President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rick]

[conversationpc]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

[Monker]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

There will eventually come a point where gasoline vehicles cost more to produce and operate then electric. When that time comes, Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler had better being doing what Tesla is doing or Tesla will be the only American car in production.

Tesla does it right.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

[Rick]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

There will eventually come a point where gasoline vehicles cost more to produce and operate then electric. When that time comes, Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler had better being doing what Tesla is doing or Tesla will be the only American car in production.

Tesla does it right.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Hey, that band make some nice looking cars.

[conversationpc]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

There will eventually come a point where gasoline vehicles cost more to produce and operate then electric. When that time comes, Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler had better being doing what Tesla is doing or Tesla will be the only American car in production.

Tesla does it right.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Hey, that band make some nice looking cars.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Scary.

[Memorex]

Anytime these things come up, it's best to stay away. They are real nuts out there. The idea of limits doesn't seem to exist anymore.

[Memorex]

So - Obama on Jimmy Fallon Slow Jammin the News. I thought it was funny, but it bothers me as well. I just can't imagine any other president doing this during difficult times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAFQIciWsF4&feature=g-logo

Now, I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Part of me says let's laugh at ourselves, and part of me thinks he is so incredibly out of touch it's insulting. I think it's the combination of things. The 17 vacations, all the golf and basketball, all the huge White House parties, the expense of all of this. And outside of a few campaign style tours, I can't really think of much he has done since last September.

I can't really recall Clinton's vacations, but I know many were tucked away at private locations (maybe for private reasons), sort of off the radar. Bush had many of his vacations at his ranch and at Camp David. Obama is so out there and it's all so expensive. It's strange because he will be wealthy for the rest of his life and there will be plenty of time for all that. I say get all our men home, get everyone back to work, then go enjoy yourself. Anyway....

[donnaplease]

What do y'all think of this?

[Rick]

What do y'all think of this?

I think he'll get a lot of votes from the black community. It's amazing that the white community has to take shit for the killing of a black kid that was killed by a Hispanic with a white/Jewish surname.

[Seven Wishes2]

Exploitation. Bullshit.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

There will eventually come a point where gasoline vehicles cost more to produce and operate then electric. When that time comes, Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler had better being doing what Tesla is doing or Tesla will be the only American car in production.

Tesla does it right.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Hey, that band make some nice looking cars.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Scary.

I ve heard that people have been complaining that the entertainment systems in these cars are crap with most models only having a mp3 auxiliary jack and no FM radio. Telsla Mors apparently responded to this GREAT RADIO CONTROVERSY by saying tough, thats THE WAY IT IS

[SF-Dano]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

There will eventually come a point where gasoline vehicles cost more to produce and operate then electric. When that time comes, Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler had better being doing what Tesla is doing or Tesla will be the only American car in production.

Tesla does it right.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Hey, that band make some nice looking cars.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Scary.

I ve heard that people have been complaining that the entertainment systems in these cars are crap with most models only having a mp3 auxiliary jack and no FM radio. Telsla Mors apparently responded to this GREAT RADIO CONTROVERSY by saying tough, thats THE WAY IT IS

nice!

[Monker]

If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be. Feburary and March sales were zero.

There will eventually come a point where gasoline vehicles cost more to produce and operate then electric. When that time comes, Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler had better being doing what Tesla is doing or Tesla will be the only American car in production.

Tesla does it right.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Hey, that band make some nice looking cars.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Scary.

I ve heard that people have been complaining that the entertainment systems in these cars are crap with most models only having a mp3 auxiliary jack and no FM radio. Telsla Mors apparently responded to this GREAT RADIO CONTROVERSY by saying tough, thats THE WAY IT IS

Haha. It's actually a good system:

200 watt, seven speaker stereo system with AM/FM/HD radio. Supports MP3, AAC, and MP4 music formats. System includes four speakers, two tweeters and one center channel speaker. Flash memory storage for up to 500 songs.

[Don]

I believe in Norway, they have began implementing a 100% tariff on any select non-hybrid/electric car sales. That is one way to push change. The funny thing is, Norway is the third largest Oil Exporter in the world behind Russia and Saudi Arabia.

[verslibre]

[SF-Dano]

Op-Ed piece on tax inequality that I just thought I would share. I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but I felt it was a good read.

Viewpoints: Face the truth about inequity of tax codes
By Bruce Maiman

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/445495 ... quity.html

[hoagiepete]

The corporation avoided the taxes, but taxes will eventually be paid. The employees and execs pay payroll taxes and the shareholders pay income tax on dividends and capital gains when shares are sold.

Corporate tax rates should be low as the money earned will eventually be taxed.

The article referenced state taxes. The states that decide not to have a tax and the states that decide to tax the hell out of you are the ones to blame as well. Not just the prudent businessman.

[Monker]

The corporation avoided the taxes, but taxes will eventually be paid. The employees and execs pay payroll taxes and the shareholders pay income tax on dividends and capital gains when shares are sold.

Corporate tax rates should be low as the money earned will eventually be taxed.

The article referenced state taxes. The states that decide not to have a tax and the states that decide to tax the hell out of you are the ones to blame as well. Not just the prudent businessman.

If 'corporations are people', then they should be taxed in exactly the same way.

[Memorex]

So today's job's numbers. There were only 115,000 new jobs added, which is basically nothing. That probably is about equal to population growth. But the number of people that stopped looking for work just last month is an insane 522,000.

In our country, that math drops the unemployment rate to 8.1%. That's a total joke. Don't look behind the curtain folks. Victory by attrition.

[RedWingFan]

So today's job's numbers. There were only 115,000 new jobs added, which is basically nothing. That probably is about equal to population growth. But the number of people that stopped looking for work just last month is an insane 522,000.

In our country, that math drops the unemployment rate to 8.1%. That's a total joke. Don't look behind the curtain folks. Victory by attrition.

This whole administration is chock full of liars. Only 185 more days!

[Memorex]

So today's job's numbers. There were only 115,000 new jobs added, which is basically nothing. That probably is about equal to population growth. But the number of people that stopped looking for work just last month is an insane 522,000.

In our country, that math drops the unemployment rate to 8.1%. That's a total joke. Don't look behind the curtain folks. Victory by attrition.

This whole administration is chock full of liars. Only 185 more days!

But Ropmney's not going to change the math now if he wins. Once one administration figures out a math gimmick, it's here to stay.

[Memorex]

Now that - is funny!

[Memorex]

So the whole Obama supporting gay marriage. Here's my thought. He says he believes it's ok for same-sex couples to marry, but that it should be up to the states. Pretty weak, from the left. I think from the left's perspective, you have to say I'm for it and any state that votes against it is going against the constitution. From the right, you do say it's a state issue, but of course you also say it should not be allowed period. So I guess his statement straddles the line, obviously a calculated move. I think Obama has always believed it to be ok for same-sex couples to marry, but he wanted to be President, so he waited for polls to turn before he stated his belief. Now, he is back looking for votes. Already selling t-shirts, sending out fund raising letters, and has even stated that it was a position that was discussed with advisers and then discussed as to when the right time was. In that sense, the whole thing is pretty weak.

That said, maybe in history it takes things like this to turn a country from one way of thinking to another. I'd like to think we are past all that and people just stand up for what they believe in, but maybe it's more complicated than that. And so if his step allows for a step forward, then history will recognize it as such.

I for one usually feel things should be decided state by state. But in this case I tend to lean toward an overall federal recognition. Either it's constitutional or not. And once that is decided, it seems a state cannot change that fact. So in this case, I believe people should be able to marry whoever they want, so long as it's a who and not a what and not a violation of other laws (i.e. a man marrying a boy). I don't think there is anything in the constitution that would prevent this and I see nothing wrong with it.

For those that want to argue that somehow it is against God or whatever, at least do so in a respectful manner. The disgusting language used in this sense around here is pretty lame and childish.

And you say?

[Monker]

So the whole Obama supporting gay marriage. Here's my thought. He says he believes it's ok for same-sex couples to marry, but that it should be up to the states. Pretty weak, from the left. I think from the left's perspective, you have to say I'm for it and any state that votes against it is going against the constitution. From the right, you do say it's a state issue, but of course you also say it should not be allowed period. So I guess his statement straddles the line, obviously a calculated move. I think Obama has always believed it to be ok for same-sex couples to marry, but he wanted to be President, so he waited for polls to turn before he stated his belief. Now, he is back looking for votes. Already selling t-shirts, sending out fund raising letters, and has even stated that it was a position that was discussed with advisers and then discussed as to when the right time was. In that sense, the whole thing is pretty weak.

That said, maybe in history it takes things like this to turn a country from one way of thinking to another. I'd like to think we are past all that and people just stand up for what they believe in, but maybe it's more complicated than that. And so if his step allows for a step forward, then history will recognize it as such.

I for one usually feel things should be decided state by state. But in this case I tend to lean toward an overall federal recognition. Either it's constitutional or not. And once that is decided, it seems a state cannot change that fact. So in this case, I believe people should be able to marry whoever they want, so long as it's a who and not a what and not a violation of other laws (i.e. a man marrying a boy). I don't think there is anything in the constitution that would prevent this and I see nothing wrong with it.

For those that want to argue that somehow it is against God or whatever, at least do so in a respectful manner. The disgusting language used in this sense around here is pretty lame and childish.

And you say?

Marriage is not recognized in the Constitution, never has been. It's always been an institution between an man and woman and has been recognized by and regulated thru mostly churches. The States only want you to get a marriage license to collect money, nothing else.

As for Obama selling t-shirts, I think this is highly uncalled for and if this hits the news over the weekened it will not help him one bit. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this whole gay marriage thing has cost The Won millions of votes.

This was posted to FB by a good friend of mine, who was relaying a post by a friend of hers. Both of them are attorney's, BTW, which I assume you are not. And, both of them are conservative Republicans who disagree with you :

Following North Carolina's decision concerning gay marriage, I feel compelled to post this message. I am a conservative and I am a Christian. I do not consider myself to be bigoted or homophobic. At one time, though I did not actively oppose gay marriage, I did support the right of voters to determine such issues within their own states.

I live in Iowa, one of the first states to "allow" same-sex marriages. A more accurate description of Iowa's "gay marriage law," though, would be that the Iowa Supreme Court, in a UNANIMOUS decision (an act which, incidentally, resulted in the removal of several noteworthy and respected justices) held that to deny ANY adult citizens of this state the right to marry, violated that person's rights to equal protection under Iowa's constitution (which is closely modeled after the US Constitution).

In the years following Varnum v. O'Brien, I have had the opportunity to reflect and observe the impact such decision had had on my home state. Armageddon has NOT begun, fire and brimstone have NOT (to the best of my knowledge) rained down upon my fellow citizens, and the Cubs have still NOT won the World Series.

What has happened is the full participation and introduction of a group of Iowans into a citizenry that had previously treated them as second class. As an attorney practicing in family law, I have had the pleasure of meeting with same-sex married couples to seeking to adopt, and the displeasure of meeting with same-sex married couples seeking divorce.

There has been NO fundamental change to the lives of the people of the State of Iowa since the Varnum decision other than a growing sense of pride as we see other states flounder, needlessly, with what should not even be an issue.

While the ever-increasingly shrill voices of those who oppose gay marriage in this state continue to lose support, I encourage the citizens of other states to take heart, examine their convictions and question exactly why they continue to oppose equality in marriage.

I know I did. And I found I was wrong. And I am sorry.

[Memorex]

So the whole Obama supporting gay marriage. Here's my thought. He says he believes it's ok for same-sex couples to marry, but that it should be up to the states. Pretty weak, from the left. I think from the left's perspective, you have to say I'm for it and any state that votes against it is going against the constitution. From the right, you do say it's a state issue, but of course you also say it should not be allowed period. So I guess his statement straddles the line, obviously a calculated move. I think Obama has always believed it to be ok for same-sex couples to marry, but he wanted to be President, so he waited for polls to turn before he stated his belief. Now, he is back looking for votes. Already selling t-shirts, sending out fund raising letters, and has even stated that it was a position that was discussed with advisers and then discussed as to when the right time was. In that sense, the whole thing is pretty weak.

That said, maybe in history it takes things like this to turn a country from one way of thinking to another. I'd like to think we are past all that and people just stand up for what they believe in, but maybe it's more complicated than that. And so if his step allows for a step forward, then history will recognize it as such.

I for one usually feel things should be decided state by state. But in this case I tend to lean toward an overall federal recognition. Either it's constitutional or not. And once that is decided, it seems a state cannot change that fact. So in this case, I believe people should be able to marry whoever they want, so long as it's a who and not a what and not a violation of other laws (i.e. a man marrying a boy). I don't think there is anything in the constitution that would prevent this and I see nothing wrong with it.

For those that want to argue that somehow it is against God or whatever, at least do so in a respectful manner. The disgusting language used in this sense around here is pretty lame and childish.

And you say?

Marriage is not recognized in the Constitution, never has been. It's always been an institution between an man and woman and has been recognized by and regulated thru mostly churches. The States only want you to get a marriage license to collect money, nothing else.

As for Obama selling t-shirts, I think this is highly uncalled for and if this hits the news over the weekened it will not help him one bit. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this whole gay marriage thing has cost The Won millions of votes.

You are right. It is not in the constitution and anything not in the constitution is generally guided by the states. That's why part of me feels this is a state issue. However, if two same-sex people want to get married, it is likely unconstitutional to disallow it while allowing it for men/women. It would be like saying it's ok for a state to govern driving speeds, but have a different set of rules for Jewish people. A person does not have a constitutional right to drive at whatever speed they want, but the constitution does provide that all people be allowed to drive the same speed. Therefore, if marriage is legal in a state, then it should be legal for all those that want to marry.

That t-shirt you posted is being sold by Obama at this moment. He's quick.

[Memorex]

http://politics.kfyi.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=104707&article=10120431

I don't mind this being sold. I just find it beneath the president to be capitalizing on what he says was a long thoughtful evolution.

[Monker]

So the whole Obama supporting gay marriage. Here's my thought. He says he believes it's ok for same-sex couples to marry, but that it should be up to the states. Pretty weak, from the left. I think from the left's perspective, you have to say I'm for it and any state that votes against it is going against the constitution. From the right, you do say it's a state issue, but of course you also say it should not be allowed period. So I guess his statement straddles the line, obviously a calculated move. I think Obama has always believed it to be ok for same-sex couples to marry, but he wanted to be President, so he waited for polls to turn before he stated his belief. Now, he is back looking for votes. Already selling t-shirts, sending out fund raising letters, and has even stated that it was a position that was discussed with advisers and then discussed as to when the right time was. In that sense, the whole thing is pretty weak.

That said, maybe in history it takes things like this to turn a country from one way of thinking to another. I'd like to think we are past all that and people just stand up for what they believe in, but maybe it's more complicated than that. And so if his step allows for a step forward, then history will recognize it as such.

I for one usually feel things should be decided state by state. But in this case I tend to lean toward an overall federal recognition. Either it's constitutional or not. And once that is decided, it seems a state cannot change that fact. So in this case, I believe people should be able to marry whoever they want, so long as it's a who and not a what and not a violation of other laws (i.e. a man marrying a boy). I don't think there is anything in the constitution that would prevent this and I see nothing wrong with it.

For those that want to argue that somehow it is against God or whatever, at least do so in a respectful manner. The disgusting language used in this sense around here is pretty lame and childish.

And you say?

Marriage is not recognized in the Constitution, never has been. It's always been an institution between an man and woman and has been recognized by and regulated thru mostly churches. The States only want you to get a marriage license to collect money, nothing else.

As for Obama selling t-shirts, I think this is highly uncalled for and if this hits the news over the weekened it will not help him one bit. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this whole gay marriage thing has cost The Won millions of votes.

You are right. It is not in the constitution and anything not in the constitution is generally guided by the states. That's why part of me feels this is a state issue. However, if two same-sex people want to get married, it is likely unconstitutional to disallow it while allowing it for men/women. It would be like saying it's ok for a state to govern driving speeds, but have a different set of rules for Jewish people. A person does not have a constitutional right to drive at whatever speed they want, but the constitution does provide that all people be allowed to drive the same speed. Therefore, if marriage is legal in a state, then it should be legal for all those that want to marry.

That t-shirt you posted is being sold by Obama at this moment. He's quick.

Marriage is not specifically mentioned but the 14th amendment in the "Bill of Rights" guarantees people equal protection and has generally been interpreted in the spirit of "All men are created equal". Marriage is a contract between two people. Any law that says certain types of people can not enter into that contract while others can is unconstitutional. It is also why none of your examples above would be written into law by any legislature, and why any court would say they are unconstitutional...at least that's they way it should be.

Also, marriage is a contract, as I said. A WEDDING is the celebration of that contract being entered into. They are completely different things...and you do not need a wedding, or a church, to enter into the contract of marriage. That is a simple fact. Too many people, it seems to me, confuse the two and/or believe they are the same thing.

[Memorex]

Why would anyone sign a contract to be nagged at for the rest of their lives? I kid. Or do I?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Marriage is not recognized in the Constitution, never has been. It's always been an institution between an man and woman and has been recognized by and regulated thru mostly churches. The States only want you to get a marriage license to collect money, nothing else.

the state ( by that mean federal or state or local govts) ought ot be out the marriage business completely. They shouln't be issuing blood tests, issuing marriage certficiates, setting up tax incentives or penalties, or deciding who should or shouldnt get married. Individuals have the right to enter into living arrangements and agree personal contracts which whoever they want. Religions organizations ought to have the right to say who they want to offer a ceremony to and who they don't on their own private property. This controversy shouldn't even be a point of discussion!

[donnaplease]

Also, marriage is a contract, as I said. A WEDDING is the celebration of that contract being entered into. They are completely different things...and you do not need a wedding, or a church, to enter into the contract of marriage. That is a simple fact. Too many people, it seems to me, confuse the two and/or believe they are the same thing.

I agree with this. So what happens when a gay couple wants to have a "wedding" in a church that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage? I can envision law suits and charges of bigotry against a church for practicing the tenets of their own faith. Furthermore, the marriage contract that you speak of is what most people would consider a 'civil union', but apparently that isn't good enough for the staunchest of same-sex marriage supporters.