Because the banks have been so up front and straight forward in regards to their contracts and mortgages and appraisals and reworking loans (etc.) but we've already beaten that up ini another thread so, whatever.

to the second point, all of the 'evidence' thus far used and not used over the last 8-12 years has been "open and transparent" for all to be able to speack of (Plaime) AND I thought that there is an ENTIRE other thread devoted to that topic yet you drop it in here to carpet bomb your MBBF-ism and FAUX-Shockisms....

/sarcasm because MBBF will continue to drive his bus come hell or high water so it is a charade, the game he plays.

I forget he has no dog in the race so he is the cornerstone of truthyism and honest information.

Screw them. A lot of the hedge funds are likely to get TARP money to cover their loses due to AIG insurance. They just want to get all their money while tens of thousands lose their jobs. It's about time the pain was shared throughout the system.

I was all psyched about Obama until I read in the paper this morning that he likes Dijon mustard on his hamburgers. I can't believe you guys elected such a fucking elitist! Thank goodness the Winnipeg Free Press were considerate enough to put such important information on the front page, otherwise I might not have noticed it and gone on blindly believing he was something he's not.

It may not have reached Canada, but apparently he didn't use ketchup either.

Link?

I saw it in the physical copy of the paper I have on my kitchen table at home, but I can't seem to find it on their terrible website (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/). If you can find it there, more power to you.

Dola

Here we go: Wars, flu, recession... now there's Dijongate - Winnipeg Free Press

Sweet. :D

http://wonkette.com/408389/ivy-leagu...-dijon-mustard

When did dijon mustard become elitist? They sell it for $3 in a plastic bottle at the grocery store. I think it's disgusting to put on a burger, but I'm someone who eats hot dogs with ketchup so I shouldn't talk.

It became elitist when Wayne and Garth asked for Grey Poupon while riding in a limo. The Barenaked Ladies further perpetuated the elitist image by joking of putting Dijon Ketchup on their Kraft Dinner in the If I Had A Million Dollars song. I'm pretty sure that any sitting president should be aware of these sorts of things and act accordingly when ordering burgers like an everyman.

Why? Who gives a shit?

One has to wonder how much the Grey Poupon people donated to the Obama campaign. Or perhaps they have some dirt that Obama doesn't want getting out?

These are the questions that journalists should be asking.

F*** the liberal media.

[Deep in GOP Headquarters}

MAN in dark blue suit with powder blue shirt and red tie barges into office: "What do we have our best people working on?"

MAN sitting at desk with dark blue suit and white shirt with red tie: "We've got them coming up with a realistic budget that responds to the slow economy while cutting overall government spending over the next ten years and not raising taxes. It's harder than you think, but if we can present the American people with something substantive . . ."

First MAN, cutting him off : "Well that can wait. Take them off of that immediately and get them to the PR room stat. The President likes fancy mustard! I want copy for all of our talking heads in time for the evening talk shows. Tell them to focus on bad things that rhyme with Mustard!"

MAN2: (sighs)

MAN1: "Hey, Grey Poupon. That sounds French. Have them check on that, too. 2010 here we come!"

The guy who thought it would be a neat idea to fly Air Force One over Manhattan has "resigned".

Official who OK'd Air Force One jet flyover resigns - CNN.com

U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts - Los Angeles Times


Obama, who was supported by the union, threatens economic ruin to California unless Schwarzenegger gives them an additional $2 an hour? That's some real transparency there.

its in violation of the act....what are they supposed to say?

You're right. I think the point is that this is yet another provision in this law that wasn't thoroughly looked over before people voted on it. When you see things like this put in a law, you begin to wonder what people were thinking passing it through.

Today, another side effect of the 'stimulus' package has come to light. A good portion of the stimulus money is going to places that have below average unemployment rates. In other words, a lot of the money that was intended to create jobs is going to places who don't need the job stimulus while places that really need the jobs don't get anything.

The Associated Press: STIMULUS WATCH: Early road aid leaves out neediest

Don't the states control most of that? I keep reading about how Gov Stanford (whoever is in SC) wants to deny a big chunk of the money that would go to building schools and roads in the poorer African American neighborhoods. Also, the big fight here in the A is regarding how much good ole Sonny is going to give Marta.

So exactly where is the blame when it comes to spending it since most of the southern governors wanted to reject chunks of the money.

The bill spells out exactly where the money is going. There's a link to the bill at this site if you have a lot of spare time on your hands. :D

Spending In the Stimulus Bill - Jamie Dupree on wsbradio.com

The AP article appears to be reporting based on the bill and not the actual dollars being accepted, so the state conflicts appear to have little to do with the raw numbers.

I believe someone posted a resource web site on this board detailing each project in the bill which was a really nice place to go through the info. I'll see if I can find it.

I dont believe it's a law but a bill so if they want the money than they need to meet the needs of the bill....if they dont, say one of those brilliant governors who spouted off at the mouth about not taking the money, than they would simply not meet the needs of the bill to get the money.

What I'm unclear on is if it's up to the states to decide where in their state to spend this money. I didn't go through the PDF's but I'm looking at that author's bullet points and see this...

$720 million in school improvement grants

Now obviously that is split between the various states, but does the bill say XX amount must go to the township of X? I'd think not otherwise there would be bigger issues at hand. I could be wrong, but I would think the states get to prioritize which districts get what amount.

I REALLY need to find the website that broke it all down. They literally had the stimulus money broke down to the point that they stated that a new stoplight would be added in my town and listed the exact intersection. They also had a specific school in our school district that would be receiving $XXXXX.XX for playground equipment. It was very exact in nature and there was a search engine to check by town/county/state.

I know in Indiana that the state took requests for funding from every government entity and then made selections from that long list. I'd imagine the stimulus was like every other major piece of spending, some was distributed through federal agencies, some was distributed through block grants and a little was distributed through congressional earmarks.

I've learned from my wife's family that the only thing worse than putting ketchup on a hot dog is putting ketchup on a latke. Let this be a lesson to you all.

The great thing about the stimulus package is that since so much money is being spent on so many things, it'll give everyone the chance to find some expenditure with which they disagree, to gripe about.

So Obama is going against the ACLU and has directed the DOJ to fight the release of additional prisoner abuse photos.

There have been various debates here over the years, about the impact of releasing those types of photos. Security v. open information and transparency. And of course, the participants on each side of that were predictable - The Bush administration and his supporters would rather that stuff be kept out of the public eye, and his opponents were strongly against this "secretive" governing.

So now Obama sees the logical light - where's the outrage? Personally, I think he made a great decision, and I actually appreciate every time he goes against the silly aura he created for himself during the campaign and deals with things more practically. But shouldn't there be outrage from his supporters? I'm sure if we had this headline during the W. years, we'd have a bunch of threads by now attacking the secrecy.

I voted for him because I had confidence that he would deal with things more practically. I was looking for a pragmatist, not an ideologue. And it looks like I've got what I wanted.

Flip flopping shouldn't be a bad word.

"

That's fine, but how do you feel about this issue? Did you criticize the Bush administration for similar stances?

I have no problem with flip-flopping (especially when someones flipping in the right direction after consulting with the right people).

But this isn't the Obama from his campaign. But his supporters don't seem to care.

I LOVE the fact that he is listening to people and basing decisions he's making on a wider pool of knowledge than his own simple ideology and the bubble of groupthink he mighhtve surrounded himself with. I agree with the general's sentiments on the ground that now may not be the right time to release them but in due course they will be released.

Isnt it a breath of fresh air to be able to have a president who is a thinker? It is to me.

I don't know what show my wife had on tonight (whatever entertianment news show that Deborah Norville hosts) but they did an expose tyle report on the health issues at the Five Guys Hamburgers location where Michelle & her posse snuck out to eat recently, as well as another location in Georgetown where the Obama children have been going. Turns out both have serious mice/rat problems, enough so that after seeing the tape
Five Guys corporate locked the doors on both locations until they can solve the problem.

Meaningless in the grand scheme of life but I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting where that story assignment was discussed & approved.

Yes, but why don't we think that the previous administration (who came to the same decision about fighting the release of later photos after the first wave) came to those decisions through consulting with the right people and thinking? Why is it that when they did it, it was "secretive government" and everything's that's wrong with Republicans?

Yes, I know, Bush is a monkey and a dummy and everything else.

And yes, I like having a president that can change his mind on things. I might have actually voted for Obama if he was understood his positions before taking the job (more cynically, I think he probably said what he thought he needed to say to get elected, but that doesn't make him worse than anyone else). Still, I thought he was was going to be a frighteningly polar-opposite of Bush when it came to national security issues. That's what it seemed like people wanted. Now that he's taken the job, he's realizing that national security is serious shit, his changing his views, and nobody has a problem with it (except the ACLU)

i thought during the election the smart $ was on him moving to the center after getting the votes to win?

nyways, I thought and most people I think thought the ads and attacks that he'd be soft on natl security were disingenuous and probably turned a lot of voters off from McCain because no one thinks an american will try to weaken america's security....cept maybe that lady at McCain's rally who shit on youtube.

I guess that's true. (Though there were all those liberals that claimed that Obama was pro-gay marriage, but he just had to say he wasn't to get through a national election)

But really, there aren't any hardcore liberals that are even disappointed with that? They're really all OK with his decisions as long as he "thinks" about them first, no matter what they are? Or have those people just stopped paying to politics now that they won?

I guess I was tricked by the Obama supporters too. They seemed to be buying all the rhetoric. Maybe we didn't need all that much change after all.

im not sure being pro-allowing-a-gay-couple-to-marry is EXTREME left anymore....

govt owning the banks is probably more in line with that...although that happened or got rolling under bush so wth do i know AND i was and still am FOR TARP (minus Paulson's torpedo)

I'm somewhat disappointed with him on a number of fronts but I could care less about the pictures. I wish he would go more strongly against the torture from the last administration but I also realize the politics involved. The more time spent looking backward is time not being spent looking ahead and working on the economy, health care, energy, etc. That doesn't mean I'm happy.

SI

I was pretty torn on the issue. On one hand I don't want to see troops put in anymore risk than they should be, especially on the account of some bad eggs. On the other, if people were doing things that were illegal, the people have a right to know.

I do think his original belief was to release them. It seems that top military officers pleaded with him not to and gave them scenarios. He thought it over and made a decision he felt was best.

How do I feel on the issue? I'm pretty ambivalent. And no, I didn't criticize Bush about this. My main criticism of Bush is surrounding himself with the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. I liked Bush, but the company he kept really turned me off.

I enjoy following campaigns but realize that campaigns are mostly a process of blowing smoke out of one's ass in order to garner votes. I mainly vote on leadership qualities and my underlying philosophy of the pendulum swinging from right to left. It was time for the pendulum to go left.

I don't really think people wanted a polar-opposite of Bush. I think they wanted someone who wasn't all ideology. Someone who was moderate and didn't veer too far the left or right. While we often hear screaming from the far left or right about issues, we forget they are a small percent of our population. Elections are decided for the most part by relative moderates as seen by the fact this country hasn't elected a far left/right canddiate in a long time.

I'm very disappointed in Obama on the photos and DADT. There will never be a good time to release the info on torture, but an open government demands that we do it anyway. I've been complaining for quite a while that the government keeps way too much secret and this is no exception. Everytime they want to keep something secret the burden should be on the government to explain why the public can't see it.

DADT is simply hindering our ability to fight. Continuing to expel good soldiers in highly specialized fields due to who they love is asinine and Obama should be ashamed to be a part of that system.

That make you happy? :)

I liked him too. I truly believe he wants the best for this country and its people. I believe he really felt he was doing what was best. His heart was in the right place, but unfortunately that's not enough.

His problem was that he was woefully unqualified. He surrounded himself with strong people who had their own agendas. I can't think of a President in recent memory who had less power over his VP and cabinet.

I agree with all that - it just seemed like Obama was further left than that. Hillary was the more moderate candidate. My perception could be way off on that, but I THOUGHT that a lot of the excitement over Obama was that he was a far left guy that actually won (he was using the "change" mantra even in the primaries) - the equivalent of, I don't know, Rush Limbaugh winning the presidency for the christian conservatives (not litterally Limbaugh, I just needed a quick example)

Not many on the left thought that. He certainly didn't have a record of being a far left guy. Most of the people who thought he was far left were his political opponents.

I think the far left stuff was just campaign stuff from the opposition. I never expected him to be far left and didn't see a lot of signs of him being that way either.

There's been no change. If Bush was the wedge, Obama is the hammer.

Oh...and Pelosi is the shrill hypocrite.

Agreed. Couldn't have assessed the Obama presidency any better thus far.

I REALLY hope that this doesn't send the Republicans scurring back to their right-wing ideologies. As a fiscal conservative, I don't need more abortion talk when there are far more important things that need to be discussed regarding how this country is run......

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/Mo...irst-Time.aspx

Pelosi's Torture-gate has become an unmitigated disaster. She's sorely mistaken if she thinks she's going to get away with bashing the CIA with half-truths and not expect them to come back at her with the full truth. She's better off just keeping quiet and taking her medicine at this point..........

Dana Milbank - Washington Sketch: Pelosi Displays Fancy Footwork About Briefings - washingtonpost.com

Unbelievable that Obama would make these kinds of statements in a speech as his administration gets ready to triple the national deficit with one swipe of the pen......

Terms of Service

WTF does far left mean? How the fuck is that an adjective?

:+1:

It's ironic that 8 years after all the hype about getting a "CEO President", we've just now gotten a "CEO President". :D


The difference on the picture issue is that the cat's already out of the bag now. What, really, are these "other" pictures going to tell us that we don't already know, assume or believe about what went on? The Bush Administration was trying to keep the whole shoot-and-match secret, with no access to anyone. That's quite a different scenario.


It is to me. *shurg*


:+1:

I used to rail on Bush a lot, but on further reflection the problem was really that he gave guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez a lot of freedom and they took it and did really bad/stupid things with it, and he lacked control (or perhaps even desire) to reign them back in. History books 100 years from now will call this the de-facto Cheney Presidency.


Oh God no. :D

I think this is a misconception being propagated by the usual media suspects, that Obama was the darling of the far left more so than any other constituency in the Democratic party. Honestly, I don't think he was. The "far left" stuck with guys like Nader pretty long in the process, coming over to Obama once he was nominated and it was clear he had a real shot at winning. At that point, for all but the die-hard Naderites, you're going to get behind the one guy out of two choices who roughly approximates your views.

My Dad, who is considerably more lefty than I am, was never a full-on Obama supporter. He felt he was too moderate, and wanted to elect a radical. The same goes for my friends who are environmental-lefties, labor-lefties, etc... - the activists. None of them viewed him as the messiah, but they sure as hell were going to vote for him as an electable candidate who at least might be somewhat disposed to consider their viewpoints over those of their opponents.

I think this "support groundswell" has been misinterpreted, to be honest. I think the media and the talking heads want us to believe that the "Left" got all gaga about Obama because they thought they were electing an activist. I don't think that's the case.

I think Democrats got gaga over Obama in the campaign because he was the first electable candidate since Clinton and the first really good candidate since JFK.

It's important to remember that most Democrats have lived in a world where the guy in the White House is either a) predisposed to be on the other side of the issues from them, b) was pretty neutered during his administration (Clinton) or c) was completely incompetent (Carter). Now you've got a guy who's not only electable, but is inspirational, projects confidence and competence, and whose election would be a historic first? Why wouldn't Democrats go a bit gaga over him.

So no, it wasn't because we thought he'd be an activist.

This will come as a shock to some here, I guess, but most modern Democrats are considerably more pragmatic than all that. The usual suspects in the media (and the GOP) would have you believe that the Democratic party is still (as if it ever was) made up of flag-burning hippies trying to bring back the 60s. It's a ridiculous caricature, and if the current party-identification polls are to be believed the majority of Americans aren't buying it.

Couldn't disagree more with that. No one thinks that they're hippies. There was a large groundswell of support for 'Anything but Bush'. Tack on that it was an electable African-American candidate who avoided the usual civil rights rhetoric and it was a match made in heaven. Democrats had a candidate that had to do something extremely stupid not to get elected, despite his lackluster political background.

Still waiting, MBBF....

I am very seriously, honestly interested in polls that indicate a "vast majority" of the troops in Iraq support that war. From any year. I could see it being possible in 2008 or 2009, but I've not seen a poll with those numbers.

GOP talking heads, as a whole, don't consistently and repeatedly try to paint the Democratic Party as being led by a bunch of far-left radical activists? Really?

Given the recent run of fake veterans against the War joining legitimate veteran organizations, I'm not sure any poll numbers are legit at this point.

Meet another fake vet against the war -- "Rick Duncan" (Wizbang)

The poll I referenced was from 2008. I'm pissed that I can't find it because it allows you to avoid the legitimate topics actually related to the administration which this thread is supposed to be about, but instead continues to focus for large stints on the previous administration. You can be sure that when I find it, I'll post it.

So are we going to play the game where the extremes of the party are the true nature of the party? I thought this thread was about legitimate discussion about the real nature of the politics rather than what Rush Limbaugh or similar extreme Democrats say, but I obviously was mistaken.

The core idiots of each party don't decide much of anything when it comes to the election. The moderate heads usually prevail.

Please do - I'd like to see that poll. Because the polls I've seen over the years from sources like the Military Times have shown nothing more than 60% support for the Iraq War, which isn't a "vast majority".

I could see, post-surge, the numbers being better, but then the question I'd be interested in seeing would be a breakdown of support for the war being fought then/now and support for the original decision to go to war. I would imagine, based on past evidence, that the latter number is still low.

And in all these we should be talking active military and Iraq veterans, to reference your original contention.

Man, I'm so glad you don't work for me. I wish I could make broad assertions to my peers based on small sample sizes and unreferenced blogs. All that link you pointed to says is that some guy, who is apparently an escaped mental patient, faked everyone out. And according to the blog, you can add him to the *gasp* 5 or so people that have apparently driven one veteran to leave some of these groups. How you can continue to post around here is mind bottling.

And by the way, about your statement about avoiding the thread topic, perhaps it needs to be changed because the topic is hopes and predictions. Maybe we should change it to "the continual feigned outrage/disappointment of somebody who never liked Obama complaining" thread.

I'm talking about GOP talking heads/prominent media figures, not all of whom are radical or Rush Limbaugh. But whatever, it's a bias argument that's not worth having, yet again, since I don't want to subject anyone to another Dutch tirade about media bias. :D

The number was around that percentage, so if you don't consider that a 'vast majority', then I suppose it isn't. I consider that a pretty high number given the lack of support early in the war effort as you rightly mention.

But we're past the hopes and predictions point. He's already broken several key campaign promises, yet he's glorified as being a man who's "willing to change" when the previous administration didn't get similar treatment late in that administration when they were signing bill after bill, pissing off the conservative base. If this is a thread for the continued spread of rainbows and unicorns, by all means, proceed.

Yeah, I'd term "vast majority" as being at least over 75%, probably closer to 85-90%.

Yes, it's definitely not that.

As I've asked you before, please list some of the broken campaign promises, or "180 degree turns" as you put it before, so we can analyze them. I'm not saying there aren't any, I'd just like you to be specific in the interest of furthering continuing meaningful conversation, as opposed to just throwing talking points around.


Look, people, it was ponies, not unicorns. The whole unicorn thing is one big red herring and I won't stand for it anymore.

I was just going to say this. I am not up on all the promises and, honestly, all of the things Obama has done since in office. But I am not aware of him directly breaking any promises. I am not into politics like most of you guys, but I like to think that I am somewhat in the loop seeing as that I work 2 blocks from Obama's house and live about a mile away. :)

Rush is hardly the extreme of the current GOP. In fact he enjoys the support of a "vast majority" of Republicans. From Gallup:


As for the true nature of the party, it's been widely reported that the RNC is going to hold a meeting where one of the primary objectives is to officially declare the Democratic Party as the Democrat Socialist Party. The whole problem is that the GOP is little more than the extremists these days.

As for Obama breaking promises, there was that whole public financing thingy.

OK, good example. Me, specifically, I didn't care about that, since I consider the whole electoral financing thing so broken anyway that if one held oneself to a promise like that, you'd be needlessly hamstringing yourself. A common sense decision, in my opinion.

Now, if he authored a major piece of legislation on campaign finance reform, and then skirted the spirit of that legislation, and possible minor aspects of the letter of that legislation, I might see a principle issue there.

Well technically we're talking about promises broken during Obama's presidency, not before.

Anyway that was a good call and I'm glad he did it.

How about the whole torturing and killing civilians on multiple continents thing?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if he ever promised to stop that or not.

You're going to be more specific. Every president is going to be somewhat eventually responsible for innocent deaths (because there's always some sort of war going on).

oh damn I clicked on the link thinking there'd be some facts or {shock} a poll....nope, a blog.

Whenever I come into this thread, it's like a gang bang, and Mizzou B-ball fan is the bitch. It'd be nice to see someone else arguing against the mob. (I won't because I don't pay enough attention to politics, and am less conservative than a guy like MBBF)

1. I'm only conservative from a fiscal standpoint. I'm mostly with Obama and the Democrats when it comes to moral legislation. It just so happens that the current focus is on financial missteps, hence the reason I obviously come across as deeply opposed to Obama's leanings in that regard.

2. As you allude to, the gang-bang mentality exposes just how partisan most posters in this thread are, despite their attempts to look even-handed in their policy beliefs. I don't think there's any question that this is a left-leaning circle. It's always been that way for as long as I've been here and many of the political polls on this board bear that out.

Here's a few campaign pledges that have fallen by the wayside during the first few months of Mr. Obama's administration........

Obama pledge to go line-by-line to remove unnecessary pork during the campaign, but the first stimulus bill shot that out of the water.

Obama promised that all bills would be open for public consumption for 5 days before a vote, yet all major legislation has not followed that trend thus far, with the stimulus package being the glowing example.

Obama promised to get the troops home quickly, but some Democratic lawmakers feel betrayed by the lack of any real cutbacks in the Military budget. Granted, most of us knew this was an unrealistic goal when he pledged to bring everyone home quickly and perhaps Obama started to realize that when he softened his stance in the middle of the campaign, but it's still a campaign promise that didn't hold true.

Cracks appearing in Democratic unity | Washington Examiner

Obama is in favor of taxing health benefits, something he was decidedly against in campaign rhetoric.........

Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits - NYTimes.com

Obama attacked McCain numerous times on the campaign trail, stating that military tribunals were not the way to handle Gitmo prisoners. Now, he's asking to keep the tribunal system to try terror suspects the same way McCain proposed on the campaign trail.......

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts - NYTimes.com

but most of the country is conservative.....according to polls anyways ;)

I'd argue that the stimulus bill was a very special case, and also, it's only one bill, so far.


This is in the realm of Congress. Obama only has a limited amount of influence over the workings of Congress. Having said that, many have pointed out how open the new administration has been with public access to legislative text as well as government expenditures.


I think you're conflating two different things here.


He pledged to bring the troops home from Iraq as soon as was possible, and that's essentially what he's done. Unless you can point to a specific timeline he reneged on, you're putting words into the mouths of his supporters.


Read the article. Officials in his administration have said that they wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a partial taxing of some health benefits if they're part of a good and comprehensive tax package. That's not even a subtle distinction from what you claim the article says.


No he's not. He's proposing keeping a significantly changed tribunal system (changed to address serious legal flaws raised by experts over the past 6 years) for a small minority of Gitmo prisoners still remaining. McCain was OK with using the tribunal system, as it existed under Bush, for pretty much all of the detainees. Again, a gulf in understanding here.

Anyway, nothing there I'm getting riled up about. And no 180s, in my opinion.

I don't think that's always the case. The Palin pick was made by the extremes in the Republican Party. There were a lot more moderate picks that would have given him much better chances at winning like Ridge.

If you are truly a fiscal conservative, why is all your anger toward Democrats? I rarely see you comment negatively on the Republican Party that went crazy with spending and "socialism" for most of the decade. Just seems to me that you dislike someone because it says D next to their name and not their policies.

I tried...simply not worth it...so now I just sit and read one man's desparate fight.

This made me laugh my head off:

Terms of Service

not sure which thread to throw this into but it's assinine nonetheless:

I try not to get too involved, but I disagree with this point:

I'm not sure when that poll was taken, but Limbaugh got just a 47% favorability rating from Republicans (19% overall) in the CBS news poll taken on March 17:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_031709.pdf

Compare with with someone like Al Franken who will probably representing the senate for the Democrats soon. I doubt Limbaugh or Ann Coulter would stand much of a chance in a state-wide election. My point here is that each side tries to paint the other as more sympathetic to the "extremes", but I'd say around 45-55% of each party supports their own demagoguery creators.

When the party is out of power, the leaders do some drastic things. We had everything from the "government in exile" lead by Al Gore to leaders in the senate saying George Bush is running Soviet Gulags and using Nazi tactics. I don't see how any of this is less radical than what happened between 2002 and 2008.

It is what it is, the party out of power is desperate to regain their upper hand so the massive hyperbole comes out to play. This isn't an original tactic or anything specific to one party.

Does the socialism angle really work? I mean it had no effect on the 2008 elections and isn't taboo like communist or nazi. Not to mention that Republicans are socialists too and this country is in part a socialist country.

Just seems like a desperate move. There has to be better ways of turning things around for them.

"The world is burning in the fire of desire, in greed, arrogance and excessive ego."

"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance."

(Sri Guru Granth Sahib)

My hope for the Obama presidency was for him to meet James Harrison, but now that's out the window. Damn Harrison!

What was it that the Russian and German people thought they were getting instead of communism and fascism when they were hoping for change? (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...National Socialists....be careful about what you wish to glamorize.)

Comparing Obama to murderous dictators in Germany and Russia is just silly. If you truly think Obama is leading this country down the path Hitler did, we are on two different planets.

And what I'm saying about socialism isn't that it's good or bad. I'm saying that our country is socialist to an extent and just about everyone in this country likes it that way. Republicans are just as socialist as Democrats, they just disagree on what parts to socialize and how to do it. My argument is with this crazy notion that Democrats are somehow socialists while Republicans are not.

This country is a socialist country. If they want to argue that Democrats are more socialist than they are, fine. But this idea that they hate socialism is just plain ignorance to the word and history of our country.

I offer my comments as a response to your interest for more socialism. If you're only defense is Obamamania, then I'm not going to follow you down that slipperly slope.


Obviously there are socialist parts. But is America--as a whole & compared to other nations--more socialist than capitalist?


Well good, no need to argue about that!

I have no interest in more socialism and never stated that I did. In fact, I'd love to see a cutback by our government in a lot of social programs (I lean a bit libertarian). But I'm not naive enough to believe that the Republicans are the answer to this as they sat there and expanded government for the 6 years this decade that they had total power of government.

I don't really know. We do spend less as a nation than other countries. But I still don't think being 75% socialist vs 80% socialist makes one country capitalists and the other socialists. In fact, you could argue that with our massive interjection into the mortage, banking, financial, and insurance industries over the past year, we're more socialist than they are. Those industries are essentially socialized (well capitalism for profits, socialism for losses) and I can't think of many other nations that have done the same (besides socialist countries like China).


That's just what the Republicans should say and the whole reason for my disdain. It's the labeling of one party as socialists and the other party as not.

I don't think it's been discussed much here, but the whole Notre Dame thing bothers me a lot.

First, if you are a student or alumni of the school and are upset by him speaking, that's fine. I completely respect someone tied to the school having a problem and even protesting the decision.

My problem is with people who are trying to disrupt this ceremony for the graduates. It's a big day for them, something they've worked hard at and forked over a lot of money for. So if you have no affiliation with the school, mind your own fucking business. These idiots running on to the private campus are morons.

And this isn't necessarily about Obama or my view on abortion. I felt the same way about the shitbags who would protest Bush's commencement speeches.

Can they have them arrested for trespassing (since it is a private university)?

They have been arresting them.

Wow...I need the drunk guy thread.

I'll give him props for having the common sense enough to not release detainee footage.

Maybe it's been the past two months of working with the lady who lost her son in afghanistan, but I really wish he'd bring a lot of the troops home.

+1

You can add this to the list as to why I dislike Notre Dame. It's about the kids who are graduating and the attention should be made to the kids who are graduating from an admittedly prestigious school.

How does that make you dislike Notre Dame more?

It's an irrational hate influenced mostly from my love of college football.

What I don't understand is why would the abortion issue even come up in a commencement address? And why would he debate the issue in a place like ND? It all just seems very odd to me...

Ummmm, have you seen the defecit projections that Obama has put out there? He's making Bush's defecit spending look timid.

And you obviously weren't paying attention in the last 6-9 months of Bush. I was on here hammering all of the stupid bills he signed on his way out the door. Little did I know just how far Obama would go to trump that fiscal irresponsibility by the Republican president. Obama has found a way to make Bush look like a tightwad in comparison, which is shocking.

So, let me get this straight. You're the vice-president and you have a top secret bunker built under your home that will hopefully keep you safe in a catastrophic situation. You go to a dinner and use top secret information which may save your life as dinner conversation? Genius, pure genius. Obama's probably regretting that he sent Biden to that dinner instead of going himself.

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Good editorial from George Will concerning the attempted infiltration of government into the private business sector.

George F. Will - The Obama Administration's Economic Lawlessness - washingtonpost.com

I hope and predict that Obama will choose senior military officials who will make decisions based on what is right for America and not on what would best accord with random quotes from the book of Daniel.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret