people are actually chanting "CHANGE!" :lol
lol he fucked up the oath
right-wing nuts are already preparing their court documents to prove he's not really president
lol he fucked up the oath
right-wing nuts are already preparing their court documents to prove he's not really president
how did he fuck up? i was half paying attention
lol he fucked up the oath
right-wing nuts are already preparing their court documents to prove he's not really president
how did he fuck up? i was half paying attention
He forgot a line, stood there staring at the Justice, waiting for him to repeat it
Boring speech. Turned it off.
4 year term, end of the world is 2012. "Beware the leader who promises change" :o
the chief justice got the wording wrong, so Obama messed up
Is the world fixed yet?
invest in kfc NOW
What the fuck at the Prayer at the beginning, i mean really? Really? Ugh
I'm watching it on TV... the online feeds are booked and lagged
Obama's highfalutin' rhetoric is nice and all, but it's the schadenfreude that really warms my cockles.
Conservatives are vacillating wildly between Obama as harbinger of doom (see sd's "These Keynesian multiplier estimates are downright CRIMINAL!") to convince themselves they were right to oppose him, and Obama as huckster (see Beardo's "lol change") to convince themselves they didn't really lose.
No wonder the Corner was so smug back in the day. This winning stuff is fun.
So Cheney is wheel chair ridden? He moved some shit and his back is fucked upAt least he didn't get shot in the face while the Duck Hunt dog was laughing at him. :maf
Obama's highfalutin' rhetoric is nice and all, but it's the schadenfreude that really warms my cockles.
Conservatives are vacillating wildly between Obama as harbinger of doom (see sd's "These Keynesian multiplier estimates are downright CRIMINAL!") to convince themselves they were right to oppose him, and Obama as huckster (see Beardo's "lol change") to convince themselves they didn't really lose.
No wonder the Corner was so smug back in the day. This winning stuff is fun.
invest in kfc NOWPopeyes, bitch
since we are officially socialist now where is my free money?
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86469
man id love to be a fly inside bush's helicopter right now
why can't white people ever get it right?
kfc sucks. black people go to their local ghetto join or popeyes. any negro you see at kfc has no standards or is hungry as fuck
man id love to be a fly inside bush's helicopter right now
why can't white people ever get it right?
kfc sucks. black people go to their local ghetto join or popeyes. any negro you see at kfc has no standards or is hungry as fuck
maf insists i need to go to popeye's for the proper fastfood chik'n experience -- or at least for decent read beans and rice. i smell a renton roadtrip
man id love to be a fly inside bush's helicopter right now
why can't white people ever get it right?
kfc sucks. black people go to their local ghetto join or popeyes. any negro you see at kfc has no standards or is hungry as fuck
maf insists i need to go to popeye's for the proper fastfood chik'n experience -- or at least for decent read beans and rice. i smell a renton roadtrip
why can't white people ever get it right?
kfc sucks. black people go to their local ghetto join or popeyes. any negro you see at kfc has no standards or is hungry as fuck
maf insists i need to go to popeye's for the proper fastfood chik'n experience -- or at least for decent read beans and rice. i smell a renton roadtrip
dude go there for some solid beans and rice. Try their biscuits too.
man id love to be a fly inside bush's helicopter right now(http://i44.tinypic.com/2n81vgi.jpg)
why can't white people ever get it right?
kfc sucks. black people go to their local ghetto join or popeyes. any negro you see at kfc has no standards or is hungry as fuck
maf insists i need to go to popeye's for the proper fastfood chik'n experience -- or at least for decent read beans and rice. i smell a renton roadtrip
dude go there for some solid beans and rice. Try their biscuits too.
It's all about the mashed potatoes. That gravy is :drool
What's with manabyte's avatar. So rude.
The Popeye's near here has this little prize wheel that spins whenever you order something and gives you the opportunity to buy some extra shit at a heavy discount. I haven't seen it at any other location. It's pretty amazing.
What's with manabyte's avatar. So rude.
Well you see, black people used to be called porch monkeys or just monkey in general. It's endearing to them like if you call them a nigg-a. :)
Bush grew more agitated at the mention of his own former senior diplomat. “Let me just say from the outset that I don’t consider Bolton credible,” the president said bitterly. Bush had brought Bolton into the top ranks of his administration, fought for Senate confirmation and, when lawmakers balked, defied critics to give the hawkish aide a recess appointment. “I spent political capital for him,” Bush said, and look what he got in return.
I see your stupid white ho and raise you SP:
i don't see why you guys hate all over kfc
their original recipe chicken sandwiches & pot pies are good, and their potato wedges aren't bad
i don't see why you guys hate all over kfc
their original recipe chicken sandwiches & pot pies are good, and their potato wedges aren't bad
Tauntaun ahaahahahahahahaDude is like the Forrest Gump of chicken.
so how soon do you guys shut the fuck up about the dimestore cowboy and start focusing those narrowed eyes towards the new guyspoiler (click to show/hide)i'm guessing never[close]
What's with manabyte's avatar. So rude.
Well you see, black people used to be called porch monkeys or just monkey in general. It's endearing to them like if you call them a nigg-a. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTosQerWBzU
I see your stupid white ho and raise you SP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR2xDfOHTz8
so how soon do you guys shut the fuck up about the dimestore cowboy and start focusing those narrowed eyes towards the new guyspoiler (click to show/hide)i'm guessing never[close]
black people: popeyes>>>kfc
mom's chicken>>>kfc
grandma's chicken>>>kfc
etc
The Popeye's near here has this little prize wheel that spins whenever you order something and gives you the opportunity to buy some extra shit at a heavy discount. I haven't seen it at any other location. It's pretty amazing.There's a Popeyes here in the Bronx with that shit. It's so hard to ignore. :heart
Now that I think about it Obama is probably the president with the biggest dick in America's history since he is black and all.
Omg
My abs hurt from the laughter, oh man "I'll merc yo ass" ahahahahahaah
MOOOOOReeee. i need more of this shit demi
So is this the end of black presidents in Hollywood movies?
bullshit. link?
Wallace is an ass, but not like that
Manabyte, I have a ludicrously low opinion of you and yet you keep managing to disappoint me.
Why do you post here? Has someone given you the impression that they value your contributions to the forum? Who did this? Tell me who they are and I'll set them straight.
So is this the end of black presidents in Hollywood movies?
This user is currently ignored.Sorry, what?
sorry to drop a truth nuke in here, but telling other people to stop posting (even manabyte) is pretty fucking stupid considering it takes all of one second to click an ignore button
while were on the subject
who the fuck is mandark?
im not kidding
how is someone i dont know an icon?
must live in Seattle
Not to change the subject, but y'all seen the banking stocks today?
I say we get an over/under pool going for full industry nationalization.
let's all get naked and eat fried chicken in celebration of this historic election
why can't white people ever get it right?
kfc sucks. black people go to their local ghetto join or popeyes. any negro you see at kfc has no standards or is hungry as fuck
maf insists i need to go to popeye's for the proper fastfood chik'n experience -- or at least for decent read beans and rice. i smell a renton roadtrip
I know a guy who can send me hollowed out moose carcasses for a few barrels of syrup. Then again, what would I store in the carcasses if I send him the syrup? Come to think of it, I already have barrels.
I'm beginning to think this whole transaction is a scam.
"[Obama is] just one of those guys, you know, like Will Smith. There's no Will Smith jokes. There's no Brad Pitt jokes. You know, what are you going to say? "Ooh, you used to have sex with Jennifer Anniston. Now you have sex with Angelina Jolie. You're such a loser." What do you say? "Ooh, your movies are big. You make $20 million." There's nothing to say about Brad Pitt...[With Obama it's] like "Ooh, you're young and virile and you've got a beautiful wife and kids. You're the first African-American president." You know, what do you say?," - Chris Rock.http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/01/19/chris.rock.kill.the.messenger/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
obama should sign into law a bill renaming the Republican Party to "Great Enemy of the People".
kfc is pretty weak if you have a popeyes or bojangles around, IMO.
saltkfc is pretty weak if you have a popeyes or bojangles around, IMO.
I dunno, whatever they put on the skin with KFC is pretty damn tasty.
obama should sign into law a bill renaming the Republican Party to "Great Enemy of the People".
Quote"[Obama is] just one of those guys, you know, like Will Smith. There's no Will Smith jokes. There's no Brad Pitt jokes. You know, what are you going to say? "Ooh, you used to have sex with Jennifer Anniston. Now you have sex with Angelina Jolie. You're such a loser." What do you say? "Ooh, your movies are big. You make $20 million." There's nothing to say about Brad Pitt...[With Obama it's] like "Ooh, you're young and virile and you've got a beautiful wife and kids. You're the first African-American president." You know, what do you say?," - Chris Rock.http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/01/19/chris.rock.kill.the.messenger/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
:lol
saltkfc is pretty weak if you have a popeyes or bojangles around, IMO.
I dunno, whatever they put on the skin with KFC is pretty damn tasty.
obama should sign into law a bill renaming the Republican Party to "Great Enemy of the People".
if one of his first acts isn't the trial and execution of the entire bush administration for crimes against humanity, then obama = disappointment total
obama should sign into law a bill renaming the Republican Party to "Great Enemy of the People".
if one of his first acts isn't the trial and execution of the entire bush administration for crimes against humanity, then obama = disappointment total
:bow crushed :bow2
well i thinkg we need more people to protest like me and maybe we will start a mass riot against the liberal communistic bastard of a president we have
obama should sign into law a bill renaming the Republican Party to "Great Enemy of the People".
He was still paying off student loans till 2007. Those type of republicans probably don't even know what a student loan is.
A fatherless child who put himself through Harvard is still a filthy poor in their eyes.
smh
He was still paying off student loans till 2007. Those type of republicans probably don't even know what a student loan is.
A fatherless child who put himself through Harvard is still a filthy poor in their eyes.
smh
He was still paying off student loans till 2007. Those type of republicans probably don't even know what a student loan is.
A fatherless child who put himself through Harvard is still a filthy poor in their eyes.
smh
You can mock him as the "messiah" ala Rush, but even that rings hollow. He's a genuinely cool guy who treats people fairly. It's no wonder why people on the fringes of the right are so scared of him. Obama may strongly disagree with someone but he's going to go out his way to hear their argument. People like Rush/Palin/etc and the other "good vs evil" people need to evolve.
If Obama has a relatively good first term and stays out of trouble...what will the republicans be able to do in 2012?
He was still paying off student loans till 2007. Those type of republicans probably don't even know what a student loan is.
A fatherless child who put himself through Harvard is still a filthy poor in their eyes.
smh
I'm saying we will have some sort of national banking entity to prop up the private ones by april
Putting them through college? Make them pay their own way like I had to.
I don't expect any kind of accountability from the Bush era. Punishing these people doesn't really do any good because the mentality and philosophy has poisoned the system, not individuals. It isn't like these individuals were being particularly devious or crafty. The public fell in love with privatization because they wanted to save a few bucks on their taxes not knowing or really caring what the long term consequences might be.
The best we might get is a show trial type situation where the company CEOs, Presidents, etc. have a hangdog expression while Congress berates them (while voting for these businesses' initiatives a couple years prior). Then when push comes to shove, they'll do very little.
so um is anything going to happen now? this is boring.
and don't tell me it's 11pm and the presidenty people are going to bed. if i had just become president i would totally be up all night issuing executive orders and proclamations and shit.
For those who remain really upset about Barack Obama’s election, here is a new argument contesting his legitimacy, courtesy of Fox News Channel. Noting that Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed his recitation of the oath of office during the swearing-in ceremony, Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor, said: “I’m not sure that Barack Obama really is the President of the United States. Because the oath of office is set in the Constitution, and I wasn’t at all convinced that even after he tried to amend it that John Roberts ever got it out straight and that Barack Obama ever said the prescribed words. I suspect that everybody is going to forgive him and allow him to take over as president but I’m not sure he actually said what is in the Constitution.”
from the times
For those who remain really upset about Barack Obama’s election, here is a new argument contesting his legitimacy, courtesy of Fox News Channel. Noting that Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed his recitation of the oath of office during the swearing-in ceremony, Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor, said: “I’m not sure that Barack Obama really is the President of the United States. Because the oath of office is set in the Constitution, and I wasn’t at all convinced that even after he tried to amend it that John Roberts ever got it out straight and that Barack Obama ever said the prescribed words. I suspect that everybody is going to forgive him and allow him to take over as president but I’m not sure he actually said what is in the Constitution.”
from the times
lmfao, I said this as a joke while watching it
After Obama's speech this morning, on a small triangle of grass between the Lincoln Memorial and the Memorial Bridge, we discovered a giant inflatable statue of George W. Bush, posed like the famously-toppled statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. The statue had a plaque that described Bush matter-of-factly, with no punch-line, allowing viewers to project their own feelings onto the work. It had guy lines loosely holding it up from various points. You can probably guess what happened next.
You didn't guess someone would face-hump it?
People also threw shoes, water bottles, and anything else they could find.
A father and son team brought the statue from Minnesota and set it up here without a permit. They told us they had asked authorities if they needed one, but police said they had no specific rules against inflatables, so it could stay. Some park police apparently even thanked them for it, thinking it a tribute to the outgoing president. They seemed as surprised as we were that it hadn't been removed. The statue was conceived by the 20-year-old son as an art project.
It made our day.
so um is anything going to happen now? this is boring.The President and Michelle are dancing right now on tv for like a few hours now. Or as the President called it "kicking it old school".
and don't tell me it's 11pm and the presidenty people are going to bed. if i had just become president i would totally be up all night issuing executive orders and proclamations and shit.
weed legal yet?
weed legal yet?
hopefully never
you'll see why once you smoke too much of it
For those who remain really upset about Barack Obama’s election, here is a new argument contesting his legitimacy, courtesy of Fox News Channel. Noting that Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed his recitation of the oath of office during the swearing-in ceremony, Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor, said: “I’m not sure that Barack Obama really is the President of the United States. Because the oath of office is set in the Constitution, and I wasn’t at all convinced that even after he tried to amend it that John Roberts ever got it out straight and that Barack Obama ever said the prescribed words. I suspect that everybody is going to forgive him and allow him to take over as president but I’m not sure he actually said what is in the Constitution.”
from the times
lmfao, I said this as a joke while watching it
Once your shitty banks are all under, you'll be begging for Canadian beaver pelts.
weed legal yet?
hopefully never
you'll see why once you smoke too much of it
He's mostly been a public servant all his life. That's not where the high salaries are.He was still paying off student loans till 2007. Those type of republicans probably don't even know what a student loan is.
A fatherless child who put himself through Harvard is still a filthy poor in their eyes.
smh
Wow, so he's a filthy poor too?
I knew as soon as I got into this thread, I would see more info about your tweet, cloud.
I am jealous :'(
I knew as soon as I got into this thread, I would see more info about your tweet, cloud.
I am jealous :'(
what's your twitter username?
I knew as soon as I got into this thread, I would see more info about your tweet, cloud.
I am jealous :'(
what's your twitter username?
Oh shit, I forgot you weren't following me. It's DeathbyVolcano.
120 day halt to all gitmo proceedingsWuuuuuu00t!
it's good to know that when our 1000 foot tall invaders come, they'll be disgusted by us running before they stomp us
Here's a bunch of epic pictures from yesterday:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.htmlspoiler (click to show/hide)(http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4403_17681689.jpg)[close]
Here's a bunch of epic pictures from yesterday:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.htmlspoiler (click to show/hide)(http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4403_17681689.jpg)[close]
(http://gamu-toys.info/sonota/sw/obama/DSC_4696.JPG)
Holy Shit :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol I want one!
So since he was sworn in twice does Obama have like double president powers now?(http://i42.tinypic.com/16ism5x.jpg)
Does this mean he gets to serve only 1 term? :(If any Republican actually tries to argue this, it will prove that they all have the minds of children.
Does this mean he gets to serve only 1 term? :(If any Republican actually tries to argue this, it will prove that they all have the minds of children.
It'll be nice to have a president that actually works for a change, though, considering that Bush spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days at his ranch in Crawford. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4728085.shtml)
aka, 2 and 2/3 years on vacation, or a third of his presidency
With four executive orders today, our new President:
* Ordered Guantánamo Bay shut down
* Banned torture
* Ordered a full review of U.S. detention policies and procedures, and
* Delayed the trial of Ali al-Marri, an ACLU client whose case is at the center of the Supreme Court’s review of indefinite detention policies.
From the ACLU newsletter today::bowQuoteWith four executive orders today, our new President:
* Ordered Guantánamo Bay shut down
* Banned torture
* Ordered a full review of U.S. detention policies and procedures, and
* Delayed the trial of Ali al-Marri, an ACLU client whose case is at the center of the Supreme Court’s review of indefinite detention policies.
Wow its really happening:
(http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/360_obama_oval_0121.jpg)
Wow its really happening:
(http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/360_obama_oval_0121.jpg)
What, he's finally contacting Batman?
The Obama facade is quickly crumbling....Based on what exactly? I can't think of a single thing he hasn't done in his first 3 days in offices that go against his campaign promises. Hell he has been pushing through his campaign promises at a far faster rate than Bush or Clinton did.
From the ACLU newsletter today:QuoteWith four executive orders today, our new President:
* Ordered Guantánamo Bay shut down
* Banned torture
* Ordered a full review of U.S. detention policies and procedures, and
* Delayed the trial of Ali al-Marri, an ACLU client whose case is at the center of the Supreme Court’s review of indefinite detention policies.
God Damn, looks like the next 4 years is going to be FILLED with awesome.
Under President Obama Bauer would be rotting in jail probably lol.From the ACLU newsletter today:QuoteWith four executive orders today, our new President:
* Ordered Guantánamo Bay shut down
* Banned torture
* Ordered a full review of U.S. detention policies and procedures, and
* Delayed the trial of Ali al-Marri, an ACLU client whose case is at the center of the Supreme Court’s review of indefinite detention policies.
God Damn, looks like the next 4 years is going to be FILLED with awesome.
In times like these, we need Jack Bauer more than ever.
Yeah, I probably flipped too much, but the fucker doesn't explain wtf he means. It's frustrating.
It's better now than when 80% of the posts were poll numbers.
The amount of liveblogging of FoxNews is amazing. I wonder what type of ratings it'd get if all the liberals who have a persecution complex stopped watching it. I never got that. You don't see right-wingers religiously watch Keith Olbermann just so they have more reasons to hate him. It's odd.It's better now than when 80% of the posts were poll numbers.
Haha, not really. Polls have been replaced by live blogging TDS or Fox news.
"ashamed of my faschist president..."
Living in Ohio, I get a shitload of people with status updates like that:
"God Bless George Bush, history will vindicate you!"
"getting shopping done before barak sends in the terrists :)"
"ashamed of my faschist president..."
"who fucking likes this communist?"---noted, the last two were from the same person
"god, he needs assinated (spelled exactly like that"
ugh.
next time ask them what fascist means, and what socialist means while you're at it.
i always assumed he meets a lot a shithead fratboysThat's even worse.
And Michigan and Ohio are hardly different.Politically? Seeing how that is what the topic is they are. Obama won MI by a lot more than he did in OH, and Bush won OH both times he ran. Democrats carried MI both times. MI is a lot more democratic than OH.
From what I've experienced in the middle-to-upper class communites of both Ohio and Michigan, the majority of kids who can't even fucking vote yet will tell you how Obama's letting in the turrists.
http://tinyurl.com/dbngl4 (http://tinyurl.com/dbngl4)
It is kind of refreshing to have some competent leadership. However, I'm so used to it being so subpar that this is kind of a new experience for me.
A lot of it has to do with their parents. If their parents are Republicans, there is a decent chance the kids will be too. Mostly social factors.
Also, one of the executive orders says that the government can't rely on any legal opinions given from 2001-2008 on torture, basically retconning away all the damaging bullshit written by Yoo, David Addington, and the rest of the assholes.
Also, one of the executive orders says that the government can't rely on any legal opinions given from 2001-2008 on torture, basically retconning away all the damaging bullshit written by Yoo, David Addington, and the rest of the assholes.
holy damn that is awesome. can i get the source?
(c) Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.
The amount of liveblogging of FoxNews is amazing. I wonder what type of ratings it'd get if all the liberals who have a persecution complex stopped watching it. I never got that. You don't see right-wingers religiously watch Keith Olbermann just so they have more reasons to hate him. It's odd.It's better now than when 80% of the posts were poll numbers.
Haha, not really. Polls have been replaced by live blogging TDS or Fox news.
A lot of it has to do with their parents. If their parents are Republicans, there is a decent chance the kids will be too. Mostly social factors.
Children are likely to absorb their parents' political affiliations, regardless of what those affiliations are--this isn't simply a Republican thing. The same is true with their political ideologies, but this is strongly influenced by genetic factors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html?ei=5090&en=dde7d8feedd2f87f&ex=1277006400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)
makes a rule and then waives it for someone the next day
obama lol
President Obama told the Republican lawmakers that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/61847002/1
What I’m afraid of is that what Obama did with this executive order is actually make it easier for the media to go get Bush documents. Because you know Pelosi and some of the guys over in Congress are talking about war crimes trials and charges and so forth. […]
What I’m afraid of is what Obama’s done here is made the gathering of the information for this kind of stuff– This is not American. This is not America. This is not what America does. We don’t– This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.
He did win, as did his party. In a landslide. Republicans need to remember that. There is a mandate for the public for big government spending, Republicans in the senate seem to understand this (McConnel has all but said the GOP in the senate will support Obama's stimulus package without opposition) but the GOP in the house is still in some sort of denial about it.makes a rule and then waives it for someone the next day
obama lol
"I won"
He did win, as did his party. In a landslide. Republicans need to remember that. There is a mandate for the public for big government spending, Republicans in the senate seem to understand this (McConnel has all but said the GOP in the senate will support Obama's stimulus package without opposition) but the GOP in the house is still in some sort of denial about it.
Haha, agreed. But they did pay a lot of lip service to the notion of bipartisanship and cooperation, so I don't blame them for at least being cautious. But I fully expect Pelosi to steamroll the house GOP when she needs to, and if she doesn't, she's lol.He did win, as did his party. In a landslide. Republicans need to remember that. There is a mandate for the public for big government spending, Republicans in the senate seem to understand this (McConnel has all but said the GOP in the senate will support Obama's stimulus package without opposition) but the GOP in the house is still in some sort of denial about it.
Democrats also have a hard time accepting the idea that they won. Which they need to get over.
Obama doesn't seem to have a hard time. He pretty much smacked the house republican leadership around on friday to remind him he was in charge and the public picked him and his ideas. Which is all that matters. Despite some odd statements from Reid/Pelosi they will both do what he wants and if Obama asserts himself as the person with the ideas the public wants, which he did forcefully on Friday that is all that is important.He did win, as did his party. In a landslide. Republicans need to remember that. There is a mandate for the public for big government spending, Republicans in the senate seem to understand this (McConnel has all but said the GOP in the senate will support Obama's stimulus package without opposition) but the GOP in the house is still in some sort of denial about it.
Democrats also have a hard time accepting the idea that they won. Which they need to get over.
Obama doesn't seem to have a hard time. He pretty much smacked the house republican leadership around on friday to remind him he was in charge and the public picked him and his ideas. Which is all that matters. Despite some odd statements from Reid/Pelosi they will both do what he wants and if Obama asserts himself as the person with the ideas the public wants, which he did forcefully on Friday that is all that is important.He did win, as did his party. In a landslide. Republicans need to remember that. There is a mandate for the public for big government spending, Republicans in the senate seem to understand this (McConnel has all but said the GOP in the senate will support Obama's stimulus package without opposition) but the GOP in the house is still in some sort of denial about it.
Democrats also have a hard time accepting the idea that they won. Which they need to get over.
Just be glad someone with the very very strong sense of confidence like Obama is president and a traditional Dem senator.
Should I care as an European? :-\
Obama looks nicer than Bush. And that's the only difference to me...
I don't understand all the Obama hype.
Should I care as an European? :-\
Obama looks nicer than Bush. And that's the only difference to me...
I don't understand all the Obama hype.
Pretty much. Also I think a lot of European's are confused seeing how it's common for them to elect intellectual liberals as prime minister/president, it's fucking rare in America.Should I care as an European? :-\
Obama looks nicer than Bush. And that's the only difference to me...
I don't understand all the Obama hype.
Competent leadership is damn near considered revolutionary in modern US politics.
:lol @ the White House having a youtube pageIt's a new era one where the president listens to rap music, sends text messages, and post youtube videos!
And watches shows like The Wire.:lol @ the White House having a youtube pageIt's a new era one where the president listens to rap music, sends text messages, and post youtube videos!
QuotePresident Obama told the Republican lawmakers that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/61847002/1
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-damn.gif)
"But I just want to say, folks, look I support Obama. I just don't support his policies. I support our president, like I have supported all presidents. I just don't support Obama's policies. I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue.
makes a rule and then waives it for someone the next day
obama lol
"I won"
First Youtube Address as President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDfpd8GV9dI
wtf
(http://i42.tinypic.com/6z1nat.jpg)
http://recovery.gov/at least obama's whitehouse.gov is 1000000x better designed than the old whitehouse.gov site.
Such horrible code :yuck
http://recovery.gov/I just looked :-X
Such horrible code :yuck
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/woodward-suggests-future_n_160832.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/woodward-suggests-future_n_160832.html)If there is a nanny issue in his administration it isn't Obama himself since the Obama's pride themselves on never having a nanny.
Any guesses?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbn2ALh-2VASo aliens are liberals?
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2eamk9e.gif)
by Patrick J. Buchanan
As President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address to a nation filled with anticipation and hope, the vital signs of the loyal opposition appear worse than worrisome.
The new majority of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation Nixon cobbled together in 1972, that became the Reagan coalition of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation in 1984, is a faded memory. Demographically, philosophically and culturally, the party base has been shrinking since Bush I won his 40-state triumph over Michael Dukakis. Indeed, the Republican base is rapidly becoming a redoubt, a Fort Apache in Indian country.
In the National Journal, Ron Brownstein renders a grim prognosis of the party's chances of recapturing the White House. Consider:
In the five successive presidential elections, beginning with Clinton's victory in 1992 and ending with Obama's in 2008, 18 states and the District of Columbia, with 248 electoral votes among them, voted for the Democratic ticket all five times. John McCain did not come within 10 points of Obama in any of the 18, and he lost D.C. 92-8.
The 18 cover all of New England, save New Hampshire; New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland; four of the major states in the Midwest -- Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota; and the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.
Three other states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico -- have gone Democratic in four of the past five presidential contests. And Virginia and Colorado have ceased to be reliably red.
Not only are the 18 hostile terrain for any GOP presidential ticket, Republicans hold only three of their 36 Senate seats and fewer than 1 in 3 of their House seats. "Democrats also control two-thirds of these 18 governorships, every state House chamber, and all but two of the state Senates," writes Brownstein.
In many of the 18, the GOP has ceased to be competitive. In the New England states, for example, there is not a single Republican congressman. In New York, there are only three.
"State by state, election by election," says Brownstein, "Democrats since 1992 have constructed the party's largest and most durable Electoral College base in more than half a century. Call it the blue wall."
While that Democratic base is not yet as decisive as the Nixon-Reagan base in the South, and the Plains and Mountain States, it is becoming so solidified it may block any Republican from regaining the White House, in the absence of a catastrophically failed Democratic president.
What does the Republican base look like?
In the same five presidential contests, from 1992 to 2008, Republicans won 13 states all five times. But the red 13 have but 93 electoral votes, fewer than a third of the number in "the blue wall."
What has been happening to the GOP? Three fatal contractions.
Demographically, the GOP is a party of white Americans, who in 1972 were perhaps 90 percent of the national vote. Nixon and Reagan rolled up almost two-thirds of that vote in 1972 and 1984. But because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population.
The minorities that are growing most rapidly, Hispanics and Asians, cast 60 to 70 percent of their presidential votes for the Democratic Party. Black Americans vote 9-1 for national Democrats. In 2008, they went 30-1.
Put succinctly, the red pool of voters is aging, shrinking and dying, while the blue pool, fed by high immigration and a high birth rate among immigrants, is steadily expanding.
Philosophically, too, the country is turning away from the GOP creed of small government and low taxes. Why?
Nearly 90 percent of immigrants, legal and illegal, are Third World poor or working-class and believe in and rely on government for help with health and housing, education and welfare. Second, tax cuts have dropped nearly 40 percent of wage earners from the tax rolls.
If one pays no federal income tax but reaps a cornucopia of benefits, it makes no sense to vote for the party of less government.
The GOP is overrepresented among the taxpaying class, while the Democratic Party is overrepresented among tax consumers. And the latter are growing at a faster rate than the former.
Lastly, Democrats are capturing a rising share of the young and college-educated, who are emerging from schools and colleges where the values of the counterculture on issues from abortion to same-sex marriage to affirmative action have become the new orthodoxy.
The Republican "lock" on the presidency, crafted by Nixon, and patented by Reagan, has been picked. The only lingering question is whether an era of inexorable Republican decline has set in.
http://recovery.gov/I just looked :-X
Such horrible code :yuck
I like how you can see who made it in the head.
I wouldn't get ahead of ourselves. Could this be the Democrats Reagan revolution? Sure, and it most likely is. But It was only 8 years after the big 49/50 sweep of 1984 that Democrats retook the White House.
I wouldn't get ahead of ourselves. Could this be the Democrats Reagan revolution? Sure, and it most likely is. But It was only 8 years after the big 49/50 sweep of 1984 that Democrats retook the White House.
It is far too soon to tell but Obama could join the ranks of teflon President's where no matter what happens the public still likes him. Like for example if Iran Contra happened to Bush Sr. and not Reagan? I wouldn't have been surprised if Bush Sr. would have ended up impeached, but Reagan was teflon so the public (for the most part) forgave and forgot. Obama may also have that inherent support as well Mr. Cooks.
(http://i39.tinypic.com/scc29v.gif)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbn2ALh-2VASo aliens are liberals?
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2eamk9e.gif)
The republicans aren't stupid. They knew that they fucked up too much and the 2nd half of the Bush administration was just enough time to cut and run off with as much as they could get and let the Democrats dig the country out. All being on the hope that the Dems will screw it up and the country will run back to the republicans begging for their forgiveness after 4 years of downsizing/reality check.
It's as if the GOP heads declared, "Fine middle class, have your king! And you shall live in the filth of your desires." As they raped til inauguration day.
Edit: :hans1
Tax Cuts won't work. House Republicans aren't making arguments against the stimulus in good faith and House Dems should ram it through on a party line vote instead of letting Boehner's idiot brigade anywhere near the bill. If it is too partisan let the senate fix it.I was just surprised at Boehner's audacity. The GOP was spanked last November, and we have newly elected President whose first week poll numbers rival JFK, and yet he still wants to bring up policies that American populace has no appetite for in these turbulent economic times.
Frag/Mandark/etc, do you like the stimulus? Does it seem like there's an excess of stuff that should maybe be in another type of bill? I'm not done going over itLOL @ "I won". I love that.
on tax cuts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?em
But because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population.
So what do you guys think of Bam's stimulus plan? House republican leaders have already expressed their objections, wanting more tax cuts and such. I mean, really.Well, the idea of a "stimulus" is to infuse money into the economy as quickly (and efficiently) as possible. Tax cuts (while not a perfect solution) are the quickest and most effective way to get money back into the hands of working people.
One of the worst things for conservatives is that many of their bread and butter arguments aren't effective anymore, well at least not right now.The scale of everthing is out of wack. The enormity of the bailouts have dwarfed any kind of spending program that the Dems have proposed in recent history. So, its kind of
because of what now?Abortions are disproportionately killing future Republicans.
The stimulus plan does include tax cuts, mostly for the middle class. I'm not against tax cuts as whole; I just feel some GOP leaders can become very myopic on the issue. The Obama adminstration has even talked about temporarily extending the Bush cuts, which disproportionately benefited the top 5 percent earners.
but the GOP openly doesn't give a shit about the middle class
because of what now?Abortions are disproportionately killing future Republicans.
Quotebut the GOP openly doesn't give a shit about the middle class
Republicans hate small business?
Stating the Obvioushttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: that the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.
In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically and judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.
One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse. I think it's possible Obama will get a smattering of moderate Republicans in the senate. But that is Boehner/McConnell approach -- and the one few if any reporters seem to have the wherewithal to say out loud.
--Josh Marshall
In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically and judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.:american
So what do you guys think of Bam's stimulus plan?
if the data from 85 is accurate then abortion is going down?
if the data from 85 is accurate then abortion is going down?
Yea, I don't get into abortion debates. But one of the interesting facts is that the rate of abortion is trending downwards overall.
well i went looking just to see if there were more abortions in "white" areas but that didn't seem to be the case
Politico is reporting the house GOP is set to walk away from the negotiating table.They should lock the door after they leave.
They're walking away? Fine, do the stimulus correctly then. Obama took out the family planning money for them, he took their ideas on tax cuts, etc yet they refuse to cooperate.
They're walking away? Fine, do the stimulus correctly then. Obama took out the family planning money for them, he took their ideas on tax cuts, etc yet they refuse to cooperate.He is not doing enough to help the wealthy.
So what do you guys think of Bam's stimulus plan?
Its a complete joke and could quite possibly seal his fate as a one-termer. But, its also a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
I understand that he has to make it as pretty as possible to sell it, but the idea that it will create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010 is absolutely lolz-worthy. I've done a lot of research on this. Many economists feel we may very well be on the verge of a Japan 90s-style economy for years to come. We'll probably begin to come out of this by the end of the year or early next year, but growth will be so weak it will still feel like a recession. And remember, job growth is always a lagging indicator. It took about two years after each of the last two recessions to finally see job growth (not to mention the economy has to average ~125k new jobs per month to keep up with population growth). Those recessions were very mild compared to this one. Even Obama's own rosey-colored report shows the unemployment rate higher in 2012 than right now. There's just too much debt in the system for things to recover so quickly (~350% of GDP). Another wave of subprime mortgage resets just as potent as the one going on now will hit next year and go through 2011. Taxes will have to go up to pay for the deficits and the much higher carrying costs. People expecting a return to anything remotely resembling a 97-07 type economy are delusional.
For the REPs, I suspect the vote on this bill could be the REP version of the DEM Iraq War vote in coming elections.
Obama to GOP: "Feel Free to Whack Me Over the Head"
QuoteIn the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically and judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.:american
I guess I can remove my tinfoil hat now.
You cannot fix a problem of debt and over leverage with more debt and more leverage.
It's really sad that the republicans are so hung up on this "refundability" for those who don't pay income tax.
I'd like to hear OTHER options...
I like how now that Bush is out of office, the Republicans are apparently the party of fiscal responsibility again. LOL.
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
QuoteWe've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
this is what you're outraged over?
QuoteWe've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
this is what you're outraged over?
Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?They've always had conservative columnists, but its only been lately they've had brazenly stupid conservative columnists.
Because, you know, there certainly won't be an unemployment benefits rush this year. And really, everyone knows that food stamp enrollment and medicaid serve no purpose in what looks to be a giant recession, right? Right?I'm convinced that there's a core Republican belief that its okay to let people starve to death as long as they're poor.
So the WSJ is pissed off that the bill is preparing for inevitable things? Republicans would rather have unemployment flopza first and then have the government move incredibly slowly for a month to fix it, maybe?
There's undeniably lots of wasteful shit in that bill, but I can't help but chuckle that conservatives are finally concerned about wasteful spending again
The strawmen are strong in this thread.
The strawmen are strong in this thread.
It's not like they are throwing money at the bridge to nowhere.
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?The WSJ opinion page has always been like that.
The actual spending part:I don't think you understand what the point of the stimulus bill is if you think all the other money other than that is wasted. lawblob worded if very well here:
2009: 29.0
2010: 115.8
2011: 105.5
2012: 53.6
2013: 26.5
2014: 13.0
2015: 6.9
2016: 3.0
2017: 1.6
2018: 0.9
2019: 0.4
Total: $356.0 billion
That comes out to ~.9% of GDP for the first two years.
Doesn't that depend on a definitional understanding of "stimulus?" Many economists are now saying we will have increasing unemployment until possibly 2011. In that sense, it is unrealistic to think that all Federal money directed at jump-starting the economy literally has to be spent on immediately realized projects. There are only so many people you can manufacture jobs for, and there is only so much good that tax cuts will do. If we are entering a massive, multi-year recession, some of the money will inevitably need to be put into projects that take years to return via increased economic output.
The strawmen are strong in this thread.
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?They've always had conservative columnists, but its only been lately they've had brazenly stupid conservative columnists.Because, you know, there certainly won't be an unemployment benefits rush this year. And really, everyone knows that food stamp enrollment and medicaid serve no purpose in what looks to be a giant recession, right? Right?I'm convinced that there's a core Republican belief that its okay to let people starve to death as long as they're poor.
So the WSJ is pissed off that the bill is preparing for inevitable things? Republicans would rather have unemployment flopza first and then have the government move incredibly slowly for a month to fix it, maybe?
President Obama will host a cocktail reception for Congressional leaders tonight at the White House, the New York Times reports.http://politicalwire.com/
"The bipartisan affair is set to come shortly after the House considers the president's economic stimulus bill. The roll call vote could make for some interesting conversation, particularly if the bulk of Republicans oppose the proposal as planned."
Also, I'll go on record as saying this thing's been too rushed and that I question the impact it will have. The only reason to rush such a bill would be because it is needed immediately, and since the bill spends so many resources on the future, it probably didn't need to be rushed. They could have split this up into two packages, which probably would have helped it seem more promising. They could have spent a half year putting together a decent package for the next two years, and focused the brain power spent on this over the past two months on some sort of immediate stimulus.
I just question such immediate action when it appears so scattershot.
Don't worry. This won't be the last stimulus bill that gets passed.
Also, I'll go on record as saying this thing's been too rushed and that I question the impact it will have.
Watch Roubini's interview on the previous page.
I'll second the notion that Obama is doing a good job. At least he is actually willing to listen to the other side.
Not sure if there will actually be a second "stimulus", but there's gonna be a ton more TARP-like bills. Keep in mind that there's ~$1.8 trillion in toxic assets remaining on bank balance sheets. The credit card companies are saying they expect to see write-offs peak at 13%. That equates to something like $1 trillion in losses. And there's the second wave of the subprime mortgages on the horizon (not sure if they figure into the previously mentioned toxic assets).
I'm sure I'm missing some more. But, add all that to the trillion dollar deficits they expect over the next several years, the increase in carrying costs, and the exponential increase in entitlement costs and you have to start questioning the solvency of the United States.
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?
And PD. He posted the article on gaf and talked about much it made him dislike the stimulus bill now lolman was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?
Takes someone as dumb as sd to take them seriously, which is unfortunately a pretty big market. I give him a week before he starts c/ping urls from renewamerica.
Hey dude can I get on your good side?
:lol I actually was pretty pissed PD posted that and started criticizing the bill cause he read that though. PD that article was a joke, don't buy what you read in it. ugh. I have my doubts it will save the economy but the bill needs to be passed none the less.
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?
The WSJ has good business/economic reporting but their editorial page has always been insane.
Takes someone as dumb as sd to take them seriously, which is unfortunately a pretty big market. I give him a week before he starts c/ping urls from renewamerica.
:lol I actually was pretty pissed PD posted that and started criticizing the bill cause he read that though. PD that article was a joke, don't buy what you read in it. ugh. I have my doubts it will save the economy but the bill needs to be passed none the less.
I fucking hope the economy rebounds, even just a little by 2012 just so Republicans will look even more foolish than they did today.
I fucking hope the economy rebounds, even just a little by 2012 just so Republicans will look even more foolish than they did today.This reminds me of how all the repubs wanted WMD's.
I fucking hope the economy rebounds, even just a little by 2012 just so Republicans will look even more foolish than they did today.This reminds me of how all the repubs wanted WMD's.
Dude I thought you were joining an accounting firm, you have nothing to worry about. Plus your dad is opening doors for you? smhMy major is both IT and Accounting and I have quickly grown to hate accounting over the past year. My dad ain't opening doors. His company he is a CIO at is doing pretty shitty.
IT? Ah didn't know that. Accounting isn't kicking my ass but it's boring me to sleep; I feel like switching, but at the same time if I finish/get my degree I'll have a job out the gate. Then I can do what I want to do (mba, maybe law school)Yeah. AIS the Accounting/Information Systems major. How many accounting classes have you taken? All you seem to take is endless African American studies classes .
I took like three! I'd go crazy if all I did was take business classesWhy the hell would you take 3 african american studies classes. It isn't even a requirement! :lol You should have taken some politics classes.
I've taken like 6-7 accounting class. I only need a few more but jeez...
no offence, man, but the classes you're taking are good for nothing.
i was honestly laughing when you posted what classes you were taking. smh
You're spending thousands of dollars on music business? smh, I bet most music industry agents have no education in that field.
Wanting for a country to have a stockpile of weapons is a bit different than wanting an economy to prosper and people to get jobs, even with political motivation for both.If the repubs were successful in blocking this, then there could be more time spent planning it through and cutting out the pork but it would still allow most of the politicians to save face. If something this controversial gets passed and it doesn't have a large tangible effect in 4 years, or even 2 years, then the democratic congress is screwed. We realistically might start to come out of the recession by the next presidential primaries.
English majors go anywhere they want. I know a friend who was an English major and joined the wall street blitz a few years ago. But now the recruiters are being stingy. Still, you can do a lot. As long as you vary your courseload I guess.
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?
man was the WSJ always like this or have they just gone coco for coocoo puffs since murdoch happened?
Fill me in -- what's this about Rupert?
So the Republicans are basically a joke party at this point.
Former President Jimmy Carter has long been kept on the margins of his party both for the bad memories of his 1980 defeat, and for his increasingly sharp attacks on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and calls to open talks with Hamas.http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Carter_praises_Mitchell_pick_.html?showall
Carter today lavished praise on President Obama's choice of Middle East envoy in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and said he'd talked at length with Obama earlier this month about the Middle East, though he gave no indication Obama agreed with his view of the region.
Obama " has taken a strong role already in pursuing peace in the Middle East. And he's -- and he's chosen George Mitchell, the best American alive to undertake this responsibility, to be his representative in -- his envoy to the Mideast. That's a major change," Carter said.
"I have total confidence in him," Carter said of Mitchell.
"What about Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state?" Blitzer asked.
"I think she'll comply with the policies established by the president. As will George Mitchell," Carter replied.
Carter also said he "spent a long time with President Obama" the evening before the five living presidents met at the White House January 7.
As Rosalynn Carter and David Axelrod took notes, they talked policy, he said.
"I would say he was most interested in the Middle East because I had been to that region twice in the previous year and had met with some people that others usually don’t meet with as you probably know, Carter said.
Did anyone think of a possible Supersupermajority in the senate? Imagine this.
2010 - Economy is significantly better, Obama and Democrats thanked for saving it by the public, 5 senate seats gained.
2012 - Economy is much better, Al Queda is devastated thanks to effective operations in Afghanistan, overall Obama is very popular. Obama wins reelection by a Reagan 1984 landslide thanks to massive popularity. Helping this is the weak Republican ticket of Sarah Palin & Newt Gingrich. 7 senate seats gained thanks to Obama coattails.
2014 - Country still going strong. 3 senate seats gained.
2016 - Hillary loses nomination to Evan Bayh, who later picks her as VP. Coming off of the strong popularity of the Obama presidency, the Bayh/Clinton ticket wins in a 430-100 landslide. 4 senate seats gained.
That would be a 78 seat Democratic majority incredibly unlikely but fun to think about.
But what if then...
2018 - Thanks to a recession, no campaign promises fulfilled and an unpopular war over in Africa, the midterms are a slaughter, with 10 senate seats lost.
2020 - President Bayh is incredibly unpopular thanks to a 2019 sex scandal involving on him cheating with a 19 year old intern. Although Kathleen Sebelius makes a very strong primary challenge, Bayh kept the nomination. With the war still active, a botched handling of the recent San Francisco earthquake and the divorce of President Bayh, the Democrats due horribly, with 13 senate seats lost, and the Presidency being lost as well to a charismatic young hispanic who was governor of Texas...
Almost entirely erasing the majority
All I see is bitching about the source. Anyone has any counterpoints from the usual suspects then post them. Most of us here are all ears.
And what's Renew America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_-QRKyu6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_-QRKyu6g
That's what got Lincoln and JFK killed smh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_-QRKyu6g
What do those three editorials by obviously biased people have to do with an editorial by the paper itself using hard numbers from the bill? Point out where its wrong. I already stated I'm open to other interpretations.
What do those three editorials by obviously biased people have to do with an editorial by the paper itself using hard numbers from the bill? Point out where its wrong. I already stated I'm open to other interpretations.
Quick question, guys. At least for those living in Cali, is it looking likely that financial aid for us college students is gonna be drastically reduced? What's the word on the internets?well I know that most schools are coping with their budget cuts by accepting less students this fall. I don't know what they plan to do to financial aid though.
Can I pat myself on the back if I'm open to all viewpoints?
Lots of words and barely any point. The article showed the enormous wastes in the bill in the name of STIMULUS and that most of the waste is going to DEM constituencies - not that it would hurt the economy (wtf?). Virtually none of it is aimed directly at creating jobs in the short term. Almost all of the spending part could be siphoned off onto other bills. Want to debate more money going into education? That's fine. But, it doesn't belong in this stimulus bill. Want to debate more money going to Medicare and unemployment. Again, that's fine. But, it doesn't belong in this stimulus bill.
that shit is woman's work. and everyone knows women don't have real jobs, by definition.
that shit is woman's work. and everyone knows women don't have real jobs, by definition.
Why should education be off limits in a stimulus bill, but not road-building? They both require hiring people. Both are typically funded through their own separate bills. What's the distinction? What's your logic?
jeez Mandark, slow down son. I'm sure SD is just taking a break
A tangent, but since it's related to the economic collapse, I think it will fit in here:
Because of all the doom and gloom (actual doom and gloom, mind you), people have not been spending money out in the market, and a significant portion of that money not going into the market is likely going into savings accounts (or to pay off debt). This kind of illustrates a critical flaw of the sort of economy the US and much of the world has fostered. If there is collective good and wise group behavior (saving money/managing money responsibly), there is collective group punishment via the market disturbances that will happen as a result of unspent cash. US-like economies thrive off of bad, unwise behavior. That is completely irrational, and not only does it make me wonder if this ship is worth saving, but if it can be saved at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od8bcCvX3jU
Interesting, if only to see what Obama would look like with a high top fade
Seems like a few the tin foil people are still struggling to label Obama.
The auto industry is proposing that the government give a 4500 dollar tax credit for people buying new cars (as long as the new cars have a better mpg than your previous).One that clearly wont be abused by anyone at all.
Self-serving obviously, but not a terrible idea.
(http://images.craigslist.org/3n43p23lcZZZZZZZZZ91u88f656e6bf721da7.jpg)
lawl
How is his life shitty?
Fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.
LOL @ Keeping my freedom. Do these guys know about the Patriot Act that was sponsored by the previous administration. Also do they not know that the Stimulus package includes tax cuts for people most likely in that driver's tax bracket.
*sighs*
bu bu bu the rich will move to other countries with less taxes and create thar jobs thar!
So in 2012 when these people still have their guns, "freedom", and money (unless they're rich or are heavily invested in shit companies) what will they say?
the car tax credit is unimaginably stupid. will it be used to buy american cars? probably not. on top of that, where would the unemployed or poor get the additional money to buy a new car ($4500 is less than half of even a shitty new car) -- or is this just for the still-employed middle-class, who can probably afford a new car sans credit, but are wisely abstaining? republicans are the dumbest motherfuckers out there.
START TAXING THE FUCK OUT OF THE RICH, AND START SPENDING THOSE TAXES ON JOB CREATION. NOW. 70%. BRING IT BACK.
So in 2012 when these people still have their guns, "freedom", and money (unless they're rich or are heavily invested in shit companies) what will they say?
QuoteSTART TAXING THE FUCK OUT OF THE RICH, AND START SPENDING THOSE TAXES ON JOB CREATION. NOW. 70%. BRING IT BACK.
Yes, look how well it worked for Jimmy Carter.
Who needs manufacturing anyways? Let's have an entire economy based on landscaping, massage therapy and wiping the asses of the elderly.
You better inform Ya Boy Obama that unions are a waste. He seems to believe they are the backbone of the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ref=opinion
enjoy! given that carter presided over better growth than reagan, and had to deal with the massive effect of stagflation in the 70's, well, LOL JIMMY CARTER doesn't even cut it as convenient republican cant these days.
are you rich, ta?
what is it with posturing libertarians and their straw men?
Plus Steele is just incredibly dishonest and intellectually disingenuous. My primary exposure to him is with his GOPAC garbage and his appearance on Bill Maher when he shit all over himself.
WASHINGTON -- Two congressmen want Citigroup out of Citi Field.
Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe sent a letter to new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday, urging the government to demand that the company drop its $400 million, 20-year agreement for naming rights to the New York Mets' ballpark. The stadium opens in April.
McCain is saying he doesn't see any REP votes for the stimulus bill in the senate.
Plus Steele is just incredibly dishonest and intellectually disingenuous. My primary exposure to him is with his GOPAC garbage and his appearance on Bill Maher when he shit all over himself.
Dear Mr. President, A Bonus Isn't A Bonus
Posted By: Cliff Mason
A bonus by any other name would smell just as sweet.
The fury over the fact that Wall Street paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses in 2008, the "sixth largest" amount in history, is about words and nothing else.
This isn't a compensation issue, it's a diction issue.
Outside of lower Manhattan, a "bonus" is a special, one-off reward for performance above and beyond what's expected of an employee. And if investment bankers had gotten $18.4 billion worth of bonuses in that traditional sense of the word, then of course it would be truly outrageous.
But on Wall Street, and at many law firms as well, a bonus is simply part, often the greater part, of your regular compensation. It may vary from year to year, but when you take one of these jobs, the understanding is that you'll be paid a base-salary and once a year you'll also get a "bonus."
The bonus varies in size from year to year, but it's not actually a "bonus" in the way most people think of the word. It's an expected part of your salary, delivered in a lump- sum near Christmastime. Historically, for many people on Wall Street, the base salary is much less than they could be earning elsewhere, but because they know they're getting a sizable "bonus," it makes sense for them to stay at their jobs.
So a bonus isn't a bonus.
But since the vast majority of people don't know that, the public gets angry. And when the public gets angry, Democratic politicians who probably know better have to demagogue the issue. That's how you get the President saying, "there will be a time for profits and bonuses. Now is not that time."
I don't think this is class-warfare, although I wouldn't mind some of that, it's a simple misunderstanding. Obama wouldn't say, "now is not the time for paychecks." But that's essentially what a bonus is on Wall Street, just an expected part of your compensation. This is not crooked, greedy CEOs lining their wallets, although I won't deny that plenty of that happens.
The screwed up thing is that it's clear Obama wants to help these bankers, or at least keep their companies alive. But, as I see it, they're making it as hard on him as they possibly can from a PR standpoint, which is all that matters in politics.
We can't create a "bad bank" to relieve troubled financial institutions of their depressed assets if they're paying out $18.4 billion in "bonuses." It just looks terrible. So here's my advice to Wall Street: help us help you.
Stop paying bonuses.
Call them something else.
Think of something boring like "annual performance-adjusted block compensation."
I know "bonus" sounds sexy, but that's precisely what's wrong with the term.
A little verbal magic and this whole problem goes away.
McCain is saying he doesn't see any REP votes for the stimulus bill in the senate.Does it matter? They are on the verge of losing their filibuster power anyway (politico says those close to gregg say he'll accept if obama asks him, no way obama will pass this up).
According to First Read, the possible nomination of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as President Obama's secretary of commerce is "very real."http://politicalwire.com/
"Senate Republicans are upset that he hasn't put the story to bed. So clearly he's pondering. One sticking point is that New Hampshire has a Dem governor, John Lynch, and that could give Democrats 60 seats if Gregg leaves and Al Franken eventually wins. One idea floating out there is a deal between Obama/Gregg and Lynch to appoint a caretaker Republican (perhaps ex-Sen. Warren Rudman?). Even if he doesn't take the job, Gregg is certainly sending the signal that he doesn't want to run in 2010. That is a terrible sign for the Senate GOP. Another retirement makes the idea of netting a single seat in 2010 nearly impossible. This likely outcome in 2010 actually could mean Lynch and Obama are open to a deal that keeps a Republican in the seat until November 2010, since getting that 60th senate seat in the coming years seems probable."
CQ Politics quotes Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) saying the appointment would be "a pretty sneaky, sneaky move to get a really good person as Commerce secretary and put us in a bind politically."
Quotewhat is it with posturing libertarians and their straw men?
This is a great help to my Liberal Argument Bingo Card. I am just a "cognitive dissonance" and a bar graph away from calling Bingo.
Obama considering deal that would turn down 60 seat possibility?
Joe Biden used to be big on war on drugs shit, right? We aren't getting legal weed anytime soon.Obama won't legalize it regardless of Biden.
Joe Biden used to be big on war on drugs shit, right? We aren't getting legal weed anytime soon.Obama won't legalize it regardless of Biden.
I don't get why people think just because Obama used weed for years and years and did coke back in high school/college that he'll unban that stuff. He is still a politician and doing something like that is political suicide.
Obama is a pretty clean guy now anyway. Stopped doing drugs when he was in his late 20's. He quit smoking. And he says he has quit drinking alcohol as well.
I just don't want to be looked down upon and want to buy marijuana from a store. Plus drug testing for marijuana is ridiculous. That should not exist. Anything harder I agree but not Marijuana.
I just don't want to be looked down upon and want to buy marijuana from a store. Plus drug testing for marijuana is ridiculous. That should not exist. Anything harder I agree but not Marijuana.
Why not?
why does the whitehouse website feature a photo of Obama watching himself on TV?
Not saying this as my opinion but just to get discussion rolling, what if someone were to light up right before going to work, with a particularly strong type of pot? I mean, wouldn't that affect that person's work efficiency?
Just a theoretical.
Would you drink a shot vodka right before going to work? This is common sense. Use it.
Not saying this as my opinion but just to get discussion rolling, what if someone were to light up right before going to work, with a particularly strong type of pot? I mean, wouldn't that affect that person's work efficiency?
Just a theoretical.
He kind of went too far with the Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) act but in general, he mainly seems to be opposed to pills, steroids, and date-rape drugs. I honestly can't see him crusading against weed.
Highly skilled jobs where machinery is involved yes, but any other place it'd be no different than getting relief form a cigarette. They might actually do better work.
Highly skilled jobs where machinery is involved yes, but any other place it'd be no different than getting relief form a cigarette. They might actually do better work.
Peoples brain chemistry are not the same. Some people get panic attacks when they smoke weed, some people get drowsy, some get addicted. Some people are too stupid to realize when the drug is having a negative effect on their lives.
I'm for it for legit medicinal reasons. It should be a state issue, not a federal one.
Highly skilled jobs where machinery is involved yes, but any other place it'd be no different than getting relief form a cigarette. They might actually do better work.
Peoples brain chemistry are not the same. Some people get panic attacks when they smoke weed, some people get drowsy, some get addicted. Some people are too stupid to realize when the drug is having a negative effect on their lives.
I'm for it for legit medicinal reasons. It should be a state issue, not a federal one.
All forms?
All forms?
yes. But if you mean directly then no.
anyways the argument is weak because they don't kill more people because they are more harmful, they kill more people because they are legal so more people do them.
All forms?
No substance should be illegal unless you think that governments role is to take care of you. Afterall the only people dumb enough to use hard drugs deserve whatever comes their way.
I don't know, just seems odd to have shit like meth or acid legal. Marijuana's one thing (that I'm completely okay with), but meth?
Obama half-brother on drug charge
George Obama is the President's younger half-brother
The Kenyan half-brother of President Barack Obama has been arrested for alleged marijuana possession.
George Obama was arrested in Nairobi with one joint of marijuana, police chief Joshua Omokulongolo said.
"He is not a drug peddler. But it is illegal, it is a banned substance," he said. Mr Obama has denied the allegations.
The US president and George Obama share the same father, but are thought to have only met each other briefly.
George Obama, who is in his 20s, is due in court on Monday.
"They took me from my home," George Obama told reporters in Nairobi from his jail cell. " I don't know why they are charging me."
I don't know, just seems odd to have shit like meth or acid legal. Marijuana's one thing (that I'm completely okay with), but meth?
If meth and acid were legel would you do them?
I think the effects of alcohol are pretty different from the effects of meth. You ever compare the addicts of both drugs? Who would you rather have walking around?
Meh, I don't know. I just don't like the idea of there being a legal way of becoming a meth head.
edit: Heh, I've been offered but I just don't really care to.
No substance should be illegal unless you think that governments role is to take care of you. Afterall the only people dumb enough to use hard drugs deserve whatever comes their way.That's a really childish way of looking at it. A drug addict doesn't just hurt themselves. Especially if they turn to crime to pay for their drugs.
New I thought you want to become a musician or atleast work with them? com'on all the cool kids are doing it.
That it is not. Music is ten times better on drugs.
Especially harmless marihuana. It literally sounds like the music is three-dimensional. It's so fucking trippy.
I listened to Casey Jones once and I swore Jerry Garcia was playing in my ear.
there is no such thing as "harmless marijuana"
horrible horrible shit
uh, it just fucking is. you probably havent done enough to get to that point yet. it makes you super self aware and anxious
bobobobobo when jimmy carter taxed the rich we went into a recession! yet when we taxed the rich under eisenhower the economy improved! who to believe!
correlation != causation, simps
I think the effects of alcohol are pretty different from the effects of meth. You ever compare the addicts of both drugs? Who would you rather have walking around?
Meh, I don't know. I just don't like the idea of there being a legal way of becoming a meth head.
edit: Heh, I've been offered but I just don't really care to.
Why do you care so much? I enjoy music just as much as anyone else I know, and that's including my friends who smoke and take acid. In fact, a lot of them look to me for new music and what I think of so-and-so. I enjoy music more than anything in my life, and I'm completely okay with how I listen to it.
Why do you care so much? I enjoy music just as much as anyone else I know, and that's including my friends who smoke and take acid. In fact, a lot of them look to me for new music and what I think of so-and-so. I enjoy music more than anything in my life, and I'm completely okay with how I listen to it.
Why do you care so much? I enjoy music just as much as anyone else I know, and that's including my friends who smoke and take acid. In fact, a lot of them look to me for new music and what I think of so-and-so. I enjoy music more than anything in my life, and I'm completely okay with how I listen to it.
Why do you care so much? I enjoy music just as much as anyone else I know, and that's including my friends who smoke and take acid. In fact, a lot of them look to me for new music and what I think of so-and-so. I enjoy music more than anything in my life, and I'm completely okay with how I listen to it.
Yeah but you don't experience music. That's why Hendrix wrote a song about it. You listen to music, we experience it.
Animal Collective becomes a totally different beast under marihuana
bastards :/Animal Collective becomes a totally different beast under marihuana
Really, why even bother listening to a psychedelic band if there are no drugs involved? It's as pointless as having sex while wearing a condom.
Animal Collective becomes a totally different beast under marihuana
Asking someone to do drugs just so they could appreciate music more is stupid.
Why is everyone all over BrandNew's shit? It's his life.
.Why is everyone all over BrandNew's shit? It's his life.
Because he'd be a better person on drugs.
I actually just shit in a toilet and leave it at that.
So you're getting started on this a little too late, so I'd just skip the weed and kiddie shit and jump right into pain killers.
This is the best thread ever. On weed.
/me reads the last two pages.
Music sounds best when I'm lying motionless with my eyes closed in a semi-meditative state.
That or on the floor in the fetal position, drunk and crying.
Though when drunk and crying I usually scream, which destroys the music somewhat.
music sounds the best on adderall - fact
its especially dangerous mixed w/ online downloading, youll look at the shit you downloaded the next day and be like wtf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neLKgSdrch8
:rock
Newt Gingrich said he sees "an open Republican field" for the 2012 Republican presidential race, The Hill reports. But he made special mention of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R).http://politicalwire.com/
Said Gingrich: "If Sarah Palin seeks out a group of very sophisticated policy advisers and develops a fairly sophisticated platform, she will be very formidable."
According to The Hotline, he says Palin would have a "substantial advantage" in Iowa, the first-in-the nation caucus state, where she has "a very big base."
Just after the presidential election, Gingrich downplayed Palin's strength in the Republican party.
The last thing we need, more pigs.
Newt can't run. Too much dirt. We've been over this.
McConnell also said Republicans favor cutting the two lowest tax brackets as a way to " put money back in people's hands directly." If adopted, that would reduce the tax rate from 10 percent to 5 percent for the first $8,350 in individual income for the current year, and $16,700 for couples. The tax rate would be lowered from 15 percent to 10 percent on income between $8,351 and $33,950 for individuals and between $16,701 and $67,900 for couples.
Separately, Republican officials said they intended to press for a $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers through the end of the year. Current law permits a $7,500 tax break and limits it to first-time homebuyers.
Those seem like solid ideas to me. Add those and cut out some of that pork, and you have a stimulus bill.It isn't that simple as "cut some of that pork" Republicans and Democrats don't agree on what pork is. At least in terms of this bill.
Republicans float out some of their ideas.QuoteMcConnell also said Republicans favor cutting the two lowest tax brackets as a way to " put money back in people's hands directly." If adopted, that would reduce the tax rate from 10 percent to 5 percent for the first $8,350 in individual income for the current year, and $16,700 for couples. The tax rate would be lowered from 15 percent to 10 percent on income between $8,351 and $33,950 for individuals and between $16,701 and $67,900 for couples.
bububu they hate poor people!!QuoteSeparately, Republican officials said they intended to press for a $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers through the end of the year. Current law permits a $7,500 tax break and limits it to first-time homebuyers.
Those seem like solid ideas to me. Add those and cut out some of that pork, and you have a stimulus bill.
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."
Another day...another Obama tax cheat nominee:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/another-tax-pro.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/another-tax-pro.html)
Another day...another Obama tax cheat nominee:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/another-tax-pro.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/another-tax-pro.html)
Wow. I wonder if huffington post is reporting all of this.
Daschle's shady. Hopefully he doesn't make it (though I'm sure he'd have a soft landing anyway :-\).He was not only a senator but senate majority leader so he is buddy buddy with everyone in the senate and thus able to personally persuade anyone who may vote against him. I bet he'll get more than 60 votes in the end.
I don't doubt it. He's pals with Bob Dole too. I'm just hoping.Daschle's shady. Hopefully he doesn't make it (though I'm sure he'd have a soft landing anyway :-\).He was not only a senator but senate majority leader so he is buddy buddy with everyone in the senate and thus able to personally persuade anyone who may vote against him. I bet he'll get more than 60 votes in the end.
Saw this on GAF, I am really glad that Obama refuses to listen to Petraeus. Although it seems to be getting the military angry.How is this in any way a good thing? He's not listening to the person most qualified to tell him what to do with Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq was just PR bullshit and Obama's hoping that Iraq doesn't shit itself in less than 4 years.
Saw this on GAF, I am really glad that Obama refuses to listen to Petraeus. Although it seems to be getting the military angry.How is this in any way a good thing? He's not listening to the person most qualified to tell him what to do with Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq was just PR bullshit and Obama's hoping that Iraq doesn't shit itself in less than 4 years.
Oh come on, Petraeus should have some say in when the pull out happens. Obama just disregarding any legitimate security concerns that he has is idiotic. What Obama should have done is at least compromised and pushed it up a few months so that Petraeus can feel that Obama is somewhat reasonable. The only reason for a 16 month plan is to get the troops back by Independance Day 2011 so that Obama can get a PR boost. Keeping to this schedule doesn't help Obama's relationship with the military, Iraq's security, and it especially won't help America's image if another dictator takes over.
You act like he made that decision on a whim and ignored everyone. He came up with that plan based on the advice and counsel of military experts (who I'd imagine know a hell lot more than you or I on this).
Just because the Petreus and his loyalists disagree don't make him right. Obama has plenty of military advisors who agree with him and helped craft the 16 month plan.
so he should take a risk with Iraq and hurt his relationship with the military so that he can be an honest guy?
You act like he made that decision on a whim and ignored everyone. He came up with that plan based on the advice and counsel of military experts (who I'd imagine know a hell lot more than you or I on this).
Just because the Petreus and his loyalists disagree don't make him right. Obama has plenty of military advisors who agree with him and helped craft the 16 month plan.
No, I can see Obama's justification for the 16 month timeline. He obviously has a political motivation but the problem is that Petraeus isn't comfortable at all with it and Obama, for PR reasons if any, can't extend the timeline even a few months. This is totally justified behavior for Obama since he is not a messiah that's going to end racism or corruption. He's a diplomat.
What I can't understand is why anybody would cheer this. If the president has a bad relationship with the military, that won't help the country at all.
You clearly did not get my reference.Which partly is why the Bay of Pigs failed and possibly even why Johnson started the Vietnam War. You want to half-ass a military operation for political interests and you'll end up in deep shit.
Kennedy had a "bad relationship" with the military too. It didn't harm the country one bit. And in fact, probably was a good thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
You clearly did not get my reference.Which partly is why the Bay of Pigs failed and possibly even why Johnson started the Vietnam War. You want to half-ass a military operation for political interests and you'll end up in deep shit.
Kennedy had a "bad relationship" with the military too. It didn't harm the country one bit. And in fact, probably was a good thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
You clearly did not get my reference.Which partly is why the Bay of Pigs failed
Kennedy had a "bad relationship" with the military too. It didn't harm the country one bit. And in fact, probably was a good thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
and possibly even why Johnson started the Vietnam War.
And we know how that turned outNo, I can see Obama's justification for the 16 month timeline. He obviously has a political motivation but the problem is that Petraeus isn't comfortable at all with it and Obama, for PR reasons if any, can't extend the timeline even a few months. This is totally justified behavior for Obama since he is not a messiah that's going to end racism or corruption. He's a diplomat.
What I can't understand is why anybody would cheer this. If the president has a bad relationship with the military, that won't help the country at all.
You clearly did not get my reference.
Kennedy had a "bad relationship" with the military too. It didn't harm the country one bit. And in fact, probably was a good thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And we know how that turned outNo, I can see Obama's justification for the 16 month timeline. He obviously has a political motivation but the problem is that Petraeus isn't comfortable at all with it and Obama, for PR reasons if any, can't extend the timeline even a few months. This is totally justified behavior for Obama since he is not a messiah that's going to end racism or corruption. He's a diplomat.
What I can't understand is why anybody would cheer this. If the president has a bad relationship with the military, that won't help the country at all.
You clearly did not get my reference.
Kennedy had a "bad relationship" with the military too. It didn't harm the country one bit. And in fact, probably was a good thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is expected to name Republican Senator Judd Gregg as commerce secretary.
Mr Gregg would be the third Republican in Mr Obama's cabinet.
The president's first choice for the post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, withdrew following questions about his links to big business.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is expected to name Republican Senator Judd Gregg as commerce secretary.
Mr Gregg would be the third Republican in Mr Obama's cabinet.
The president's first choice for the post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, withdrew following questions about his links to big business.
I love that there were concerns about Bill Richardson's big business connections, but we have rarely heard a peep about Cheney's no-bid contract awards to Halliburton, where he had been CEO until 2000, right up until taking the office of VPOTUS. The irony. I am choking on it.
am nintenho, you know that Iraq signed a security agreement last year prescribing that American troops be out in 2011 right?What does that have to do with what I said? My problem is with Obama sticking to the 16 month timeline.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?hp
I don't think it should be up to to the military to dictate policy in the least anyway, but this is something the US is obligated to do already.
No.There is no way that the BoP would have been successful without air support. The only realistic options would have been to either allow the air support, or not allow the operation at all. Going ahead with it was suicide.
The Bay of Pigs was a CIA fuckup. It only has to do with a "bad relationship with the military" if you believe Kennedy should have ceded to military pressure to commence airstrikes on Cuba.Quoteand possibly even why Johnson started the Vietnam War.wtf?
Oh come on, Petraeus should have some say in when the pull out happens. Obama just disregarding any legitimate security concerns that he has is idiotic. What Obama should have done is at least compromised and pushed it up a few months so that Petraeus can feel that Obama is somewhat reasonable. The only reason for a 16 month plan is to get the troops back by Independance Day 2011 so that Obama can get a PR boost. Keeping to this schedule doesn't help Obama's relationship with the military, Iraq's security, and it especially won't help America's image if another dictator takes over.
I'm sure that Patraeus has gained more knowledge of actually keeping Iraq secure than any politician. He's not the only expert, but he's the guy in charge. If anything, Obama's actions just undermine Patraeus' authority and makes Iraqis even less impressed with the US and the other security forces in the country after Saddam.
No, seeing the guy who was in charge of Iraq's security get ignored completely reflects badly on the US.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.
In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration’s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.
And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans — and, he charged, many members of Obama’s own team — understand.
“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.
Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”
Citing intelligence reports :teehee, Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration — “that’s about 11 or 12 percent” — have “gone back into the business of being terrorists.”
The choice, he alleged, reflects a naive mindset among the new team in Washington: “The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.”http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html
I'm sure that Patraeus has gained more knowledge of actually keeping Iraq secure than any politician. He's not the only expert, but he's the guy in charge. If anything, Obama's actions just undermine Patraeus' authority and makes Iraqis even less impressed with the US and the other security forces in the country after Saddam.
The stimulus bill is turning into a Grade A disaster for Obama and the DEMs. Durbin says there's not enough votes to get it through the Senate. Rasmussen polling shows a plurality now oppose it. And at least one Blue Dog is saying Obama told him to vote against it**.
QuoteProtecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”
FWD: FWD: FWD: 0. Hussein Soetoro Marxbama a MUSLIM!?!??! READ!
the milquetoast Wall Street captive
Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration — “that’s about 11 or 12 percent” — have “gone back into the business of being terrorists.”Oh well in that case, we should keep them all locked up forever, just to be on the safe side.
wait
how can they "return" to being terrorists if they were released for being found not terrorists
then again, being wrongly imprisoned for years may just create a few terrorists
Yeah, let's just do nothing, that'll fix it.
cdo? collaboration data objects? collateralized debt obligations? link, tardo!
When John McCain suspended his campaign on Wednesday and asked for a postponement of tonight’s debate, Barack Obama’s initial reaction was to hurl an insult, saying that he could handle the Wall Street bailout negotiations and debate at the same time. It was a foreshadowing of the juvenile, petty, and petulant candidate that would show up in Oxford, Mississippi tonight. McCain won this debate on points. But critically, he also won on temperament and likeability, allegedly Obama’s strong points. McCain got under Obama’s skin, and it showed.
Oh lawdy, bringing up a Redstate diarist (http://www.redstate.com/mark_i/)?Quote from: Mark ImpomeniWhen John McCain suspended his campaign on Wednesday and asked for a postponement of tonight’s debate, Barack Obama’s initial reaction was to hurl an insult, saying that he could handle the Wall Street bailout negotiations and debate at the same time. It was a foreshadowing of the juvenile, petty, and petulant candidate that would show up in Oxford, Mississippi tonight. McCain won this debate on points. But critically, he also won on temperament and likeability, allegedly Obama’s strong points. McCain got under Obama’s skin, and it showed.
That's some quality analysis right there, yep.
The negative effect of crowding out could be offset somewhat by a positive long-term effect on the economy of some provsions—such as funding for infrastructure spending, education programs, and investment incentives, which might increase economic output in the long run.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/05/obama-stimulus-plan-worse-than-doing-nothing/ (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/05/obama-stimulus-plan-worse-than-doing-nothing/)
And for those keeping score at home, SofLabor appointee Hilda Solis is the latest Obama cabinet tax cheat.
apparently in sd's world, CBO reports (and perhaps primary sources in general) do not actually exist as concrete entities in their own right, only as abstract base classes for others' interpretations
Mom, they're being mean again!
God y'all are fucking crybabies.
Obama is getting fiery and pissed off at Republicans. He got more partisan tonight than I have seen him get in quite a while:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Fired_up_again.html?showall
1) Defuse the 2011 tax bomb: Stop tax increases set to hit the economy in 2011.
o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
o Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit; o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
2) Long term, broad based tax cuts for American families and businesses.
o Lower top marginal income rates – the one paid by most of the small businesses that create new jobs – from 35 percent to 25 percent.
o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent. o Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is second highest among all industrialized nations, driving investment and jobs overseas. Lowering this key rate will unlock trillions of dollars to be invested in America instead of abroad.
o This is not only good economic policy, but a matter of fairness. No American family should be forced to pay the federal government more than 25 percent of the fruits of their hard labor.
The sheer arrogance of this post is mind-boggling.
If the country collapses while they quibble over this ponderous bill, will everyone finally agree with me about how democracy doesn't work?
If the country collapses while they quibble over this ponderous bill...
If the country collapses while they quibble over this ponderous bill...
I don't really feel like this bill will have any effect on the near term, whether it passes or fails. 3-4 years from now, it will have a substantial effect (both positive and negative).
Quote from: Doug ElmendorfThe negative effect of crowding out could be offset somewhat by a positive long-term effect on the economy of some provsions—such as funding for infrastructure spending, education programs, and investment incentives, which might increase economic output in the long run.
Wait, I remember someone getting super angry at education spending which should be totally kept out of the bill because it's not stimulus because... something.
Whoever shall I listen to?
Obama is getting fiery and pissed off at Republicans. He got more partisan tonight than I have seen him get in quite a while:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Fired_up_again.html?showall
I think the sticking point is that when they say it will "create X jobs in year Y" they're comparing it to how many jobs would be created/destroyed without the stimulus.
Slightly off topic, but I got into an argument last night with a bleeding heart about environment issues. At the end of the argument he blammed all of China's envronment issues on china being "too libertarian."
I tried tellinh him that citizens in china have no right to object to their pallned economy or sue because of health reasons.
If spending is stimulative then why is California going bankrupt?
You seriously can't take people like that seriously, and as long as idiots keep electing them to office America will be worse off. Just 24 hours of killing is all it would take...
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.Why do these people even run for office if they disdain government so much?
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
You seriously can't take people like that seriously, and as long as idiots keep electing them to office America will be worse off. Just 24 hours of killing is all it would take...
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
You seriously can't take people like that seriously, and as long as idiots keep electing them to office America will be worse off. Just 24 hours of killing is all it would take...
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
You seriously can't take people like that seriously, and as long as idiots keep electing them to office America will be worse off. Just 24 hours of killing is all it would take...
Wealth isnt created that way. But at least you understand that wealth does have to be created in the first place.
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
You seriously can't take people like that seriously, and as long as idiots keep electing them to office America will be worse off. Just 24 hours of killing is all it would take...
Wealth isnt created that way. But at least you understand that wealth does have to be created in the first place.
You fatuous turd gobbler, wealth stands a FAR greater chance of being created by building an economy from the bottom up than it does from the top down. Exhibit A: The past 28 fucking years.
Care to share?
Care to share?
Don't listen to him, he's a fucking idiot that doesn't realize that there was no middle class to speak of until the dreaded "socialist" laws and reforms of the devil FDR.
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
Care to share?
Don't listen to him, he's a fucking idiot that doesn't realize that there was no middle class to speak of until the dreaded "socialist" laws and reforms of the devil FDR.
So where was the middle in the USSR? Go ahead and give me an example of a planned economy that lead to long term wealth.
Cher: Republican Rule Almost ‘Killed Me’
Grammy award-winning singer and Academy award-winning actress Cher told CNSNews.com that living under Republican rule almost “killed" her, and she does not understand why anyone would want to be a Republican.
She also said that President Barack Obama’s “intelligence” and “spirit” are “so great” he will be able to do “more than anyone could possibly do.”
“I just think he’s totally the right person at this time in our history," she said.
Each sides have their idiots, but at least our idiots are legendary fag hags as opposed to cretins like Michelle Malkin and Joe the not Plumber.
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
The drop in support for the stimulus package is apparently coming entirely from Republicans :lol:don't you just need a simple majority to pass it?
that poll was public opinion not politicians lolThe drop in support for the stimulus package is apparently coming entirely from Republicans :lol:don't you just need a simple majority to pass it?
that poll was public opinion not politicians lolwell that explains why there was 25% of two independants.
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
And he's absolutely correct. The money that goes to pay the salary of each additional government job has to be taken out of the economy in the form of taxation. That is not wealth producing.
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Tom Coburn (admittedly pretty far out there even for a Republican when it comes to economic shit) was just on my teevee saying that no wealth is created from government jobs, including military jobs.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
And he's absolutely correct. The money that goes to pay the salary of each additional government job has to be taken out of the economy in the form of taxation. That is not wealth producing.
Every private job has a salary paid for by money taken away from customers.
If Republicans can advocate letting the rich keep more of their money as a way of creating wealth when pretty much most evidence shows that they just sock it away somewhere, then by gawd I can advocate taking that money and using it to employ people instead.
libertarians get to stop paying taxes but they can't use anything that taxes fund.???
There's a ton of empirical data to support public spending for growth purposes,
Every private job has a salary paid for by money taken away from customers.
But only because the customer can afford it. And never through force or threats (like taxes).
saying is that it is okay to take money from the people who create it and give it to people need it. Redistribution of wealth here we come.
Only the American government could figure out how to make each job saved/created cost 250,000 dollars.
Some dude already said that everything taken out in the Senate will be stuffed back in in the House anyway. Take it that means this will be back to $900B next week. Be sure to thank your future unborn grandkids for all their generosity. Obama called on all of us to sacrifice. His political prowess defies generations. He's able to reach far into the future and take that which is needed now. Gotta try to patch the leaking credit bubble in any way possible. What an amazing president. First time I've ever really been proud of my country. Honestly.
Yes We Did!
(sry...messed it up the last post)
While details are still incomplete, it appears the package, as initially brought to the Senate floor, will be scaled back by about $82 billion in spending reductions and $25 billion in tax cuts. In addition, tax cuts approved on the Senate floor this week for car and home purchases would be modified, and the total bill then would be in the range of $800 billion.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18508.html
Lost in the process—or scaled back significantly— are some important Democratic initiatives and at least $47 billion in promised aid to the states. New Pell Grant funding is largely preserved, but $16 billion in school construction funds would be cut, and increases for popular programs like Head Start cut in half.
Obama’s own agenda is not immune. The deal would trim back new funds committed for expanding broadband access and improving the electrical grid as well as investments in health information technology.
Specter’s role is striking since he is a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which helped write the bill. On the floor this week, Democrats like Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin helped him secure increased funding for the National Institutes of Health—a Specter priority. Yet in the talks, it appears that $5.8 billion in public health funds for the treatment of preventable diseases—a Harkin priority— would be severely cut or even wiped out.
QuoteOnly the American government could figure out how to make each job saved/created cost 250,000 dollars.
well, looking at the wikipedia entry for Ford for example, their costs per employee per 3 years appear to be 175.178B / 245k * 3 = $2.14 million / job.
Microsoft = 42.74B / 89,809 * 3 = $1.43M/job
but carry on
Well, very clever to cherry pick one of the most overpaid, unskilled professions in America. Let's try to be more disingenuous next time.
Come on man, it's apples and oranges here ... You're talking about companies that have to pay for R&D, marketing, lawyers, and countless other hidden expenses from governmental regulations that these "make up" jobs don't even have to incur.
You're talking about companies that have to pay for R&D, marketing, lawyers, and countless other hidden expenses
I'm pretty sure he was just trying to prove a comparable average.
QuoteOnly the American government could figure out how to make each job saved/created cost 250,000 dollars.
well, looking at the wikipedia entry for Ford for example, their costs per employee per 3 years appear to be 175.178B / 245k * 3 = $2.14 million / job.
Microsoft = 42.74B / 89,809 * 3 = $1.43M/job
but carry on
bububut COPS!
and EDUCATIONATORS!
Thank gawd for them especially. They were the only sector (besides healthcare) to add jobs. At that rate we'll be out of this thing in no time - like 30 years maybe. Hell, why don't we all become teachers? Y'all down? I hear the pensions are great (if you plan on retiring in the next 3 months before they all implode).
Yes We Can!
Every private job has a salary paid for by money taken away from customers.
But only because the customer can afford it. And never through force or threats (like taxes).QuoteIf Republicans can advocate letting the rich keep more of their money as a way of creating wealth when pretty much most evidence shows that they just sock it away somewhere, then by gawd I can advocate taking that money and using it to employ people instead.
What you are saying is that it is okay to take money from the people who create it and give it to people need it. Redistribution of wealth here we come.
so did the $15k/home subsidy get in? and who's responsible? and what forms of torture is he likely to be especially sensitive to?
This seems as good a place to ask as any. Is Mandark actually a member of Mossad, or was that a joke?
This seems as good a place to ask as any. Is Mandark actually a member of Mossad, or was that a joke?
Has nobody told the Republicans that tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if none of us have jobs to pay taxes with?
Has nobody told the Republicans that tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if none of us have jobs to pay taxes with?
So we shouldn't cut taxes because some people dont work and they need the money the most?
So instead of rewarding the people with jobs wish should punish people who work and reward those who do not. Yeah that makes sense.
Has nobody told the Republicans that tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if none of us have jobs to pay taxes with?
So we shouldn't cut taxes because some people dont work and they need the money the most?
So instead of rewarding the people with jobs wish should punish people who work and reward those who do not. Yeah that makes sense.
Perhaps you don't understand this - but it's not "some" people, it's a lot of people. And it's mostly lower middle class and impoverished folks, whom if their numbers continue to rise, will be unable to line the pockets of the upper middle class and wealthy.
So - duh! - it is in our best interests to get these folks jobs.
Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under U.S. government control, will loosen rules for homeowners seeking to lower their loan payments by refinancing.
Fannie Mae will drop some credit-score requirements, reduce income-documentation standards and waive the need for appraisals in some cases, according to a notice yesterday to lenders posted on the Washington-based company’s Web site. The changes apply to loans that the company owns or guarantees.
The company, which accounts for more than 40 percent of the $12 trillion in U.S. residential mortgage debt, is seeking to break a “logjam” in refinancing and allow more homeowners to take advantage of near-record low interest rates, according to Brian Faith, a Fannie Mae spokesman. The increased flexibility for consumers isn’t large enough to significantly harm mortgage- bond investors and mortgage insurers, analysts said.
Who's butthurt? Not me.
This thing was always a done deal. I'm actually kinda pumped because it virtually ensures Obama's tenure will only be one term.
If she's your nominee, you're gonna get your asses whupped again 2008 style, at least in the Presidential. And you know this. Also, if the economy rebounds even slightly (and since history and logic dictates it will to some extent) it's gonna be tough for you guys.Pretty much. The public rewards (and punishes) their government based on the economy regardless if they deserve it or not, and if it improves at all then Obama has a 1996 style easy re-election waiting for him.
Has nobody told the Republicans that tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if none of us have jobs to pay taxes with?
So we shouldn't cut taxes because some people dont work and they need the money the most?
So instead of rewarding the people with jobs wish should punish people who work and reward those who do not. Yeah that makes sense.
Perhaps you don't understand this - but it's not "some" people, it's a lot of people. And it's mostly lower middle class and impoverished folks, whom if their numbers continue to rise, will be unable to line the pockets of the upper middle class and wealthy.
So - duh! - it is in our best interests to get these folks jobs.
Class warfare go!!!
I honestly think Palin will have a hard time getting past New Hampshire.The fact the economy doesn't tend to fall apart for over 4 years straight?
And what gives both of you any confidence the economy will be "good" by 2012?
I honestly think Palin will have a hard time getting past New Hampshire.
And what gives both of you any confidence the economy will be "good" by 2012?
Palin wont be the nominee
Palin wont be the nominee
Probably not, but you guys don't have anyone credible to BE the nominee. Plus the states that a Dem has won over the past 5 general elections add up to 240something electoral votes, gonna be tough for you wankers to do anything about it.
Yeah and 1994 didn't stop Clinton from being re-elected now did it?Palin wont be the nominee
Probably not, but you guys don't have anyone credible to BE the nominee. Plus the states that a Dem has won over the past 5 general elections add up to 240something electoral votes, gonna be tough for you wankers to do anything about it.
I really think there is gonna be something akin to a mini 1994 during the next cycle. Especially after this whole stimulus bill debacle.
Well polling shows that Dems and Independents are siding with the Dems on this 'debacle' and that 80% of Americans expect the bailout to take over a year to show results. So when is this blowback going to happen?
Yeah and 1994 didn't stop Clinton from being re-elected now did it?Palin wont be the nominee
Probably not, but you guys don't have anyone credible to BE the nominee. Plus the states that a Dem has won over the past 5 general elections add up to 240something electoral votes, gonna be tough for you wankers to do anything about it.
I really think there is gonna be something akin to a mini 1994 during the next cycle. Especially after this whole stimulus bill debacle.
Yeah and 1994 didn't stop Clinton from being re-elected now did it?Palin wont be the nominee
Probably not, but you guys don't have anyone credible to BE the nominee. Plus the states that a Dem has won over the past 5 general elections add up to 240something electoral votes, gonna be tough for you wankers to do anything about it.
I really think there is gonna be something akin to a mini 1994 during the next cycle. Especially after this whole stimulus bill debacle.
Is Ross Perot coming back?
Yeah and 1994 didn't stop Clinton from being re-elected now did it?Palin wont be the nominee
Probably not, but you guys don't have anyone credible to BE the nominee. Plus the states that a Dem has won over the past 5 general elections add up to 240something electoral votes, gonna be tough for you wankers to do anything about it.
I really think there is gonna be something akin to a mini 1994 during the next cycle. Especially after this whole stimulus bill debacle.
Is Ross Perot coming back?
You are a fucking idiot.Yeah and 1994 didn't stop Clinton from being re-elected now did it?Palin wont be the nominee
Probably not, but you guys don't have anyone credible to BE the nominee. Plus the states that a Dem has won over the past 5 general elections add up to 240something electoral votes, gonna be tough for you wankers to do anything about it.
I really think there is gonna be something akin to a mini 1994 during the next cycle. Especially after this whole stimulus bill debacle.
Is Ross Perot coming back?
beardo decimated
I'm not sure, rec.
What makes me angry is the education cutbacks.
What's the longest period of time for single party control since WWII?Didnt Democrats control everything under LBJ?
I'm not sure, rec.
What makes me angry is the education cutbacks.
Why?
I'm not sure, rec.
What makes me angry is the education cutbacks.
Why?
I'm not sure, rec.
What makes me angry is the education cutbacks.
Why?
Because education and its growth is more important and seemingly more effective to me than pipe-dream business tax cuts.
Nice job ignoring all the posts that proved you wrong. :lolI'm not sure, rec.
What makes me angry is the education cutbacks.
Why?
Because education and its growth is more important and seemingly more effective to me than pipe-dream business tax cuts.
And if we dont pile more money into it we will all the sudden be uneducated? It's not like it's a do or die situation. Public schools and colleges aren't going to close down all of the sudden if they don't receive million in federal money.
I'm not sure, rec.
What makes me angry is the education cutbacks.
Why?
:hurr
Schumer signaled his interest in removing one obstacle — a Senate amendment from Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., that would double a credit for home purchases to a maximum of $15,000 and allow all home buyers, not just first-time purchasers, to take advantage of it.
The $19 billion amendment, which was adopted Feb. 4 by voice vote in the Senate, is “way excessive for what is needed,” Schumer said, because it would allow people to benefit from trading in one home for another.
Realtors across the country have been advocating for a comprehensive stimulus package to reduce housing inventory, make mortgages more affordable and available, and help deserving families refinance or modify their loans so they can keep their home.
The 650-plus members of the Heartland Association of Realtors and the Lake Placid Board of Realtors are committed to these goals and to getting something done immediately. There can be no doubt that stabilizing home prices and restoring confidence in the housing market are critical to the recovery of the economy here in Highlands County.
It is vitally important for President Barack Obama and Congress to complete a bipartisan stimulus package focused on housing. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is a good start but much more needs to be done. It is imperative that the federal government act immediately encourage homebuyers to re-enter the market and to stop families from losing their homes to foreclosure.
I don't think this stimulus plan will really have a negative effect on Obama. He has tried his best and he has come off good in the media while doing it.
The real turds are the House of Reps. They are the ones who overshot their load with the initial plan and slowly backpeddled into this odd, monsterous compromise bill that no one seems happy with. They are already riding historic lows in approval rating and they are the next up for re-election in 2010. Could be a blood letting.
People always like their local official way more than the institution as a whole.
i wanna cut a dance mix based on mccain campaign samples and smear memes
AYERS-ACORN-REZKO-WRIGHT!
AYERS-ACORN-REZKO-WRIGHT!
GONNA MAKE YOU DANCE ALL NIGHT!
AYERS-ACORN-REZKO-WRIGHT!
rapid high hats, chorus pedal
SOCIALIST! TERRORIST!
NOT A CITIZEN OF THE US!
SOCIALIST! TERRORIST!
NOT A CITIZEN OF THE US!
(cool hand luke sample: "what we have here is a failure to communicate")
boom-pish-boom-pish-boom-pish
Paul said that he agrees that the economy needs to be stimulated but that he doesn't think the federal government should be doing it.
"Sure, we want more spending," Paul said. "We need a lot more spending in the economy, but it has to be done by market forces, by individuals, by businesses making proper decisions."
He reminds me of the Raelians.
Meh, most of the left must realize that what has been cut out can be added in at a later date. It's not like this year won't have a bonanza of bad news to present new opportunities to slip that stuff in.
In the end, we are only talking about a 10 percent cut here.
Respectfully, I believe everyone here completely missed it. Y'all have just seen the future of the Republican Party. She fucking nailed it.
It was important for the REPs to bring to light the lack of experience of Obama - PARTICULARLY because of how the DEMs (and the entire MSM) portrayed her lack of experience. Do y'all seriously think Obama's experience in any way compares to her's? If so, please please try to articulate it with any semblence of substance. His voting record is "present" and his "change driven" legislation leadership doesn't exit. The comment about his two memoirs with no actual bills or laws was utterly damning.
Palin made an incredible appeal to middle America. She did it with her small town commentary, about Obama saying one thing to Scranton and another to San Francisco. She did it by speaking to her husband's union membership and her motherhood. Seriously, if not Sarah Palin, who exactly could have achieved this for the REPs at this point?
Let's understand, they were floundering. They had no brand (deservedly). Somehow, with the selection of Palin, McCain has completely turned this election around.
Frankly, y'all couldn't be more wrong in your assessment.
Obama may still win. Hell, I have $200 on it with my cross burning brother. But, this was...transformative.
I am in love.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff156/siamesedreamer7/jobsrecessions.jpg)
Also, WTF about this?:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Reporter_restrained_after_Panetta_hearing.html
no, there's no word OTHER than STUPID for anyone who believes that tax cuts should be favored over infrastructure spending in a stimulus package, or who think that a stimulus package isn't needed. even the karl denninger-esque kooks are starting to come around, since it doesn't take a lot of mental horsepower to compute that, say (for example) repealing the amt for the rich will NOT lead to good returns on each dollar "spent", since RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO SAVE.
i should add that if you're the undiscussed alternative to the above -- the "let rome burn" economic nihilist -- then, well, i am at least reassured that you'll never be allowed to manage money
[youtube=560,345]xHw773EO314[/youtube]
Rachel being damn sexy
My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/
i think people most vulnerable to risk from economic collapse and least equipped to manage it, i.e. the working class, should be protected from the effects. but, instead of trying to help them indirectly by propping up unsustainably bloated parts of the economy (auto, real estate, finance) on the front end, inviting waste and corruption, couldn't we let those sectors adjust, and relieve people caught in the crossfire as it were directly (through expanded unemployment, jobs programs directed at worthwhile goals, education and training etc.) instead?
Ahhh the big GOP comeback of 2010 eh? Near impossible. GOP is defending a lot more seats and they have multiple retirements, in purple states no less.[youtube=560,345]xHw773EO314[/youtube]
Rachel being damn sexy
Add her to the list of people who will be completely fucking owned in two years.
My question about california remains unanswered. If governemnt pending stimulates the economy then why is the great liberal motherland, california, going bankrupt in a matter of weeks?
Besides the partisan sniping, I like Krugman. He's probably right here that there is too much focus on taxes. But, that was completely Obama's fault when he offered them in a bipartisan plea at the outset.
Krugman explains the problem in easy terms - there's a ~$2 trillion demand gap over the next two years. But, he ignores the fact that the demand gap is fake (as much of the growth the last few years). Its based on massive amounts of debt that is now coming due. So, he wants the government to step up to the plate to fill that fake gap with more debt. Insanity...which is why Congress did it.
Cheebs: I have no illusions over a GOP comeback in '10. The numbers are just too insurmountable in one cycle. Doesn't mean that Maddow won't look like a fool in two years though.
no, there's no word OTHER than STUPID for anyone who believes that tax cuts should be favored over infrastructure spending in a stimulus package, or who think that a stimulus package isn't needed. even the karl denninger-esque kooks are starting to come around, since it doesn't take a lot of mental horsepower to compute that, say (for example) repealing the amt for the rich will NOT lead to good returns on each dollar "spent", since RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO SAVE.
i don't think either stimulus package is perfect -- or even particularly good -- but at LEAST they acknowledge that infrastructure spending is where we need to start. me, i want real public works and a commitment to infrastructure spending of the sort that would've been used to finance a world war back in the day.
as for your childish ideological disputes about the "nanny state"? the free market is a FAILURE. let it go. move onto acceptance. read real philosophies about society and sociology, not self-aggrandizing works of bad fiction. the reason we got where we are today is that we tried to pretend that economics were an objective science -- thanks, retardo austrians -- and not a study in macropsychology. people shit up every major endeavor, and a level of reliable behavior must be managed. you can be victimized by a democratic government that you have the option to directly participate in, or you can be victimized by a mercurial financial infrastructure that would gladly fleece you in the name of economic aristocracy. me, i'll take the lesser evil, because i'm an adult and recognize that most choices i make are about choosing lesser evils. but hey: go on, reject your responsibility in this, and hope for an economic unicorn!
the presence (or lack thereof) of a demand gap is irrelevant to the purpose of the stimulus.
why is transportation infrastructure better than services --- how many more roads and bridges do we need?
the presence (or lack thereof) of a demand gap is irrelevant to the purpose of the stimulus.
I don't understand what you mean there.
why is transportation infrastructure better than services --- how many more roads and bridges do we need?
why is transportation infrastructure better than services --- how many more roads and bridges do we need?
We should get rid of the Senate. They're about as useful as the House of Lords these days anyhow.
inflation is a shell game we know how to play. we can slowly and systematically crush that debt if its off the books of banks and in the hands of the feds; presuming, of course, that geithner isn't totally distinguished mentally-challenged.
I agree but judging by the last few months of massive layoffs, white collar workers don't agree with you.
YAAAAAAAAAAARRGH.
I'm about to beat some people I went to HS with to death over the internets; one of them is being snarky about how "oh gosh it's great that we're gonna spend money we don't have to fix an economy that went into the crapper because consumers were spending money they didn't have hyuck hyuck" and then his sister chimed in with "oh don't worry, it didn't work in the New Deal haha stoopid FDR, WWII is what saved us but since Obama is hopelessly clueless about diplomacy we'll probably end up in a turrible war with some brownskins somewheres hyuck hyuck"...
Of course these people are from Texas and Georgia, but STILL. Get their genes outta my pool!
"oh don't worry, it didn't work in the New Deal haha stoopid FDR, WWII is what saved us
February 8, 2009
EDITORIAL
Change you can download.
Wikileaks has released nearly a billion dollars worth of quasi-secret reports commissioned by the United States Congress.
The 6,780 reports, current as of this month, comprise over 127,000 pages of material on some of the most contentious issues in the nation, from the U.S. relationship with Israel to the financial collapse. Nearly 2,300 of the reports were updated in the last 12 months, while the oldest report goes back to 1990. The release represents the total output of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) electronically available to Congressional offices. The CRS is Congress's analytical agency and has a budget in excess of $100M per year.
Open government lawmakers such as Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) have fought for years to make the reports public, with bills being introduced--and rejected--almost every year since 1998. The CRS, as a branch of Congress, is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
CRS reports are highly regarded as non-partisan, in-depth, and timely. The reports top the list of the "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" compiled by the Washington based Center for Democracy and Technology[1]. The Federation of American Scientists, in pushing for the reports to be made public, stated that the "CRS is Congress' Brain and it's useful for the public to be plugged into it,"[2]. While Wired magazine called their concealment "The biggest Congressional scandal of the digital age"[3
Is flying Indiana to receive some rock hero worship really going to help this stimulus plan pass?
Is flying Indiana to receive some rock hero worship really going to help this stimulus plan pass?
::avatar quote
Looks like ex Ebay CEO Meg Whitman might be running for governor of California.
because he's selling the stimulus on a state level, making people understand just what type of local aide the republicans want to take out of the bill?
Looks like ex Ebay CEO Meg Whitman might be running for governor of California.
Looks like ex Ebay CEO Meg Whitman might be running for governor of California.
Jeff Bezos was too busy?
Why isn't the 70's and 80's recession included in this chart? God, I hate liberals.(http://i41.tinypic.com/24mgc28.jpg)
STEELE: You’ve got to look at what’s going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s a job.
STEELE: No, it’s not a job. A job is something that — that a business owner creates. It’s going to be long term. What he’s creating...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn’t count if it’s a government job?
(CROSSTALK)
STEELE: Hold on. No, let me — let me — let me finish. That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. These road projects that we’re talking about have an end point.
As a small-business owner, I’m looking to grow my business, expand my business. I want to reach further. I want to be international. I want to be national. It’s a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work. And I’m — either way, the bottom line is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess I don’t really understand that distinction.
STEELE: Well, the difference — the distinction is this. If a government — if you’ve got a government contract that is a fixed period of time, it goes away. The work may go away. That’s — there’s no guarantee that that — that there’s going to be more work when you’re done in that job.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but we’ve seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the private sector just in the last year.
STEELE: But they come — yes, they — and they come back, though, George. That’s the point. When they go — they’ve gone away before, and they come back.
Why isn't the 70's and 80's recession included in this chart? God, I hate liberals.*chart
Just as the Senate was voting, the Congressional Budget Office released a new analysis showing the total cost of the Senate version of the stimulus bill to be $838.2 billion over 10 years, of which $292.5 billion or roughly 35 percent is in the form of tax cuts.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/washington/10stimulus-web.html?_r=1&hp
It was all the banks' fault. Consumer overspending had nothing to do with it.
It was all the banks' fault. Consumer overspending had nothing to do with it.
You need to watch that again.
to give sd a tax cutgiving poor people a tax cut is socialism though
Quoteno, there's no word OTHER than STUPID for anyone who believes that tax cuts should be favored over infrastructure spending in a stimulus package, or who think that a stimulus package isn't needed. even the karl denninger-esque kooks are starting to come around, since it doesn't take a lot of mental horsepower to compute that, say (for example) repealing the amt for the rich will NOT lead to good returns on each dollar "spent", since RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO SAVE.
meeeeee! i really don't see why infrastructure spending should be favored over tax cuts if by "tax cuts" we mean stuff like EITC and "tax rebate" demogrants. infrastructure (and education etc.) spending is fine if it's something actually worthwhile in itself, but if we're just spending money to give people money, better just give them money rather than wasting their time at some make-work job (which I'm not saying the stimulus programs are, but under the logic of some of the "it doesn't matter what we buy as long as we buy stuff" commentators I've seen they could just as well be).
you folks are trying to make the dispute over Keynesian economics out to be fake, like the global warming "controversy", but as far as I can tell it's pretty different. expert opinion appears genuinely split, empirical evidence is inconclusive, theoretical justifications are (on the surface) dubious.
the trouble is, as i pointed out on your facebook
All right. Chuck Todd. Where's Chuck?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending, or over-spending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first, before they start spending money into the economy?
MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies, based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.
That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy.
My Sirius radio crapped out on my ride home from work, so I was flipping through the AM stations and rolled past Hannity pimping his own dating service. WTF
http://web1.hannity.com/hannidate/
Any takers on this 38 year old "strong christian" and his dog? (What grown man takes a formal picture with his dog? lol)spoiler (click to show/hide)(http://web1.hannity.com/hannidate/photos/L000379_1.jpg)[close]
Erip P is that the online poll or something more official? Too small to see
the online poll shows mixed results but obviously it's not scientific. Obama defended his position while making the republicans look like assholes
Once the economy stabilizes and people are less fearful, then I do think that we're going to have to start thinking about how do we operate more prudently, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. So if -- if you want to get -- if you want to buy a house, then putting zero down and buying a house that is probably not affordable for you in case something goes wrong, that's something that has to be reconsidered.
So we're going to have to change our -- our bad habits. But right now, the key is making sure that we pull ourselves out of the economic slump that we're in.
Geithner: Failure to act quickly made this crisis worse. So, check back with us in a few weeks when we have our plan formulated.
Amazing to think that after almost 3 months on the job he still has no plan. And the markets are reacting very badly. Down 300 at the moment.
EDIT: :lol PD...so you want to ignore how he specifically responded to the question asked by Todd? Come on dude. Go back to what I said and compare it to what Obama said. There's no difference.
just nationalize the freakin' major banks already, or make a fuckin' national bank to sit on the toxic assets, swiss-style! ARE WE SO AFRAID OF BECOMING LIKE EUROPE, I ASK.
Questions to anyone who would like to answer.Getting credit flowing is for businesses. Even solvent businesses are having problems securing credit.
Why must we get credit flowing again to families who are in debt up to their eyeballs?
Why must we stop greatly inflated home prices from continueing to fall?
Why must we help out homeowners who could never afford their house in the first place?
Why must we continue to prop up insolvent banks?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902924.html
Any takers on this 38 year old "strong christian" and his dog? (What grown man takes a formal picture with his dog? lol)
I'm thinking of ... various economists who would say that you just don't believe in the future; you don't believe in increased productivity; you don't believe in the ... model, for instance, of the U.S. economy which, in spite all the naysayers (interview was in 2004), continues to expand, and consumer credit in particular has been key to that expansion over the last 20 years.
Families cannot expand their earnings fast enough to make up for the 29 percent interest rates. They just can't do it. It's not possible. ... Our economy may grow fast, it may hit another boom, and we may grow ourselves out of all kinds of debt problems, but the individual family can't count on increasing its income next year by 29 percent.
Look at where American wages have been for the last 30 years. A fully employed male today earns 1 percent more than a fully employed male earned 30 years ago. Inflation adjusted, there's been 1 percent growth in wages in 30 years. When people take out credit card loans at 29 percent interest, they're spending tomorrow's wages, and there's no way that those wages are going to go up fast enough that they're going to have the money to pay it back other than by cutting their future purchasing.
Questions to anyone who would like to answer.
Why must we get credit flowing again to families who are in debt up to their eyeballs?
Why must we stop greatly inflated home prices from continueing to fall?
Why must we help out homeowners who could never afford their house in the first place?
Why must we continue to prop up insolvent banks?
How's Europe's economy right now? Surely all of their spending and government programs are keeping them healthy?
How's Europe's economy right now? Surely all of their spending and government programs are keeping them healthy?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-smug.gif)
How's Europe's economy right now? Surely all of their spending and government programs are keeping them healthy?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-smug.gif)
Why is this not an emoticon yet? Leper Willco.
How's Europe's economy right now? Surely all of their spending and government programs are keeping them healthy?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-smug.gif)
Why is this not an emoticon yet? Leper Willco.
Our economy is far too reliant on consumer purchases by people who are living on credit. The economy will need to shrink and everyone will have to take a major hit for things to get to a sane point again. Credit limits need to be slashed and people have to accept that they can only buy what their paychecks say they can. In that same line, employers will have to provide wages which actually allow people to pay for the basics (food, housing, healthcare, education). And those who earn less will need to stop with luxury purchases and the rich will just have to face being less rich.
Now what would you do?
It really did not occur to me just how much money credit card companies are leeching out of the American public until I read that interview. Billions and billions in interest and bullshit fees that should not be allowed. If you guys haven't read that interview, you need to.
I'm getting the implication that we should let the market self-correct and trust that it will mete out the pain with efficiency and morality, eventually leading to your desired conclusion. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Negotiators on Capitol Hill wrangling with reconciling the House and Senate versions of the stimulus package have come to an agreement on the top line figure for the recovery bill: $789.5-billion, Democratic and Congressional sources tell me and my colleague Rick Klein
GOP sources say that negotiators are moving toward a deal but caution that it has not been finalized.
This is less than either the $838-billion passed by the Senate, or the $820-billion passed by the House. Committees have been told to get back to leadership with any problems meeting that figure by 11 am today.
The compromise scales back the tax credits for auto and home purchases and other tax cuts. It also restores some of the House education funding that the Obama administration has called "crucial." restored.
By Alex Castellanos
CNN Contributor
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
Editor's Note: Republican strategist Alex Castellanos was a campaign consultant for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and has worked on more than half a dozen presidential campaigns. Castellanos is a partner in National Media Inc., a political and public affairs consulting firm that specializes in advertising.
Alex Castellanos says stimulus bill is a cover for a bold plan for government to rule key parts of private sector.
Alex Castellanos says stimulus bill is a cover for a bold plan for government to rule key parts of private sector.
(CNN) -- Two Congressmen walk into a bar to watch President Obama's first prime-time press conference. The Democrat says to the Republican....
D: Just watch the president tonight and you'll see how to get this economy back on track. Monopolies.
R: Monopolies?
D: Monopolies so big they will shame Parker Brothers and make them put the board game in a bigger box. Monopolies so huge, they'll make railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt look like a push-cart operator.
R: Why monopolies?
D: In these desperate times, we can't afford to let Americans choose inefficient cars or wasteful health care. We can't let innovation run wild on Wall Street or Main Street. We have to make sure Americans are secure in their health care and jobs, their incomes and energy.
To serve the greater good, we have to organize America's economy so it achieves the best possible ends for all Americans. We can't leave that to chance. Who knows what might happen if individual Americans make those choices in a free market and organize themselves?
R: A little less freedom, a lot more organization, all for the collective good?
D: My friend, we need a directed economy, where we limit people's choices to those that serve the best social ends. Our nation's development is best controlled by monopolies, not some atomistic economy where Americans are free to make almost any choice and organize bottom-up, according to their own whims. That means, big, honking, all-powerful monopolies.
R: But during the campaign, Obama talked about change, fueling "bottom-up prosperity." This sounds like the same old, top-down, industrial-age stuff Democrats have been pitching for years.
D: You betcha! Bottom-up campaign rhetoric just ran into the top-down Democratic establishment from Washington. Guess who won. We're going to create monopolies in the biggest sectors of the economy, starting with banking and financial services. Even after the meltdown, that's still the largest stock market sector, 16 percent of the S&P.
R: Follow the money.
D: Exactly. With massive regulation, caps on pay and restrictions on risk and competition, we can turn the entire financial sector into a cross between a public utility and the DMV.
R: And then?
D: We'll create an energy monopoly that would make J. D. Rockefeller look like a gas station attendant. If it has anything to do with energy, we will control it, plan it and direct it. You are going to love your windmill.
R: I'm not feeling so good.
D: That's next. A health care monopoly alone will organize another 16 percent of the economy. Choice and diversity are great, but not so much in health care. We'll throw in $20 billion at the start for paperless health records. Data, my friend, is power. You know where we will go: Cost controls. Restricted formularies. Nancy Pelosi can be your doctor. You don't need a lot of choice. Just a good choice. Or a good-enough choice. Cough for me.
R: Watch that. I'm leaving.
D: Now that you mention it, we can't forget the good old American auto industry. To borrow from Henry Ford, consumers can pick any color car they want, as long as it is green.
R: Who are you going to get to run these monopolies? You are dealing with increasingly complex economic networks. How are you going to coordinate the sophisticated relationships, the subtle interests and ever-changing needs of millions of American consumers? Americans have traditionally done that themselves, in a natural and organic way, one to another, through the market. Who is smart enough to replace all that?
D: Congress.
R: You are making this stuff up. The president isn't talking about huge government-run monopolies. All he's talking about is the stimulus bill. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on the stimulus package
D: Of course. That's the beauty of the thing. As long as we call it "stimulus," we can pass almost anything that expands the power of government to command people's lives. Why do you think Newsweek's cover says, "We Are All Socialists Now?"
R: I need a drink. Don't they serve Congressmen in this bar?
D: No. But you can buy one from a lobbyist.
D: Of course. That's the beauty of the thing. As long as we call it "stimulus," we can pass almost anything that expands the power of government to command people's lives.
Rassmussen is saying support for the stimulus package is growing amongst the public again. Very good news. Republicans have lost control of the spin war after monday it seems.
holy shit, I was looking at a site that tracks political cartoons and I saw this one. I can't believe someone could get away with making this :lol
Rassmussen is saying support for the stimulus package is growing amongst the public again. Very good news. Republicans have lost control of the spin war after monday it seems.
The only thing that matters is how well it actually helps.
There's a bit of a conspiracy theory making the rounds though - Obama built up hype for a huge bank rescue plan. Geithner comes out with nothing. The market tanks. People get ever more concerned. Support for stimulus increases.
wasn't support above 65% even before Geithner's no show? ::)
wasn't support above 65% even before Geithner's no show? ::)
Yea, in fact, the only people it was below 50 percent for were the republican voters.
wait - what?
Vitter was the senator the other day who wanted to put an amendment in the stimulus package to ban fed. funding for the evil and vile Obama machine ACORN right? :lol
:rofl holy shit this is one of those "sanctity of marriage" guys
Rasmussen had support for the plan as low as 37% last week with a plurality opposing it.Rasmussen hasn't put numbers up yet but in their report this morning they note since Obama gave his address on monday stimulus support has risen.
And I can't find what poll Cheebs is referring to.
omg Triumph :lol
Yup here's the 37%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
Sounds like Obama won the spin war, sorry SD
I can understand how you can ask for God's forgiveness, but how exactly do you receive it?
The Republican's problem is that the big lesson they've taken from the last two elections is that apparently the only reason the public at large (aside from the South, where there's the whole inbreeding/racism thing) has turned away from them is that they spent too much money. Nevermind the Terry Schiavo fiasco. Nevermind Katrina, firing US Attorneys and otherwise politicizing the Justice dept. to the point that Eric Freaking Holder is an improvement, torture, illegal spying on average US citizens, bungling Iraq and letting the people that actually attacked us wander around free. Nope, it's all the fact that they spent too much money and doubled the debt!That's the thing. If they had stuck to their fiscal conservative guns during the Bush Adminstration they would have much better bargaining position. But the general public sees through this fiscal conservative BS they are pushing, especially after approving huge tax cuts that benefited mostly the rich and two expensive wars. One war that many think was unnecessary. The dems aren't absolved of any blame, though, but congressional dems have never tried to claim that they were fiscal conservatives in the first place.
Didn't McCain run on that? Gonna cut wasteful gubmint spending? No more earmarks? Yeah. How'd that go?
So Vitter was visiting prostitutes while he had kids - daughters. smhIs that so hard to believe? Spitzer has three daughters.
So Vitter was visiting prostitutes while he had kids - daughters. smh
So Vitter was visiting prostitutes while he had kids - daughters. smh
Of course. When else does a man need a hooker? It's not when he's married with no kids.
As someone who has tallied the costs involved with dating a woman and compared it to the "suggested donations" on CL's erotic services page, I heartily disagree.
As someone who has tallied the costs involved with dating a woman and compared it to the "suggested donations" on CL's erotic services page, I heartily disagree.
Most men don't think that logically. They have a false bravado or morality that prevents them from doing it. They would rather goto a bar and spend 20 dollars on drinks and hope to get lucky.
Or stay at home crying while listening to Rilo Kiley.
Most men don't think that logically. They have a false bravado or morality that prevents them from doing it. They would rather goto a bar and spend 20 dollars on drinks and hope to get lucky.
Interesting - apperently the tax credit has been reduced from $500/$1000 to $400/$800.
Those guys are dumb. Not to mention the mental/emotional capital you have to expend when you're dealing with a woman. I had a one night stand just ONCE, and even though drinks/food that night cost me about $60, I also had to deal with her the next morning (awkward!) and dodge phone calls for about a week. Even after that there were awkward random encounters out in bars or at concerts where I'd run into her, not to mention the fact that we had overlap in our social circles (unknown at the time!) so there was some awkward questions and finger pointing from friends. Far better to pony up the $150-200 an hour for a hooker.
Those guys are dumb. Not to mention the mental/emotional capital you have to expend when you're dealing with a woman. I had a one night stand just ONCE, and even though drinks/food that night cost me about $60, I also had to deal with her the next morning (awkward!) and dodge phone calls for about a week. Even after that there were awkward random encounters out in bars or at concerts where I'd run into her, not to mention the fact that we had overlap in our social circles (unknown at the time!) so there was some awkward questions and finger pointing from friends. Far better to pony up the $150-200 an hour for a hooker.
Was that the Olympic girl? I thought you said she was a fourner?
Interesting - apperently the tax credit has been reduced from $500/$1000 to $400/$800.
Yeah, apparently Obama really wanted some education money put back in. I'm still overly annoyed that this thing is about 45% tax cuts.
Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, complained that for all the spending in the bill, it does not provide a sufficient number of public works projects. ,
“If we’re going to spend all this money, let’s at least get something for it, provide some jobs and get some roads and highways and bridges, things this country really needs,” he said.
With regard to the housing market yes.
Most of the Poligaf kiddies are so blinded by their Republican hate, they don't see the genius of Obama. He is pretending like the Republicans are this big obstacle he needs to overcome to get this passed, when he has had this thing the whole time. He then can deliver that message directly to places like Indiana (newly turned blue state) or other pockets of America.
Obama knows the game. He only needed to flip a few moderates (Dems and Reps) and he was getting this thing done. Demonizing the Republicans was just for sport and for 2010.
Interesting - apperently the tax credit has been reduced from $500/$1000 to $400/$800.
Yeah, apparently Obama really wanted some education money put back in. I'm still overly annoyed that this thing is about 45% tax cuts.
You ever notice you have a slight tendency to ascribe complex, nefarious motives to people on the other side of the aisle? I'm just throwing this out there.
This bill could have been a great opportunity for funding of new oil refineries, but no one even seems to care about our severe shortage. They still pretend like a miracle alternative fuel is going to fall out of the sky within the next 20 years.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-smug.gif)This bill could have been a great opportunity for funding of new oil refineries, but no one even seems to care about our severe shortage. They still pretend like a miracle alternative fuel is going to fall out of the sky within the next 20 years.
Man bear pig?
Why do we need refineries, anyway? Are they really the limiting factor in current or future US oil production?
What does medical records being on computers have to do with guns?
Also do they realize their medical records are already recorded (just on paper)? That's why they are called RECORDS.
wtf.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/julio-osegueda-florida-co_n_165673.html
wtf :lol
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/julio-osegueda-florida-co_n_165673.html
wtf :lol
finally
the left's Joe The Plumber
let's turn this kid into a left wing media darling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/julio-osegueda-florida-co_n_165673.html
wtf :lol
finally
the left's Joe The Plumber
let's turn this kid into a left wing media darling
Too late, he was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night.
We should send him to Darfur.
meanwhile, republicans don't know when the great depression happened http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/steve_austria_r_oh_doesnt_know_when_the_depression_happened.php
meanwhile, republicans don't know when the great depression happened http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/steve_austria_r_oh_doesnt_know_when_the_depression_happened.php
Eh, I'm willing to believe he meant "made it worse" rather than "caused it." You gotta be charitable towards live speech and how easy it is to screw up.
The real problem is the underlying meme, that FDR's policies harmed the economy. Amity Shlaes has been a one-woman revisionism movement on this, for example, and most conservatives are willing to hop on board.
This debate has clarified why it's important to fight over the past. You let people rewrite it to suit themselves, and it leads to real consequences later. Take all that mythos about how we were just about to win in Vietnam cause we had finally sussed out the counterinsurgency racket, which fed directly into the willingness to invade/continue occupying Iraq.
Whaaa!! I work at McDonalds and I don't get benefits. Please Obama do something!!
Hey distinguished effete fellow, try getting a real job. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-smug.gif)
Whaaa!! I work at McDonalds and I don't get benefits. Please Obama do something!!
Hey distinguished effete fellow, try getting a real job. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/Emote/emot-smug.gif)
I really had hoped that once Obama was president I wouldn't see fucking gallup polls anymore. I don't give a fuck what America thinks. 4/10 of them couldn't even tell you who the vice president is.I posted it mostly because sd kept posting that poll that "only 37%" of the country supported the stimulus.
Dissension on the stimulus
While President Obama and the Senate are fine with the stimulus deal that appears headed for final votes in Congress on Friday and Obama's signature on Monday, the House is another matter.
And it's not just Republicans, who unanimously opposed the bill the first time around and continue to rail against the deal struck by the House-Senate conference committee on Wednesday.
Some House Democrats are upset with some of the changes made to preserve the support of three Republicans in the Senate, who wield virtual veto-power.
And there are reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was ticked off that Harry Reid, the top Senate Democrat, announced the compromise Wednesday afternoon before her rank-and-file had signed off. She is expected to say more at a 3 p.m. news conference.
Meanwhile, top House Republican John Boehner's office released a statement with the accusation: "Democrats pile up the pork, but leave scraps for small business."
:drudgeSource my be illsuited for sreaming crybabies:drudge
Federal employee whistleblower protection was stripped from the stimulus bill.
http://www.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2009/02/11/no-whistleblower-protections-for-feds-in-stimulus/ (http://www.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2009/02/11/no-whistleblower-protections-for-feds-in-stimulus/)
That's really encouraging. Shows you how much money they think this thing wastes. Still waiting for hopenchange.
bubububut recovery.gov ::)
Talking Points Memo, which cited a source close to the final bill, said the provision was removed by Republican Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the senators brokering the compromise.
So she switches sides to get the bill through then cuts out an important provision for protecting the taxpayer. You just can't make this stuff up. :usacry
Oh - my subjective poll is more accurate than your subjective poll!Actually sir mine IS more accurate because it was taken after Obama's address to the nation, and it is in line with EVERY poll released so far except one, your old one being the outlier.
she's probably a democratic double agent who ran as a republican because obama knew he'd need more than 60 to push through his illegal socialist agenda.
You seem to forget, it doesn't matter if the package works amazingly.she's probably a democratic double agent who ran as a republican because obama knew he'd need more than 60 to push through his illegal socialist agenda.
Whatever she is, Obama will still get all the glory or blame for what happens.
QuoteTalking Points Memo, which cited a source close to the final bill, said the provision was removed by Republican Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the senators brokering the compromise.
:teehee
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whisteblower_protections_stripped_from_stimulus_bill_0212.html
oh those rascals!
You just can't make this stuff up.
I'm still having trouble as to why the whistleblower protection cut was agreed to. The DEMs are writing it. Why don't they put it in?Because they need the 3 republican senators and one of them wanted it out?
I'm still having trouble as to why the whistleblower protection cut was agreed to. The DEMs are writing it. Why don't they put it in?
There's still gotta be some way to blame this on the other team, right?
Poor sd, in 2012 when the economy is showing improvement shouting "BUT THE STIMULUS DIDNT WORK" will do jackshit.
Unless you actually think there will be no improvement at all for 5 years straight.
Unless you actually think there will be no improvement at all for 5 years straight.
i wonder if we could create a moral outrage bubble of some sort?
"guys, outrage NEVER goes down!"
Fuck Gregg then. After the dirty politics Tom Delay and friends did with redistricting after the last census republicans have forfeited any right to complain about the White House doing this.
Glad the White House has far more in control over this, we need to make sure hispanics and other minorities get better representation in the House. This census should do that.
i wonder if we could create a moral outrage bubble of some sort?
"guys, outrage NEVER goes down!"
:piss http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29165435/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29165435/) :piss2I could piss on the subsidization part too, but banks need to let people re-structure loans. Fuck the banks.
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he
had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President
said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had
the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"
The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running
down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had
decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who
was left out.
The TPM thing is weird.
http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1161 (http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1161)
Why would she sponsor that, but want it taken out for the stimulus? Something isn't adding up.
However, one line stood out with critics: “We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors.”
Of course, Bush did prescreen reporters. Media Matters noted that Bush joked in a press conference once about it being scripted. And on Monday night, Ari Fleischer talked on Fox about preparing a list or reporters before the president's press conferences.
christ it never bothered me when bush did it, it's not going to bother me now.
christ it never bothered me when bush did it, it's not going to bother me now.It makes no sense to get upset about. It's not like they tell him the questions before hand. It's basically just purely done to make sure the president calls on all the major media outlets and doesn't forget any.
o you're pulling my leg :-\
Unless you actually think there will be no improvement at all for 5 years straight.
I don't know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7880189.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7880189.stm)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10158959-38.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10158959-38.html)
Some smart people are saying some really scary things.
Ballmer counts as a smart person?
this judd gregg guy is a pretty big pussy.holy shit, his name is judge dredd? how can he be a pussy with a name like that? badass.
It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til tomorrow afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate.http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/02/timing.php
If the larger GOP strategy can be describe as putting all of their chips on "FAIL", this has to be seen as a significant addition to that pile, no?
I never understood why people thought the Dems were spineless. Now I know what they are talking about.
Working together is good. But when the repubs have the 'my way or the highway' attitude, fuck them and their constituents. They will go kicking and screaming into obscurity.
I never understood why people thought the Dems were spineless. Now I know what they are talking about.
Working together is good. But when the repubs have the 'my way or the highway' attitude, fuck them and their constituents. They will go kicking and screaming into obscurity.
It's funny, the Dem in a leadership position with the most balls is Pelosi.
We're gonna need this shit sooner rather than later once the gas starts to run out. Unless of course some major progress is made in the area of alternative fuel research.
Recently the Taylor Nelson Sofres agency conducted a sociological study in 7 European countries for the American Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which discovered interesting findings. 3500 people (500 representatives from each country ) from Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Poland and Spain shared their views on who’s to blame for the crunch of the world’s finance.
31% of Europeans are sure that Jews made the crisis possible and 41% agree that Jews have excessive power on the world’s financial markets (74% of Spaniards and 67% of Hungarians support this point of view). The survey found that so-called “business anti-Semitism” has grown by 5% in France, 6% in Poland and 7% in Hungary since 2007.
So has the stimulus package been released to the public yet? It was supposed to be released to the public 48 hours before they voted on it. It was finally given to Congress at 11pm last night and they vote on it in about 8 hours.It will be put up on recovery.go :-[v you realize. And every single penny spent in it will be trackable and it will show who got that money and so forth.
yay transparency.
Remember when we complained that the patriot act was voted on before anyone got to read it? :smug
Fair enough. The denser parts of the midwest really should get better train service, though. DC to Chicago is 17 hours, and I'm tired of the dirty Euros laughing at us for our shitty rail system.
I never understood why people thought the Dems were spineless. Now I know what they are talking about.
Working together is good. But when the repubs have the 'my way or the highway' attitude, fuck them and their constituents. They will go kicking and screaming into obscurity.
It's funny, the Dem in a leadership position with the most balls is Pelosi.
So has the stimulus package been released to the public yet? It was supposed to be released to the public 48 hours before they voted on it. It was finally given to Congress at 11pm last night and they vote on it in about 8 hours.It will be put up on recovery.go :-[v you realize. And every single penny spent in it will be trackable and it will show who got that money and so forth.
yay transparency.
So yes it will be transparent. Very transparent.
On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.
wireless and broadband deployment grant programs
(including transfer of funds to eznark for the eznark Personal Economic Stimulus Program)
For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $5000000 shall be paid directly to eznark in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by eznark to bidniz or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That eznark will receive free Brewers tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That eznark shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Russ Feingold is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment.
Is that anti-Semite poll on the last page credible? If so, wow manIt might be true that it's increasing but the numbers might not be credible. Read TVC's link.
Filmmaker Michael Moore has observed what has been going on with the American economy and detected a whiff of injustice. He has cast his eye toward the titans of Wall Street and has determined that some things went down at America's banks that were not right. So he's decided to make a movie about it, because he is the one lone voice in the wilderness brave enough to expose these scoundrels for who they truly are blah blah. Wall Street insiders with a conscience and stories to tell him should e-mail bailout@michaelmoore.com. And remember, it's not for Michael Moore, it's for America: "You have information that the American people need to hear," he writes.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2rh5utg.jpg)
this made me lol
Actually, if you read my link you would see that the overall numbers have fallen from 2007. It's a survey that the ADL commisions from very respected marketing research firm. The sample size is 500 people per country.
WATCH OUT WALL STQuoteFilmmaker Michael Moore has observed what has been going on with the American economy and detected a whiff of injustice. He has cast his eye toward the titans of Wall Street and has determined that some things went down at America's banks that were not right. So he's decided to make a movie about it, because he is the one lone voice in the wilderness brave enough to expose these scoundrels for who they truly are blah blah. Wall Street insiders with a conscience and stories to tell him should e-mail bailout@michaelmoore.com. And remember, it's not for Michael Moore, it's for America: "You have information that the American people need to hear," he writes.
Actually, if you read my link you would see that the overall numbers have fallen from 2007. It's a survey that the ADL commisions from very respected marketing research firm. The sample size is 500 people per country.
Yeah, they got a firm to do the survey itself, but they do not indicate whether they or the firm did the analysis. Also, their official report is very light on methodology (I read it last night so I don't recall all the details, but the red stop sign for me was they did not mention sample selection at all). Combine that and their rep, and it's not a very authoritative study.
Again, I wouldn't doubt what they are saying, but it's coming from an organization that has been pushing a controversial agenda (agenda might be the wrong word but I'm a-busy at work atm) for 30+ years that these findings happen to support. It definitely casts a shadow on their results.
Michael Moore is so full of himself. He makes himself sound like a superhero.
MICHAEL MOORE HAS DETECTED INJUSTICE! NOW YOU'VE MESSED WITH THE BULL AND YOU WILL GET THE HORNS - OF JUSTICE!!!
I think it's cute Michael Moore still thinks he is relevant. That last hit job of his sure had a staggering affect on health care.
Politico: Obama to Seize on Bolder Strategy
The president reportedly plans to be tougher selling the next stages of his economic agenda than he was with the stimulus.
Expected to travel more and worry less about winning over Republican votes.
Did we ever like Michael Moore?
Did we ever like Michael Moore?
who needs em.
who needs em.
Exactly. They never did, but had to make it look like they were impeding the process.
who needs em.
Exactly. They never did, but had to make it look like they were impeding the process.
You think that's the way they thought of it? Maybe some of the hardcore libs, but I genuinly think Obama was trying to reach out.
"Bipartisanship" died with Aaron Burr cheebs.
Glad the GOP was able to stick together in the house. It's a damn shame no one has challenged Snowe to a duel.
who needs em.
Exactly. They never did, but had to make it look like they were impeding the process.
You think that's the way they thought of it? Maybe some of the hardcore libs, but I genuinly think Obama was trying to reach out.
looks like you bought what he was sellin'
:smug
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2rh5utg.jpg)
this made me lol
Bitter accountant is bitter.Michael Moore is so full of himself. He makes himself sound like a superhero.
This is how I think of you when you tell one of your work stories.
bitter factory worker is a factory workerThat troll doesn't even make sense.
You think that's the way they thought of it? Maybe some of the hardcore libs, but I genuinly think Obama was trying to reach out.
Father Mike contracted to write GOP Valentine's Day cards
(http://www.truemeaningoflife.com/images/obama4.jpg)
ACORN will be sending you Valentine's
I hope I live a short but fulfilling life and I die right before our chuldren have to start paying for everything in the bill!
You think that's the way they thought of it? Maybe some of the hardcore libs, but I genuinly think Obama was trying to reach out.
You think Obama made his speech in Elkhart, Indiana because it is a nice place to visit in February?
lol at that Valentines Day card.
You think that's the way they thought of it? Maybe some of the hardcore libs, but I genuinly think Obama was trying to reach out.
You think Obama made his speech in Elkhart, Indiana because it is a nice place to visit in February?
lol at that Valentines Day card.
I think you're applying Occam's Pretzel here, like you did in the Graeme Frost case.
omg i went to papayaking for lunch yesterday
fucking awesome
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
I hope I live a short but fulfilling life and I die right before our chuldren have to start paying for everything in the bill!
According to Arlen Specter, more GOP Senators support the stimulus but didn't vote for it because they're pussies. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/specter-republicans-suppo_n_166875.html)QuoteSen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
Country first!
God, that's bullshit.
According to Arlen Specter, more GOP Senators support the stimulus but didn't vote for it because they're pussies. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/specter-republicans-suppo_n_166875.html)QuoteSen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
Country first!
God, that's bullshit.
Bullshit?
Specter didn't do this for political reasons. His vote is near suicidal for him politically. His problem is not the general election in PA, he doesn't need to work with Democrats to win his seat or whatever. His problem is the primary, he won his primary in 2004 51-49. 2% that's it. And the type of Republicans that are still left in PA who didn't leave the party are the wacko right-wingers. And his vote on this is a huge problem for him in a already tough primary fight. If he was doing it for "bullshit" political reasons he would have voted against it, his problem in PA is keeping the Republicans in line and this vote hurts him on that.
So no, what he did and said is not bullshit.
That is the meaning of conservatism.
Times will change but the belief doesn't.
A changing of the guard is upon us.
It does bother me. Obama broke his promise about allowing folks to comb over bills 48 hours before passed
I think you're applying Occam's Pretzel here, like you did in the Graeme Frost case.
"All last week, we would have different groups come in, whether it is people advocating for Head Start and Child Care, to folks from Chevak. Everybody kind of wants to know: 'What would be in it for us' " said Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who despite the pleas, intends to vote against the stimulus package...
Although Murkowski doesn't intend to vote for the stimulus package, she said she does like some provisions in it, including money that could help pay for hospitals in Barrow and Nome. She said she has told groups such as the Alaska Federation of Natives to "get your grant writers ready" despite her own trepidations about the bill.
"I'm looking at what is moving forward now," Murkowski said. "The votes are clearly there for passag