President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rick]

complete bs! i'm sure there are others that can do the same job that don't have the lobbyist title attached. i also don't like tim geithner for the treasury. he made a mistake... okay and tell me why we should trust him to run the country's finances? again, i'm sure there are others that can do the job.

Because as Obama told the Pubbies yesterday in the stimulus meeting, "I won, and on that, I think I trump you."

Now O is telling us Pubbies not to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Rush has already kicked his ass and Monday should be fun as hell. I will be listening as will millions of others, as Rush tears O a new asshole. Not smart to tick off Rush and the Catholic Church in the first 4 days of your admin O.

Obama is too popular for a shitstain like Rush to have any effect on him. At least in the eyes of the public that matter. I'd guess that being 28% or so. Fucking right wingers.

[Rick]

complete bs! i'm sure there are others that can do the same job that don't have the lobbyist title attached. i also don't like tim geithner for the treasury. he made a mistake... okay and tell me why we should trust him to run the country's finances? again, i'm sure there are others that can do the job.

Because as Obama told the Pubbies yesterday in the stimulus meeting, "I won, and on that, I think I trump you."

Now O is telling us Pubbies not to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Rush has already kicked his ass and Monday should be fun as hell. I will be listening as will millions of others, as Rush tears O a new asshole. Not smart to tick off Rush and the Catholic Church in the first 4 days of your admin O.

Obama is too popular for a shitstain like Rush to have any effect on him. At least in the eyes of the public that matter. I'd guess that being 28% or so. Fucking right wingers.

If that were so, O wouldn't even have brought Rush up in the convo. But he did......

Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.

[Rick]

Rush has 9 years left on a 10 year $400 million contract.

I don't follow Rush, obviously, but that's a damn big contract. I had no idea.

[Rick]

Rush has 9 years left on a 10 year $400 million contract.

I don't follow Rush, obviously, but that's a damn big contract. I had no idea.

His last contract was a 10 year $285 million one that got replaced with this one at $400.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/busin ... f=business

The A.M. radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million a year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009.

Does not make me think he's any better than I did previously. He's a fucking blowhard that knows what to say and when to say it. Good for him. He'll find himself looking for a job if he keeps needling Obama. Do not underestimate the power of the populous.

[Rick]

Rush has 9 years left on a 10 year $400 million contract.

I don't follow Rush, obviously, but that's a damn big contract. I had no idea.

His last contract was a 10 year $285 million one that got replaced with this one at $400.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/busin ... f=business

The A.M. radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million a year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009.

Does not make me think he's any better than I did previously. He's a fucking blowhard that knows what to say and when to say it. Good for him. He'll find himself looking for a job if he keeps needling Obama. Do not underestimate the power of the populous.

Dude, no disrespect, but that's laughable. Unless of course you are suggesting some sort of totalitarisim and I don't think you are. Cause that would be sad. If 20 million people want to listen to Limbaugh and his advertisers continue to sell products on his show, it will go on. O can't do anything about that, and if he does or tries to, he will have hell to pay. He knows this. You should to.

Obama won't have to do a thing. Laugh all you want.

[Jana]

Rush has 9 years left on a 10 year $400 million contract.

I don't follow Rush, obviously, but that's a damn big contract. I had no idea.

His last contract was a 10 year $285 million one that got replaced with this one at $400.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/busin ... f=business

The A.M. radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million a year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009.

Does not make me think he's any better than I did previously. He's a fucking blowhard that knows what to say and when to say it. Good for him. He'll find himself looking for a job if he keeps needling Obama. Do not underestimate the power of the populous.

Dude, no disrespect, but that's laughable. Unless of course you are suggesting some sort of totalitarisim and I don't think you are. Cause that would be sad. If 20 million people want to listen to Limbaugh and his advertisers continue to sell products on his show, it will go on. O can't do anything about that, and if he does or tries to, he will have hell to pay. He knows this. You should to.

Obama won't have to do a thing. Laugh all you want.

No, Rick, actually Rush will get bigger even if Obama turns out to be a fantastic president b/c most of the people that listen to Rush only want failure for the Democratic party and feed off his bullshit.

[Don]

I don't think Rush really meant to say anything bad about Obama. We need to give people under the influence a little leeway right?

[Don]

Come on Rush, do the right thing. I'ts for your own good big fella. Give the brothers at State some of that white ass.

[Rick]

Rush has 9 years left on a 10 year $400 million contract.

I don't follow Rush, obviously, but that's a damn big contract. I had no idea.

His last contract was a 10 year $285 million one that got replaced with this one at $400.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/busin ... f=business

The A.M. radio host will be paid about $400 million to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million a year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009.

Does not make me think he's any better than I did previously. He's a fucking blowhard that knows what to say and when to say it. Good for him. He'll find himself looking for a job if he keeps needling Obama. Do not underestimate the power of the populous.

Dude, no disrespect, but that's laughable. Unless of course you are suggesting some sort of totalitarisim and I don't think you are. Cause that would be sad. If 20 million people want to listen to Limbaugh and his advertisers continue to sell products on his show, it will go on. O can't do anything about that, and if he does or tries to, he will have hell to pay. He knows this. You should to.

Obama won't have to do a thing. Laugh all you want.

No, Rick, actually Rush will get bigger even if Obama turns out to be a fantastic president b/c most of the people that listen to Rush only want failure for the Democratic party and feed off his bullshit.

He's a gonner.

[conversationpc]

Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.

The only way that's going to happen is if he dies or if our free speech rights are taken away.

He's a gonner.

He will be more popular than ever. I still don't like him but he'll do just fine.

[conversationpc]

For some reason Rick thinks silenceing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy are a good thing.

TNC was the one who's previously stated here that he hopes the free speech rights of people like Beck and Limbaugh are taken away.

[Rick]

Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.

The only way that's going to happen is if he dies or if our free speech rights are taken away.

For some reason Rick thinks silencing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing.

You must be dizzy with that spin.

[Rick]

Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.

The only way that's going to happen is if he dies or if our free speech rights are taken away.

For some reason Rick thinks silencing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing.

You must be dizzy with that spin.

Well then, what exactly are you saying for me to spin it so wrong? Correct me.

For some reason Rick thinks silenceing Rush and taking $400 Million out of the economy is a good thing.

Not sure if this is a spin, but it's an outright lie. You misspelled 'silencing' btw.

Suck that up, big boy.

[Rick]

Better spelling police than thought police....

Mine are mine, and yours are yours. No policing necessary. We'll just continue to be divergent.

[Lula]

complete bs! i'm sure there are others that can do the same job that don't have the lobbyist title attached. i also don't like tim geithner for the treasury. he made a mistake... okay and tell me why we should trust him to run the country's finances? again, i'm sure there are others that can do the job.

Because as Obama told the Pubbies yesterday in the stimulus meeting, "I won, and on that, I think I trump you."

Now O is telling us Pubbies not to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Rush has already kicked his ass and Monday should be fun as hell. I will be listening as will millions of others, as Rush tears O a new asshole. Not smart to tick off Rush and the Catholic Church in the first 4 days of your admin O.

it is up to congress to confirm this guy. the "i won" comment was on his tax policy. as for rush limbaugh..... i gotta go with whatever, he's a hypocritical drug addict who evaded his own policy on addicts. he is as popular as his listeners make him. don't think for a minute he is as powerful as the office of the president- be it man, woman, republican, democrat, or other. rush is a mouth piece spewing poo poo!

[Michael Leigh]

The only complaint I have, thus far, is the amount of money
spent on the inauguration events considering the state of our
economy....funds should've been cut, somewhere!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inaugura ... 946&page=1

OK, so I may not be a "regular poster" here, but I have been reading the boards since the "AOR/Hard Rock Hot Spot" days. and I couldn't agree more with Michigan Girl's post.
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a democrat, since my family have been lifelong dems. I found that most of the time, I didn't agree with their policies and agendas (the same as I didn't agree with republicans a lot of the time as well),so I became an independent in 92 (I voted for Perot).

There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides. Case in point, compare some of the headlines between Obama's Inauguration and Bush's 2nd Inauguration.

Headlines On Inauguration Day Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration whilei troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines on Obama Inauguration Day:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

The other point is why is there such an uproar over Limbaugh's comments?
MSNBC has 2 anchors (Olberman and Matthews) that are flat out Obama supporters, and EVERYONE knows this.
Why should Obama give a rat's ass what Limbaugh has to say, when their are just as many in the media that are supporters of him.
In fact, didn't his own Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say during the Bush Administration
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration". Why is this situation any different.

I also think the "Fairness Doctrine" is unfair. This is America, shouldn't we be allowed to voice our opinions and say what we want? If you don't like what is being said or broadcast on radio or tv, shouldn't you just change the dial? This is the major reason that Howard Stern and other broadcasters went to Satellite Radio, for the freedom to say what you want.

The bottom line is that supporters of both partys in this country, are going to side with their party 95% of the time.
Any broadcaster or political commentator with ANY integrity will call out their party's leadership when they are wrong (which for the most party I see neither side do).
People should vote on candidates stances on issues( be them Dem or Repub),not because of party loyalty.
I have voted for both Dems and Repubs in my lifetime.
I truly wish there where viable Independent candidates to choose from. Unfortunatley, most of the indy's have turned out to be crack pots.
I think there should be a 3rd party called the "common sense" party. In my opinion, that's what this country really needs.

The bottom line is, their is bias and hypocrisy on both sides. One side of a political party is just as guilty as the other.

[The_Noble_Cause]

OK, so I may not be a "regular poster" here, but I have been reading the boards since the "AOR/Hard Rock Hot Spot" days. and I couldn't agree more with Michigan Girl's post.
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a democrat, since my family have been lifelong dems. I found that most of the time, I didn't agree with their policies and agendas (the same as I didn't agree with republicans a lot of the time as well),so I became an independent in 92 (I voted for Perot).

There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides. Case in point, compare some of the headlines between Obama's Inauguration and Bush's 2nd Inauguration.

Headlines On Inauguration Day Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration whilei troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines on Obama Inauguration Day:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Funny.
In all your post-partisan posturing, you conveniently left out the fact that much of the above is copied verbatim from a debunked right wing chain email.
Nice try tho...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... ost_4.html

The other point is why is there such an uproar over Limbaugh's comments?
MSNBC has 2 anchors (Olberman and Matthews) that are flat out Obama supporters, and EVERYONE knows this.

You mean the same Chris Mathews who loved Fred Thompson's English leather aqua velva manly musk, and couldn't get enough of Bush's Lincoln-like "sunny nobility"?
I don't remember anyone in an uproar when Mathews was rooting for the other team.

I also think the "Fairness Doctrine" is unfair. This is America, shouldn't we be allowed to voice our opinions and say what we want? If you don't like what is being said or broadcast on radio or tv, shouldn't you just change the dial?

When did Barack Obama say he supports the Fairness Doctrine?
There is zero movement on this issue in Congress.
The only reason this has become a tinderbox issue is because restoring the Doctrine would threaten the goliath station monopolies that Clinton and the Republican Congress facilitated in the 90s.
Heaven forbid the public airwaves actually serve the public and not Clear Channel's bottom line.

This is the major reason that Howard Stern and other broadcasters went to Satellite Radio, for the freedom to say what you want.

Howard Stern was run off the airwaves on a rail for far less than Rush Limbaugh.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Here's a good one for you followers of O. Just yesterday he signed an exectuvive order banning lobbyist from working in his Administration, in fact, that was one of his campaign pledges. But today he broke his own promise. I see some of the libs on the MSNBC board are not happy with this...

I heard about this earlier this morning...He signs the freakin' order and not more than a day later and he's already making exceptions.

Bush had power for eight years.
With his proclivity for signing statements, you would think he could have been bothered to ban lobbyists with the stroke of a pen like Obama did, right?
He did, however, find time to lower meat safety standards on lunch meat and hot dogs.

[conversationpc]

Here's a good one for you followers of O. Just yesterday he signed an exectuvive order banning lobbyist from working in his Administration, in fact, that was one of his campaign pledges. But today he broke his own promise. I see some of the libs on the MSNBC board are not happy with this...

I heard about this earlier this morning...He signs the freakin' order and not more than a day later and he's already making exceptions.

Bush had power for eight years.
With his proclivity for signing statements, you would think he could have been bothered to ban lobbyists with the stroke of a pen like Obama did, right?
He did, however, find time to lower meat safety standards on lunch meat and hot dogs.

I'm pretty sure I didn't mention Bush in that statement but nice deflection there...We're talking about what Obama is doing, not what Bush did. Try again, please.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm pretty sure I didn't mention Bush in that statement but nice deflection there...We're talking about what Obama is doing, not what Bush did. Try again, please.

The news that no lobbyist will serve in this administration is a win-win for Americans, lib and con alike.
Rather than giving credit, you now want to feign outrage over Obama backtracking and letting one fox into the hen house.
Big deal.
You do realize for the past eight years nearly every critical oversight post was occupied by a lobbyist who formerly advocated for that very industry, right?

I guess eating and breathing toxic shit doesn’t fall under the rubric of protecting the homeland.

[conversationpc]

The news that no lobbyist will serve in this administration is a win-win for Americans, lib and con alike.

Except that Obama wants to make exceptions already. Shucks! Gotta love that no lobbyist rule, huh?

Rather than giving credit, you now want to feign outrage over Obama backtracking and letting one fox into the hen house.

If it were Bush, you'd be all over it like a sexually frustrated rooster on a fertile hen.

[Uno_up]

Here's what I don't get...
On one hand, Obama comes out yesterday and criticizes Citigroup for planning to buy a new jet for 50M after the Gov. just gave them untold billions of taxpayer dollars...Good for him! But on the other hand, Obama is the same guy who just spent 170M of taxpayer dollars on four days of parties, parades and U2 concerts for his inauguration. Obama is also the same guy who supported 200M in spending on contraceptive distribution in inner city schools as well as subsidization for Planned Parenthood within his proposed 850B stimulus package. Now, regardless of how anyone feels about this issue, I think we can all agree that passing out condoms won't help generate jobs! Look...to me this is selective indignation. Either we are in a recession and wasteful Gov. spending won't be tolerated or we're not in a recession and we can spend billions at will like the last administration.

To me it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".

[conversationpc]

Here's what I don't get...
On one hand, Obama comes out yesterday and criticizes Citigroup for planning to buy a new jet for 50M after the Gov. just gave them untold billions of taxpayer dollars...Good for him! But on the other hand, Obama is the same guy who just spent 170M of taxpayer dollars on four days of parties, parades and U2 concerts for his inauguration. Obama is also the same guy who supported 200M in spending on contraceptive distribution in inner city schools as well as subsidization for Planned Parenthood within his proposed 850B stimulus package. Now, regardless of how anyone feels about this issue, I think we can all agree that passing out condoms won't help generate jobs! Look...to me this is selective indignation. Either we are in a recession and wasteful Gov. spending won't be tolerated or we're not in a recession and we can spend billions at will like the last administration.

To me it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".

I love how this package is being touted by Obama as a stimulus package but hardly any of it is actual money or work that is going to go into the economy and even some of that won't be for several years. Sounds more like an attempt at yet more corrupt federal politicians trying to get some more pie for themselves. It'll work about as well as the last stimulus bill.

[bluejeangirl76]

$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

They're doing it wrong. They should start with prevention of stimulation, and that will prevent the STDs.

[S2M]

$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

They're doing it wrong. They should start with prevention of stimulation, and that will prevent the STDs.

My question would be: Would Perry's nose be a good IUD? Just asking.....

[bluejeangirl76]

$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL

Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

They're doing it wrong. They should start with prevention of stimulation, and that will prevent the STDs.

My question would be: Would Perry's nose be a good IUD? Just asking.....

What kind of crazy shit are you smoking this morning? That's way out there, man.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Except that Obama wants to make exceptions already. Shucks! Gotta love that no lobbyist rule, huh?

If that's the limited trade-off for winterproofing the Treasury from sticky fingered K-street bandits, then I'm all for it.

Rather than giving credit, you now want to feign outrage over Obama backtracking and letting one fox into the hen house.

If it were Bush, you'd be all over it like a sexually frustrated rooster on a fertile hen.

Except Bush didn't make any attempts to bar the money changers from the temple.
As a simple point of fact, he undid the keyboard combination and had fresh baked milk and cookies waiting.
When you're ready to debate reality again, let us know.

[conversationpc]

Except that Obama wants to make exceptions already. Shucks! Gotta love that no lobbyist rule, huh?

If that's the limited trade-off for winterproofing the Treasury from sticky fingered K-street bandits, then I'm all for it.

Gee...What a surprise. Double standard...Something that Democrat and Republican party sycophants are really good at.

Except Bush didn't make any attempts to bar the money changers from the temple.
As a simple point of fact, he undid the keyboard combination and had fresh baked milk and cookies waiting.
When you're ready to debate reality again, let us know.

Obama's barring of the money changers argument doesn't hold much water if you're just going to let them in the back door anyway. That's the reality you're looking for.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Gee...What a surprise. Double standard...Something that Democrat and Republican party sycophants are really good at.

If Obama has to feed the military-industrial beast by allowing ONE defense lobbyist run the Pentagon, in exchange for banning ALL lobbyists, then that’s a win for America.

Obama's barring of the money changers argument doesn't hold much water if you're just going to let them in the back door anyway. That's the reality you're looking for.

Who’s "them"?
To date, there is only one, and the fact that we know who he is and the position he will occupy, speaks volumes about this administration’s commitment to transparency.

I’m glad you’ve discovered your inner-Lou Dobbs populist streak, Dave.
Too bad it’s eight years too late.

[conversationpc]

Gee...What a surprise. Double standard...Something that Democrat and Republican party sycophants are really good at.

If Obama has to feed the military-industrial beast by allowing ONE defense lobbyist run the Pentagon, in exchange for banning ALL lobbyists, then that’s a win for America.

It's one now but who knows how many later.

Obama's barring of the money changers argument doesn't hold much water if you're just going to let them in the back door anyway. That's the reality you're looking for.

Who’s "them"?
To date, there is only one, and the fact that we know who he is and the position he will occupy, speaks volumes about this administration’s commitment to transparency.

I’m glad you’ve discovered your inner-Lou Dobbs populist streak, Dave.
Too bad it’s eight years too late.

Yeah, it's only one but then again, we're only just a bit over a week into Obama's administration and he's already making exceptions. It doesn't lead me to believe that he'll live up to it in the future. Anyway, I couldn't give a flying crap about Dobbs or any stupid populist rhetoric. That doesn't have anything to do with this subject anyway.