President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[ohsherrie]

Stu, the opposite is true.

While we rely on government websites, raw data, and factually correct information, the conservatives on the board - exclusively - cut and paste from highly unreliable sources, most of them op-ed pieces.

You couldn't be further from the truth (again).

I really don't get the hate towards HuffPo. Like Drudge, the majority of news is from straight sources (AP, Yahoo, Reuters). As long as you steer clear from the occasional Alec Baldwin or Barbara Streisand op-ed, it's a good resource.

They don't like it because the news articles on there are the plain, un-spun truth instead of wingnut BS propaganda like Faux News.

The economy began being set up for this recession in November of 1999 with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes that happened on Bill Clinton's watch but it was a rethug bill passed by a rethug congress at a time when they were bludgeoning Clinton over a blow-job because they couldn't find a damn thing on him that was truly a crime after spending $70 million trying. When Bush came into office and started the wholesale selling out of American jobs with his tax breaks to companies that sent jobs overseas and to Mexico, that was the beginning of the end for the middle class in this country and that's what ultimately brought the economy to it's knees.

If I had the time and inclination and thought they would pay any more attention now than they did then I'd go dig up some of the posts from a few years ago when I predicted this recession based on those very things.

They turned Wall Street into a casino for the corporate barons and put Main Street on the unemployment lines. How the hell did they think the economy could be held up by a house of cards built out of credit card debt, bad mortgages and derivatives? The people of this country were losing their jobs, homes and health care benefits while Washington and Wall Street made out like Madoff.

Know what's really sick? They haven't learned a damned thing. They're still hoping the people of their red-neck base who are getting shit on will keep thinking it's the economy trickling down and vote for their gun rights and religion instead of the good of the country.

They also seem to conveniently forget that it was Bush who started the bank bail-outs that were supposed to solve the problem. At least the stimulus money went to the people instead of the hedge funds. The stimulus package kept many thousands of teachers, law enforcement officers, fire fighters and paramedics all over the country from losing their jobs. I know that for a fact because I belong to the National Sheriff's Association and work with federal, state and local government offices and law enforcement agencies. I know that's only a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs that Bush sold out, but at least the money didn't go to the crooks who caused the problem like the Bush bail-out did.

[donnaplease]

So, exactly what is considered a reliable source? Even government sources are disputable, and whichever side of the aisle you find yourself during a particular administration will determine how 'reliable' you find that source to be. In other words, I'm sure the democrat/liberals feel/felt that the government's data released during the Bush administration is highly unreliable, while similar data released during the Obama administration is considered fact (and vice versa).

The bottom line is that our perception of the facts is what we ALL base our comments on. Sure, some C&P jobs are from more reputable sources than others, but as long as those sources are HUMAN sources who create this information based on their own personal viewpoints (which skews their interpretation of any data), then all of this is just bullshit, on both sides. You simply can't praise the Huffington Post while trashing Fox News, or get a tickle up your leg when Chris Matthews speaks but claim Sean Hannity is the devil incarnate. If you are really true to yourself, you know that is the case. Cheerlead all you want for your team, but at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of it all...

Now, can we stop with all the name-calling, insults and otherwise nasty crap and just discuss the issues?

[donnaplease]

I will ALWAYS vote for the right to practice (and shout them from the rooftop if I want) my Christian beliefs.

[donnaplease]

I saw on TV this morning a clip about a little boy who got into trouble at school. Apparently his teacher gave the class an assignment to decorate a hat in a manner that was special to them. He chose a patriotic theme. He got a camoflaged trucker cap and glued an american flag and some of those army men we all played with as little kids on the front. The school officials said that because the army men were holding 'guns' that the hat was breaking school code. How effin' ridiculous it that!!!?

http://www.examiner.com/x-39124-Provide ... licy-VIDEO

In the comments section below the article, someone asked if they will next ban Cupid on Valentine's Day, because he's carrying a bow and arrow. LMAO!!!

[The_Noble_Cause]

...You simply can't praise the Huffington Post while trashing Fox News,

Sure you can.
As long as you specify the opinion content from the straight reporting, where's the conflict? For example, I can praise Bret Baier while putting down Beck. Same goes with Huff. You have your liberal screed op-eds and than there are wire service reports and national press links.

...or get a tickle up your leg when Chris Matthews speaks but claim Sean Hannity is the devil incarnate.

Funny how you Cons remained titmouse silent as Mathews fawningly compared W. to having the "sunny nobility of Lincoln" or praised how "manly" he looked in his flight suit. During one particularly disturbing episode, he even raved about Fred Thompson's intoxicating aqua velva man musk. Mathews is a first-rate opportunist whore who courts whatever side is in power. He has been making what should be career-ending (and downright weird) gaffes FOR YEARS. Of course, the split second he says something complimentary about a Democratic president, he becomes the Right's new favorite public enemy. Personally, I think there's very little comparison to Hannity. Hannity never strays from GOP orthodoxy. Mathews, on the other hand, is just a spittle-flecked loudmouth asshole who goes with the crowd. Come 2012 he will be squarely back in the GOP court.

[donnaplease]

...You simply can't praise the Huffington Post while trashing Fox News,

Sure you can.
As long as you specify the opinion content from the straight reporting, where's the conflict? For example, I can praise Bret Baier while putting down Beck. Same goes with Huff. You have your liberal screed op-eds and than there are wire service reports and national press links.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen here. There seems to be an all-or-nothing mentality. And believe it or not, even though he is way over the top at times, even Glenn Beck makes sense sometimes. Same for the likes of Olbermann I'm sure. Their messages just get lost in the bullshit (kinda like some here! )

...or get a tickle up your leg when Chris Matthews speaks but claim Sean Hannity is the devil incarnate.

Funny how you Cons remained titmouse silent as Mathews fawningly compared W. to having the "sunny nobility of Lincoln" or praised how "manly" he looked in his flight suit. During one particularly disturbing episode, he even raved about Fred Thompson's intoxicating aqua velva man musk. Mathews is a first-rate opportunist whore who courts whatever side is in power. He has been making what should be career-ending (and downright weird) gaffes FOR YEARS. Of course, the split second he says something complimentary about a Democratic president, he becomes the Right's new favorite public enemy.

I don't know anything about the other gaffes. I just refer to what I've personally seen. Your other examples are equally as creepy though.

[donnaplease]

Personally, I think there's very little comparison to Hannity. Hannity never strays from GOP orthodoxy. Mathews, on the other hand, is just a spittle-flecked loudmouth asshole who goes with the crowd. Come 2012 he will be squarely back in the GOP court.

Wouldn't that rate Hannity a little higher than Matthews, then? At least Sean is staying true to whatever his personal values are (even if they are completely opposite of yours), whereas Matthews just goes with wherever the political wind blows?

And are you saying you think the GOP will be 'back' in '12? If so, why?

Edit to add: I'm much less impressed with Hannity than I used to be. His relentless tearing away at anything Obama is sooo not what I want to see/hear. At least Beck - with his old-school chalkboard - attempts to back up what he has to say with some data.

[Rockindeano]

Oh donna donna-

I could only dream that Glenn beck would accept a challenge to Keith Olberman. His career would be over. Glenn Beck is an absolute talking point machine, straight out of Limbaugh Camp, while Olberman, obviously favouring the left, at least presents facts as truth..of course he only presents arguments that favour the left, but he is one smart guy. Beck is just a fool who thrives on emotional hilarity. Hannity? LOL, is a plain dope. That guy can't get Reagan's dead dick out of his mouth fast enough.

[donnaplease]

Oh donna donna-

I could only dream that Glenn beck would accept a challenge to Keith Olberman. His career would be over. Glenn Beck is an absolute talking point machine, straight out of Limbaugh Camp, while Olberman, obviously favouring the left, at least presents facts as truth..of course he only presents arguments that favour the left, but he is one smart guy. Beck is just a fool who thrives on emotional hilarity. Hannity? LOL, is a plain dope. That guy can't get Reagan's dead dick out of his mouth fast enough.

At least Glenn Beck has a personality - Olbermann reminds me of Frankenstein.

[Rockindeano]

Personally, I think there's very little comparison to Hannity. Hannity never strays from GOP orthodoxy. Mathews, on the other hand, is just a spittle-flecked loudmouth asshole who goes with the crowd. Come 2012 he will be squarely back in the GOP court.

Wouldn't that rate Hannity a little higher than Matthews, then? At least Sean is staying true to whatever his personal values are (even if they are completely opposite of yours), whereas Matthews just goes with wherever the political wind blows?

And are you saying you think the GOP will be 'back' in '12? If so, why?

Edit to add: I'm much less impressed with Hannity than I used to be. His relentless tearing away at anything Obama is sooo not what I want to see/hear. At least Beck - with his old-school chalkboard - attempts to back up what he has to say with some data.

I will respond to TNC about the GOP being back in 2012. No fucking way. The economy will be rosy, the Afghan war will be over, and the troops in Iraq, most of them, will be home. The Dems will strengthen their very slim majority in BOTH houses and return to full power. You people have NO ONE who can win. As bad as Obama is right now, he still beats every dickhead and emptyheaded woman you trot up there. Here's a clue: get a person with some brains, get a decent platform, and try not to alienate just about every other non church going person. I fear your drought will be a long one. Better hope for an terrorist attack.

[donnaplease]

Oh donna donna-

I could only dream that Glenn beck would accept a challenge to Keith Olberman. His career would be over. Glenn Beck is an absolute talking point machine, straight out of Limbaugh Camp, while Olberman, obviously favouring the left, at least presents facts as truth..of course he only presents arguments that favour the left, but he is one smart guy. Beck is just a fool who thrives on emotional hilarity. Hannity? LOL, is a plain dope. That guy can't get Reagan's dead dick out of his mouth fast enough.

You have proven my point, though, Dean. Thanks a bunch!!!

[Rockindeano]

Oh donna donna-

I could only dream that Glenn beck would accept a challenge to Keith Olberman. His career would be over. Glenn Beck is an absolute talking point machine, straight out of Limbaugh Camp, while Olberman, obviously favouring the left, at least presents facts as truth..of course he only presents arguments that favour the left, but he is one smart guy. Beck is just a fool who thrives on emotional hilarity. Hannity? LOL, is a plain dope. That guy can't get Reagan's dead dick out of his mouth fast enough.

At least Glenn Beck has a personality - Olbermann reminds me of Frankenstein.

LOL, it's not about personality. It's about brains. Are you seriously telling me Beck can share the same stage with Olberman? Hell, even Rachel Maddow would crush him. The guy is just out to lunch. An emotional whacko with a dangerous thought process. Hell, it's the same way in reverse. Palin, and all the air in her head, couldn't debate here on MR for God's sake! TNC and 7 would annihilate her. hell, I'm smarter than that dumb bitch.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't know anything about the other gaffes. I just refer to what I've personally seen. Your other examples are equally as creepy though.

It just irks me that Hannity and Limbaugh constantly mention the "tingle up the leg" comment as if its proof positive of media bias, or something besides Mathews's own half-cocked stupidity. The guy made his bones bashing Clinton. Should the winds of popular opinion shift Right, he will start throwing wet, nasty, and raunchy compliments in the GOP’s direction. Bet on it.

Wouldn't that rate Hannity a little higher than Matthews, then? At least Sean is staying true to whatever his personal values are (even if they are completely opposite of yours), whereas Matthews just goes with wherever the political wind blows?

Hmm. Not a fan of either. Mathews seems more interested in talking over his guests and his own self-promotion, whereas Hannity is just about echoing Heritage Foundation talking points. Hannity's great american pannel is worth a look depending on the guests. Forced to choose, I guess I'd take Mathews just because he's slightly less predictable.

[donnaplease]

I will respond to TNC about the GOP being back in 2012. No fucking way. The economy will be rosy, the Afghan war will be over, and the troops in Iraq, most of them, will be home. The Dems will strengthen their very slim majority in BOTH houses and return to full power. You people have NO ONE who can win. As bad as Obama is right now, he still beats every dickhead and emptyheaded woman you trot up there. Here's a clue: get a person with some brains, get a decent platform, and try not to alienate just about every other non church going person. I fear your drought will be a long one. Better hope for an terrorist attack.

Our community lost a soldier in Afghanistan last week during an attack. 24 years old. Very sad.

[donnaplease]

Oh donna donna-

I could only dream that Glenn beck would accept a challenge to Keith Olberman. His career would be over. Glenn Beck is an absolute talking point machine, straight out of Limbaugh Camp, while Olberman, obviously favouring the left, at least presents facts as truth..of course he only presents arguments that favour the left, but he is one smart guy. Beck is just a fool who thrives on emotional hilarity. Hannity? LOL, is a plain dope. That guy can't get Reagan's dead dick out of his mouth fast enough.

At least Glenn Beck has a personality - Olbermann reminds me of Frankenstein.

LOL, it's not about personality. It's about brains. Are you seriously telling me Beck can share the same stage with Olberman? Hell, even Rachel Maddow would crush him. The guy is just out to lunch. An emotional whacko with a dangerous thought process. Hell, it's the same way in reverse. Palin, and all the air in her head, couldn't debate here on MR for God's sake! TNC and 7 would annihilate her. hell, I'm smarter than that dumb bitch.

Dunno, but I'd buy tickets for any of those!!!

[Rockindeano]

Hmm. Not a fan of either. Mathews seems more interested in talking over his guests and his own self-promotion, whereas Hannity is just about echoing Heritage Foundation talking points. Hannity's great american pannel is worth a look depending on the guests. Forced to choose, I guess I'd take Mathews just because he's slightly less predictable.

You must be joking? The Great American panel is a 2 on 1 power play run by Hannity for the GOP advantage. It's a measured and predictable outcome where the host drives the train to their side for victory. I laugh my ass off at his guests. Such a good time. Seriously, I have never been so embarrassed of a "news agency" as I am of Fox in my life.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That guy can't get Reagan's dead dick out of his mouth fast enough.

LOL

[The_Noble_Cause]

You must be joking? The Great American panel is a 2 on 1 power play run by Hannity for the GOP advantage. It's a measured and predictable outcome where the host drives the train to their side for victory. I laugh my ass off at his guests. Such a good time. Seriously, I have never been so embarrassed of a "news agency" as I am of Fox in my life.

Sometimes they throw in a curveball. Bob Beckel, in particular, is the rare exception - a Fox News lefty who refuses to be steamrolled.

[Rockindeano]

I will respond to TNC about the GOP being back in 2012. No fucking way. The economy will be rosy, the Afghan war will be over, and the troops in Iraq, most of them, will be home. The Dems will strengthen their very slim majority in BOTH houses and return to full power. You people have NO ONE who can win. As bad as Obama is right now, he still beats every dickhead and emptyheaded woman you trot up there. Here's a clue: get a person with some brains, get a decent platform, and try not to alienate just about every other non church going person. I fear your drought will be a long one. Better hope for an terrorist attack.

Our community lost a soldier in Afghanistan last week during an attack. 24 years old. Very sad.

Well at least it was for a legitimate concern. The Afghan war is worthwhile, although run horribly by the Bush administration. That thing should have been over in 3 years, but no, he shifted focus away and onto the bullshit war of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives based on a Bush lie.

[The_Noble_Cause]

And are you saying you think the GOP will be 'back' in '12? If so, why?

Cuz Obama didn't do enough to adress unemployment.

[donnaplease]

I don't know anything about the other gaffes. I just refer to what I've personally seen. Your other examples are equally as creepy though.

It just irks me that Hannity and Limbaugh constantly mention the "tingle up the leg" comment as if its proof positive of media bias, or something besides Mathews's own half-cocked stupidity. The guy made his bones bashing Clinton. Should the winds of popular opinion shift Right, he will start throwing wet, nasty, and raunchy compliments in the GOP’s direction. Bet on it.

Wouldn't that rate Hannity a little higher than Matthews, then? At least Sean is staying true to whatever his personal values are (even if they are completely opposite of yours), whereas Matthews just goes with wherever the political wind blows?

Hmm. Not a fan of either. Mathews seems more interested in talking over his guests and his own self-promotion, whereas Hannity is just about echoing Heritage Foundation talking points. Hannity's great american pannel is worth a look depending on the guests. Forced to choose, I guess I'd take Mathews just because he's slightly less predictable.

Hannity is predictable, I absolutely concur. IDK if it's because he's trying to drive home a point, or because he lacks creativity. I guess for me it was easier to watch/listen to when it seemed he had to defend all the attacks from the left aimed at Bush/Republicans/Conservatives. Now that he's on attack-mode, it just gets really old. Not only that, but you only have to hear something once or twice before it becomes annoying. I guess of the whole gang, I prefer Bill O'Reilly.

[donnaplease]

And are you saying you think the GOP will be 'back' in '12? If so, why?

Cuz Obama didn't do enough to adress unemployment.

I agree. I got into an argument with my best friend a month or so ago about that very thing. She loves BO and all she could say was [*insert whiny voice*] "he's trying". Since my hubby had been unemployed for a few months, that answer didn't give me much comfort. Fortunately, he is now back to work.

Do you think the healthcare bill will be a deciding factor? And without ridiculing them, how do you think the tea party movement will play into it? As much as some like to downplay the effect they've had so far, they have made an impact. Don't know who it will hurt worse, but they are in this game, I think.

[Rockindeano]

I agree. I got into an argument with my best friend a month or so ago about that very thing. She loves BO and all she could say was [*insert whiny voice*] "he's trying". Since my hubby had been unemployed for a few months, that answer didn't give me much comfort. Fortunately, he is now back to work.

Speaking to your point about unemployment, I agree. he didn't do enough. he still has time though, to really get the numbers moving the other way and fast..they have started to already, just a bit slow.

As for your husband being on unemployment, thank your lucky stars the Democrats are in charge. How many times did the GOP come to the floor with the presentation of ending jobless benefits? See Jim Bunning, -KY. There's a point right there that proves the GOP doesn't give a single shit about USA Main Street. They care only about Wall Street.

The Health Care Bill can be an issue, unless the Gov't can make people see that it is really a worthwhile piece of legislation. The republicans will run on lies against it, make up falsities of unsubstantial claim, and IMHO, it won't amount to much.

As for your Tea party question, LOL, I'll abstain from that debacle.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Do you think the healthcare bill will be a deciding factor?

Depends. Clinton always said "run on your record." There are some good things in the bill that Obama and the Dems can point to. At the same time, the GOP can point to its cost and trot out the threat of "socialized medicine." It's a wash.

And without ridiculing them, how do you think the tea party movement will play into it? As much as some like to downplay the effect they've had so far, they have made an impact. Don't know who it will hurt worse, but they are in this game, I think.

Not sure. Everytime a pundit writes them off as an irrelevant third party, they manage to win big against the GOP establishment. In some respects, you have to admire these conservative true believers for taking back their party. Most Dems secretly wish they could do the same. Alot of it will come down to the individual candidates, and whether it's a Doug Hoffman or a Scott Brown running.

[donnaplease]

Most Dems secretly wish they could do the same.

What would they do differently?

[ohsherrie]

One of the local favorite sons here is gearing up for a run against Tom Perriello. His name is Robert Hurt and he's a really nice guy. I wish he wasn't a rethug because no matter how much I like him if he gets to Washington he's nothing but another rethug vote. There's a very active Tea Party mob around here and they've got a candidate that's going to run against them both. They're planning a debate and have asked Robert and Mr. Perriello if they want the Tea Party candidate to be a part of the debate. Robert said no, Mr. Perriello said yes. Robert has been courting the Tea Party vote and he knows that this other candidate will take votes away from him. Mr. Perriello knows he can do better in the debate if the tea party guy is there. I'm interested to see if he is there or not.

[ohsherrie]

The republicans will run on lies against it, make up falsities of unsubstantial claim, and IMHO, it won't amount to much.

That's all they've got. Have you heard them offer any alternative proposals to any of the things they've been saying "NO" to for the last year and a half? They want to go back to doing exactly what that party has been doing since Reagan; pandering to the corporate barons, Wall Street moguls and military contractors while the rest of the country goes to hell in a handbasket.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Most Dems secretly wish they could do the same.

What would they do differently?

For many on the left, Obama is becoming the Democrat version of George W. Bush. If they had their way, they'd like to see an ideologically pure presidential candidate like Dennis Kucinich (think the left-wing Ron Paul), and they'd like to see an electoral sea change that gets rid of all the Blue Dogs and Conserva-Dems. Much like how the Tea Party is currently sorting out the rinos from the GOP. There is real discontent on both sides. To me, Obama has governed pretty much like he campaigned: a centrist Democrat whose primary constituency is Wall Street. I am neither surprised or dissapointed.

[donnaplease]

Most Dems secretly wish they could do the same.

What would they do differently?

For many on the left, Obama is becoming the Democrat version of George W. Bush. If they had their way, they'd like to see an ideologically pure presidential candidate like Dennis Kucinich (think the left-wing Ron Paul), and they'd like to see an electoral sea change that gets rid of all the Blue Dogs and Conserva-Dems. Much like how the Tea Party is currently sorting out the rinos from the GOP. There is real discontent on both sides. To me, Obama has governed pretty much like he campaigned: a centrist Democrat whose primary constituency is Wall Street. I am neither surprised or dissapointed.

So you're saying both parties want their groups to be more extreme, in order to get back to their 'roots'? Basically, if I understand it right, you're saying that the dems want BO to be more liberal, and the republicans want republicans who are more 'republican' (figure that one out, I dare ya! ), and that's why the tea party has sprung forward. That makes sense, and yet doesn't it kinda fly in the face of what both groups say that they want, which is to be more politically 'correct'...? Because let's face it, neither group (the extreme version) is really politically correct. The extreme conservatives focus too much on religion, etc and the extreme liberals seem to have no moral limits ('if it feels good, do it!')whatsoever. Neither example is acceptable in my book, nor is sheer complacency either - especially out of fear of offending someone. Ever hear the expression... "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything".

Now, about this Wall Street comment... I thought he was the "Main Street" candidate and the republicans were all about Wall Street...

[lights1961]

Obama playing golf over the weekend the BP guy yatching... does that mean the OIL spill crises has been adverted and the world is saved??? just saying...