If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7528 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | » | Last
 
  2009-02-25 12:18:58 AM
AR55: Saiga410: Also was this sanctioned by ACORN or just done by an overzelous staffer?

I highly doubt they would issue this decree by the top brass, more than likely it's a few tards who decided to take advantage of a situation. Only some talking head saw that they were ACORN members and attributes it to the organization allowing it to occur.


I agree it is dumb/silly/stupid to attribute the actions of one/a few members of an organization upon the organization as a whole. I really wish that a few talking heads were not turning the national dialog into wharblebarble.

/new line of conversation

My biggest complaint politically right now is Obama's call for reducing the deficit in half by 2012. I have no problems with this action, heck I applaud wanting to reduce the deficit but as of right now the baseline is hugely inflated. With the recession governmental receipts are down by a large margin and this is inflating the deficit vs what we saw last year, which by itself may have been the largest single year deficit until this year. If Obama cuts the deficit in half, we are still going to have an amazingly large deficit. Now lets assume that the economy recovers to the point where the receipts are the same (adjusted for inflation) as what we saw with the early recession depressed inflow that we had last year (I sure hope this is the case, if otherwise we are in for a missing decade situation). Well shucks we just halved the deficit while doing nothing. If this is the case, then why do we need to raise the taxes on the top 2% in order to halve the deficit? This is just a way to raise taxes in order to pay for his pet projects. I do not see this as fiscal restraint. No new long term projects until we balance the budget (short term in order to keep the economy afloat is mehhh alright with me but I will grumble) to me that is fiscal restraint. Go ahead and raise taxes to balance the budget but do not sell it as that just to cover your pet projects.

Complaints/objections to my observations? I know I have one assumption that this whole point is based upon but I also assume that the administration is banking on this being true otherwise there is no way we can reduce the deficit from this year's books in the timeframe.
 
  2009-02-25 12:26:59 AM
AR55: Saiga410: Also was this sanctioned by ACORN or just done by an overzelous staffer?

I highly doubt they would issue this decree by the top brass, more than likely it's a few tards who decided to take advantage of a situation. Only some talking head saw that they were ACORN members and attributes it to the organization allowing it to occur.


Not so. ACORN (or at least, one program under ACORN) is launching a campaign of civil disobedience. Here's a link that gives you an idea of what's happening:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,498669,00.html

"ACORN launched its "Home Savers" campaign in New York earlier this month and plans to expand the program to at least 22 other cities and three counties nationwide in the coming weeks. Participants like Beverly say they will refuse to move out of foreclosed homes or reclaim properties altogether until a comprehensive federal housing plan takes affect."

Mr. Beverly, you will please note, surrendered himself to the authorities after being charged with 4th degree burglary.

Here's the Baltimore Sun's write up that has some video of the actual event (please ask the children to leave the room):

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/realestate/bal-foreclosure-bill0224,0,5388 0 79.story


I won't comment on how I feel about this because I haven't exactly spent a lot of time analyzing it. I can say that anything that Louis the Homesteader is doing on the can after his morning coffee has more social worth than Joe the Not So Plumber will ever contribute in his life so I'm hoping this will knock that sorry fark off the radar of the media once and for all.
 
  2009-02-25 01:01:59 AM
Saiga410: No new long term projects until we balance the budget (short term in order to keep the economy afloat is mehhh alright with me but I will grumble) to me that is fiscal restraint.

I think the "short term" projects is where we are at and why you are grumbling. I would say that since most sane people agree that the way out of the recession is to get spending started again, and since the private sector has been kicked in the gonads and is not able to provide that spending right now, that the only reasonable solution is to have the government shout "Clear!" and hit us with the paddles.

What I like about President Obama's plan, and I've mentioned it here before, is the amount of accountability that is incorporated. It will be harder to piss the money away down a loophole. The other thing I like, which I think speaks more to your point of "short term" projects, is the fact that there is infrastructure spending for the short term that will net us an ROI in the long term. These aren't pet projects. This is spending where it needs to be spent. You probably don't recognize it since we haven't seen it this evident in decades. I like the government building roads and trains and bridges. That's what I think they should do.

I will admit to being a little taken by surprise at his by his goals. I certainly find them admirable.
 
  2009-02-25 06:58:00 AM
So you do not have an opinion on Acorn breaking into homes?

If someone is unable to pay their house payments and are kicked out it should be OK for them to stay in that house or break back in after they leave?

How exactly is this a good thing?

Perhaps I should just stop making my house payments and just have Acorn break into my house after I've been kicked out.

You can find this all on their own website.

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22525&tx_ttnews[back P id]=12340&cHash=65793d23d7

And Bonnie

"What I like about President Obama's plan, and I've mentioned it here before, is the amount of accountability that is incorporated. It will be harder to piss the money away down a loophole."

You HONESTLY think that there will not be waste with the government spending?

There has never been accountability in the government. (I don't care who is in charge) Presidents talk about accountability all teh time but there is always waste, there is always pork, there is always spending on unneeded items.

That is government.

Heck...

How about the boatload of money that is being spent on converter boxes.

That's not a waste of money?

I recall reading somewhere of a state that was planning on spending a bunch of the stimulus money on "artwork" to go along some highway somewhere.

That sure would be a good use of tax dollars...
 
  2009-02-25 12:31:30 PM
dottedmint: There has never been accountability in the government.

"And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through."

David Bowie
 
SGF
  2009-02-26 07:37:37 PM
Hitler
 
  2009-02-27 05:55:10 PM
I'll just leave this here for dottedmint.

media.mcclatchydc.com
 
  2009-02-28 08:56:16 AM
Whidbey if you HONESTLY think that only the "rich" are going to be seeing higher taxes (or expenses) because of Obamas policies then frankly you are hopeless.

BTW...

What do you think of Obamas plan to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq???

I thought he promised to pull all of our troops out.

And for the record...

I agree with him.

shocking.....
 
  2009-03-02 09:06:30 PM
dottedmint: What do you think of Obamas plan to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq???

I thought he promised to pull all of our troops out.


If you think it is actually feasible to pull out every troop in under a month, you're hopeless. The deescalation is going to happen the same way it occurred in Vietnam, hint it's going to take a few years.

Also you seem to be very nit picky about minuscule details.
 
  2009-03-03 06:40:17 AM
AR55 " hint it's going to take a few years."

Right....

That's what Bush was saying all along and now Obama is doing what Bush was saying.


"Also you seem to be very nit picky about minuscule details."

It's not nit picking.

It is simply pointing out that Obama made several statements about pulling out of Iraq. Origionally he was talking about pulling all troops out almost as soon as he took office and now he is talking about leaving 50 thousand troops in Iraq indefinately.

How is what Obama is talking about different from how Bush would be running the war?
 
  2009-03-03 02:39:51 PM
FYI- Updates on recovery.gov, if anybody's interested.

Parts of the allocation are set aside to make sure that urban, suburban, and rural areas alike all get a share. But since local leaders -- mayors and governors -- know their communities best, much of the money is left to states' discretion. And if states don't use it, they lose it. To make sure that funds go out quickly to give our economy the jolt it needs, states have 120 days to assign the funds to specific projects.
 
  2009-03-04 03:59:35 PM
dottedmint: Origionally he was talking about pulling all troops out almost as soon as he took office

[CITATION NEEDED]

How is what Obama is talking about different from how Bush would be running the war?

It's the kind of compromise expected from having to clean up such a mess left by his predecessor. But you knew that.
 
  2009-03-04 09:17:03 PM
/off the wall thinking

I was just thinking about the give DC a rep bill. In order to for it to pass constitutional muster you have to assume that it is a state (1:2 para 2 {BTW what is the correct procedure to quote the constitution?}), if it is somewhat considered a semistate does that mean that Heller v DC is de facto incorporated?

/end off the wall thinking

Yes, that is probably not that well thought out but I had to put it down.
 
  2009-03-05 07:42:45 AM
Whidbey "It's the kind of compromise expected from having to clean up such a mess left by his predecessor."

You really do not get it Whidbey.

Obama is basically doing what Bush was talking about doing.

He's not dealing with Iraq really any differently than how Bush would be dealing with it.

Here is what Obama said about Iraq to the Marines at Camp Lejeune.

"Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process."

That sure doesn't sound like a (as you put it) "mess".

And you do know who was in charge of these improvements that Obama is talking about.

That would be Bush.

But you knew that....


So I'll ask again...

How is Obama running the war in Iraq differently from how Bush would be running it?
 
  2009-03-05 07:49:39 AM
Oh and....

Here is what Obama said during the campaign....

"We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely,"

and yet he is going to sign a bill that has 9,000 earmarks.

I guess he didn't mean what he said.
 
  2009-03-06 03:33:58 PM
You're still nitpicking. I mean Jesus Christ the guy hasn't even been in office a full quarter and you already think he is a failure.

How about this wait a year, you know to actually make sure his policies are a failure, then judge him.

But attacking him off the bat right now is inane. It's not going to hurt Obama's image, as the Republicans desperately want. When you have two fanatical parties, they just become more fanatical not reasonable, while the moderates stay moderate. So yeah, this whole little 'ruse' the GOP is pulling isn't going to do anything in the long run.
 
  2009-03-07 07:06:53 PM
Also how do you feel about this article dottedmint? Link (new window)
 
  2009-03-08 03:47:05 AM
dottedmint: Obama is basically doing what Bush was talking about doing.

See the difference yet?
 
  2009-03-08 11:18:17 AM
Thanks for the link AR55....

How do I feel about it???

Well since I consider myself a Conservative first and a Republican second I do not support Republican earmarks either. Pork is pork and I don't care who puts it in. I don't support it.

But nice try at somehow showing me as a hypocrite...

Now.... One thing that the article said is.....

"Maybe, just maybe, these senators-Democrats and Republicans-are doing something laudable with these evil, evil earmarks. Maybe they are helping the poorer folks among us with some extra economic development programs, and jobs. Keeping folks off welfare, and kids in school."

It is too bad that the author of that article didn't find out what exactly those earmarks are for. If he had he might have been able to make a point. But that still would not have taken into account the other 9,000 (or so) earmarks that are in there or the fact that Obama said,

"We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely,"

and that if he signs a bill into law that has 9,000 earmarks he clearly didn't intend to keep his campaign promise.

And HoboSong I don't think you get it.

Obama is basically following the same plan for the drawdown in Iraq that Bush had. There is no significant differance between how Bush was running the war in Iraq and how Obama is running the war in Iraq.

IF you see some major difference by all means show me...
 
  2009-03-08 11:40:37 AM
AR55 "How about this wait a year, you know to actually make sure his policies are a failure, then judge him."

Right AR55......

I forgot that the Dems gave Bush a full year before they started attacking him....

Oh that's right....

They didn't wait.

Now since Dems didn't give Bush a year I'm not going to give Obama a year either.....

And here is some more nitpicking...


I recall Obama and other Dems talking about how they would improve how others see our country... they would be better diplomats than Bush.

Well,

Because all he got was a set of DVDs. Barack Obama, the leader of the world's richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films - a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks. (new window)

"The Prime Minister gave Mr Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet.

The unique present delighted Mr Obama because oak from the Gannet's sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880.
Mr Brown also handed over a framed commission for HMS Resolute and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.
In addition, Mr Brown and his wife showered gifts on the Obama children giving Sasha and Malia an outfit each from Topshop and six children's books by British authors which are shortly to be published in America.
In return, the Obamas gave the Browns two models of the presidential helicopter, Marine One, to take home to sons Fraser and John."


WOW....

What a thoughtful gift Obama gave the PM....

A bunch of DVDs and a couple of toy helicopters....

Boy what a great diplomat he is....
 
  2009-03-08 02:47:50 PM
dottedmint:
But nice try at somehow showing me as a hypocrite...


No not that. The party that is suppose to represent your ideas and values (conservatives), aren't. They claim to be against Democrat policies yet partake in them. How are people suppose to trust the GOP when they don't even follow their values?

and that if he signs a bill into law that has 9,000 earmarks he clearly didn't intend to keep his campaign promise.

Politicians make unattainable promises when they campaign, they say whatever the crowd wants to hear so they get their vote. It has nothing to do with credibility but with the inane way Americans want politicians to campaign.

Bush also made pretty crazy promises as well, as did Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan. Do you view any of these Presidents as failures because they did not yield to their campaign promises?

dottedmint: Now since Dems didn't give Bush a year I'm not going to give Obama a year either.....

And when the Democrats did it, it was stupid and childish. So now that Republicans are doing it, it is still stupid and childish. Using the same tactics as your opponent isn't going to help you, crybabies were proved to be a failure with Bush and they will fail with Obama. Unless some justifiable grief is revealed. Which has yet to surface.

I guess I must be one of those old fashioned types that supports the President (for the most part) regardless of their political creed.

dottedmint: WOW....

What a thoughtful gift Obama gave the PM....

A bunch of DVDs and a couple of toy helicopters....

Boy what a great diplomat he is....


I really hope this rant is a joke and you are just toying with me.
 
  2009-03-08 05:15:27 PM
"The party that is suppose to represent your ideas and values (conservatives), aren't. They claim to be against Democrat policies yet partake in them. How are people suppose to trust the GOP when they don't even follow their values?"

You still are not getting it AR55. As a Conservative I DO NOT support earmarks no matter who puts them in. IF a Republican puts in a million dollars to do some pet project back home I will not support that earmark ESPECIALLY when those earmarks are not related to the main bill. I'm not totally against earmarks IF they somehow are at least related to the origional bill. But the point is that if a Republican puts a million dollars to fund the creation of a bike path back home in some military spending bill I will NOT support that action.

I do not support RINOs. (Republican In Name Only)

I complained about the spending that Bush allowed and I am going to complain about the spending that Obama is going to allow.

"Politicians make unattainable promises when they campaign, they say whatever the crowd wants to hear so they get their vote. It has nothing to do with credibility but with the inane way Americans want politicians to campaign."

But I thought Obama was going to be a different sort of politician. I thought he was going to bring "change" to DC. Are you basically saying he is a typical politician that we cannot trust to keep his word???

And BTW....

This promise that Obama made is completely "attainable". He is the President and he can veto this bill. IF he were to veto this bill and criticize the earmarks he would find alot of people supporting him. (including myself)

Ya see....

I will praise Obama when I agree with him such as his plans for Iraq but I will criticize him when he does things that I think are wrong. (the stimulus bill)


"Unless some justifiable grief is revealed. Which has yet to surface."

I would say a trillion dollar "stimulus bill" that many question how much stimulus it will create is justifiable grief especially when we do not have the money to spend.

"I really hope this rant is a joke and you are just toying with me."

I wish it was a joke.

I think giving the PM of Britian a bunch of DVDs that you could pick up from BlockBuster Video shows very poor judgement especially when he gave Obama such a special and thoughtful gift.

Those are not the actions of a diplomat.

Here.... How about some more nitpicking....

Treasury battles financial crisis short-handed
(new window)

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department is battling an epic financial crisis that hasn't paused since the Obama administration took over, but the department's bank-like, colonnaded building still has a lot of empty desks.

With only a handful of key staff in place, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is working to formulate policy to shore up banks, stabilize housing and restart credit flows with little more than a skeleton crew of close advisers.

The Obama administration has yet to submit nominations for key Treasury posts such as deputy secretary and undersecretaries for domestic finance and international affairs. Many lower level policy positions remain unfilled.


So I thought the economy was the biggest threat that we have faced in years and yet Obama has not filled his Treasury department yet????

Why not???

Should that not have been one of his first priorities???
 
  2009-03-10 12:58:55 PM
Happy birthday Osama Bin Laden.

/he's 52
//but he doesn't look a day over 70
///a diet of sand and camel pancreas will do that to you I guess
 
  2009-03-18 06:12:09 PM
dottedmint: You really do not get it Whidbey.

Obama is basically doing what Bush was talking about doing.

He's not dealing with Iraq really any differently than how Bush would be dealing with it.


Citations needed. Obama disagreed with the "war," and Bush showed no inkling that he planned on spending money to improve this country.
 
  2009-03-18 10:56:54 PM
Again Whidbey...

Just tell me what Obama is doing differently in Iraq than what Bush was doing or was talking about doing.

Oh and I find it funny how many stories I have heard in the news about how safe Iraq is becoming....
 
  2009-03-18 11:09:16 PM
Oh...

And BTW...

I'm wondering what you (or anyone else in here) think about the fact that Dems knew about and even allowed the AIG bonuses. These would be the same bonuses that they now complain about.

I can't help but wonder how many Obama voters are now sorry for their vote.
 
  2009-03-19 01:30:27 AM
dottedmint: Just tell me what Obama is doing differently in Iraq than what Bush was doing or was talking about doing.

When did Bush actually promise the American people he was going to end the occupation?

Cite the speech and the date it was given.

Oh and I find it funny how many stories I have heard in the news about how safe Iraq is becoming....

Even if you did find one story (probably from Fox News, surprise) it's pretty obvious that now that Bush is out of office, there's hope for the Iraqis that we're finally making an effort to leave so they can get on with their lives.

I can't help but wonder how many Obama voters are now sorry for their vote.

I'm not sorry. And exactly what Presidential power does Obama have to force the executives not to take their bonuses?

Show me where that is in the Constitution?
 
  2009-03-19 06:46:52 AM
"When did Bush actually promise the American people he was going to end the occupation?"

Do you not remember Whidbey the Status Of Forces Agreement that was agreed to during Bushs Presidency where the Iraqi government and the US government worked out an agreement that deals with ending (as you put it) "the occupation" of Iraq?

"Even if you did find one story (probably from Fox News, surprise) it's pretty obvious that now that Bush is out of office, there's hope for the Iraqis that we're finally making an effort to leave so they can get on with their lives."

Again Whidbey, Bush always talked about eventually leaving Iraq. He never said that we would stay there forever. The plan was always that as things got more stable we would start slowly pulling out. (Status Of Forces Agreement)

This sure looks alot like what Obama is doing....

Could one reason things are getting better in Iraq be that Bush was right in how he handled the war???

"And exactly what Presidential power does Obama have to force the executives not to take their bonuses?

Show me where that is in the Constitution?"


Let's see....

AIG says to the government that they need money....

The government knows that these bonuses were going to be handed out....

The government COULD have said to AIG that we will only hand out the money as long as you do not give bonuses. But for some strange reason the Democrats did not do that but now they are acting all outraged that these bonuses were handed out.

"Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language."


Link (new window)
 
  2009-03-19 05:20:58 PM
dottedmint: Again Whidbey, Bush always talked about eventually leaving Iraq. He never said that we would stay there forever. The plan was always that as things got more stable we would start slowly pulling out. (Status Of Forces Agreement)

If you believe that. I don't. Bush had to cave to public opinion as his approval ratings continued to plummet. The truth is that the occupation was ill-planned, and there was more and more pressure for the Bush administration to promote an "exit strategy," which would undoubtedly mean staying in the country in some capacity perhaps for 50 years as McCain suggested. THAT's what the Bush administration's real intention was.

Obama is cleaning up a mess. A failure. Nothing more. And he's playing it safe, and smart, by not repeating the same wasteful kind of military pull-out that we saw in Vietnam.dottedmint: The government COULD have said to AIG that we will only hand out the money as long as you do not give bonuses. But for some strange reason the Democrats did not do that but now they are acting all outraged that these bonuses were handed out.

Why do you even care? If they take the bonuses away, you'll complain that the government is punishing successful people, and if they get to keep the bonuses, you attack the administration.

It's very likely that there will be enough outrage that the bonuses will be cut.

Sorry, but this is not the smoking gun you hoped for that makes me regret voting for Obama. And I'm guessing there isn't going to be one, just more fake outrage and nitpicking from "conservatives." For four more years.
 
  2009-03-19 07:19:20 PM
"The truth is that the occupation was ill-planned, and there was more and more pressure for the Bush administration to promote an "exit strategy," which would undoubtedly mean staying in the country in some capacity perhaps for 50 years as McCain suggested. THAT's what the Bush administration's real intention was."


I'm still waiting for you to point out what Obama is doing differently in Iraq than what Bush was doing.

Bush was setting the stage to have troops pull out as conditions improved. That was the point of the whole Status Of Forces Agreement.

That was always the plan.

"Obama is cleaning up a mess. A failure."

Um...

Not according to Obama...

I guess you also missed what Obama said to a bunch of Marines at Camp Lejeune....


"Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process."

I'm sorry but that hardly sounds like "a mess" or "a failure"....
 
  2009-03-19 07:33:48 PM
"Why do you even care? If they take the bonuses away, you'll complain that the government is punishing successful people, and if they get to keep the bonuses, you attack the administration."

What I am complaining about is that we see the politians complain about these bonuses when they knew about them and even had wording in placed into the bill that Obama signed that allowed for these bonuses to be handed out.

IF these bonuses are bad then why did Dems allow wording into the bill allowing these bonuses???

They are complaining about and talking about punishing people for something that they allowed.

IF they would have had some sort of agreement with AIG that said they would get government money but these bonuses would not be allowed I would have been fine with that. But that is not what happened.

They allowed these bonuses to happen, even going as far as placing an amendment that made these bonuses legal and now are attacking these people for taking the bonuses.

Either the bonuses are good and should be allowed or they are bad and should not have been allowed.

IF they are bad and should not have been allowed why did the Dems allow them???

You can't have it both ways whidbey...

Are the bonuses good or are they bad????

If they are good then Obama and all the other politians who are complaing about them should shut the hell up.

IF they are bad and should never have been handed out why did the Dems allow them to be handed out and include an amendment that made them legal???

OH...

And do you want to talk about the trade war Obama is triggering with Mexico???
 
  2009-03-19 08:57:05 PM
dottedmint: I'm still waiting for you to point out what Obama is doing differently in Iraq than what Bush was doing.

Actually having the mindset of cleaning up the mess and leaving as opposed to wasting trillions of dollars in arrogant "nation building." Big difference. Even Bill Clinton realized what a mistake that mindset was.

Bush was setting the stage to have troops pull out as conditions improved. That was the point of the whole Status Of Forces Agreement.

Fine. Ignore the low approval ratings that forced the change of policy. Whatever works for you.

I'm sorry but that hardly sounds like "a mess" or "a failure"....

But it is, and I would hardly expect a centrist President to rag on the military he commands. He's playing it safe, obviously like he does with pretty much everything. I guess he feels he has to.

You can't have it both ways whidbey...

Are the bonuses good or are they bad????


It's unfortunate that rich executives were promised bonuses they shouldn't be getting, but really, again, I don't see why you care. It's just fodder for you to use against the administration.

And do you want to talk about the trade war Obama is triggering with Mexico???

From what I gather, the funding was squelched on a pilot project to allow Mexican trucks into the US and that there is a plan to reinvent a program to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways.

Which sounds like yet another non-issue you're trying to pin on this administration.

I seriously wish those of you who lost the election would just back off.

There isn't a single thing in this new Presidency that even touches on the embarrassment of the past eight years.
 
  2009-03-19 11:46:52 PM
"Actually having the mindset of cleaning up the mess and leaving .... bla...bla...bla... "

Whidbey it is funny how you keep ignoring the Status Of Forces Agreement that the Bush administration and the Iraqi government worked out to work on (as you put it) "cleaning up the mess and leaving" Iraq.

"Ignore the low approval ratings that forced the change of policy."

Except that eventually leaving Iraq was always part of the policy. We never planned on staying in Iraq forever. Leaving Iraq when the new Iraqi government was secure and able to defend itself was always the plan of the Bush administration. We are now getting to that point (not because of anything Obama has done) but because of the hard work and determination (you would call it stubborness) of Bush.

All of those good things that Obama said to the Marines at Camp Lejeune happened because of Bushs policies.

"But it is, and I would hardly expect a centrist President to rag on the military he commands. He's playing it safe, obviously like he does with pretty much everything. I guess he feels he has to."

So are you saying that when he said those things to those Marines that he was actually lying???

"It's unfortunate that rich executives were promised bonuses they shouldn't be getting, but really, again, I don't see why you care. It's just fodder for you to use against the administration."

So are you saying that you think the bonuses are bad or wrong? Really.... If these executives "shouldn't be getting" these bonuses why did the Dems put an amendment into the bill that allowed for these bonuses?

It really is a simple question.

And of course if they put an amendment into the bill that allowed for these bonuses why are they now complaining about them?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Chris Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses. (new window)


"From what I gather, the funding was squelched on a pilot project to allow Mexican trucks into the US and that there is a plan to reinvent a program to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways."

If they do indeed plan on starting up a new program that would be good but I'll believe it when I see it.

Also, I would hardly say that "there is a plan" because the article only says, "The Obama administration will try to reinvent a program to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways."

And how long will it take Obama to get a new program that will allow Mexican trucks in the US?

And now Mexico has placed limits on US trucks entering Mexico and I would guess those limits (and probably more in the future) will stay in place until Mexican trucks are allowed into the US.

"There isn't a single thing in this new Presidency that even touches on the embarrassment of the past eight years."

Right......

Giving the PM of Britian a bunch of movies after he gives the Obamas very thoughtful gifts wasn't the least bit embarrassing. And it wasn't even more embarrassing when it turned out that this collection of movies that Obama gave the PM can only be played on DVD players made in North America. I guess it would have been a good gift if he had given a new DVD player as well.
 
  2009-03-20 06:02:37 PM
dottedmint: Whidbey it is funny how you keep ignoring the Status Of Forces Agreement that the Bush administration and the Iraqi government worked out to work on (as you put it) "cleaning up the mess and leaving" Iraq.

Is that all you're going to do? Keep repeating the same busted talking point? Whatever makes you feel better. No one agrees with you.

All of those good things that Obama said to the Marines at Camp Lejeune happened because of Bushs policies.

Policies Bush was FORCED to do because he was screwing up.

Except that eventually leaving Iraq was always part of the policy

Yeah...EVENTUALLY. Still Bush vetoed any bill that suggested a time line. That's not commitment to leave.

So are you saying that when he said those things to those Marines that he was actually lying???

No, I said that he was playing it safe, that we BROKE it, we BOUGHT it, and now we're stuck having to clean up the mess. You're never going to realize that. You're always going to think that Bush did a good job and should be COMMENDED for his utter failure. You're incorrigible.

So are you saying that you think the bonuses are bad or wrong? Really.... If these executives "shouldn't be getting" these bonuses why did the Dems put an amendment into the bill that allowed for these bonuses?

I don't know. Who cares?

Oh. Trainspotters like you that are content to nitpick every little instance of this administration in hopes of pinning something on Obama to make his supporters feel like crap.


Giving the PM of Britian a bunch of movies after he gives the Obamas very thoughtful gifts wasn't the least bit embarrassing


God, your desperation is pathetic. Seriously. That's the best you can do? Let's impeach him now...
 
  2009-03-21 10:24:40 AM
Whidbey "Is that all you're going to do? Keep repeating the same busted talking point?"

It is not a busted talking point Whidbey.

The Bush administration and the Iraqi government worked out an agreement that set the stage to pull troops out.

This is a fact.

"Policies Bush was FORCED to do because he was screwing up."

So tell me Whidbey...

What policies of Bush (even if he was forced to change them) were responsible for the positive results that Obama talked about in Camp Lejeune?

"Yeah...EVENTUALLY. Still Bush vetoed any bill that suggested a time line. That's not commitment to leave."

He vetoed bills that set an artificial timeline to pull out that were created by politicians in DC. When it came to having the Iraqi government and the military leaders in Iraq decide how and when we would start pulling out he supported it.


Our timeline to leave Iraq should not be decided by elected officials in DC....

So again...

Bush always supported eventually pulling out of Iraq.

"No, I said that he was playing it safe, that we BROKE it, we BOUGHT it, and now we're stuck having to clean up the mess. "

SO when Obama said,

"Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process."

he was telling the truth. OK. Well what in his statements show that Iraq is a failure? His statements show how good things have turned out in Iraq. This is because of Bush.

"I don't know. Who cares?"

UM.... Obviously the Dems, including Obamas administration cares because they first voted for wording that allowed for these bonuses and now they are complaining about them.

SO again....

IF these bonuses are BAD and never should have been allowed why did the Dems (including Obamas adminstration) place wording in the bill that allowed them????

Simple question Whidbey.... Why don't you answer it?

And you really don't get it Whidbey....

Giving the PM of Britian a bunch of DVDs that he could have picked up at BlockBuster shows how totally clueless he is. Especially when it turns out that the DVDs can't even be viewed on player in Britian.

IF Bush had pulled such a stupid blunder you would have been all over him.....

Obama was supposed to be some great statesman that was going to make the US look good and yet he insults the PM of Britian with such a pathetic gift....

No. It is not an impeachable offense but it shows how unprepared he was and still is to be President....
 
  2009-03-21 07:19:14 PM
dottedmint: The Bush administration and the Iraqi government worked out an agreement that set the stage to pull troops out.

This is a fact.


But you ignore the other fact. Not going to repeat it. You're welcome to keep being deluded about it, if it helps you cope.

What policies of Bush (even if he was forced to change them) were responsible for the positive results that Obama talked about in Camp Lejeune?

It's called "making the best of a bad situation." Still doesn't justify why we did it or the waste involved both in terms of manpower and finance.

He vetoed bills that set an artificial timeline to pull out that were created by politicians in DC. When it came to having the Iraqi government and the military leaders in Iraq decide how and when we would start pulling out he supported it.

He voted bills that set a timeline. That's all I need to know. And when Iraq kept badgering the US as to when to pull out, Bush was forced to concede.

You can't accept that, can you? You have to spin an imaginary positive spin on failure, don't you?

Bush always supported eventually pulling out of Iraq.

Bush did what he had to do because the overall policy was a failure.

he was telling the truth. OK. Well what in his statements show that Iraq is a failure? His statements show how good things have turned out in Iraq. This is because of Bush.

Political rhetoric saying what the armed forces wanted to hear. Your analogy is flawed and false.

But keep giving Bush credit. I don't expect you to be honest about this.

dottedmint: Simple question Whidbey.... Why don't you answer it?

I did. I said I don't care, it's going to get resolved, it's just another nitpick on your part. Anything to make this administration look bad.

Seriously, why don't you talk about Reverend Wright? He might come back, you know...*eyeroll*

No. It is not an impeachable offense but it shows how unprepared he was and still is to be President....

You listen to Limbaugh, don't you?

Seriously, that would explain a lot of things, why you harp on non-issues, nitpick over minor gaffes, want this Presidency to fail...
 
  2009-03-22 12:07:04 PM
"But you ignore the other fact. Not going to repeat it. You're welcome to keep being deluded about it, if it helps you cope."

I'm not the one deluding myself Whidbey. Your blind hatred of Bush means that you are unable to see anything good he has done.

And BEFORE you say it, I do not think Bush is perfect. I do not think he is without flaw.

IRAQ: I realize that you don't even think we should have been there but we are there. I will be the first one to admit that I think Bush underestimated how many troops we would need to secure things in Iraq. Things were not going well. Bush changed his tactics in Iraq. Now after all these years of Bush running the war things in Iraq are actually doing rather well. Is everything in Iraq perfect? No. I never claimed they were. But because of what Bush has done we are at a point where troops can start being pulled out and the Iraqis can take over more and more of their security operations. Even Obama has pointed out the good things that have happened in Iraq but your hatred of Bush blinds you to anything good in Iraq.

I still wish you would tell me what policiy changes Bush did that you are referring to when you said,

"Policies Bush was FORCED to do because he was screwing up."

so fine. What policies did Bush change or implement that you are talking about?

"He voted bills that set a timeline. That's all I need to know."

Right. You only are interested in part of the story....

Yes. Bush vetoed bills that set timelines created by politicians in DC. Good. He should have.

Eventually the Iraqis, the generals on the ground, and the Bush administration worked out an agreement on when and how US troops would leave Iraq.

That is a good thing....

"Bush did what he had to do because the overall policy was a failure."

Except that the overall policy was ALWAYS to eventually leave Iraq.

Why exactly do you not admit that?


"Political rhetoric saying what the armed forces wanted to hear."

But again... You had said that he was not lying when he said those things. OK. Fine....

"the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process."

OK.... So Obama was not lying when he said those things. All of those things are positive results thanks to steps Bush took. You can delude yourself and say that he was "forced" to take those steps but they are still steps that he took.

"I did. I said I don't care, it's going to get resolved, it's just another nitpick on your part. Anything to make this administration look bad."

Again.....

It was THIS ADMINISTRATION that allowed for these bonuses to be paid out. Geithner said so.

Now it is this very same administration that is complaining about these bonuses.

So you say that I am nitpicking.

No.

I am stating FACTS.

I find it funny that you cannot answer those facts.

"Seriously, that would explain a lot of things, why you harp on non-issues, nitpick over minor gaffes, want this Presidency to fail..."

I would say that pushing us over a $trillion farther into debt, starting a trade war with Mexico, allowing bonuses then complaining about those same bonuses, and a diplomatic blunder with the PM of Britian are hardly non-issues, or minor gaffes.
 
  2009-03-24 08:16:51 PM
dottedmint: I'm not the one deluding myself Whidbey. Your blind hatred of Bush means that you are unable to see anything good he has done.

Another typical right-wing talking point.

Gee, it sure would be nice if you had thoughts of your own once in a while.

Except that the overall policy was ALWAYS to eventually leave Iraq.

Why exactly do you not admit that?


Because I learned to not trust a single thing Bush or Cheney said. Clearly you liked being led around by their lies, I got sick of them.

I actually gave the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt until 2004. And they let this country down miserably. It's indefensible, and your apologist efforts are shameful.

I find it funny that you cannot answer those facts.

I'm glad you're amused. Me, I see it as a consistent pattern of latching on to non-issues.

The fact is that either the money is being taxed back into the system or it's being given back.

That should be the end of it.

I would say that pushing us over a $trillion farther into debt, starting a trade war with Mexico, allowing bonuses then complaining about those same bonuses, and a diplomatic blunder with the PM of Britian are hardly non-issues, or minor gaffes.

When you spin those events into the kind of hate you hear on Limbaugh, it's laughable.

Seriously, get a new shtick. This one isn't working anymore.

And you'd be eaten alive if you tried to put those busted ideas out for others to see in the political tab. You're lucky you can be so insulated in our little forum where hardly anyone challenges your obvious transparency...
 
  2009-03-25 06:59:58 PM
"Another typical right-wing talking point."

WOW Whidbey you accuse me of using (as you put it) "right-wing talking points" all the while you are using left-wing talkig points.....

"Because I learned to not trust a single thing Bush or Cheney said."

Ah....

Instead of actually disproving anything I say you accuse me of using "talking points" and basically say that anything that Bush said was a lie....

"The fact is that either the money is being taxed back into the system or it's being given back.

That should be the end of it."


Except that it is not the "end of it".

People on the left are complaining about the bonuses and some are even protesting the people who got the bonuses. Heck even Obama has complained about the bonuses.

The problem is that I have not seen him explain why (if these bonuses are bad) 1. he signed the bill that allowed for the bonuses and 2. why his administration had the wording even put into the bill.

"When you spin those events into the kind of hate you hear on Limbaugh, it's laughable."

I'm not sure what "hate" you are talking about Whidbey. I'm only stating facts. (feel free to disprove anythign I have posted)

Obama has put us basically $1trillion farther into debt.

Obama signed a bill that resulted in Mexico retaliating against US Companies.

Obama signed and his administration was involved in creating a bill that allowed for massive bonuses to be paid out to AIG only to complain about them after they are handed out.

Obama gave the PM of Britian a bunch of DVDs as a gift only to find out later that these DVDs can only be viewed on DVD players from North America.

Everything I have posted here is fact Whidbey and there is no "hate".

BTW.... I didn't know you listen to Rush.
 
  2009-03-31 10:16:07 PM
dottedmint: WOW Whidbey you accuse me of using (as you put it) "right-wing talking points" all the while you are using left-wing talkig points....

Doesn't work that way. You actually are using lame talking points you'd hear on Rush or Hannity.

I'm simply rejecting yours. No political affiliation is required.

Though out of sheer boredom, and since no one is coming to my needed rescue and I'm constantly out on a limb here answering you, name an example of one of my "left-wing talking points." I truly believe I am responding honestly and using simple reason to reject your arguments.

When you come up with something that is genuinely critical of this administration and not something parroted and easily dismissed, I'll be happy to debate that point. Right now, like a lot of your fellow Republicans, you're just nitpicking at every little action of this administration, hoping something will eventually stick to the wall.

BTW.... I didn't know you listen to Rush.

I don't. But I'm well aware of the crap he spews from the numerous annoying greenlights we see here on Fark. If I were a conservative, I would find his outrageous exaggerated pompous style worthy of constant condemnation.
 
  2009-04-01 07:15:06 AM
"Doesn't work that way. You actually are using lame talking points you'd hear on Rush or Hannity.

I'm simply rejecting yours. No political affiliation is required."


Except that you have not proved anything I have posted as being wrong. If you want to call my comments "talking points" I guess I really don't care. That does nothing to make my comments false.

"name an example of one of my "left-wing talking points.""

So you don't consider this.... "Because I learned to not trust a single thing Bush or Cheney said." .....a talking point?

And you never claimed that Bush was stupid???

You never commented about how Bush wasn't really in charge???

You never pointed out when Bush pronounced a word wrong???

"I truly believe I am responding honestly and using simple reason to reject your arguments."

Except (again) you have not proved anything I have posted as being false.


"I don't. But I'm well aware of the crap he spews from the numerous annoying greenlights we see here on Fark."

OK... So you don't actually listen to Rush. You just base your accusation on what you see people in here post???


Now... again....

These following comments are not based on "hate" and they are facts. You have not dismissed any of them as being false.

Obama has put us basically $1trillion farther into debt.

Obama signed a bill that resulted in Mexico retaliating against US Companies.

Obama signed and his administration was involved in creating a bill that allowed for massive bonuses to be paid out to AIG only to complain about them after they are handed out.

Obama gave the PM of Britian a bunch of DVDs as a gift only to find out later that these DVDs can only be viewed on DVD players from North America.
 
  2009-04-01 10:46:00 AM
dottedmint:
"I don't. But I'm well aware of the crap he spews from the numerous annoying greenlights we see here on Fark."

OK... So you don't actually listen to Rush. You just base your accusation on what you see people in here post???


I find it painful to listen to almost any politician or pundit. The only way I know what they say is quotes and transcripts.
 
  2009-04-01 10:21:53 PM
I always find it funny wyrlss how many people who say something about conservative talk radio have never actually listened to it.

So Whidbey thinks Rush spews hate on the radio...

OK.... let's see it.
 
  2009-04-09 04:32:09 AM
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904070031?show=1 (new window)

Rush Limbaugh is a slimeball POS but this puts him on a totally new level of slime. I didn't think Limbaugh had the ability to make me outraged anymore but he found a way. If this clip doesn't end his tenure as head of the conservative movement, I don't know if anything can.

/should be greenlit but there's less than a snowball's chance in hell that it would be if I submitted it
 
  2009-04-09 06:13:27 AM
I hate to ask but what did Rush do in here that is bad or wrong or whatever you are getting at?

How does this put him on (as you put it) a totally new level of slime?

Oh and what does the term "greenlit" mean.
 
  2009-04-09 03:29:54 PM
Befuddled: /should be greenlit but there's less than a snowball's chance in hell that it would be if I submitted it

I don't know why you would think that. Rush links have been a hot item lately. Come up with a funny headline or use one of the old standby cliches and you should have a fairly decent shot at a greenlight.

I do think Rush is a disgusting human being, but I don't understand your outrage. He has downplayed the torture at Abu Ghraib before and called it nothing more than a fraternity initiation and soldiers blowing off steam.

This is nothing new from him and he only does it to shock listeners and to get people to pay attention to him.
 
  2009-04-12 05:11:45 PM
whidbey: There's such a political...LULL in here...

No sense trying to figure out how Obama is going to do as President...

No sense hoping for Bush to get put on trial at The Hague...

No sense. None at all. Just...waiting for something to happen.



You sound like a true lib Whidbey. Just sitting around and waiting for someone to feed you.
 
  2009-04-12 05:18:22 PM
Soup4Bonnie: Befuddled: /should be greenlit but there's less than a snowball's chance in hell that it would be if I submitted it

I don't know why you would think that. Rush links have been a hot item lately. Come up with a funny headline or use one of the old standby cliches and you should have a fairly decent shot at a greenlight.

I do think Rush is a disgusting human being, but I don't understand your outrage. He has downplayed the torture at Abu Ghraib before and called it nothing more than a fraternity initiation and soldiers blowing off steam.

This is nothing new from him and he only does it to shock listeners and to get people to pay attention to him.


Earth calling Soup4Bonnie. You have obviously never been through a real fraternity initiation. I have. Rush was right on that one.
 
  2009-04-12 05:22:10 PM
Befuddled: http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904070031?show=1 (new window)

Rush Limbaugh is a slimeball POS but this puts him on a totally new level of slime. I didn't think Limbaugh had the ability to make me outraged anymore but he found a way. If this clip doesn't end his tenure as head of the conservative movement, I don't know if anything can.

/should be greenlit but there's less than a snowball's chance in hell that it would be if I submitted it


Befuddled! What really outrages you about Rush is that you can't counter his arguements with any kind of rational or thought provoking counter arguement. The reason you always have to resort to foul language and vicious personal attack is because he's generally right and you are generally wrong and you just can't deal with that reality in a rational manner.
 
  2009-04-13 03:07:10 PM
RobertL: You have obviously never been through a real fraternity initiation. I have.

Then you should be able to identify for me which fraternity is hazing pledges in these (graphic) photos.
 
Displayed 50 of 2657 comments

First | « | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report