President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

Predictions on the outcome of the Obamacare Supreme Court case????

I think the court will probably go ahead and decide on it (I hope anyway so that time is not wasted). I also believe they will not strike down the law. I hate the mandate and I personally think the constitution does not give Congress the right to force someone to buy something such as health care. That said, I think one or two of the conservative judges will act in accordance with believing the court should not intervene when Congress has passed a law. So I think it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing the law.

I think it could go either way...At this point, however, I'm guessing they will decide in favor of the Obama Administration.

I agree. Its actually up to Scalia and Kennedy. I think one is going to side with Obama. and that will be 5-4.

but anyone who tells you for certain how these guys will vote is lying. There is alot of uncharted territory here.

A lot changed since I posted that and it looks like it may now go the other way. I actually posted on Facebook after the Obama administration's fiasco in court yesterday that it almost looked like they were purposely throwing the case so they could use it as a wedge issue and then tie it to something like the 2000 election, which went to the Supreme Court. Now look at this article from The Blaze...

Are the Democrats expecting to lose the battle over healthcare? Judging from the comments made by several prominent Dems, the party is prepping for what to do after the high court shoots down the individual mandate.

Two days ago, former DNC Chair Howard Dean told CBS Early Morning that he expected the individual mandate to be overturned.

Yesterday, CNN’s Legal Analyst Jeffry Toobin called the proceedings “a train wreck” and predicted that the individual mandate will “likely be struck down.” If true, how will the Democrats then spin the defeat to their benefit? Enter James Carville.

Last night on CNN, the Democratic consultant made a curious statement about what happens if the Supreme Court rules against the administration. He appears to already be ratcheting up the anti-Republican and anti-Supreme Court rhetoric in preparation, even tying a possible Obamacare defeat to the Bush-Gore election of 2000.

Consider Mr. Carville’s words regarding a potential defeat in the Supreme Court (after saying a defeat would be the “best thing” for Democrats because of rising health care costs):

“They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

In other words: the Supreme Court gave the country Bush, and now it’s going to take away your health care.

“This is not spin,” he reassured.

Really?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-jam ... verturned/

[Seven Wishes2]

The audacity! There is more drilling going on on American soil now than at any point under Bush. High energy prices are directly tied to Republican deregulation and the steadfast refusal of the GOP to invest in alternative energy sources, but rather continue to depend on the very maniacal fundamentalist Muslim states they perpetually deride as our quintessential enemy, for now and the forseeable future.

Once again, you manage to ignore just how terrible a mess Bush got us into, and (relatively speaking) how much better things are right now.

Also, your boy Romney is now viewed unfavorably my an almost 2-to-1 margin. Couple that with the fact that he's running almost double-digits behind Obama in polling this week, and it's the GOP that's staring at the end of the shotgun.

[conversationpc]

The audacity! There is more drilling going on on American soil now than at any point under Bush. High energy prices are directly tied to Republican deregulation and the steadfast refusal of the GOP to invest in alternative energy sources, but rather continue to depend on the very maniacal fundamentalist Muslim states they perpetually deride as our quintessential enemy, for now and the forseeable future.

Once again, you manage to ignore just how terrible a mess Bush got us into, and (relatively speaking) how much better things are right now.

Also, your boy Romney is now viewed unfavorably my an almost 2-to-1 margin. Couple that with the fact that he's running almost double-digits behind Obama in polling this week, and it's the GOP that's staring at the end of the shotgun.

New drilling permits have gone down since Obama took office. Obama has pretty much just continued the policies of the Bush Administration, so to say this is Bush's fault is not taking into account the whole picture. Obama is every bit as responsible as Bush, if not more so since he criticized Bush for some of the same things he's now doing.

[SF-Dano]

The audacity! There is more drilling going on on American soil now than at any point under Bush. High energy prices are directly tied to Republican deregulation and the steadfast refusal of the GOP to invest in alternative energy sources, but rather continue to depend on the very maniacal fundamentalist Muslim states they perpetually deride as our quintessential enemy, for now and the forseeable future.

Once again, you manage to ignore just how terrible a mess Bush got us into, and (relatively speaking) how much better things are right now.

Also, your boy Romney is now viewed unfavorably my an almost 2-to-1 margin. Couple that with the fact that he's running almost double-digits behind Obama in polling this week, and it's the GOP that's staring at the end of the shotgun.

New drilling permits have gone down since Obama took office. Obama has pretty much just continued the policies of the Bush Administration, so to say this is Bush's fault is not taking into account the whole picture. Obama is every bit as responsible as Bush, if not more so since he criticized Bush for some of the same things he's now doing.

I don't know what to believe anymore, but just to add fuel to the debate.....
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/fac ... ate/nLZmf/

Fact Check: Oil production under Obama up only on private land
Production is at a 9-year low on federal land

During his 11-minute speech in Cushing, Okla., this morning, President Barack Obama said, "Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at anytime in the last 8 years."

Mr. Obama has made that claim a benchmark of his 'all-of-the-above' energy policy and has repeated it several times, including when he announced he was rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

According to a KRMG Fact Check, that claim is only partially true.

A recently released (and revised) report from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) (and analyzed by the Heritage Foundation) indicates that whether 'American is producing more oil' depends on which land is being drilled.

The EIA report revealed a 12-percent decline in production for coal, oil, and natural gas on federal and Indian lands from fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2011, its lowest point in nine years.

Yet during that same time frame, production on state and private lands has increased, boosting overall production numbers for the United States.

While oil and gas production is up in the United States on private and state land, it is down on federal land, which falls under President Obama's direction.

Nick Loris from the Heritage Foundation outlines four steps Obama has taken to limit U.S. oil production:

•Withdrew areas offered for 77 oil and gas leases in Utah that could cost American taxpayers millions in lost lease bids, production royalties, new jobs and the energy needed to offset rising imports of oil and natural gas.
•Cancelled lease sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast and delayed exploration off the coast of Alaska and kept other resource-rich areas off-limits.
•Finalized rules, first announced by Secretary Salazar on January 6, 2010, to establish more government hurdles to onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands.
•Withdrew 61 oil and natural gas leases in Montana as part of a lawsuit settlement over climate change.

[slucero]

...funny how facts always get in the way of the truth....

[conversationpc]

...funny how facts always get in the way of the truth....

I crack up every time I see your avatar. Saw someone post it on Facebook recently also. Love it!

[RedWingFan]

YCMTSU!

Apparently being a retard is good enough for a Supreme Court Nomination..

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing that "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend" and concluding "It doesn't sound coercive to me."

Kagan made her comments at today's Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:

Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?"

Justice Kagan: "Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?"

Clement: "Justice Kagan if everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the exact same argument."

Kagan: "The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?

"In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.

"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."

Unbelieveable that a sitting Court Justice could be this SToOPID. Fucking gift my ass.

I don't remember or haven't read back but I bet 7 Wishes was all for and defended this fools nomination.

[Ehwmatt]

I was surprised Kagan used that type of questioning yesterday considering there's already some controversy about her hearing the case and not recusing herself (given her previous role as solicitor general in the early days of the ACA's passage and subsequent challenge). Similar "failure to recuse" accusations have been lobbed at "conservatives" like Scalia, too.

But to be fair to her, in constitutional law, the "coerciveness" test is a legal standard for judging the constitutionality of conditions attached to federal grants/funds given to states. But unfortunately, the landmark case that established this test, South Dakota v. Dole, does not provide a satisfactory standard for evaluating whether a condition rises to the level of legal coerciveness such that it violates the principles of federalism. In Dole, the state challenged the federal government's threat/condition to withhold 5% of federal highway funding to any states that refused to raise the drinking age to 21. I think (and I haven't read the case in a while) the % later jumped to 10%. South Dakota still sold 3.2 beer at the time, and it challenged the condition. The court upheld the condition, but held that such conditions can go from constitutionally permissible "pressures" to comply to being constitutionally impermissible "compulsions" to comply. But it didn't really elaborate any further.

So it's fair to say that all the justices might like to refine this standard for clarity's sake (but maybe not, too... they like wiggle room). In his argument, Clement (counsel for challengers/states) nargued that the potential for total withholding of all Medicaid funds was markedly different in degree than a withholding of a mere 5-10% of such funds.

[Memorex]

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves, ever. Maybe the only instance is if ruling on a case they previously ruled on as a lower court judge or if a family member is directly involved. Otherwise, they sit on the damn Supreme Court. I think they have enough professional background to determine a case exactly as they would otherwise.

For example, Kagan worked on the case while in the administration. Does that mean she cannot look at the case in total later and decide on it? Or Thomas' wife has worked against the health care law - can he not be fair-minded?

Of course I mean fair to what they would do even if they were not involved. Kagan and Thomas' votes will be different from each other, but exactly the same as they would have ruled, involved or not.

If we are sending justices to the court that we later believe won't be fair, well that's a different issue entirely.

[Ehwmatt]

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves, ever. Maybe the only instance is if ruling on a case they previously ruled on as a lower court judge or if a family member is directly involved. Otherwise, they sit on the damn Supreme Court. I think they have enough professional background to determine a case exactly as they would otherwise.

For example, Kagan worked on the case while in the administration. Does that mean she cannot look at the case in total later and decide on it? Or Thomas' wife has worked against the health care law - can he not be fair-minded?

Of course I mean fair to what they would do even if they were not involved. Kagan and Thomas' votes will be different from each other, but exactly the same as they would have ruled, involved or not.

If we are sending justices to the court that we later believe won't be fair, well that's a different issue entirely.

I agree with one exception: a judge with a significant pecuniary stake in the case's outcome (e.g., by holding stock of a company appealing a judgment against them that will significantly alter the company's future).

[Memorex]

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves, ever. Maybe the only instance is if ruling on a case they previously ruled on as a lower court judge or if a family member is directly involved. Otherwise, they sit on the damn Supreme Court. I think they have enough professional background to determine a case exactly as they would otherwise.

For example, Kagan worked on the case while in the administration. Does that mean she cannot look at the case in total later and decide on it? Or Thomas' wife has worked against the health care law - can he not be fair-minded?

Of course I mean fair to what they would do even if they were not involved. Kagan and Thomas' votes will be different from each other, but exactly the same as they would have ruled, involved or not.

If we are sending justices to the court that we later believe won't be fair, well that's a different issue entirely.

I agree with one exception: a judge with a significant pecuniary stake in the case's outcome (e.g., by holding stock of a company appealing a judgment against them that will significantly alter the company's future).

Isn't that what Congress is based on? Why can't the supreme court get rich too? But I do agree.

[slucero]

Keith Olbermann fired..... AGAIN....

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... olbermann/

[Seven Wishes2]

I love how you cons, in your eagerness to line yourselves up and be gang-raped by Hannity and Limbaugh, manage to ignore actual facts.

Whether or not you delve into sematics, these are the REAL, actual FACTS:
1) Almost 500 permits have been granted JUST SINCE the BP OIL SPILL. http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Permits/Status-of-Gulf-of-Mexico-Well-Permits.aspx
2) Private or public, domestic field oil production has increased EVERY YEAR since 2008: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_m.htm
3) Drilling permits under Obama are UP THIRTY FIVE PERCENT since Bush: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/fy_2011.Par.36361.File.dat/chart_2011_07.pdf
4) Refinery output has DECREASED due to the deregulation that has allowed oil companies and speculators to control the markets http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/fy_2011.Par.36361.File.dat/chart_2011_07.pdf
5) American oil production is about 11 percent of the world's output, so even if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent — that is more than drilling in the Arctic, increased public-lands and offshore drilling, and the Canadian pipeline would provide — it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/20/national/w235136D94.DTL&type=business&ao=2

Now. Actual FACTS. Chickenhawk dittoheads.

[Seven Wishes2]

Keith Olbermann fired..... AGAIN....

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... olbermann/

The guy is a complete tool. I love what his old boss at ESPN said about him in '97..."he didn't burn his bridges...he napalmed them." Well, maybe Bill Maher needs an Ed McMahon-type to intro his monologue.

[hoagiepete]

Why hasn't the media (and the rest of the libs) been crucifying Obama on the price of gas like they did GW?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Marking the similarities between President Barack Obama's time in office and former president Jimmy Carter's is nothing new. But as of Monday, Obama has hit one more Carter benchmark - both saw gas prices double in their first term of office. [See Where Gas Prices are Spiking the Most]

In fact, while just barely, Obama has seen an even higher gas price increase than Carter dealt with under his administration.

Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

You will see the strategic reserve released around August 1st (or before) which will knock gas prices down very nicely for the election and Obama will run on a platform of "hes fighting big oil and gas prices Stay they course". Watch out for the second term though- when gas prices hit the eight dollars a gallon that he said it ought to be at.

[Monker]

Marking the similarities between President Barack Obama's time in office and former president Jimmy Carter's is nothing new. But as of Monday, Obama has hit one more Carter benchmark - both saw gas prices double in their first term of office. [See Where Gas Prices are Spiking the Most]

In fact, while just barely, Obama has seen an even higher gas price increase than Carter dealt with under his administration.

Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

You will see the strategic reserve released around August 1st (or before) which will knock gas prices down very nicely for the election and Obama will run on a platform of "hes fighting big oil and gas prices Stay they course". Watch out for the second term though- when gas prices hit the eight dollars a gallon that he said it ought to be at.

Incredible that people actually believe this stuff.

None of the above will happen.

The exact same type of fiction was written about W...and there was more of a demand to release the reserves.

[Monker]

Why hasn't the media (and the rest of the libs) been crucifying Obama on the price of gas like they did GW?

That's simple, he's their guy.

The media in this country sucks donkey balls.

Oh, please, W went to war in Iraq for senseless 'reasons' and rising gas prices was one result. He deserved the critique. The fact is that supporters of the war were bragging how gas price would go DOWN as Iraq became friendly to the US. Funny how we expect democracy in the Muslim world to elect US friendly politicians...and how some try to rewrite history to blame others.

[Memorex]

Why hasn't the media (and the rest of the libs) been crucifying Obama on the price of gas like they did GW?

That's simple, he's their guy.

The media in this country sucks donkey balls.

Oh, please, W went to war in Iraq for senseless 'reasons' and rising gas prices was one result. He deserved the critique. The fact is that supporters of the war were bragging how gas price would go DOWN as Iraq became friendly to the US. Funny how we expect democracy in the Muslim world to elect US friendly politicians...and how some try to rewrite history to blame others.

I'm not a fan of the war, but this stupid BS about it being about oil is about as lame as it gets. There was ZERO issue with oil in the first place. It's not like Iraq wasn't selling their lame little portion to us - there was no threat of us not getting oil. And there have been no transactions to point that anything changed as a result of any of those wars. Just a really, really uninformed talking point.

We went to war to beat the crap out of someone to calm the country down after we got a black eye. I'd be more inclined to believe our warheads were aging and they needed replacing, so we had to drop them somewhere.

[Memorex]

There is a very long list of things Obama is doing and no responsible for that Bush did or started. There is a startling silence on this stuff.

People were angry at Bush because they thought he stole the election. He became an evil person to many. As I have said before, you can make a long list of things people hated Bush over and most are still going on today. It's just the reality of a presidency. Everyone thinks their guy is going to go their way and they forget half the country disagrees.

If Romney wins, the deficit will rise, next summer will see high gas prices, Afghanistan will still be a losing proposition, health care will still cost too much, there will still be a big ol tax fight, and we will still be on alert from many bad people trying to kill us. And half the country will defend him for the same things they crucified Obama over and the other half will be angry again. Welcome to the USA.

[Monker]

Oh, please, W went to war in Iraq for senseless 'reasons' and rising gas prices was one result. He deserved the critique. The fact is that supporters of the war were bragging how gas price would go DOWN as Iraq became friendly to the US. Funny how we expect democracy in the Muslim world to elect US friendly politicians...and how some try to rewrite history to blame others.

I'm not a fan of the war, but this stupid BS about it being about oil is about as lame as it gets. There was ZERO issue with oil in the first place. It's not like Iraq wasn't selling their lame little portion to us - there was no threat of us not getting oil. And there have been no transactions to point that anything changed as a result of any of those wars. Just a really, really uninformed talking point.
[/quote[

Reread what I said. I did not say anything about going to Iraq for oil or Iraq not selling their oil. I said rising gas prices was one result of the war...and it was. I specifically remember the debate about releasing the reserves...which is ridiculous because they exist for a MILITARY emergency...not a political/economic tool. Anyway, if you go look back at that time, gas prices DID rise...the very fact that we went to war in Iraq did that...the specifics are debatable.

We went to war to beat the crap out of someone to calm the country down after we got a black eye.

Correct...and then we turned our back on the proper decision in Afghanistan and started making up excuses to go into Iraq.

I'd be more inclined to believe our warheads were aging and they needed replacing, so we had to drop them somewhere.

It was all wishful thinking. If Sadam had more WMD, he would have used more against Iran. Saying we were his target was propaganda. He was not loved by Muslims...he tortured, gassed, killed Muslims in his own country...and went to war with them in Iran. Saddam was a secular leader and hated by Muslims. Giving WMD to a terrorist would be like Hitler giving an atomic bomb to Jews hoping they would use it against the US...especially since neither Hitler nor Saddam had such weapons.

[Memorex]

In any case, I'm glad the dude's gone and I think we should remove anyone that cannot play nice. I'm tired of seeing their mugs on the news. Takes away time for fun.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

While the SS Agents are boffing Columbian Prostitutes, our illustrious Secretary of State represents the USA in a more proper way....

hey lets not criticize drinking beer. Hell, lets not criticized getting laid either ,even if those3 Secret serice guys had to pay 47 dollars for it!

[Memorex]

I have no issue with Hilary having a great time wherever she is. You can't have all your public life years be business. As for the secret service issue, it's a simple case of fire them and move on. That some are married - they are going to catch enough crap as punishment. If the investigation shows that their actions in any way put the president or his staff at risk, then they need to be charged. The worst part of the story, I think, is the heavy drinking. I don't make very good decisions when I drink, but I don't have to secure a location for the President.

In any case, you have to wonder if the culture in the secret service is like this and we are only hearing about it now. As for the marines involved, I always assumed marines partied hard, as they should (except when on duty).

I did find it funny that the White House said they don't like to comment on ongoing investigations. Looking at all that this administration has weighed in on for the last three years - a lot of it petty - I found that remark laughable.

[Memorex]

I kinda figured this is how we would now "not" torture people.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/yonas-fikre-american-proxy-detention-tortured-uae

Number 637 on the list of things ok for one administration and not the other.

[hoagiepete]

I have no issue with Hilary having a great time wherever she is. You can't have all your public life years be business. As for the secret service issue, it's a simple case of fire them and move on. That some are married - they are going to catch enough crap as punishment. If the investigation shows that their actions in any way put the president or his staff at risk, then they need to be charged. The worst part of the story, I think, is the heavy drinking. I don't make very good decisions when I drink, but I don't have to secure a location for the President.

In any case, you have to wonder if the culture in the secret service is like this and we are only hearing about it now. As for the marines involved, I always assumed marines partied hard, as they should (except when on duty).

I did find it funny that the White House said they don't like to comment on ongoing investigations. Looking at all that this administration has weighed in on for the last three years - a lot of it petty - I found that remark laughable.

+1 Trivial shit. This is what hoses any argument. Kind of like the R's going after Clinton for having his cigar sucked on.

Great point on the comments on ongoing investigations. Obama doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut and sure looks unpresidential when he doesn't. Kind of like his continued campaign style of speaking...since he's been president.

[conversationpc]

If the investigation shows that their actions in any way put the president or his staff at risk, then they need to be charged. The worst part of the story, I think, is the heavy drinking. I don't make very good decisions when I drink, but I don't have to secure a location for the President.

If they were involved in soliciting prostitutes, it's DEFINITELY a security issue. That puts them at all kinds of risk of at the very least being bribed, if not compromised in some other way that could actually put the President in physical jeopardy.

[slucero]

If the investigation shows that their actions in any way put the president or his staff at risk, then they need to be charged. The worst part of the story, I think, is the heavy drinking. I don't make very good decisions when I drink, but I don't have to secure a location for the President.

If they were involved in soliciting prostitutes, it's DEFINITELY a security issue. That puts them at all kinds of risk of at the very least being bribed, if not compromised in some other way that could actually put the President in physical jeopardy.

more proof that the US is at a moral crossroads....

[donnaplease]

Obama eats dogs. Heheheheeeeee!

[RedWingFan]

Obama eats dogs. Heheheheeeeee!

I heard him a Moochelle are having Bo over for dinner.