NationStates Jolt Archive

...or not. (http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just)

Don't say we didn't warn you, people.

This is a much better source. (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/obama-sides-wit.html)

...or not. (http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just)

Don't say we didn't warn you, people.Not that I agree with wiretapping, but every time Obama doesn't do something radically different are you going to throw that line out? Because it was old the first time someone said it.

I suggest that people who are offended by this write to their Congressmen and Senators to complain, and use that blog Obama set up to remind him why we voted for him.

That said, he's doing plenty of other stuff right.

Hehehehe.

...or not. (http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just)

Don't say we didn't warn you, people.

Hehehehe.

Don't get your hopes up, this is just one thing that people won't like, so far.

...I'm still waiting for the magic turning point where we all start "blaming Obama like we did Bush".

...Right. This definitely isn't doing it. Still waiting.

Well let's see?

Orders Gitmo closed
Orders closing of CIA secret cells.
Orders end to torture
Reverses Stem Cell ruling
Reverses Ban on Abortion for international groups.

Allows wiretape rules to continue?

Well it's not cool but hey he is doing much better then the shrub.

I do have one criticism, couldn't he at least make them warranted wire-tapping?

I suggest that people who are offended by this write to their Congressmen and Senators to complain, and use that blog Obama set up to remind him why we voted for him.

That said, he's doing plenty of other stuff right.

Right... other things like nominating a Secretary of the Treasury who has been convicted of evading $35,000 in taxes.:rolleyes:
Obama has, however, managed to change something: Tim Geithner now pays his taxes (he had to "rise" to the occasion :hail:).

Right... other things like nominating a Secretary of the Treasury who has been convicted of evading $35,000 in taxes.:rolleyes:
Obama has, however, managed to change something: Tim Geithner now pays his taxes (he had to "rise" to the occasion :hail:).

I don't think he's been convicted, since I don't think he was ever charged (at least not to my knowledge). But he's confessed, so I guess its a fair criticism.

However, you can't pretend Obama's done nothing good, unless you're a far right Republican. He's shutting down Guantanamo, and suspending certain Bush policies. Also, new rules restricting lobying.:)

However, I'll admit I'm pissed at Clinton for Sec. of State, and the possibility of cuts to the Space Program.:mad:

This pissed me off months ago, when it was news. He voted the same way in the Senate, contradicting his earlier views.

Oh my God it's ONE WEEK INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?! HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.

Oh my God it's ONE WEEK INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?! HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.

Obama will learn why you never promise Hope and Change to the American people.

Well, there's a log cabin waiting for me deep in the Rockies Mountain, see you people in 2012.

Oh my God it's ONE WEEK INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?! HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.

Well, when that many people seem to have set the bar that ridiculously high, it's pretty much impossible for him not to fail. You see, that's why I didn't get swept up by all that "hope and change" personality cult bullshit because I felt the only way I'd be able to properly assess his performance is through an objective comparison between the way things were on January 20th 2009 and the way they'll be on November 6th, 2012. He's screwed by his very supporters, many of whom have pretty damn unrealistic expectations for a guy who's only been in office four days.

I felt he was the most qualified candidate for the job, which is why I voted for him. Not because he's going to wave a magic wand and turn the US in to a left-wing Candyland where everything's perfect.

Oh my God it's ONE WEEK INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?! HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.

It's because they're bitter that the Bushevik Revolution is dead.

And from what I gathered on the articles, Obama is just letting the telecom companies off the hook for warrantless wiretapping that's all ready been done. He didn't imply or declare that further W2s would be conducted.

But hey, everyone likes to masturbate to any perceived failures on Obama's part even long before he was sworn in to office.

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.
Well, it gives us something else to do whenever somebody forgets that whole "No flaming" bit of the rules =p I mean, what else are the political trolls on both sides gonna do with the election over?

(And no, I'm not implying anything about anyone in this thread so far! :P )

Obama will learn why you never promise Hope and Change to the American people.

Well, there's a log cabin waiting for me deep in the Rockies Mountain, see you people in 2012.

2012? Isn't that when the Mayan calender (and thus the whole world) ends? If so, I won't be seeing you. :p

2012? Isn't that when the Mayan calender (and thus the whole world) ends? If so, I won't be seeing you.

Election Day still happens before the calendar ends, so tough luck on that one.

2012? Isn't that when the Mayan calender (and thus the whole world) ends? If so, I won't be seeing you. :p

Did I mention my log cabin has a bunker 2 miles deep in the earth, and may invite some NSGers with me to ride out this Mayan calender thing?

Did I mention my log cabin has a bunker 2 miles deep in the earth, and may invite some NSGers with me to ride out this Mayan calender thing?

So you've built a Vault? Remind me to grab my PipBoy 3000 before the bombs start dropping.

Election Day still happens before the calendar ends, so tough luck on that one.

I'd hate to be the newly (re)elected US President who gets to inherit that mess.

...or not. (http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just)

Don't say we didn't warn you, people.

:rolleyes:

Warn us about what? That politicians sometimes find that one or two things don't NEED to be changed? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you're just pulling your own arms off with a stretch like that.

But it's clear you need to feed your persecution/superiority complex, so knock yourself out. Who am I to object to self-actualizing dysfunction?

Right... other things like nominating a Secretary of the Treasury who has been convicted of evading $35,000 in taxes.:rolleyes:
Obama has, however, managed to change something: Tim Geithner now pays his taxes (he had to "rise" to the occasion :hail:).

Convicted? Of what? If you're going to bandy words about, make sure they apply. Also, you'll notice that Geithner's confirmation isn't going as smoothly as others did -- that means Congress is doing its job regarding oversight. How is this a problem?

Hehehehe.

Thought you didn't care about America Potato Boy.

Wow, a liar and a flip-flopper. If you were American you'd be a Bushevik.

Oh wait, you worship John Howard. I guess you are one anyways.

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.It's going to be a long four years for you if you expected something else, Kat.

Thought you didn't care about America Potato Boy.

Wow, a liar and a flip-flopper. If you were American you'd be a Bushevik.

Oh wait, you worship John Howard. I guess you are one anyways.

Post reported.

...use that blog Obama set up to remind him why we voted for him.

I read this and nearly choked on a mouthful of coffee, I was laughing so hard. Like he's going read that. It was a campaign stunt that has probably already been relegated to some 16 yr. old volunteer True Believer and completely forgotten about by anyone with an ounce of real responsibility in the new administration.

Not because he's going to wave a magic wand and turn the US in to a left-wing Candyland where everything's perfect.

He's not?! But...but...but now I'm all disappointed! You mean I can't depend on the government to solve all my problems for me? My faith in politicans is irretrivably shattered, what am I supposed to do now?

Post reported.

For what? Accuracy?

For what? Accuracy?

Flamebaiting. Deliberately trying to get me to flame him.

Post reported.Did you hit the "report post" button?

...If you did, great going. Not like the mods haven't told people to not do that for months, or anything.

Flamebaiting. Deliberately trying to get me to flame him.I very seriously doubt it.

Flamebaiting. Deliberately trying to get me to flame him.

Again, how? By stating the actual truth? I fail to see how that's flamebait. He's read your multitude of previous posts which put you square in the camp he's describing. Were you to rise to such fictional "bait", you'd be even more of a hypocrite than you already are.

I don't care which side of any issue anyone's on, least of all you, but if you post like a duck, and argue like a duck, calling you a duck isn't baiting.

For what? Accuracy?

For calling him Potato Boy? Hm, wonder why he waited until now to report that?

For calling him a liar and a flip-flopper? Wow, there's a bannable offense right there.

:rolleyes:

For saying he's an honorary Bushevik through worship of Johnny H? That says something if he finds association with Howard and Bush insulting.

I read this and nearly choked on a mouthful of coffee, I was laughing so hard. Like he's going read that. It was a campaign stunt that has probably already been relegated to some 16 yr. old volunteer True Believer and completely forgotten about by anyone with an ounce of real responsibility in the new administration.

Sadly, this is probably true.

Sadly, this is probably true.

"Probably."

"Probably."

Well you gotta figure that about 95% of the suggestion are put there by spammers, trolls, and Anon. So about 5% of it are real suggestion, complaints, whatever. Who'd actually want to shift through the 95% of crap for the 5% gem?

The change that Barack Obama promised was a rational approach to policy rather than a money accrued-based approach, the other change was to actively encourage greater public participation in politics and civil society.

So those sniping on the sidelines, to me, look both selfish and rather pathetic - in the original sense that I feel rather sorry for them, that their grievance at losing means they'd rather beat down any chance for improvement in order to massage their ego.

Barack Obama never promised that change would come from him, but rather required the involvement of the American people, he would do all he could to encourage that through rational politics and programs that provide incentives.

At this time, one can sit in a false blanket of smugness or one can get involved.

Are 'true Americans' really those who spite others to feel better about themselves?

Well you gotta figure that about 95% of the suggestion are put there by spammers, trolls, and Anon. So about 5% of it are real suggestion, complaints, whatever. Who'd actually want to shift through the 95% of crap for the 5% gem?

Someone interested in that 5%. You say that like it would be in any way difficult to filter the chaff and save the wheat.

I felt he was the most qualified candidate for the job, which is why I voted for him. Not because he's going to wave a magic wand and turn the US in to a left-wing Candyland where everything's perfect.
That's also why I voted for him, and what he should be judged on.
But people here are being ridiculous.
And comparing him unfavorably to an idiot who got us into a two-front war, one front of which was mostly for personal reasons -- and whose antics strained relations with long-time allies and gave justification for the "Great Satan" label for the past eight years -- unbelievable.

The change that Barack Obama promised was a rational approach to policy rather than a money accrued-based approach, the other change was to actively encourage greater public participation in politics and civil society.

So those sniping on the sidelines, to me, look both selfish and rather pathetic - in the original sense that I feel rather sorry for them, that their grievance at losing means they'd rather beat down any chance for improvement in order to massage their ego.

Barack Obama never promised that change would come from him, but rather required the involvement of the American people, he would do all he could to encourage that through rational politics and programs that provide incentives.

At this time, one can sit in a false blanket of smugness or one can get involved.

Are 'true Americans' really those who spite others to feel better about themselves?

Lovingly crafted out of genuine, 100%, hand-tooled win.

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.

Excellent attitude. The left spends the last eight years going on about how they hate America, and now they win an election, they jump back on board and criticise the right for being uncooperative? That's not hypocritical at all.

Excellent attitude. The left spends the last eight years going on about how they hate America, and now they win an election, they jump back on board and criticise the right for being uncooperative? That's not hypocritical at all.Nice generalization.

I suppose I hate my country, being part of "the left", even though I'm a (self-identified) patriot?

Excellent attitude. The left spends the last eight years going on about how they hate America, and now they win an election, they jump back on board and criticise the right for being uncooperative? That's not hypocritical at all.

*facepalm*

Revisionist much?

When the Left said "hey, that might not be legal...or wise" in the last eight years, it was the RIGHT who would always reply with "you hate America", which was bullshit then, just as it is now when you're trying to shovel it into this topic.

If you're going to post like a troll, at least get your facts straight.

*facepalm*

Revisionist much?

When the Left said "hey, that might not be legal...or wise" in the last eight years, it was the RIGHT who would always reply with "you hate America", which was bullshit then, just as it is now when you're trying to shovel it into this topic.

If you're going to post like a troll, at least get your facts straight.

Disowning your friends in Hollywood now, lefty?

Disowning your friends in Hollywood now, lefty?

People who support someone do not necessarily speak for that person, most if not all your complaints are about those who support Barack Obama, a fictitious 'those' at that, rather than any substantiated criticism of him.

You take an erroneous interpretation of the meaning behind Barack Obama's intent, conjure up a crowd you think hold that same interpretation as you and then attack it.

You've essentially created an imaginary gripe to complain about, congratulations.

People who support someone do not necessarily speak for that person, most if not all your complaints are about those who support Barack Obama, a fictitious 'those' at that, rather than any substantiated criticism of him.

You take an erroneous interpretation of the meaning behind Barack Obama's intent, conjure up a crowd you think hold that same interpretation as you and then attack it.

You've essentially created an imaginary gripe to complain about, congratulations.

... Wha?

... Wha?

I'm not in the least surprised you don't understand.

The change that Barack Obama promised was a rational approach to policy rather than a money accrued-based approach, the other change was to actively encourage greater public participation in politics and civil society.

So those sniping on the sidelines, to me, look both selfish and rather pathetic - in the original sense that I feel rather sorry for them, that their grievance at losing means they'd rather beat down any chance for improvement in order to massage their ego.

Barack Obama never promised that change would come from him, but rather required the involvement of the American people, he would do all he could to encourage that through rational politics and programs that provide incentives.

At this time, one can sit in a false blanket of smugness or one can get involved.

Are 'true Americans' really those who spite others to feel better about themselves?

Yah. That's absolute and unmitigated crap.

Why should the majority, who have done nothing other than live their lives normally, now feel marshaled to repair the mistakes of the minority?

I'll grant that the US is in a shit load of trouble. But until punishments are assigned I don't see why anyone should bother with sacrifice. Moral hazard and stuff.

You know my criticism of Obama. All style, no substance. We have the EXACT SAME THING here. His name is Kevin Rudd.

Have you noticed that all of the "positive" things Obama has done so far consist of saying "stop doing that"? You'll see his faults when it comes time to manage complex issues.

You know my criticism of Obama. All style, no substance. We have the EXACT SAME THING here. His name is Kevin Rudd.

Have you noticed that all of the "positive" things Obama has done so far consist of saying "stop doing that"? You'll see his faults when it comes time to manage complex issues.

Right, because Obama is really Kevin Rudd in disguise.

:rolleyes:

You don't even pretend to know U.S. politics and here you are lecturing actual Americans on it.

Go pray to your cardboard cutout of George, Tony and John.

Disowning your friends in Hollywood now, lefty?

Uh...who even mentioned Hollywood until you did? Are you okay? Do you need a nap or something?

Yah. That's absolute and unmitigated crap.

Why should the majority, who have done nothing other than live their lives normally, now feel marshaled to repair the mistakes of the minority?

I'll grant that the US is in a shit load of trouble. But until punishments are assigned I don't see why anyone should bother with sacrifice. Moral hazard and stuff.

I'd say the difference is between considering it a sacrifice and considering it the right thing to do.

No one is obligated to contribute more, no one can force anyone to, I don't see why it shouldn't be encouraged, programs put in place to create extra incentives, nor do I see why people wouldn't consider it, I know many people who've done more.

The promise is essentially to lead by example - and I doubt he'll be taking a presidential record time off, as President Bush did in his first 9 months - and put in place programs to create incentive, he never promised it wouldn't take the contribution of the people to achieve change.

Uh...who even mentioned Hollywood until you did? Are you okay? Do you need a nap or something?

What, Hollywood is right-wing, now?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UYGUnR0wiCw

Where the fuck were all of them two or three years ago? Oh, that's right, they spent their political time going on about how much they hate America.

What, Hollywood is right-wing, now?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UYGUnR0wiCw

Where the fuck were all of them two or three years ago? Oh, that's right, they spent their political time going on about how much they hate America.

Right, because Reagan, Charlton Heston and Ahnuld are all dirty lefties Potato Boy.

:rolleyes:

What, Hollywood is right-wing, now?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UYGUnR0wiCw

Where the fuck were all of them two or three years ago? Oh, that's right, they spent their political time going on about how much they hate America.

HOW DARE THEY! How dare they pledge to make their lives and the lives of other better! You're right, they really do hate America.

HOW DARE THEY! How dare they pledge to make their lives and the lives of other better! You're right, they really do hate America.

If McCain had won, would they be doing that? Oh, lord Amun-Ra, no.

HOW DARE THEY! How dare they pledge to make their lives and the lives of other better! You're right, they really do hate America.

You only hurt the ones you love, and Bush, Blair and Howard were certainly hurting their countries a lot.

What, Hollywood is right-wing, now?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UYGUnR0wiCw

Where the fuck were all of them two or three years ago? Oh, that's right, they spent their political time going on about how much they hate America.

...except that video very much represents what I'm saying, that the change is about greater participation, not to sacrifice liberty to fight a morally dubious war, to sacrifice freedom for... ammm... freedom.

Why would you be against that unless you're taking a very selfish position, the sort that thinks allowing the rich to become richer at the expense of the economy is a good thing.

You're under no obligation, it's your right to be bitter, that's fair enough.

If McCain had won, would they be doing that? Oh, lord Amun-Ra, no.

and you would know this how? Oh that's right, you wouldn't because we don't have access to the "Alternative time line" machine.

Mine is in the shop./

I'd say the difference is between considering it a sacrifice and considering it the right thing to do.

No one is obligated to contribute more, no one can force anyone to, I don't see why it shouldn't be encouraged, programs put in place to create extra incentives, nor do I see why people wouldn't consider it, I know many people who've done more.

The promise is essentially to lead by example - and I doubt he'll be taking a presidential record time off, as President Bush did in his first 9 months - and put in place programs to create incentive, he never promised it wouldn't take the contribution of the people to achieve change.

Because it is not the right thing to do. You will end up sacrificing your own standard of living to bail out those who are to incompetent to justify theirs.

It doesn't work that way. Collective sacrifice may indeed be necessary to fix the economy, but if it doesn't come with punishments for the screw ups, then we are just back to feudalism.

But if you like feudalism, then I suppose it is the thing to do.

You only hurt the ones you love, and Bush, Blair and Howard were certainly hurting their countries a lot.

Bush, Blair and Howard were into BDSM?! :eek:

Wait....that actually explains alot....and would make a really good political cartoon.....

You only hurt the ones you love, and Bush, Blair and Howard were certainly hurting their countries a lot.

I've resisted correcting you for as long as I can, but...

You do know that Blair is one of your boys, right? He's a liberal.

I've resisted correcting you for as long as I can, but...

You do know that Blair is one of your boys, right? He's a liberal.

About as liberal as Zell Miller was a Democrat. By the time he figured out being Bush's lapdog was costing him, he was already out of office.

I've resisted correcting you for as long as I can, but...

You do know that Blair is one of your boys, right? He's a liberal.

Ok, so to prevent anymore of my brain cells dying, and IQ dropping.

How do you define "liberal"?

About as liberal as Zell Miller was a Democrat. By the time he figured out being Bush's lapdog was costing him, he was already out of office.

His party is still in power, but is project to lose the next election to the Conservatives. If he was such an evil conservative, wouldn't the people move towards the Lib Dems?

Ok, so to prevent anymore of my brain cells dying, and IQ dropping.

How do you define "liberal"?

That would be "a member of a left wing party". Like Labour.

That would be "a member of a left wing party". Like Labour.

So you basically just use it to describe your political enemies without knowledge of what the word means?

Gotcha.

Because it is not the right thing to do. You will end up sacrificing your own standard of living to bail out those who are to incompetent to justify theirs.

It doesn't work that way. Collective sacrifice may indeed be necessary to fix the economy, but if it doesn't come with punishments for the screw ups, then we are just back to feudalism.

But if you like feudalism, then I suppose it is the thing to do.

Why is volunteering my time a sacrifice? Why is sharing some of my surplus a punishment?

I'm volunteering to do it, and perhaps Ferrous Oxide is right that if this is my belief, perhaps I should have done more previously.

I'm willing to change.

So you basically just use it to describe your political enemies without knowledge of what the word means?

Gotcha.

It's not like a distinct lack of political awareness has stopped him from making posts like the ones here before.

So you basically just use it to describe your political enemies without knowledge of what the word means?

Gotcha.

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

Umm actually, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm not a Conservative or a Liberal. So I let both sides have it, but only when they deserve it.

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

New Labour have been described as many different things, but 'socialist' is not one of them. Try centrist or populist.

Umm actually, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm not a Conservative or a Liberal. So I let both sides have it, but only when they deserve it.

No no, Potato Boy called Rudd a Socialist. Which of course is another baseless and flippant attempt to label enemies.

New Labour have been described as many different things, but 'socialist' is not one of them. Try centrist or populist.

They're aligned with Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists.

Why is volunteering my time a sacrifice? Why is sharing some of my surplus a punishment?

I'm volunteering to do it, and perhaps Ferrous Oxide is right that if this is my belief, perhaps I should have done more previously.

I'm willing to change.

Look, if you really think you should do it, then it's entirely your own thing.

But all you are doing is helping paper over the cracks of a system that has psychopaths at the top. I'm interested in structural change.

But we can agree to differ.

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

Have you paid any attention to politics 'over there' in the last... maybe... 20 years?

Labour ousted the Tories by... well, basically becoming a slightly smilier version of the same thing.

It doesn't necessarily make them 'conservative' on an American scale, but Labour haven't really been noticably left-of-centre in any real way in quite some time.

Why should the majority, who have done nothing other than live their lives normally, now feel marshaled to repair the mistakes of the minority?


"But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

The majority, at best, have tolerated evil. At worst, have been complicit.

More to the point - is it worth watching your country burn to prove a point?

They're aligned with Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists.

Being a member of either of those organisations does not make a party socialist, both contain social democratic and third way parties like Labour.

More to the point - is it worth watching your country burn to prove a point?

Yes. It is so morally sick and misguided that I do not believe it deserves to continue in its present form.

Yes. It is so morally sick and misguided that I do not believe it deserves to continue in its present form.

Which is peachy. I agree it 'deserves' no such treatment.

On the other hand, I'd like to see the system changed, not burned.

Which is peachy. I agree it 'deserves' no such treatment.

On the other hand, I'd like to see the system changed, not burned.

Especially since DeBaathification proves that completely destroying a system rather than changing it works wonders.

Especially since DeBaathification proves that completely destroying a system rather than changing it works wonders.

That, and I like alternatives.

If were going to rip the system, let's at least have a plan, hmm? Preferably a good one?

The 'I hate America I hope it dies' mantra sounds ever so rebellious and moody, but "a lot of people dying because you hadn't thought it through" ISN'T a departure from the 'morally misguided present form'... it's a repeat of the last 8 years.

Which is peachy. I agree it 'deserves' no such treatment.

On the other hand, I'd like to see the system changed, not burned.

It can't be fixed. It's structurally unsound.

So I am saying it needs to collapse. And to be honest, Barry knows that it is going to collapse anyway, he's just there to manage the deflation.

Gotta say I still like the guy though.

That, and I like alternatives.

If were going to rip the system, let's at least have a plan, hmm? Preferably a good one?

The 'I hate America I hope it dies' mantra sounds ever so rebellious and moody, but "a lot of people dying because you hadn't thought it through" ISN'T a departure from the 'morally misguided present form'... it's a repeat of the last 8 years.

It's also funny that some of the people who are screaming about America the Beaut-Evil are also the same ones who like to scream out words like "Unpatriotic" a lot (coughcoughSarahPalincoughcoughFORTSUMTERcoughcough).

That, and I like alternatives.


You don't get alternatives. That's not how it works. You didn't choose this, and you'll have no say in what comes next. It's the cycles.

Does anyone know the significance of August 17, 2007?

It's also funny that some of the people who are screaming about America the Beaut-Evil are also the same ones who like to scream out words like "Unpatriotic" a lot (coughcoughSarahPalincoughcoughFORTSUMTERcoughcough).

Wait. I don't understand. What is your point here? I mean I get that the vanishingly small labor surplus that the United States can generate has been poured into to teaching you to be an accomplished propagandist. But I don't know who you are now for or against. (Which I suppose is another failure on the part of the US).

Did someone scream out 'Unpatriotic' in this thread?

Look, if you really think you should do it, then it's entirely your own thing.

But all you are doing is helping paper over the cracks of a system that has psychopaths at the top. I'm interested in structural change.

But we can agree to differ.

Those psychopaths have always relied on the ignorance and apathy of the public.

I suspect we mostly have the tools to turn the tables, to ignore them, it's only a matter of time before we do.

In the meantime, I'm happy to simply volunteer time to doing what I think is right rather than sitting back and only acting when my direct interests are disturbed.

I truly believe in the Internet to hasten a fundamental truth - the truth will out - where previously, through top-down information control, people have not been able to cross-pollinate information exchange even though the truth did out, it just never had the means to spread.

I suspect it correlates to the rise in political spin, that where statements can be questioned by those better informed than the average individual, where that questioning gains a wider audience, governments are becoming desperate. Deference to government has completely disappeared and the only remaining problem is partisan-political opinion, which we're all guilty of to varying degrees but I think it's lessening, we're asking for more honesty having the tools to correctly judge whether we're receiving it.

For the first time in this last election, the youth were better informed than their parents on the issues, that was because they are more tuned into to a new form of discussion, as infantile as the majority seems, good opinion remains good opinion.

I thus believe that Barack is among the first politicians to not only want to be a little more straight with the public but can also rely on that public to support him and reward him in doing so rather than need to fit in with party political doctrine.

Politicians are going to learn that they cannot rely on networking within a party and then populist messaging.

In the UK, I suspect neither party has got it yet, it's really a choice between lesser evils and the bar is so low, it's rather depressing really.

Yet I think Barack Obama - and as a caveat, I worry that he is slightly too swept up in pleasing everyone to be effective though I grant it's too early to tell - at least 'got it' during the primaries, 'got it' during the election, whether he retains 'it' while in power or whether precedence is currently too strong remains to be seen.

Having said all that, albeit possibly confusingly, I still think that, ultimately, there's nothing to stop individuals from simply re-thinking how they approach life.

Excellent attitude. The left spends the last eight years going on about how they hate America,

Clarify on what you mean by the left going on about how they hate america since it sounds like a steaming pile of ideological bullshit/

and now they win an election, they jump back on board and criticise the right for being uncooperative? That's not hypocritical at all.

Huh?

He's let wiretapping continue, a clear infringement of basic liberties. He came to power with a promise of a vague notion of 'change' and opposition to the political establishment, supported by effective propaganda, a cult of personality, and with 'millions' behind him in donations from the wealthy. I'm just waiting until Congress is burned down, Obama blaming the event on the Republicans, allowing him to force through an enabling act suspending the constitution.

Does anyone know the significance of August 17, 2007?

I turned fecking 33, all right??? There's no need to broadcast that all over the internet!!! Jeez, you'd think nobody ever turned 33 before, the way you keep going on about it... :p

They're aligned with Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists.

Do you live in the UK?

No?

Well, as I live here Blair was as left wing as David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives. In fact both of them are centre right politicians and Labour is slowly shifting that way as well. The only true big leftist party in the UK are the Lib Dems.

Do you live in the UK?

No?

Well, as I live here Blair was as left wing as David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives. In fact both of them are centre right politicians and Labour is slowly shifting that way as well. The only true big leftist party in the UK are the Lib Dems.

Exactly. Its strange, I've never before known rusty to comment on political affairs in countries he evidently has no knowledge about. So out of character.

Oh my God it's ONE WEEK INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?! HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.
This. ^^^ For crying out loud, people, grow up already. This is stupid. At least give him the fabled first 100 days. The media seem to think that's the magic number.

Note, that 100 days, not 100 minutes.

This. ^^^ For crying out loud, people, grow up already. This is stupid. At least give him the fabled first 100 days. The media seem to think that's the magic number.

Note, that 100 days, not 100 minutes.

Its one hundred seconds, not days or minutes. Don't you pay attention Mur? I think you need more coffee hun.

To the OP, so far he's done one whole thing I disagree with. So far so good, nobody is going to agree with everything.

Yah. That's absolute and unmitigated crap.

Why should the majority, who have done nothing other than live their lives normally, now feel marshaled to repair the mistakes of the minority?

I'll grant that the US is in a shit load of trouble. But until punishments are assigned I don't see why anyone should bother with sacrifice. Moral hazard and stuff.
I can think of two reasons why the majority should step in now to fix the mistakes of the minority:

1) Those mistakes are fucking things up for all of us now, and that shitheaded minority don't show any sign of fixing it, so I guess we'll have to.

2) We can take the opportunity of fixing their mistakes to fix our own as well, namely the mistake of structuring a system that allowed those idiots to be in charge in the first place.

Its one hundred seconds, not days or minutes. Don't you pay attention Mur? I think you need more coffee hun.

To the OP, so far he's done one whole thing I disagree with. So far so good, nobody is going to agree with everything.
I'd like to know when "president" became a synonym for "magic fairy who makes everything happen at once with a mere sprinkle of pixie dust."

I'd like to know when "president" became a synonym for "magic fairy who makes everything happen at once with a mere sprinkle of pixie dust."

I dunno, I want to know that too.

Do you live in the UK?

No?

Well, as I live here Blair was as left wing as David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives. In fact both of them are centre right politicians and Labour is slowly shifting that way as well. The only true big leftist party in the UK are the Lib Dems.

Cameron's definitely more conservative than Blair. Blair seems like more of a centrist.

*getting back to the subject before i lose control and beg to have barringtonia's babies*

if mr obama continues warrantless wiretapping in the same form that mr bush has it-- listening in on private conversations between our military personelle in iraq and their families, watching all communications of certain anti-bush american citizen journalist inside the country, and who knows what other horrifying uses--i will be extremely angry

if he gets control of it and starts using the legal provisions for reporting stuff to the fisa courts when circumstances require after the fact notification, keeping it to actual terrorist network suspects, ill probably support him.

we have a president who has a clue, who appears to WANT to do the right thing.
how much he's going to be able to depends on how much 'WE', those of us who are, the american people, have a clue. whatever happens, each of us are going to be a little bit dissappointed certainly. if NATURE is too dissappointed, there isn't going to be an 'we' to worry about it.

nowhere on the face of this planet is there true democratic freedom. this world is dominated by a dictatorship of little green pieces of paper, at the expense of, and indifferent to, real people, places and things (and that indifference extends toward those who imagine themselves in control of it, even those who imagine themselves, and appear superficially to, be benefiting from it)

how well he will be able to maintain what he is calling the american way of life, without imposing moraly unconscionable inequities on the rest of the world, depends on certain specifics of what he is calling that, and how well he understands the science involved.

certainly its current level of convenience and tecnology is maintainable in a sustainable manor, if only just, but only with major changes in methodology, and even perspective. with only a very few, and minimally noticeable compromises on convenience, technology can and will continue to grow and improve, but again, major changes and recognition of the need for them, on the part of everyone, in what has been taken as absolutely basic and fundamental assumptions, will be inescapable.

unless of course, nature, or some other factor, drastically reduces the over all human population of the planet.

personally, i'd rather live with a few inconveniences, then the guilty conscience we all share, many as yet unknowingly, over the terrible price, being imposed on others, in many parts of the planet, even the very and entire web of life of the planet itself, for what an appearant majority, or near majority, still seem to take for granted, as a way things can always be, because they've been gotten away with them for a mere couple of centuries.

we don't have to give up mechanical transportation, nor electrical energy. but personal, combustion powered transportation, whatever it burns for fuel, and the same goes for generating electrictiy by means of combustion, these are unsustainable. as is the percentage of forest products used in sturctural construction. today's human birthrate also exceeds anything sustainable.

all these things, from an engineering standpoint are very solvable. what has seemed almost insurmountable, though there now seems a good chance obama mania wih help over come it, is political resistence to the engineering and technological solutions it will take to solve them.

THIS, is the reality. in its context, details of crisis, like economic melt down and peek oil, pail into almost side issues, however much, they are also very much part and parcel of it.

really the two big ones, driving all these other horrors and crisis, are our excessive human birthrate, which hardly anyone ever mentions, and that oil, coal, the use of combustion in general, and nuclear fission isn't innocent either, though on a proportionately smaller scale, as is its use, are humanities 'jonestown coolaide'.

even these CAN be solved, and solved in a NONdraconian manor. just not a manor entirely transparent as 'bussiness as usual'

capitalist makiavellianism, is as big, bigger even, much bigger, an obstical to doing so, as marxist procustianism also appears to have been. both will have to fade away and be no more, and not be replaced by some other flavor of arbitrariness, and certainly not at the point of guns.

Well, when that many people seem to have set the bar that ridiculously high, it's pretty much impossible for him not to fail.

...

He's screwed by his very supporters, many of whom have pretty damn unrealistic expectations for a guy who's only been in office four days.

Who? I keep hearing about how Obama supporters supposedly believe "terrorism will end," 'racism will end," "love and peace will overtake all," etc et c etc.

But I never actually see any of these supposed people making these supposed claims.

It seems to me mostly his opponents who are holding him to artificial and unreasonable standards, explicitly for the purpose you stated - making it seem like he failed.

But pointing and laughing and bringing out a campaign slogan constantly going "Change? THIS ISNT CHANGE! HE'S A LIAR! LOL! CHANGE! LOL!" is just juvenile and utterly worthy of my contempt every time it happens. It's really saying, 'I haven't a clue what context is and I still haven't learned how to eat solid foods yet.' Not that impressive a political stance.



I felt he was the most qualified candidate for the job, which is why I voted for him. Not because he's going to wave a magic wand and turn the US in to a left-wing Candyland where everything's perfect.

Yeah I didn't vote for him based on a strawman reason either. Very few people on this forum did. But hey, Hotwife said he heard some Democrat say there would be a left-wing Candyland, so it's surely a relevant position! I better defend it!

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

Cameron's definitely more conservative than Blair. Blair seems like more of a centrist.

So which is he to you? A socialist or a centrist? Why does Blair matter anymore anyway. Brown's the one in charge. Blair is Middle Eastern Envoy.

has anyone even READ the blasted thing? At no point has Obama personally voiced ANY opinion on the matter.

What the government has done is ask a district court judge to stay the enforcement of his order while the government plans its appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeals.

that's it. They've simply asked the judge to hold off on enforcing his order while they prepare an appeal.

What the hell is wrong with this? Just because they're asking for an appeal doesn't mean Obama necessarily supports the thing. THere are dozens of reasons why the government could seek na appeal, chief among them is security for the future, figure out exactly where your limitations lie, have an authority higher than a mere district court carve out your acceptable limitations.

All that's been asked is for the district court to wait until the appeals court hears the case. That's it

So which is he to you? A socialist or a centrist?

He mixes various policies, including aspects of socialism.

Why does Blair matter anymore anyway. Brown's the one in charge.

Exactly. And with a bit of luck, he'll be out on his ass too, in a year's time.

has anyone even READ the blasted thing? At no point has Obama personally voiced ANY opinion on the matter.

What the government has done is ask a district court judge to stay the enforcement of his order while the government plans its appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeals.

that's it. They've simply asked the judge to hold off on enforcing his order while they prepare an appeal.

What the hell is wrong with this? Just because they're asking for an appeal doesn't mean Obama necessarily supports the thing. THere are dozens of reasons why the government could seek na appeal, chief among them is security for the future, figure out exactly where your limitations lie, have an authority higher than a mere district court carve out your acceptable limitations.

All that's been asked is for the district court to wait until the appeals court hears the case. That's it

Obama promised change. So until Obama does away with the court system and invents a magic harp to decide all legal issues instantly while simultaneously serving as a big Wii controller I am going to continue calling him on breaking his campaign promises!

if the majority had never made mistakes we would never have had a bush presidency, or a raygun presidency for that matter. would never have created a market for their perspective.

everyday i log on here, i hear the majority continuing to make many of the same deadly mistakes. mistakes wrongly assumed innocent by a couple of centuries of getting away with them.

i think, hope, believe, there is a trend in this world, for people to wake up to those mistakes, but i haven't seen them stop being made, nor stop being made by a majority of the american people. what people in other places are doing i don't see because i'm not there, but i'm hazarding a guess that many people in many places are making many of those same mistakes too.

obama's election is a SIGN of encouragement. wonderful as many things about it are, i too have to agree, it isn't, in and of itself, the holy grail. just more of the kind of reminder we haven't seen in a long time, that hope is possible.

hell, he's even trying to tell us that himself.

Excellent attitude. The left spends the last eight years going on about how they hate America, and now they win an election, they jump back on board and criticise the right for being uncooperative? That's not hypocritical at all.
Yes, but we didn't complain until he, you know, started fucking up, unlike the people here who started whining one millisecond after Obama won the election.

That's the infantile attitude I was referring to. But hey, just be honest -- having someone in office who won't bend the country over to be sodomized by the fundamentalists, who actually is defending the constitution by following it rather than saying "Well it doesn't apply when it's not convenient to big business and to personal agendas", and who dares to be less than pasty white is what gets some people's panties in a bunch, isn't it? Not the man's qualifications or what he's accomplished in a ridiculously short time.

But hey, keep on keeping on. And remember what the neo-cons said for eight years: Suck it up, you lost, we won, stop whining.

Not so palatable when it's on your plate, is it?

Disowning your friends in Hollywood now, lefty?
Flamebaiting much?

Right, because Reagan, Charlton Heston and Ahnuld are all dirty lefties Potato Boy.

:rolleyes:
Stop calling him Potato Boy. It's flaming.

"Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction; towards bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism. And the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet voters continue to think they are voting for change when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This IS truly insane." - Chuck Baldwin

Not that I agree with him on much else, but he makes a good point here. I don't know much about Obama's performance as president so far, nor about whether or not he specifically promised to end wiretapping, but when people keep voting for the two main parties they're contributing to the oligopoly of power that makes it easier for mainstream candidates to get away with breaking promises. Those who voted Obama or McCain are to blame for this.

...or not. (http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just)

Don't say we didn't warn you, people.

The President of Change You Can Believe in, The President who will never lie to you, his own campaing slogans. The President of Change we can all believe in.

How he ran against the policy.

The only change is whatever President Obama decides change is. The change many of you voted for may not be the change you get, including myself ill admit depending on the issues.

Change can mean alot of different things to different persons, apart from the economic problems during the campaign this very clever slogan helped President Obama win, I told you all so but many did not listen or believe me, now we all know.

What, Hollywood is right-wing, now?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UYGUnR0wiCw

Where the fuck were all of them two or three years ago? Oh, that's right, they spent their political time going on about how much they hate America.

At long last, sir, have you no...sense?

I never mentioned Hollywood. I never called them "my friends", and you saying that ANYone else "moves goalposts" is such a pot-kettle moment, that I'm surprised you can see in all that blackness.

Also, can you please, PLEASE show ONE instance of any one of them actually saying that they "hate America"? Otherwise, you're acting like a miserable child who didn't get his way, which is very puzzling, considering you're not even in the country in question.

The President of Change You Can Believe in, The President who will never lie to you, his own campaing slogans. The President of Change we can all believe in.

How he ran against the policy.

The only change is whatever President Obama decides change is. The change many of you voted for may not be the change you get, including myself ill admit depending on the issues.

Change can mean alot of different things to different persons, apart from the economic problems during the campaign this very clever slogan helped President Obama win, I told you all so but many did not listen or believe me, now we all know.

Told us all what, the blindingly obvious?

How's about we let the man construct his administration? In the first week, he's done more than W did before 9/11. The work ethic ALONE is change enough for me.

has anyone even READ the blasted thing? At no point has Obama personally voiced ANY opinion on the matter.

What the government has done is ask a district court judge to stay the enforcement of his order while the government plans its appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeals.

that's it. They've simply asked the judge to hold off on enforcing his order while they prepare an appeal.

What the hell is wrong with this? Just because they're asking for an appeal doesn't mean Obama necessarily supports the thing. THere are dozens of reasons why the government could seek an appeal, chief among them is security for the future, figure out exactly where your limitations lie, have an authority higher than a mere district court carve out your acceptable limitations.

All that's been asked is for the district court to wait until the appeals court hears the case. That's it

but... but.. neo... the article states "Obama administration". so following how the "Bush Administration" = Pres Bush, it's obvious that Obama supports it. :p

...but when people keep voting for the two main parties they're contributing to the oligopoly of power that makes it easier for mainstream candidates to get away with breaking promises. Those who voted Obama or McCain are to blame for this.

Our political system is rigged so that it is a two-party system. It was designed that way (by the two parties).

Our political system is rigged so that it is a two-party system. It was designed that way (by the two parties).
But it's up to the people to vote for candidates outside the two parties if they don't like the two-party system.

Our political system is rigged so that it is a two-party system. It was designed that way (by the two parties).
To be fair, with few excpetions, America has pretty much always had a two party system. It's more effective to work within an existing party with a 50% chance of winning than form a third party with a 33 1/3% chance of winning.

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

Wait? Then we must be all socialists. The Republicans have socialized the losses in the finance world.

To be fair, with few excpetions, America has pretty much always had a two party system. It's more effective to work within an existing party with a 50% chance of winning than form a third party with a 33 1/3% chance of winning.
Why?

And besides, there's more than 3 parties. There's at least 5 if you count the Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties. Probably more, but I'm not aware of other parties outside of that. Plus, there's candidates like Ralph Nader, who IIRC used to run as a Green Party candidate and is now running independently of the parties.

Wait? Then we must be all socialists. The Republicans have socialized the losses in the finance world.

Thank you.

Oh my God it's ONE WEEK INTO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?! HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this what the next four years are going to be like? How infantile.

Kind of like calling a president chimp and shrub, and complaining about "stolen elections."

Meh...He probably just doesnt want anyone who had done work like this during the Bush administration to be prosecuted for following orders...

But, if he doesnt do anything to stop the practice...Im going to be rather angry about it...But, hell, its only been a few days...

complaining about "stolen elections."

To be fair, that election was stolen quite handily...

WHY ISN'T THE SKY GREEN?!
To be honest, I don't want our sky to ever turn green. :tongue:

Kind of like calling a president chimp and shrub, and complaining about "stolen elections."

Except that two of those three are legitimate. "Shrub" is a diminutive of "Bush", and given that he's a President's son, and certainly lesser in pollitical stature overall, it made sense. There's plenty of evidence for election shenanigans in Florida condoned by Jeb and Harris and abetted by ChoicePoint DBT (aka Diebold). Greg Palast alone discovered that 57,700 voters who were granted the vote after being disenfranchised for being felons in their states moved to Florida and were denied the vote. States don't have that power, but Harris exercised it anyway. It may not be stealing, but it's certainly illegal.

To be honest, I don't want our sky to ever turn green. :tongue:

Neither do I, but the usual suspects are sitting around desperately trying to appear smug that in one week in office cancer has not been cured -- when shortly after their candidate took office (read: on and just after 9/11) nearly the whole world thought he shat rainbow, unicorns and candy floss until he fucked it all up by insulting nearly every ally we ever had and not so subtly threatening them that 'if you're not with us, you're against us!', then running the economy into the ground with an enormous war budget for eight years.

Neither do I, but the usual suspects are sitting around desperately trying to appear smug that in one week in office cancer has not been cured -- when shortly after their candidate took office (read: on and just after 9/11) nearly the whole world thought he shat rainbow, unicorns and candy floss until he fucked it all up.

I was 14 back in 2001, when Bush took office, so I don't recall all that much, but didn't he actually do jack shit for most of his first year in office, pretty much right up until 9/11?

I was 14 back in 2001, when Bush took office, so I don't recall all that much, but didn't he actually do jack shit for most of his first year in office, pretty much right up until 9/11?

He did break the record for Presidential time off.

He did break the record for Presidential time off.

Well I suppose that's something, hehe.

Why?
Because it's an effetive strategy for various groups to cooperate and win the Presidency (or a state governorship or whatever) rather than act individually and work as spoilers for each other, a la Minnesota Independence Party. I'm not saying that ballot access rules, electoral districts and financing aren't biased in favour of the Democrats and Republicans (they are) but if they weren't, it wouldn't be huge amount different.

And besides, there's more than 3 parties. There's at least 5 if you count the Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties. Probably more, but I'm not aware of other parties outside of that. Plus, there's candidates like Ralph Nader, who IIRC used to run as a Green Party candidate and is now running independently of the parties.
Just as there's been Know-Nothings, Anti-Masons, Readjusters, Conscience Whigs and all the rest of them. They either died out (Anti-Masons), were only effective at the state level (Readjusters) or amalgamated (Whigs and Know-Nothings) purely because it's more effective that way.

To be honest, I don't want our sky to ever turn green. :tongue:

I think it would be freakin Awesome...Where the hell is my Green sky Obama!!!? :mad:...

We just need to get a shitload of Green Algae into the air...It could absorb mass amounts of Carbon-dioxide...this could totally work and kill two birds with one stone! :p

Ahh, the predictable sound of disgruntled Bush-supporters everywhere kicking and crying. Throw a loud enough tantrum and they think they can magically rewrite history--or at the very least, try to sap some of the hope and joy out of others.

Good try. Not biting.

I think it would be freakin Awesome...Where the hell is my Green sky Obama!!!? :mad:...

We just need to get a shitload of Green Algae into the air...It could absorb mass amounts of Carbon-dioxide...this could totally work and kill two birds with one stone! :p
If the sky turns green, look out. It's one of the possible warning signs for a tornado.

If the sky turns green, look out. It's one of the possible warning signs for a tornado.

:eek: ALGAE TORNADOS!!!!...Obama WHY DID YOU TURN THE SKY GREEN!!!?...WHY!!?...you horrible, horrible president, why!?

He's a fricken socialist. Way to move the goalposts when one of your own does something you disagree with.

Pile of fucking SHITE. Tony Blair is not a socialist. He's a right winger in disguise as a centre-lefty.

Pile of fucking SHITE. Tony Blair is not a socialist. He's a right winger in disguise as a centre-lefty.

He's Joe Lieberman? :tongue:

But it's up to the people to vote for candidates outside the two parties if they don't like the two-party system.

That's my point: a vote for a third party is a completely wasted vote. The specifics on why our system is two-party and will stay that way are boring, but just trust me when I say that they are there.

To be fair, with few excpetions, America has pretty much always had a two party system. It's more effective to work within an existing party with a 50% chance of winning than form a third party with a 33 1/3% chance of winning.

At first it was tradition (Federalists vs Anti-Federalists) but there have been many third parties with viable chances. It wasn't until the Democrats and Republicans as we know them that it became systematic.

If the sky turns green, look out. It's one of the possible warning signs for a tornado.

that... or you're standing on your head! :p

That's my point: a vote for a third party is a completely wasted vote. The specifics on why our system is two-party and will stay that way are boring, but just trust me when I say that they are there. and that kind of thinking keeps us at a two party system.

if you don't like either party's candidate, then find an independant you can support.

Neither do I, but the usual suspects are sitting around desperately trying to appear smug that in one week in office cancer has not been cured -- when shortly after their candidate took office (read: on and just after 9/11) nearly the whole world thought he shat rainbow, unicorns and candy floss until he fucked it all up by insulting nearly every ally we ever had and not so subtly threatening them that 'if you're not with us, you're against us!', then running the economy into the ground with an enormous war budget for eight years.
Oh, I know. It's not like I could've missed the past eight years...

(Except for the candy floss part... what is that?)

He did break the record for Presidential time off.

Does anybody have an accurate number of vacation days?

Does anybody have an accurate number of vacation days?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/11/politics/uwire/main3927378.shtml

879 vacation days total.

He did break the record for Presidential time off.

and lost a spy plane to china.

Does anybody have an accurate number of vacation days?
According to Vincent Bugliosi on Huffington Post, Bush spent about 900 days of his presidency on vacation or at retreat places like Camp David and his Crawford ranch. According to Keith Olbermann, he spent approximately a third of his entire presidency on vacation. This during two land wars of his own instigation, a "war on terrorism", unprecedented political difficulties for the US both at home and abroad, natural disasters, and the early signs of coming economic trouble.

Now, granted, we do not know that those were not "working vacations," but it is rather like going to the playground or the beach to "work," and definitely not in keeping with the urgency and gravity of what he had to deal with.

Oh, I know. It's not like I could've missed the past eight years...

(Except for the candy floss part... what is that?)
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Cotton-Candy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/11/politics/uwire/main3927378.shtml

879 vacation days total.

But that's from March of last year... There's got to be more.

According to Vincent Bugliosi on Huffington Post, Bush spent about 900 days of his presidency on vacation or at retreat places like Camp David and his Crawford ranch. According to Keith Olbermann, he spent approximately a third of his entire presidency on vacation. This during two land wars of his own instigation, a "war on terrorism", unprecedented political difficulties for the US both at home and abroad, natural disasters, and the early signs of coming economic trouble.

Now, granted, we do not know that those were not "working vacations," but it is rather like going to the playground or the beach to "work," and definitely not in keeping with the urgency and gravity of what he had to deal with.

In addition, he had apparently had attended 327 fundraising events for Republican candidates and causes by August last year, and attended 95 sports-related events.

490 days in Crawford as of December 2008, and 142 trips to Camp David for a total of 450 days in August of the same year.

Yeah, I guess about 900 sounds right. I thought at first that that had to be way too much, but no...

Neither do I, but the usual suspects are sitting around desperately trying to appear smug that in one week in office cancer has not been cured -- when shortly after their candidate took office (read: on and just after 9/11) nearly the whole world thought he shat rainbow, unicorns and candy floss until he fucked it all up by insulting nearly every ally we ever had and not so subtly threatening them that 'if you're not with us, you're against us!', then running the economy into the ground with an enormous war budget for eight years.
Oh, I know. It's not like I could've missed the past eight years...

(Except for the candy floss part... what is that?)

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Cotton-Candy
Oh! :( Cotton candy I know.

I thought this was something ingenious as candy-flavored dental floss: "Candy Floss - dental care has never tasted sweeter"

and this folks, is why Kat is a mod. she can anticipate the questions before they're posted!

and this folks, is why Kat is a mod. she can anticipate the questions before they're posted!

She can see the future and ban you before you troll.

and this folks, is why Kat is a mod. she can anticipate the questions before they're posted!
I think that was actually the time warp raising its ugly head again.

I think that was actually the time warp raising its ugly head again.

See... She's humble too! :hail:

Also: THERE ARE €50S IN MY WALLET! This is not the change I was promised!

Also: THERE ARE €50S IN MY WALLET! This is not the change I was promised!
No change without purchase!

No change without purchase!

That's not what Peggy Joseph said. "If I'm gonna help [Obama] he's gonna help me."

:p

and that kind of thinking keeps us at a two party system.

if you don't like either party's candidate, then find an independant you can support.

No, its not "that kind of thinking". Its systematic, meaning its built into the system.

No, its not "that kind of thinking". Its systematic, meaning its built into the system.

nope, it is 'that kind of thinking.'

when registering to vote, you have at least three options. Rep, Dem, and Ind.

the system will allow for a third or fourth party, but the people...

when you argue politics with a stranger, he'll either think you Rep or Dem. not Lib, Indie, or anything else.

you say you're not voting for Rep or Dem and the reply is "you're throwing your vote away".

That is how the people think.

Reps and Dems have a huge slush fund, thus can call on reserves that the Indipendants cannot match unless they get a HUGE public backing from the private sector. that's not due to the 'system' but the fact that they were around the longest.

It can't be fixed. It's structurally unsound.

So I am saying it needs to collapse. And to be honest, Barry knows that it is going to collapse anyway, he's just there to manage the deflation.

Gotta say I still like the guy though.

I have to disagree with almost everything you've said. Boom and bust economics are nothing new, and - while they are a sign that the system is unsound, it's unlikely that the US will really abandon laissez-faire capitalism any time soon. So - expect this unsound structure to keep swinging back and forth for the next few years, at least.

I don't see any evidence for the 'fall of Rome' fantasy, sorry.

You don't get alternatives. That's not how it works. You didn't choose this, and you'll have no say in what comes next. It's the cycles.

Of what? The harmonics of uncontrolled capitalism? Sure.

That doesn't mean you can't make the troughs shallow, and the peaks shallow. That doesn't mean you can't add a little momentum.

It also doesn't mean you have to let 200 million people starve so that 100 million don't have to feel like they HAD TO help anyone else.

nope, it is 'that kind of thinking.'

It really isn't man. Look at the election laws. I don't just make these things up, this is what I learn in class. Its way too uninteresting for me to go through though, so if you really want to not believe me that's fine.

It really isn't man. Look at the election laws. I don't just make these things up, this is what I learn in class. Its way too uninteresting for me to go through though, so if you really want to not believe me that's fine.

Canada is awesome. (due to us having at least 3 viable options and usually closer to 4)

Canada is awesome. (due to us having at least 3 viable options and usually closer to 4)

Look how many we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Finland#Registered_political_parties

Obama will learn why you never promise Hope and Change to the American people.

Well, there's a log cabin waiting for me deep in the Rockies Mountain, see you people in 2012.

That's not a log cabin. That's my house.

Get out of my house, Wilgrove. Please.

He mixes various policies, including aspects of socialism.

This is true of any viable political party in the UK.

It really isn't man. Look at the election laws. I don't just make these things up, this is what I learn in class. Its way too uninteresting for me to go through though, so if you really want to not believe me that's fine.

Correct, it isn't that kind of thinking. FPTP electoral systems have strong tendencies to become two party systems.

It really isn't man. Look at the election laws. I don't just make these things up, this is what I learn in class. Its way too uninteresting for me to go through though, so if you really want to not believe me that's fine.

I have, no where does it limit the number of parties to Two.

I have, no where does it limit the number of parties to Two.

Its not in the election laws Its called Duverger's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).

Its not in the election laws Its called Duverger's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).

your source states it as a principle, not a law.

It's because people here only think in terms of a two party system that we only have TWO PARTIES.

one way to start the process of adding a third party is to remove the idea that voting for anyone else besides column A or B is throwing your vote away.

your source states it as a principle, not a law.

I didn't call it a law, as in a part of legislation, but it is called Duverger's Law


It's because people here only think in terms of a two party system that we only have TWO PARTIES.

No, the reasons people vote for two parties were in my source.

The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical. A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics, but is impractical and controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.

The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.[1]

And how third parties take over and replace one of the existing two parties remaking a two party system


A third party can only enter the arena if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason-Dixon Line. Southern rural planters, initially lured by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, quickly aligned themselves with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party.

There are several reasons we do not have a third party (nor a viable chance of one) in the United States:

-election laws: laws on the books in many states prevent third parties from even being on the ballot, while national laws prevent them from being seated in debates and receiving public funds for their campaigns
-winner-take-all: the winner-take-all districting of the US prevents a third party from gaining a foothold in Congress because a majority of votes are needed from a district in order to win that seat
-major parties pick and choose from the ideas of viable third party and take those issues for themselves
-Electoral College: a majority of votes are needed from each state in order to win the Electoral College votes of that state

I really just don't make things up.

There are several reasons we do not have a third party (nor a viable chance of one) in the United States:

-election laws: laws on the books in many states prevent third parties from even being on the ballot, while national laws prevent them from being seated in debates and receiving public funds for their campaigns
-winner-take-all: the winner-take-all districting of the US prevents a third party from gaining a foothold in Congress because a majority of votes are needed from a district in order to win that seat
-major parties pick and choose from the ideas of viable third party and take those issues for themselves
-Electoral College: a majority of votes are needed from each state in order to win the Electoral College votes of that state

I really just don't make things up.

Butbutbut, if we just believe that third parties can win, then basic electoral realities can magically change!

Butbutbut, if we just believe that third parties can win, then basic electoral realities can magically change!

If you could get enough people to agree with you, you'd be right.

Which is one of the reasons that both mainstream parties work so hard to discredit any other options.

Does anybody have an accurate number of vacation days?

In my comment on vacations, I said it was in reference to his first 9 months, essentially prior to 9/11

Mike Allen of the Washington Post did report in an Aug. 7, 2001 article that Bush had spent all or part of 54 days of his presidency by that time in Crawford, Texas, almost a quarter of his presidency, and that he had spent 42 percent of his presidency (including weekends) at vacation spots or en route.
As for August 2001, Bush did spend most of that month in Crawford, Texas on what White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called a "working vacation" (remarks on-line here). Bush himself defended the vacation on August 8, 2001 in a clip that was shown in the movie.
Bush did accomplish some things during this vacation - notably, he gave his first televised address to the nation on August 9, 2001, the day after the clip that was shown, in which he set out his position on stem-cell research; those remarks are on-line here.
He also gave, as shown, a tour of his ranch to the press in which he commented on armadillos.

Link (http://newsaic.com/f911chap1-4.html)

In my comment on vacations, I said it was in reference to his first 9 months, essentially prior to 9/11

Link (http://newsaic.com/f911chap1-4.html)
I think we found that the final tally is around 900 days over 8 years :wink:

I do have one criticism, couldn't he at least make them warranted wire-tapping?

I don't know about US laws. In Italy, though, the Constitution forbids unwarranted wiretapping - as it would be like violating personal correspondence.
The prosecutor (Pubblico Ministero) can warrant wiretapping as he's a magistrate. And the judge, during the trial, has to accept it as proof.

I think that the problem in the US is with the different role of the prosecutor.

This is still going on?

Was there at least an asnwer to the question: Since when has President meant Magical Fairy that will change everything?

If yes please give me a post number or something because I don't care about the rest...

On the topic of Obama...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsotn05umoQ

Does anybody else find that ad a little bit sickening?

On the topic of Obama...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsotn05umoQ

Does anybody else find that ad a little bit sickening?

There are a few ads and corporations that are co-opting the Obama campaign as of late, and yes, it is sickening.

I don't know about US laws. In Italy, though, the Constitution forbids unwarranted wiretapping - as it would be like violating personal correspondence.
The prosecutor (Pubblico Ministero) can warrant wiretapping as he's a magistrate. And the judge, during the trial, has to accept it as proof.

I think that the problem in the US is with the different role of the prosecutor.
Oh, there was a whole bargeload of laws against warrantless wiretapping in the US, too. And we even had a whole special court set up to review cases involving national security in secret to protect that security, so that the federal government could get wiretaps that could maintain spy-level secrecy but still be legal. And that court even allowed the feds to come to them after the fact of starting a wiretap to get a retroactive warrant to make what they were already doing legal.

But none of that was good enough for King George II because, apparently, in his weird world, the nation will collapse in a terrorist fireball if the president has to get approval from a court for anything.

This is still going on?

Was there at least an asnwer to the question: Since when has President meant Magical Fairy that will change everything?

If yes please give me a post number or something because I don't care about the rest...
Nope, not yet.

But none of that was good enough for King George II because, apparently, in his weird world, the nation will collapse in a terrorist fireball if the president has to get approval from a court for anything.


Nixon syndrome, if the President does it, its not illegal. Even if Nixon was proven wrong, he wasn't using it to get dirt on the other political parties so its ok.

Nope, not yet.

Darn... ok, I'll come back later.

On the topic of Obama...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsotn05umoQ

Does anybody else find that ad a little bit sickening?
He's popular . . .adds latch onto small well known things and his motto is both well known and relatively short . . .I'm more surprised to not have seen more of this if anything.

I didn't call it a law, as in a part of legislation, but it is called Duverger's Law
you didn't, but VC said...

It really isn't man. Look at the election laws. I don't just make these things up, this is what I learn in class. Its way too uninteresting for me to go through though, so if you really want to not believe me that's fine.

-election laws: laws on the books in many states prevent third parties from even being on the ballot, while national laws prevent them from being seated in debates and receiving public funds for their campaignswhich states? and please, pray tell, WHO or WHAT makes those laws?

-winner-take-all: the winner-take-all districting of the US prevents a third party from gaining a foothold in Congress because a majority of votes are needed from a district in order to win that seat yet how many seats in Congress and the House are held by independents? so some are winning.

-major parties pick and choose from the ideas of viable third party and take those issues for themselvesyet major parties stick to their core platforms

-Electoral College: a majority of votes are needed from each state in order to win the Electoral College votes of that state and Electorial Colleges has what to do with Congress, Senate and Individual State Elected posistions?

all these make a third party hard, but not impossible. many third party and independent candidates win the smaller elections.

In 2004 the U.S. electorate consisted of an estimated 43% registered Democrats and 33% registered Republicans, with independents and those belonging to other parties constituting 25%.[1]

I really just don't make things up.
you keep saying this, but no where do I say "you're making things up."

IIRC, third parties aren't banned from debates unless they pull less than a small percentage in national polls. If they were banned, we'd never have seen the awesomeness that was John Stockdale (Reform Party) in the VP debate in 1992.

IIRC, third parties aren't banned from debates unless they pull less than a small percentage in national polls. If they were banned, we'd never have seen the awesomeness that was John Stockdale (Reform Party) in the VP debate in 1992.

You are correct. I don't think I said they were banned, and if I did I apologize. The frequency with which third parties reach those levels in national polls, however, creates a de facto ban.

yet how many seats in Congress and the House are held by independents? so some are winning.
Two. There are two independent Senators from New England states. I mean if that satisfies you ok, but it doesn't really look to me like third parties are winning. They are Democrats in everything but name anyways.

yet major parties stick to their core platforms
An example of this has already been provided. The Whigs anti-slavery platform was co-opted into the Republican platform back in the days of Lincolm so that the division that had occured was fixed and they could win seats.

and Electorial Colleges has what to do with Congress, Senate and Individual State Elected posistions?
As you hopefully know, the Electoral College has to do with the Presidential elections. It is also symptomatic of winner-take-all districting, which I will use to address...

all these make a third party hard, but not impossible. many third party and independent candidates win the smaller elections.
I never said they were impossible (or if I did, I was using hyperbole. Nothing's impossible, we elected a black man after all!). I said the system was rigged against them. The point of the entire matter is not some Green Party winning a seat on the City Council of Nantucket, Alaska, the point is to garner real power they would need to win seats on the federal level, something which - due to all those reasons I have listed - it very unlikely to happen. Even if 25% of the population believes in third parties, that's going to not only be spread out over many different third parties, its also going to be spread out over many different districts.

you keep saying this, but no where do I say "you're making things up."
Did you not just enter this thread? I've been responding to Intangelon, not you.

You are correct. I don't think I said they were banned, and if I did I apologize. The frequency with which third parties reach those levels in national polls, however, creates a de facto ban.

*snip your responses to JuNii, not me*

It also creates a de facto way in to the process, doesn't it?

You are correct. I don't think I said they were banned, and if I did I apologize. The frequency with which third parties reach those levels in national polls, however, creates a de facto ban.Sorry, it was the use of the word "Prevents" It's hard for third parties to get seats, but still possible.


[snipped the rest because it's now nitpicking since the core problem was resolved.]

Did you not just enter this thread? I've been responding to Intangelon, not you. just wanted to make sure I didn't convey that sentiment. ;)

It also creates a de facto way in to the process, doesn't it?

Sure. But, let's assume that the candidate for the third party was not independently wealthy (it baffles me how these guys with billions of dollars don't dent the national polls). In order to receive public funding and mount a viable campaign, the criteria for that happening has to do not with national polls now but performance in the previous election. So, to simplify it, to get seated at a debate, you need to do well in the last election.

Just so we're all clear and can remain a big, happy family, I am all for proportional representation and an abundance of parties. I'm just trying to explain the political realities of today. On the other hand, there are a sizable portion of political scientists who argue that parties are actually losing power, so you might think of that as saying who needs third parties anyways, parties in general are on the outs!

The argument that Obama deserves credit because you can't expect him to create utopia overnight is an absurd argument. To the extent that Obama does the right thing he deserves credit. To the extent that he doesn't, he deserves blame. It's absurd to say that he doesn't deserve blame for bad policies because you can't expect magic. And some people have a very modest expectation, that he will end torture, end detaining people without trial, and end warantless wiretapping. I didn't vote for Obama, at this point, I'm not sure he'll do any of those things. The recent orders supposedly ending torture and closing Guantanamo are loaded with loopholes. He gets blame until he corrects them. Until he corrects warrantless wiretapping, he gets blame for that. If he continues Bush's policies, he deserves the same blame Bush gets. If he doesn't, he deserves credit for that, provided of course that they are real, substantial differences.

Anyway, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_coins) is change I can believe in. I have it in my pocket right now.

The argument that Obama deserves credit because you can't expect him to create utopia overnight is an absurd argument. To the extent that Obama does the right thing he deserves credit. To the extent that he doesn't, he deserves blame. It's absurd to say that he doesn't deserve blame for bad policies because you can't expect magic. And some people have a very modest expectation, that he will end torture, end detaining people without trial, and end warantless wiretapping. I didn't vote for Obama, at this point, I'm not sure he'll do any of those things. The recent orders supposedly ending torture and closing Guantanamo are loaded with loopholes. He gets blame until he corrects them. Until he corrects warrantless wiretapping, he gets blame for that. If he continues Bush's policies, he deserves the same blame Bush gets. If he doesn't, he deserves credit for that, provided of course that they are real, substantial differences.
Amazing how you think it's absurd to give Obama credit for things he has not done yet, but you don't seem to think it's absurd to blame him for things he has not done yet on the basis of nothing but your personal doubts about him.

This entire debate -- the very topic -- is idiotic. It is indeed, completely absurd to be passing judgment on Obama literally immediately upon his inauguration. What, are we all 4 years old all of a sudden? Do we all want our magic ponies right this very minute, waaah?

I've read this whole thread, and I've been keeping on top of the news in general, and I just have to say quite frankly that I don't see anyone, here or elsewhere, giving Obama credit for anything that he has not actually done yet, as you claim has happened. All I see anywhere are a bunch of crybabies screaming because they haven't gotten their magic pony yet, and a bunch of bitter, rightwing sore-losers pointing at those crybabies and saying, "See? We told you so!" and lining up a catalogue of Bush-failures to blame on Obama. Both are just ridiculous.

There are a few ads and corporations that are co-opting the Obama campaign as of late, and yes, it is sickening.I particularly like Pepsi's retooled logo and ads.

I've read this whole thread, and I've been keeping on top of the news in general, and I just have to say quite frankly that I don't see anyone, here or elsewhere, giving Obama credit for anything that he has not actually done yet, as you claim has happened. All I see anywhere are a bunch of crybabies screaming because they haven't gotten their magic pony yet, and a bunch of bitter, rightwing sore-losers pointing at those crybabies and saying, "See? We told you so!" and lining up a catalogue of Bush-failures to blame on Obama. Both are just ridiculous.


Thats because a lot of people are children.

Look, can we please get off this whole subject until mid-2010, puh-leaze?

:p