So Obama voters....

[LL2]

Do you like Obama's Cabinet so far? So far it has many Clinton era folks (Clinton, Rahm), and a Bush hold over (Gates). It doesn't seem to have to "Change" he was going to bring. I read an article he may even extend the Bush tax cuts now, and abandoning the gays in the military issue. It appears Obama is bring himself to the center. It's a move that helped Bill win re-election so probably a smart move.

[MadScientist]

He comes in with a two front war and an economic collapse. There is no margin for error, so experience to run the bureaucracy is critical. That limits his options to existing Bush appointees like Gates, or people who worked in the Clinton administration. As Obama said, the change will come form him.

I am not in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top to continue to their official expiration. They should be ended right away to help pay for all the stimulus packages that are needed.

[SkinBasket]

I am not in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top to continue to their official expiration. They should be ended right away to help pay for all the stimulus packages that are needed.

Surprise surprise, you want your handout faster. It's not enough to take it, you want to take it as fast as possible. It's like that reparations Chappell skit. "I'm rich bitch!" Madscientist's itchin' to go buy himself a truckload of Cools.

[MadScientist]

I am not in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top to continue to their official expiration. They should be ended right away to help pay for all the stimulus packages that are needed.

Surprise surprise, you want your handout faster. It's not enough to take it, you want to take it as fast as possible. It's like that reparations Chappell skit. "I'm rich bitch!" Madscientist's itchin' to go buy himself a truckload of Cools.
No ShitHeadBasket, I won't be getting any hand out. Stick to porn, when you talk politics you sound as dumb as Tex.

[Freak Out]

It's "Kools" isn't it?

[LL2]

I will say that there is one thing that I like, if true, about Obama’s economic plan. His “stimulus” plan will include billions for new road, bridges, transportation networks, and energy projects. Handing out checks is fine, but we can’t keep trying to “buy” our way out an economic problem. Peter Schiff probably said it best when he said we are a “borrow and spend” economy and need to get back to a “save and produce” economy. You can find his stuff here http://www.europac.net/. His article on China is pretty good. The most important thing Americans need to do is get off the credit addiction.

China Plays a Better Long Term Hand

As Peter Schiff and I have long warned, America’s reliance on borrowing and consumption to fuel economic activity would result in the wholesale destruction of national wealth. Until recently, the dissipation was largely invisible to most consumers. However, the ongoing plunge in real estate and equity prices and newly released statistics concerning retail sales, consumer confidence and employment have now made it plain to most Americans that their own wealth has been seriously, and perhaps permanently, degraded. In response, they are now hoarding cash and reevaluating their spending habits.

The immediate result is that the large retailers, such as Circuit City, Best Buy and Mervyn’s, have gone under completely or have closed a significant percentage of their locations. Indeed, on November 17th, Moody’s warned of an epidemic of corporate bankruptcies. America is facing a severe recession that, if wrongly handled, will likely lead to a depression as bad, if not worse than those of the South Sea Bubble (1720) or the Great Depression of the early 1930’s.

Such a depression will affect most of the developed world. But countries will not suffer equally. In a depression, wealth vanishes. Therefore, wealth accumulation will be even more acutely divided between those nations that are, like America, net consumers and those who, like China, are producers. The contrast will become increasingly stark and will likely be reflected in the value of equities within the two economies.

For instance, contrast the recent economic stimulus packages of the two countries.

In America, President Bush’s first stimulus package amounted to some $172 billion. However, it was geared 87 percent to consumers and only some 13 percent to producers. This was in keeping with the fact that consumption accounts for 72 percent of the American economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Production. In contrast, China’s stimulus package is to be some $600 billion, roughly four times larger than the equivalent program in the United States. However, the American economy is five times the size of that of China, so in relative terms the Chinese package is the equivalent of some $3 trillion. In other words, to stimulate its economy China is spending some 17.4 times more than America, on a relative basis.

Furthermore the Chinese spending package is far more likely to have counter recessionary benefits than the American stimulus programs. Whereas the American package was geared to consumers, the Chinese package is geared to productive infrastructure projects that will add to the long term competitiveness of its economy. In China, real wages will filter down to consumers in the form of real wealth, as China’s economy gears itself up to become an increasingly effective challenger to American superpower status.

Whereas the Bush Administration has spent only some $22 billion on economic production, it spent some $150 billion on consumers and a staggering $2.8 trillion to bail out the financial industry. The strategic emphasis of the Administration’s spending of taxpayers’ funds is clear for all to see. If you lend money we will support you, if you make things, you are on your own.

In America, the government both encouraged and allowed the financial system to engage in highly leveraged lending. In addition, the financial industry was permitted to hide the risk by using ‘off-balance-sheet’ accounting and fictitious capital asset classification. A classic example of the latter was the classification of a tax credit as ‘capital’ by Fannie Mae. This allowed Fannie Mae to leverage its mortgage investments by some one hundred times its ‘true’ capital, while disclosing only some fifty times in its accounts.

China allowed no such deceptive ‘financial engineering’. It has therefore not had to spend on salvaging its banking system.

In the meantime, both the American and Chinese stock markets have suffered falls of some 50 percent. But given the far wiser policy initiatives of their government, Chinese equities appear to offer much better growth prospects than their American counterparts.

[SkinBasket]

I am not in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top to continue to their official expiration. They should be ended right away to help pay for all the stimulus packages that are needed.

Surprise surprise, you want your handout faster. It's not enough to take it, you want to take it as fast as possible. It's like that reparations Chappell skit. "I'm rich bitch!" Madscientist's itchin' to go buy himself a truckload of Cools.
No ShitHeadBasket, I won't be getting any hand out. Stick to porn, when you talk politics you sound as dumb as Tex.

Sorry, I meant your "redistribution." I won't make that mistake again.

It's hard to stick to porn when I'm stuck in your dad's ass. He's no looker (especially from the backside), but he sure can move those hips and that poop chute's like a steel trap... thus my being stuck. Unfortunate really. Ah well, I'm sure he'll get explosive gas soon from the pepper I shoved in there before I spread and speared him, so I'll be free soon.

I'll take you thinking I sound dumb as a good thing considering your amazing rebuttal skills. They fall far short of your dad's butthole skills.

[sheepshead]

:cnf:


There really needs to be better vetting for presidential candidates and a written test in order to vote.

If anyone thinks this group is going to march to Barry's tune for four years youre crazy.

and we're in deep shit in the process.

I never thought he would pull the trigger on Hil. There's something behind the scenes we dont know about. In any event, political posturing is not what this country needs. He promised change, this is nothing but an on going SNL skit right before our eyes.

[MadScientist]

:cnf:


There really needs to be better vetting for presidential candidates and a written test in order to vote.

If anyone thinks this group is going to march to Barry's tune for four years youre crazy.

and we're in deep shit in the process.

I never thought he would pull the trigger on Hil. There's something behind the scenes we dont know about. In any event, political posturing is not what this country needs. He promised change, this is nothing but an on going SNL skit right before our eyes.

The voting test has a bit of a bad reputation from times past. Things that would help along those lines for general elections would be to eliminate straight party option, not show party affiliation on the ballot at all, and (like CA does) distribute a pamphlet to all registered voters that contains a statement from each candidate, and description including budget impacts and pro and con arguments for each ballot proposition.

I don't see it as political posturing as much as political calculation. Bring together as much political power from as wide a reach as possible while still agreeing to follow Obama's lead, will produce one formidable executive branch without bending the constitution. It's logical, but we'll have to see how well it works in reality. Along those lines, picking Napolitano is also a favor to McCain, as she would have run against him in '10 and would have a decent chance of winning.

[Harlan Huckleby]

you fools.

there is nothing political going on. Its called dealing with serious problems, and finding the most serious, experienced people available to deal with them.

Sorry I called you fools.

[BallHawk]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

[retailguy]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

I think it's awesome. really I do. You elected a "career politician". What did you expect? The most politically correct choice, of course. As Rush says, "keep your enemies closer".

Hillary can't run against Obama in 4 years. Now she's part of his administration.

It was a stroke of brilliance.

[hoosier]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

I think it's awesome. really I do. You elected a "career politician". What did you expect? The most politically correct choice, of course. As Rush says, "keep your enemies closer".

Hillary can't run against Obama in 4 years. Now she's part of his administration.

It was a stroke of brilliance.

You're not as clever as you think. When was the last time a sitting president eligible for reelection got serious competition from his own party?

[sheepshead]

Ted Kennedy 1980

[packinpatland]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

I think it's awesome. really I do. You elected a "career politician". What did you expect? The most politically correct choice, of course. As Rush says, "keep your enemies closer".

Hillary can't run against Obama in 4 years. Now she's part of his administration.

It was a stroke of brilliance.



You lost all credibility when you said "As Rush says...." :lol:

[HowardRoark]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

I think it's awesome. really I do. You elected a "career politician". What did you expect? The most politically correct choice, of course. As Rush says, "keep your enemies closer".

Hillary can't run against Obama in 4 years. Now she's part of his administration.

It was a stroke of brilliance.



You lost all credibility when you said "As Rush says...." :lol:

You lost all credibility when you said "You lost all credibility when you said "As Rush says...." " :lol:

[packinpatland]

This is the same guy who said Obama went to 'fix his birth certificate', when he went to visit his grandmother for the last time.
Yeah, Rush is credible.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102308/content/01125106.guest.html

[BallHawk]

Ted Kennedy 1980

Kennedy blew his shot at getting the nomination before people even went to the polls. With the way Carter's administration was going he had to screw up not to steal the nomination from Jimmy. Kennedy just padded his stats at the end to make it look like the primaries were somewhat close.

So unless Obama starts producing 30% approval ratings, I doubt we'll see/would of seen any competition from within the party.

But, hey, it doesn't matter who runs, right? Jindal's gonna destroy whoever runs against him. :roll:

[SkinBasket]

This is the same guy who said Obama went to 'fix his birth certificate', when he went to visit his grandmother for the last time.
Yeah, Rush is credible.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102308/content/01125106.guest.html

And yet you bought right into the Palin's teenage daughter as the mother of the retarded kid theory.

[packinpatland]

Me? No, I didn't.

[Joemailman]

Do you like Obama's Cabinet so far? So far it has many Clinton era folks (Clinton, Rahm), and a Bush hold over (Gates). It doesn't seem to have to "Change" he was going to bring. I read an article he may even extend the Bush tax cuts now, and abandoning the gays in the military issue. It appears Obama is bring himself to the center. It's a move that helped Bill win re-election so probably a smart move.

Did people really think he was going to pick Dennis Kucinich as Secretary Of Defense? He's surrounding himself with qualified people even though they may not agree with him on everything. That alone qualifies as "change" from what's happened the last 8 years. As for the Bush tax cuts, they expire in 2011, so Obama has the option of doing nothing and just letting them expire.

[sheepshead]

ahhh the first in a long list of already and soon to be tired apologists. So, anything this guy said during the campaign is thrown out the window now? Interesting.

[packinpatland]

"ahhh the first in a long list of already and soon to be tired apologists"


No, that would encompass the past 8 years.

[Zool]

"ahhh the first in a long list of already and soon to be tired apologists"


No, that would encompass the past 8 years.

You forgot a 0.

[sheepshead]

"ahhh the first in a long list of already and soon to be tired apologists"


No, that would encompass the past 8 years.

Dubya has been accused of a lot of things, waffling and going back on his word have not been among them.

[sheepshead]

President-elect Barack Obama has shelved a proposal to slap the oil and gas companies with a new windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped so much in recent months, the transition team confirmed today.

“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” a transition aide said. “They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that.”

Obama’s proposal had called for using the proceeds from the tax to give American consumers an energy rebate worth up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per married couple.

As Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, put it: “A windfall profits tax is bad policy at any price.”

Another Obama shift:

Asked whether the energy rebate plan had likewise been put on hold, the transition aide said the rebates were included in a middle class “rescue plan” Obama released last month.

That plan calls for a permanent tax cut of $500 for a worker or $1,000 for a family, with the Internal Revenue Service using 2007 tax returns to send out the checks. Tax cuts also would be extended to seniors.

The policy shift came to light after officials at the American Small Business League noticed that the windfall profits tax language had been removed from the transition team’s Web site in what the group called “an unceremonious and abrupt manner.”

[sheepshead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMxnyRssy0

[packinpatland]

You're right. Obama will be the complete ruination of life as we now know it.

[sheepshead]

Just not what he promised. We knew we were getting change, the 22nd amendment to the constitution told us that. He said he would close gitmo, but he has no idea what to do with these guys. This freakshow of a cabinet is a laughable embarrassment and even criminal in the case of Holder.

[swede]

You're right. Obama will be the complete ruination of life as we now know it.

Oh now...

I caught a little bit of Hannity and Colmes last night and the cabinet appointments have created some hilarious reactions. Hannity was basically saying that the whatever Obama is doing it will end up being bad even if it looks good and anything that Obama is doing that might be good will be done for the wrong reasons.

I agreed more with Bill Bennet who was saying that he liked some of the appointments and thought the words and actions of Obama's transition team were positive. Bennet was fully expecting that all these things would come into focus later on as we learn how Obama has been garnering political capital at this time in order to screw us with it at a later date. However, and I agree with this is big however, Bennet said that we must at this point be willing to accept that it remains a possibility that Obama is currently showing us a lot of political skill which could be used to create a very successful Presidency.

The odd thing for me is that Obama has been behaving pretty much how I expected McCain to govern.

So I offer grudging acknowledgment of Obama's work thus far.

I however reserve the right to say that I told you so should Obama actually end up to be the ruination of life as we now know it.

[bobblehead]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

I think it's awesome. really I do. You elected a "career politician". What did you expect? The most politically correct choice, of course. As Rush says, "keep your enemies closer".

Hillary can't run against Obama in 4 years. Now she's part of his administration.

It was a stroke of brilliance.



You lost all credibility when you said "As Rush says...." :lol:

Almost forgot...you Biden supporters don't believe in giving credit to the people who's ideas you are using (stealing).

[bobblehead]

Ted Kennedy 1980

Kennedy blew his shot at getting the nomination before people even went to the polls. With the way Carter's administration was going he had to screw up not to steal the nomination from Jimmy. Kennedy just padded his stats at the end to make it look like the primaries were somewhat close.

So unless Obama starts producing 30% approval ratings, I doubt we'll see/would of seen any competition from within the party.

But, hey, it doesn't matter who runs, right? Jindal's gonna destroy whoever runs against him. :roll:

Thought you were like 12 years old or something....what do you know of 1980 politics.

And no, Jindal won't destroy anyone...Newt will though.

[sheepshead]

We wont see a 30% approval rating no matter WHAT he does (or doesnt do as it looks like will be the case "present"!!!) Because the press wont let it happen. According to the press he was found in a woven basket along the chicago river by old man Daley.


Come on, every liberal was chomping at the bit at those Palin stories involving her daughter. Palin had you guys scared shitless, that's why you hate her. An attractive, accomplished female conservative. Gets under your skin dont it?

[sheepshead]

Obamas new press secretary. So ask about any and all campaign promises:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

[packinpatland]

We wont see a 30% approval rating no matter WHAT he does (or doesnt do as it looks like will be the case "present"!!!) Because the press wont let it happen. According to the press he was found in a woven basket along the chicago river by old man Daley.


Come on, every liberal was chomping at the bit at those Palin stories involving her daughter. Palin had you guys scared shitless, that's why you hate her. An attractive, accomplished female conservative. Gets under your skin dont it?

Palin hardly had anyone 'sacred shitless'. I never hated her. I did find her attractive but not 'accomplished' female. Conservative? You betcha. I really do believe that if McCain had chosen someone other than her, he'd have had a better chance.
Guess I'm one of those that does feel that education should/is an asset. A BA in journalism isn't the same as a law. degree. Who knows, may be in a few years she may be ready for the national election again. I just didn't feel she was ready or qualified for this one.

It'll be interesting these next few years, if the price per barrel continues to stay low, the tax collected by the state of Alaska will dwindle. Those checks sent out to every resident will also dwindle. Alaska's 'nest egg' will be used.
Popularity of an elected politician is most tied to 'what they do for me'. Perhaps those once high ratings will come down a notch. I think the best thing she can do for herself is stay home, work hard on the issues facing Alaska. Low dropout rates, highest nationwide spousal abuse rates, drug and alchohol rates are too high. Be the best govenor she can possibly be for the next few years. Concentrate on what's now.

[sheepshead]

Her resume was clearly more robust then Obamas, that's not an opinion, just line them up. I dont care if a guy can beat me in Jeopardy or not. I look at his accomplishments and what I believe is in his/her heart. If we wanted the smartest guys to run the country then just pull some pinhead out of Harvard every four years. He has no experience at anything, this cabinet shows and more and more were seeing Dave Axelrod will be running the country much like Dick Morris did under Bill Clinton.

[packinpatland]

Let's just agree to disagree. And revisit this after you've given him a fair amount of time to correct the damages done.


Why the distain for having a degree(s)? Ivy leage doesn't equate to pinhead.

[sheepshead]

None at all, like William F. Buckley said"I would rather the first 300 people in the Boston phone book run the country then the staff at Harvard University"

[packinpatland]

None at all, like William F. Buckley said"I would rather the first 300 people in the Boston phone book run the country then the staff at Harvard University"

Being a Yale alum himself, was the quote, in context, a jab at the rivalry between the two schools?

Ask yourself this, if you were undergoing life saving surgery,
wouldn't you rather see the doctor's degree from Harvard or Yale hanging on the wall, than one of these:

American International School of Medicine (Guyana)
University of Health Sciences (Antigua)
American University of the Caribbean (St. Maarten)
Central American Health Sciences University (Belize)
Grace University School of Medicine (Belize)
International University of the Health Sciences (St. Kitts)
Medical University of the Americas (Nevis)
Ross University School of Medicine (Dominica)
Saba University School of Medicine (Saba)
Spartan Health Sciences University (St. Lucia)
University of Sint Eustasius Medical School (St. Eustasius)
St. George's University School of Medicine (Grenada)
St. James School of Medicine (Bonaire)
St. Mary's School of Medicine (St. Lucia)

[sheepshead]

not to change the subject, but you have to admit, this is intriguing, more so than I originally thought.

I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931

[sheepshead]

And if were all so proud of Barrys collegiate career, why havent we seen his college transcripts. Why are they sealed? I'm sure you can find every paper Sarah Palin did in her sophomore year for instance and have some rude comment about them.

[packinpatland]

This coming from World Net Daily..... News with an emphasis on 'investigative reports and conservative commentary'.

They posted this one 2 years ago......very intensive scientific investigating.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327


Do you honestly think that after going thru a lengthy primary, then the election campaign, that someone, anyone wouldn't have come up with something by now? This is just one of those 'urban legend' type things that takes legs and keeps moving. Much like Gov. Palin's baby story. No substance. Started by folks that are more interested in destroying than helping for the greater good.

[sheepshead]

Perhaps...I never thought much of it until I read that article. I'm not sure I want Joe Chia Pet Biden as president anyway. :-D

[packinpatland]

Perhaps...I never thought much of it until I read that article. I'm not sure I want Joe Chia Pet Biden as president anyway. :-D


That's about how I felt about Six Pack, See Russia, Joe the Plumber Palin. :)

[bobblehead]

Why the distain for having a degree(s)? Ivy leage doesn't equate to pinhead.

I only have disdain for ivy league educations when morons equate them with being somehow better...almost like royalty. Its irrational.

On the flipside I would want my child to have an ivy league education, but not for my child to have the arrogant snide behavior that usually goes with it. Just cuz you went to classes and absorbed material in books does not make you special in any way.

give me the guy who can actually run a profitable business and better the lives of all his customers over the guy who can get past the harvard cariculam.

The doubly amazing thing about libs is that GW graduated from Yale, but that didn't matter...he was a stammering dufus. He can't think. He is an idiot....yet he still managed to navigate the yale program while being drunk the whole time. Now if a liberal with no life went to yale and got slightly better grades because they had no life and studied nonstop, then that person would be the third coming (obama is already the second).

[packinpatland]

Why the distain for having a degree(s)? Ivy leage doesn't equate to pinhead.

I only have disdain for ivy league educations when morons equate them with being somehow better...almost like royalty. Its irrational.

On the flipside I would want my child to have an ivy league education, but not for my child to have the arrogant snide behavior that usually goes with it. Just cuz you went to classes and absorbed material in books does not make you special in any way.

give me the guy who can actually run a profitable business and better the lives of all his customers over the guy who can get past the harvard cariculam.

The doubly amazing thing about libs is that GW graduated from Yale, but that didn't matter...he was a stammering dufus. He can't think. He is an idiot....yet he still managed to navigate the yale program while being drunk the whole time. Now if a liberal with no life went to yale and got slightly better grades because they had no life and studied nonstop, then that person would be the third coming (obama is already the second).

I wish I had a nickle for every bumper sticker that says 'Proud Parent of an Honor Roll Student', or others that are similar. Of course you want the best for your children, are proud of them, and they deserve what they earn.
Not all Ivy league students are arrogant, not all are legacied, not all had parents or grandparents donate buildings. There's a pretty good percentage that are there because they worked hard and will graduate with school loans. When it comes to hiring, that Yale, Harvard or UPenn degree may get you in the door, where a degree from Eastern CT might not.

I agree with you 100% with 'give me the guy who can actually run a profitable business and better the lives of all his customers over the guy who can get past the harvard cariculam.' But there are some areas in life where a degree is a must, and getting one from a school that sets the bar higher is not a bad thing. There's no substitute for experience, but until that's collected, a good degree from a good school could make the difference.

[sheepshead]

In related development this excerpted from our buddy Sean Penn:


# In an private interview with Penn prior to the election, Cuban President Raul Castro said, "We want Obama." Penn agreed not to publish that until after the election.

# Cuban President Raul Castro wants to have his "no preconditions" meeting with Obama at Guantanamo Bay.


Hop at the end of that long line Raul my main man.

[packinpatland]

Cuban President Raul Castro said in an interview released Wednesday that he would like to meet President-elect Barack Obama on "neutral ground" — and he suggested the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_castro_penn

Where is the harm in meeting?

[sheepshead]

With no preconditions. Understand that part? Michelle had preconditions to go on the view. That cant happen. All he is looking for is a photo of he and Barry with a couple of Cubans, Cubra Libras to show every other dictator in the world and it justifies his existence for the next 100 years.
It cant happen-period. This will be explained to Barry soon enough. Thinking like this is astounding to me sometimes. No president has met with a sitting dictator unconditionally or at all to my knowledge. Hillary lip locking Ol' Yasser was a notable exception, but he was just a terrorist that wanted Israel off the map. Good thing we dont have any more like that. oh wait....

[packinpatland]

Yes, I do understand that part. I think too much has been put on that word 'preconditions'. No world leader is going to go into a meeting unprepared and give away the company store. In this day of warfare as we know it, talking can't hurt.

Obama has said: "So as a matter of principle, I will talk to any head of state after sufficient preparation in order to lay out what our interests are and to listen to them, but not to concede on the issues that are in our long term national security interest."

[sheepshead]

preparation and preconditions are very different. Preconditions like..oh let your people build a church. Let gays live among you. Blacks are not slaves. Oh and heaven forbid, hold a fair and free election. Peaceful protest. Free trade. the list is endless pick a few.

[sheepshead]

In other words if the United States give the dictators hope, the people will have none.

[MadScientist]

With no preconditions. Understand that part? Michelle had preconditions to go on the view. That cant happen. All he is looking for is a photo of he and Barry with a couple of Cubans, Cubra Libras to show every other dictator in the world and it justifies his existence for the next 100 years.
It cant happen-period. This will be explained to Barry soon enough. Thinking like this is astounding to me sometimes. No president has met with a sitting dictator unconditionally or at all to my knowledge. Hillary lip locking Ol' Yasser was a notable exception, but he was just a terrorist that wanted Israel off the map. Good thing we dont have any more like that. oh wait....
It depends on your definition of dictator. Presidents met with Soviet premiers many times. Nixon went to China. These meetings did not have preconditions that the Russians / Chinese agree to our demands before we even met with them. Stop basing conclusions off of campaign talking points.

[sheepshead]

Fuck You. Don't lecture me and don't presume to know where my conclusions come from. They surely don't come from websites like the ones you just googled in order to try to refute my post.

[packinpatland]

Fuck You. Don't lecture me and don't presume to know where my conclusions come from. They surely don't come from websites like the ones you just googled in order to try to refute my post.

Stop it! Is there one good reason why you can't be nice? Geeeezzz :doh:

[sheepshead]

I am, I dont think I need to be lectured to and have some lame brain wag his finger at me like some know it all.

[packinpatland]

I have a bar of soap that says you should chose different words.

[retailguy]

All good except for the most important position of all, Secretary of State.

Of all the choices possible, Hillary was arguably the worst.

:roll:

I think it's awesome. really I do. You elected a "career politician". What did you expect? The most politically correct choice, of course. As Rush says, "keep your enemies closer".

Hillary can't run against Obama in 4 years. Now she's part of his administration.

It was a stroke of brilliance.

You're not as clever as you think. When was the last time a sitting president eligible for reelection got serious competition from his own party?

It wasn't about "being clever". Though I understand why you think that.

I really do think it was brilliant.

The guy is a politician through and through. He always plans for the downside. If the economy still sucks in 4 years, he'll face competition. If we have terrorist attacks in the next 4 years, he'll face competition. (I'm talking about his own party, btw, he'll face a republican no matter what). Any number of things could go wrong that could cause him to have stiff competition. Some he has control over and could screw up, and some he doesn't have control over and will still take the fall over.

One competition he won't have is Hillary, who garnered over 12 million of his parties votes in this primary.

It really was brilliant.

[packinpatland]

It was 18 million RG.
And......think this has any merit?

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/03/hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-to-serve-as-secretary-of-state/

[MJZiggy]

He's using 'emoluments' as a descriptor to both the eligibility and the benefits of the position. Which is it?

[packinpatland]

Why can't she just agree to not take a salary, if this is an issue?

[MJZiggy]

If the requirement is to stop corrupt people from giving a position a raise and then taking said position to get the raise, then that seems like a suitable remedy and considering that it's already been used twice, I don't see the issue...

[Partial]

There go those Dems again.. violating the constitution and acting inappropriately yet again. Who elects these yahoos?

[sheepshead]

I have a bar of soap that says you should chose different words.

ok, I do throw that phrase around a lot--sorry.

[MJZiggy]

There go those Dems again.. violating the constitution and acting inappropriately yet again. Who elects these yahoos?

The majority of Americans. You do realize that the Obama transition has a 78% approval rating...You're kinda pissing in the wind here.

[GrnBay007]

You're kinda pissing in the wind here.

LOL ....ick!!

[MJZiggy]

That's the idea... :lol:

[bobblehead]

It was 18 million RG.
And......think this has any merit?

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/03/hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-to-serve-as-secretary-of-state/

this has happened before, they simply change the rules to get around it. Not a party thing either, both sides do it. They will simply change the salary of her present situation or some shit like that...already heard this discussed on talk radio...yes right wing, but they openly admitted the republicans do it too.

[MadScientist]

It was 18 million RG.
And......think this has any merit?

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/03/hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-to-serve-as-secretary-of-state/

this has happened before, they simply change the rules to get around it. Not a party thing either, both sides do it. They will simply change the salary of her present situation or some shit like that...already heard this discussed on talk radio...yes right wing, but they openly admitted the republicans do it too.

It's a reasonable solution to drop the salary back down, but I will not be the least bit surprised if there is a court challenge to this going with the idea that the Regan interpretation is the correct one. I wonder if there is a court case, will the defense argue that a cost of living raise isn't really an increase in compensation.

[MJZiggy]

That would be an interesting issue. I don't see too many people making too much of a fuss because there is a (please note, Partial) bipartisan precedent.

I don't think the cost of living argument should win as that becomes a slippery slope in defining cost of living--especially in a deflationary economy.

[retailguy]

It was 18 million RG.
And......think this has any merit?

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/03/hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-to-serve-as-secretary-of-state/

Does it have merit? Sure. Will it matter? No. This situation really speaks to the lack of ethics on both sides of the aisle.

[LL2]

It appears many liberals already feel like they are getting the shaft and feel like he is reversing on his campaign promises. I think it's funny, but I do think Obama is being smart in some of his moves.

Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson
Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.



Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”

[texaspackerbacker]

We can only hope that Obama is enough of an old-line political hack that he continues to disavow his extreme leftist roots and cast his lot with slightly less extreme leftists like the Clinton machine. Or maybe, from a political standpoint, we should hope that he goes the leftist ideologue route. That would screw up the country more, but it would make his demise a lot more likely in four years.

Whatever else the guy may be, he ain't politically stupid (or at least, he has handlers who aren't). He/they know that when that 78% Ziggy is so proud of start to see the consequences of his leftist CRAP, they are gonna get some severe buyer's remorse. Politically, it's probably more advantageous for Obama to back-stab the extreme liberals who will obviously vote for him again anyway.

As always, though, the huge elephant-in-the-room factor here is security from terrorist hit in America. Obama can screw up just about everything else, foreign and domestic, and America will survive. If he is as bad on security issues as his words and votes say he will be, however, many many Americans will die, and our freedom, prosperity, and world dominance will be in serious jeopardy.

[packinpatland]

Tex, I'm asking an honest question. Give me an honest straight answer.
No left, right, Dem, Rep...........
How are you doing now vs 8 years ago, how's our country doing now vs 8 years ago?

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, I'm asking an honest question. Give me an honest straight answer.
No left, right, Dem, Rep...........
How are you doing now vs 8 years ago, how's our country doing now vs 8 years ago?

Admittedly, I'm not a typical example. I'm much better off to the extent that I was tied down by that nasty four letter word--work--eight years ago. Now, I am sitting on my ass, having fun consistently, and enjoying life. Nobody I knew was killed in 9/11; My investment is mostly off shore or very secure at home.

I see your point, and yes, there's no getting around the fact that for most people, times have gotten worse during the Bush years--just like there's no getting around the fact that there's no getting around the fact during the Clinton years, things were good for most people.

BUT--there's a reason we conservatives like big buts--in both cases, there were COLOSSAL extenuating circumstances.

Clinton had the Gingrich Congress keeping his tax and spend tendencies in check, as well as the residual effects of the Reagan and Bush I tax cuts. He also had the wonderful technological windfall that led to the dotcom boom--which was overdone, and subsequently was a drag in the early Bush years.

Bush had 9/11--which arguably, was the fault of the Jamie Gorelick "wall" preventing the sharing of intelligence between our agencies--FBI, CIA, etc. If it hadn't been for Bush's tax cuts, the horrendous economic impact of 9/11 would have been infinitely more catastrophic. If Algore had been president, it's no exaggeration at all that we might have been dragged down to the 3rd world status Gore craved for his socialist/environmentalist wacko policies. The War on Terror--including Afghanistan and Iraq also was a costly factor--but justified to anybody who loves America and our freedom, prosperity, and world dominance. I hope that includes you, PIP.

To the extent that Bush himself was to blame, he knuckled under to liberal forces in Congress and seemed overly sensitive to trying to please the sick leftist Bush-hating media--which, of course, would never have acknowledged any good he did regardless. And now we have this economic "crisis" which is coincident, time-wise with the Dems taking over Congress in 2006, and which, I firmly believe, was trumped up by the media to help get Obama elected.

I'd be interested in hearing YOUR comments--as apolitical and unbiased as possible--about if and how and why we are so much worse off by anything that you can blame Bush for.

[the_idle_threat]

Seems to me that some Obama supporters are just starting to realize what so so many of us knew long before the election: nobody really knows who Obama is or what he stands for politically. Now that we're past the point of campaign platitudes, bromides and bumper sticker language, and the rubber is about to meet the road with regard to his administration, we're finding out that Obama is something different than promised. I remain wary and skeptical, but as one who leans center-right, I'm pleasantly surprised that he seems to be more in touch with reality than so many of his supporters. Of course, those same supporters are not so pleased.

[SkinBasket]

We're doing about 8x better than we were 8 years ago despite all the death, destruction, and starving orphans in the streets with automatic weapons.

[the_idle_threat]

mmmm ..... Automatic weapons ......

[arcilite]

I just quit my job so I can get welfare checks from Obama.

So I will be doing better than I was 8 years ago

[Kiwon]

We're doing about 8x better than we were 8 years ago despite all the death, destruction, and starving orphans in the streets with automatic weapons.

:tup: What he said.

Monica, what do you say?...Is there something in your mouth?
http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/blog_images/monica.jpg

[bobblehead]

Tex, I'm asking an honest question. Give me an honest straight answer.
No left, right, Dem, Rep...........
How are you doing now vs 8 years ago, how's our country doing now vs 8 years ago?

I'm doing a lot better. Bush's tax cuts stimulated growth and I benefited in a number of ways. I did not buy into the barney frank free money lending spree and am not overextended....my 401k took a hit recently due to that, but I am still better off now.