BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:50 AM

Very sensible comments from Russel Means. I'm glad to see he's still out there. He interprets the word "socialism" differently than I do, but he's American, so that doesn't surprise me. In any case, the problems he draws attention to are just as he states them. I call it corporate fascism, I think he calls it "corporate socialism" (socialism on the Right)...what it amounts to is by the elite, for the elite. It is rule by corporations which are treated legally as if they were individuals...thus enabling no REAL individuals to be held accountable for the criminal things these corporations do. I don't call it socialism...but it doesn't matter what one calls it...what it is, is a ruthless fascist system run by the very rich for the mutual benefit of each other. It becomes gradually more totalitarian with every passing year. It increases domestic security and reduces civil rights. It impoverishes the ordinary people (the 99% of us) and makes the rich elite richer than ever before. It builds more prisons and incarcerates more citizens. It violate the Constitution. It sends jobs to other countries and promotes and engages in constant war and inflated military expenditures. It creates a situation where young people who are in lower income levels tend to go into the military...because that appears to be their best option! Some option! They get to risk death, severe injury, mental and physical illnesses due to combat stress, etc...and they end up killing a lot of Third World people and ruining other nations while fighting illegal wars that are being fought on the basis of outright lies. They end up serving the very corporate/military beast that put them under its heel. They are duped by appeals to their patriotism...just as Germans and Japanese and Italians were duped in the 40s.

That's fascism. It's been seen before, and it's back again...in America and in the UK and in Canada, but it's worst in America. It is supported by either the Democrats or the Republicans whenever they end up getting elected to office (with the exception of a tiny few mavericks like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul). To expect either one of those parties to end thia appalling situation is akin to expecting the Tooth Fairy or Batman to step in and solve your problems for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 12:20 AM

GF always post such pertinent facts for discussion. A role model for Libs everywhere. The way he never questions any facts from others in his tribe. The way he demands information from people he disagrees with and the way he responds to courteous requests. He has such a positive attitude. Breathtaking.

The next Solyndra:

But Mr. Harry Reid has taken the nascent geothermal industry under his wing, pressuring the Department of Interior to move more quickly on applications to build clean energy projects on federally owned land and urging other member of Congress to expand federal tax incentives to help build geothermal plants, benefits that Nevada Geothermal has taken advantage of.... Ormat Technology, which is a Nevada Geothermal partner. Ormat’s lobbyist in Washington, Kai Anderson, and one of the company’s top executives, Paul Thomsen, are former aides to Mr. Reid.

A U.S.-Backed Geothermal Plant in Nevada Struggles
NYTimes

The company is Nevada Geothermal Power, which like Solyndra, the now-famous California solar company, is struggling with debt after encountering problems at its only operating plant.

After a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

It is a description that echoes the warning issued in 2010 by auditors hired by Solyndra, which benefited from the same Energy Department loan guarantee before its collapse in August caused the Obama administration great embarrassment.

The parallels between the companies illustrate the risk inherent in building the clean energy marketplace in the United States, government officials and industry experts say. Indeed, the loan guarantee program exists precisely because none of these ventures are a sure bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:54 PM

AAAAAAmooooossss. This thread is askin' "can you help me find my daddy?"

More on TARP:

Among Bailout Supporters, Wall St. Donations Ran High
By NY Times

The battle over the Bush administration’s plan to rescue the financial system took a sharp turn Monday when the House of Representatives voted down the bill by a sizable margin.

Though there was much talk about ideals and principles on the House floor, there’s another factor to consider as well.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries or FIRE industries, for short over their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation.

The legislation is of vital interest to Wall Street firms and banks, many of which would like to use the program to offload noxious mortgage-related assets.

The FIRE industries or, more specifically, individuals and political action committees associated with them have been the top source of campaign contributions in federal politics, the group said, giving more than $2 billion to federal candidates and political parties since 1989.

This year, sources from the FIRE industries have been particularly busy, doling out millions to candidates that are facing tough reelections.

In this election cycle, the 140 House Democrats who voted for the bailout bill collected 78 percent more from the FIRE industries than the Democrats who opposed it. Over their careers, they collected 88 percent more, the data show.

On the Republican side, the gap was smaller. Republicans in the House that voted yes on the bailout bill got an average of 23 percent more in contributions from the FIRE industries in this election cycle than House Republicans who voted against it. In the long run, they got 53 percent more.

Of the 37 Democrats that sit on the House Financial Services Committee, 25 voted for the bill, including the committee chairman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. He received nearly $800,000 this election cycle from sources in the FIRE industries.

Of the 33 Republicans on the committee, 8 voted for the bill.

The ranking Republican member of the committee, Spencer Bachus from Alabama, was among those who voted in favor. He has received $822,000 from the FIRE industries this election cycle and $3.7 million since 1989.

One of those who got a lot of funds from the FIRE industries but still voted no was Ron Paul, the Texas Representative who favors abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard.

Among the no-voters on Monday, Mr. Paul received the most money from FIRE sources   $1.3 million in this election cycle. His overall donations got a boost from his presidential run.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:57 PM

So what? SSDD.

The names change and the game doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 02:02 AM

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 09:26 AM

What we have here is a lot of people with 20/20 hindsight... Reality is that it's difficult to put our mindsets back to the September of 2008 when we were seeing something occur that no one alive today had ever seen as an adult...

Lotta Monday morning quarterbacking...

Given the state of the economy in the Fall of '08 the Bush administration probably did what it thought was the responsible thing to do... What the banking community did after TARP, a different story and that's part of what OWS street is all about...

A lot of folks need to be in jail...

The problem is that, with Reaganomics, much of sane baking practices were trashed by the crooks who the bakers got elected so no actual laws were broken because there were no actual laws left...

Restore Glass-Steagall immediately because the crooks are cooking US again...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:05 PM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh. John McCain and a Democrat, Cantwell, tried to do just that but Chris Dodd, biggest congressional recipient of campaign money from the banks said it would be "pretty difficult".

He had his own bill, the "Dodd- Frank" bill, to regulate the banks that gave him the money. It got passed and the McCain Cantwell bill got shot down by the party of ??.

So here's yer War and Peace length cut and paste riddled with facts that you love to ignore and claim it is from a right wing Blog. But before you start your instinctive whining, tell me why a right wing blog would be so down on banks?

Dodd-Frank: How investment banks contributed to the financial crisis
By Nancy Watzman Jul 29 2011 10:35 a.m.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in response to the financial crisis of 2008, added new regulations and new regulators for some but not all of the institutions whose actions led to the crisis. Over the next several days, we’ll be taking a look at each of the major groups of contributors to the economic crisis, who the major players were, what political influence they brought to bear on Congress and regulators, how Dodd-Frank intends to regulate them, and, using our new Dodd-Frank Meeting Logs tool, what rules these groups are trying to influence as agencies implement the legislation.

Key players in the financial crisis: Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley

Regulators: Federal Reserve Bank, Securities and Exchange Commission, Treasury, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

How They Helped Cause the Crisis: These storied investment banks were at the forefront of the financial meltdown, earning big fees for packaging questionable mortgages into securities and selling them. The firms had such a huge appetite for these investments, which brought in hefty fees and earned large bonuses for executives, that they pressed for more and more mortgages to package and sell, despite their shakiness. Meanwhile, they sunk enormous amounts into their own proprietary trading on risky derivatives. The first investment bank to keel under the pressure when mortgage-backed securities soured was Bear Stearns, after two of its hedge funds that had invested heavily in subprime mortgages went under in 2007. In March 2008, there was a run on the bank as its partners on derivatives contracts, short-term loans known as repos, and others demanded money. J.P. Morgan Chase stepped in to rescue the bank with government help to the tune of a $30 billion loan by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. By September, Lehman Brothers was in big trouble. Over the course of a week, two private deals to acquire the failing bank fell through. The government refused to bail out the bank, deeming it too far gone, and on Monday, Sept. 15, it filed for bankruptcy. The same day, Merrill Lynch announced it would be bought by Bank of America. On September 22, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley made it known they would become bank holding companies, a move that would subject them to more government regulation but also enable them to engage in activities that would help them raise capital, such as accepting retail deposits. The failure and reconfiguration of the big investment banks wreaked havoc on the global economy; credit virtually froze, profits plummeted, and a deep recession took hold. The survivors took tens of millions in bailout money and loans from the federal government.

Political Influence: Bear Stearns’ federal political contributions trailed off after the 2006 election cycle, while Lehman Brothers contributed $667,000 in the 2008 election cycle in contributions to federal politicians before it failed. Bank of America, which acquired Merrill Lynch, contributed $1.4 million in 2010, up from $1.6 million in 2006, the previous non-presidential election cycle. Its reported federal lobbying expenses peaked in 2008 at $4.9 million. Goldman Sachs reported record federal lobbying in 2010, as the Dodd-Frank financial law was being debated, at $4.6 million; its federal campaign contributions totals, $1.6 million in the 2010 election cycle, however, were higher earlier in the decade. Morgan Stanley reported $2.75 million in lobbying in 2010 and $668,000 in federal campaign contributions in that election cycle, down from previous totals. Goldman Sachs is in some ways sui generis in its connections to Washington Treasury Secretaries (Robert Rubin in the Clinton administration, Henry Paulson in the Bush administration), a U.S. Trade Representative (Robert Zoellick) even the head of the government’s bailout efforts under Presidents George W. Bush and, briefly, President Barack Obama (Neel Kashkari) hailed from Goldman Sachs. And Mark Patterson, currently chief of staff of the Treasury Dept., was hired away from the investment bank.

How They Fared: Goldman Sachs’ and Morgan Stanley’s first quarter reports showed declining profits. The firms have had to make major changes; in anticipation of new rules regarding proprietary trading, known as the Volcker rule, both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shut down trading desks that had been profit centers. However, Goldman Sachs’ filings show it is still claiming profit from its own investments, which it reportedly believes will not be affected by the new rule.

How Dodd-Frank Regulates Them: There is hardly a part of the Dodd-Frank financial law that does not affect these firms, from capital requirements to a ban on proprietary trading to new oversight of derivatives trading to designations of too big to fail institutions.

Goldman Sachs is being particularly aggressive in its lobbying. In its most recent federal lobbying report, the firm listed eight on-staff lobbyists who were lobbying on Dodd-Frank implementation. It also had hired several outside firms to help in its efforts, including such high powered lobbyists as GOPer Kenneth Duberstein; former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Gephardt , D., Mo. ; former Senator Trent Lott, R., Miss.; and Sen. John Breaux. The firm reported more meetings with federal agencies than any other company. It’s also been the most active firm approaching regulators. Goldman Sachs has argued that Dodd-Frank should not apply to its overseas operations, had positions on virtually every aspect of swap regulations, from position limits to real time disclosure to derivative clearinghouse organizations to swap execution facilities, and has lobbied on the Volcker Rule.

Morgan Stanley reported three in-house lobbyists working on Dodd-Frank implementation and has also hired outside help. The firm has had 58 meetings with regulators on issues ranging from the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, implementation of the Volcker Rule and swap regulations, Dodd-Frank’s impact on European regulations and to discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Board

Now getting back to TARP which the libs like to claim is all the responsibility of the Republicans, please note that the majority of Republicans voted against it and the majority of Democrats voted for it including Obama who said it was a necessary thing to do, Reid, Dodd, Clinton and Biden. Without the democratic votes, Tarp would not have passed.

And where in tarnation is Amos, the leading Tarpologist? It is obvious he has done rolled Obama under da bus.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM

Source, Sawz, or did you pull it out of your arse as usual?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:04 PM

GF sure has an intense interest in my ass. More so than his interest in facts.

Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÃ쳌NAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:.........................

............Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention
facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall
be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the
date of this order........

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    January 22, 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 May 12 - 08:01 AM

Amos:

Where you been for so long?

Why have you completely and cruelly abandoned the man that you admired so much when you said:

"That Obama, now, he\s steady=on. A GOOD PRESIDENT, AND I AM GLAD WE ELECTED HIM."

Are you voting for him again?

Methinks not but you are too embarrassed to say so amongst your Mud buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 12 - 08:22 AM

Nice try, Sawz... There seems to be a TeaPulican PR to push this idea that Obama isn't all that popular...

Hahahahaha...

And maybe Obama kidnapped the Limbergh baby, too0???

Hahahahaha...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:28 AM

"And maybe Obama kidnapped the Limbergh baby, too0???"

Yeah that's funny.

Why not base your thinking on facts instead of jokes and what if fairy tales?

Try Presetting some facts for a change and not those Bobert "facts" like:

"The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East"

when in actuality it has a density of 758 people per sq mile compared to 2560 in Bahrain, 920 in Lebanon and slightly higher than Israel with 750 people per sq mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:53 AM

Prex Obama would never have abducted the Limburgh baby - way too stinky.

Now, the Lindbergh baby may be another story.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 12:55 PM

Whom is voting for Obama? Certainly not Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 04:35 PM

"Restore Glass-Steagall immediately because the crooks are cooking US again"

Republicans tried but Democrats blocked it in 2010:

McCain, Cantwell Battle The Monolith To Reinstate Glass-Steagall

Yesterday, the decidedly odd couple of Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) teamed up to introduce legislation that would restore the Glass-Steagall Act (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which would force giant banking institutions to choose between operating as a commercial bank or an investment bank. For decades, Glass-Steagall imposed a firewall between the two, until it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

Give McCain and Cantwell a big round of applause for their effort, because in Washington, this seemingly obvious response to the financial crisis is considered the domain of wild-eyed hippies (and Paul Volcker.) It is, after all, the sort of idea that would bring real pain to the banking industry, who'd much rather we quickly forget about the collapse of the economy last year and return to business as usual. The most cutting remark against McCain and Cantwell's efforts comes courtesy of Unnamed Treasury Official, who, as you might imagine, is some kind of awesome prick:

    I think going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman.

Then again this year:

Senate Democrats not with Warren on reinstating Glass-Steagall bank act

Senate Democratic leaders have shown little appetite for taking on Wall Street before Election Day, despite urging by one of their star recruits, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Warren has called on Congress to resurrect the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which established a firewall between investment banks that traditionally specialized in speculative trades and commercial banks that historically earned money primarily from lending.

If Warren, an outspoken critic of Washington’s oversight of the financial services industry, wins in November, it could put her on a collision course with Senate leaders.

Senate Democratic leaders have carefully avoided a major confrontation with Wall Street this year, when millions of dollars are already flowing to Republican-allied super-PACs from anonymous donors.

Many Democrats are already squeamish about President Obama's campaign attacks on Mitt Romney's career at private equity firm Bain Capital, worrying they are being seen as attacks on Wall Street.

“We didn’t get Glass-Steagall in the big reform,â€쳌 said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, which supports stronger federal regulation. “That and many other limitations of Dodd-Frank are testament of the power of Wall Street.

“I don’t think the JPMorgan debacle is sufficient to overcome the political power of Wall Street. It’s going to come from some combination of more financial crisis and grassroots demand,â€쳌 he said.

Critics of Wall Street’s trading practices believe the law’s repeal ultimately led to the 2008 financial crisis and still poses a serious risk to the economy.

They cite the recent revelation that JP Morgan lost at least $2 billion and possibly much more over the course of a few weeks because of a massive bet.

Former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who was the Senate’s most outspoken defender of Glass-Steagall while in Congress, said Warren should expect a forceful pushback.

“It’s very hard because you’re taking on Wall Street, and Wall Street has substantial clout in Congress,â€쳌 he said. “They were able to substantially dilute Dodd-Frank. Even what it required was fought bitterly by Wall Street. It will be hard to get it done but not impossible.

“There are plenty of members of the caucus who believe you have to re-impose Glass-Steagall,â€쳌 Dorgan said.

It is one of the few proposed reforms of Wall Street to draw bipartisan support.

Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation in 2010 to restore the safeguards of Glass-Steagall and Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

For more than six decades, the law prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the risky trading business of investment banks, containing the national economic impact of financial meltdowns. The lack of a firewall in 2008 allowed big commercial banks such as Citibank to get sucked up in the financial crisis, freezing the credit businesses rely on.

Some advocates of re-enacting Glass-Steagall believe doing so could become politically viable if Republicans such as McCain, Shelby and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a reform-minded member of the Banking Committee, sign on to the effort.

But Wall Street banks are strongly opposed to further regulation and have focused their lobbying power on watering down the impact of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at U.S. PIRG, said New York Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Senate Democratic leader, and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) could oppose any effort to reestablish Glass-Steagall.

“You wouldn’t get all the Democrats, and I don’t know if you’d get the Democrats from New York. The Democrats from New York would be under a lot of lobbying pressure,â€쳌 he said.

Passing Glass-Steagall legislation through the Senate would require the full support of the Senate Democratic leadership and Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at Public Citizen, said he has not seen any desire by leaders to take up the fight.

“I haven’t seen it,â€쳌 he said.

Democratic leaders may calculate such a battle is not worth the political cost, given Republican control of the House.

House Republicans, who are attempting to repeal parts of the 2010 reform, would block Glass-Steagall-type legislation from reaching Obama’s desk.

Naylor said the focus by Senate Democrats such as Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is to ensure regulators do not water down the Volcker Rule, which Congress passed as part of Dodd-Frank, and to beat back efforts by House Republicans to undo the 2010 reforms.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall would represent a whole higher order of regulatory assertiveness.

Weissman, the head of Public Citizen, said the Volcker Rule, which bars banks from risking their own assets in speculative investments â€" with certain exemptions â€" does not go far enough.

“The Volcker Rule is Glass-Steagall light,â€쳌 he said. “We need something more aggressive. We don’t know how the Volker Rule implementation is going to turn out. We’re pushing for the best outcome and there’s a lot of pressure on agencies to peal it back.â€쳌

The Volker Rule is designed to prevent banks from risking the assets of depositors and their own financial demise by making big bets.

Warren and other advocates for greater regulation say there should be a clean break between speculative and commercial banking activities.

"JP Morgan's recent losses show that there are still serious risks in our banking system, and if we don't act, then the next trade that goes bad could threaten our whole economy," Warren said in a statement last month.

"A new Glass-Steagall would separate high-risk investment banks from more traditional banking. It would allow Wall Street to take risks, but not by dipping into the life savings and retirement accounts of regular people," she said.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for Consumer Federation of America, said J.P. Morgan’s massive loss has “supplied a bit of a wake-up callâ€쳌 and said Warren “is concerned about moving risk out of banks.â€쳌

Roper said she does not see “any evidence right now that there’s a new wave of support buildingâ€쳌 for Glass-Steagall but predicted if regulators fail to effectively implement the Volcker Rule, “you could see revived interest on the Democratic side.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jun 12 - 09:22 AM

Obama's grandfather tortured by the British? A fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)
Dailymail UK

A new biography of Barack Obama has established that his grandfather was not, as is related in the President's own memoir, detained by the British in Kenya and found that claims that he was tortured were a fabrication.

'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama's life.

One of the enduring myths of Obama's ancestry is that his paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama, who served as a cook in the British Army, was imprisoned in 1949 by the British for helping the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebels and held for several months.

Obama's step-grandmother Sarah, Onyango wife, who is still living, is quoted in the future President's memoir, as saying: "One day, the white man's askaris came to take Onyango away, and he was placed in a detention camp.

But Maraniss, who researched Obama's life in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and the mainland United States, found that there were "no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama". He interviewed five people who knew Obama's grandfather, who died in 1979, who "doubted the story or were certain it did not happen'.
Fabricated?: 'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book

This undermines the received wisdom that Obama's grandfather was a victim of oppression, an assumption that has in turn fuelled theories that Obama harbours an animus towards Britain based on a deeply-rooted rage about the way Onyango was treated.

John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with Onyango before the alleged imprisonment and was in touch with him weekly afterwards said he 'knew nothing' about any detention and would have noticed if he had gone missing for several months.

Zablon Okatch, who worked with Onyango as a servant to American diplomats after the supposed incarceration, said: "Hussein was never jailed. I know that for a fact. It would have been difficult for him to get a job with a white family, let alone a diplomat, if he once served in jail."

Charles Oluoch, whose father was adopted by Onyango, said that "he did not have any trouble with the government in any way"......................

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 12 - 11:23 AM

Right. The Daily Mail. Makes FOX News look good.

READ the book. The claim isn't made by the prez- but is presented as a family story/legend.

Of course, no one else's family has family stories that aren't true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 12 - 11:39 AM

Sawz:

You remind me of a guy who plays the cross-cut saw by bending it out of shape and twanging it with a bow.

He thinks he is making music, but he is actually deforming a perfectly good saw. And the music is painful. But he's happy so people let him alone.

I will be voting for Barack Obama this year. I can only hope he gets enough of the Congress behind him to make his second term less frustrating than the first.

Just to be clear there are some decisions he has made I disagree with, based on the data I have. But most of his policies are positive and aimed at making things better.

He is a good man, and I am glad to have voted for him.

See you sometime around Christmas.


Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 07:46 AM

Here is a little data for you Amos. It is from a source you have quoted so I presume the source is acceptable to you.

Now see if you can keep from attacking me in order to discredit the actual facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 08:12 AM

"The Daily Mail. Makes FOX News look good."

You try to discredit the source instead of the actual information.

"The claim isn't made by the prez"

Well who actually made the claim?

Was it truth or mythology?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 09:11 AM

The source has discredited itself over and over. Needs no help from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:22 AM

Sawz:

A map of popular opinion is not much hard data.

Do you have any idea how much money the Repub PACS have been spending to spread enough false information to buy that graph?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:31 AM

Well, Amos, here in NC you can't so much as watch the nightly news without be blown up with constant anti-Obama ads brought to you coutesy of ____________________ (???), who knows other than the "American Future Fund". whose web site's list of donors don't ad up to buy one ad, much less hundreds of them...

Yup, those wacky Koch brothers are at it 24/7...

BTW, they say "follow the money"... Just wonder what Romney has promised them??? Hmmmmm????

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:52 AM

It would be interesting as an experiment to shut down the whole television industry between now and November to cut the throats of these money mongers. People would be forced to fall back on more volitional kinds of information--reading, internet clicks and personal discussion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:55 AM

An excellent idea! But would Big Brother approve of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM

Sawzaw: "Now see if you can keep from attacking me in order to discredit the actual facts."

when folks have NO ACTUAL FACTS, attacking with bullshit, is all they got! We ALL know that..but they keep doing it anyway, as if they think their behavior isn't argument enough to NOT vote for Obama. Bobert, with all his false accusations of correct stuff being nothing more than Tea Party stuff, and the way he handles it, WITHOUT ANY FACTS, is enough to make people WANT to join the Tea Party!!!!

,,and then when you send a link, from a source they use, they accuse the link source of 'shifting positions'!....That being said, I'm NOT a Romney supporter, by any means, but Obama doesn't look to great, either. This divisiveness and hostility driving wedges between good American people, again, is reason to hope for another candidate, from anywhere else!!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 12:44 PM

GfS, don't be an ass; I did not say anything about the source shifting positions; I said the openions were symptoms of massive spending, not individual thinking. That is so obvious as to bear repeating! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:31 PM

"when folks have NO ACTUAL FACTS"

And they don't want to know any actual facts. Any inconvenient truths.

They want to believe in myths. They are so much nicer than reality.

Obama's book is the discredited source.

A fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:49 PM

Why do ya'll Obama haters hate Obama???

His policies, by my standards, seem purdy much moderate...

Could it be because he is a black man???

I mean, lets get real... He ain't a "liberal"... He's purdy much a Nixon Republican...

Why all this hate???

Hey, if you just hate black people then just spit it out... I can accept a racist who tells the truth... I can't accept closet racists who will find any other reason for their hate...

I am serious...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 12 - 08:26 AM

"I can accept a racist who tells the truth.."


No wonder you get along so well with Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 12 - 08:49 AM

given that you agree with him more than most TEAPartiers agree with the racist rednecks you claim represent them.

"truth" as you see it, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 02:59 AM

Obama is definitely not a liberal, if I can go by what he's done in office. However, if Republicans and American conservatives wish to imagine that he is a liberal in order to work themselves up into disliking him even more than they already do...(shrug)...I don't see what the heck anyone can do about it. People believe what they want to believe.

It's just like if you criticize Israeli policy, many people will accuse you of being "anti-semitic". They want to believe you are an anti-semite, because it gives them an excuse to hate YOU and feel better about themselves in comparison, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it...the accusation sticks like glue, once uttered, even when it has no factual basis. And there's no way of disproving such an accusation, anymore than you can disprove that you're a "racist" or a "bigot" or any other hate-label like that.

If people want to hate you and imagine that you are every terrible thing that haunts their anxiety closet, then they will do so, no matter what, and nothing you can do or say will sway them. There's a word for what they are doing too...and it's very similar to what they accuse other people of. One word for it is "prejudice", whatever form it happens to take. It doesn't stem from thought, but from fear and long-established emotional reaction, and it takes no prisoners. It doesn't care about the evidence. It's a pre-made conclusion. It's a self-confirming prophecy.

Obama will always be a "liberal" to his political enemies in the USA, because they can't imagine him any other way. "liberal", after all, is nothing other than a hate word in their vocabulary...just as "conservative" is pretty much nothing other than a hate word in the vocabulary of so many who support Obama.

Makes for a lovely meeting of minds across the corridor, doesn't it? When do we get the next American Civil War? And how did once useful words become so one-dimensional and meaningless?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 03:24 AM

Amos: "GfS, don't be an ass; I did not say anything about the source shifting positions;......"

Amos, Don't be an ass, yourself! I never said you did.

Are all lefty liberals lunatics??...or do they just come off that way?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 08:06 AM

"Lefty liberals"???

Hoe about them "righty conservative lunatics", GfinS, like all yer Tea Part buds???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 10:00 AM

Bobert: "To a complete retard just about everyone seems like a Tea party"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 01:34 PM

Yer half right, GfinS but it goes like this... To normal folks the Tea Partiers look like look like complete retards... And act like it...

I fnd it interesting that ya'll hate science until ya'll get sick and then all over the inter net looking for the best and brightest doctors??? You want to explain that to the Peanut Gallery???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 02:43 AM

Bobert: "You want to explain that to the Peanut Gallery???"

Then I'd have to step over you, lying on the floor, drooling as you were talking to the peanuts you spilled....no thanks, but they MIGHT listen to you!!..maybe you could convince them to be ground up and be made into a new, peanut tea!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 01:50 PM

Peanut tea???

There you go again...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 03:07 PM

Just an aside here, Bobert...no kind of attack in this...but I'm curious about the symbol you sign off with. It's supposed to be you smiling, right?

*****

I think the last actual liberal who was elected president in the USA may have been Jimmy Carter. Possibly. I haven't noticed any liberals in the office since him. Obama sounded quite liberal in some ways when he was running for office (although not so much in foreign policy), but once in office he has proved to be far from liberal. The NDAA is about the least liberal thing I've heard of since...ummm...well, in a very, very long time. It's Bush's Patriot Act over again, only considerably moreso. It's what the Republicans would have done while in office, if they'd dared to. Obama did it quietly over New Year's, and most people in the USA hardly even noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 03:18 PM

AMEN TO THAT LITTLE HAWK!!!...Just like Clinton snuck in NAFTA, during Christmas holidays, when most of Congress had split to go home...enough stayed behind, secretly..to cast the vote. It was extraordinary bullshit!....Matter of FACT, that's exactly WHY he was elected!!
I guess Glass-Steagall was the icing on the cake!!

We all would have been better off, if the Republicans and kept him in the barn and provided him with round the clock fat ugly chicks to give him blow jobs, 24-7, than to allow his slimy hands to touch a pen, in the Oval Office!.....(he might have been happier, too!)...and Hillary could have them when he was done....and the other way around, too!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM

Maybe politically motivated, maybe not? But, regardless, it can't be a bad sign.


U.S. prepared to meet Iran for nuclear talks

Subject: BS: Obamadrama: What's Next?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:24 PM

Obamagate?
{:-( ))=

P.S. Like my new hairdo? I got a mohawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM

I think your new haircut is absolutely the cat's meow, Henry. Way to go, man! That will put the fear in pimps and other neighborhood scum like that. And I bet you have something hidden up your sleeve too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:19 PM

""Here is a little data for you Amos. It is from a source you have quoted so I presume the source is acceptable to you.""

You mean the fact that since August 2011 Obama has gone from 43.3% approval to 49.3%, while his opponent has advanced rapidly to the rear from 55.9% to 49.5%?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

""We all would have been better off, if the Republicans and kept him in the barn and provided him with round the clock fat ugly chicks to give him blow jobs, 24-7,""

And that is what you think of as comment from a position of SANITY?

God help America!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:32 PM

Bobz, I absolutely hate that word, but you are clearly close to the truth. You are trying to talk sense to either three retards, or one retard posting under three false IDs.

An you, LH, are doing yourself no service by backing these loonies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 02:47 PM

I think the most prevalent view of the Obama administration, which is the most obvious, is that Obama is a fast, jive-talking bullshit artist...and that his devotees are constantly having to explain it away, and make excuses!
Is this not obvious???
(Well, it is unless you are in complete moronic denial!!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:43 PM

"The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto "Lifting as we climb." That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we've already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn't work."

The New Yorker's endorsement of Obama gives, in my opinion, a good summary of what he has accomplished and why he should be re-elected, gibberish from the incoherent notwithstanding:

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/29/121029taco_talk_editors#ixzz2A3uZLHtk

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:46 PM

He's still a bullshitter!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

Neat 7 minute video: Still think Romney's the one?