Register

Board index » Rant Forum » President Obama

Non-Stiller related rants, pontifications, and soapbox lectures
Practice Squad
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: steeler country

President Obama

Postby deathwind » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:59 am

Ok, so the election is over, Obama won fair and square. The people have spoken. I for one did not vote for President Elect Obama but as an american citizen and a patriot (the american kind, not new england) I will have respect for the office AND the man. I think having a black President is a good thing, I just wish it were a different black. That being said, I hope with all my heart this man becomes the greatest Pres of all time. After all, my intrests are whats best for this country. All the haterd, name calling, and character assasination I see comming from the far left is disturbing. Disent is VERY american........this vile spewing about Sarah Palin, the patriot John Mccain and our current president goes way beyond the pale. All of us should realize that this country votes in cycles. The conservatives will be back. You can count on it. Just like the libs are now. Its a cycle. Wishing failure, (like in the war) on this great country, is unpatriotic in the least and treasonous at worst. We are americans first, at least we SHOULD be. Just my two cents.

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 4357
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:21 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby thesteelhammer » Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:11 pm

I agree with most of what you have said, except

deathwind wrote: Obama won fair and square.


ACORN registering fraudulent voters.

Double counting in Ohio.

300 Black Panthers at various polling locations.

Democratic operatives using their state jobs to investigate citizens like Joe the Plummer.

That isn't what I'd call fair and square.

I also think there is a difference between name calling, character assasination (like saying someone is dumb, or making up stuff about pregnancies) verse issues of judgement (like choosing to hang out with terrorists and bankrupt coal).

Practice Squad
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: steeler country

Re: President Obama

Postby deathwind » Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:10 pm

thesteelhammer wrote:I agree with most of what you have said, except

deathwind wrote: Obama won fair and square.


ACORN registering fraudulent voters.

Double counting in Ohio.

300 Black Panthers at various polling locations.

Democratic operatives using their state jobs to investigate citizens like Joe the Plummer.

That isn't what I'd call fair and square.
I also think there is a difference between name calling, character assasination (like saying someone is dumb, or making up stuff about pregnancies) verse issues of judgement (like choosing to hang out with terrorists and bankrupt coal).


Acorn and the black panthers are a joke. They didnt make the difference in the election. A weak republican canidate and hatred for W plus a smooth talker running a brilliant campaign made all the difference. And you are right on the money about the judgement thing. We can only hope and pray this man makes sound decisions. I for one hope I never resort to name-calling the Pres.

Greenhorned Rookie
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:13 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby Wooderson » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:23 pm

Mike Tomlin paved the way. Without a black coach in Pittsburgh Obama wouldn't have won PA.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:00 am

Re: President Obama

Postby indysteel » Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:15 am

Obama won and now I have to put up with him and his side kick for four years at least.

OK. Fair enough.

But understand this --- I don't have to like Obama or Biden. In fact, I can freely use the word "hate" if I so chose. I have the right -- and will -- do everything in my power to ensure he does not get re-elected.

I will make sure my children understand how I feel and what I believe. I will absolutely try to teach them how I believe and to carry that forward.

Key point -- I'm not against Obama because he is black. After all, I don't think he is black. He's half white. Somehow, the black community was duped into believing that a "black man" has actually been elected -- nothing could be further from the truth.

No, I don't like Obama because of his ties to Wright, his socialism leanings, and the fact that he never really articulated what he stands for.

As far as meeting the libs and Dems in the middle, reconciling, and coming together? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? You can go right straight to hell with that thought. I would rather DIE than meet in the middle. And when I mean die, I mean it. You will take the gun out of my hands before I meet in the middle.

Say what you want.......Obama DAMN well better know something and be able to DO SOMETHING besides talk.

Obama and numbnut Biden remind me of a Texas saying ...."those two boys are all hat and no cattle."

Practice Squad
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: steeler country

Re: President Obama

Postby deathwind » Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:59 am

indysteel wrote:Obama won and now I have to put up with him and his side kick for four years at least.

OK. Fair enough.

But understand this --- I don't have to like Obama or Biden. In fact, I can freely use the word "hate" if I so chose. I have the right -- and will -- do everything in my power to ensure he does not get re-elected.

I will make sure my children understand how I feel and what I believe. I will absolutely try to teach them how I believe and to carry that forward.

Key point -- I'm not against Obama because he is black. After all, I don't think he is black. He's half white. Somehow, the black community was duped into believing that a "black man" has actually been elected -- nothing could be further from the truth.

No, I don't like Obama because of his ties to Wright, his socialism leanings, and the fact that he never really articulated what he stands for.

As far as meeting the libs and Dems in the middle, reconciling, and coming together? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? You can go right straight to hell with that thought. I would rather DIE than meet in the middle. And when I mean die, I mean it. You will take the gun out of my hands before I meet in the middle.

Say what you want.......Obama DAMN well better know something and be able to DO SOMETHING besides talk.

Obama and numbnut Biden remind me of a Texas saying ...."those two boys are all hat and no cattle."


Hold on a miniute. I never said I liked Obama. I never said I was meeting anyone in the middle. Im just not going to waste the next 4 years festering with hate like most libs on this site. I didnt tell you to do or feel ANYTHING Indy. If you want to stoop to the level of the haters, go ahead. Its STILL A FREE COUNTRY.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:00 am

Re: President Obama

Postby indysteel » Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:16 am

Oh, don't misunderstand. Perhaps we are on the same side and just don't realize it.

I don't plan to fester either. It's a chess match and it's our turn. Let the Obama side have their run and we'll see what happens in four years.

I still say he has to DO SOMETHING. We'll see how that goes but I'm not optimistic.

Of course, if he fails -- for whatever reason -- you'll her two excuses:

1. Bush left him just too damn big of a mess. Of course, this runs counter to EVERYTHING the prick said during the election. After all, if he can't fix it, why would we elect him.

2. Racism kept him down.

The excuses for failure are already built in.

Practice Squad
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: steeler country

Re: President Obama

Postby deathwind » Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:51 am

indysteel wrote:Oh, don't misunderstand. Perhaps we are on the same side and just don't realize it.

I don't plan to fester either. It's a chess match and it's our turn. Let the Obama side have their run and we'll see what happens in four years.

I still say he has to DO SOMETHING. We'll see how that goes but I'm not optimistic.

Of course, if he fails -- for whatever reason -- you'll her two excuses:

1. Bush left him just too damn big of a mess. Of course, this runs counter to EVERYTHING the prick said during the election. After all, if he can't fix it, why would we elect him.

2. Racism kept him down.

The excuses for failure are already built in.


Understood. I fear you're right but hope you're wrong. Belive me, as a gun owner alone Im frightend what of will happen. :?:

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby TheOldRanger » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:16 pm

Deathwind, I am in agreement with you. We should put the hard feelings aside and give Obama the chance to do something to help this country move forward. If he screws it up, I'll vote for his opponent in 2012, believe me. I'm not a member of any political party, and I try to vote with my conscience. I say, let's see what happens. If he defies the odds and makes improvements, he'll have vindicated those who voted for him; if it goes poorly, I say, let's kick him out and give someone else a shot. That's the American way.

I don't think that they will be coming for our guns anytime soon, though. I'm a gun owner myself, and I think that all states should have concealed-carry laws. I do not agree with people who say that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I want to be able to hunt deer, shoot targets, and bust a cap into any fool who seeks to break into my home. We're not England; by the way, Google "stabbings in England" sometime. The ban on guns in England has led the criminal element to use knives instead.

If I come off as a pot-stirring name-calling insult-monger, it's just because it gets such a wild reaction from some posters. I can't help it; I think it's funny when people who take themselves so damned seriously get all worked-up. So sue me, I'm a prankster.

Practice Squad
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: steeler country

Re: President Obama

Postby deathwind » Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:31 pm

TheOldRanger wrote:Deathwind, I am in agreement with you. We should put the hard feelings aside and give Obama the chance to do something to help this country move forward. If he screws it up, I'll vote for his opponent in 2012, believe me. I'm not a member of any political party, and I try to vote with my conscience. I say, let's see what happens. If he defies the odds and makes improvements, he'll have vindicated those who voted for him; if it goes poorly, I say, let's kick him out and give someone else a shot. That's the American way.

I don't think that they will be coming for our guns anytime soon, though. I'm a gun owner myself, and I think that all states should have concealed-carry laws. I do not agree with people who say that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I want to be able to hunt deer, shoot targets, and bust a cap into any fool who seeks to break into my home. We're not England; by the way, Google "stabbings in England" sometime. The ban on guns in England has led the criminal element to use knives instead.

See, ranger, how easy it is to get along...................you dick! :cheers:

If I come off as a pot-stirring name-calling insult-monger, it's just because it gets such a wild reaction from some posters. I can't help it; I think it's funny when people who take themselves so damned seriously get all worked-up. So sue me, I'm a prankster.

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: President Obama

Postby Witchblade » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:44 pm

How ya like him now?
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Greenhorned Rookie
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:38 am

Re: President Obama

Postby gutofsteel » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:41 am

Witchblade wrote:How ya like him now?


Yeah, he's off to a fantastic fucking start. Obama inherited a mess, but the next Pres is going to have to clean up the most massive social entitlement programs in the history of the free world.

Yep, let's campaign about Bush's atrocious deficit and then proceed to more than triple that the first 2 months in office.

And I LOVE the bailout of homeowners who bought too much house and spent like drunken sailors....because if Democrats have taught me anything, it's that no one should be accountable.

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: President Obama

Postby Witchblade » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:20 am

It's alright Gut, you already know my responce. It's the tax system. Who cares about spending when they can always sell the lie that some one else will have to pay. "The rich" for example.
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 4357
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:21 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby thesteelhammer » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:30 pm

Witchblade wrote:How ya like him now?


http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565

LIVING POLITICS-Howard Fineman

A Turning Tide?

Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.


Mar 10, 2009 | Updated: 8:37 a.m. ET Mar 10, 2009


Surfer that he is, President Obama should know a riptide when he's in one. The center usually is the safest, most productive place in politics, but perhaps not now, not in a once-in-a-century economic crisis.

Swimming in the middle, he's denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accommodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.

Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's.But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.

They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president's character: he's not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He'd have made a fine judge. But we don't need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?

If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:

-The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
-The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
-The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
-The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
-The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
-A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
-A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd rather redesign the canoe.
-A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are the nice ones.
-A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a "bad bank" catch basin.
-A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
-The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
-Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.


Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.


Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: President Obama

Postby Witchblade » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:48 am

Well now I've got news weeks opinion how about yours.
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby steelcitymetal » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:55 am

he's terrible
Image

Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby GodfatherofSoul » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:34 pm

The attacks against Palin weren't mean spirited (besides the comments about her kids real mother). Palin's problem was she was woefully unprepared and uninformed to be running for President. I'm a big political junkie and I can't tell you how pissed off I was when she was asked what the Bush Doctrine was and had NO IDEA! You can try to rationalize away the importance of that, but for those in the know her Katie Couric interview was like watching the make-up and fake tits come off a transvestite.

Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby GodfatherofSoul » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:51 pm

gutofsteel wrote:
Witchblade wrote:How ya like him now?


Yeah, he's off to a fantastic fucking start. Obama inherited a mess, but the next Pres is going to have to clean up the most massive social entitlement programs in the history of the free world.

Yep, let's campaign about Bush's atrocious deficit and then proceed to more than triple that the first 2 months in office.

And I LOVE the bailout of homeowners who bought too much house and spent like drunken sailors....because if Democrats have taught me anything, it's that no one should be accountable.


One, all of this stimulus spending isn't some willy nilly spending spree. Read up on our very own Great Depression. All of this free market debate, lack of response, and collapse are exactly what happened back in 1929-32. That's why there's almost a unanimous consensus among top economists that Obama's doing the right thing. As a matter of fact, economists want way MORE stimulus.

I don't think Americans realize how close we are to a total financial collapse. This is nothing like the paultry recessions in the early nineties and 2001. All of the banks and businesses are sitting on whatever cash they have. In 3 months we've had job losses greater than the workforce of my home state, South Carolina. The only way to get ourselves out of this mess is for the only entity with the credit and willpower to spend money to start spending; that's the federal government. Hopefully, businesses will come along.

And, the responsibility of this crisis is partially home owners but vastly more the financial industry's fault. The average person simply isn't that sophisticated a consumer and it's easy to dupe people into bad deals (hello Mr. Madoff). Lots of people were pushed into ARMs and crummy loans by the greedy mortgage industry; including people with a lot of education. Contrary to what you'll hear from the whiners on CNBC, most of the bad home loans belong to the middle class and not the poor.

Also, throw in some blame for the government which took the "don't regulate" approach and let Wall Street cook up all of these dangerous mortgage instruments which they gleefully pushed onto the public. It's a philosophical problem. Check out the stock shorting uptick rule that they dismantled back in 2007. That basically set up Wall Street to make huge profits as companies started collapsing.

Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: President Obama

Postby GodfatherofSoul » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:53 pm

indysteel wrote:Of course, if he fails -- for whatever reason -- you'll her two excuses:

1. Bush left him just too damn big of a mess. Of course, this runs counter to EVERYTHING the prick said during the election. After all, if he can't fix it, why would we elect him.

2. Racism kept him down.

The excuses for failure are already built in.


LOL, so you're saying that the fucked up job that Bush (and his patsies in Congress) did will just be a lame Obama excuse in 4 years? Look around you, that's not just an excuse it's the REASON we're in the shitter. And, no one will blame racism. That's Limbaugh talking.

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: President Obama

Postby Witchblade » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:47 pm

Politics, Footnotes, and Your Children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/sco ... 0419SU.htm

By Scott Burns

Your grandmother has been living it up, spending money you never knew she had. The surprise comes when she dies and the executor of her estate informs you that, without your knowing it, she borrowed against your 401k plan.

Please surrender it.

That, in a highly personalized way, is the problem economist Lawrence J. Kotlikoff has been dealing with, only he does it by measuring what all the grandmas are doing to all the grandchildren. He calls it generational accounting.

Unfortunately, the people who should be talking about the problem aren’t.

"You know," he says, "it has disappeared from the budget altogether now. It was in two Bush budgets. It was in the first Clinton budget, too, but as a footnote. After there was more discussion of those few pages than the entire budget, the subject was dropped."

Now, Professor Kotlikoff said, the subject is completely politicized.

I asked him to explain.

"The CBO ( Congressional Budget Office) doesn’t want to publish new work that colleagues have done."

Generational accounting isn’t sexy like the spending and activities of the CIA, NSA, or Men in Black. But it is far, far more powerful. Professor Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, is its originator and prime mover. His approach to government policy analysis, which is likely to put him on the Nobel short list one day, has rapidly been adopted by at least 25 nations.

Why did they adopt his method of accounting for the "inter-temporal" distribution of government costs? Because every nation is struggling with the same grandma versus grandchild questions that we face right here: whether the next generation is going to suffer from "taxation without representation" as they are given whopper tax bills by the previous generation.

Moments later, speaking at a meeting jointly sponsored by the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank and the National Center for Policy Analysis, Professor Kotlikoff said that unless there were major policy changes the lifetime tax rate on the next generation would be nearly 50 percent. That’s a lot higher than the 30 to 33 percent that current taxpayers have experienced. Worse, the longer the delay, the more difficult it would be to make changes anyone could imagine.

In the event this is all new to you, let me explain. Governments make promises in two forms. The best known form is debt: they borrow from people today with the promise of returning the money, with interest, in the future. We read a lot about this type of promise because lots of people understand it, even if the numbers are in trillions. The second form of government promise is in programs--- things like Social Security and Medicare--- where there are no bonds but the government collects revenue today with the promise to make payments of income and benefits in the future. Very few people, including most politicians, understand this because it more complicated.

Which brings us to the unpublished paper.

Jagadeesh Gokhale at the Cleveland Reserve Bank and Benjamin R. Page and John R. Sturrock at the Congressional Budget Office, have updated the generational accounts. They also did a sensitivity analysis to see what government policy changes--- higher taxes, lower spending, reduced Medicare, etc.--- could put the generations on level ground.

I called Mr. Gokhale and asked for a copy.

After taking account of every dime to be paid in taxes while they are living, the current generation will pay the equivalent of $22.1 trillion in taxes… but leave a tax deficit of $9.4 trillion to the unborn.

The only way to make good on the promises is with higher taxes… or to renege by making reductions in promised benefits. Without changes, the lifetime tax rate on the next generation figures to 49.2 percent. That’s a lot more than the 29.6 percent of my mothers’ generation (1920); the 32.5 percent of my generation (1940); or the 32.4 percent of my children (1970). The researchers determined that it would take both a major slowdown in health care benefit growth and a near perpetual freeze on real government spending to drop the lifetime tax rate of the unborn down to 33.5 percent.

But wait. It gets worse.

Every year of delay by politicians will require more drastic action. Waiting until the year 2016 when the boomers retire, for instance, could bring this country to the edge of revolution.

Journalistic hyperbole?

I don’t think so. Read this statement from page 24 of the report the Congressional Budget Office isn’t publishing.

"Such a long delay in restoring balance will involve unrealistically high tax increases, benefit cuts, or purchase reductions. For example, it would involve defaulting on 95 percent of Social Security’s implicit obligations to living generations."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Confused? Want to learn more? There are good resources on the world wide web.

To get original documents such as the 1997 Social Security Trustees Report, go to www.ssa.gov. On this site you can get a copy of your personal benefits statement, download portions of the report, or get the 200 page printed report mailed to your home.

Another good source is the National Center for Policy Analysis at www.ncpa.org which offers links to other sites as well as their own research. Readers without computers can get a copy of a recent NCPA study, "The Nightmare In Our Future: Elderly Entitlements" by calling Jan Chisholm at 972-386-6272.

Still another source is the Concord Coalition at www.concordcoalition/org/entitlements.

If you are new to the subject, the NCPA reports are the most readable.
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Next

Return to Rant Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Don't be stingy, share: