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.