disapprove. The president's approval rating also stood at 64 percent in a CNN Poll of Polls compiled in January, just after his inauguration. "Most polls have shown Obama getting fairly high marks on most of the issues he has handled so far," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "One exception has been the way he has handled government assistance to failing banks and automakers. His numbers on the federal deficit are also low in comparison to his approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy." So how does Obama compare to his predecessors in the White House around the 100-day mark? George W. Bush stood at 62 percent in a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll in April 2001, Bill Clinton was at 55 percent in a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll in April 1993, George H.W. Bush stood at 58 percent in a Gallup poll from April 1989, and Ronald Reagan was at 67 percent in a Gallup poll taken in April 1981. Learn more about previous presidents' approval ratings » "The hundred-day mark tends to fall during a period when Americans are still evaluating a new president. The danger period for most presidents comes later in their first year in office," Holland explained. "Bill Clinton, for example, still had good marks after his first 100 days, but his approval rating had tanked by June of 1993. Ronald Reagan's approval rating stayed over 50 percent until November of his first year in office, but once it slipped below that mark, it stayed under 50 percent for two years. So Obama's current rating certainly does not indicate that he is out of the woods yet." The CNN Poll of Polls is an average of three national surveys taken over the past week: Gallup Tracking, Pew and AP/GfK. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:43 PM VP-Shock: Biden Less Popular than Cheney Posted by David Paul Kuhn Double take. Joe Biden is less popular than Dick Cheney. Well, in the first half year of the first term that is. A slim 51 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Vice President Biden. Cheney was at 58 percent in July 2001. Al Gore, 55 percent in April 1993. The veep comparison comes courtesy of the Pew Research Center's latest report. The public's favorable take on Biden declined 12 percentage points since January. And don't blame the GOP. Democrats' favorable view fell from 87 to 76 percent. Independents' view fell from 58 to 46 percent. In time, it will likely prove no challenge for Biden to stay ahead of Cheney. Less than a third of Americans held a favorable view of Cheney when he left office in January. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM "The president has set an example for his Cabinet. He has ladled a trillion or so dollars ("or so" is today's shorthand for "give or take a few hundreds of billions") hither and yon, but while ladling he has, or thinks he has, saved about $15 million by killing, or trying to kill, a tiny program that this year is enabling about 1,715 D.C. children (90 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic) to escape from the District's failing public schools and enroll in private schools. The District's mayor and school superintendent support the program. But the president has vowed to kill programs that "don't work." He has looked high and low and -- lo and behold -- has found one. By uncanny coincidence, it is detested by the teachers unions that gave approximately four times $15 million to Democratic candidates and liberal causes last year. Not content with seeing the program set to die after the 2009-10 school year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan (former head of Chicago's school system, which never enrolled an Obama child) gratuitously dashed even the limited hopes of another 200 children and their parents. Duncan, who has sensibly chosen to live with his wife and two children in Virginia rather than in the District, rescinded the scholarships already awarded to those children for the final year of the program, beginning in September. He was, you understand, thinking only of the children and their parents: He would spare them the turmoil of being forced by, well, Duncan and other Democrats to return to terrible public schools after a tantalizing one-year taste of something better. Call that compassionate liberalism. After Congress debated the program, the Education Department released -- on a Friday afternoon, a news cemetery -- a congressionally mandated study showing that, measured by student improvement and parental satisfaction, the District's program works. The department could not suppress the Heritage Foundation's report that 38 percent of members of Congress sent or are sending their children to private schools. The Senate voted 58 to 39 to kill the program. Heritage reports that if the senators who have exercised their ability to choose private schools had voted to continue the program that allows less-privileged parents to make that choice for their children, the program would have been preserved. As the president and his party's legislators are forcing minority children back into public schools, the doors of which would never be darkened by the president's or legislators' children, remember this: We have seen a version of this shabby act before. One reason conservatism came to power in the 1980s was that in the 1970s liberals advertised their hypocrisy by supporting forced busing of other people's children to schools the liberals' children did not attend. " from here |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:30 AM "...The right balance between retribution and reconciliation is always hard to find in the aftermath of national trauma. Ask the Bosnians or South Africans about the trade-offs between justice and recovery. When wars are ongoing, it is wise to err on the side of caution. There's work to do. Obama's right: America should look ahead, not back. A Truth Commission could address the broad collapse of accountability that opened the way for an imperial presidency and the use of cruel and inhuman treatment, while avoiding a facile search for scapegoats that would allow too many to disregard their own small measure of responsibility. That, of course, is Obama's favorite word: responsibility. I think it demands some acknowledgment that, "There but for the grace of God go I." With Obama, words have begun to have meaning again. Declarative sentences are back. I couldn't take my eyes off that photo of Obama shaking hands with President Chávez of Venezuela; it cut through so much epic posturing. But his use of language has been more liberating even than such images. Two sentences uttered recently by the president in Turkey are an example: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them." It was one of those moments when you realize just how scary Obama must be to America's jihadist enemies. Knowing Islam across the dinner table, he has no fear of it. His predecessor, in Facebook terms, went on a spree of de-friending that made terrorist recruitment easier. Now the tables have been turned. The U.S. has emerged from eight years of dyslexia. It has now revealed how dangerously words were manipulated and is learning again to speak a language the world can understand. America's narrative is inclusive once more, as it must be by the country's very nature. The power of language to reconcile is as great as its power to kill. At his first press conference in February, Obama said: "The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose." That's a sentence you don't have to read twice. The differences today are not small — they concern the rule of law and torture — but the spirit of Obama's words still provides a useful moral compass for this moment of American self-questioning and anguish." NYT |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:09 PM Amos:...."......As for your statement "news items everyday coming out, as to the fraud, and 'hiding' of the TARP funds, and the shadiness of this administration, lies and deceit, broken promises" what I have seen is a lot of accusation and smoke, behind which there may or may not..." Little Hawk, Thanks for the admonition. I did read it aloud, before I sent it, but I'll certainly keep that (shorter sentences) in mind. Thank you! Amos, Just blow a little harder, and the smoke will clear. Little Hawk, How's that? |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:48 PM Amos, Sorry, we use your standard of NYT editorials as fact to determine what to post. "nor am I inclined to run around declaiming what are actually projections, or extrapolations colored by fear or hatred." Unless we are talking about Bush, then you have run marithons around us. Your postings about Bush had a lower fact content than any of the ones you are presently complaining about- Maybe that should tell you something??? |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:47 PM Dear GfS: It seems to me if you were being as keenly accurate as you say, it would produce less froth and more semantically substantive statements. You and Bruce, in your claim to be observing facts, seem to always point at hypotheticals (as in Bruce's last copy-and-paste whose conclusion is "The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda.") or windy opinions which you expect should be persuasive because you fill them with grandiose outrage or other emotion. I don't see those things as "facts", and I don't quite understand why you see them as such, either. As for your statement "news items everyday coming out, as to the fraud, and 'hiding' of the TARP funds, and the shadiness of this administration, lies and deceit, broken promises" what I have seen is a lot of accusation and smoke, behind which there may or may not be some hard facts of wrong-doing; but one thiong I know plainly is that I do not have those hard facts, nor am I inclined to run around declaiming what are actually projections, or extrapolations colored by fear or hatred. If you have some specific facts indicating Obama has done something wrong with TARP funds, by all means point them out to me. I am always ready to learn. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:18 PM Washington Post: Invitation to Appease Will the Obama administration talk to Iran while it persecutes Americans and libels Israel? Wednesday, April 22, 2009 LAST WEEK, the Iranian regime brought American journalist Roxana Saberi before a closed court and in a one-hour trial convicted her of espionage -- a blatantly bogus charge. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was last seen inaugurating a new facility for Iran's nuclear program, appeared at the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva to deliver a speech seemingly calculated to cause maximum outrage in the United States and other Western countries. They had, he said, "resorted to military aggression" in order to create Israel "on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust." Thus has Iran answered President Obama's offer of dialogue and the decision by his administration to join talks on Tehran's nuclear program. To the consternation of some European officials, Washington has insisted on dropping a long-standing demand that Iran obey U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. Iran could have responded to this concession by releasing Ms. Saberi, who holds U.S. and Iranian citizenship, and ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, as the administration asked it to do in a State Department letter last month. Instead the charges against Ms. Saberi were ramped up, from practicing journalism without a credential and buying wine, to espionage; the regime does not even admit that it is holding Mr. Levinson. Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech, which repeated the numerous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic libels that have made the Iranian president a pariah in the West. Western delegates walked out on the address, which the State Department rightly called "vile and hateful." Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad had accomplished his aim: advancing Iran's claim to represent radical Arab and Islamic opinion, along with his own campaign for reelection in June. Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi's prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad's unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi's defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip -- to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq. Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June -- and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:51 PM BB - "Amos will applaud Obama for doing exactly what he criticized Bush for doing." Yeah, probably he will, BB. ;-) That's the nature of the partisan mind, as I've often pointed out. It filters reality to meet its prejudices. That's one reason I really do not like political parties...nor do I much like overall political labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" or "left" and "right", because they constantly get in the way of perceiving truth. They obfuscate and mislead. They encourage knee-jerk response and lack of real thought about anything. They obviate fairness and objectivity. We would be better off, in my opinion, if all political parties and their corrupt party machines were forever abolished, and we could vote in future just for free-minded individuals who represented not a party...but themselves and their own ideas. GfS - You really need to put some paragraph breaks in a post like that last one. Otherwise it becomes quite hard to read at all and will probably just be skipped over and ignored by a lot of people. (assuming a lot of people even come here) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:47 PM Amos, "Why define your posting career by countereaction against my posts ..." I do not- I merely apply the same standards to my posts in THIS thread as you have shown to be suitable, from your excellent example. In other words, I am trying to show you just what an SOB you were in the past- and it seems like you like it less than I did! At least I never told you to shut up or stop posting. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:09 PM From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:20 PM immaterial to this argument, LH. The point is that Amos will applaud Obama for doing exactly what he criticized Bush for doing. Now look at this......"From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:39 AM "THere are a number of very important differences though; "THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility." That post is coming for you! Amos????? You are the most blocked numskull in here...You argue points, that may be attempting to be popularized, but are so far from sound, it staggers me! Your posts on Obama, fly in the face of the obvious truths coming out, and yet, you FAIL utterly to rebut any of the FACTS, brought up, by a number of intelligent, well thought out, and articulate posters. The same thing when it comes to the homosexual topic. I can stare at an lemon tree, in front of me, and describe it,..and you're going to tell me its a watermelon! Before I sorta kidded about it, but now I'm very seriously considering that the reason you do this, is because, from all indications, I'm beginning to really think YOU are homosexual, and Obama is your imaginary lover!! You say you took courses in philosophy, but i think you philosophized yourself right out of reality, despite all the evidence of the flagrantly obvious, all around you...and though you try to dig up rhetoric, to show you are so 'well educated'..your emotional fixation leaves you looking pretty damn immature, and illiterate! I myself have counseled homosexuals, first hand, and I've share some of those things with you as to results, and you pull up bullshit, financed by political agenda driven 'studies', and think that you're going to convince ME, that what I know to be true, isn't, because the bogus study says so. There are news items everyday coming out, as to the fraud, and 'hiding' of the TARP funds, and the shadiness of this administration, lies and deceit, broken promises, and instead of addressing them equitably, you just sit there, sucking your thumb, and picking your nose, NODDING YOUR HEAD, saying 'UHH-UHHH"..and THEN post some unrelated post on how you 'lover in chief', is a great guy!!..Go figure!..Then you post..."THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility."??????? Funny, that should come to your mind...but then, why not?..its where YOU LIVE!..You just proceed to describe yourself, and project it on to the other posters, oblivious to actually EXCHANGING ideas, or learning a damn thing!!!...not only that, you inundate us with 'cut and paste' from the most far left wing nut sources, and think that we are supposed to accept this as truth...instead of what it is...just a far left lunatic pundit. You just don't get it...but then to quote you:...."THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility." Beardedbruce, and Little Hawk, Akenaton, Rig(sometimes)and yours truly, are dead right on. We CONSIDER things the way they are, politically, and do NOT accept the advertised propaganda releases, without at least comparing them to something FACTUAL, before posting some semi-literate, pretentious, blindly opinionated hogwash, such that you do...and then get 'butt hurt' when someone points out plain and simple obvious truths! Oh Great Philosopher, ...old adage:...Philosophy triumphs over past and future evils, but temptation triumphs over philosophy!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM Besides, Bruce, surely somewhere buried in all your anger, you have some thoughts of your own. Why define your posting career by countereaction against my posts about someone not even in the public eye? A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:29 PM Well, I think you are not speaking accurately. What I lambasted Bush for, above all else, was his secretiveness, and his catering to lobbyists, and his disrespect for the Consittution, and his eagerness to launch wars. Obama seems to be quite different on all these fronts. On specific issues, I think it will be easy to find material to disagree with him about--the black farmers' bill is a case in point; but I can understand what he is doing, regardless. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:20 PM imaterial to this arguement, LH. The point is that Amos will applaud Obama for doing exactly what he criticised Bush for doing. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:07 PM Maybe he's continuing Bush's policies because the USA is actually run by some very powerful monied interests whom you will never get to vote either for or against...and they control every presidency (and Congress) like controlling a puppet with strings...and the president himself is just a "face" out front to mesmerize you little people and make you think your vote actually gives you some influence over national policy, when it does nothing of the sort. Ever consider that? ;-) Probably not, right? Well, stay happy in the Land of Oz. The little man behind the screen remains invisible. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:57 AM "Nice to hear both sides of the discussion once in a while." Why? You have never given both sides, when you parroted the NYT lines on Bush. You have not even acknowledged the times that Obama is continuing Bush policies, because he thinks they are the right thing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:43 AM Article here. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:39 AM The NYT does an interesting comparison of Obama with Reagan. THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM That's what I thought..wasn't sure, though.. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:09 AM "Who?" Obama! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:36 AM Well, what was he supposed to say??? Can't you tell politico-speak, when you hear it?? That was a noncommittal "We'll look into it"..which means, ..."Give it some time to go away, (maybe forever)until then, we'll get together, to get our ducks in a row" |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:58 PM From the same article, just a tad further down the page: ""I'm really disappointed," Boyd said. "This is the president's bill." "They did discriminate against these farmers, maybe not all of them, but a lot of these people would prevail if they could go to court," he said. The administration wouldn't discuss specific budget plans or commit to fully funding the claims. But in a statement to The Associated Press, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the department agrees that more needs to be done and is working with the Justice Department to "ensure that people are treated fairly." Kenneth Baer, a budget spokesman for the White House, also suggested that the White House is planning to do more. "The president has been a leader on this issue since his days as a U.S. senator and is deeply committed to closing this painful chapter in our history," Baer said in a statement." Nice to hear both sides of the discussion once in a while. A |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:57 PM Who? |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:08 PM He reminds me of Ronald Reagan! |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:58 PM From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:36 PM PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama and black farmers By BEN EVANS – 12 hours ago "The change isn't sitting well with black farmers who thought they'd get a friendlier reception from Obama after years of resistance from President George W. Bush. "You can't blame it on the Bush administration anymore," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, which has organized the lawsuits. "I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator." " Because he's full of shit...(Don't tell Amos, he can't tell ......yet) |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:28 PM But your example throughout the Bush administration demands otherwise- I should make a fuss oover everything, real or imagined, and demand that all agree with me or else I will attack them as the low-life scum-pond slime that they must be, for disagreeing with me. |
|
Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:11 PM That's the right action--keep your eyes open, and other openings not. A |
