President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Jana]

20,000 government workers to be laid off in California. Things are going from bad to worse.

[AlteredDNA]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/17 ... et_4807323

Jindal Signals Louisiana May Not Take Stimulus Money

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, has suggested his state may not be interested in all of the roughly $4 billion allotted to it in the economic stimulus package to be signed by President Obama today.

"We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars," Jindal said, according to CBS affiliate WWLTV.

Jindal is scheduled to give the response to the president’s not-exactly-a-state-of-the-union address next Tuesday.

Louisiana reportedly faces a possible $2 billion budget shortfall next year. It has been allocated $538,575,876 for infrastructure spending in the stimulus package, and the White House predicts the bill will create 50,000 jobs in the state.

As WWLTV notes, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has said he’ll take any money that Louisiana turns down.

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, isn’t letting up in its criticism of Democrats over the stimulus package. Following the White House’s releases trumpeting the bill, the RNC sent an email to reporters offering research on “Democrats’ broken pledges on transparency, bipartisanship, pork, and job creation.”

The email quotes news stories on order to criticize Democrats for breaking a promise to post the bill online 48 hours in advance of a vote, for not working in a bipartisan manner, for putting out a package “loaded with wasteful earmarks,” and for overestimating the bill’s job creation potential.

House Republican Leader John Boehner also put out a statemnet hammering the deal.

“The flawed bill the President will sign today is a missed opportunity, one for which our children and grandchildren will pay a hefty price," he said. "It’s a raw deal for American families, providing just $1.10 per day in relief for workers while saddling every family with $9,400 in added debt to pay for special-interest programs and pork-barrel projects. It will do little to create jobs, and will do more harm than good to middle-class families and our economy."

[The_Noble_Cause]

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “Liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

One thing he didn't count on was the assistance of George W. Bush and many Republicans in helping achieve that.

Yes, Norman Thomas is credited for pushing FDR farther to the left.
But it's an oversimplification to say the Democratic Party of today is the same one Thomas spoke of in 1944 (tho, given the economic crisis, the parallels are admittedly hard to ignore).
Obama, like Paulson, is merely trying to inject capital to defibrillate the economy.
That's not a radical socialist idea, but a mainstream economic one.
Paulson was as Conservative as you can get, and even he knew now wasn't the time to dabble in more failed vodoo economics.
What does that tell you?

[Rick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da0eaiZ0CKw&feature=related

Priceless. Thanks for posting those.

[Ehwmatt]

White House Vow: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine'..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -doctrine/

A good move. I hope he's not trying to be sneaky and implement other measures.

I also honestly like the executive pay cap idea, at least for now. I was outraged at first, but after thinking about it, I'm a supporter, at least for now. We need to somehow get back to some ethical standards and accountability. Seems when there's hundreds of billions of dollars to be made, people will do anything to get it, even if it means hurting a lot of people. This seems to be a last line of defense against some of these scumbags.

[The_Noble_Cause]

White House Vow: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine'..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -doctrine/

A good move. I hope he's not trying to be sneaky and implement other measures.

No, it's not.
There is not a single action undertaken by Reagan's FCC that shouldn't be overturned - immediately.
Hell, they even raised the cap on how many commericals can be jammed between breaks.
Repealing the doctrine and deregulating the industry was supposed to lead to greater content diversity (or so it was sold).
Instead, it's resulted in nothing but 600 stations of Rush Limbaugh, and live DJs replaced with syndicated pre-recordings.

[Ehwmatt]

White House Vow: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine'..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -doctrine/

A good move. I hope he's not trying to be sneaky and implement other measures.

No, it's not.
There is not a single action undertaken by Reagan's FCC that shouldn't be overturned - immediately.
Hell, they even raised the cap on how many commericals can be jammed between breaks.
Repealing the doctrine and deregulating the industry was supposed to lead to greater content diversity (or so it was sold).
Instead, it's resulted in nothing but 600 stations of Rush Limbaugh, and live DJs replaced with syndicated pre-recordings.

Cry me a fuckin river. You don't like it, don't listen. That's what I do with terrestrial radio.

We've got bigger things to worry about as a society than homogenized playlists and Rush Limbaugh.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Cry me a fuckin river. You don't like it, don't listen. That's what I do with terrestrial radio.

Then you've laid down, rolled over, and acquiesced your part ownership of the public airwaves.
License renewal used to be contingent on broadcasting in the public interest.
Airing tokyo rose agitprop day in and day out serves noone but the politically braindead.

We've got bigger things to worry about as a society than homogenized playlists and Rush Limbaugh.

Like LBJ said, we can have guns and butter.

[The_Noble_Cause]

:lol:

Libtalk network Nova M Radio has been shut down, according to the attorney for Randi Rhodes, Robert V Gaulin of New York. … Moments ago, Gaulin sent this letter to your Radio Equalizer:

Randi Rhodes’ on-air home for less than a year will shut its doors. In an email message of February 17th from counsel for Nova M Radio, Inc. to Randi’s entertainment attorney, Robert V. Gaulin, the company is said to have been advised to file for bankruptcy protection next week. All payroll deposits were reversed on Tuesday, leaving Nova’s employees unpaid for the past two weeks.

On Sunday, Nova received a letter from Mr. Gaulin asserting that the contract with Ms. Rhodes was terminated due to material breaches and other reasons. Ms. Rhodes had not broadcast for over a week prior to this time, a situation which was diplomatically referred to as a “problem” that was solely within Nova’s control to solve. A few days earlier, Sheldon Drobny, founder of Nova M, and a co-founder of Air America Radio, attempted suicide and is hospitalized in Chicago.

Not sure what's funny about attempted suicide, FF.

The Doctrine transcends labels of lib vs. conservative anyway - it's about abusing the public trust.
Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage et al. are propagandists of the Father Coughlin variety.
Let them poison the well of discourse on ham VHF radio, or satellite, or something.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Nothing funny about suicide. The fact that he failed....typical lib doing things half assed. (/joking TNC)

I was laughing about the death of another Lib talk radio company. Like socialism, Lib talk has failed everytime it's tried. You just keep on believing TNC.

That's an oversimplification...
Alan Colmes does OK.
Ed Schultz ratings are decent.
In one or two markets Thom Hartmann even manages to beat Limbaugh.

Liberal radio is a tougher sell because, unlike right wing claque, it beats up evenly on gov't and corporate abuse.
When was the last time you head Glenn Beck railing against WalMart's tax cheating ways?
Lest you think I'm whistling dixie, here's a leaked ABC radio memo that amounts to an Air America advertising blacklist.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310 ... 0610310008

[conversationpc]

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “Liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

One thing he didn't count on was the assistance of George W. Bush and many Republicans in helping achieve that.

Yes, Norman Thomas is credited for pushing FDR farther to the left.
But it's an oversimplification to say the Democratic Party of today is the same one Thomas spoke of in 1944 (tho, given the economic crisis, the parallels are admittedly hard to ignore).
Obama, like Paulson, is merely trying to inject capital to defibrillate the economy.
That's not a radical socialist idea, but a mainstream economic one.
Paulson was as Conservative as you can get, and even he knew now wasn't the time to dabble in more failed vodoo economics.
What does that tell you?

The last I checked, distributing other people's money to failing institutions wasn't a conservative principle.

[conversationpc]

Liberal radio is a tougher sell because, unlike right wing claque, it beats up evenly on gov't and corporate abuse.

Well, it beats up on government abuse by Republicans anyway.

When was the last time you head Glenn Beck railing against WalMart's tax cheating ways?

It wasn't specifically Wal Mart but just today, actually, or perhaps it was last night's or yesterday's radio show. Can't remember which one right off.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The last I checked, distributing other people's money to failing institutions wasn't a conservative principle.

So you're saying what exactly?
That Henry Paulson, lifelong Republican, and Bush's conservative choice to head the Treasury, was actually a stealth liberal?
Clearly, his recent actions have been driven by economic consensus, not 180 ideological conversion.
Easy for the GOP minority to push the same failed theoretical policies when they don't stand a chance of being put into practice.
When the stim package works, what will you say then?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Liberal radio is a tougher sell because, unlike right wing claque, it beats up evenly on gov't and corporate abuse.

Well, it beats up on government abuse by Republicans anyway.

Depends on whom you're talking about.
I'd argue both conservative and lib radio act as a counterweight to their respective teams' behavior.
Dubai Ports and Harriet Miers wouldn't have been defeated without right wing talk.
That said, does anyone truly think Rush (who admitted to carrying the administration's water, and recently celebrated his birthday in the White House) isn't bought-off?

[Ehwmatt]

Liberal radio is a tougher sell because, unlike right wing claque, it beats up evenly on gov't and corporate abuse.

Well, it beats up on government abuse by Republicans anyway.

Depends on whom you're talking about.
I'd argue both conservative and lib radio act as a counterweight to their respective teams' behavior.
Dubai Ports and Harriet Miers wouldn't have been defeated without right wing talk.
That said, does anyone truly think Rush (who admitted to carrying the administration's water, and recently celebrated his birthday in the White House) isn't bought-off?

I don't understand what you're driving at this last page or so. By and large, nobody listens to "liberal radio," at least not like they do "conservative radio." Thus it doesn't make money. But it should still be there because...? Radio's a commercial enterprise. I don't see people advocating polka stations to counterbalance the rock and hip-hop stations. The audience isn't there, or it's at least nowhere near proportional to the latter two.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't understand what you're driving at this last page or so. By and large, nobody listens to "liberal radio," at least not like they do "conservative radio."

Are those free market forces at work, or the result of Clinton and Reagan de-regulating the industry, driving mom n' pop stations off the air, and allowing corporate megaliths like Clear Channel to buy upwards of 1,200 stations?
Much like the institutionalized knee-jerk reactionism of the term "fairness doctrine", the people framing this debate are the very same right wing liars who stand everything to lose.

Thus it doesn't make money. But it should still be there because...?

Oversimplification.

Radio's a commercial enterprise.

Stations are on the public airwaves, and have to broadcast in the public interest.
A few non-partisan hours of Art Bell talking about flying saucers does not meet that commitment.

I don't see people advocating polka stations to counterbalance the rock and hip-hop stations. The audience isn't there, or it's at least nowhere near proportional to the latter two.

Music has no implications on an informed electorate.
Lying about current events does.
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to music.
However, as with cable TV, I don't begrudge anyone who wishes to make that argument.

[hoagiepete]

Liberal radio is a tougher sell because, unlike right wing claque, it beats up evenly on gov't and corporate abuse.

Well, it beats up on government abuse by Republicans anyway.

Depends on whom you're talking about.
I'd argue both conservative and lib radio act as a counterweight to their respective teams' behavior.
Dubai Ports and Harriet Miers wouldn't have been defeated without right wing talk.
That said, does anyone truly think Rush (who admitted to carrying the administration's water, and recently celebrated his birthday in the White House) isn't bought-off?

I don't understand what you're driving at this last page or so. By and large, nobody listens to "liberal radio," at least not like they do "conservative radio." Thus it doesn't make money. But it should still be there because...? Radio's a commercial enterprise. I don't see people advocating polka stations to counterbalance the rock and hip-hop stations. The audience isn't there, or it's at least nowhere near proportional to the latter two.

Great points Ehwmatt. Another question...who would determine if the programing is "liberal" or "conservative" or liberal enough?

There would suddenly be airways taken up by programming that few will be listening to. Whatever happend to the free market system? If it sells or is profitable, they will be doing it. Does Murdoch have a right leaning tv station because HE is conservative or because he wants to make money (or kick Ted Turner's ass). Nothing wrong with that is there? What ever happend to profit being a good thing?

[Ehwmatt]

I don't understand what you're driving at this last page or so. By and large, nobody listens to "liberal radio," at least not like they do "conservative radio."

Are those free market forces at work, or the result of Clinton and Reagan de-regulating the industry, driving mom n' pop stations off the air, and allowing corporate megaliths like Clear Channel to buy upwards of 1,200 stations?
Much like the institutionalized knee-jerk reactionism to the term "fairness doctrine", the people framing this debate are the very same right wing liars who stand everything to lose.

Thus it doesn't make money. But it should still be there because...?

Oversimplification.

Radio's a commercial enterprise.

Stations are on the public airwaves, and have to broadcast in the public interest.
A few non-partisan hours of Art Bell talking about flying saucers does not meet that commitment.

I don't see people advocating polka stations to counterbalance the rock and hip-hop stations. The audience isn't there, or it's at least nowhere near proportional to the latter two.

Music has no implications on an informed electorate.
Lying about current events does.
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to music.
However, as with cable TV, I don't begrudge anyone who wishes to make that argument.

They all lie. If you think having a bunch of liberal Rush equivalents running around is going to help people get to the truth, well then I won't begrudge you either.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Great points Ehwmatt.

Another question...who would determine if the programing is "liberal" or "conservative" or liberal enough?

Who's to say the Doctrine would impose 50/50 Conservative and Liberal points of view?
The fact that you view the Doctrine in such a decidedly partisan and simplistically binary way just shows how badly it need to be re-instated.
Ever think groups ranging from the NRA to NAACP might like to correct the record?

There would suddenly be airways taken up by programming that few will be listening to. Whatever happend to the free market system?

Media monopolies are not a free market.

If it sells or is profitable, they will be doing it. Does Murdoch have a right leaning tv station because HE is conservative or because he wants to make money (or kick Ted Turner's ass).

Cable is not the public airwaves.
This is like Hannity's constantly invoked bogus argument about imposing the doctrine on the NYTimes.
None of you guys have a clue what you're talking about.

[The_Noble_Cause]

They all lie. If you think having a bunch of liberal Rush equivalents running around is going to help people get to the truth, well then I won't begrudge you either.

The Fairness Doctrine enables the people to have access to the public airwaves.
That would include defamed conseravatives and libs alike.

[hoagiepete]

They all lie. If you think having a bunch of liberal Rush equivalents running around is going to help people get to the truth, well then I won't begrudge you either.

The Fairness Doctrine enables the people to have access to the public airwaves.
That would include defamed conseravatives and libs alike.

Ok ye who knoweth everything ...who's going to be the judge and jury as to who is lying or telling the truth? Appointed or elected? How can this not be considered censorship?

Oh hell...who gives a shit...soon no one will be listening to radio anymore anyhow.

I agree with you on conglomo radio though. That is what we ought to be arguing against. Is that what is killing radio? Are they stupid or do they not want to make profits? Or is radio just simply a dying media? Explain this to the simple minded folk oh great one.

I'm just glad I found the source of all answers and truth...on a message board for melodicrock and Journey none the less!!! Who'd of thunk it? God bless the internet!

Kind of remind me of a boy that got the shit kicked out of him all the time in school. Whatever.

[conversationpc]

So you're saying what exactly?
That Henry Paulson, lifelong Republican, and Bush's conservative choice to head the Treasury, was actually a stealth liberal?
Clearly, his recent actions have been driven by economic consensus, not 180 ideological conversion.

Economic consensus? Hell, even the CBO seems to think it isn't going to work.

When the stim package works, what will you say then?

Even if/when things do turn around, how do we even know for sure it was the stimulus package that was responsible? The simple answer is that we won't. What we do know for sure is that we are adding a TON of debt onto the shoulders of ourselves and our children, their children, etc. That's a stone cold fact. I've always kinda followed the lines that the government can't really do that much to stimulate the economy other than cutting taxes. They can certainly be a major hindrance to it, though.

[conversationpc]

That said, does anyone truly think Rush (who admitted to carrying the administration's water, and recently celebrated his birthday in the White House) isn't bought-off?

I can't stand Rush but, no, I don't think he's bought off. He has plenty of money on his own without anyone in the White House shoveling more into the trough.

[conversationpc]

Stations are on the public airwaves, and have to broadcast in the public interest.

Sorry but, no, they don't have to broadcast in the public interest. Perhaps in a socialist/communist country they should but not here.

[7 Wishes]

Sigh.

I think we're looking at four years of cut-and-paste pre-emptive posts by FF.

[Jana]

Sigh.

I think we're looking at four years of cut-and-paste pre-emptive posts by FF.

ya' think.

[conversationpc]

Sigh.

I think we're looking at four years of cut-and-paste pre-emptive posts by FF.

I'm glad you admit it's probably only going to be that long.

[conversationpc]

Liberal radio is a tougher sell because, unlike right wing claque, it beats up evenly on gov't and corporate abuse.

Well, it beats up on government abuse by Republicans anyway.

When was the last time you head Glenn Beck railing against WalMart's tax cheating ways?

It wasn't specifically Wal Mart but just today, actually, or perhaps it was last night's or yesterday's radio show. Can't remember which one right off.

Just wanted to let you know that Glenn railed against big corporations again on his TV show last night. He said something about getting away from what some of these big corporations are doing by seeing everyone as just a market.

[Arianddu]

I shouldn't read American politcal threads. Too damn depressing.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Stations are on the public airwaves, and have to broadcast in the public interest.

Sorry but, no, they don't have to broadcast in the public interest. Perhaps in a socialist/communist country they should but not here.

Uh, no, sorry.
Renewal of stations' licenses was always predicated upon meeting the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."
That was a precedent established right here in the US of A, not some Communist Central American backwater
Proving once more, how utterly ill-equpped you and hoagiepete are to enter the fray.
You're just demagoguing the issue.