 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:29 PM Credit where credit is due: Good Job Obama, Good Job US Military Good Job Canadian Military, Good Job Nato Forces, Keep up the good work: MARJAH, Afghanistan - The Afghan government took official control of the southern Taliban stronghold of Marjah on Thursday, installing an administrator and raising the national flag while U.S.-led troops worked to root out final pockets of militants. The ceremony was held in a central market as U.S. Marines and Afghan troops slogged through bomb-laden fields in the north of the town. The Marines and their Afghan partners are trying to secure a 28-square mile area believed to be the last significant pocket of Taliban insurgents in Marjah. Militants and allied troops are still getting caught up in gunfights in some areas, NATO said. But the number of residents returning has increased in recent days, shops have opened to sell telephones and computers alongside fresh fruit and vegetables, and officials hailed the installation of Abdul Zahir Aryan as the town's administrator as a key sign of progress. Some 700 residents gathered to see Aryan formally appointed as the top government official in Marjah, along with government officials and Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of U.S. Marines in Marjah, according to officials at the event. Aryan and a team of advisers held their first meeting in the town Monday and have been staying overnight in a building there since Tuesday, said Marlin Hardinger, the senior U.S. government representative for Helmand province, which contains Marjah. "Today's event was the civilian Afghan government re-establishing itself officially in front of the local residents," Hardinger said. The Afghan army had previously raised the country's green-and-red flag nearby, but that was only a claim of military control over that neighborhood, he said. 'Will work for all' The ceremony opened with a reading from the Quran, and then Aryan and Helmand Gov. Gulab Mangal pledged to those gathered they were ready to listen to their needs and eager to provide basic services that they didn't have under the Taliban....More Here But Sawzaw, ain't ya 'fraid the successes in Afghanistan are gonna piss off them peacemongers? Yeah but they are always pissed off over somethin' anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:20 PM Amos said there was a collapse: "Let's start with the collapse of the economy" "remedying the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression" "reversing the economic collapse handed to him" But earlier he posted something that said there was no collapse. "Begin with something that didn't happen: financial collapse and great depression." Then when I point that out to him and ask if there was or was not a collapse, he goes ballistic starts ranting his standard ad hominem attacks, rhetoric and lack of facts to back up anything he says. Maybe Bobert can say if there was or was not a collapse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM I'm not sure what planet you live on, Sawz, but the economy that George Bush handed over was on life support... There was fear everywhere that it was on the verge of collapse... I remeemeber Obama saying that he hadn't run for president thinkin' that his first job was to save the country from finacial ruin... No reason to deny that... You can archieve just about any major newspaper in the country and revisit those days for yourself if you like... Personally, it was a nightmare for everyelse but you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:49 PM "Pineapple brain"!!!!!!! Whoa! The ferocity of combative rhetoric is getting really vicious in the wrestling ring now. The raucous fight night audience is momentarily reduced to a stunned silence as Amos "the San Diego Sandstorm" hurls the shockingly offensive and inflammatory term "pineapple brain" at his bloodstained but stalwart opponent, Sawzaw "The Mad Mauler". Can Sawzaw stand up under this sort of verbal abuse??? Will he just shrug it off or will he be forced to seek post-fight counseling to deal with the emotional scars incurred? This reporter is agog at the prospects and breathless with anticipation. - Hector Ballsworthy, the Independent Press |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:03 PM The economy, as you know perfectly well, pineapple-brain, avalanched in the last few quarters of Bush's tenure. Stepping into the Oval Office, Barack Obama was hit with an imminent collapse. Thanks to actions taken both just before AND after he was sworn in, that collapse was restrained to a serious recession rather than a complete collapse into chaos. The thing is Sawz, that you cannot continue to be blindly literal-minded with no sense of context and contextual statements. It really makes you sound less intelligent than you actually are. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos - PM Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:47 AM In Obama's first year, successes outweigh missteps By Fred Hiatt WaPo Tuesday, January 19, 2010 On Wednesday one year will have passed since President Obama's inauguration. Much of the tidal wave of assessments has been negative: Falling poll numbers. Unfulfilled promises. Disappointed supporters, disillusioned independents, angry opponents. He's been too cool or too egotistical, too left-wing or not left-wing enough. And if voters repudiate his policies in a special Massachusetts Senate election on Tuesday, as is quite possible, the tidal wave will become a tsunami. So before that happens, I'd like to interrupt the anniversary-bash-Obama-fest with a simple proposition: Obama has done a good job so far. I've had my share of complaints. I harbor my share of misgivings. But on the issues that mattered most in his first year, Obama got things right. Begin with something that didn't happen: financial collapse and great depression. Gee Amos first you say a collapse didn't happen and then you claim it did. I am cornfused. Seems like you want to brag about Obama preventing a collapse but that there was still a collapse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:40 PM That's bad news, Sawz. I hope you are not gloating. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:35 PM The Labor Department Thursday said initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 22,000 to 496,000 in the week ended Feb. 20, reaching the highest level since the week of Nov. 14, 2009. The four-week moving average of new claims rose for the week ending Feb. 20, by 6,000 to 473,750. "The progress toward an 'improving' labor market climate (initial claims below 400,000) -- as opposed to a 'less-bad' climate- has come to a halt," ClearView Economics analyst Ken Mayland wrote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:35 PM "...SPIEGEL ONLINE: When the Democrats lost their crucial 60th Senate vote in January, US health care reform stalled in Congress. More Americans than ever are growing frustrated with the political process. Is Washington broken? Norman Ornstein: Things are getting done in Congress, but the process is not pretty. Everything has become so much more partisan. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wasn't that always the case? Ornstein: I haven't seen anything like this in the past 40 years. To pick an example: The conflict over the Vietnam War was unbelievable. We had Democratic Senator George McGovern go on the floor and say: The walls of this chamber reek with blood. And his conservative colleague Bob Dole publicly ripped him apart for that. But there was a very large share of conservative Democrats supporting American involvement in Vietnam -- and the people who opposed the war included a large number of liberal Republicans. So the issue wasn't simply a partisan one. You had a lot of people in the center. SPIEGEL ONLINE: What has happened to the center? Ornstein: The culture has changed. In the US, you have the expansion of the "permanent campaign" which forces politicians to raise money all-year round. To make matters worse, when it ruled that corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigning, the Supreme Court just made sure we will have the Wild West in the campaign system. Also, members of Congress don't spend much time in Washington. They don't bring their families here so they hardly socialize with their fellow members. We also don't have compulsory attendance at the polls -- so loyal voters matter more. And that encourages outlandish appeals to the base, scaring people that the other party is destroying the country. SPIEGEL ONLINE: In addition, many districts have become extremely homogenous because of partisan gerrymandering to make them a safe bet for one party or another. Ornstein: Members of Congress can go home now and they don't have to represent different kinds of people. When they are largely safe in general elections, the only thing that matters are the primaries where you are going to be challenged from the right as a Republican or from the left as a Democrat. So, playing to your base is encouraged -- not reaching out to other groups. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Has Obama underestimated how hard it would be to change Washington? Ornstein: He knew such partisanship was there but believed he could overcome some of it. Not that he would get Republicans to vote for him in most cases -- but that, at least, he could tone down the rhetoric. It matters because if you do significant things to affect people's lives, they will be suspicious of the outcomes. If one side says that what is being implemented is going to destroy the country and its fabric, you are going to have a harder time making those changes work. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Could the President have done things differently in his first year? Ornstein: It was a good idea to start out having Republicans over at the White House for drinks and conversation, even if it didn't have any immediate impact. That is something he should have continued doing -- just to show the American people that he was trying and that the other side did not react. He pretty much abandoned it for a while and now he has picked it up again. But let's face it: A year ago, you had a new president coming in with a clear public mandate and an economy the worst since the Great Depression -- yet, not a single Republican voted for the stimulus package. So there was not much Obama could build on. ... (Der Spiegel) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:04 PM Chongo has been blamed for a number of things prior to being elected. Why not Obama? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:45 PM The economy avalanched in September, 2008, Sawz. Maybe a little earlier. Here's an interesting analysis from an International Monetary Fund exec. IIRC Obama was elected in November 2008 and took office in January 2009. Being "right in there" is a euphemism for "should be blamed for things before he was elected". That is a really specious assertion on your part. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:13 PM When did the economy collapse Amos? I missed it. The end days? Obama was right in there. Did he oppose anything? Why would O need any support from the Republicans? Tho opposition that kept him form doing anything was from Democrats. Are the Republicans at fault because they wouldn't cancel out an opposing Democrat? Strange logic there. Ad hominem attacks, rhetoric, no facts, no logic. Pure Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:10 PM Hawks, You're the only one driving around with piles here. Try preparation H. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM We tune in on Day 634 of the great Amos vs Sawzaw steel cage politics match! The Challenger and the Former Champ are rolling about on the mat, battling furiously as the audience goes wild and hurls debris into the ring! Snarling old ladies advance, brandishing chairs and hairpins. Expect more dirty tactics in the ring: rabbit punches, kicks in the shins, hair-pulling, red faces, noogies, ear-biting, eye-gouging....and if we get really lucky... THE PILEDRIVER!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:58 AM Hope and Change whitehouse.gov Creating Jobs President Obama’s first priority in confronting the economic crisis is to put Americans back to work. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan signed by the President will spur job creation while making long-term investments in health care, education, energy, and infrastructure. Among other objectives, the recovery plan will increase production of alternative energy, modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology across the country, and computerize the health care system. The recovery plan will save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth for the future. A year later AWARD OVERVIEW Total Award Amount $502,400 Project Location - City Sacramento Award Date 04/29/2009 Project Location - State CA Project Status More than 50% Completed Project Location - Zip 958142951 Jobs Reported 0.00 Congressional District 05 USA Recipient Name ARTS COUNCIL, CALIFORNIA Recipient DUNS Number 947395935 Recipient Address 1300 I ST STE 930 Recipient City SACRAMENTO Recipient State California Recipient Zip 958142951 Congressional District 05 Place of Performance Country US Required to Report Top 5 Highly Compensated Officials No Projects and Jobs Information Project Title Arts and the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 Project Status More than 50% Completed Final Project Report Submitted No Project Activities Description Arts, Culture & Humanities, General/Other Quarterly Activities/Project Description Twenty-nine (29) grants were approved ranging from $5,000 to $20,000. Job loss/reduction verifications are being validated and grant award packets were sent, but not fully executed at the time of this reporting. Jobs Created 0.00 Total Award Amount $19,500,000 Project Location - City Topeka Award Date 07/24/2009 Project Location - State KS Project Status Not Started Project Location - Zip 666121367 Jobs Reported 3.26 Congressional District 02 USA Recipient Information (Grants) Recipient Name HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Recipient DUNS Number 175941483 Recipient Address 1000 SW JACKSON AVE Recipient City TOPEKA Recipient State Kansas Recipient Zip 666121300 Congressional District 02 Place of Performance Country US Required to Report Top 5 Highly Compensated Officials No Projects and Jobs Information Project Title Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund Final Project Report Submitted No Project Activities Description Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction Quarterly Activities/Project Description To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. Jobs Created 3.26 Only $6 million per job. I hope something changes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:44 AM If you have to ask, Sawz, you have been in dreamland. Let's start with the collapse of the economy and the catastrophic end days of the Bush administration. You may have forgotten how Bush's house of economic cards started to collapse. Let's continue with the rabid adamant refusal of the right side of the house to do anything to support any Obama initiative. Don't be effing disingenuous. It would be nice if the plan that got elected had to be implemented, but the law does not work that way. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:23 AM "serious opposition" What serious opposition Amos? Obama had a majority in the Senate and House and the majority of the American people behind him. He chose all the people around him. He had people like you cheering him on. How could he possibly fail? "I want you to hold our government accountable, I want you to hold me accountable" When are you going to hold him accountable instead of making excuses? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:50 AM Sawz, That brochure from which you clipped those data was part of the 2008 election campaign and those things were in fact part of the Obama tax plan. In case you have not noticed, though, the best laid plans of mice and men get screwed when met with serious opposition of a deeply unreasoning sort. Where do you think the counter-effort that has made it so hard to implement this and other plans has come from, Sawz? Mebbe from the guys you cheer for? Don't be two-faced here, pal. We have enough hypocrites in Washington as it is. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:29 AM barackobama.com BARACK OBAMA’S COMPREHENSIVE TAX PLAN I. TAX RELIEF FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES: Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000. Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all. The Reality: Seniors & Social Security Progress: The Recovery Act provides a one-time payment of $250 to retirees, disabled veterans, and SSI recipients. Over 64 million retirees and other individuals will receive this one-time payment, totaling $16 billion. From PolitiFact.com: "President Obama’s campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar. It wasn’t part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn’t in Obama’s first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it’s not part of any proposed legislation that we can find. On Tax Day, Obama gave a speech in which he talked about his other tax promises and how he wants to reshape the tax code to make it simple and more efficient. But he never mentioned his promise of curtailing the income tax for seniors. The Obama administration has done other things for seniors. Thanks to the stimulus bill, for example, everyone who gets Social Security benefits will receive a $250 check from the government in May. But the bold promise to end taxes for seniors if they make less than $50,000 seems to be forgotten. We asked the White House about it, but got no response." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:25 AM No, Sawz, you are not going to get away with that drivel. I said, in regard to posting information about impeachment, that I was trying to get the truth out about popular views on the impeachment issue. And one such view was expressed by this guy from Salem, in which he made a false statement. Your effort to twist this shit around into me making a false statement is just childish. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:55 PM Amos: No matter how you duck and weave, in your sloppiness and haste and disregard for fact checking, you posted something that was not true after you said you were posting the truth. A real man would own up to it gain a little humility and try to do better. Instead you blame everybody but yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:07 PM Hell, a squirt dawg like your'n never was much fer hunting anyfink but mebbe prairie dawgs, Hawkster, or maybe roaches. 'T ain't no big thang, as the actress told the bishop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:19 AM Bobertz, ya gotta stawp with awle the weeyerd spellin' cos it's drivin' the dawg nuts. I mean, heck, it don't bother me none. I kin take a bushell of bad spellin' in my stride, sho' nuff! But the dawg can't. He's a real pedant and it's just puttin' him in an awful mood, eh? Anyways...word on the street is that Homeladn Sekyoority are lookin' into keepin' records of peeps who are spellin' all kindsa stuff wrong on the INtenrnetz because they thnik it's code! Yessirree...secrit code fer like passin' on missages and stuff. The way I figger it they are gonna get reel suspishous about yer posts cos of how all them words 'r not spelled in a normle fashun which could mean that yer send'in sectret messiges to someone and tryin' to bring down Boss Hawg's rulin' system...and that just ain't allowed no more! No sirree. Oh, and back to my dawg...I gotta tell you he is UPSET with the way you posts, Bobertz. He really is. It has reached the pint where that dawg just won't hunt, if you get my meanin'... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 10 - 07:30 AM Well, in away, endless cuttin' and pastin's becomes somewhat tangendental (sp)... I mean, they are to me a little like the fillibuster... A few go a long way... But, geeze, with the volume of bloggers out there there are articles on every subject one can imagine and no laws requiring that what people write is fact-checked... Yeah, I read just about every op-ed writer in the Post... Even the righties... But I do it with a sense that each has an agenda and if we just accept one writer as the knower-of-everything-correct then we don't do our own curiousity an good... I wouldn't mind seein' some kinda rules put in place on cut and pastes... Maybe that the cut and paster has to write as many of his own words in the post as are in the cut and paste... I think that would cut down on them... Or do what some, including Amos, does in just lifting the pertinent paragraph... You know, kinda like using a reference in a college term paper... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:16 PM Sawz: Your post is full of unwarranted assumptions made for uncharitable purposes. If you won't learn the nature of context in conversation then you really are doomed to have a hard time with these sharp-edged irrelevancies and detours you keep popping up with. Now, I admit, maybe I was wrong and you aren't stupid; maybe you're just not trained in the kind of dialogue writing requires. But which ever it is, you make yourself LOOK strange by flying off on these tangents. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:02 PM BTW, this has always been my problem with the cut & posters... I mean, yeah, I read alot of different folks who are all over the board but have never cut & pasted a single thing... (But, Boberdz... You are such a moron that you don't know how to cut & paste...) Details... lol... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:43 PM Sheet fire, Sawz... If I had the time I'd go thru yer seemingly endless stream of cut & posts and point out all the un-truths in them... I mean, lets get real here... When one uses blogs and op-eds as sources then there's gonna be alot of bad (untrue) information... Lots of these folks get paid to write this stuff... They are instructed to take a position and work their way back thru everything that is out there to justify it... Has nothin' to do with any love for the truth... Just politics... Happens all the time... Problem is that with the lies coming in with such volume that by the time that someone takes the time to disprove one ten more grow back... This is what the Repubs have booked on fir the last year... Just lie, lie and lie some more... Obama not a citizen... Just yell it louder and come up with more lies to cover the last set of lies... The problem is that with this corporate owned government its the corpoartions and their paid people who have the the money and time to sit in front of their computers and crank these lies out... That's an unfair advantage that the right has... It has all the money.... Folks on the left are out their workin' their brains out trying to keep their heads above water and not loose their homes... So, yeah, the right will win the volume of lies battle 100 times outta 100... They have hundreds of twisters and bloggers fir every leftist blogger... It's kinda like Mike Tyson in his early career... The left cannot compete... It is almost usless to try... So the best the left can do is just leave the right-winged twisters and bloggers alone and just keep talkin' about the vision and the policies and not get "blogged" down with rightwing bullshit... That's the way I see it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:19 PM Amos: The words were yours. You said you were "trying to get the truth out" It is logical to expect everything posted by you to be the truth, regardless of the relevancy. You copied and pasted an article that contained the following untruth: "which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations" Did you read what you posted? If so you either believe it or you don't care if it is untrue. In other words propaganda from Amos paraded as the truth. You expect other people to be tolerant of that but you are intolerant of font sizes in something you disagree with. I have only to conclude that Amos only wants people to post things he agrees with and uses whatever means he can, other than disproving the facts, to discredit anybody that disagrees with him. A very one way and narcissistic attitude. "we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us" "tolerant of just about everything but intolerance." Amos: "Recite specifics of this dubious information, if you would be so kind. Or, alternatively, consider shutting the ^&^*&$ up-=- I don't mind which. This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM Yup... Good analogy, LH... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM I really don't think most of them look that far ahead, Bobert. They should, but I don't think they do. I agree that the present situation is unlike anything we've ever seen. Meanwhile, the politicans and lobbyists just go on playing the same old games. Sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burns... (which is a myth as far as I know, but it is a lot like that) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:41 PM The difference here, LH, is that if the current crop of Repubs get their way, yeah, they might get back in power but if they ruin the economy on their way to power then power won't look so good without those big checks comin' in... That's why today's situation is not like anything we have ever seen... Yes, the Repubs have done an excellent job in "starving-the-beast"... Problem is that once the beast is dead, so are they... Of course, the Dems will be dead, too, but the current Repubs haven't thought of that prospect... Me thinks this is a case of "be careful what you ask for"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:28 PM "that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn't any plan, except to regain power." Of course! That is what happens in a partisan system. That's the whole point. The party out of power has no plan except to regain power. The party in power comes up with a plan or sorts now and then...because they are in a position, after all, where they must feel obliged to do something, being in power. So they come up with some kind of half-assed plan that meets the needs and wishes of their major lobbyists and financial players...but certainly not of the public! But the party out of power doesn't want to see any such plan succeed...because if it did, then that might make the party in power look good............! Did I say "might"? It would make the party in power look good, and that is the last thing the party out of power would ever want to happen!!! So they must defeat and derail the plan of the party in power, whatever the hell the plan is. This kind of mindless negativism is the poison that ruins governance in a party-based system, because the system is by its very nature built upon division....continuous political war....and "a house divided against itself cannot stand". The Republicans are guilty of obstructionism when out of power and so are the Democrats. They're both guilty of it up to their eyeballs. So are all the Canadian parties (and we have 5 of them). It's bullshit. Any partisan system where seated representatives are beholden to a party hierarchy is bullshit. One day in some future society people will look back and wonder how we could possibly have been so deluded as to imagine that a permanently divided partisan system could result in good government. We won't be alive then, though, so it's a moot point at best. (at least, not in our present bodies, we won't) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:44 PM Paul Krugman says that you "heard it here first"??? Shoot, I've been saying this for years... Yeah, "starve the beast" has been around for so long that this current crop of Repubs are clueless about what to do once the beast was on life support... That is what I have been saying here... The Repubs are jumpin' up and down on the side-line's cheering the starvation but are clueless (and more than likely scared to death) of what a starved beast will look like... One thing fir sure is that that bigass check that goes to DoD is gonna' disappear... That wil mean less bigass checks from defense contractors to Repub Congresspeople... Horrors!!! That's what really makes me very angry these days at the Repubs... They are as ignorant of the repercusssions of starve-the-beast as a box of dumbass creek rocks... Yet they continue hoping that the US economy fails??? This is not smart thinkin' if in watching (and hoping fir) the economy to go under it will effect them alot more negatively than just showing a little grace and try to help the country work its way outta this mess... Starve-the beast = starve every congressman, Repub and Dem... Very stupid thinking!!! BTW, Eb... Thanks fir the article... Paul Krugman's fingernail clippings know more aboout economics than the entire Republican Party... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:33 PM Sawz: If the shoe fits... Just for example, I assert I am posting articles about impeachment of the Bush administration. You find one such piece, written by someone else, which I include, and you ignore its relevance to impeachment, which is the subject, and instead go haring off on the irrelevant error made by the writer about oil supplies. Well, that's one major departure in logic. THEN you proceed to blame the writer's mis-speech on me. That's another major departure in logic. THEN you try to put words in my mouth defending the truth of what this writer said, when in fact, I was making a different point altogether about the validity of impeachment claims. Yet ANOTHER major departure in logic. I am glad you are not calling me names, and I do apologize for venting in your direction, but you need to understand how conversations work. If you can't understand context, then nothing will make sense and everyone will look strange to you--which may already be the case, I dunno. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:38 PM Prior to the "which has cut off our crude oil imports" posting from Amos he posted this claiming he was getting "the truth out": From: Amos - PM Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM Sawz: 1. Try to write coherent sentences and proofrede foirst. :D 2. I add to this thread because I believe that airing the claims for impeachment is the right thing to do--part of The Articles of Impeachment may gain traction and they may not. The point is that the issue should not be allwoed to be dismissed on the strength of a lot of humphing and ignoral by those invested in the current Administration's pathetic obsessive "rightness". "Administration's pathetic obsessive "rightness"? I think that would be Amos. In Amos's obsessive, frantic effort in making 40 posts a day, he does not read the stuff he cuts and pastes but claims it is the truth. Then when he can't dispute the facts in what others post, he has to resort to picking them apart for spelling, font sizes, out of context, date, rhetoric, whatever to try to discredit the facts. But I am not going to call Amos any names or disparage his intelligence like he constantly does to anybody that has the audacity to disagree with him. EG "Of all the half-witted idiocy." "Ass" "Get bent, pal." "it's not the position, it's the dumbness" "abysmal stupidity" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Ebbie Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:55 AM There would appear not to be much hope... The Bankruptcy Boys By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 21, 2010 "O.K., the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do." ************************** "At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn't any plan, except to regain power. "But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:30 AM Sawz: Of all the half-witted idiocy...Jaysus T.!! The post you have been gloating about was a letter from a disgruntled man in Salem (Oregon? Mass? Whatever...). In that letter the disgruntled man voiced his feelings about the Bush administration and also stated, quite wrongly, that Bush's invasion of Iraq had resulted in our oil supplies being cut off. You have the sheer brass hutzpah to then turn this around into "Amos said the oil suppllies were cut off". What absolute abuse of any kind of reason or semantics. Anyway thanks for revealing what you were actually drooling on about. It is as illogical as I suspected it might be. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:42 AM You can 'um whatever you want, bruce... Until B & B quit being cheerleaders for American failure they are no better than Osama bin Laden to me... Both want the US to fail... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:24 AM Well, Bobert, weren't you the one who came up with "McWar" here in Mudville??? So until Reid and Pelosi decide that they want to be part of the solution of bitartisenship talked about by Obama, as far as I am concerned, they are no better than the Taliban... You seem to think that I agree with your goals of removing all the wealth from those who work and giving it to those who do not. Yes, there are those who have "unearned " wealth: Most of those are rich families who, now that they have theirs, are pushing the Liberal "Don't let anyone profit from working hard" line. I had invested in some stocks: One was GM. Obama took the assets of GM and gave them to the unions, and gave those of us who invested in the company "Motor Liquidation" stock, consisting of the debts. Had GM gone bankrupt, I would have gotten more than I did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:51 AM Well, bb, weren't you the one who came up with "Obomba" here in Mudville??? BTW, what exatcly are the proposals that the Repubs put forth other than buy insurance accross state lines which the Dems are fine with??? That's the probolem here, bruce... The progressive movement has waited ***patiently*** for three decades to get the stars aligned just correctly for any serious new problem solving legislation that would make the country a fairer country... We did throw these temper tantrums like the Tea Partiers... We didn't have the massive pools of $$$$ to buy ads to further our causes... What we did was allow the Reagan Revolution to unravel and unravel it has done as if it was all drawn up on paper... Now the country is in serious condition... If it were a hospital patient it woudl be in ICU yet the Reaganites aren't yet squeezing the last little bit out of the working class... This was all designed to kill the New Deal and that has been the goals of the right going back well before the current righties here in Mudburg were even born... This intense hatred of the New Deal is institutionalized... So here the progressives are sayin, "Hey, time for another mid course correction" while the country hurls itself toward the obyss and there are folks, like Hal in Space Oddessey sayin', "Everything is fine, Hal"... We know better... Tings are not fine and in their desire to hold power the current right is willing to let the country crash and burn... That is not an overstatement... That is exactly what we have here... And the two men who represent the "Crash & Burn Party" are the two men I made reference to: "B 'n B"... Hey, they are acting like traitors... They are siding with Osama as far as it looks from over here on the pro-human side of the isle... Why should we respect them... They are unAmerican... They are acting like the enemy... They deserve no respect from me or anyone else who isn't part of their/your Crash 'n Burn Party... I mean, if all you want is to see a country that in in serious trouble get worse than exapct no respect from me... This is beyond just a debate of issues... This is the survival of our country... So until B & B decide that they want to be part of the solution then, as far as I am concerned, they are no better than the Taliban... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:49 AM The Republicans met with Obama fir several days at the beginnin' of this thing and got what??? Squat, that's what... The Democratic Congress did not even akllow votes on the Republican proposals, then complained that the Rep. did not have a plan ( after preventing it from being voted on) You, Bobert, have bought into the Big KLie by Democrats, and are now reduced to attacking people rather than ideas. "John "Bonehead" Baynor and Bitch McConnell have called off Congress until Obama is gone... They will not allow anything short of an emergency appropraitions bill thru... The only thing they want Obama to sign is a letter of resignation... Nuthin' else... Looks as if the only way that Obama is going to get anything done is thru executive orders and signing statements... The Bonehead and Bitch will bitch that Obama thinks he's a dictator and the press will make a big thing about it, yet not the Repubs shutting down Congress, and then after awhile all the lies will set in and Obama will be gone... Maybe Bitch and Bonehead will write him a letter of recommendation to run the elevator in the Senate Office Building??? But, then again, maybe not..." Uncalled for comments- If I made them about Pelosi and Reid, how long would they be here before I was taken to task? I see NOTHING in any of your posts that indicate you are willing to apply the standards you demand for YOUR supported ideas to anyone else's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:52 AM Amos cannot point out any errors but he attacks the format like a rabid dog at an Obama rally. The"screaming 15-point links" They are as they appear in the Whois registration. The subject was brought into the discussion by Bobert. Were any of the facts incorrect or do you just have an aversion to real facts? You are much keener on facts like this that you cut and pasted and claims ss the truth: From: Amos - PM Date: 04 Sep 08 - 02:48 PM September 4, 2008 "George W. Bush has abused the authority that we, the people, entrusted to him as commander-in-chief of our military forces. Bush has expressed his desire to keep our military forces in Iraq. Consider what has happened to our economy, plus all of the American casualties in this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don't want America in their nation, just as the people from Georgia do not want Russia in their nation. Bush is squealing like a stuck pig at Russia for doing the same thing he did to Iraq. We American citizens do not want Russia to control Georgia, and we certainly do not want our armed forces or our tax money wasted in Iraq. The "Bush government" is totally un-American. In my 81 years, Bush is the only president who promoted torture of prisoners. Our economy has gone to pot during this Bush watch. I would be in favor of having Bush impeached before he leads us into World War III." Gordon Lukkasson, Salem, MA PS Amos added the MA. It was actually Oregon. Do the font sizes please you Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:34 PM Amen... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:17 PM Bobert: Not mine, but an intelligent quote from well-informed sources. Here's a nother which kinda goes right along with what you are saying: "The breakdown of the Washington policy process has four manifestations. First is a chronic inability to focus beyond the next election. ÒShovel-readyÓ projects squeeze out attention to vital longer-term strategies that may require a decade or more. Second, most key decisions are made in congressional backrooms through negotiations with lobbyists, who simultaneously fund the congressional campaigns. Third, technical expertise is largely ignored or bypassed, while expert communities such as climate scientists are falsely and recklessly derided by the Wall Street Journal as a conspiratorial interest group chasing federal grants. Fourth, there is little way for the public to track and comment on complex policy proposals working their way through Congress or federal agencies. These failings take a special toll on the challenges of sustainable development because there is no quick fix, for example, for the challenge of large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of getting long-term strategies for adopting low-carbon energy sources, upgrading the power grid, encouraging electric transportation and so on, we are getting cash for clunkers, subsidies for corn-based ethanol, and other ineffective and highly costly nonsolutions delivered by large-scale lobbying. Some free-market economists say sustainable development should be left to the marketplace, but the marketplace now offers no incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Even putting a levy on carbon emissions, either through a carbon tax or carbon-emission permits, will not be sufficient. The development and deployment of major technologies potentially crucial to more sustainable energyÑsuch as nuclear power, wind and solar power, biomass conversion and transport infrastructureÑare matters of systems design requiring a mix of public and private decision making. Herein lies the policy challenge today. When we let the private sector enter into public decision making, we end up with relentless lobbying, money-driven politics, suppression of new technologies by incumbent interests and sometimes miserable choices devoid of serious scientific content. How can business and government work together without policies falling prey to special interests? First, the administration should initiate a more open, transparent and systematic public-private policy process in each major area of sustainable development. Highest priorities would include renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. A high-level roundtable would be established in each area, perhaps under the National Academy of Sciences, with representatives of private business, nongovernmental organizations, government officials, scientists and engineers. The proceedings would be open to the public, Web-based, and available for submissions and testimony by interested parties. Each roundtable would prepare a report within six to 12 months containing a technical overview and policy options, prepared for both the president and Congress. Second, the administration would prepare draft legislation, on which the experts on the roundtables and the general public would be invited to comment through Web-based submissions. Third, the congressional processes, too, would become Web-supported. Hearings and testimony would be open to the public, and Web sites would encourage comments and additional evidence." That one is from Scientific American |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:29 PM Pee in the cup, Amos... John "Bonehead" Baynor and Bitch McConnell have called off Congress until Obama is gone... They will not allow anything short of an emergency appropraitions bill thru... The only thing they want Obama to sign is a letter of resignation... Nuthin' else... Looks as if the only way that Obama is going to get anything done is thru executive orders and signing statements... The Bonehead and Bitch will bitch that Obama thinks he's a dictator and the press will make a big thing about it, yet not the Repubs shutting down Congress, and then after awhile all the lies will set in and Obama will be gone... Maybe Bitch and Bonehead will write him a letter of recommendation to run the elevator in the Senate Office Building??? But, then again, maybe not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM GOVERNMENT CAN WORK: The Clinton administration achieved significant gains in government performance. FEMA, for example, earned widespread praise for its management of disaster response. And the veterans health system was transformed into the single best health provider in the country, significantly outperforming the private sector. But performance eroded after eight years of the Bush administration's misguided policies, rampant cronyism, and special interest influence. Inexcusable personnel decisions and general lack of concern at the highest levels of government for FEMA's core mission led toÊan agency that was completely unprepared for Hurricane Katrina.ÊSimilarly, the Bush administration was hardly concerned with ensuring that its prescription drug plan got the best bang for the taxpayer's buck.ÊAccording to one study, drugs purchased by seniors under Medicare Part D can cost 30 percent more than the exact same drugs purchased under Medicaid. Simply put, America cannot afford a government that does not maximize value and results for the American people, because government is too important.ÊSocial Security reduced poverty among American seniors by 75 percent; traditional Medicare provides essential care while controlling costs far better than the private sector, and Americans can trust their food supply because of the FDA.ÊEvery dollar wasted is a dollar that can't advance these and other critical needs, and it is a dollar that plunges us deeper into debt. GRADING GOVERNMENT: Nevertheless, not every program is a model of efficiency.ÊOne important step towards building a more efficient government is to ensure that the federal government and its agencies set challenging, outcome-driven goals and then evaluate programs according to whether they advance these goals.ÊSadly, the federal government's existing performance evaluation tools are not up to this task.ÊRatings under the Bush administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) often had little to do with a program's performance. In the same year as FEMA's botched response to Hurricane Katrina, PART rated that agencyÕs disaster response program as "adequate." Pre-Bush tools devolved into a bureaucratic paperwork-producing exercise, largely ignored by executive branch decision-makers and Congress because they set too many low-priority and low-risk goals that failed to test government in a meaningful way.ÊOne area needing particular attention is tax expenditures.ÊBecause Congress appropriates federal discretionary funds every year, spending programs are annually re-evaluated to determine whether they deserve funding.ÊYet the government gives over $1.2 trillion annually in tax breaks -- twice as much as the entire non-military discretionary budget -- to various industries and individuals, and these tax expenditures are not subject to regular review.ÊBillions of dollars worth of annual tax breaks to oil companies deserve at least as much scrutiny as a multimillion dollar program intended to educate low-income children, yet the budgeting process focuses far more on the latter. THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT: Government needs to set good policy, but it also needs to order paper and hire staff, and the Bush government was particularly inattentive to these operational needs.ÊBetween 2000 and 2005, the amount of no-bid and single-bid contracts paid by the federal government grew from $67 billion to $145 billion, a 115 percent increase.ÊThe overall annual cost of contracting also skyrocketed under Bush, growing 86 percent to $377 billion during the same five-year period. Obama is reversing this trend.ÊSince taking office, the Obama Administration identified $19 billion in savings from contracting reforms, and it plans to cut $40 billion annually by 2011. Obama's transparency reforms also help keep spending under control. A federal website known as the IT Dashboard, for example, tracks every single dollar the government spends on information technology, empowering the Veterans Administration to identify $200 million in overdue or over budget projects. All of these projects were temporarily halted; many will be killed entirely.ÊAdmittedly, these reforms have not transformed government into a model of efficiency -- the federal hiring process, for example, remains a mess -- but they do prove that government can provide real value to the taxpayer, and they demonstrate that progressive government can deliver such efficiency (Excerpted from The Progressive newsletter...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:49 PM Listen, bruce... Obama met with the Repubs fir several days at the beginnin' of this thing and got what??? Squat, that's what... The Repubs are bankin'(pun unintended) on the economy stayin' stagnant come elction time so the only thing they want to do is run-out-the-clock... They have no intention of allowin' Obama any legislative success... That is their strategy and even Helen Keller could see it if she were still alive... So rather than let the Reppubs control everything, Obama is countering their strategy with this summit... Yeah, it's politics-as-usaul... So sue him!!! I'm so sick and tired of Obama thinkin' that bi-partisanship is doable... It ain't... With the fillibuster rule the minority, which BTW trepresents 11% of the US population, is leading the other 89% around like that cow that LH was talkin' about... Disgusting that 11% trumps 89%... Welcome to the US Senate and the Repubs have done the math correctly.... It's about time that Obama is going to make the Repubs squirm... Tough poo!!! Breaks my heart... Let me got get a hankie... Sniff... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:35 PM Obama is the real obstructionist at his health-care summit By Marc Thiessen Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) says of this week's bipartisan health-care summit: "Sounds like the Democrats spell summit: S-E-T-U-P." He's right -- the Blair House summit is a trap. If the objective really was to produce bipartisan compromise, Obama would not be using legislation crafted in a backroom that got virtually no Republican votes as the basis for the discussions. Nor would his secretary of health and human services have declared last week that the White House is still willing to fight for a public option, a proposal that died because of bipartisan opposition in the Senate. The president's real objective is to paint GOP leaders as obstructionists -- so that Democrats have an excuse to ram through their health-care legislation using extraordinary parliamentary procedures. Obstructionism has been Obama's mantra ever since Massachusetts GOP Sen. Scott Brown's election. Just last week in Denver, Obama declared that "for those who don't believe in government, those who don't believe that we have obligations to each other, it's a lot easier task. If you can gum up the works, if you make things broken, if the Senate doesn't get anything done, well, that's consistent with their philosophy." This is dishonest. Republicans have a robust health-care agenda, from health savings accounts, to association health plans, insurance portability, and medical liability reform. What has gummed up the works over the past year has been the relentless partisanship of the Obama administration. Compare Obama's record to that of his immediate predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both reached across the aisle in their first months to forge bipartisan coalitions on major issues. Clinton teamed with Republicans to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement; Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. Even the Bush tax cuts were bipartisan -- Bush made substantive concessions that brought one-quarter of Senate Democrats on board with his plan. By contrast, Obama did not propose, much less secure passage of, a single major bipartisan initiative during his first year. Instead, backed by the largest Democratic majority in decades, he tried to pass a massive government intervention in health care along strict party lines. The last time Obama met with GOP leaders to discuss health-care legislation was in March of 2009 -- almost a year ago. This partisan approach backfired and sparked a popular backlash. But rather than tacking to the center, as Clinton did in similar circumstances, Obama is pressing ahead -- and the Blair House summit is the first step. Republicans would play right into Obama's plans by refusing to attend -- giving him evidence to back his claim that they don't want to get anything done. GOP leaders have said the basis of the summit should be a clean sheet of paper where both sides can list the areas where they both agree -- and develop legislation enacting those areas of broad agreement. They should come to the summit with such a piece of paper, and this offer: "Mr. President, you say we agree on 80 percent of the issues, so let's pass that 80 percent solution right now." If Obama refuses, he will make clear who the real obstructionist is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:06 PM 1600 says we can!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM My tower, Amos, has been built upon the accumulated bricks of my own folly in this same regard... ;-) Can we learn from the past? |
