Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Everything Political

Re: Time to Admit: Obama has drank the Kool Aid!

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:23 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Will you two admit Obama's massive mistake in this yet?

No, I will not admit that Obama not hiring Gore was a huge mistake. :D

That said, it remains to be seen whether or not he’s simply going to advocate developing more renewable (Go Nuclear!) energy sources in order to help wean ourselves off of foreign oil… something I’m all for… under the politically “correct” (feel good) guise of “global warming”. :roll:

Now if he starts talking bout Gore’s carbon credit nonsense and whatnot THEN I’ll have a problem I think.

Well see… I’m more concerned about his choice of Hillary… unless he’s expecting her to fail which would effectively end her political career… in which case I say brilliant! ;)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Re: Time to Admit: Obama has drank the Kool Aid!

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:42 am

Access Denied wrote:
Well see… I’m more concerned about his choice of Hillary… unless he’s expecting her to fail which would effectively end her political career… in which case I say brilliant! ;)


Hmm...that's a very good point. Maybe he was looking for some way to remove her from the competition for his re-election... That's the only justification I can possibly think of. He knows she couldn't refuse because it appeals to the Clinton Lust for personal glory. lol

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Time to Admit: Obama has drank the Kool Aid!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:05 pm

ryguy wrote:
Access Denied wrote:
Well see… I’m more concerned about his choice of Hillary… unless he’s expecting her to fail which would effectively end her political career… in which case I say brilliant! ;)


Hmm...that's a very good point. Maybe he was looking for some way to remove her from the competition for his re-election... That's the only justification I can possibly think of. He knows she couldn't refuse because it appeals to the Clinton Lust for personal glory. lol


The thing of this is... if this is why he did this, then this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not what he says he is. Namely, he is doing something only for the furtherance of his own political career, and NOT in the best interest of the USA. How could you have HOPE that Obama is the golden boy who will save the USA and then also entertain that he plays politics with one of the most important jobs in the cabinet "expecting her to fail."

If that is true, it is a much more evil thing than anything Bush ever did! I certainly hope that was NOT his reasoning because it would be a careless action that thumbs his nose at the American people. Not exactly how he portrayed himself, eh? Can't have it both ways, guys.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Time to Admit: Obama has drank the Kool Aid!

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:55 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:If that is true, it is a much more evil thing than anything Bush ever did!


Placing Clinton in the seat of Sec of State is certainly sickening, but it's hardly comparible to the destroyed lives of countless American soldiers and their families. There's an enormous gap between any president in history and the destruction caused by the Bush administration - it would take Obama at least half of his first term before you could possibly draw any sort of comparison like that. As it stands now (before the man has even entered office) - there's no way at all to compare.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Time to Admit: Obama has drank the Kool Aid!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:43 pm

ryguy wrote:Placing Clinton in the seat of Sec of State is certainly sickening, but it's hardly comparible to the destroyed lives of countless American soldiers and their families.


Actually, they are quite comparable when you look at intention, which I always point out is more important that the choices a person makes or the result of those choices. If the intention of Bush was to remove a dictator who had killed and ruined many more lives than those that would liberate Iraq, and the intention of Obama is merely to make a political play with one of the most important cabinet posts, then there is no doubt one intention is more evil than the other.

Additionally, all US soldiers know their life can be on the line when they sign up for duty. How many of the victims of Saddam Hussein willfully signed-up for the lives to be in peril, if not ended?

To this day I still believe going into Iraq was the right thing to do (for many reasons, strategic and tactical). I believe they made the wrong case for doing so, but let us not forget that Bush went thru the UN and the US Congress. It's not like Bush was acting like a dictator, although in hindsight there are plenty of lefty libs who want to paint his actions in that light.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Pelosi Shows Her Giant Gonads

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:45 pm

Well,

Here is another one of my prior predictions that is just simmering away and almost ready to boil over and ruin Obama's nice, clean stovetop:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468164,00.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not holding back when it comes to making her wishes known to the incoming administration. The Politico newspaper reports Democratic insiders say Pelosi has "'set parameters' for what she wants from Barack Obama and his White House staff — no surprises, and no backdoor efforts to go around her."

Pelosi is in talks with incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Sources say she wants to know when the administration has contact with rank-and-file Democrats — and why.

One insider says Pelosi is "not going to allow Obama to triangulate her." Another added, "There is going to be tension…she wants to know what they are up to."


As I predicted, she is expecting that she and Harry Reid will set the tone, and Obama will just be a signatory to their Left Bills. You heard it here first.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Say One Thing, Do Another

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:45 pm

As if we needed more evidence to prove that politicians are hypocrites... But the following evidence is pertinent because we should remember that the Democratic National Party focus and platform for this past election cycle was heavily focused on several major themes: Jobs, Health Care, Schools, and tax breaks for the common man. So let us see what we have going on in the two states with the largest liberal voting blocks:

New York:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/ ... index.html

A budget plan by Gov. David Paterson that would plug budget shortfalls by slashing spending and raising taxes on items from sugary soft drinks to iTunes downloads is drawing criticism in New York.


Let me see if I get this right: New Yorkers just love to elect their liberal heros into office. But now they don't like it when they decide a "neat" way to raise revenue is to tax your Itunes downloads. Did I get that right? Perhaps the politicians are not the only hypocrites... perhaps the electorate shares some of the blame?

The plan also includes reductions in school aid by $698 million, $3.5 billion in health-care cuts and the elimination of 521 state jobs.


Ahhhh, but this should not be counted against Obama, right? Because he is going to make-up for what these people (of his own Party) are doing... is that how the story goes?

California:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469166,00.html

Democrats were trying to break a weekslong impasse over California's multibillion-dollar deficit by making an end run around Republicans, offering a complicated mix of revenue cuts and increases that they said would raise billions without requiring two-thirds majority typically needed to raise taxes.


I see... we will not call them "taxes" and thus the law does not apply. We just call them "fees". Gotcha.

The Democratic proposal would address $18 billion of the state's shortfall over the next 18 months through a scheme that would cut some taxes and raise others, as well as slash more than $7 billion in spending on health, education and prisons.


Health and education again. Glad they are making good on those campaign promises! And how politically shrewd to cut some taxes and raise others. That way they can actually claim they cut taxes...they just won't talk about the other side of that statement. Gee, wonder how those tax cuts and increases might work out?

The proposal they made Wednesday would eliminate an 18-cent-a-gallon excise tax on gas and a fluctuating sales tax on gas, replacing them with a 39-cent-per-gallon fee. Democrats also were seeking to raise the state sales tax by 3/4 of a cent, tax oil produced in California, add a 2.5 percent surcharge on state income taxes and force independent contractors to pay taxes upfront.


Ahhhh.... I see. Cut by 18 cents per gallon (plus another non-constant revenue stream), but then add a fixed "fee" of 39 cents per gallon. Let me do some math... unless that "fluctuating sales tax" amounted to more than 21 cents a gallon, then what we are really seeing is a net tax increase. Why all the sleight of hand? Why can't they just plainly tell voters "we are going to raise your taxes." Oh that's right! I remember why! Because if they used those words they would need a >2/3 vote in Sacramento to approve it. This way they sneak by the letter of the law!

:shock:
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Funny

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:58 pm

A little humor to lighten up all the political BS:

You know what would really PISS OFF the Democrats...
Bush should resign now.
Then Dick Cheney, would become President (that would really PISS OFF the liberals)!!!
Then he appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.
Then Cheney resigns two weeks later and Condoleeza Rice, A Republican, becomes the first BLACK President and the first WOMAN President !

:lol:
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby ryguy » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:26 pm

Haha!! That would take the wind out of certain peoples' sails...lol.

I think the U.S. government should have a fund-raiser. For a dollar you get to throw three shoes at Bush and if he can't dodge them all, you get a stuffed elephant. :)
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:35 pm

ryguy wrote:I think the U.S. government should have a fund-raiser. For a dollar you get to throw three shoes at Bush and if he can't dodge them all, you get a stuffed elephant. :)


Good idea! But I would suggest that we charge the Hollywood Elite $1 million per shoe. They would gladly pay it, they have the disposable income, and we could tell them the profits will go towards helping Al Gore reduce his carbon footprint! :)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Another AGW Zealot for Obama Admin

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:23 pm

Here comes the AGW agenda... we will now make damn SURE that NOAA is co-opted by bad science:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... nal_o.html

President-elect Barack Obama has tapped Oregon State University professor Jane Lubchenco, one of the nation's most prominent marine biologists, to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lubchenco, a conservationist who has devoted much of her career to encouraging scientists to become more engaged in public policy debates, is also a vocal proponent of curbing greenhouse gases linked to global warming.


1) She has bought-into the AGW religion, even though data continues to come out that refutes it.
2) She is vocal about something she is not an expert in (she is a marine biologist, not a climatologist)
3) She encourages scientists to get mired in politics (the camoflage words are "public policy debates").

With this, and the appointment of Carol Browner as "Climate Czar", it is now obvious that Al Gore is having and will have his way within the Obama administration. This is not change. This is the same old DEM party. (BTW, you might be surprised why Carol Browner was not given a cabinet position that must be approved by the Senate. More on that under the AGW thread...)

By selecting someone who's both a respected researcher and an active player in national policy discussions, Rosenberg added, "it's saying that science agencies have a role in policy. They need to be tightly connected, and I believe they will be tightly connected under Jane."


In other words: You can expect more co-opting of science by politics, to achieve political goals. With AGW being their prime poster child. I am really feeling ill.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

More on Carol Browner

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:10 am

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479935,00.html

Carol Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be his climate czarina, served until last summer as a member of a socialist organization whose mission is to enact progressive government policies, including toward environmental concerns like climate change.


IMO, this selection is even worse than Hillary Clinton, and there will be ample opportunity (as data refuting AGW continues to stream in) for Obama to look really, really bad as a result of this selection of a person with clear socialist tendencies and agendas.

So much for those who actually believed Obama was a "centrist". Not with a selection like this he isn't.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:29 pm

As we reach the one week point in his presidency, I think there is ample information to begin to assess how this president intends to act (or is that re-act)? ;)

1) He wants "greater openness" and a "new transparency in government". I like the sound of that, but I will like the practice even more. Sadly, however, this is another tired adage like "hope" and "change" that is subject to political whims and political interpretation. We will see in what is below how he has already violated the principles of "greater openness".

2) We were told that strict lobbying rules would apply to people in his admin. And yet we see an undersecretary of Defense being appointed who was clearly a lobbyist for his former company, Raytheon. My brother works for Raytheon and knows this guy all too well. So apparantly we see evidence that Obama is willing to say one thing and then do another when it politically suits him... same old, same old.

3) We see a nominee for Treasury Secretary who didn't pay self-employment taxes. And we see this same nominee pretty much sail through the confirmation process (thanks to the Dem majority). But let us hearken back to a judicial nominee by Bush who did NOT win confirmation, and all she failed to pay were the social security taxes for her nanny. So much for standards.... Obama did not even wish to nominate someone who was "clean"???

4) Obama trips over himself in his eagerness to toss a bone to the governments of Europe by issuing the order to close down Guantanamo. Given his own call for "new transparency in government" one would think that he would want to share with the people his plan for what he is going to do with all those alleged terrorists.... that is, if he HAD A PLAN (which he clearly does not). In my mind this shows impetuousness in this president. He is so concerned about satisying people outside this country that he rushes headlong into a decision without at least being able to explain the consequences of it to the American people.... so much of "greater openness".

5) We live in a era when the Federal Government should be looking for ways to NOT GIVE OUT MONEY, rather than finding new beneficiaries. Hence, we see the abortion ruling of Bush turned back...obviously, this was a promise that he had to keep for his party, and it would be clearly something that the party powerful demanded. Now, I respect the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, much to the dismay of those Catholics who raised me. But I do NOT believe the Federal Government should be giving money to ANY organization (national or international) who promotes abortion! It is one thing to make abortion legal, it is a whole different thing to use TAXPAYER money to support organizations that support abotion....especially if a large percentage of the population does NOT agree with abortion. This is Obama, the "great uniter"? Bah.

6) And let's not forget the Global Warming Agenda bandwagon, which is FULL STEAM AHEAD! Obama wishes to repeal federal vehicle mileage mandates so individual states can set their bars... With the automotive industry in death gasps, is this the kind of thing that is REALLY going to help them right now?

And why does our new Secretary of State need a "Climate Change Envoy"????? Could it be because the sham of Anthropgenic Global Warming is the BS that is being planned to be shoved down our throats???? In much the same way that Bush shoved things down Dem's throats that they did not like?

Wow! What a start Obama!
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby MrPenny » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:50 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Given his own call for "new transparency in government" one would think that he would want to share with the people his plan for what he is going to do with all those alleged terrorists.... that is, if he HAD A PLAN (which he clearly does not).


One point I'd like to make....

The proper role of the President is that of an executive. The Executive Office does not need the "plan". The "goal" is established by the executive, and those who report to him develop and execute a plan to achieve that goal. Frankly, I don't care if Obama has a "plan", as long as those who report to him respond to the goal with some professionalism and efficiency. Now..if that goal is unreasonable or unattainable, I also expect the responsible people to establish the case for "why" it is not feasible. Otherwise, the executive sets the goal, points to the responsible people, and says, "do it." That scenario has one major component....in the event of the goal not being met, it keeps Obama insulated from the "plan", thus reducing any perceived failure on his part ("it wasn't my plan...I trusted those responsible to achieve my goals")....especially if no one with any authority or responsibility to fulfill the goal speaks up and reveals any problems.

Dubya took a lot of heat for his comment about being the "decider"....others have learned from that.
P.T. Barnum wouldn't stand a chance with this crowd.
User avatar
MrPenny
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:39 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:40 pm

Greetings MrPenny:

MrPenny wrote: That scenario has one major component....in the event of the goal not being met, it keeps Obama insulated from the "plan", thus reducing any perceived failure on his part ("it wasn't my plan...I trusted those responsible to achieve my goals")....especially if no one with any authority or responsibility to fulfill the goal speaks up and reveals any problems.


If that is the way Obama is gonna roll, then I definitely do NOT want him as my President!!! Have you ever heard the saying The Buck Stops Here?

"The buck stops here" is a phrase that was popularized by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who kept a sign with that phrase on his desk in the Oval Office. (Footage from Jimmy Carter's "malaise speech" shows the sign still on the desk during Carter's administration.) The phrase refers to "passing the buck," i.e., handing responsibility to someone else, and the fact that the president has to make the decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions.


But I understand the political game you are talking about. I just don't condone it. Yes, it is the executive's responsibility to set the goal, but in setting the goal I would expect all executives to want to know the potential pitfalls and issues to be addressed that result from taking such a decision. And given that Guantanamo was set up for several reasons that surround national security, I would think the new President would at least want to let people know what are going to happen to the thugs behind bars there. As it turned out, the President's political foes filled that gap for him and we now have a news story which relates how a released Guantanamo prisoner traveled to Iraq to become a "martyr".

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron