GoldenDogs

You know, many economists said Obama didn't go far enough with pumping money into the economy. I do know he wants to let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making 250,000 and above while continuing the break for the other 95% of the country, and republicans have taken the position that if the top tier do not get the breaks, no one will. This despite of record profits for the corporations and a greater amassing of wealth by the top percentile than at any time since the Depression. And we know how that worked out. His health care bill sucks, but he was not able to get what he wanted because republicans cried socialism and he caved.

You do know that the Bill Clinton you speak fondly of is the same Bill Clinton you undoubtedly wanted impeached, right? People who miss Bush are idiots. They miss perpetual war and Dick Cheney allowing oil companies to dictate policy? They miss the Atty General using his office to indict democratic candidates who dared oppose republicans? They miss cynical and phony Orange Alerts? Well, no one ever went broke underestimating the American People. What do they miss exactly?

Perpetual war? Last I checked, we're still at war. Obama has not ended our involvement in Afghanistan (which is probably a bigger mess than it ever was prior to his taking the reigns) and for all his high-minded talk, Guatanamo Bay still holds prisoners. Why? Because it just has to be that way and he has finally realized that... and we won't go into the failed policy of bringing war criminals here for a tour of our criminal justice system.

Just dumping money into the economy via stimulus didn't work when Bush foolishly did it, and Obama has magnified the failure several times over. Basic economics - it is funny money that can't be relied upon for long-term growth or capital. Here today, gone tomorrow... businesses don't hire people without some reasonable assurance that they won't have to fire them when the budget year is over. Business owners look long-term (which is why keeping tax cuts in place for everyone makes sense). As much as you and I must plan and budget for our home, so do business owners... and if they can COUNT on keeping more of their money and not shoveling it at the government, they can then consider how to grow their business (which always means a job and work for somebody in some form). The perception that the rich hoard their money and don't invest it back into the economy is ridiculous. Yes, of course these people seek to make more money - but do you think they plant it in their money garden and $100 bills grow up around them? Come on, they build and expand, and that always means more jobs for somebody. I'm far from rich but I don't begrudge those who have it, particularly those who invest it in the economy. They are businesspeople and that is what they do... They are consumers, like us. And when times are tight and they've got to give more up in fees, taxes, etc., they turn tight-fisted just like us. The difference is that when WE tighten OUR belt, we don't go out to lunch or buy the latest Wii game or Blu-ray movie or DVD... When the rich tighten THEIR belts, they don't hire anyone for their company or business. When THEY do that, you and I don't get hired.

Yeah, people miss Bush. He was humble and not arrogant. He wasn't perfect and didn't pretend to be, unlike Obama. You're right... Obama health care sucks, but how do you figure he didn't get what he wanted? The Democrats had ALL THE POWER to push through whatever they wanted... and they did! That's why they got their asses kicked in the election. Obama got EXACTLY what he wanted. It's weak to continue blaming Republicans or Bush for health care, the economy, or anything else going poorly right now. Obama has been in office for TWO YEARS now... TWO LONG YEARS with FULL CONTROL of both houses of Congress. At some point, the man and his party must accept responsiblity for their failures and the state of our nation today.

Oh, so you admit to unfairly and wrongly bashing the Democratic president then? So then, you made a poor vote when you declined to vote for Al Gore and instead opted for some dunce who bankrupted the country with his wars of revenge and choice?

Not at all... I just miss Presidential Presidents, not losers with no plan, no hope, and an uncanny ability to turn everything he touches to crap.

I never unfairly bashed Clinton back in the day... every criticism by me and everyone else of him was dead on. He was generally considered a smooth talker, a liar, and a perv in some circles. But he did (and still does) love America, cares for the people, and respected the office he held. Hillary would have, too, had she not been pushed aside by the party and the media. I don't agree with much of the Clinton agenda, frankly, but I have no concerns of an America in their hands. In fact, I believe the Democrats would still hold both houses of Congress if Hillary had been elected.

A poor vote when I declined to Vote for Gore? Hell no. Gore remains one of the biggest idiots ever to run for high office. And in case you haven't seen any recent polls, the number of people who would vote for Bush today vs. Obama is about equal. People DO actually miss Bush... especially after two nightmare years with Obama running the ship aground...

I long for a real President... don't you? Honestly, how can you defend Obama's record? Hell, pass over whatever it is you're smokin', dude! I want to be in your happy place, too...

It's basically just politics. I seem to remember Clinton being blamed by a whole lot of things by Republicans in power post-2000, from the economy, to 9/11.

Hey Carl...

From where I'm standing, I sure do miss Bill. I didn't always agree with him, but he knew how to bring everyone to the table and get things done. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't appreciate him then like I do now. And I'll be the first to admit that I miss him...

Are you serious? Equating gaffes like the special olympics, 57 states and middle east for centuries with confusing NORTH v SOUTH KOREA?! One set of comments hurt feelings or sound stupid, the other set of comments start wars and are unforgivably uninformed and internationally embarrassing.

Sarah Palin is a laughingstock. Obama's not perfect, but compared to Palin, he's Mother Teresa.

Are you serious? Still defending Obama? Give it up, "DaytimeFan"... Your President is a failure and has accomplished little to nothing. The so-called accomplishments he brags about are the very policy decisions that have crippled the Democratic party and made THEM a laughingstock. Democrats will not be in a majority in America for at least another 10 years (probably more) as a result of his arrogance, poor judgement, and questionable priorities. Throw in a little Pelosi and a pinch of Reid and you have a trainwreck the likes America hasn't seen in a generation or more. The liberal agenda is dead and you are in the minority. Blame Obama for that.

Democrats have had a lock on power in America for two years now and we have WHAT to show for it? The economy continues to crumble, more people out of work, etc. When two of three branches of government are OWNED by one party for two years, laying blame becomes pretty laughable.

Anyway, best wishes to you...

He's much better than Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin and that idiot George W. Bush, who once said "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." George W Bush, Townsend, Tennessee, 21st February 2001

Well, Scotty, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact is that the majority seems to agree with me on the issues and with politics in general. The election bears that out, eh?. I respect the office of the President, however I have little respect for the joke that currently occupies the office. Every time you and your ilk reach back to Bush in an attempt to prop up Obama, it screams of desparation and insecurity. Obama is a failure, as is the liberal agenda he espouses. Democrats lost control of the House because of his failures, and Republicans will capture the Senate and possibly the Presidency in two years because of his arrogance and refusal to listen and accept the will of the majority in America.

Wow....and to thank that this nitwit was thisclose to being only a heartbeat away from the presidency.

And I quote President Barack Obama:

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

And to think that THIS nitwit IS the President.

Just for fun, and because I haven't been around here in so long, I think I'll bump this thread with the following:

Barack Obama: Worst President EVER.

And this is exactly why I don't talk politics with you. After everything you have seen, you choose to look at one side and not both.

And my friend, it is that close mindedness that makes me not hear anything you have to say on the subject. Shame, really. If you were to actually see both sides, we could have meaningful discussions. But, once again, you choose not to do that.

A real pitty.

Okay, Roman... you are so right about everything. I am the merchant of disinformation and never research anything. I bow down to you, the king of all that is good and right. I promise to go to another sandbox... and to never play in yours again. I feel so puny... Best wishes, my friend.

Well, it looks like we're in for the first of what will likely be many ethical lapses on the part of Democrats, resulting in casualties amongst the leftist rank and file. First up, Nancy Pelosi.

This woman is a disgusting liar with little credibility to spare... Whatever reputation she made have had has been blown to bits with her antics over CIA briefings on waterboarding. This certainly isn't the sort of "change" we were to expect in the era of complete Democratic control in Washington.

What rationale... what excuses could possibly be offered in her defense? If any of my friends on the left here have something to offer here, I would love to hear it. If anyone here thinks this stupid twit should be thrown to the wolves, I would love to hear that, too. Do any of my left-leaning friends here feel comfortable trashing this extremely foolish hag?

Kind of dovetails with the above post regarding House ethics, etc., but what is your general feeling about Nancy Pelosi and her claim she didn't know about the waterboarding, yet it has not been revealed that she DID know about it. Memory lapse? Convenient forgetfulness? Dementia setting in?

Here is the story...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/house-majority-leader-congressional-hearings-explore-pelosis-interrogation/

Report: Aide Told Pelosi of Waterboarding Use

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, according to a report.

Howdy all...

Any thoughts on this story?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12...ries-lawmakers/

House Democrats Block Republican Effort to Force Ethics Inquiries of Several Lawmakers

This is a tough one. I know LAUSD is dependent on stimulus money to help with thier financial issues. I don't think this cut would take away money earmarked for education. It's hard to make a living here in sunny SoCal, especially LA. I haven't lived off of $10/hr in years. With the cost of everything down here a deduction in pay of $2/hr could hurt. (My kid make $12/hr at her job as an instructional assistant.) Not quite sure of how I feel about the "strings attached" issue with the stimulus, but those were in place when we accepted the money.

Education is in dire staits. Those four props all have to pass in order to make a slight difference. I'm not in agreement with them. It feels like a ponzi scheme to me. It's just moving money around to cover costs without generating any new revenue. The bottom line is that we have to find revenue to fund schools. The government gets revenue from taxes. No one wants higher taxes. But I look at it like this. The cost of everything has steadily gone up. We don't squawk about paying more for shoes, jeans, food etc., we pay. How can we expect good and services from the government without allowing for increases in taxes? While I don't relish paying more taxes, I understand that it might be necessary. It's a real quagmire.

Education needs to be a major priority along with health care. Children are our future and we need to prepare them for it. Maybe we need to overhaul our education system; more vocational and technical training so that our students will be able to meet the demands of the work force. I just know that we can't continue robbing peter to pay paul when it comes to education.

Thanks UCLAN... I have been waiting to hear from you on this one. Sounds like we're just about on the same page with this issue... There is more I want to say on this, but I better not -- not right now. But I have definite feelings about how to save some money and revitalize education...

Hmmmm. I know that there are rules when it comes to stimulus money - we have some of the same things happening here in FL. Gov. Crist is supposed to ask the Feds for an exception because one of the strings that comes with the money are the amount of cuts the legislature has made to state's budgets the last year or so.

I could go either way on this one. First of all, what makes you think that the stimulus money that will be rescinded is for education? I didn't read that in the article. They aren't taking it ALL back - just a portion. Maybe that portion of the money is tied to something other than education. Secondly, there is a part of me that thinks the Feds should not dictate to the state how to trim their budgets, even WITH the stimulus money.

Apparently I'm torn. So I'll just kick back and see how this plays out with everyone else.

Hey Greg... Actually, at stake is the entire stimulus package, a good portion of which is earmarked for education in the state. I was at an education conference in LA in mid-April and the discussion revolved around both the portion of the stimulus money they expected, as well as how to convince voters to vote for state ballot initiatives on May 19 that would funnel money into education.

And I agree with your comments with regard to strings attached to federal stimulus money... The feds (ie: Obama) needs to stay out of state affairs.

This one is up for grabs... I really want to hear UCLAN's feedback on this story, as I know she works in education in California, but I would also like everyone's opinion on this...

Education in California is heavily dependent right now not just on passage of statewide ballot initiatives funding education May 19, but also on the stimulus money to avoid deeper cuts across the state...

The Obama administration threatens to rescind billions in stimulus money if Gov. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.

Any thoughts on this LA Times story? With education said to be such a concern of Obama's, would he really deny California teachers and students necessary funding in order to shield union workers from the affects of the state's sour budget?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-he...0,4592200.story

If Reagan did stand up to Prop 6, then good for him. I didn't know that myself. I was, however, aware of his statement that he couldn't condone an "alternative" lifestyle. Not sure how that makes him a friend of gays.

>>hugs Greg, but is mindful of his boner and stands back about 2 feet<<

So, my friend... what has Obama done for the Gay and Lesbian community lately? Or, actually... What did he promise during the campaign?

And moving on to another topic... WHY HAVEN'T YOU MESSAGED ME??? I'm beginning to think you love Roman more than me. >>sniff<<

Lotta boners in this thread. :lol:

hat was just a very stupid way to ask a question, Greg. Brian wants to always bitch about no one giving him respectful debate, yet he ask me a question in a stupid ass manner and then bitches about why I won't answer it. This is after him spending all of his time telling me and you and others that the last 8 years were just WONDERFUL and that WE are the ones who got it all wrong. How is that when the Republican Party, the party he wants to always apologize for, now sits with a 23% approval rating? I posted material that had proof that some Republicans in Congress were beyond the pale. I still have yet to hear any response from Brian on that. Probably because he agrees with that crap. And Reagan being a friend to Gay Americans? WHEN? When he didn't even want to acknowledge that people were dying from AIDS because they happen to be Gay?!

This revisionist history from Brian really makes him look bad.........and makes me laugh my ass off.

Revisionist history? Puh-lease... I never said how WONDERFUL (in all caps, mind you) the last 8 years were. The key to the last 8 years is that Bush kept us safe from another attack. Will Obama? I have my doubts. I had big issues with Mr. Bush and some of his policies and I have stated it time and time again (a lot more objective than you and your 3 incher for Obama) -- or did you not read those posts? Probably not... because I posted it in English rather than Roman's language of Lame.

I don't respond to your links, Roman, because you don't respond (at least in any intelligent way) to stuff I post. I would love to engage you in intelligent debate and pleasant conversation, but you are too busy spankin' it to Obama pictures that you don't have time for anything else.

Dude, wash your hands when you're done. And why are you so angry, anyways? Did you get your ass beat a lot in school or something? If so, I'm sorry about that... must be painful to live with that, then have your ass verbally beat regularly in the forum here.

<<hugs and kisses>>

Ooooo... the most interesting article of the day!!

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jtsimpso...ays-than-obama/

Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama

As to my being the 3rd party PRES that you previously posted, well that would be a first....I would be the first black woman president. I don't think our country is ready for me, Steve Frame and you, GD. We would definitely be a force to be reckoned with

Ohhhhh, we'd make them be ready for us! Contrasting views, healthy debate... We don't always agree, UCLAN, but you had my vote from day one! I don't know where Steve lives, but if he isn't a Californian, he should fly out and do lunch with us. I bet it would be fun!!

Once again, you have it wrong. My BONER started the night of November 4th, 2008, and it'll stay hard for the next 4 years.

Also, see how the clown who engineered that stupid fly over got canned? Hmm. Seems in the previous admin., that very same person would have been told "You doing a heckava job!"

Now, Brian, the next time you ask me a question, and want my honest opinion, try leaving out the BS smart ass crap, and then I'll answer it (that is, if you actually interested in hearing an opinion that disagrees with yours).

I'm actually interested in hearing from someone who actually knows their ass from a hole in the ground.

I'll stick with UCLAN, Steve, Greg... hell, the list of thoughtful, provocative posters goes on and on... but sadly stops with you.

>>kisses<<

And your boner for trashing good Presidents like Obama and Bill Clinton must be a short one, lol!! the W/Cheney adminstration is one of the worst administrations to ever serve offic. In fact, CORRECTION, it was the worst!

Your boner for Obama -- calling him a good President after only a little more than 100 days -- indicates you have no clue what's good or bad or otherwise. Just as I've been told to wait to cast judgement on his legacy since he's only served 100 days, then you need to wait to extoll his virtues until he's actually been in office for at least... ohhhh... six months??

Howard Dean on MSNBC...

“I think we’ve had quite enough capitalism in the last eight years."

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/howard-dean-h...h-of-capitalism

Okay, so we've suspected for a while that socialism lurks... Is this proof, friends, that there are some in the Democratic party that embrace that big of a move left? I wonder...

I think President Obama is making some positive steps regarding the budget. Of course, the right is critical of it already. I wonder, where was all this fiscal responsibility when they were in control?

Obama wants to trim $17B from budget

And this article I found interesting. Seems some of my ilk are getting a little impatient about the President moving on issues of importance to the LGBT community. It's been what, 5 months?!?!?! Give him a chance, people!

Obama pressed to engage on gay issues

Thoughts?

With regard to the budget, I personally feel proposed cuts amounting to less than one-half of 1 percent of his $3.6 trillion federal budget outline is but for show and spectacle... because it is but a little raindrop in the freakin Pacific Ocean. If he's serious, cool, at least he's conscious of how deep a hole we're in. If he's not serious, at least he's still coscious of how deep a hole we're in and is attempting to pacify those who have no clue how much money he is shoveling down the shitter.

With regard to the impatience of those of your ilk, Greg... I would say I agree. He hasn't given the black community much at this point either, though, so I'm guessing if he doesn't start addressing issues of ANY group that help elect him, he's in deep doo-doo.

But Brian, are you willing to allow for more spending to fix some of these problems in our own backyard? President Obama is proposing some additional domestic spending initiatives, and some of the stimulus money to the states might improve the problems. However, when there are Republican Govenors refusing stimulus cash and general reluctance from Republicans on more spending, how do you propose we fix the problems?

I am not willing to allow for more spending on anything at this point. Obama has already pissed off a shitload of money (that we don't have) and dug us into a deeper hole than Bush could have ever dreamt of digging. Besides, the problem with much of Obama's handouts is that they come with strings attached... And President Obama's hands are already in too many cookie jars.

If I were in public office, I would have done the same thing and we all know how I feel about the issue. Shocked? I hope not.

Not shocked at all. You have demonstrated time and time again that you respect the will of the people, even when you don't like it.

I think it's quite clear he's on Israel's "side".

I'm glad it's clear to you. Even suggesting such a plan seems rather naive to me... as IF North Korea would play by the rules. What-EVEH!

Not all Islamists believe in the destruction of the United States.

No, not all. But it seems as if MOST do.

The lawmakers that voted for this day are smokin' crack IMHO.

Hell yeah... >>high fives<<

Same question that was asked of GWB and "DICK" Cheney for 8 years. Horrible we never got an answer.

Oh, sorry. Yes we did. Bush was an idiot who didn't KNOW whose side he was on, and Cheney was too busy torturing people.

Sorry.

Your boner for trashing an administration out of office notwithstanding, what is your actual opinion on the issue, Roman?

This is one of Obama's more scary policy moves...

President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.

So, let's see... Mr. Obama will demand Israel stand down and give up their nukes... Mr. Obama expects ISRAEL to follow the rules. However, Iran has yet to follow rules. My question is, wouldn't this leave Israel vulnerable to hostile states surrounding them? It reminds me of the old "Who wants to volunteer?" act... and everyone steps backward, leaving an unwitting and unwilling party standing out from the rest.

This can't happen. If Obama were to push this issue with Netanyahu, I'm sure he would be told to "[!@#$%^&*] off" in the nicest possible terms. But that Obama would even ask... Ummm... whose SIDE IS HE ON???

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/0...se-nukes/print/ for the straight dope.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/06/obam...-give-up-nukes/ for right-leaning commentary.