Actually, I don't agree with that. During the election, I spent more time debating issues at hand that encouraging people vote Republican. I can't recall a time I ever encouraged, say, Roman for example, to vote Republican. Why would I waste my breath?

I don't know why you would waste your breath. But the fact remains that you did give partisan Dems quite a bit of flack during the election. And now you say you're partisan. Why is it OK for you and not for someone on the left?

I wouldn't agree with that, either. My standards for Bush were never met and I have often made that a big deal. The man with an ® behind his name failed. However, the man with an ® behind his name did not campaign on a platform of "CHANGE". Tax cheaters galore, worsening economic outlook, skyrocketing debt thanks to the porkulus, government takeover of the banking and auto industries, mandatory community service for all young people (the Obama Youth Corp?), failure to keep his promise on bringing troops home, turning US foreign policy into a joke, etc. In addition to doing everything BUT "CHANGE", I see some scary socialistic items on Obama's agenda. I didn't set higher standards for Obama... Obama did. And he has failed to meet them.

He has started changing things. He HAS set a timeline to bring the troops home. Is it within the 18 months he said on the campaign trail? No. But he always said that he would evaluate that when he took office WITH the help of the JCS and the generals on the ground. Supposedly, the military thought they needed a little longer and Obama respected that. Hence, the pullout is delayed a little longer. How can you argue with that.

Other changes - Stem cell research, rollback of GWB's horrendous environmental regulations, signing statements. There are others.

Just for the record. "worsening economic outlook" can't be attributed to Obama's policies. This is the result of 8 years of Republican rule. The takeover of the auto and banking industries began (again) under Republicans. It wasn't even an issue during the campaign because the Paulson "bailout" had not yet happened.

You will have to explain yourself regarding Obama turning foreign policy into a "joke" after only 60 days in office. Nothing compares to the foreign policy damage done under the previous administration.

Actually, I will say that the Reagan and Clinton Administrations did quite well for themselves. I think both can be termed as successful and I personally regard them as having performed to their highest levels of competency. Prosperious times... America was secure... I don't feel so secure today. And I don't feel the greatest threat to America now is external.

I can't rightly remember Reagan's first 100 days in office to speak to if he had any missteps. I was 13 years old and didn't pay much attention. However, I can say that Clinton stumbled miserably during his 100 days in office with health care, Nanny problems with his nominations and gays in the military. I do, however, agree that his administration did perform at high levels of compentency after the first year or so. Surely you aren't comparing Obama's little over 60 days to Clinton and Reagan's 8 years????

And my condolences on the news of GL's cancellation. I honestly can say that I'm not surprised as I predicted this... Next to fall will be DAYS... then ABC will follow suit by cancelling either AMC or OLTL. At this point, I'm leaning heavily toward AMC. I believe the industry has held its collective breath for a while now... but with the ax having finally fallen on the vintage crown jewel of daytime (though tarnished the last year or two), the rest will start falling like dominoes...

Thanks buddy. I can't say that I was the BIGGEST fan of GL over the last year or so. Or of what EW has done to my show. But the show has given me so many wonderful memories. It was the first soap that I started watching on a regular basis after staying home sick from school one day. And I watched it ever since...31 years now. It will be very hard to see it go after all this time. And I'm afraid you're right about the other soaps. I hope that doesn't happen, but now that the "vintage crown jewel" of daytime - as you put it so well - it will probably lower TPTBs inhibitions about canceling other shows.

Did you watch the show at any time? What is your soap, Brian?

Reagan had a good first 100 days. Clinton's first 100 days were terrible. In fact, he didn't find his footing until after the miden-term elections (1994) and the Republican landslide. Bush had a horrible first 100 days. Obama's first 100 days haven't been bad. He's accomplished things. You can bitch about what he has done. He has done exactly what he said he would. That is just like Reagan. I personally thought Reagan's policies did a great deal of harm. Yet he didn't do anything that he didn't tell the American people he was going to do during the campaign.

Now, GD, I can also argue I spent more time debating issues during the general election than touting a candidate. However, there was not doubt I was supporting the Democrat, just as there was no doubt your were supporting the Republican. :lol: In fact, I believe we both made it clear that we had wasted our votes in our home states. You voted McCain in California and I voted Obama in Texas.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ha...y-gotten-wise-m

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf

Interesting... Couple this with a revived "Fairness Doctrine" and I wonder how the news and information landscape might change under President Obama... Mix in a little "Mandatory Community Service" and we have interesting developments in America today.

However, not as interesting as wiretaps that were intially sold to the American public as only to be used against terrorists. In actuality, every American was subject to such wiretaps. Why did they feel the need to hide this from everyone?

It's funny how all this "outrage" concerning presidential authority was absent during the last 8 years. And now, all of a sudden, it's a problem. Mind you, the last 8 years saw was historically the period that saw the president - and VP - gain more power than in the HISTORY of the USA.

And NOW it's a problem? GMAMFB.

However, not as interesting as wiretaps that were intially sold to the American public as only to be used against terrorists. In actuality, every American was subject to such wiretaps. Why did they feel the need to hide this from everyone?

It's funny how all this "outrage" concerning presidential authority was absent during the last 8 years. And now, all of a sudden, it's a problem. Mind you, the last 8 years saw was historically the period that saw the president - and VP - gain more power than in the HISTORY of the USA.

And NOW it's a problem? GMAMFB.

[/quote

ITA Greg,GMAMFB. I read the bill (thanks for the link GD). It isn't as scary as it seems. It calls for setting up a cybersecurity panel to oversee possible breeches in security. It calls for recruiting and training those who have an affinity for working with computers. (lots of grants to advance education in the field). It mentions (in one section of a 51 page bill) of the president's ability to call a cyber emergency. The context I took it in was if there was a breech in the government and those private entities dealing with the government. I didn't read as a blanket type of deal. I'm curious as to where the quote came from; it's not the wording in the bill. The bill has lots of oversight written into it. Secretary of Commerce needs to report to Congress.

As for the mandatory community service, here in L.A. most high schools, public and private, require community service, volunteerism, service learning etc, as a requirement for graduation. Most parents I know guide their children in to giving back. Both of my daughters volunteered at the local elementary school's summer enrichment programs throughout their entire high school years. Is there really a problem with community service? (Peace Corp, VISTA, Teach for America) These programs have existed for years.

However, not as interesting as wiretaps that were intially sold to the American public as only to be used against terrorists. In actuality, every American was subject to such wiretaps. Why did they feel the need to hide this from everyone?

It's funny how all this "outrage" concerning presidential authority was absent during the last 8 years. And now, all of a sudden, it's a problem. Mind you, the last 8 years saw was historically the period that saw the president - and VP - gain more power than in the HISTORY of the USA.

And NOW it's a problem? GMAMFB.

It's a huge problem when it inches us closer to socialism, unless, of course, you desire that far left a move.

I don't.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/b...oes_go_on_a_bit

And on an unrelated note, it seems the Brits are ready for Obama to go home. There was only one "Great Communicator", and Obama it ain't.

Is there really a problem with community service? (Peace Corp, VISTA, Teach for America) These programs have existed for years.

Yes, there IS a problem with community service when you are required to complete it not of your own free will.

Yes, there IS a problem with community service when you are required to complete it not of your own free will.

Well what about the judical system? Many are sentenced with community service hours as a form of restitution. That's totally required. One doesn't have a choice in that. What about the high school requirement for service. In essence you don't have a choice there if you want to graduate.

When I first read your post about the cyberspace act, it tweeked my radar. I had lots of concerns about it, so I read the bill. What was in the bill isn't remotley close to what you quoted. Yes, it does give the President the ability to call a cyber emergency, but not in the context that the quote implied. There is also much more to this bill than was alluded to in your quote. Again, I'd like to know the source of the quote. It would give me a better perspective.

I don't see this bill as socialist. As a matter of fact in the context of your quote, it appears facist.

I'm not sure as to why you believe we are moving to the left. Pres Obama is just a little left of center. He comes across as very pragmatic. Like I said before, we differ cause he mulit-tasks alot. I'm not good at that, he is. He's an excellent listener and has a vision he wants to achieve. It obviously is not your vision. But are we on a highway to hell? No, I don't think so. I think that we are slowly recovering and making our way back to a country where everyone feels they have a say.

Yes, there IS a problem with community service when you are required to complete it not of your own free will.

The one way one doesn't have to do CS? Don't do dumb [!@#$%^&*] in the first place. You have something against doing CS when you get arrested for doing something stupid?

The one way one doesn't have to do CS? Don't do dumb [!@#$%^&*] in the first place. You have something against doing CS when you get arrested for doing something stupid?

Ummm, actually no, Roman. I wasn't speaking of court-ordered community service. I'm discussing mandatory community service as imposed upon us by the Obama Administration.

UCLAN, as to your comments regarded court-ordered community service, it is a shame it is regarded as a punishment -- helping others. But when a judge orders it, a person serves it. However, I don't agree it should be imposed upon students. There are already many clubs in high school where students do positive work in the community... why give them yet ANOTHER requirement to meet for graduation? Are we not disgusted with the requirements No Child Left Behind has imposed upon teachers and students? Let's not burden them more with some ridiculous community service requirement... it's ridiculous.

Brian, why don't you provide a link to this information that does notr come from some site you frequent. Sorry, sir, but you make alot of statements and never seem to back them up with anything. Just you one-sided view on things.

Ummm, actually no, Roman. I wasn't speaking of court-ordered community service. I'm discussing mandatory community service as imposed upon us by the Obama Administration.

UCLAN, as to your comments regarded court-ordered community service, it is a shame it is regarded as a punishment -- helping others. But when a judge orders it, a person serves it. However, I don't agree it should be imposed upon students. There are already many clubs in high school where students do positive work in the community... why give them yet ANOTHER requirement to meet for graduation? Are we not disgusted with the requirements No Child Left Behind has imposed upon teachers and students? Let's not burden them more with some ridiculous community service requirement... it's ridiculous.

Well, being in education, I see the value of a service learning requirement. Granted, there are many clubs in hs, but the majority are not service oriented. At my school, we have an annual canned food drive for our local senior center. The drive is coordinated and run by our graduating seniors, thus they earn their service learning credit. Many times you need to bring the horse to the water. Many of our students wouldn't think about doing something like this unless they were exposed to the opportunity. Yes it is a shame that courts order community service as restitution. As far as I can remember, service requirements for HS were in place long before NCLB (late 80s early 90s George 1's thousand points of light)

Well, being in education, I see the value of a service learning requirement. Granted, there are many clubs in hs, but the majority are not service oriented. At my school, we have an annual canned food drive for our local senior center. The drive is coordinated and run by our graduating seniors, thus they earn their service learning credit. Many times you need to bring the horse to the water. Many of our students wouldn't think about doing something like this unless they were exposed to the opportunity. Yes it is a shame that courts order community service as restitution. As far as I can remember, service requirements for HS were in place long before NCLB (late 80s early 90s George 1's thousand points of light)

Thanks for pointing that out, UCLAN. Let's play a little game called "What if...."

WHAT IF Obama parted the Red Sea?

Brian : "Why is he RUINING the environment?!?!?!"

WHAT IF Obama achieved peace in the Middle East?

Brian : "Obama is cowtowing to terrorists!!!!"

WHAT IF Obama balanced the budget?

Brian : "It's the policies of the past 8 years of Republican rule that balanced the budget"

WHAT IF Obama made health care affordable to ALL Americans?

Brian : "SOCIALIST!"

I know you can take a joke, Bri. Just thought I'd lighten things up a little. How have you been buddy? Look for an email from me in the next couple days.

Brian, why don't you provide a link to this information that does notr come from some site you frequent. Sorry, sir, but you make alot of statements and never seem to back them up with anything. Just you one-sided view on things.

Hi Roman!

What information are you referring to that needs some backup reference? If you like, I can try to excerpt some stuff from the "crooks and liars" website you like to like to, if you find that more reliable...