i dont watch the news anymore

[Lanx]

lol i see the streak of yellow down obama's back more than i see that he is black.

[itlnstln]

Anyway, to go back on topic (why do I  ALWAYS have to be the one...) if you don't watch TV news then you'd think our new Speaker of the House was pronounced "Boner".

The only reason I knew it was pronounced "BAY-ner" is because I heard his name on the news before I saw it on TV.  It totally looks like "Boner."

[keyboardlover]

1) If for nothing else, Obama was/is good for America because he's black (there I said it), just like our very own Angela Merkel was good for Germany cuz she's a woman

That is wrong, and too many people think that. Along your line of thinking, a Turkish president would be even better for Germany! A president should be voted on based on their character, views, morals, ethics, etc., NOT based on the color of their skin or whether they're male or female. That is reverse racism and reverse discrimination. They need to be chosen based on whether they are fit for the job at hand!

[wellington1869]

The only reason I knew it was pronounced "BAY-ner" is because I heard his name on the news before I saw it on TV.  It totally looks like "Boner."

i thought it was hilarious when obama referred to boehner as a 'person of color'. LOL.

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[wellington1869]

so i was in a deli today, and some bozo was at the counter having a loud argument with the cashier, about the recent elections. Some gems from the bozo, who was basically yelling and seemed a little drunk:

"...everyone should be angry!..." [no, your being 'angry' is not helping anything at all]

"...there's only one party! one!" [no, there's not. We'd do a lot worse under the tea party than under the dems or even the gop,  and i doubt even tea partiers would claim to be "the same" as even the GOP, and the GOP has pretty clear policy and values differences with the dems and clearly different governing priorities than the dems]

"its a crock of ****, man!" [no, its not. Its democracy and its messy and experimental and it requires participation and reason, not anger and withdrawl].

Sighed and moved on. If thats the 'mood of the electorate', then I blame the electorate.

[quadibloc]

i thought it was hilarious when obama referred to boehner as a 'person of color'.

Well, pink is a color. We white guys just never wanted to admit it because we were afraid people would think we were gay.

Sighed and moved on. If thats the 'mood of the electorate', then I blame the electorate.

It's all the fault of the mass media!

They keep telling people that if they don't bother to vote they have no right to gripe. But then if they don't have any decent choices to vote for, they feel cheated.

So somebody has to spread the world: in the U.S. with its open primaries... voting in the primaries is a duty of the citizen also!

[mike]

Also, we have the liberally-biased American media to thank for all the FUD that is spread overseas about Republicans. I'm still amazed when Europeans tell me how horrible they've heard American conservatives are, only later to find out it's mostly bull**** FUD. People who believe hype are the ones who vote for people like Obama. I'm of the impression that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Not sure that it's true that it's American media responsible for incorrect impressions of American in the rest of the world. I'm of the opinion that non-American media is more responsible - they can basically say almost anything without people shouting "Bull****!". And American media isn't immune to the tendency - remember all that rubbish about the UK's NHS ?

Ok they got found out on that one - especially when it came to the more ridiculous lies like Stephen Hawking wouldn't have lived in a country with the NHS! But how many more subtle untruths slip by without notice and give Americans the wrong impression of other parts of the world ?

It would be interesting to see some of those diplomats grow a pair and start shouting "Bull****!" when they see it.

[keyboardlover]

It certainly appears that nothing spread about Republicans by the American media is "FUD" (because the media doesn't create the messages, it just carries them).

Is that really what you think? Have you ever watched an American news program?

Not to mention the countless websites and video clips of specific Republican politicians saying such crap as that they want to repeal bills, shrink government and so forth...

How is that crap?

It is people who hold those values that make the rest of the world hate the US, I believe, based on knowing a decent number of people in countries that are not in North America. The beautiful thing about the US is that you're allowed to have those views, and if the US really respected its own little rule about that, it would be understanding of the rest of the world hating those same views...

People who hold what values exactly? The values that government should be smaller? Pure Democratic values believe that it's a good thing. So let's have a quick history lesson here:
Democrats come from the term 'Democracy' (a form of government)
Republicans come from the term 'Republic' (a form of government)

So what is a Democracy?
"a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people"

And what is a Republic exactly?
"a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government"

Am I the only one who sees the striking similarity between these two definitions? It's no wonder that originally Republican and Democrats were the SAME PARTY in the USA.

[quadibloc]

Am I the only one who sees the striking similarity between these two definitions?

No; the American people all recognize that both of the parties have given themselves names which indicate those parties support the beloved American institution of representative democracy. In addition to a "Republican Party" and a "Democratic Party", other political parties seeking a large following might call themselves the "Liberty Party" or the "Freedom Party" in order to appeal to the love of Americans for their freedom.

There actually was an "American Party". Its candidate for President was a former Alabama governor, one George Wallace.

Many Americans would have felt that the policies of this "American Party" were actually quite un-American.

So the names don't necessarily mean much, and they, therefore, don't support the conclusion that the Democratic and Republican parties are really the same.

And Americans, by and large, are aware of the significant policy differences between the two parties.

The Democrats are concerned about the ordinary working class, and protecting jobs. They care about making progress in the equality of women and minorities. They care about the environment.

The Republicans want the government to levy less taxes, and burden business with fewer regulations. They support a strong military. They view the family as the building block of society.

So the Democrats are a moderate party of the Left, and the Republicans are a moderate party of the Right. Of course there are also less moderate parties, but they have not achieved enough popularity in the United States to make significant headway, unlike the situation in some other countries.

[wellington1869]

what quad said; in addition to the randomness of the names, there's also the fact that historically the major parties have switched their platforms every century or so. The republicans in the time of lincoln were for big government and federalism (thats why lincoln could force the states to free the slaves - so much for states rights). Today however repubs rail against 'big guvment' and are shrilly for 'states rights'. The dems went the other way, having begun as the 'party of the south' that supported the white majority, to becoming the party that supports minority rights (and federal intervention to assure those rights uniformly).
They switched in the 60s big time, when (via lyndon johnson's support of the civil rights movement) the dems 'lost the south forever' (as johnson put it) and the repubs happily stepped into that gap ever since, appealing easily to white insecurity to shore up southern votes.
They've switched a few times over the last 150 years, each one taking up the void the other one left behind.  so while the names may not say much, the positions they hold in a given moment in time however are quite clearly opposite and do present a clear choice between them. Even if you'd like to see still more choices represented, that doesnt mean the two parties are 'the same' either.

arguably, today's dems and repubs merely continue the perennial conflicts inherent in governing a democracy, for instance, before the civil war it was tories vs whigs, with many of the same issues between them (taxes, role of federal govt, laissez faire business, etc).

[Lanx]

i saw an interview with jimmy carter and bill maher and the former pres said that it might actually be good for obama if the gop gets majority (which they have). I think so too, it might let obama grow a pair or grow a spine and get rid of that streak of yellow, he needs to say f this bipartisan stuff and say "my way or oj". (pretty sure the gop never forgot oj!)

[zefrer]

Haha I'm with Lanx on that, would be, uh, interesting certainly, if he were to do that.

[Senor_Cartmenez]

That is wrong, and too many people think that. Along your line of thinking, a Turkish president would be even better for Germany! A president should be voted on based on their character, views, morals, ethics, etc., NOT based on the color of their skin or whether they're male or female. That is reverse racism and reverse discrimination. They need to be chosen based on whether they are fit for the job at hand!

dude.... weak!!!

First I never said he was or should've been voted because he's black. There were enough reasons to do that without looking at the skin color (if nothing else then to repell sarah palin).
Instead of "black" you could also insert any other minority background (including female, there, I said it again) or just plain "different".
Because the fact is that presidents/chancellors are way out of touch with the people they represent and serve and the people are out of touch with them. One of the main reasons is that the people who get the opportunity to be elected into such a position of power are always white, male, privileged folks with fat wallets and an absurd network in politics and the industry. That "one of us" feeling can never be felt if you have douchebags like Bush voted into office (twice!). It certainly does now with Obama, at least for the "other" America that you obviously don't belong to keyboardlover.

A president should be voted on based on their character, views, morals, ethics, etc., NOT based on the color of their skin or whether they're male or female.

You mean like George W. ? TWICE !!!


And who cares about the American two party system and how either party is perceived anywhere and why.
Everyone knows rather sooner than later it will look like this:

[keyboardlover]

Lol you must like Obama - you're just like him. You blame everything on Bush!
Well done. I can see you've done your homework. Bush wasn't fit to be president either but he did do some good things IMO. Obama still hasn't done ****, and I have yet to hear anyone explain otherwise.

[Senor_Cartmenez]

True, bush secured a lot of oil for the US in the future. More important to ensure ppl can continue with the "american way" of living and don't have to change their energy consumption behavior or how they build their sheds, urm I mean houses, sry, than ensuring that actually everyone has a right and the means to stay healthy, not just a privileged minority.

Don't mention that he send 2 countries into a downward spiral, cost a lot of soldiers their lives in an unnecessary war (well ok, you might see it as a necessity to not reduce your oil consumption) and when it got to the promised rebuilding he "outsourced" that to folks who could actually get it done (namely europeans).

Better mention that he created so many jobs by stimulating the military industry to produce even more ****loads of weapons that no one needs.


I'm not on the obama bandwagon so far although I don't follow everything he's doing.
But anyone who even considers bush being a better president than Obama even for a split second is just a f****** retard. No discussion.

[keyboardlover]

True, bush secured a lot of oil for the US in the future. More important to ensure ppl can continue with the "american way" of living and don't have to change their energy consumption behavior or how they build their sheds, urm I mean houses, sry, than ensuring that actually everyone has a right and the means to stay healthy, not just a privileged minority.

Oh Bush secured oil did he? Are you sure about that? Haha and it's funny that you refer to our houses as 'sheds' since American homes tend to be much bigger than German ones.

Don't mention that he send 2 countries into a downward spiral, cost a lot of soldiers their lives in an unnecessary war (well ok, you might see it as a necessity to not reduce your oil consumption) and when it got to the promised rebuilding he "outsourced" that to folks who could actually get it done (namely europeans).

Which countries did he send into a downward spiral? I hope the US isn't one of them, because it was in a downward spiral before he ever took office. You still think Iraq was about oil?? You must be living in the stoned age. Get a freaking clue man.

In the end, I think that the American people are disappointed with Obama because they expected a great president. And instead of getting one, all they got was a spoiled wanna-be reality tv star.



Flame me all you want, but I think Bush was a better president and I think that freeing the Iraqi people to hang their genocidal leader was a good thing. Want to know who else appreciates that? Just ask the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, whose families were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. Yes the wmd thing was a mess and the whole thing was not transparent in any way, but I still think it was a success in the end (and I'm not the only one).

[instantkamera]

In the end, I think that the American people are disappointed with Obama because they expected a great president. And instead of getting one, all they got was a spoiled wanna-be reality tv star.

If he really wanted to be a reality tv star, he would have lost:

http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/

[Senor_Cartmenez]

nah, Afghanistan and Iraq

left a bloody mess, especially by contracting all those nice mercs

And yes Iraq was all about oil. I remember clearly watching CNN in the first week of the invasion. In the background of the reporter you could see the oil tankers unloading all the heavy equip for oil drilling. Within the first week mind you, they had just secured that one city basicaly, what was the name, I forgot

[keyboardlover]

For those who are interested in a more 'insider look' on the Iraq war, I highly recommend the Iraqi movie Turtles Can Fly (if you can stomach it). It was the first Iraqi-made film after the war. It's very sad, but also very well done.

[wellington1869]

i saw an interview with jimmy carter and bill maher and the former pres said that it might actually be good for obama if the gop gets majority (which they have). I think so too, it might let obama grow a pair or grow a spine and get rid of that streak of yellow, he needs to say f this bipartisan stuff and say "my way or oj". (pretty sure the gop never forgot oj!)

he wont say that, because he's a genuine centrist, which is exactly what we need right now. As someone said, he didnt even run as a liberal, he ran as a 'come together' candidate, which is exactly what we need right now. The repubs (in their current extremism) keep rejecting that, but its to obama's credit that he keeps trying (and will continue to try; he's already invited the repubs to dinner to begin the process of compromise). What is needed is not obama's "spine" -- it was spine that made him invite the exultant repubs to a meeting - rather, what is needed is for the current repubs to grow balls and grow a brain and start focusing on governance rather than mere party politics.  Thats where the 'courage' is.

[keyboardlover]

he's already invited the repubs to dinner to begin the process of compromise). What is needed is not obama's "spine" -- it was spine that made him invite the exultant repubs to a meeting - rather, what is needed is for the current repubs to grow balls and grow a brain and start focusing on governance rather than mere party politics.  Thats where the 'courage' is.

He invited the repubs to work with him because he knows he's lost the trust of the American people, and that's the only reason why. It has nothing to do with being a "centrist" (trust me he's far from one), and despite his sexy campaign platform, he has yet to deliver on anything he promised.

[Fwiffo]

Health care reform, the economic stimulus package and the fair pay act, whether or not you agree with them, were among his promises.

[itlnstln]

Health care reform, the economic stimulus package and the fair pay act, whether or not you agree with them, were among his promises.

This.  He has achieved quite a bit in the last two years.  Oh, an you forgot financial industry reform.

[keyboardlover]

This.  He has achieved quite a bit in the last two years.  Oh, an you forgot financial industry reform.

Health care reform? Where is it?
Financial industry reform? Where is it?
The economic stimulus package? Oh yea, this.

Fair pay act I'll give you. Don't know much about it but what I read sounds good. Albeit a minor success in comparison to Obama's lofty promises.

[itlnstln]

Passed, in law, and starting next year.  Thanks for coming.

[keyboardlover]

Passed, in law, and starting next year.  Thanks for coming.

That explains the extreme tax hikes and ballooning national debt. Yay?

[itlnstln]

Stock market is up.


That's all I care about.

Ironic that the most successful bailout program in centuries gets such bad press.  Almost all of the $700B has been paid back.

Unemployed? Let them eat rubber domes.

The other ironic thing is that people hate the new healthcare program but like all the components of it.  Americans are dumb.

[Fwiffo]

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

[instantkamera]

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

genius!

[itlnstln]

genius!

Agreed.

[instantkamera]

http://www.itgetsbetterproject.com/video/entry/geyafbsdpvk/

Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

[wellington1869]

That explains the extreme tax hikes and ballooning national debt. Yay?

bro, someone's feeding you serious misinformation. Obama reduced taxes on 95% of americans, thats just a fact, look it up bro.  As for the national debt that bush ballooned with the wrong wars and tax cuts for his wealthy friends, yea, obama inherited it and the usual bush economic disaster as well, and yea, its going to take a while to right the ship while fighting the real enemy in the right war this time in afghanistan. Unlike bush however, obama's plans all take eventual deficit reduction into account even in the healthcare plan...

bro you gotta stop believing everything glenn beck says man.

[Fwiffo]

I think it's ironic that conservatives that complain the most about taxes don't actually seem to pay attention to what they're paying in taxes. The stimulus bill was 1/3 tax CUTS. Among those was a payroll tax credit for 95% of working Americans ($400 for individuals and $800 for couples filing jointly for tax years 2009 and 2010).

Edit: Ninja posts!!!

[wellington1869]

He invited the repubs to work with him because he knows he's lost the trust of the American people,

lol, dude, the repubs didnt even take the senate, after all the hoopla.  what we have right now is a split  and deadlocked congress, and there is no reason for obama to extend a hand to the repubs. Its certainly a lot more than what bush ever did for the dems.

And yea, it takes gigantic balls to be so civilized when faced with tea-partying repubs drunk with (their limited) power and willing to do and say anything, no matter how outrageous, to score political points rather than do the hard work of governing.

gigantic, civilized, noble, courageous balls, which is a lot more than bush ever had when he was cowering in the bunker on 9/11 and then went after the wrong guy for the next 3 years while continuing to give his rich friends huge tax cuts despite the war.

[keyboardlover]

bro, someone's feeding you serious misinformation. Obama reduced taxes on 95% of americans, thats just a fact, look it up bro.  As for the national debt that bush ballooned with the wrong wars and tax cuts for his wealthy friends, yea, obama inherited it and the usual bush economic disaster as well, and yea, its going to take a while to right the ship while fighting the real enemy in the right war this time in afghanistan. Unlike bush however, obama's plans all take eventual deficit reduction into account even in the healthcare plan...
bro you gotta stop believing everything glenn beck says man.

Taxes are set to balloon in 2011. I already posted the link. Obama didn't inherit anything worse from Bush than Bush inherited from Clinton. And it all goes down the line. THAT'S a fact. As for who is the right enemy, it's a question of who is a terrorist. We are fighting terrorism and Hussein was a terrorist (and a genocidal maniac). My views have nothing to do with Glenn Beck; I don't even pay attention to him. I don't watch the news either.

I think it's ironic that conservatives that complain the most about taxes don't actually seem to pay attention to what they're paying in taxes. The stimulus bill was 1/3 tax CUTS. Among those was a payroll tax credit for 95% of working Americans ($400 for individuals and $800 for couples filing jointly for tax years 2009 and 2010).

Oh I KNOW what I'm paying in taxes. Nearly 5% of my paycheck goes to taxes. That's insane. If there's been a cut for somebody, I didn't get it. And my paycheck would NOT make me considered 'wealthy'. I guess it's like many of the English always say, the middle class always get screwed

[wellington1869]

The other ironic thing is that people hate the new healthcare program but like all the components of it.  Americans are dumb.

yea, the contradictions americans have are either sad or hilarious. I loved that poll where they overwhelmingly approved of all the components of healthcare reform and then split 50/50 on whether they wanted it, lol. It comes down to educating the public on how the reform affects them, and i think dems didnt do a good enough job there (and obama got into the campaign late in this election cycle, cuz you know, he's busy actually running the country while the repubs have all the time in the world to mount a 24/7 four-year-campaign of disinformation and be as obstructionist as possible in congress).

[keyboardlover]

The problems with the new healthcare are many, but these are the big ones from a high level perspective.
1. It's not an NHS
2. It's costing a lot more in taxes and the potential added benefits are still not clear in comparison to the tradeoffs

[wellington1869]

Stock market is up.

and jobs are coming back.  another dem fix of another repub economic mess.  quite frankly.

(at least until repubs scaremongering of the american people blanketing them with disinformation causes them to win just enough elections to be obstructionist for another 4 years).

i have nothing against moderate repubs, but the fact is they are in the extreme minority in their own party right now, a party which has seriously gone off the rails into looney tunes land.

[keyboardlover]

i have nothing against moderate repubs, but the fact is they are in the extreme minority in their own party right now, a party which has seriously gone off the rails into looney tunes land.

While I agree with that, I think that moderate Democrats who don't realize that their party has done the same thing are very hypocritical. Obama is anything but a moderate Democrat, and that's why he's losing.

Edit: I find it really interesting that while new jobs have been created, unemployment remains the same. Do we just have to give it time? I dunno. Is it that we don't have people skilled to take on these positions? No clue. Seems to be an interesting phenomenon.

[wellington1869]

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

brilliant site.

where the dems have failed is in communicating the scope and extent of this work and these changes to the american people. The repubs are far better at 'hitting the chords' (even if to mercilessly manipulate people) than dems, this has been true for quite a while in american politics. Dems cant communicate for ****, and it really really hurts them very badly when faced with the communicative juggernaut of the repub machine.

its not enough to do good work quietly.  Its never been enough to do that. if people dont know, they'll turn on you in a second. and all the good work will be for naught. modesty has no place in politics.

[keyboardlover]

I disagree. The Dems have the majority of the American media on their side and have always done a better job of communicating (albeit communicating FUD) to more people as a result of this. That's not the reason why they're failing now.

Edit: I think it's funny how Ripster keeps saying 'let them eat rubber domes', since he used to recommend blue cherry Filcos to every Tom, **** and Mary that joined the board. I guess the blue cherry Filco is the working man's mechanical keyboard! (Well actually now it seems to be the Rosewill).

[zefrer]

Obama didn't inherit anything worse from Bush than Bush inherited from Clinton. And it all goes down the line. THAT'S a fact.

Well, no. During Clinton's 8 years the US enjoyed a period of the longest economic boom in its history.

Granted all can't be attributed to Clinton and by the time he left and Bush took over the economy was already in recession, but still.

[itlnstln]

Clinton also balanced the budget, and govt. shrunk under him, too.

[Fwiffo]

The Bush tax cuts were set to expire when they were originally written. They did that to hide their long term deficit impact. Congress thus far has failed to extend them, though it might happen in the lame duck session.

As far as inheriting problems... The 2001 recession was quite mild and really was mostly about the tech bubble, which was not a serious structural problem and a relatively minor corner of the economy at the time. The recent recession was the worst since WWII, with a huge real estate bubble (both housing and CRE), and a major catastrophe in the financial services sector - a much bigger problem in a much more important part of the economy compared to the tech bubble.

And that doesn't get started on the deficit (Bush inherited a more-or-less balanced budget) and two ongoing wars. Clinton didn't leave any crap like that lying around for Bush to clean up.

Oh I KNOW what I'm paying in taxes. Nearly 5% of my paycheck goes to taxes. That's insane. If there's been a cut for somebody, I didn't get it.

If you paid payroll taxes, you got a credit in 2009 (and will again for 2010). The credit is $400 for individuals making up to $75,000 in taxable, gross-adjusted income. It phases out above that level (IIRC the formula has it going to zero at $95,000). And obviously, if you paid less than $400 in payroll taxes, the amount will be less. Double all those numbers for couples filing jointly.

So either you made more than $95,000, or you didn't pay payroll taxes, or somebody did your taxes wrong, or you don't actually know what you're paying in taxes.

[Lanx]

Well, no. During Clinton's 8 years the US enjoyed a period of the longest economic boom in its history.

Granted all can't be attributed to Clinton and by the time he left and Bush took over the economy was already in recession, but still.

yea part of it was granted to monica lewinsky, she made the presidency happen!
i liked clinton, i'm only blaming him in the fact that he picked such a ... not good looker.

[keyboardlover]

For all the Clinton-lovers, Clinton also was the one who originally bombed Afghanistan and got the taliban pissed at us. Osama Bin Laden was also leading the taliban at the time and was directly involved. So, look at what Clinton left Bush to deal with.

[zefrer]

Clinton also was the one who originally bombed Afghanistan and got the taliban pissed at us. Osama Bin Laden was also leading the taliban at the time and was directly involved. So, look at what Clinton left Bush to deal with.

Well, no. The Taliban started harboring Bin Laden at that time (1998) and it is he who the attacks were targeted against. Bin Laden was involved in the Africa embassy bombings earlier that year. As soon as the taliban started harboring Bin Laden it was always the case that the US would have to get involved with them.

And poor Bush, so many problems, such a small brain to deal with them all. I shall play a violin elegy for him :violin:

[keyboardlover]

Well, no. The Taliban started harboring Bin Laden at that time (1998) and it is he who the attacks were targeted against. Bin Laden was involved in the Africa embassy bombings earlier that year. As soon as the taliban started harboring Bin Laden it was always the case that the US would have to get involved with them.

Harboring?! There's no 'harboring', Bin Laden was a "Leader" during the conflict.

And speaking of small brains and killing civilians...

[wellington1869]

Clinton also was the one who originally bombed Afghanistan and got the taliban pissed at us.

omg bro, seriously you have to read up a bit on the history of the taliban... you'll find it interesting in its own right, its fascinating stuff, but you seriously cant continue propagating stuff like this.

Osama Bin Laden was also leading the taliban at the time and was directly involved. So, look at what Clinton left Bush to deal with.

again, on basic facts, this is plain wrong. Bin laden was never in the taliban, he was in al queda and these are two separate organizations. The taliban harbored bin laden for a while, but bin laden wasnt "in" the taliban.  THese are totally different organizations, with different roles, different locations, different sources of funding, and even different political ambitions.

[keyboardlover]

again, on basic facts, this is plain wrong. Bin laden was never in the taliban, he was in al queda and these are two separate organizations. The taliban harbored bin laden for a while, but bin laden wasnt "in" the taliban.  THese are totally different organizations, with different roles, different locations, different sources of funding, and even different political ambitions.

Fair enough, I meant Al Quaeda. My bad. I get all these terrorists mixed up

Still, the facts still stand - Clinton bombed Afghanitstan and got Al Quaeda pissed at us.