BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:26 PM

"Everything Barack Obama, the Federal Reserve, and Congress are doing was predicted in startling detail almost two decades ago by a famous Nobel Prize-winning economist.

His name was Milton Friedman.

Though he passed away in 2006, in his prophetic book, Friedman showed how, facing massive deficits, the U.S. government would dramatically increase the money supply; why foreign countries would stop buying our debt; how the Fed would start buying our Treasury bills; and why this would call cause massive inflation.

He even predicted that our officials would claim inflation was no problem at all.

Amazingly all of this is coming to pass!

Make no mistake about it — the Obama administration is embracing massive inflationary deficit spending.

In just 100 days, Barrack Obama has more than doubled the U.S. money supply . . . committed the government to at least $7 trillion in new spending . . . and warned the American people to expect trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.

While the media has been falling over itself to praise Obama's "bold initiatives," the question no one has been asking is, "Where is all of this money coming from?"

Decades ago, Milton Friedman answered these questions clearly and precisely in his insightful — and very topical — book, Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History.

In Money Mischief, Friedman even warned that the coming inflation could "destroy" our country.

Here's what he wrote: "Inflation is a disease, a dangerous and sometimes fatal disease that, if not checked in time, can destroy a society." (Money Mischief, Page 191)

You see the end result of that process in countries like Zimbabwe today, where prices double every day, and it now takes a $10 billion Zimbabwe note to buy a single loaf of bread - assuming you can find one.

Could America suffer the same fate? Friedman wrote ominously, "The fate of a country is inseparable from the fate of its currency."

Even Warren Buffett recently admitted on CNBC that the only way for the U.S. to solve its woes was to inflate the currency.

There is little doubt that Obama's massive deficit spending will doom the dollar and our economy. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:45 PM

"This is just slanted horse manure. And I think you know it. Armwaving and using such hot-button phrases"

Nice to know I learned so well from your comments about Bush.


Economic bullying? You mean like giving the Unions ( that elected Obama) a far larger share of GM than the bondholders that had a far larger investment???

When Obama stops kicking dirt in the face of the investors I might stop calling his tactics bullying- but they will still be payoffs to his supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

It is extremely disrespectful to your readers, BB, to use labels like "apology tours" simply because your preferred Rovian tactics of saber-rattling and economic bullying are being set aside for a more intelligent and effective grand of negotiation. And it is blind (or evil) of those who write such crap to flood the media with such distortions. You can make up your own mind which.

Why you keep spouting this crap is beyond me. I defy you to point to one action for which the Obama administration apologized inappropriately.

This is just slanted horse manure. And I think you know it. Armwaving and using such hot-button phrases is the stock in trade of the Hannities of the world. You can do better.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:10 PM

Come on, Amos! You're falling behind. Post something by Olberman or the New York Times right quick and put this fellow in his place!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:07 PM

Rev. Wright says he doesn't regret severed relationship with president
By DAVID SQUIRES | 757-247-4639
June 10, 2009


HAMPTON – - The Rev. Jeremiah Wright says he does not feel any regrets over his severed relationship with President Barack Obama, a former member of the Chicago church in which Wright was the longtime pastor.

Wright also said that he had not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, implying that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him. He did not indicate whether he had tried to reach Obama.

"Regret for what... that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?

"Regret for preaching like I've been preaching for 50 years? Absolutely none," Wright said.

Rev. Wright and President Obama Photo Wright said that when he went to the polls, he did not hold any grudge against Obama.

"Of course I voted for him; he's my son. I'm proud of him," Wright said. "I've got five biological kids. They all make mistakes and bad choices. I haven't stopped loving any of them.

"He made mistakes. He made bad choices. I've got kids who listen to their friends. He listened to those around him. I did not disown him."

Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:00 PM

"Defending U.S. interests is neither arrogant nor disrespectful of others, but is instead the basic task of our presidents. Despite the 2008 election, neither the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nor international terrorism, nor the challenges of geostrategic adversaries have in any way diminished.

Overseas "apology tours," public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying.

The Obama administration finds itself surprised almost daily by, among other things:

• The recalcitrant and unyielding regime in North Korea, testing its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

• Iran's persistence in pursuing precisely the same weapons programs, as well as continuing its activities as the world's central banker for terrorism.

• Hamas' continued refusal to renounce terrorism, acknowledge the state of Israel's existence and abide by prior Middle East agreements (which is hardly surprising, given that doing so would require Hamas to repudiate the fundamental principles on which it was founded).

• Russia's continued belligerent attitude toward former territories of the Soviet Union and Moscow's generally unhelpful attitude in dealing with North Korea, Iran, the Middle East and countless other problems.

Conservatives understand that these and numerous other threats are not anomalies in an otherwise peaceful and friendly world, but manifestations of the inevitable international clash of interests and philosophies. Conflict with our interest and values is not some unfortunate exception to normality, it is normality. While harmony is desirable, it is far from inevitable, and the causes of disharmony are just as natural and human as their opposites.

Understanding the Hobbesian nature of international relations fundamentally grounds conservative foreign policy in reality. In particular, conservatives reject the idea that America's actions are the foundation for most international discord, and that it is our deviation from international "norms" that must be "corrected" for the natural state of harmony to return.

To the contrary, in the last century, America has repeatedly sought to solve problems others have created, but which risk our own security. Left to ourselves, we would have been more than happy for the others to solve their own problems. That option, however, has not been open to us for quite some time, nor will it return in the foreseeable future, if ever.

The future of conservative national-security policy thus looks very much like its past, and, as in the past, will include considerable healthy debate among conservatives over concrete application of their principles. This is as it should be, both as sound philosophy and also because it makes for good domestic politics. The American people actually expect to be defended against international threats and adversaries, and they will undoubtedly punish any American president who does not understand and implement their strong and entirely justifiable views. That is why we may well see the future of conservative foreign policy bloom as early as 2012. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM

It's true, Obama is phenomenally popular in the world...even much moreso outside the USA than in the USA. This is because he stirs people's hopes in a way they have not been stirred in a very long time. People are hungry for that kind of hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:11 PM

That's ok. Amos. I ignore most of the crap you drag in from your left wrong pundits because they bloviate so much and rarely try to state things as they are. Even then, I do read your posts to see if anything said has a basis in reality. I would hope you might do the same for mine, instead of consistantly attacking whoever it is I quote.

It is not one of MY pundits who said

"I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God."

That was Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who represents YOUR viewpoint, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:06 PM

My view only looks distorted to you, my friend, because you have overstrained your rosy lenses.

I ignore most of the crap you drag in from your right wiong pundits because they bloviate so much and rarely try to state things as they are. Take, just for example, this line: "In Obama's rhetorical universe of mist and fog, divided between gray and deeper gray, he drew one vivid line. Holocaust denial, he said, is "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful." He talked about the "evil" of genocide, repudiated "lies about our history" and challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Buchenwald. Obama's intensity and clarity on this issue were unexpected -- and needed." The implication that this was one factual jewel in a perennial cloud of mist and ambiguity is not the case. But your man seems tio suffer from Alzheimer's where it helps his thirst for intense, if factless, rhetoric. IN terms of combining a broad point of view with a hard nose for facts, Obama's language skills put Gerson's to shame.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM

Well, that's good. :-D There's a really wide disparity in political views in our local song circles here too, but we all seem to enjoy playing music together regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:47 PM

But I'll listen to him sing, and stand him a beer anytime.


Not MY fault if he has a distorted view of the world...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM

You know what? We have discovered the perpetual motion machine. Just connect Amos and Bearded Bruce together over a political issue, stand back, and watch.

If only there were a way to harness all that energy for some useful purpose... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:33 PM

And to be fair ( sorry Amos, for not following entirely in your footsteps...)

Clarity for The Deniers

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

It is President Obama's defining rhetorical strategy. For every contending thesis and antithesis -- Islam vs. the West, Iran vs. America, Palestinians vs. Israel -- he is the synthesis. All sides possess a shiny shard of the truth. Obama assembles the mosaic.

Discounting for gush and swoon, the reaction of Newsweek's Evan Thomas to the Cairo speech was revealing: "I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God." Here is an American president so Olympian in his perspective that he is "above the country." Obama seldom chooses to be a participant in ideological struggles. He aspires to be history's referee.

There was, however, a notable exception to this approach during his recent overseas tour. In Obama's rhetorical universe of mist and fog, divided between gray and deeper gray, he drew one vivid line. Holocaust denial, he said, is "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful." He talked about the "evil" of genocide, repudiated "lies about our history" and challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Buchenwald.

Obama's intensity and clarity on this issue were unexpected -- and needed. Holocaust denial has long been a staple of Middle Eastern anti-Semitism. But it has grown more pervasive since the 1990s -- not merely due to the manias of Ahmadinejad but in service to a broader strategy.

The political purpose of Middle Eastern Holocaust denial is to delegitimize the state of Israel. Since Israel, in this view, was created by the West out of Holocaust guilt, disproving the Holocaust removes the reason for Israel's existence. "The entire Jewish state," said one Jordanian newspaper, "is built on the great Holocaust lie." Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, argues that if "the official version of the Holocaust is called into question," then "the nature and identity of Israel" must also be questioned.


This conception of Israel's history is itself a distortion. The Holocaust is important to Israeli identity; it is not identical to Israeli identity. Zionism existed well before the European genocide. The ties between Jews and the land of Israel reach back for millennia. Israel does not exist merely because of Holocaust guilt. It exists because of its own tenacity, sense of purpose and national success.

But the prevalence of this conspiratorial view in the Middle East demonstrates the challenges Obama will face in his role as arbiter in chief. Obama's Cairo speech, for example, rooted Iranian resentments in Western predation -- a reaction to a history of coups and colonialism. But Iranian leaders, it is clear, are also captured by the irrational politics of anti-Semitism. Former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani once claimed that his personal investigations had led him to believe that "Hitler had only killed 20,000 Jews and not 6 million." Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, argues: "There is evidence which shows that Zionists had close relations with German Nazis and exaggerated statistics on Jewish killings. There is even evidence on hand that a large number of non-Jewish hooligans and thugs of Eastern Europe were forced to emigrate to Palestine as Jews."

Many Palestinians share these views. There are a number of serious, pragmatic Palestinian leaders. But Palestinian radio and television have often recycled Holocaust skepticism. A recent poll of Arab citizens of Israel found that 40 percent deny that the Holocaust occurred. And Hamas (which Obama said in Cairo may "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations") has referred to "the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis." One Hamas leader in Gaza has claimed "the Zionists were behind the Nazis' murder of many Jews" with the goal of forcing immigration to Palestine. "When we compare the Zionists to the Nazis," he said, "we insult the Nazis."

President Obama is correct to call out such "lies," which are not only morally offensive but also debilitating to those who perpetrate them. The politics of conspiracy and victimhood makes it infinitely more difficult to confront the real sources of social, economic and political dysfunction in the broader Middle East.

But the pervasiveness of Holocaust denial also points to a flaw in Obama's rhetorical and diplomatic approach. Perhaps one side of these debates is motivated not only by grievances but also by hatreds. Perhaps those hatreds are unappeasable by concessions from Israel or the West. Perhaps the assumption of rationality and splittable differences, in some cases, is mistaken. Perhaps some don't merely wish to deny the Holocaust but to finish it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:22 PM

But your comments DO serve a useful purpose- this thread should get to 1,000 soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM

If real world facts don't fit YOUR view, feel free to borrow those glasses-

But you do Obama no favors my supporting him when you act like this- One might think that he was elected by people who have no concept of what is going on in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:21 PM

Careful how you strain those rose-colored glasses, BB--they might shatter under the load.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:13 PM

" Cheney was still banging the drum about Saddam's "known ties to Mideast terrorists" "

Since he is refering to the cash payments that Saddam paid to families of suicide bombers, and Saddam made a point of telling the whole world, even Democrats, about that, THIS is just proof that Cheney is telling the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 11:06 AM

"Dick Cheney's statement to Greta van Susteren that "On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that" is being widely portrayed as an admission.

But it's less an admission than a PR move. Cheney has spent the better part of the last seven years doing everything in his power to convince the American people of the very connection he now says there was "never any evidence" of.

In 2004, even after the 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, Cheney was still claiming the evidence that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was "overwhelming."

When he was asked in '04 if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know." Three years after the attack -- and he still didn't know? Even after they had tried every trick in the black book -- including torture -- to find a link?

And while Cheney's gotten more careful with his words over the years, he's never really stopped insinuating that there was a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Indeed, as recently as two weeks ago in his big speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney was still banging the drum about Saddam's "known ties to Mideast terrorists" as part of his rationale for invading Iraq and using torture.

Cheney's ongoing Forget Everything I Ever Told You Tour is historical revisionism at its most despicable.

And we are clearly watching a master manipulator at work. I've always felt that his best -- and by that I mean worst -- work was going on "Meet the Press" in 2002 to tell us about those ominous aluminum tubes and the "number of contacts over the years" between Al Qaeda and Iraq... or his repeated designed-to-terrify-voters warnings about nuclear attacks on US soil. But this ranks right up there.

In his interview with van Susteren, Cheney also backed away from his claim that the documents he wants the CIA to declassify would prove that torture was effective -- saying instead that they would offer a good summary of "what we learned" not just from waterboarding but the detainee interrogation program as a whole.

So, he gets all the media value and spin by originally making the claim that the intel documents would prove the value of torture - if only Obama would let the truth come out. Then he backs away from the claim, using weasel-words to give him sufficient wiggle room to say that what he really meant was that the overall interrogation program provided useful information -- not that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques did.

Perhaps it suddenly dawned on the former VP that he doesn't have the power to keep those documents classified any more -- and that he could be proven to be a liar (yet again) with the stroke of President Obama's pen. Hence the verbal tap-dancing.

But eventually the pile of lies may get so high that it will tumble down on him. For instance, it's not a very smart idea to go around saying that Richard Clarke missed the warning signs on bin Laden and 9/11 when there is email after email after email from the spring and summer of 2001 showing that it was actually Cheney and Bush who ignored the warning signs on bin Laden. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:02 PM

The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."

"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."

The president should 'save or create' more jobs in Cleveland.
Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 08:11 AM

Right you are, LH...

The right wing has spent the last 30 demonizing various words to the point where they can no longer be used a vahicles of public discourse...

That is exactly what Amos was saying when he wrote of "pushbutton fear and anger"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM

"So, Rig, is your argument against fairness, transparency, or the rule of law?"

                Absolutely not. If somebody is found to be in the country illegally, they should be deported, immediately. End of story. Mukasey's order was a step in the right direction. Now we're going backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 12:33 AM

The morons in the USA who endlessly fulminate about the supposed "perils" of socialism have apparently no idea that it is socialism which has provided them with every single law and institution that has secured their (relative) freedom and prosperity, ever since 1776. Without it, they wouldn't even HAVE a functioning nation in which to practice the benefits of a free market.

Casting socialism as an evil thing is so downright boneheaded stupid that it defies all rationality, but if you don't even know what the heck something is in the first place, then I suppose you can believe anything you want about it, can't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 12:19 AM

"The integrity of immigration proceedings depends in part on the ability to assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel," Mr. Holder said in a statement accompanying the order, "and the Department of Justice's rule making in this area will be fair, it will be transparent, and it will be guided by our commitment to the rule of law."

Immigration courts and judges are part of the Justice Department, and the decisions of those judges can be appealed, under some circumstances, to the federal courts. Mr. Holder's order instructs immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to apply the legal standards that were in effect before Mr. Mukasey's order until a final rule is devised...."


So, Rig, is your argument against fairness, transparency, or the rule of law?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 09:42 PM

This is the kind of thing that will turn me and millions of other people against Obama:

                   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04deport.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 04:21 PM

Venezuela Chavez says "Comrade" Obama more left-wing

Tue Jun 2, 2009 10:27pm EDT

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

During a decade in government, Chavez has nationalized most of Venezuela's key economic sectors, including multibillion dollar oil projects, often via joint ventures with the private sector that give the state a 60 percent controlling stake.

Obama has vowed to quickly sell off General Motors once the auto giant is back on its feet, but the government will initially control the company after a $30 billion injection of taxpayer funds.

Chavez, a vehement critic of the U.S. "empire," has toned down his rhetoric since Obama took office in January and the two men shook hands during a summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 03:59 PM

" that every clipping youhave offered that I have seen was heavily slanted and of the heavily assertorial type I described above."

Of course they were! I learned from an expert ( YOU) that anything less is unreasonable. But the ones I post do not have a tenth of the nastiness and infl;amatory nature of those that YOU posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 03:38 PM

Well, I allow you have been much frequent; as to fair, I dunno--my impression, such as it is, is that every clipping youhave offered that I have seen was heavily slanted and of the heavily assertorial type I described above.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 03:24 PM

"THe punditry you continue to offer, however, is a cheap and tawdry substitute which seeks to inflame rather than enlighten, and measures its success by how much unthinking bitterness it can stir up."

And you have enough nerve to claim what YOU posted about Bush was otherwise????

When you realize that I have been far MORE fair-minded in my selections about Obama than you ever were about Bush, you will then become aware of why there are almost half of the voting public that will vote for the NON-Democratic candidate in the next election, almost regardless of who it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 01:36 PM

Oh, Bruce, put away your paper tiger and your strawman collection. They are worse than useless, they simply distort the potential for actual communication.

While I will point out yet again that there is a WORLD of difference between the two men, and one must judge them accordingly, I thionk it is fair to pass judgement on any public policy or poublic act, and to do so purely on the merits without prejudice.

THe punditry you continue to offer, however, is a cheap and tawdry substitute which seeks to inflame rather than enlighten, and measures its success by how much unthinking bitterness it can stir up. That's what I object to in the common dialogue of the republic; not the actual thought, but the frequent lack of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

"What is NOT good for America is snide, self-important punditry seeking to instill pushbutton fear and anger and manipulative down-scale emotions in place of constructive suggestion and honest dialogue. Even when they get paid for it."

Except of course when they are LIBERAL snide, self-important punditry criticising Bush, you forgot to mention...


So you continue to insist that we treat Obama by a set of standards that you denied to Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 01:17 PM

If Mister Sanderson and his ilk were genuinely concerned about what's healthy for America, they would perhaps be more cognizant of the leprous follies and diseases your much-admired clan of plutocrats had injected into her, and from which Mister Obama stands as a slim hope for healing. It is the Reagonomic era and the Bushes administrations which drove this nation into insolvency, militarism, mindless jerkwater mobocratic impulses as a replacement for intelligent public dialogue, and left her reputation in ruins, her moral fiber shredded by heinous acts and stinking of opportunistic perfidy. In the face of all this, it is scarcely surprising America has chosen to support the man in whom they see some small hope of remedy.

What is NOT good for America is snide, self-important punditry seeking to instill pushbutton fear and anger and manipulative down-scale emotions in place of constructive suggestion and honest dialogue. Even when they get paid for it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

DUMM-DA-DUM-DUM!

(I thought some portentious music would go great at this point.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 08:51 PM

Well, first of all, a Dem cannot be lected if he or she even suggests that spending gets paid for... That is Reality 001 (remdedial, no credit hours)... So here is the deal... If health care becomes "somewhat" nationalized (haha) meaning that folks can buy into a national plan then, yeh, in buying into that national plan one could consider it a tax...

Forget the fact, for one minute, that if you are paying out $1000 a month for health insurance and along comes something like Medicare that you can but for $700 that you are savign $300 a month... The Repubs don't want you to think like that... They only want you to think that you are being taxed... Slight of the hand here...

This is the real debate... Do Americans want to pay less for health insurance??? Even if it means that they will paying the federal governemnt???

Like Horrors!!! Not the federal governemnt!!! (Mobs running thru the street in horror as the monster approaches the city...) Well, ask most any senior how they like Medicare and most say it's great... So what the heck is wrong with a system that doesn't consume 17% of our GNP and puts US on equal footing with our international competetors???

(Well, it's a tax, Bobert!!!)

Bullsh*t... It is a product!!! And it's cheaper than the health insurance that is out there now!!!

Thems is the real story...

The Repubs are running out of gas with their insistant framing of everything evolving around taxes... Hey, they love to spend but hate to pay... At least Obama is willing to have US pay... That's a novel idea after 30 years of Repub (Clinton included) rule...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM

Obama said to be open to taxing health benefits
         

Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to taxing health care benefits, something he campaigned hard against while running for president. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., raised the issue with Obama during a private meeting Tuesday with the president and other Democratic senators and later reported the president's response: "It's on the table. It's an option."

The federal government would reap about $250 billion a year if it treated health care benefits given to employees like wages and taxed them.

Baucus and others are eyeing that money as they search for ways to pay for a costly health care overhaul that would extend coverage to 50 million Americans who are now uninsured. That could cost some $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

The president adamantly opposed health benefit taxes during the campaign, arguing they would undermine job-based coverage. But he's now indicating openness to that suggestion from Congress, even if he criticized Republican presidential rival John McCain for proposing a sweeping version of the same basic idea.

Obama has made some suggestions of his own for paying for a health care overhaul, including cuts to Medicare and limiting tax deductions wealthy people can take, but they've run into opposition from Congress. And, they only add up to about $630 billion over 10 years.

"The president made it clear during the campaign that he has serious concerns about taxing health care benefits," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said in a statement about Tuesday's meeting.

"He stated again his belief that health reform can't wait another year, and that while all options should be considered, those options should include the revenue proposals that he included in his budget," Cherlin said. "He made it very clear that he prefers the approach he has already outlined."

Some experts think limiting the tax exclusion for health benefits is the only way to get the necessary money to pay for a sweeping health care overhaul. But there's opposition from organized labor and from many Democrats, including House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who said recently there was "no way" he would support the approach.

Baucus wants to look at limiting — but not entirely eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits. Obama is leaving the details of crafting a health care bill to Congress and used Tuesday's meeting to urge senators to swift action.

"This window between now and the August recess I think is going to be the make-or-break period," Obama said before the meeting was closed to reporters. "This is the time where we've got to get this running."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 11:05 PM

"On the whole, this is not healthy for America."

It IS healthy for America, BB...IF Obama turns out to be a good president. It isn't if he doesn't.

Republicans don't like it for only one reason: it hurts their own party's chances in future elections. They would be ecstatic if a Republican president was this popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:16 PM

We're certainly afraid of another Judith Miller.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 09:55 PM

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert...

And you want to claim that the NYT is not a Liberal publication?

Why do you always attack the person writing omething rather than look at what is said and try to determine if what is written is true??


Are you taht afraid of the real facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 09:49 PM

We do if we want to go to war in Iran!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 08:48 PM

Come on, bb... Robert Samuelson is a Repub shill...

The other article was also an editorial... The Post's editorial staff... I find it interesting that the right would have slammed Obama had he released the photos or not released them... I understand why he didn't... I don't think we need to ignite more hatred in the Moslum world, do you, bb???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM

The Obama Infatuation

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, June 1, 2009

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press -- on domestic, if not foreign, policy -- has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The study examined 1,261 stories by The Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable articles (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed." Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent) presidencies.

Unlike George Bush and Bill Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in both news columns and opinion pages. The nature of stories also changed. "Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 percent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 percent) or Clinton (26 percent)," the report said. "Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."

When Pew broadened the analysis to 49 outlets -- cable channels, news Web sites, morning news shows, more newspapers and National Public Radio -- the results were similar, despite some outliers. No surprise: MSNBC was favorable, Fox was not. Another study, released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, reached parallel conclusions.

The infatuation matters because Obama's ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health-care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That's well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.

Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship -- and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health-care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.

The cause of this acquiescence isn't clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job approval rating is 63 percent. But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.

Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: Most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he's a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don't want to see the first African American president fail.

Whatever, a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama's personal popularity. Another Pew survey shows that since the election the numbers of both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. "Independents" have increased, and "there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism."

The press has become Obama's silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 07:46 PM

Washington Post


Still Too Many Secrets
The Obama administration promises more open government -- sometimes.

ON WEDNESDAY, President Obama announced the formation of a task force to review government policies that keep certain information out of public reach. He proposed the creation of a National Declassification Center to facilitate, when appropriate, public disclosure of once-secret information. In a memo outlining the task force's objectives, the president reaffirmed his commitment "to operating with an unprecedented level of openness." As The Post's Carrie Johnson reported, Mr. Obama also raised the possibility of reviving the "presumption against classification" that would preclude stamping information as secret when there is "significant doubt" about whether that is necessary. The task force, led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, has 90 days to submit recommendations to the White House. So far, so good.

Yet, at the same time, the administration is supporting legislation that could increase secrecy. The Justice Department filed notice Thursday of its intention to challenge in the Supreme Court a New York federal appeals court ruling that ordered the administration to make public photographs allegedly depicting the abuse of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit to force their disclosure. (The Washington Post Co. filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the ACLU.) At the same time, the Justice Department alerted the court that a formal appeal by the June 9 deadline may be unnecessary if Congress quickly passes the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. The department also asked Friday that the deadline be extended to July 9.

The measure, supported by the White House and passed May 21 as an attachment to a Senate funding bill, would put beyond the reach of FOIA any photographs taken between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 22, 2009, "relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States" that the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have determined would endanger military personnel if released.

The Obama administration deserves credit for reviewing government policies that for eight years have been applied too expansively to keep important information from public view. Earlier this year, for example, Mr. Holder rescinded Bush-era FOIA guidelines and replaced them with new rules that better reflect and preserve FOIA's purpose of making public important information about the workings of the government -- which is what makes the administration's support for the photographic records act so regrettable. In taking a step aimed at protecting the country's service members, Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 09 - 12:00 PM

See sociopathic thread, LH... Awww, jus' funnin' wid ya...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 09 - 11:41 AM

Righto. Pardon my misinterpretation of the acronym.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 09 - 08:46 AM

Nah, LH... Sorry to inform you but it's the just the Washington Folk Festival at Glen Echo Park... I haven't played it now in 3 years... Long drive...

Now back to Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:00 PM

What is WFF? World F**king Federation"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 May 09 - 08:10 AM

No WFF fir me today, bruce...

Would love to be there but I have a Bobcat with an auger rented for the weekend and have some serious post hole digging to get done...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 11:23 PM

I follow your reasoning perfectly on that, BB. Makes sense to me.

Everyone, truth be told, does have a limited view of reality. It's limited to the influences (cultural and otherwise) that they've been exposed to, and their own experiences.

I find that virtually everyone I talk to is for whatever they are for because of some high ideals they hold dear. In other words, they have some very positive reasons for their beliefs. And...they may also be carrying some grudges and some negativities in their consciousness. It pays to listen to them long enough to get some idea of why they feel the way they do, and what it is that they are instinctively valuing and defending before you rush to judge them.

Again, I'm not directing that at you.   Just talking in general terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 09 - 10:06 PM

"Your comparing apples and horse-apples..."


                      And horse apples grow strong grass roots!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:29 PM

LH,

I allow others to have whatever opinions they want- but I object to being told what I must think by others. When somneone tells me that only they have the "TRUTH" I tend to think that they might have a limited view of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 06:42 PM

BB, do you know what the dictionary definition of the word "bigot" is? I looked it up just to be absolutely sure. It is:


bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Origin:
1590–1600; MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. OE bî God by God



I find that hilarious, because by that definition almost everybody on this whole damned forum IS a bigot and is practicing bigotry...specially those who rave on all the livelong day about other people who have some different opinion being "bigots", despite apparently having no idea themselves what the world "bigot" actually means.

I mention this not to go after you particulary, BB...but just because I thought you'd find it interesting in itself. You might, like me, find it amusing. Truly, bigotry is an ever-present blight these days, specially in political discussions, because practically everyone I hear engaging in them, whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" is utterly intolerant of any differing belief, or opinion...and quite proud of it too! They relish their own intolerance and self-righteous fury. ;-D

Genuine fairness and objectivity are as rare today as they were in the Dark Ages.


****

But I like Obama. You know why? He's tolerant, and he listens fairly to those of differing beliefs and opinions. He actually listens! Astounding. The man is one in a million when it comes to politicians these days.