Barack Obama

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

LMAO! So much for cooperation.
That was short-lived!

Fine, keep mad dog Keith. We'll keep Rush.
Now we're right back where we started!

But wait! what about trannie Annie?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Why is Talk Radio only a right wing success story? Could it be that no one is intersted in the left or no one wants to sponsor it? Duh!

Could it be that the right wing likes bombastic windbags?

[franalexes]

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

[new believer]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

what i like about Pelosi is her perpetual 'surprised' look.
like someone just came in her mouth when he promised he would'nt.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

Obama "worship" is getting ridiculous.
Currently I am reading "So Damn Much Money" by Robert Kaiser. It is a fascinating book about the expansion of the lobby industry in recent years. Kaiser documents how lobbyists rule Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike should read this book. A wake up call for saving whats left of our democracy.

[randolph]

LEHRER: How well did he do?

David Brooks on Bobby Jindal.
BROOKS: Not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly drafted - but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the problem...we can't trust the government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic, now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the stimulus bill. The idea that government is going to have no role in this...in a moment where only the Federal government is big enough to do stuff...to just ignore all that and say government's the problem...corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending - it's just a form of nihilism. It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican party lost its way because it got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and he's making that case. I think it's insane. I think it's a disaster for the party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

BROOKS: Not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly drafted - but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the problem...we can't trust the government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.

Considering that Obama's popularity has finally begun to dip...
Considering his job performance rating is slowly sliding towards only 50%...
Considering that 2/3 of the American people feel Obama's economic plan is for shit...
And considering that every time Obama opens his mouth about how he's going to fix the economy, Wall Street tanks even more (And yes, it was down again today. So much for the great "inspirational" speech last night)...

...It's pretty clear that Brooks (who, by the way, is a dope most of the time anyway) STILL doesn't get it. It's not a "stale" message -- it's what the average person really DOES still believe. The Reagan years produced one of the longest stretches of sustained economic growth in America's history by doing things completely opposite from what Obama is doing now. The problem is Obama started down that path, but now he's veered wildly off the road and gone utterly spend crazy. It's like he's in race between how fast he can print money and turn right around and spend it. The Obama glow has begun to wear thin and the irony here is that he dropped a phrase saying "I get it", not realizing it's the American people who "get it" -- and what they get is that spending is totally out of control and needs to be MASSIVELY reigned in.

Brooks needs a reality check and a bucket of cold water to the face. The problem is, given his political leanings, Brooks refuses to acknowledge that the average American STILL believes in Reagan's classic line "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem."

Originally Posted by randolph

BROOKS: The country is in a panic, now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the stimulus bill. The idea that government is going to have no role in this...in a moment where only the Federal government is big enough to do stuff...to just ignore all that and say government's the problem...corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending - it's just a form of nihilism.

LMAO! This is why I love Brooks. What a buffoon. On the one hand, he's saying the Republican are guilty of nihilism. And yet on the other hand, he is literally saying (regarding the Democrats): "Okay...yes...I admit it, the stimulus bill was passed in a shitty way...yes, the government really should stay out of people's lives...yes, the Obama stimulus plan is filled with corruption, earmarks, and wasteful spending -- but so what? It's your only hope!!!"

What was that about nihilism again?

[randolph]

The Democratic Reagan

Obama's speech was his best rhetorical moment since Grant Park on Election Night. This guy is really good and reminds me of Reagan: Tremendous stage presence, great smile, easy to like, knows how to hit the big theme and avoid the minutia (thus making his speech about 20 minutes shorter than a typical Bill Clinton address to Congress). Like Reagan, his numbers might not pencil out, but he's not going to talk about many of those numbers. He has the strategic advantage of being more popular than any single one of his policies. He can thus tug a policy along behind him, as if it were a distracted puppy.

The opposition party may feel virtuous in sticking to what it claims are its principles, but in a chamber dominated by a young, charismatic leader, the Republicans simply look like old, crotchety sticks-in-the-mud. The Yesterday Party, still defending the gold standard, and wondering if it was a good idea to give women the vote.

Every Republican in the chamber probably had the same nagging thought: This is likely going to be the first of eight of these things. Obama showed no rookie moves. The only real hope for the GOP is to rely on that old historic standby, dominant party overreach. Moral hazard could create enough moral outrage to give the GOP at least a semblance of a foundation for a 2012 challenge. Obama knows that, which is why he said so directly, "I get it."

[TracyCoxx]

I'm losing count. What is our deficit at now? About 3 or 4 Trillion? At what point does the rest of the world realize all these IOUs we're giving them is worthless? What value do they get out of it? We're not producing nearly enough to ever pay it back. Not before, and certainly not now. They're basically donating all kinds of products to us. Someone tell me why?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm losing count. What is our deficit at now? About 3 or 4 Trillion? At what point does the rest of the world realize all these IOUs we're giving them is worthless? What value do they get out of it? We're not producing nearly enough to ever pay it back. Not before, and certainly not now. They're basically donating all kinds of products to us. Someone tell me why?

Well, in terms of money spent, here's the AP headline that just went out across the wires.
The lead paragraph tells you all you need to now about how economically fucked we are...

OBAMA SENDING FIRST BUDGET TO CONGRESS
February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3 trillion-plus budget, a spending blueprint that will project astronomical deficits that reflect the cost of getting the country out of a deep recession and a severe financial crisis.


Oh, and Tracy -- to answer your point about worthless IOU's, I saw someone on TV the other day who had actually run the numbers -- and you'd better brace yourself. To pay for all of Obama's plans to date, in other words to cover all of the money he's already committed us to, right now the income tax rate on every single person working in America...regardless of their income level...would have to be raised to 95%. Oh yeah, and you'd have to do that till at least 2013.

These morons in Washington have crossed a line of spending insanity in ways that it's nearly impossible to tabulate anymore. Seriously, think about that -- the only way to pay for Obama's plan and to actually dig ourselves back out of this bigger deficit hole would be for every single one of us to give the government NINETY FIVE PERCENT of our income. For the next SEVERAL YEARS.

I'm sure you could live on only 5% of your salary, right? But hey, look on the bright side. At least there will be a high speed train connecting Disneyland and Las Vegas. Not that you'll have any money to visit either place or even be able to buy a ticket to ride the train -- but at least it will be built!

[randolph]

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans? Just wondering.

[randolph]

by Dr. Mark Skousen

The U.S. financial system is a mess - according to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 40th among banking systems around the world. Without federal bailouts, the two largest banks in the country, Citibank (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), would be in bankruptcy, and the good old USA would be headed for the Greater Depression, as my friend Doug Casey likes to call it.

You'll never guess where the world's No. 1 banking system is. No, it's not fabled Switzerland, nor booming Hong Kong. While the central banks around the world are desperately trying to stem the flow of red ink, this country's red is emblazoned on its iconic mounted police force. It's right next door: Canada. The land of hockey and moose has the world's soundest banking system. While European and Asian banks are collapsing, Canada stands out as an oasis of financial calm.

Canadian Banks Receive Highest Rankings

According to the Global Competitiveness Report, Canadian banks received the highest ranking, a 6.8, out of a possible 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets). The lowest ranking of one means insolvent and possible government bailout.

Canada's stock has been rising quietly - the Canadians are known for their modesty and self-restraint - as American financiers and media are astonished to find that their northern neighbors have somehow avoided the subprime lending scandal and the housing market mess.

What's Canada's secret? With the exception of oil-rich Alberta, Canada did not have a strong construction surge as the United States did during the boom years, and mortgage interest is not tax deductible in Canada.

Canadian banks are national in scope. The top five banks have branches in all 10 Canadian provinces, making them less susceptible to downturns. They have large numbers of loyal depositors and a more solid base of capital, and are regulated more tightly than their U.S. counterparts - they are more liquid and less leveraged.

Canadian Banks - Four of The Top 10 Largest North American Banks

Lets move to Canada!

[randolph]

Rush later followed up, saying, "The first unsolicited reports from the upcoming female summit already in. They're saying it's a waste of time, women will not like me any more than the ones that already do, that you have to be an Oprah today in the media to attract." He said that he was nevertheless still intent on holding a summit.

Face it, Rush. We're just not that into you.
UpdateJill Zimon updates on how day one of Limbaugh's "EIB Network Female Summit" went today. One highlight:

One thing about the Female Summit: sorry, no transsexuals. We're not going to have anybody who's had an addadictomy, and we're not going to have anybody who's had a chopadickoffamy. We're going to have women from birth.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans?
Just wondering.

I'll answer you two ways...

First, they're not "so much worse" (to use your words). On the surface, they're EQUALLY horrible for having been created by EITHER party. Speaking as someone who would define himself as being fiscally conservative (translation: don't spend what you don't have), I will be completely fair and say I was EQUALLY pissed at Bush for the deficit that he and over-spending the Republicans did on his watch. And you know what? So were lots of other Americans, which is why voters ultimately knocked them out of office.

But Second, that doesn't excuse the Democrats now doing the exact SAME thing. And let's be honest, that IS what they're doing. They realize they control the White House and both sides of Congress and -- as I noted in another post -- the far Left realizes they're operating under a clock that's ticking downward right now. They realize they have to toss money around and fund whatever Left-leaning things they can right now and before the midterm elections occur, at which point Republicans will likely pick up a few seats and gain enough votes to more effectively block things once again.

Not to mention, the reason Obama's budget IS "so much worse" is because of the sheer size of it. I mean, come on, this is also the height of hypocrisy. All through the campaign season, one of the things Obama harped on again and again was Bush and his deficit spending across 8 years -- and yet now, in only ONE MONTH, Obama has actually managed to spend MORE. In one month!!! I can't wait to see what the next 3 years and 11 months bring!

So in that regards this IS "so much worse". Maybe I learned something wrong growing up, but I was taught that the way to fill up a hole in the backyard was to break out a shovel and throw some dirt into it. You FILL the hole and get it back to ground level. But I certainly wasn't taught that you break out a shovel and DIG DEEPER and make the hole BIGGER.

[randolph]

Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings. So what are the alternatives? War got us out of the last depression (which incurred trillions of debt) but we are already in two wars, costing trillions. We are still a rich country with lots of rich republicans. Since this country made them rich isn't it time they give some of it back?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

We are still a rich country with lots of rich republicans.
Since this country made them rich isn't it time they give some of it back?

Sure, I have no problem with people who are successful "giving back".
Of course, we're also still a country filled with lots of rich Democrats TOO.
So I assume you have no problem sticking THEM with a hefty bill as well, right?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Sure, I have no problem with people who are successful "giving back".
Of course, we're also still a country filled with lots of rich Democrats TOO.
So I assume you have no problem sticking THEM with a hefty bill as well, right?

Yes that's OK if they can keep their Prius's.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans? Just wondering.

Since no one is saying that, let's dispense with the blanket statements. It's a bit more complicated than that. Using this and this data, I found:
Clinton with a democratic congress: $225B deficit
Clinton with a republican congress: $22B surplus
Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with republican congress: $339B deficit (republican bums thrown out)
Bush with democrat congress: $704B deficit

Obama with democrat congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit (throw the bums in prison)

Do you see now that there are massive deficits, and then there are MASSIVE deficits?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings. So what are the alternatives? War got us out of the last depression (which incurred trillions of debt) but we are already in two wars, costing trillions. We are still a rich country with lots of rich republicans. Since this country made them rich isn't it time they give some of it back?

I'm glad you can admit that Obama's spending (don't forget the democrat congress too) is terrifying and will result in serious inflation. I've already admitted that republicans can rack up debt too. But hopefully from my last post you can see that the debts that the dems are racking up is in a whole other class.

Obama's only been there a month, and they've already generated 2.5 times more debt than Bush has during all 8 years of his presidency! Look at the numbers yourself. I'm not lying. All this in one fucking month!

I've been doing some reading and I see what you're talking about with Greenspan. So yeah, I'll admit he's had a hand in the financial melt down. But the other stuff I mentioned about ACORN, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the CRA are also very much to blame. The real problem that is looming closer is when our debt reaches a point where other countries will no longer accept our IOUs. When they realize we don't have the ability to repay it because we're a nation of consumers rather than producers now. They will eventually make the decision to base their markets on another currency, perhaps the Euro rather than the dollar. At that point, the dollar will collapse, and you can kiss your ass goodbye. At $10 Trillion in debt, we were already putting serious strain on the worth of our IOUs. Obama's instant $2.7 Trillion deficit is probably a shock to the system and no one can say how the world will respond.

This is why myself and others did not want Obama to become president since over a year ago. People called us racists, and they now celebrate the first black president. I couldn't give a flying fuck about that. I'm more concerned with the longevity of this country. He was one of the most liberal members of the senate. I knew he was going to increase the size of government and rack up a ginormous deficit, which would result in inflation and high taxes, but holy shit. I didn't expect it to be this bad. And there's no one who will stop him. Even the republicans in the house are a bunch of pussies. They collaborated with the dems to produce the additional $410B spendulous part II plan that has over 9000 earmarks in it. The republicans are no longer the conservatives we need, and the dems are rabid with power. I don't see anything that's going to keep the dollar from collapsing.

Investing your money in stocks for the long term has always been the best advice because the US economy has been strong. But because of a series of events from the 1930s through the 40s when the USD was designated the international monetary standard, to the 70s when we got off the gold standard, to CRA and to the housing bubble, things are changing. When Obama and others blame all this on the last 8 years alone, it only shows they either have a very limited understanding of what is going on, or they're lying through their teeth.

Sorry for all the doom and gloom, but things ain't pretty right now.

[randolph]

Yes, I have to agree with you, the volume of debt is becoming monstrous. To top it off Obama claims it can be reduced by the end of his first term. That's pure fantasy! The "experts" assure us that everything will be fine. Well IF our financial institutions and government had behaved like Canada, we wouldn't be in this mess. The people that got us into this mess are the ones saying they will get us out of it.
Panic will not get us out of this, however. If Obama can keep us from panic then there is a chance we can pull through this. He is the only one I know of who has the charisma to do it.

[randolph]

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- So long, Milton Friedman. Hello, James Tobin.

After a three-decade run, the free-market philosophies of Friedman that shaped U.S. policy are being eclipsed by the pro- government ideas of Tobin, the late Yale economist and Nobel laureate who brought John Maynard Keynes into the modern era.

Tobin's stamp is on the $787 billion stimulus signed by President Barack Obama, former students and colleagues say. His philosophies are influencing Austan Goolsbee, a former Tobin student advising Obama, and Ben S. Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve. Unlike Friedman, Tobin provides guidance for today's problems, said Paul Krugman, a Princeton University economist.

"Hard-line doctrines don't seem very appropriate at this troubled moment," said Krugman, a New York Times columnist who also worked with Tobin at Yale from 1977 to 1979. "Tobin was never a guru in the way Milton Friedman was; he never had legions of Samurai ready to spring to the defense of his theories, but that's part of why he is so relevant right now."

The decision by Bernanke last September to invoke the Fed's emergency powers and put mortgages and other assets on the central bank's balance sheet "is pure Tobin," Krugman said. Bernanke cited Tobin's 1969 essay on monetary theory in a 2004 paper discussing options available to the Federal Reserve for stimulating the economy when interest rates approach zero.

Tobin's experience of the depression as a teenager in the 1930s gave him a lifelong loathing of unemployment.

'Livid' Response

"As a young professor I did a paper where I analyzed the optimal unemployment rate," said Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, who knew Tobin at Yale. "Tobin went livid over the idea. To him the optimal unemployment rate was zero."

Like Keynes, Tobin was an advocate for the role of government in maintaining full employment, said James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. The current economic and financial crisis has validated that philosophy, said Galbraith, a former Tobin student and the son of the late John Kenneth Galbraith, who was a friend of Tobin.

"It's clear that the position that the federal government has a responsibility for the level of employment, for the economy, has prevailed," Galbraith said. "The position that the Fed can walk away from the level of employment has completely collapsed. That was the absolutely dominant position coming out of the University of Chicago."

In contrast to the Friedman-influenced proponents of tax cuts, deregulation and tight control of the money supply, followers of Tobin are more receptive to government intervention in the economy, including stimulus spending.

Herbert Hoover

"I do not believe that over the next two years, we can make major deficit reduction or balancing the budget a goal," Goolsbee, nominated by Obama to the Council of Economic Advisers, said at a Senate hearing on Jan. 15. "I think that would run the risk of repeating one of the mistakes of Herbert Hoover that led us into Depression."

Goolsbee was Tobin's research assistant at Yale.

Tobin was born in 1918 in Champaign, Illinois, the son of a former reporter who was a publicist for the University of Illinois football team. His high school years during the depression motivated him to study economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Tobin said in an essay written for the Nobel committee.

"The miserable failures of capitalist economies in the Great Depression were root causes of worldwide social and political disasters," he wrote. Economics "offered the hope, as it still does, that improved understanding could better the lot of mankind."

Nobel Winners

Tobin, who died in 2002, won the 1981 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of the effect of financial markets on inflation and employment. His followers have been honored as well. Krugman won the 2008 prize, for work on international trade and economic geography. Stiglitz shared the 2001 award, which cited analyses of markets in which some participants have much better information than others.

[randolph]

Wealthy families
Over the past three decades, these families have seen their incomes double and triple while the rest of the country stagnated. Now Obama proposes to increase their tax bill by $12,000 - not even enough to get them back to the rates they were paying when Ronald Reagan left office. This is a very, very modest nod toward fiscal fair play, very much in keeping with Obama's modest optics. You'd have to drink several pitchers of Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid to think this counts as soaking the rich.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Panic will not get us out of this, however. If Obama can keep us from panic then there is a chance we can pull through this. He is the only one I know of who has the charisma to do it.

If I remember right, Carter also had charisma. It's what got him elected. It didn't stop the economy from going down the crapper. Charisma helps actors succeed. This is the real world though. We need someone who knows what he's doing.

Originally Posted by randolph

Wealthy families
Over the past three decades, these families have seen their incomes double and triple while the rest of the country stagnated. Now Obama proposes to increase their tax bill by $12,000 - not even enough to get them back to the rates they were paying when Ronald Reagan left office. This is a very, very modest nod toward fiscal fair play, very much in keeping with Obama's modest optics. You'd have to drink several pitchers of Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid to think this counts as soaking the rich.

What generates more money for the government. Taxing those who make more than $250,000, or keeping taxes as they are and put millions of tax payers back to work? Which is better for the economy?

Small business owners who make around $250,000 - $300,000 are not all that rich. They're the Joe The Plumbers of America. And as for the richer... if you make it too uncomfortable for them here, they will take their business elsewhere. Then they'll each employ thousands of Chinese or Indians, instead of thousands of Americans.

[CreativeMind]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;69420]If I remember right, Carter also had charisma. It's what got him elected. It didn't stop the economy from going down the crapper. Charisma helps actors succeed. This is the real world though. We need someone who knows what he's doing.

Well, this is the irony of history repeating itself. Carter was elected for one reason and one reason alone: he came on the heels of Nixon/(temporarily Ford) at which point there was that classic "populist mood" that always seems to swept through the nation in a cyclical nature (created by Nixon/Watergate) that the government was bad...it was totally corrupt...the Emperor from Star Wars was running things...thus Washington needed a thorough cleaning.

The only problem being, of course, that while Nixon himself might have been bad for what he did, it didn't mean the WHOLE SYSTEM was corrupt or wrong. As a result, as people voted with a traditional and emotional knee jerk reaction, it was out with temporary Ford and in with good ol' Jimmy. It was out with a genuinely good politician known for working in a true bipartisan way, who had an established Congressional record for getting things done, and in for a guy who simply smiled at you alot. Because -- gosh darn it! -- didn't seeing him smile at you make you FEEL good?

Well, it felt good on Inaugeration Day. Anyone here old enough to remember that? I do. I remember how the press drooled all over Carter and Rosalyn, and praised them for walking the parade route waving to people. Because -- gosh darn it! -- he was smiling! And that MUST mean "goodness" was back in the White House!

Of course, what it REALLY resulted in was a true idiot in the Oval Office. It resulted, as Tracy noted, with having someone in the White House who didn't have a clue. It resulted in double digit inflation. It resulted in double digit unemployment. It resulted in gas rationing. It resulted in a military that was so underfunded that we LITERALLY had to ground portions of the Air Force because we LITERALLY could NOT afford to fly planes because we LITERALLY didn't have the spare parts to fix them if something broke on them. So they HAD to stay grounded in case of emergency, otherwise we were fucked (which we already knew we were). Oh yeah, and on Carter's watch...since he believed in globalism and America not taking a strong stance or involvement on foreign affairs...we had the Iranian Revolution, which laid the foundations of radical Islam rising up -- personified by the Iranian Embassy hostage situation, which sealed Carter's presidency as an utter failure and complete embarrassment.

So, I feel good that Obama has that mega-watt smile and waves alot and--

Oh fuck. What was that I said about history repeating itself???

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Small business owners who make around $250,000 - $300,000 are not all that rich. They're the Joe The Plumbers of America. And as for the richer... if you make it too uncomfortable for them here, they will take their business elsewhere. Then they'll each employ thousands of Chinese or Indians, instead of thousands of Americans.

This is what is utter lunacy about the Obama economic plan.
It's like a dog chasing his own tail that just runs in place and in circles.

The economy is bad, so Obama wants you to go out and spend money to get it going again. But the economy is bad because people have ALREADY spent their money -- heck, they've OVER spent and are deeply in debt. Someone on TV made a brilliant analogy to Obama and his plan, where Obama is a husband and the American people are the wife. The commentator noted it's like a husband coming home, only to find his wife sitting at the kitchen table, pulling her hair out, frantically trying to pay their monthly bills. And the wife says, "We have no money left in our checking account! How are we ever going to pay these bills?"

At which point the husband says "You're right, honey. We have to get out of this hole we're in. We really need to rebuild our savings account. Come on, let's go to the store and buy a few plasma TVs. THAT ought to do the trick!"

[randolph]

Just to set the record straight on The Shah of Iran. From Wikipedia.
The Shah came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah's rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under the prime ministership of Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms, increased opposition.

While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization and conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."[1]

[randolph]

And finally, Rush Limbaugh generated huge applause at CPAC for labeling the White House agenda as a "bastardization of the Constitution." He proceeded to say, "We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness." Given his interest in the "bastardization of the Constitution," it's worth noting that these words aren't in the preamble to the Constitution.

[TracyCoxx]

WTH...? North Korea is calling Obama a warmonger. I thought Bush was the warmonger?

[randolph]

I wonder what McCain and Palin would be doing right now?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

I wonder what McCain and Palin would be doing right now?

Actually, I laughed at that Obama editorial cartoon, but NOT for the reason the artist intended...

The gag the cartoonist meant is simply this: as Obama is about to sign the Stimulus Bill, the "bipartisan" pen runs out of ink -- i.e. the analogy/symbolism being that the Republicans are now no longer willing to help.

What DID make me laugh was the size of the pen. So, I would scratch off the word "bipartisan" and simply have Obama saying the pen has gone dry, at which point the cartoon is still funny -- but more important, it would be far more accurate. That's because then we'd see Obama signing a bill SO big and composed of SO many pages that he used up all of the ink in the pen -- even one that humongous -- all because he just signed off on SO MANY RIDICULOUS THINGS!!!!!!!!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Actually, I laughed at that Obama editorial cartoon, but NOT for the reason the artist intended...

The gag the cartoonist meant is simply this: as Obama is about to sign the Stimulus Bill, the "bipartisan" pen runs out of ink -- i.e. the analogy/symbolism being that the Republicans are now no longer willing to help.

What DID make me laugh was the size of the pen. So, I would scratch off the word "bipartisan" and simply have Obama saying the pen has gone dry, at which point the cartoon is still funny -- but more important, it would be far more accurate. That's because then we'd see Obama signing a bill SO big and composed of SO many pages that he used up all of the ink in the pen -- even one that humongous -- all because he just signed off on SO MANY RIDICULOUS THINGS!!!!!!!!

The reason I posted the cartoons is to pose the question, what do you think McCain would be doing if he was president?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The reason I posted the cartoons is to pose the question, what do you think McCain would be doing if he was president?

McCain mentioned a housing bailout, which I shuddered at. Obama, before the election disagreed with it. Obama changed his mind, maybe McCain would have too. Who knows. I don't think McCain would have been a good conservative now, but I don't think he would be nearly as bad as Obama either. Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills.

TRUE STORY 1:

By now I'm sure you've seen or heard the bit about Chris Matthews on MSNBC last week, and how he blurted out a very sarcastic "Oh God" -- off camera, but into a live, open mic so it got picked up and broadcast -- when Bobby Jindal gave the Republican response to Obama's address. With that in mind...

Last night, I had to pull an all-nighter. So there I was, at my desk and typing away, meanwhile off to the side I had the TV on for some background "white noise" to help keep me awake. Around 3:00 AM, I turned on Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC) just to see what they'd be talking about. Scarborough is moderate to say the least, but last night he was actually in rare Republican form and was just RIPPING into the Obama budget and RIPPING into how much Obama's team has dropped the ball every step of the way. A short while later, Joe and his co-host Mika were then interviewing Ray La Hood, Obama's Transportation Secretary. Given his particular cabinet position, La Hood was basically there to talk up the Democrats' desire to rebuild infrastructure, but Scarborough went right back to ripping the budget a new one.

Well, Scarborough and Hood went back and forth arguing over the budget, Scarborough not giving an inch, but no matter how much he confronted Hood about pork and insane levels of spending, Hood remained a loyal foot solder towing the official Obama line. So, in an attempt to try and shut Scarborough down, in order to move on to other talking points, Hood finally said (in a truly jaw-dropping moment): "Come on, Joe. You're not being fair. You can't blame Obama for this budget. You can't pin these numbers and spending him. Remember, this is Bush's budget. Congress is voting on Bush's last budget and all the things that he (Bush) put in there."

At which point, off camera and into his still open mic (ala the Matthews incident), you could hear a stunned Scarborough turning to someone back in the studio and saying: "Did he actually just say this is BUSH'S budget???"

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills.

TRUE STORY 2:

Going back to Tracy's point about Obama opening his mouth and the stock market dropping, I swear this is true. In fact, now that I think of it, I can't believe that I didn't see this as a clip shown throughout the day simply because it was SO perfect. Then again, that might tell you a little something about media bias and how the mainstream news is doing whatever it can to help Obama...

This morning, I was curious to see if the various cable news channels would show Timothy Geitner or any of the other Obama people giving their latest testimonies on Capitol Hill, since Team Obama was scheduled to try and do various things today to generate positive press about their economic plan. So, I started to watch Fox News, but since I had just pulled an all-nighter, I fell asleep on the couch with the TV still on. A short while later, I woke up literally in time to catch Obama just as he began to answer some questions at the White House, where he was sitting alongside Gordon Brown (the visiting British Prime Minister who is pushing this lame idea of the US and Europe banding together to create a "Global New Deal" that, of course, America is supposed to bank roll).

However, what was truly hysterical was that off to the right hand side of the screen, tucked down in the corner, was a smaller box that showed the current stock market numbers. Well, as Obama started to talk, I noticed the market was at +14 and I thought: "Well, at least it's a positive number today." But then a split second later I thought, "Wouldn't it be funny if the people on Wall Street were watching this too, so we could literally see in real time exactly how they react to anything Obama says?

Well, sure engouh Obama started to answer various reporter questions, and then he launched off into yet another mini-speech to defend his budget and all of the spending he wants to do...

...At which point the +14 went to +13.

Then a moment later it was 12.

Then Obama continued on about the money he wants to spend,
that he anticipates yet ever more stimulus packages, and it went to 11...

Then 10...

...And as I continued to watch, I just laughed out loud and thought: "Wouldn't it be funny if it went from a positive number to a negative one AS he was talking? So that the more he talks, the lower the market goes?

And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. In the short time Obama had talked, the market had literally flipped...gone from positive to negative...and went from +14 to -14. Which put a funny image into my head because I could almost imagine a White House aide standing off camera who was freaking out and who was urgently whispering to him: "Stop talking! Don't even finish your sentence! You're only making it worse!!!"

[randolph]

Since Canada seems to know how to run their finances, why don't we let the Canadians take over the country. We are sitting here letting the "experts" that got us into this mess try to get us out of it. I like Obama but what can he do? The freight train is coming down the tracks and he is desperately trying to get the car started and off the tracks while all these "experts" stand around giving conflicting advice. Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Since Canada seems to know how to run their finances, why don't we let the Canadians take over the country.

Dude, you are so much like these people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S13LwVDJb0E

We are perfectly able to handle the mess we're in if the politicians would either get back to the basics or get out of the way. FYI... I was on a telecon with some Canadians today, and they said their economy sucks too.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Dude, you are so much like these people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S13LwVDJb0E

We are perfectly able to handle the mess we're in if the politicians would either get back to the basics or get out of the way. FYI... I was on a telecon with some Canadians today, and they said their economy sucks too.

That tube is very funny!
However you ignored the last sentence of my post. "Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!" Again, what would McCain do if he was president?

[randolph]

By Ed Rollins
CNN Contributor

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who was political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.
Ed Rollins says the Republican Party has lost its relevance amid very low favorable ratings from voters.

Ed Rollins says the Republican Party has lost its relevance amid very low favorable ratings from voters.

(CNN) -- The cold winds of March have obviously affected the intelligence and thought processes of people who need to get their thinking straight.

The idiotic debate raging in Washington this week around Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the nearly defunct Republican Party, and Rush Limbaugh, a conservative icon for the past 35 years, is beyond foolish.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Are Republicans able to get their act together? With Rush Limblab going at it, its very doubtful.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

...The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Are Republicans able to get their act together? With Rush Limblab going at it, its very doubtful.

Too bad that's ALSO incredibly creative and deceptive math at work.
Then again, the article came by way of CNN, which speaks volumes...

See, the problem is the Democratic number is 49%, BUT what CNN did (and let the record show that CNN is notorious for doing this, in order to spin whatever argument they're trying to push) is that they broke the other number APART, to try and make it look smaller. So, in truth, you have to ADD the 26 (positive) and 7 (very positive) for the Republicans together, at which point you come up with 33%.

Now, at first you might say "Well, that's still 49% for the Democrats against 33% for the Republicans, so that's still a wide gap." Except THAT wouldn't be true EITHER since election surveys showed that going into the Bush/Kerry election there was about an 8-10 point divide between registered Democrats and Republicans ANYWAY.

So REALLY what we're talking about here is that the Republican base is still what it has been for years (a number roughly in the mid thirties, sometimes breaking 40), meanwhile the Democrats are more solidly in the forties...and the rest are Independents and Libertarians and whatever else. In fact, just for the record, despite any crowing by the Obama crowd over voter registrations going into the last election, in truth the FASTEST and LARGEST growing political affiliation are actually people renouncing BOTH parties and officially listing themselves as Independents now.

In fact, here's a better example of how fast and loose CNN always plays with the facts and with numbers...

Recently, CNN issued a report talking about how "Red State Republicans" were the biggest buyers of porn, far more than Blue states. They came to this conclusion by looking at the bank transaction records for where the most porn was being bought or downloaded, etc. As a result, the assertion that CNN and Left leaning commentators then made was that Republicans or conservative Red States were hypocrites and not the traditionalists they claim to be.

HOWEVER...over at NewsBusters (which is a great site for debunking journalistic crocks), they posted a response from a Harvard Business School Professor who hit the nail on head by noting it was faulty math right from the start. For example, using Utah as an example, the STATE could be considered "red" because it is composed of 51% Republicans and 49% Democrats...so Republicans are in the majority...but the actual majority of PORN buyers could still statistically come entirely from the 49% Democratic pool. The point being, that since you DIDN'T actually study or break down "who" was actually buying the porn...and since they ONLY looked at the state where it was going...the numbers were deceptive from the start.

Not to mention, the Limbaugh thing has actually now been revealed to be an actual White House orchestrated PR stunt to desperately divert attention from the day's daily news -- which is the fact that Obama is likewise quickly being revealed to be an utter idiot when it comes to dealing with the economy. Not to mention, it's become clear that Obama is LESS worried about our money and our savings, and he's MORE interested in being a one-term president, if that's what it comes to, so long as he manages to ram through his various Liberal programs and gets them made into law. After only a month in office, it seems clear that the number one thing Obama wants is to turn the country DRASTICALLY left and to set certain things into law, even if it means he doesn't get reelected.

[randolph]

Although the piece was published by CNN, it was written by Ed Rollins who was Regan's political director. As a Republican, I assume he knows what he is talking about.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

That tube is very funny!
However you ignored the last sentence of my post. "Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!" Again, what would McCain do if he was president?

I answered you about McCain in post 385. And about that sentence...

Originally Posted by randolph

Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!

Republicans have been warning about the oncoming train called Obama since before he was elected. This huge pork filled debt he's generating comes as no surprise to us. And the effect it will have on the economy also will come as no surprise.

Democrats' strategy for the economy is like a car that has run out of gas on a train track. They borrow someone else's gas to restart the car and then turn to drive it straight into the on coming train.

Or like a swimmer who has swam out from shore into the ocean. After a while he starts to become very tired. Instead of swimming back to the shore, he swims with all his might further out to sea until he can't swim another stroke and drowns.

[TracyCoxx]

Damn. I hate being right about this stuff....

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The real problem that is looming closer is when our debt reaches a point where other countries will no longer accept our IOUs. When they realize we don't have the ability to repay it because we're a nation of consumers rather than producers now. They will eventually make the decision to base their markets on another currency, perhaps the Euro rather than the dollar. At that point, the dollar will collapse, and you can kiss your ass goodbye. At $10 Trillion in debt, we were already putting serious strain on the worth of our IOUs. Obama's instant $2.7 Trillion deficit is probably a shock to the system and no one can say how the world will respond.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

China Takes Aim at Dollar
BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy.

History will show that while the problem has been growing for decades, it was Obama's administration that delivered the crushing blow to America. Hang on people... this is going to suck.

[TracyCoxx]

Looks like the love fest is ending between the rest of the world and Obama.

STRASBOURG, France - A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

And regarding why it is "brilliant" that a black man gets the presidency? Not only is that in itself of immense historical value for all non-whites (in the whole world), but it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent. Aside from that, I belive his policy is promising. He is a bridge builder and can hopefully mend some of the terrible wounds that your friend George Bush amBUSHED this world with.

Yes. He may be tossing our economy, along with the global economy into the crapper, but at least he's black! Wohoo!

I think in 4 years (I can't see it lasting more than 4) we'll all be saying:

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

He has in general made it considerably harder to be a Westener anywhere in the world.... He's merely a dumb guy who never should have been elected... and now he'll laugh his ass off and ride into the sunshine to collect his fat pension, apparently totally unaware of the fact that he has left the world so much worse off than [four] years ago.

[TGirl lover]

I had high hopes for Obama. Especially since we finally got rid of that dumbass Bush, but now I'm very disappointed. Obama is driving this economy even farther into the ground. Should have voted for McCain. Just hope he is only a 1 term pres.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TGirl lover

I had high hopes for Obama. Especially since we finally got rid of that dumbass Bush, but now I'm very disappointed. Obama is driving this economy even farther into the ground. Should have voted for McCain. Just hope he is only a 1 term pres.

Well, what did you expect? Give the man a chance, please. He has to clean up 8 years' mess after the most horribly incompetent socalled president that America ever had... Barack's task is tuff... but he'll do it. Don't worry. But he still has Republicans and even Democrats against him in Congress, and the financial crisis is so severe that it cannot be undone in three months...

So be glad you didn't vote for McCain or any other Republican, for that matter. Give Barack a chance to get his plan in motion. Read his book "The Audacity of Hope" - that's well written reading and will give you a better knowledge of Barack's plan. Trust me, Barack is a thoroughly good guy and talented above measure!

H

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Looks like the love fest is ending between the rest of the world and Obama.

STRASBOURG, France — A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

Yes. He may be tossing our economy, along with the global economy into the crapper, but at least he's black! Wohoo!

I think in 4 years (I can't see it lasting more than 4) we'll all be saying:

Honey, you lovely thingy, why don't you flirt up Sean Hannity... I'm sure you'd have TONS in common... ;-)

And it's ironic, that a Republican talks about ANYONE "tossing our economy". You had 8 years, baby - 8 blissful years of war mongering and stupidity and a total anti-branding of the whole f****** Western world thanks to your "lovely" joke of a president. So excuse me, darling, but you had your shots and BLEW it.

Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing... but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

Be decent here.

You guys love so much to do the theatrical socalled patriotism with hands over heart and "My fellow Americans..." and all that shit...

Now PROVE it, baby! Prove that you ARE a fellow American, and not only to the ultra right wing of your great country, but to the whole world...

Be decent and fair. And support your president in his difficult task.

Peace!

H

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

Well, what did you expect? Give the man a chance, please. He has to clean up 8 years' mess after the most horribly incompetent socalled president that America ever had...

As a non-US citizen, I don't expect you to know the ins and outs of the cause of our financial meltdown, and all you have to fall back on is your trusty "Bush Did It" mantra, but it's not anywhere near that simple. I don't know how much you know about the US government, but you may be surprised to hear that it's not made up of only one person. There's a congress too, made up of a house and senate. That's the legislative branch. There's also a judiciary branch.

You're focusing on the guy who has, for 7 of his 8 years in office, been warning congress about the financial instability of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. His last year in office, he warned them 17 times. Youtube is full of videos of congressmen insisting that Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae were financially sound. The main culprits are Carter, Clinton, and Congress for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and Alan Greenspan for artificially creating the housing bubble. btw, you can't just blame Bush for Greenspan. He was in office during the terms of several presidents. I think most of this has already been discussed several times in this thread. I know... it's not as trendy as saying it's that idiot Bush, but you know those pesky facts. They keep rearing their ugly heads.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

Barack's task is tuff... but he'll do it. Don't worry. But he still has Republicans and even Democrats against him in Congress, and the financial crisis is so severe that it cannot be undone in three months...

I certainly don't expect him to turn the crisis around in three months, or even a year. But call me crazy, if our problem is the collapse of mortgage companies who lent money to uncreditworthy people, let's NOT give $3.5 billion to the group who led the push for CRA. (BTW, since that same group is being charged in 14 states for voter fraud, let's NOT have them working on the census either.)

You want me to give Obama a chance, when his strategy is Carter's failed financial policy on steroids. That strategy has already had a chance. It didn't work. The republicans are getting a lot of blame by the conservatives in this country for not being conservative. Yes, they did rack up some debt when they had control of congress, but in one month, Obama and the democratic congress has racked up 2.5 times the amount of debt raised during all 8 years of Bush's presidency, including debt from Bush's wall street bailout. And they're still talking about more trillion dollar bailouts to come. The world isn't going to keep buying our debt, and when we had a debt of $10 trillion, Obama had the NERVE to expect the world to fork up another $2.5 trillion. Like the top european union official said, Obama's policies will undermine the stability of the global market. That's not Sean Hanity talking. That's the Czech prime minister. And it's also China's central bank governor. But I know you'll go right a head and tell me that the best way out of debt is borrow another $2.5 trillion. Makes perfect sense for an enlightened person such as yourself.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

So be glad you didn't vote for McCain or any other Republican, for that matter. Give Barack a chance to get his plan in motion. Read his book "The Audacity of Hope" - that's well written reading and will give you a better knowledge of Barack's plan. Trust me, Barack is a thoroughly good guy and talented above measure!

He may very well be a good guy, but he's in way over his head. McCain isn't on the top of most republican's list, but I know he wouldn't implement strategies like Obama has that would put the country and the world economy in this much danger. I'm not going to read about the audacity of a community organizer who thinks he can be president. I'm reading about how to stay afloat when the dollar collapses.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Tracycoxx

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
China Takes Aim at Dollar
BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. rolesuck. in the world economy.

History will show that while the problem has been growing for decades, it was Obama's administration that delivered the crushing blow to America. Hang on people... this is going to suck

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?

However, the technical and political hurdles to implementing China's recommendation are enormous, so even if backed by other nations, the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar's role in the short term. Central banks around the world hold more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency.

Tracycoxx: "we're a nation of consumers rather than producers"

Prove, sister, prove! Please provide logic and facts to back up your statements. It sounds interesting though! Does the US produce nothing? Does it not add anything to the world economy, but only consume? Thats ridiculous!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

And it's ironic, that a Republican talks about ANYONE "tossing our economy". You had 8 years, baby - 8 blissful years of war mongering and stupidity and a total anti-branding of the whole f****** Western world thanks to your "lovely" joke of a president. So excuse me, darling, but you had your shots and BLEW it. Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing...but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

The IRONY to Hank's Euro-centric vision of how Americans should feel or treat Obama being that it's actually opposite to how most Americans feel at this point.

First, for all of Hank's labeling Bush as a "joke of president", its fascinating that Obama's job approval rating has literally plummeted over his first 60 days in office. In fact, he now ranks LOWER than Bush did at this same point in time when Bush had been elected. Not to mention, Obama's disapproval numbers are soaring -- in fact, one poll has him at 46% which means he's now a mere 4 points away from literally having HALF of the country officially regretting his election and wishing McCain was in the Oval Office instead.

The second irony -- again in direct contrast to Hank's view as a non-American -- is that he somehow thinks Republicans are "war mongers" or "stupid" and no one wants them back in power. Yet again, that's the irony of him being the outsider and having a viewpoint ON America versus the rest of us actually living here and BEING Americans where we see things much differently. Case in point (which I'm sure is going to make Hank's jaw drop since he seems to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything) is that right now the Republicans are actually TIED with the Democrats in overall public opinion ratings. And in fact, in upcoming key elections the Republicans are now actually taking LEADS in the polls because Americans have come to realize "Oh no! What the FUCK were we thinking electing a Democratic president and putting him together with an ALL Democratic Congress so they could do whatever they wanted, no questions asked? We have to get more Republicans elected FAST or the Democrats are going to shit this country up big time!"

Case in point: here we are in the midst of a global economic meltdown, and yet Chris Dodd is up for re-election as Connecticut's Senator. He's the head of the Senate banking committee, so you'd think the average person would want to be SURE he was re-elected to have a consistent voice in power, not to mention that since he's a staunch democrat he'd obviously be a key supporter of Obama...

...And yet as of today, a virtual no-name unknown whom the Republicans are putting up against Dodd is LEADING in the polls.

Oh! And as for Hank's view that Bush was a joke of a president who "blew it", even IF you want to blame Bush for walking out of the White House and leaving behind $1 trillion deficit, it's laughable that you think Obama is somehow better when he's now officially TRIPLED that same number in a mere 60 days -- even worse, some estimates put the number at a NINE TRILLION DEFICIT several years out and once Obama is out of office, at which point our kids and our grandkids will be stuck paying for his idiotic socialist dreams and his buffoonish financial decisions.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

Honey, you lovely thingy, why don't you flirt up Sean Hannity. I'm sure you'd have TONS in common... ;-)
Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing... but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

Here's the bottom line truth, regardless of how Hank and other Euros feel AS outsiders.
Truth be told, this how AMERICANS now are starting to feel and I'll use a blunt analogy so there's NO mistaking my point.

People ALWAYS wake up from the bender they were on the night before. They may be hungover a bit, but there's that infamous moment when they suddenly realize "Oh shit! Who's that laying there asleep in the bed next to me? What the hell did I DO last night?!?"

The point being that while Euros may love him, here at home Americans are quickly realizing that Obama -- who now can't even speak coherent sentences unless a teleprompter is feeding them to him -- won the election for the simple reason that he was the "feel good" candidate of the moment. He was the slick looking and talking politician that people picked up at the bar, got drunk with, took to bed, and thus he got elected for the most ridiculous of reasons ("Look he's young and cute! What a smile! Look he's black! If we elect him, we can say we're not racists once and for all!"). The only problem is, now Americans are waking up from their bender, they're looking at the person still asleep in bed next to them -- most of all, they're seeing their taxes going UP, their savings going DOWN, and Obama talking about social changes they DON'T believe in...

...And they're now realizing Obama really did dupe them. He really was the equivalent of that hotty who LET YOU pick her up in a bar on election night, when you were in a drunken stupor, and suddenly now...when you're awake and consciously thinking about what you've done...you're suddenly worried and wondering if you stupidly caught an STD while screwing around carelessly the night before. In short, now that "fun time" and your bender is over, you realize you're back to real life and the serious issues that life involves.

Worst of all, as Obama soars our deficit, he's now on the verge of becoming Jimmy Carter Part 2 -- and yes, even in recent polls Americans STILL think Carter was a WORSE president than Bush ever was. That's pretty telling when you consider where Obama may end up on the historical ladder, if he does become another Carter.

Here in Hollywood -- which is certainly Democratic territory and extremely left-leaning -- lately I've seen a bumper sticker on several cars while I've been out driving. I'm not sure where it comes from, but I've run across it several times now. But because this is SUCH the democratic territory, it made me raise an eye brow and laugh. It simply says: Yeah, I voted for him. I'm sorry, America -- where the "o" in "sorry" is the famous Obama "o" from his campaign posters (where you saw the American flag flowing inside).

In other words, even here in democratic territory, the point of the sticker is:
"I'm sorry I fell for it! The rest of you were right!"