 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:36 PM Yeah, LH... This is way below yer standards... It's just like folks saying there has been way too much rudness in Congress and that both sides are responsible... Well, okay, maybe to some degree but if the Repubs are throwing 90% of the poo and the Dems 10% it's not really a fair assessment to say, "Awwww, shucks, can't both of ya'lls get along???"... I mean, you say that I am stalkin' Sawz back??? Who followed whom from one one website to another??? Oh, you don't have time for that??? Well, take a guess??? Seems that by the time I get home from work and find that Sawz has taken shots at me from every concievable direction with some of the most bizarre thinking and links to others bizarre thinking and that it would take over the hour a day (at the most) I have for all my pudder work that we'd be well beyond sayin', "Well yer both stalking each other..."... That in the words of Henry Ford is "bunk"... And so with my limited amount of time I thought that the best way to stop Sawz ballgame was to call him on just one of his dozens (maybe hundreds) of his "Bobert Facts" ballgames so I chose the statement that I made about kids in America who go hungry at night... Heck, I thought (silly me) that I could engage Sawz in just one *critical thinking* "cordial discussion" (which BTW he says he wants???) on one of his ballgames that I just picked from chance... Heck, I could pick any of them and offer to enter in a "coridal discussion" with him about it and he would do just what he has done here: on the streets it's called "shootin' his regular", meaning that he was just going to do what he was going to do... Which means: No "cordial discussion", no "critical thinking", no "risk", no learning something new, no, no and more no... As for "cordial discussions"??? Sawz has absolutely no interest in them... None, nada, zero, zipola... All he wants to do here is play games with me and occasionally Amos... No discussion... Just more dog-poo-in-the-bag... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:06 PM ""What prize would I win for committing such dubious folly? ;-)"" Well one reward might be that you would actually know who said what to whom and in what order. Then when you commented on behaviour, you would know what you were talking about, an excellent way, I find, to avoid looking foolish. Besides, if you can't be bothered to follow the discussion, what value does your intermittent input have? Not much IMHO. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:14 PM "if you read whole threads" Yeah...if I only had the time, I could devote my entire life to that end and never achieve anything else at all. Probably not even eat, shave or wash myself. Just read entire political threads on Mudcat. What prize would I win for committing such dubious folly? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:49 PM Hey Amos: I never said that you said that I said you were stupid or a liar. I merely said I have never called you or Bobert stupid or a liar. But you have called me stupid in your endless and vitriolic ad hominem attacks. "Sawz: How do you find the sheer hutzpah, or the abysmal stupidity," Just because I say I never said something does not mean I am accusing someone else of saying what I said I didn't say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM I am not accepting Bobert's assignment. He has to prove his "facts" not I. If a Bobert claims a budget needs to be posted, he needs to post it. He has no response on the illegal loophole either. I am ready to provide more info about my facts or admit when they are wrong. The reason I made a point of the Amos's collapse is because Amos wants it both ways. He wants to claim there was a collapse but Obama prevented a collapse. Then Obama reversed a collapse. I don't believe collapses are reversible any more than avalanches are reversible. To correct Amos takes about 50 posts wherein he makes ad hominem attacks and contorts logic into every conceivable form until it finally becomes apparent that he was wrong and he can't escape it. Then he carries a grudge against the person that wouldn't back down and accept his version of reality. Seems to me that reasonable people would want to know when they were wrong. PS: I saw David Axelrod on TV saying a collapse was prevented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:22 AM ""Bobert - You're right. He stalks you. You stalk him. There are a lot of people here stalking each other all the time, and it's generally pretty hard to determine who started stalking who first."" Not that hard LH, if you actually read whole threads. Of course, if you simply dip in here and there to have a little poke at somebody............. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Apr 10 - 09:01 PM Name me an issue, Don, and I'll give you my opinion. (That doesn't mean I have to engage in an endless succession of bullying and personal attacks on whoever happens to hold a different opinion about that issue. What I object to on this forum IS the vitriolic personal attacks and the obsessive cyber-bullying that goes on all the time here...NOT people's opinions about issues. I am willing to hear any opinion.) Amos - You are quite correct that Sawzaw's obsessive insistence on continuing to endlessly badger you about things you said way back when about the "collapse of the economy" has been ridiculous behaviour on his part, pointless behaviour, and a complete waste of bandwidth. ;-) There, old chap! I have come to your defence. Don't forget this kindness, because I may need your help some day too. (grin) Bobert - You're right. He stalks you. You stalk him. There are a lot of people here stalking each other all the time, and it's generally pretty hard to determine who started stalking who first. It reminds me of the Democratic and Republican parties. Ugly, man. Really ugly. You mean to tell me it's happening on some OTHER websites too????? To YOU, I mean? And by him? Sheesh. Thank God I only know about this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM Tell ya' what, Sawz... We can begin to disect the little ballgame you got going by posting that budget... Ya' see, LH, this ain't about some midunderstanding we got going here... This is about a jerk who has cyberstalked me from one website to another with his same ballgame... While I'm out making a friggin' living he has unlimited time to spend going thru a multitude or wegbsites finding someone who disagrees with me and then plays his childish *Bobert's Facts Ballgame*... Sometimes I come home and he has spent most of his entire waking day loading up on me from one thread to another with his moronish ballgame... Don't believe me??? Check out my evening posts and see who is right there behind me with his usual ballgame... Been going on here under three diffferent handles... I have given up asking Joe Offer to intervene 'cause I really no longer care about someone out there with a major obsession on me 'cause I flat out don't have the time to care about it... So, I figured I'd just take one of Sawz "Bobert's Fact" ballgamers outta the air which was hunger in America and we could have a "cordial discussion", kinda like "Katrinagate" (which BTW was initaited by one of Sawz earlier handles here), and bring some critical thinking into his ballgame of assuming if he could find one person on the planet who disagreed with me about anything that I post that this other person's position was certainly the most valid position on the planet... Problem is that in this world we know as cyberworld you can find people who will say anything and then provide their resons for those beliefs... Now, if I didn't have to work for a living andf could spend the time that Sawz spends on these cyber-wackos he finds to attack me then I could counter very one of them... But the fact is, I have to work... That is reality... So while I am working for a living Sawz is sittin' in front of his computer setting one dog-poo-in-a-bag ballgame after another so when I come home they are like mine fields... That, LH, is reality... Maybe you domn't undertand what it is like to be stalked and harassed but Sawz has a PHD in it... That is why, BTW, he won't stand here and post a budget so we can have that "cordial discussion" that ***he says*** he wants to have about hunger in America... No, rather than do that, he'll just spend up his entire tomorrow setting up more dog-poo-in-a-bag ballgames... That is reality here, regardless of how Sawz, now that I have tired of his obsession with me, tries to come off as this more decent person... He ain't a decent person... He is a creep... Period... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM ""LH: I like to point out when I am in agreement with people who seem to want to disagree with whatever I say because I am on the "other side"."" Sawzaw. ""You are quite correct. The only way to any kind of positive resolution is to find out what one has in common with other people, and work from that point forward towards some kind of mutual understanding."" LH. Shouldn't you two just Get a Room? One of you "likes to point out when he is in agreement with people", but is never in agreement with anyone who doesn't fall for his Repub propaganda. The other doesn't seem to have much of an opinion on any issue, but persists in posting patronising assessments of those who do. All of which is, to quote Sawzaw, "ridiculous and counter productive". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM Sawz: You bounce off the most unpredictable angles. For example, I never said you said I was stupid or a liar. But for some goddamned reason you just had to haul out that ancient mackerel about whether "collapse" is a binary state or a process. I explained it to you four times, if I recall aright. But you kinda got stuck on it. Furthermore you seem to intentionally forget the times when I allow I was wrong about something. That's the kind of obsessive alteration I am talking about. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:22 AM You are quite correct. The only way to any kind of positive resolution is to find out what one has in common with other people, and work from that point forward towards some kind of mutual understanding. If you take the time to listen to what people say you usually discover that like you, they want freedom, justice, fairness, peace, and all those other good things. They want truth. They want everyone to be safe and have a good life. But they lose their good judgement when they start arguing and stop listening, and when they turn someone else into a stereotyical symbol for everything they think is wrong in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:26 AM LH: I like to point out when I am in agreement with people who seem to want to disagree with whatever I say because I am on the "other side". It sort of illustrates that nobody is either right or wrong all the time and this "our side" VS the "other side" mentality is ridiculous and counter productive. People need to find what they agree on and work from there, not the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:11 AM Tell ya' what, Bobert: You back up the horribly bogus "facts" that you spew out with some visible facts and quit huffin' and puffin' to side step it by telling somebody else they have to do it for you. Start with the "illegal loop hole" What is that? Does such a thing exist? Can you give us an example of an illegal loophole? If you don't want to answer or can't just say so. But when I want to disagree with something you say, I will. If I want to show where you have contradicted yourself, I will. And whenever you prove that I am wrong with some facts instead of your usual assignments, I can and will admit I am wrong because I am human, I can admit to being wrong. I don't regard my refusal to make out a budget as any kind of proof of anything except that I don't feel it is my responsibility to prove your "facts". Is there anything I said that you need some more information on? You can ask and I will do my best but I won't assign projects to avoid having to answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:04 AM I doubt that there's anyone alive who thinks the climate isn't changing. It always changes. Climate change is the one thing you can definitely depend on. The only problem is figuring out how much it's going to change, where, in which direction, when, and why? Climate change is also occurring, after all, on planets like Mars, Venus, and Jupiter. It's normal there too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:26 PM "So, like all the stupid stuff that you accuse me ****over and over and over*** of sayin' that you have found some source --- pick a source, any source will do --- as being wrong you won't even allow yourself to enter into one of those "cordial discussions" that you say I won't enter into because you are more obsessed inrepeating ***over and over and over*** that "Bobert facts" are wrong..." Ah yes Bobert - the infamous "Climate Change is Crap" exponent ... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:15 PM Is it my imagination or do most people here only react to the things they disagree about with someone and not even notice the other stuff he says in his posts? ;-) Hey, Bobert, why do you think Sawzaw is "old Guy" and "Dicky"? You got inside information or somethin'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 11 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM Tell ya' what, Sawz... When you submit yer budget for a family of 4 living at the ppoverty level then, and only then, can a real discussion begin about the horribly bogus "facts" that you spew out can be looked at from the strict viewpoint of critical and logical thinking... Your "facts" are absurd... I don't give a rat's ass where you got them... They are a joke... But, as I have pointed out... You won't submit that budget because in doing so I will rip yer so-called facts to shreads and you will end up having to admit that yer "facts" are crap... So, like all the stupid stuff that you accuse me ****over and over and over*** of sayin' that you have found some source --- pick a source, any source will do --- as being wrong you won't even allow yourself to enter into one of those "cordial discussions" that you say I won't enter into because you are more obsessed inrepeating ***over and over and over*** that "Bobert facts" are wrong... Bullshit, Sawz... Here I am offering you an opportunity to prove that I am wrong!!! Wouldn't you like that??? I mean, *over and over and over* you have played these little fact-checker-from-hell games here and it's growing tiresome to paot anything and have you come back with yer little obsessive cumpulsive baiting... If you want to be taken seriously here then put up yer friggin' budget and let's just get it on, son... I can do this... You may think I'm some kinda stupmo that jusy lives in ***bobert facts world of mythology*** but when I challenge you to have that "cordial discussion' you just come up with some other false accustaion about me being some racist, 'er whatever pops into yer little obsessive compulsive mind... Here's yer chance, Saw... Sheet fire, son... You hung thru 800 posts and three different handles (Old Guy, Dickey and the Sawz) here in Mudburg buggin' me over Katrinagate... The least you could do is step up to the plate here and not pull one of yer disappearing acts and then come back as some new-'n improved obsessive compulsive person... So... Post yer budget, son, of get the f off my back... Obsess on someone else... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:37 PM Don, take note of something Sawzaw just said: "The recent arms treaty is something I agree with. Right wing pundits are bitching about it just to have something to bitch about." I enthusiastically agree with that. That is a clear case of Sawzaw agreeing with and approving something that Obama has done. Sawzaw has also said a number of positive things about Obama, in addition to disagreeing with some of Obama's policies, etc. Sawzaw is not, like so many others here, an instrument that can only play in one key or can only sound one note. His opinions are not one-dimensional. He has varied opinions about Obama...agreeing with some things Obama does, disagreeing with others. And that is why I find what he says interesting. He's actually thinking about each matter on its own merits rather than just rushing blindly to the partisan barricades to hurl stones at "the other side". Most of the people here don't do that. They simply, to paraphrase Sawzaw, can't get past that juvenile attitude toward forming up a gang to fight the other gang. That's the thing I can't stand, and that's the thing I take issue with here all the time...that juvenile gang mentality. It's as one-dimensional and unthinking as an old John Wayne movie. It sees only the predetermined "good guys" and the predetermined "bad guys" that it has already decided upon (based on partisan labels), and is only out to attack and condemn on that basis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Apr 10 - 10:29 AM "Free" Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, OklahomaIn Perkins, Oklahoma, residents are literally paying a price for ccepting "free" stimulus dollars. Perkins' wastewater treatment plant is outdated and the town had planned to build a new one for $5 million. To help with the cost, the town applied for, and received, $1.5 million in "free" stimulus money."We were shovel ready. The engineering was done. We were ready or getting ready to advertise for bids," said Perkins City Manager Pete Seikel. Then came the catch. The Perkins Journal reported, "The good news: Perkins is receiving money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for its new wastewater treatment plant. The bad news: ARRA funds come with strings that will increase project costs by 25 percent." As a condition of accepting those funds, the town must comply with a number of federal requirements. These federal restrictions have increased the total cost of the project from $5.26 million to $7.2 million, offsetting any financial benefit from the grant. Additionally, the state tied the federal dollars to the Oklahoma Water Resource Board's (OWRB) revolving loan program in a 70 percent loan/30 percent grant arrangement. Perkins will be borrowing $5.875 million from OWRB and receiving $1.445 million from a federal stimulus grant. As a result, utility rates for local residents have risen dramatically to pay the costs for accepting the federal assistance. To pay back the loan and the increased cost of the project, the town raised residents' utility taxes by 60 percent this year. The City Manager acknowledged that residents don't understand why their sewer rates have to be increased if the city is getting federal grants to build the new wastewater treatment plant. "I thought the stimulus money, I thought that was going to pay for it. I don't understand why we have to pay for it, too," said Robert Allensworth of Perkins. "It is to stimulate the economy, to (get) people back to work, inject some cash into the system," said Seikel, but even he says, at best, getting the stimulus money for the new wastewater treatment plant will be a wash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Apr 10 - 12:37 AM Amos: You are the A#1 Champ at making derogatory remarks about others. Bobert is #2. Now I want you to tell me where I have ever called either of you stupid or a liar. You will or should have noticed where I have specifically stated when I agree with what either of you say. Or when I agree with Obama. But neither one of you can get past that juvenile attitude toward forming up a gang to fight the other gang. The recent arms treaty is something I agree with. Right wing pundits are bitching about it just to have something to bitch about. If you get way back from the current squabbles, you will see that the Media, the talking heads, the politicians are playing us for fools for their benefit. All they give a shit about is money, power and votes. They use scare tactics, race, class warfare, religion, Anything to divide the people into us and them. Meanwhile the country is going down the tubes financially. 430,000 kids can't get enough to eat, they get a shitty education, people in Haiti are literally eating dirt. But the government can borrow $3.4-million from China to build a turtle tunnel. They can eat $100 a pound Wagyu steak at the White House. So go ahead and flail away at each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:53 PM I find Sawzaw interesting, Don, because he says a lot of stuff I disagree with totally...and yet a lot of other stuff I agree with quite enthusiasically. Therefore he doesn't fit the broad and very primitive Right/Left opposite political stereotypes people are always jousting for or against here. He has been very critical of both Bush and Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM The boy can't help himself, Amos... He suffers from chronic obsessive compulsive disorder and you and I are his obsessions... Okay, me more than you but who cares... That stuff is between his shrink and him... As for LH??? I donno??? Me think that he was abducted and taken off to the joint where Ron Reagan was rewired prior to gettin' elected... Sawz a Democrat??? See what I mean, Amos??? I am worried about the Hawk... Someone has the real one locked up somewhere... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM ""And that's why I don't like political parties. And that's why I've never belonged to one and I never will."" And that, LH, is why you should look further than the last two posts and see the constant drip drip drip, on multiple threads, of Sawzaws Obama bashing, and support of the Republicans. Ask yourself would Obama see a Democrat when looking at Sawzaw. I don't think so. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Amos Date: 10 Apr 10 - 05:58 PM Sawz, That sort of personal obsession with making derogatory remarks about others is kinda of frowned on in these parts, pardner. Especially since you were given the answers to these whines long since. That Obama, now, he\s steady=on. A GOOD PRESIDENT, AND I AM GLAD WE ELECTED HIM. Sorry for the capslock. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:23 PM Sheesh. What a waste of nitpicking bandwidth, Don. ;-) Look, the word "we" in that post of Sawzaw's simply means anyone who was opposed to the health care bill and anyone in Congress who voted against it. That included both the Republicans and some Democrats. Amongst the public it would include most Republicans, some Democrats, and various independents as well. People had a great variety of reasons for opposing that health bill (often diametrically opposite reasons, in fact...). For some it was too "leftist" (ha! ha!). For others it wasn't leftist enough. For some it was a move by "big government" against private enterprise. For others it was a move by the government to reward private enterprise at the expense of the public. Sawzaw makes it quite clear that he is a Democrat, but that he opposes this particular piece of legislation. It is you who are muddying the matter by your eager search to prove that Sawzaw is some sort of apostate (a traitor to his own party?) because he prefers the opposing party's position on one piece of legislation. He's simply showing that he's an independent thinker who doesn't always support EVERYTHING his own party does. I think we could use a few more of those, don't you? I'm not posting any of the above because I support the Republicans in any way. I don't. I'm posting it because you are conveniently misinterpreting Sawzaw's post to satisfy your own emotional need to attack him and prove he's some kind of hypocrite, but you have not understood what he said in that post at all. There is no conflict between being a Democratic Party member, and not supporting EVERY single thing a Democratic administration decides to do. If there were, it would mean Democrats aren't human beings at all...just blindly obedient robots who vote party line regardless of what the issue is. (Sort of like the Republicans?) ;-) Actually, most members of Congress do act like blindly obedient robots most of the time...and that is one of the things that is so sick and so wrong about the party system itself. It enforces conformity...what Sawzaw has been calling "tribalism", and stifles independent thought. As such, it is inimical to the very concept of freedom and good government. And that's why I don't like political parties. And that's why I've never belonged to one and I never will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Apr 10 - 11:20 AM ""If Bobert or Amos ever had to admit they were wrong they would squeal like a stuck pig. They would squeal so loud it would be louder than 400,000 200 megaton nuclear warheads goin' off at the same time. Sawzaw."" How loud are YOU going to squeal when you read what's below, and have to admit that YOU were wrong? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ""Republicans reflected the public will with respect to health care. Every poll showed significant opposition to the health care legislation. By 2-1 the American people said stop it from passing. We tried to do that. But the Democrats were able to jam it through. Sawzaw."" _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ""Although I am a Democrat, I personally believe it is better to do it the way Republicans do it. That way, a individual can research their favorite charities and foundations and give directly to them based on thier own beliefs. Sawzaw."" _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Well folks, now we know how much credence to give to posts from Sawzaw, who is obviously a fully paid up member of the well known "Church of the Wholly Undecided". The only thing he is absolutely sure of is that he is either a Republican or a Democrat, depending on his mood, and the current state of his short term memory. I hope this will help him to come to terms with his political identity, should he ever find out what it is. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:27 AM Well Well Well. I see Bobert has never honored or deal on the source of the gold plated M16 rifle he claims was given to Saddam and Amos will not admit that like Obama said, the economy did not collapse. If Bobert or Amos ever had to admit they were wrong they would squeal like a stuck pig. They would squeal so loud it would be louder than 400,000 200 megaton nuclear warheads goin' off at the same time. We wouldn't have any eardrums left and we would have to get cochlear implants or use sign language to communicate. It would alter our DNA and the entire human race would be deaf forever. Boss Hogg would have the market cornered on the implants and sign language schools. It would be so loud you could hear it everywhere in the Galaxy even though there is no atmosphere to conduct it. Space would be ionized by the power of their squeals. It would be knockin' asteroids and comets out of orbit It would be breakin' out windows on planet Krypton and they're made outa krypton. Scientists would be analyzing the echo from the squeal 100,000 years from now like the big bang. It would be named the Ambert Inter Galactic Squeal. All of the calendars would have to start over again at year 1 AAIGS, After Ambert Inter Galactic Squeal. That's how loud they would squeal. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:43 AM Frank RIch of the NYT opines: "By FRANK RICH Published: April 3, 2010 NOT since Clark Kent changed in a phone booth has there been an instant image makeover to match Barack ObamaÕs in the aftermath of his health care victory. ÒHe went from Jimmy Carter to F.D.R. in just a fortnight,Ó said one of the ÒGame ChangeÓ authors, Mark Halperin, on MSNBC. ÒLook at the steam in the manÕs stride!Ó exclaimed Chris Matthews. ÒIs it just me, or does Barack Obama seem different since health care passed?Ó wrote Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast, which, like The Financial Times, ran an illustration portraying the gangly president as a newly bulked-up Superman. Enlarge This Image Barry Blitt Go to Columnist Page È Related Times Topics: Barack Obama Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times Frank Rich Readers' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (166) È What a difference winning makes Ñ especially in America. Whatever did (or didnÕt) get into ObamaÕs Wheaties, this much is certain: No one is talking about the clout of Scott Brown or Rahm Emanuel any more. But has the man really changed Ñ or is it just us? Fifteen months after arriving at the White House, Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country, even with a sub-50 percent approval rating. And yet heÕs also the most enigmatic. While he is in our face more than any other figure in the world, we still arenÕt entirely sure what to make of him. Depending on where you stand Ñ or the given day Ñ he is either an overintellectual, professorial wuss or a ruthless Chicago machine pol rivaling the original Boss Daley. He is either a socialist redistributing wealth to the undeserving poor or a tool of Wall StreetÕs Goldman Sachs elite. He is a terrorist-coddling, A.C.L.U.-tilting lawyer or a closet Cheneyite upholding the worst excesses of the Bush administrationÕs end run on the Constitution. He is a lightweight celebrity whoÕs clueless without a teleprompter or a Machiavellian mastermind who has ingeniously forged his Hawaiian birth certificate, covered up his ties to Islamic radicals and bamboozled the entire mainstream press. He is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.)..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:50 AM Is there a poll yet on how people feel about his suit jackets? ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM Ouch When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34% approved, while 55% said they disapproved. This concern is reflected in yet another low approval rating this time for the President's handling of the economy. Just 42% approve of how President Obama is handling the economy, 50% disapprove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:51 PM The only polls that count are in November... The rest are bogus non sense... (Well, Boberdz... Hows about the 2000 Novemember poll???) Okay, some of the November polls are bogus, too... BTW, yeah... Chongo woulda been over his head and prolly gone into the joint session of Congress, pulled out the AK and shot the joint up... And prolly gotten a standing ovation from alot of folks watchin' in on the TV... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM I keep telling Chongo, "You are soooo lucky, man!" He didn't get elected in 2008. Accordingly, no one is blaming him now for the bad economy or for anything else either. He'd be in very deep shit now, had he been elected. ;-D He has no idea just how lucky he is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Apr 10 - 11:14 AM Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment By Susan Page, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Americans anxious about unemployment and the economy increasingly blame President Obama for hard times, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, amid signs of turbulence in November's midterm elections. Last week's jubilant signing of the health care overhaul, Obama's signature domestic initiative, seems to have given the president little boost. Instead, his standing on four personal qualities has sagged, and 50% of those surveyed say he doesn't deserve re-election. "People are still hurting; a lot of people are still struggling, and I think a lot of what we're seeing in the polls reflects people's views on the economy," says Rep. Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "At the same time, things have been improving. Clearly the economy is growing again," Van Hollen said. "I believe that if we begin to see positive job growth, people's confidence will return and that will change the dynamic." In the survey last Friday through Sunday, the president gets tough treatment: • Obama's standing on four key personal qualities, including being a strong and decisive leader and understanding the problems Americans face in their lives, has dipped. For the first time since the 2008 campaign, he fails to win a majority of people saying he shares their values and can manage the government effectively. • Twenty-six percent say he deserves "a great deal" of the blame for the nation's economic problems, nearly double the number who felt that way last summer. In all, half say he deserves at least a moderate amount of blame. The blame directed at his predecessor, former president George W. Bush, hasn't eased, however: 42% now give Bush "a great deal" of blame, basically unchanged from 43% last July. • By 50%-46%, those surveyed say Obama doesn't deserve re-election. Obama's approval rating on handling the economy, foreign affairs and the federal budget deficit hasn't significantly changed from February. It has risen a bit on health care, though he doesn't get majority approval on any of the categories. Even so, the president fares better than other Washington leaders. In the poll, 52% say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. That's much higher than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (36%), House Republican Leader John Boehner (29%), Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (29%) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (31%). The telephone poll of 1,033 adults has a margin of error of +/—4 percentage points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:57 AM Well Well Well. How many catters does it take to screw in a light bulb? I see Frick and Frack are here together trying to prop up each other's non existant credibility and still dodging ordinary, simple, plain questions. How about the change in the national deficit? Yup it took pokey ol' George 8 years to do what Obama did in less than a year. Damn he's good. Can either of you down to earth honest question answering guys tell me when your health insurance is going down and when? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:32 PM Geez, Sawz, I guess I must have touched a nerve somewhere, to make you so worried about what I say or do not say. I'll say this: Obama's Administration is delivering change in health care, change in education, change in the employment picture, and a lot of othe rpositive changes, one at a time. He's done one helluva lot more for this country than an of your rightie-tighties Presidents since Ronnie have done. And furthermore he is doing it intelligently and carefully, as much as possible considering the shitstorm of unfounded hatred and noise you and yours have being slinging. There ya go. Plain talk from a plain human. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:59 PM Human??? There you go again with that elitist crap... Amos is 100% human and firmly here on this Earth... How about this, Slawz... How about yu try coming down to Earth yerself... Without the OCD... Obsessive Compulsive Disorder... Yeah, leave that out in space where it belongs... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:48 PM Amos one day: Was that brainless remark devoid of meaning altogether? Or just so inept as to be totally obscure? Why do you not speak plainly, say what you mean, and try to communicate instead of just slanging? Amos another day: Good to see your Magic Mirror is still working, Froggie... Again, Amos does not follow his own standards. Time to come back down to earth with us humans Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:01 AM or all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal governmentÕs biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago. A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds. More Health Care Overhaul News Health Care Conversations Share your thoughts about the health care debate. Top Discussions: The Final Reconciliation Bill | Abortion | Taxes and the National Deficit Multimedia Interactive Graphic How Different Types of People Will Be Affected by the Health Care Overhaul Graphic Increasing Inequality Interactive Feature A History of Overhauling Health Care Related Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish (March 24, 2010) Readers' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (1052) È Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor. Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reformÕs effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would Òmark a new season in America.Ó He added, ÒWe have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.Ó The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society Ñ the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich. A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders. The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level Ñ $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies. Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individualÕs misfortune Ñ illness, death, fire, flood Ñ across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution. The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill Ñ and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been. ..(NYT editorial) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:53 PM Sounds like good news to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:16 PM Late last week, the Obama administrationÊannounced that the United States and Russia reached an agreement on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). President Obama will sign the treaty with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Prague on April 8, which will produce the most "most concrete foreign policy achievement" of the Obama administration thus far. The Financial Times, in an editorial titled "Obama makes the world a safer place," noted that "in the past 10 days, Barack Obama has pulled off the two biggest achievements of his US presidency."ÊThis new treatyÊwillsignificantlyÊreduce the number of nuclear weapons pointed at American citiesÊand will ensure that verification and monitoring measures that maintain nuclear stability between Russia and the U.S. -- and were contained in President Reagan's original START treaty -- are preserved and strengthened. This agreement gives a shot in the arm to the non-proliferation regime and should improve the chances of spurring far-reaching action to prevent nuclear proliferation atÊupcoming international nuclear summits. The START agreement also importantly affirms the Obama administration's efforts toÊreset U.S.-Russia relationsÊand lays the groundwork for more productive engagement. However, this new treaty must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, setting up a test for Senate conservatives. The new START treaty hasÊextensive bipartisan supportÊfrom senior foreign policy officials and extends Reagan's legacy, yet there are concerns that many Senate Republicans, motivated by an extreme foreign policy ideology and partisan politics, will oppose the treaty. This would have dire consequences, as it would greatly upset nuclear stability, create tensions between the U.S. and Russia, and potentially doom the precarious nonproliferation regime.Ê (The Progress Report) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:14 PM "Your ad hominem characterizations, though, are a bit wild and off the mark." Amos, Amos, Amos.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:10 PM Well, I apologize for my errors. It was certainly a key aspect of Reagonomics to deregulate the industry, even though he did not get to Glass-Steagall. However, you should distinguish between my dodging questions and simply declining to get sucked into your rhetorical snares. I do appreciate your catching my errors for me. I am unaccustoimed to having such a fastidious watchman, and at no charge, too!! Thanks for all your efforts. Your ad hominem characterizations, though, are a bit wild and off the mark. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:08 PM Yeah, After I asked it on 2 other threads where you still dodged it. Then you still tried to hang it on Reagan with your famous rhetorical spin. You were too chicken to answer it here cause it might sully up your magnificent ego inflating Obama thread by pointing out your lack of accuracy, your general overall sloppiness and disregard for the truth. Well here is the truth: Reagan did not eradicate the Glass Steagall act as opposed to your Amos "fact" that "we had under Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated under pressure from adventurous and irresponsible money men." Also Moveon existed before the GWB election and the Iraq war as opposed to your Amos "fact" that "the Iraq war and the bullying of the election before MoveOn even came into existence." I expect you to adhere to your own standard of "If you cannot state things accurately, it is a real wonder to me why you bother stating them at all." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM The NEw York Daily News of 3-29-10 (Stanley Crouch) opines: "...Last week in Iowa City, a cheerful Obama addressed the Americans who had first brought his candidacy for President into the full light of unprecedented possibility. In 2007, Obama promised an Iowa audience that a health care bill would be on the way as soon as he was elected. It would reform much of what was wrong in our system, which was badly tainted by money and lobbyists and indifferent greed. As the facts prove, that greed was turned most terrible by a sense of profit so narcissistic it made those infected blind to everyone else. During his Iowa speech, Obama reasserted the power of the English language into the world of politics and proved once more how the stiff and hysterical rhetoric of his foes has whetted the appetites of Americans to those great heights to which a President can take this country when he chooses well articulated and lyrically delivered ideas. What he said sounded fairly revolutionary because it took the long view that has so often been lacking in our politics. His tragic optimism did not deny the difficulty that comes with freedom and with democracy; he emphasized the high-mindedness necessary to carry our country through its demanding patches of backwardness, bigotry, greed, manipulation and corruption. A tall order, but this is the country that produced many inventors capable of innovation so startling it was laughable at first. This is as true of Obama's apparently doomed health care reform as it was of the "Fosbury Flop," which revolutionized the art of high jumping in the 1968 Summer Olympics. The Flop was thought of as backward, crazy looking and incapable of being competitive. Now it has completely changed the sport. That is essentially what we have just seen in Washington. A tall, gangly man has led Washington in a revolution but never submitted to those who are more involved in the theater of politics than they are in what superior legislation can do for the country. The President also pointed out that the health care reform bill was at least 100 years in the making and that what we now see written into the law of the land is connected to the high-mindedness of our best social changes. That is how the democratic mess of our politics works - if you have the patience and the will to take all of the punches that must be taken in order to become a champion.... Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/29/2010-03-29_obama_starts_a_revolution.html#ixzz0ja7KppyO Oh, Sawz, give it up. I answered that question thoroughly elsewhere. Don't be so upset that I made an error. It's not THAT unusual, and even those who believe I am perfect eventually settle down and accept it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:12 PM Amos: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM Amos: So your experience is now fact that trumps any other facts? All you cam come up with to support your claim about Moveon.org is an ad hominem attack. You continue to spout propaganda that you don't have the guts to support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM You do it, LH. I cannot be bothered with this tripe. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:48 PM I say we arrange a steel cage match between you guys and have it in Chicago. (Chongo knows people there who have the facility and can make the arrangements.) The winner gets a free trip to Schenectady! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:44 PM Gawd you are petty-minded and pastey-faced. Move On per se may well have been a registered domain but, as far as my experience goes, they weren't playing the role of movement coordination they played later and they were not organizing the "Not in My Name" protests, for example. I also note that you dodge the main point completely by gluing your nose to minuscule details in the hopes you can find an error based on which you can pretend the whole point is invalid, when it is not. Wake up, Sawz. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:15 PM An example of Amos's lack of knowledge and inability to distinguish facts from bullshit: Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos - PM Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:32 PM Bruce: As a vociferous participant in the protest against Bush, as you yourself have witnessed, I can offer testimony that I was not coordinated, bought, persuaded or directed by anyone on the left in my protest against his heinous disregard for the Constitution or for the traditions of American dignity and intelligence in public, to name a few. So, I am sorry to say that there is a world of differnce. It is true that some lefterly centers like MoveON picked up on the growing anger and discontent he fomented; but there were huge protests against, for example, the Iraq war and the bullying of the election before MoveOn even came into existence. A Dear Amos: The MoveOn.org domain name was registered on September 18, 1998. The MoveOn website was launched initially to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach Clinton. Initially called "Censure and Move On," Can you kindly explain to us how the Clinton impeachment trial came after the GWB election? You do fact checking before you post don't you? |
