BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 02:31 AM

I've noticed on several threads now, that the 'so-called liberal left's' wheels are coming off. Nastier attitudes and derogatory comments, worse than ever. I heard on the radio today, that the Democratic party is fracturing, as well. They attributed it to Obama, and the uncovering of his hypocrisy. I believe the word that was used was 'panic'....much like what the Tea party caused in the Republican party. So now you are having fragmented groups, in both 'left and right', who are strikingly familiar, wreaking havoc within the two parties.
(Shhhh, don't tell anyone, but it's all coming from the same place, for the same reason)....and both groups, think their main party is full of bullshit....and that they don't stink, either!

From another thread (Wall street protesters)

and this follow up post.....


pardon the first phrase, if that 'offends' you, but.........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:27 PM

Hey, Beardie, you're entitled to your faith that Cheney and Co. AREN'T a collection of lying sacks of shit, tho the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. That's what faith is all about.

Your reading skills must need touching up, as the ORIGIN of the screed in question was detailed on the Yahoo News site for all to see. But I'm sure you actually KNEW that, & are just blowing smoke as usual.

Keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 03:23 PM

Greg lives on a diet of chronic anger mixed with total contempt and a vicious lack of respect for people he disagrees with about anything at all. This is bad for the liver as time goes by. It can burn it out. It's bad for the heart too. It poisons the dialogue. It makes enemies. It's also real dangerous behaviour when you're sittin' in a bar...and it can lead to major injuries, busted teeth, etc...but Greg is not sittin' in a bar, he's safely sittin' behind a computer somewhere, so that part don't really matter.

If people don't take it personal (and I sure don't), readin' Greg's mean and nasty posts to people he disagrees with can make for good light entertainment on a slow day, almost no matter what he is snarlin' about or who he is denigratin' for darin' to see anything different than he does. What would it be like to be Greg? I don't know. I've never lived on a diet of nothin' but lemons and bitters.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 12:59 PM

last was mine-


Greggie boy,

I fail to see how your attack on the writer (of the post **I** got from the YAHOO site as blinkie) has even addressed the validity of the factual content presented.

Easy point= JUST SHOW THE FACTS WRONG, instead of making another "Ad hominem" attack.

I have YET to see you present any facts to back your attacks- that says a lot more about YOU than the value of what you criticise.



I would present MY opinion that YOU have a negative credibility- If YOU say it, I have to presume it is wrong until facts prove otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 11:57 AM

The prior three posts are a parody of themselves...based on Sawzaw's and the fourth one down, should be the proper re-action!

GfS

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

another hostile Ad hominem attack.

You still don't get it.

a sense of fairness and courtesy.

Of which you have proven yourself a master.

If you do decide to present some facts

No point, Sawz - would be like trying to have a rational discussion with a flat-earther, holocaust denier blog-o-phile, or other person for whom faith-based propositions trump fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 10:13 AM

"But I still can't tell whether you're ignorant of the definition or a hypocrite."
Confused by facts so you lash out at some one to demonize.

Joe Biden was factual. Your problem is that his remarks were not spun by the Liberal Media into a fairy tail of your liking.

Your zero credibility is another hostile Ad hominem attack.

One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically.

You could say my remarks about you are ad hominem but you haven't presented any facts. Rather you attack other people personally to try to disprove their facts.

If you do decide to present some facts, which is a common occurence in a forum, I will not attack your character but I will comment about the validity of the facts you present.

You did say that "the public rightly continues to blame Bush" without mentioning that fifty some percent blame Bush. That means 40 some percent do not blame Bush. If you go to RCP the poll Biden referred to was 51% blame Bush.

This demonstrates the use of weasel words to try to disprove what Biden said and attack me for it.

And where is your scathing criticism of Bobert "facts"? Where is your personal attack on him for spinning and twisting? Where are your demands for the sources of Bobert "facts?

Could it be that you only attack certain people you disagree with? That you tolerate nonfactual statements from people that agree with you for political purposes? Tribal Politics?

Just questions that you may want to answer out of a sense of fairness and courtesy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 10:22 PM

Nice try, Beardie, but that screed ain't from Yahoo News, but from "The Daily Caller, which sez of itself:About Us

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller...


So, a right-wing blogger and a Dick Cheney mouthpiece. They- especially the Cheney guy, have less than zero credibility.

But I suppose zero credibility is enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:47 PM

EEEEEEEEEEEE-YAUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(rolling around on the floor, screaming, beating my little fists on the linoleum, and frothing at the mouth...)

Just thought I'd do that on behalf of those here who tune in each day to get their daily fix of political froth and hostility, but can't spare the time for the obvious physical actions that go along with it. ;-)

"Ahh..." So cathartic. Now I think I'll go out and have a nice meal somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:19 PM

Bruce, I think you are trying to put the 'liberals' into a dizzying tailspin, by introducing them to FACTS!..They aren't accustomed to dealing with them!...only stirred up 'emotionalism'....(oh shit, another 'ism')

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 11:36 AM

"Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation's Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street's largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama's total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama's credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply....

Being Wall Street's campaign cash king is hardly the image President Obama has been trying to project in public, where he has been setting himself up as the champion of the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement and as the avenger of jilted Bank of America customers.
"Banks can make money," Obama said last week, responding to questions during an interview with ABC News about Bank of America's decision to levy a $5 monthly fee on debit card users. "They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it."
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.
An examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign contributions in 2008 from Bank of America's executives, PACs and employees, which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W. Bush in 2004.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms also contributed more to Obama's 2008 campaign than they gave to Republican nominee John McCain.
"The securities and investment industry is Obama's second largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign," Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive Politics's OpenSecrets blog.
By the end of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.
Goldman Sachs contributed slightly over $1 million to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, compared with a little over $394,600 to the 2004 Bush campaign. Citigroup gave $736,771 to Obama in 2008, compared with $320,820 to Bush in 2004. Executives and others connected with the Swiss bank UBS AG donated $539,424 to Obama's 2008 campaign, compared with $416,950 to Bush in 2004. And JP Morgan Chase gave Obama's campaign $808,799 in 2008, but did not show up among Bush's top donors in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama's close relationship with JP Morgan Chase was highlighted earlier this year when he tapped Bill Daley, a former top executive with the bank, to replace Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
Wall Street's generosity to Obama didn't end with his 2008 campaign either. Wall Street donors contributed $4.8 million to underwrite Obama's inauguration, according to a Jan. 15, 2009 Reuters report.
So far Wall Street has raised $7.2 million in the current electoral cycle for President Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's 2012 Wall Street bundlers include people like Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor; Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JP Morgan; and Charles Myers, an executive with the investment bank Evercore Partners....

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-wall-street-dough-044804642.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 09:27 AM

another arrogant ad hominem attack. Learn to type Mr perfect.

Q.E.D. Sawz. But I still can't tell whether you're ignorant of the definition or a hypocrite.

Problem ain't what Mr. Biden said, but the nonsensical way you & other right-wing blog-o-philes misunderestimate, twist & spin what he said.

Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:24 AM

I answered your arrogant question. And you respond with another arrogant ad hominem attack. Learn to type Mr perfect.

I repeat if you don't like what Joe Biden said, why attack me with trumped up bullshit?

And never ever ask Bobert to reveal any sources.


ATF Fast and Furious guns turned up in El Paso
La Times September 29, 2011

They were being stored for shipment to Mexico, documents show. It's the first case of vanished weapons from the surveillance program showing up on this side of the border outside the Phoenix area. According to emails and court records, 40 AK-47-type assault rifles purchased from the Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale, Ariz., turned up in El Paso, Texas. According to emails and court records, 40 AK-47-type assault rifles purchased (Carlos Chavez, Arizona Republic)
|By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau)

Reporting from Washington A cache of assault weapons lost in the ATF's gun-trafficking surveillance operation in Phoenix turned up in El Paso, where it was being stored for shipment to Mexico, according to new internal agency emails and federal court records.

Forty firearms along with ammunition magazines and ballistic vests were discovered in Texas in January 2010 during the early stages of the program, meaning the firearms vanished soon after the program began.

Under the program, dubbed Fast and Furious, agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Phoenix field office allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal "straw" buyers in the hope that the agents could track the weapons and arrest Mexican drug cartel leaders.

Instead, more than 2,000 weapons were trafficked along the U.S.-Mexico border, and many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. In addition, two AK-47 semi-automatics involved in the program were recovered after a U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed south of Tucson, and two others were found after a violent confrontation with state police officers in Maricopa, Ariz.

The El Paso case is the first example of Fast and Furious weapons turning up on this side of the border outside the Phoenix area.

According to an ATF document, Sean Christopher Steward bought the 40 AK-47-type assault rifles on Dec. 24, 2009, from the Lone Wolf Trading Co. gun store in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix. The cache was part of 290 firearms ultimately acquired by Steward, a convicted drug felon, during the Fast and Furious operation.

Last January, he and 19 others were indicted in the only criminal case to arise out of Fast and Furious.

According to ATF emails and a federal court affidavit, El Paso police officers tracking alleged drug smuggling from Mexico followed a dark blue Volkswagen Jetta as it backed into a garage at a residence on Jan. 13, 2010. The driver was identified as Alberto Sandoval. Police later searched the vehicle and found the weapons and other devices.

According to an email from ATF Special Agent Oscar B. Flores in El Paso, Sandoval told authorities that he was paid $1,000 "to store the firearms at his residence until they could be transported to the Republic of Mexico" by an unknown third party.

More emails discussing Sandoval's arrest and the recovery of the weapons were sent to Washington headquarters and Kenneth Melson, then the ATF acting director, and William J. Hoover, the assistant director.

Sandoval was indicted and pleaded guilty to weapons charges in May 2010 in U.S. District Court in El Paso. He was sentenced to 61/2 years in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 10:24 AM

Some people don't read 'typo-nese' well. These are usually the same people who still eat pablum, and are spoon fed EVERYTHING, including their 'opinions'....suck on baby bottles...and found new substitutes.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 09:14 AM

Atta boy, Sawz!

Instead of providing anything coherent, substantive, or germaine- or even answering the question - focus on a typographic error, liberally seasoned with your usual idiotic "assumptions" and evasions.

You've also conclusively demonstrated that: 1, You don't know the definition of an "ad hominem" attack or 2, you're a hypocrite.

None of which comes as a surprise to anyone familiar with you or, for that matter, the Englist Language.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 12:32 AM

Methinks this creation by Amos, this memorial to his sagacity, has become an Albatross around his neck. Or has he rolled Obama under da bus?

"America, this is our moment. This is our time."

"It's a time when incredible achievements lie just over the horizon."

"This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment, this was the time,when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our
highest ideals."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 12:19 AM

Maybe Blowhard Bobert would like to reveal the source of his "Haiti where 1% has all the wealth" fact or anything to support his claim that "America sold the bad gas to Saddam" or the "gold plated M16 rifle" given to him.

Maybe he could enumerate the "shitload of Dixiecrats" or name them.

Whenever I ask Bobert for his sources he says Google it yourself or go write an essay to prove he is right. Then when nothing to support his "fact" appears in Google he unleashes a new Bobert "fact" that "your computer gives you what you want" Just exactly why my computer will not give me what I want when Bobert said it would remains a mystery.

It is worthwhile to note that Google keeps track of your searches through the use of cookies and serves ads based on what you search for. In Bobert's case it must be a barrage of ads for bongs, Monsieur Zig Zag papers and home brew stills for making bootleg hootch.

You can Blow holes in this Bobert "your computer gives you what you want" "fact" by comparing the results given by Google to the result from an identical search at Scroogle.com which searches Google but masks your ID so they have no record of what you have searched for in the past.

Now to Mr lazy ass, arrogant Greg who would not dare to challenge a Bobert "fact", Just what the hell is "englist language" Are you trying to spell elitist? Do you need some help reading and understanding English?

I assume you want to know the source so you can apply your usual and only method to determine the thruthfulness of information by the using the false logic of "ad hominem", argument against the person.

My source is Reuters Thursday, Oct 6, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 07:21 PM

Asking Sawz to produce sources is a joke, Greg... He will come up with a "War and Peace" length cut and paste of all the right winged bloggers in the universe who plainly don't tell the truth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 11:29 AM

What's the source, Sawz, for this screed of innuendo & supposition ?

Same gang that mounted the blowjob hearings?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 11:58 PM

Amos who apparently regards his threads as personal accomplishments, has abandoned this thread. Now it is like an unsupported child abandoned by it's father. How cruel. Amos gets his rocks off creating a new thread and when he gets tired of supporting it, he disappears.

The Obama administration said on Thursday its top energy loans official was stepping down, following a widening probe into the embarrassing collapse of a solar panel company that got $535 million in federal support.

Jonathan Silver, a venture capitalist [Gasp! an evil capitalist working for the Obama administration!] who had also worked for the Clinton administration, was leaving because the loan program has allocated all its funding, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said.

Silver's departure, however, comes as Republicans in Congress probe the White House's role in backing government loans given to Solyndra, a California solar panel maker, in 2009.

Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in August, and is also under investigation by the FBI.

President Barack Obama, who spoke at a news conference before Silver's resignation was announced, defended the Energy Department's handling of loans program and said the government should not back down from its support for clean energy.

Silver joined the Energy Department after the loan guarantee was awarded, but he was in charge in February when the government agreed to restructure the debt as the company ran out of cash.

In that restructuring, some $75 million in private investment was ranked ahead of the government in the event of bankruptcy. That private fund was backed by a prominent Obama fundraiser.

Obama Fundraiser Boasts of Cashing In on Stimulus Package

A key unanswered question in the Solyndra loan investigation concerns the role George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire and major Obama fundraiser whose Family Foundation owned a large stake in the failed solar-panel company. Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the week before the Department of Energy approved a $535 million guaranteed loan to Solyndra on March 20, 2009, and helped arrange 16 separate meetings between top White House officials and Solyndra executives around that time. Yet Kaiser maintains that he "did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan."

Kaiser cites his "multiple trips to Washington" and his ability to secure meetings with "all the key players in the West Wing of the White House." He also touts his "almost unique advantage," through his foundation, of being able to match public dollars with private funding. That way, Kaiser says, the Obama administration will know "we’ll watch over it because we don’t want to be embarrassed with the way our money is spent and so we won’t make you be embarrassed with the way your money is spent either." Sure, what could possibly go wrong?

While Solyndra’s failure is an embarrassment for both parties, Kaiser’s foundation still stands to recoup a large chunk of its investment in the company, whereas taxpayers will recoup very little, if any, of the $535 million investment the White House made on our behalf. That’s because once Solyndra’s financial troubles became too obvious to ignore, the DOE negotiated a loan restructuring that gave priority status to private investors over taxpayers with respect to the first $75 million recovered in the event of Solyndra’s collapse. As Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations pointed out last week, this appears to be a blatant violation of federal law.

Obama may take issue with the fact that "millionaires and billionaires" like Kaiser make too much money, but he obviously has no qualms about showering them with taxpayer dollars.

Forbes ranked #31 George Kaiser $10Billion net worth age 69 Tulsa, Oklahoma oil & gas, banking

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 12:53 AM

Actually, it's the banks...the major lending institutions...who have tanked the economy. The last few presidents (including Obama and Bush) have merely served as their compliant puppets and errand boys. Adopting partisan positions on this fiasco is to avoid facing the basic problem: the people who create money out of thin air...meaning the banks...are the people who really control your government no matter which party you elect, because it is money in the form of massive DEBT that controls your government. And the banks have created trillions of dollars in imaginary money...in the form of debt...and have effectively bankrupted the entire society to enrich themselves.

And the government bails them out so they can do it again! Bush and Obama both agreed on this. They agreed to bail out the banks.

Fighting about whether it was Bush or Obama who "tanked the economy" is inane. It goes way beyond Bush and Obama to the very nature of a de-regulated system which allows banks to endlessly expand the apparent money supply by simply creating more fictional money in the form of debt and getting paid interest for it. Presidents are just bit players in this fraud, this gigantic pyramid scheme...unless they dare to stand up and stop the banks from doing what they are doing by strictly regulating and limiting how much money they can lend out. No recent president has dared to do that.

The goverment and society are in hock up to their ears. They've been enslaved by a criminal banking system which basically went berserk after Ronald Reagan de-regulated it.

We don't have such a situation in Canada merely because our banks are still quite strictly regulated. Reaganism didn't happen yet here.

Given our dependency on American-Canadian trade, however, if the USA economy truly collapses, Canada's economy will go down too...even though our banks have been well regulated and are healthy. We are a small animal living next door to a sick elephant. If it falls over, we get crushed under it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 10:39 AM

the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant...

If one can read and understand the Englist language, Biden obviously did not 'dismiss' the contention that "decisions made under George W. Bush [are] one of the main reasons why today's economy is in such turmoil".

Translation for the cognitively impaired, Sawz: the public rightly continues to blame Bush for tanking the economy; and second, this may be mostly irrelevant in 2012.

Not 'relevant' now, perhaps (in the context of what the Veep was discussing), but none the less still TRUE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 10:19 AM

Apparently Amos has left the thread. His own beacon of truth shining through the fog of misinformation.

Joe Biden: Obama administration "not Bush White House" owns the economy’s problems

Rachel Rose Hartman The Ticket

President Obama's administration has long cited decisions made under George W. Bush as one of the main reasons why today's economy is in such turmoil. But Vice President Joe Biden dismissed that argument Thursday, telling Miami radio station WLRN that's not relevant.

"Even though 50-some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant," the vice president said. "What's relevant is we're in charge."

Biden added that he doesn't blame people who are mad at the administration, and said it is understandable and "totally legitimate" for the 2012 presidential election to be "a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature and state of the economy."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 12:09 AM

Yeah, what a drag, eh? Don't think I'm not pretty disgusted with things here too, 999...because I am. I've reached the point where I hardly care anymore, as a matter of fact. I say to myself "This too shall pass". And it does, given a bit of time. Everthing passes, given a bit of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 12:00 AM

Instead we have Harper and aren't WE proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 11:47 PM

Neither of those Mega-parties deserves to be either elected or re-elected ever again. Nor does any stuffed shirt they advance to represent them...such as Obama, Perry, or anybody else they offer up as the next supposed "saviour" of the nation.

Fortunately, however, I live in another country, so I don't have to face the misery, degradation, horror, and shame of being asked to choose between them once every 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 01:03 AM

This is not a popular view, it's mine.

Obama had an outside chance to enact some real change in the first six to nine months. He blew it. He's been blowing it ever since by refusing to "grow a pair", as someone said on Bill Maher's show tonight.

He does not deserve to be re-elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:49 PM

"This is an incredible moment. In it, we are seeing the beginning of a new generation of American possibility and hope. I am amazed and grateful that I could be here to see this happen."

Ground Control to Amos........... Come in Amos.

Obama approval ratings hit new lows: What people are saying

By Elizabeth Flock Washington Post

President Obama, the day before his lowest approval ratings yet were released. (Charles Dharapak - AP) The numbers aren't pretty.

The Washington Post/ABC News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls released early Tuesday show President Obama has the lowest approval ratings yet of his presidency.

Democratic pollster Peter Hart has declared that "Obama is no longer the favorite to win re-election," while ABC News correspondent George Stephanopolous has asked whether this takes Obama into the "incumbent death zone." German writer Eamonn Fitzgerald has proclaimed, simply: "Hope's gone."

Here's a look at the numbers:

The Washington Post/ABC News poll

*43 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, while 53 percent disapprove. (His previous approval low was 52 percent.)

*62 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy.

*By 2 to 1, more Americans now say the Obama administration's economic policies are making the economy worse rather than better.

*Of the more than six in 10 who now disapprove of Obama's work on jobs and the economy, nearly half of all Americans "strongly" disapprove.

*Six in 10 disapprove of Obama's work on the federal budget deficit, a percentage that is basically where it was a year ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 03:55 AM

Amos:

You haven't posted on your ode to Obama thread for a few months now. What's wrong?

Is it apparent that Obama can't fix things like you thought?

I believe he had and still has good intentions but is not able to implement them.

What do you think? Are you disappointed or does tribal politics prevent you from stating your true feelings?

Are you afraid that if you say what you truly believe that your buddies won't like you anymore?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 01:22 PM

No kidding!

Isn't that what every succeeding administration does?

They say what will get them elected. Then they do something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 12:03 AM

"Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations," Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. "You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You'll help me run my White House."

"I believe I can bring about that kind of change - because I'm the only candidate in this race who's actually worked to take power away from lobbyists by passing historic ethics reforms in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate. And I'm the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my administration, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I'm President of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, PA, 4/2/08)

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken Politifact.com

As a senator and a candidate, Obama was sharply critical of lobbyists and promised tougher ethics rules to deal with them.

Of the 513 promises we're tracking, this one has become the most controversial. It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests.

During the campaign, Obama said many times that lobbyists would not run his White House, and the campaign delighted in tweaking rival John McCain for the former lobbyists who worked on McCain's campaign.

Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect.

But the order has a loophole a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver.

After examining the administration's actions we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 10:04 PM

Did you hear something, Jack???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 09:50 PM

G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether NYT March 24, 2011

In January, President Obama named Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric's chief executive, to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. "He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy", Mr. Obama said.

General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm. Indeed, the company's slogan "Imagination at Work" fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company's nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation's tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.

The assortment of tax breaks G.E. has won in Washington has provided a significant short-term gain for the company's executives and shareholders. While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

But critics say the use of so many shelters amounts to corporate welfare, allowing G.E. not just to avoid taxes on profitable overseas lending but also to amass tax credits and write-offs that can be used to reduce taxes on billions of dollars of profit from domestic manufacturing. They say that the assertive tax avoidance of multinationals like G.E. not only shortchanges the Treasury, but also harms the economy by discouraging investment and hiring in the United States.

---

GE to invest $500 million in Brazil for accelerated growth General Electric Company announced November 10 that it plans to invest $500 million (USD) to expand its operations in Brazil and to accelerate technology partnerships with leading Brazilian companies spanning multiple industries. The announcement was made at a news conference in Rio de Janeiro, which was chosen as the home for GE's newest multi-disciplinary Research and Development Center.

The $100 million Brazil Global Research Center will be located on the Ilha do Bom Jesus peninsula and, when fully operational, will employ 200 researchers and engineers. Work at the center will focus on advanced technologies for the oil & gas, renewable energy, mining, rail and aviation industries.

---

GE Investing Millions in China GE and State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC)--China's top power distributor and one of the world's largest utilities--announced plans for several joint ventures to address China's growing energy needs and to electrify its vast transportation infrastructure. These joint ventures are part of GE's plans to invest US$2B in China through 2012, and are expected to play a role in supporting the country's energy demand through the development of a smarter power grid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 05:57 PM

President Obama Job Approval

RCP poll Average        7/5 - 7/21 46.0 approve        48.8 disapprove

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 05:27 PM

Ok, who started 5 of the last 7 wars?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 07:02 PM

2 out of 3? and you mention 5 conflicts. Nice math there buddy. You work that out on your Tea Party calculator? The one that says, cut the deficit by cutting taxes for rich people who laugh all the way to the bank at your stupidity every time you carry their water?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:33 PM

How about getting a brain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:22 PM

Even though the Democrats voted for them, Bobert claims "the republicans started both the Iraq war and the one in Afghanistan. "

Obama started the ones in Libya, Yemen and Somalia. 2 outa three ain't bad. Who voted for them?

How about Vietnam? How about Bosnia?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 12:20 AM

"Who you gonna call?"

Ghostbusters? ;-)

Chongo?

Bobert, I didn't say Obama started the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan! I said the USA started those wars, and the USA was under George Bush at that time, as everyone knows. Read my post more carefully. ;-) I was simply adding further comment to Sawzaw's remarks he had made about some of the USA's other wars...not suggesting Obama had caused ALL of them. Sheesh.

My complaints with the Obama administration are only regarding stuff done since that administration has been in office, and I don't think they have turned out much better so far than Bush...although Obama is definitely a smarter and more likable personality than Bush. ;-)

The Patriot Act is still in effect.
Guantanamo is still operating (as are other such overseas prisons).
No USA war has been ended, but some new ones have been started.
The health care "reform" is a joke, in my opinion...not a funny one.
The banking criminals who caused the financial meltdown have been rewarded with bailouts.
The Federal Reserve Bank (privately owned) is still effectively above the law.
Your economy is in wretched shape.
Your unemployment figures are very high.

It isn't enough to just blame it all on the past George Bush administration. You are getting screwed by both parties, because neither one of them actually represents you (meaning, the average American citizen). There are a few individuals among both parties' congresspeople who are trying to represent the average American, but they are a tiny voice in the wilderness.

Why? Because they're not obedient corporate servants. I'm sorry I can't say the same of Mr Obama, despite his lovely personality, his keen mind, and his brilliant oratory. As far as I can see, he's a front man for "business as usual". You know who I think he works for? Wall Street, that's who.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 10:19 PM

No, LH, Bush and the republicans started both the Iraq war and the one in Afghanistan...

You may think that Sawz is keeping th3e record straight but you are wrong... He is a shill for the Republican Party, the rich, the crooks, the liars, the ones who are trying to take the USA back to the 1890s... That is a reality that your DNA is unable to accept... Too bad for you...

You have to remember "And then they came for me"...

Saws folks are the ones coming for you...;

Play "classless and free" and Sawz and his master will stick a knife so far in your back that you will be nailed to a tree in F'n Mexico...

Saws is coming for you... Who you gonna call???

You and GfInS need to recognize the enemy... You talk about the corporations wanting to stick it to you....Saws is Boss Hog hisself... He needs no encouragement from you 'cause he out to fuck you up!!!

Square business...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 09:29 PM

Thanks for keeping tabs on the present administration, Sawzaw. I think its performance thus far has been almost as bad as that of the previous Bush administration was...in fact, very similar in most respects! Little has changed.

I just want to add to what you said about the wars...

The USA started the war in Afghanistan too. The Afghan government and people did not attack the USA on 911 nor did they plan such an attack...and it was not an act of war. It was a privately orchestrated criminal terrorist act by a small group of criminal conspirators, not an act of war by one nation state upon another. It should have been responded to by international police action and covert intelligence activity, NOT by launching a fullscale military invasion of Afghanistan, thus an invasion of a nation which never attacked the USA in the first place.

The USA re-started the war in Iraq too in 2003, falsely claiming a worldwide danger from supposed Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" that in truth never existed.

There is no war the USA is involved in at present that the USA did not involve itself in by its own choice, and not one of the countries attacked posed any actual threat to the USA...other than a possible commercial threat to the overseas interests of some large American energy corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:50 AM

"Sawz: If you cannot see the difference between starting wars and trying to end them, I feel sorry for you, man.

A"

Ummm, I think bombing Libya, Yemen and Somalia is starting wars.

Do you still feel sorry now Amos? Do you think we should add Syria to the list?

Kill'em all and let God sort'em out. Not my words but from a 'Nam Veteran's Tee shirt

Bomb Bomb Bomb

Bomb Bomb Iran? Not my words but Grampa McCains.

To your credit though, you have quit flogging that "Clinton surplus" dogma even though others here who don't even believe it anymore still make believe it is true.

$17.9b National Deficit <> $238b surplus

But really seriously Amos, you are cool and not too proud to back off of a previous position when it gets untenable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 04:51 PM

In the wake of last week's disastrous jobs report, allies of the Obama administration are expressing extreme frustration at what they see as the White House's inaction on the issue. But there's little evidence that Team Obama is listening.

The economy added just 54,000 jobs in May, and long-term joblessness is at a record high. Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke admitted this week that the recovery has been "frustratingly slow."

That bleak news has prompted harsh criticism of the White House from many of the administration's friends, who view the focus on deficit reduction rather than job creation as badly misplaced, and who want more government stimulus to jolt the economy.

"There is no political will to do anything about the [jobs] situation," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote today. "Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending--destroying jobs in the process--with the only difference being one of degree."

Christina Romer, who stepped down last year as President Obama's top economics adviser, told The Lookout earlier this week that "the U.S. economy needs help," and called for more stimulus spending and business tax cuts to encourage hiring.

Even some Democrats on Capitol Hill are losing patience. "I'm not sure what's gained by giving any oxygen to the incorrect idea that fiscal austerity"--that is, spending cuts--"right now would be expansionary," a senior Democrat told The New Republic magazine.

And a post on the website of the Campaign for America's Future, a leading progressive activist group, is entitled: "If the president won't do something about jobs, who will?" It argues that on the issue, "it seems as if the White House is from Mars and the middle class is from Venus."

Most economists agree that, at least in the short term, spending cuts will cause the economy to further contract, while additional spending could offer a much-needed boost, by creating the demand that's currently lacking. But the pleas from administration allies nonetheless appear to be falling on deaf ears. The signs suggest that the White House views tackling the deficit as the priority, and is therefore reluctant to back further spending measures.

An effort by Senate Democrats to spur job creation through infrastructure spending--an idea President Obama has publicly backed--hasn't gained support from the White House. Instead, the White House criticized the bill for spending too much.

A Washington Post profile of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner from earlier this week reported that he has used his growing influence in the administration to "to press President Obama to curb the nation's soaring debt even at the expense of spending that might more directly spur employment."

On Sunday, Austan Goolsbee, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, downplayed the importance of the May jobs report, and added: "Government is not the central driver of recovery."

Meanwhile, Republicans aren't offering much in the way of job-based economic proposals either. Most economists say that the kind of drastic spending cuts they're pushing would badly stifle growth--likely throwing millions more out of work--at a time when middle-class Americans can least afford it. Even Bernanke, a Republican himself, made that very point this week.

In other words, the chances that Washington will get serious about our jobs crisis any time soon appear increasingly slim. For now, it looks like the nearly 14 million Americans who are out work are on their own.

But President Obama found time to pose for a group photo with the national-championship-winning Auburn University football team, at the White House, June 8, 2011

I think the way to cut spending without hurting the economy is to evaluate how much of each dollar spent on each program actually goes into the average American's pocket and increase spending on those by whatever is cut from programs that are the least beneficial to the average American.

Where did the $500,000 that was spent on the shrimp treadmill go? Maybe fixing up a school or buying printed in the USA school books would have given us more bang for the buck.

One construction company that won multiple awards of money under President Obama's 2009 stimulus program was delinquent on its federal tax bill to the tune of $700,000, even as a company executive was blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos.

Yet another company failed to pay taxes, entered into a payment plan with the Internal Revenue Service, and then repeatedly defaulted on that agreement - and still won stimulus contracts worth more than $1 million, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

All told, government investigators found that during the period they examined, one out of every six stimulus contract or grant dollars went to a known tax cheat.

Hmmmmmmmmmm I thought the #2 man, Joe, said that wouldn't happen

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 02:44 AM

In January, President Obama named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, an economic advisory board focused on job creation.

That same month, in his State of the Union address, he called for the closure of corporate tax loopholes in conjunction with a lowering of the corporate tax rate, which stands at 35 percent.

"Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries" he said. "Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system [G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm.] can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense. It has to change."

Mr. Obama's choice of Immelt came under scrutiny Friday in the wake of a front-page story in the New York Times reporting that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

---

While Ohio is traditionally thought of once being a center of auto manufacturing, there was such a strong tradition of light-bulb production in the state that the world's largest maker of light bulbs, General Electric, located the headquarters of its light bulb division in Cleveland. The jobs provided by light-bulb manufacturing allowed people to buy homes, send their kids to college, and fuel a vibrant economy in Ohio for decades.

But in the last decade, GE has closed over fifteen factories in Ohio and downsized numerous others. Since 1980, employment in GE Lighting has dropped by 68 percent.

A large chunk of that manufacturing has gone to China, and now GE plans to send even more to China in the wake of new clean energy policies. By 2014, Americans will only be able to purchase more energy efficient CFL light bulbs. However, GE has located all of its facilities for high-efficiency light bulbs to China and has told the union representing the workers that they have no intention to locate compact flourescent facilities in the United States.

GE is currently threatening to close one factory in Niles, Ohio that produces light bulbs. The workers, members of United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) at one are calling on GE to look for a way to refit their plant so that they can be part of the new clean energy economy. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Tim Ryan wrote a letter to GE's CEO Jeffery Immelt expressing "deep concern" for the workers at the plant:


    "The workers and tradition of the Niles facility present an enormous opportunity to show how we can transition manufacturers from contracting industries, like incandescent bulbs, to emerging industries in energy and medical IT."

So far, GE has shown every intention to take the American tax dollars being used to subsidize the green-energy economy and use them to build Chinese factories and pay Chinese workers. As I wrote earlier this week, in spite of GE CEO Jeffery Immelt's statement that companies need to stop outsourcing, GE continues to lead the effort to outsource clean-energy jobs. Most recently, GE has cut off a contract with a windmill factory in Indiana and shipped the work to China despite the factory offering to sell their parts at the same price as their Chinese competitors.

To add insult to injury to workers losing their jobs from foreign outsourcing, GE has even launched a television ad campaign promoting American manufacturing. "GE has the ability to locate its new manufacturing for CFL's, LED's, as well as the new incandescent lighting technologies in Ohio and elsewhere in the U.S. So far they have not done this, and we see no sign that they are even considering doing this. GE Lighting workers in the U.S. see little to cheer in GE's pronouncements and feel good advertising because for several decades now every plant has been on an extended deathwatch," said Chris Townsend of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers Union.

It's time that CEO's like Jeffery Immelt live up to their word and help rebuild the American economy by keeping American manufacturing jobs in America. It's also time that we adopt a comprehensive policy that promotes American manufacturing and prevents companies like GE from using taxpayer funds intended to stimulate the American economy to undermine our economy instead.

While Obama says he wants to encourage the creation of family-supporting jobs and to grow the middle class, Immelt is all about enriching himself and growing the gap between rich and poor.

Immelt enjoyed a doubling of his personal compensation. [$30.9 million in total compensation over the last three years, while GE shareholders suffered a catastrophic 46% loss as the company's shares crumbled from $35 to $19] Yet, he was not interested in spreading the prosperity. In fact, GE is expected to ask 15,000 of the company's unionized workers to agree to sweeping cuts in pay and benefits.

A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.

Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to green energy credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.

The assortment of tax breaks G.E. has lobbied for and won in Washington has provided a significant short-term gain for the company's executives and shareholders. While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

He directed GE to invest heavily in its MSNBC 24 hour television news unit. Lead commentator, Keith Olbermann received a hefty raise from $4 million to $7.5 million a year. Chris Matthews also stepped up to a $5 million annual contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:18 AM

Bobert's Reality 101: "reality is that Obama inherited 90% of it"

If $4 trillion is 10% of the national deficit then it would have been $12.6T when he came into office.

Hmmmmm Georgie poo ran it up $4T in eight years and Obama ran it up by $4T in 2 years.

"the surpluses he [GWB] inherited"

The vaunted CBO "surplus" report never mentions the national deficit or national debt or off budget spending, it only shows the debt held by the public and on budget spending.

There never was a surplus. The national debt increased every year as per facts, not stats, on Obama appointed Mr Geithner's website:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The slowest increase in the national deficit was in 2000. Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security [remember when I asked folks if they knew where the money in their SS account is?]
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. The deficit went up that year just like it has every year since 1952.

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down which hasn't happened since 1952.

A big factor in the slowing of the increase in the deficit under Clinton was the huge increase in tax revenues from capitol gains taxes on the Dot Com bubble. Then it burst in Clinton's last year.

So just keep on beating your head against that wall and after a while if won't hurt any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 11 - 07:45 PM

I think "everybody's wrong" is the GfSan's theme melody, there, Bobez. You can't kill the theme music without seriously dinging the soap opera, ya know...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 07:32 PM

Exactly what mistakes are you talking about, GfinS??? The massive tax cuts that Bush pushed down our throats which in one year wiped out the surpluses he inherited??? Yeah, I'm all for that...

Or how about the $100B a year we spend on obsolete military hardware because defense contractors are lining the pockets of mostly Repub Congressmen from the South...

Or how about the $30B a year we give millionaire farmers for absolutely nothing???

Or how about the $10B we give poor Big Oil every year for absolutely nothing???

The list goes on and on and most of this money is going to red states... 90% of farm subsidies got to red states...

The largest chunk of our tax $$$ goes to Texas where there are 17 (count 'um) military bases... That's $100B right there...

No, what we have is a very corrupt system that favors red states... Red states get back an average of $1.30 for every $1.00 they pay in federal income taxes... Blue states about 80 cents on the dollar...

You say that both parties are the same... No, they aren't... One is getting heavily subsidized by the other... This is 100% corruption that favors the Repubs in a BIG way!!!

Reality 101...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 11 - 06:01 PM

So, your 'adopted' idea is justifying one big fuck up with another???..even if its worse???
THEY BOTH SUCK SQUARE EGGS!!!
Wrong is wrong, if nobody's right, right is right, if nobody's right, wrong is wrong, even if everybody's wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about correcting the mistakes, instead of making just as stupid of ones, and justifying it, with the same stupid logic you just posted?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 09:50 AM

It should also be pointed out that the last president to cut the annual budget deficit was Obama...

The last Bush annual budget deficit was for the '09 budget which had been passed and signed came in with a $1.4T annual budget deficit and...

...I know, horrors... Obama's '10 annual budget deficit was $100B less at $1.3T...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 09:23 AM

Here's the deal...

The right wants to make the story all about Obama and the debt but reality is that Obama inherited 90% of it... And we never heard all these righties crying their poor little hearts out while George Bush was running it up like a drunken sailor...

That's called hypocrisy, folks!!!

Bob