»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
While We Suffer
| The Alley |
|
While We Suffer |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
quote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23988 |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
McCartney probably got paid extra for the Bush bash.. |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
My opinion as a Canadian is that I absolutely hate that paper, and I am sure I could find you lots more that would agree with me. The Library of Congress has only made two other such awards, that being Paul Simon, and Stevie Wonder in this category. The entertainers are not paid, as this is considered a freebie, by A.C.T.R.A., and most of the cost of the venue is also covered by PBS, as they re-broadcast these as fund-raisers, usually the last week of July, at least up here. I would think it cheaper to bring them all to the White House where they already have the venue space, most of the equipment needed, and a lot of other things needed to pull off such a ceremony, instead of paying for it all to take place somewhere else, as in Graceland as was with Paul Simon. I think this is saving money for an annual event instead of over spending. Perhaps eliminate the award? Surly there is a form for that too? I just wish I had been invited. I think there will always be those who have less than others in America. This is the land of free enterprise. I found a link - you can watch it on PBS - July 28th, seeing we can't afford a ticket.  FOX NEWSI will just disagree and run out of here.  Just my opinion. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"I think there will always be those who have less than others in America. This is the land of free enterprise." True enough....for now. |
||
|
N|D|N|C|Lost-Poet Member
since 2009-07-30
Posts 360New Orleans |
Doesn't matter where you live, someone will always have more then you. Its only up to you whether you decide that's better or worse. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They can party like rock stars all they want, just don't do it on the taxpayer's dime. In financial times like this they should use the funds from their private stash of cash to party hardy. 27 concerrts in 17 months? That's a bit much by anyone's standards I would think. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You make the assumption "that it's all on the taxpayer's dime." You may even be right about the assumption. But it is an assumption based on an assumption voiced in the paper you quoted. I don't see any research to back this assumption up, merely a naked accusation and a smear without supporting facts. What information do you have that substantiates that taxpayers at large pay for these concerts? What is the source of the facts you have to offer? Some GAO audit? A budget item that says that this is the case? There is a yearly Prayer Breakfast to which the President is invited and for which the taxpayers do not pay — not all activities the President attends are funded by the President, you know, yet in this case, as in many other cases you assumption is that he has not only funded the event, but that he has managed to do so at public expense. Possibly true, possibly not, but it seems to me to assert that it is true without proof from a reliable source that it is true leaves a great deal to be desired by way of filling the burden of proof. Should you feel that you have any burden of proof to meet at all. In terms of "While we Suffer," by the way, do you think that BP stockholders should be paid any dividends at all until the losses to the folks in the Gulf states are made whole by BP? It seems the suffering there is much less hypothetical and much more directly connected than the link that you are trying to establish in this case. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The part that really bothered me was still the McCartney comment. Yes, I'm sure some of you will claim simply that it's because it was against Bush but I view it as deeper than that. You would have to look very hard to find a more ardent admirer than I of the Beatles and even Wings. His comments, though, leave me with no feeling for him whatsoever. To come to the US as an invited guest, stand on an American stage, speak to an American audience and use that to belittle a past American president, in front of another American president, is in poor taste, in my opinion. One might even hope that Obama would take the knight of the British Empire aside and softly tell him that his insulting an American president on a public stage was out of line. Instead, Obama laughed along with him, which shows the lack of class in both of them. There are those who say (especially in Obama's case) that, if you can't respect the man, respect the office. McCartney did neither. Being Americans, we have more leeway just as McCartney would if he were bashing the Queen or Prime Minister of England while there. It would not be appropriate for us to be invited to a televised event in England and use it to berate any past or present leader of the country in a derrogatory manner. Brits have always been know for their civility and manners. McCartney has damaged that, in my eyes. As far as Obama is concerned, he degraded both himself and the office by condoning it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're still trying to find reasons to silence people, Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Ron, it's a matter of taste, respect and common decency. For McCartney to do it showed bad taste. To have the Democrats applaud it shows the same lack of class they displayed while giving the president of Mexico a standing ovation for bad-mouthing Arizona. Apparently, national pride is becoming an endangered species under this administration. It's obviously easier to simply keep apologizing to the world for what we are. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well, Bob, the article states that the White House won't even release the exact costs of the functions, let alone if any of the costs are paid for by the Obamas' personally out of their own pockets. For us to be able to know definitively, that most transparent administration since the beginning of time will have to cooperate and release the information. If I were a betting person I'd bet that won't happen and also that the taxpayers are footing the entire bill. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I agree, Michael, that McCartney disgraced himself by his comments considering the setting he was in when he made them. I was glad that Seinfeld showed some class and didn't laugh when McCartney made them because then I'd have to boycott both of them! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Geez, give Paul a break. He’s an entertainer not a career diplomat or head of state. The library thing was a joke, not a diplomatic faux pas like groping Chancellor Merkel or winking at the Queen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I agree as well that it was unbecoming and rude. If he had made such a joke at an event that he were holding or in some book he wrote, or at some interview, etc, it wouldn't be as difficult to overlook. But at a special event right at the White House and in front of the president himself? I don't see how anyone may think that was appropriate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Ess. I agree. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
United fans, right? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Three Americans and three scousers are traveling by train. At the station, the three Americans each buy tickets and watch as the three scousers buy only a single ticket. "How are three people going to travel on only one ticket?" asked an American. "Watch" answers a scouser. They all board the train. The Americans take their respective seats but all three scousers cram into the toilet and close the door behind them. Shortly after the train departs, the conductor comes around collecting tickets. He knocks on the toilet door and says, "Ticket, please." The door opens just a crack and a single arm emerges with a ticket in hand. The conductor takes it and moves on. The Americans saw this and agreed it was quite a clever idea. So, on the return trip, the Americans decide to copy the scousers on the return trip and save some money. When they get to the station, they buy a single ticket for the return trip. To their astonishment, the scousers don't buy a ticket at all. "How are you going to travel without a ticket," asks one perplexed American. "Watch" says a scouser. When they board the train the three Americans cram into a toilet and the three scousers cram into another one nearby. The train departs. Shortly afterward, one of the scousers leaves his toilet and walks over to the toilet where the Americans are hiding. He knocks on the door and says, "Ticket, please". |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Denise, I am so sorry. I had no clue that things were so bad. Please trust I don't mean that facetiously, either. Your post happened to touch on something I have been wondering about for a long time, though. I've wondered long before an oil spill, long before Katrina, long before the word "bling" was introduced to our updated Merriam-Webster dictionary, what exactly is the role of "potlatch" ostentation in politics, in religion, in just "keeping up with the Joneses"... It's just a thought, just a query into philosophy, but I have to ask, where is the middle line drawn for political correctness? Do we really want the President to serve chex mix and beanie weenies to our guests? Should we impose a fiscal budget on state dinners and such, or would that be an admission that we are failing economically as a nation if we served up chickes (<--chicken wings--edited for clarity) and hot sauce? I'm a very sad Karen these days, and I promise you I don't ask the question as a political dig--just looking for honest answers on how much we should gild our lilies for the sake of propriety. Like you, I wonder how much is too much--do we still have a reputation to preserve as one of the richest, if not THE richest (and most powerful nation) on the planet? I ask in all sincerity, what is the political etiquette? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I apologize for the typos. I'm still waiting for my pc ship to come in...sigh. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
In Performance at the White House "In Performance at the White House" has been produced by WETA since 1978 and spans every administration since President Carter's. The series began with an East Room recital by the legendary pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Since then, "In Performance at the White House" has embraced virtually every genre of American performance: pop, country, gospel, jazz, blues, theatre and dance among them. The series was created to showcase the rich fabric of American culture in the setting of the nation's most famous home. Past programs have showcased such talent as cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, dancer/choreographer Mikhail Baryshnikov, country music singer Merle Haggard, the United States Marine Band, soul singer Aretha Franklin, leading Broadway performers, and the Dance Theatre of Harlem.” “Corporate funding for the program is provided by U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management; Pepsi-Cola; and EastOne Group. Foundation support is provided by The Annenberg Foundation and Pritzker Traubert Family Foundation. Individual support is from Cari and Michael J. Sacks. Major funding is also provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and public television viewers. Air travel is generously provided by American Airlines.” |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
There you go, Denise, and you so tireless in pursuit of research on other topics; why would you let a little dead end bother you on something like this? And of course your inability to discover facts in support of your position is the President's fault. Getting your facts from well respected sources the way you have here there must be confirmations lying strewn about the landscape that you have simply forgone despite the fact that your position has been that the accusor must supply the facts. Why not simply supply the facts from a decent source or say that you haven't been able to do so without trying to suggest that you haven't been able to come up with a real confirmation and without trying to blame that on uing a source that didn't offer enough data for you to confim in the first place. The data they offer is suspect. Many people consider it an honor to play at the White House. Depending on the President, you might, too. The President is voted a yearly budget for entertainment and various other necessities by Congress. White House entertaining is part of the business of the country in the same way that it's part of the business of business. During your Administration, we may do things differently. Maybe the opposition in the Senate and Copngress will come to your pot luck dinners and do it yourself talent shows in droves, happy to listen to each other sing or stop singing. You might consider the cost of the President having the NRA over for dinner at the White House to discuss a little of this and that, or of having the Russians and the Chinese over for lunch and dinner for a week to talk about arms deals. We're actually talking about running a country here. If you want to save money, why not stop giving it away to billionaires? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you both for the info. I am still comp-limited (and still intellectually lazy) but I did find this post confusng, as I'd recently watched Former First Lady Bush proclaim with some pride on Oprah that--gasp--the 'fact' that the first Family pays for their own foods. (seriously) I wondered at the time if that included State Dinners and such (call me Karenoid, but I was suspicious)  I dunno. I'm weary. I'm stressed. And I'm sicker of me than ya'll are...but thanks. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I really don't know where the line would be drawn Karen. But I've never been one to 'keep up with the Joneses'. And I realize that some functions are necessary for the hosing of dignitaries. I just think some restraint should be shown out of respect for all the suffering people during these hard economic times. I'm almost positive that Laura Bush meant they paid for the food for their own private meals and not State Dinners. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Denise... You are genuinely helpful. I'm wondering though. Is there a public record of such things? I'm blatantly ignorant of our elected officials salaries, expenses, etc. and I would really like to keep a better eye on Louisiana's own, so if you, or someone else knows of an online record of such stuff, I'd certainly appreciate a helpful directive. Don't you think that would help to keep everybody on their toes? I mean, I KNOW if everybody knew how much I spent at the corner store, I'd probably spend a lot less. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I’m poorer than a church mouse, dealing with medical problems, battling depression, etc., etc, as many others are, so if Pepsi and the other sponsors are willing to foot the bill for a gala (as they did and will) featuring world class entertainers that lifts my spirits, cheers up the suffering folk when viewing it (for free!), then why not let it be? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: So another article that was a big lie? Can't people do a little research and confirm an issue before they post in the spirit of treating it as substantial or true? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not necessarily, Ess. We don't know how many of these 27 concerts were actually "In Performance at the White House" affairs underwritten by corporate sponsors, or even how much of those costs, when they are, are underwritten by the corporations. I haven't been able to find a breakdown of how much is paid by the corporations for these things and how much by the taxpayers, I would assume the corporations pay for the expenses of the entertainment personality and maybe their entourage. I doubt they pay for the food, drinks, security, etc. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Oh Jenn...this is one of those times that I hate the distance between our screens. I wish I could "beam" you here, somehow. My neighbors are generous with their pool, and I can't say for sure how things are elsewhere, but here? There are musicians in every other house, our people know how to cook, and I do mean COOK. Our jokes are tired at times, but the improv makes up for that. I do wish you were here. Sure it's hot, but a few shots of cuervo (especially for you, since I'm not allowed) and some cannonball off the deck? I've said it many times, but we really are a bunch of hobbits. Ths culture cannot, will not die. And to my lovely friend, Denise--I know it's just a mind game of comparisons I play to make me feel better, but honestly, on the whole, I'd rather not be in Africa--where decades of genocide are so commonplace that it does not even make the evening news... I do love my country and the legacy I have inherited. I do not love certain moments, though. *peace*peace*peace* please  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Sounds like a plan, Karen, thanks! Me too, very grateful to live in this wonderful country no matter who’s sleeping in the White House. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I hope the country that we love does survive, Karen, I truly hope you are right. To see that it does we have to be vigilint to protect it from folks who want to 'level the playing field', so to speak, by redistributing our wealth, not only here, but globally. The standard of living of the third world countries won't rise to match ours in this scheme; ours will decrease to match theirs. And nobody wins but the power brokers and elites (those in government and 'private industry') of the world. We will become just another third world country and if that happens we may just as well be in Africa. *liberty* *prosperity* *peace* I don't worry about who's sleeping in the White House, Jen. I worry about those times when he isn't sleeping! *spelling and grammar used to be my strong suit* [This message has been edited by Denise (06-10-2010 08:36 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I know it's not as exciting in the original posting to say all these things, Denise. And I suspect that when you did the original posting, you hadn't actually thought about this sort of stuff and were probably too upset about the statements and claims in the original article to be much concerned about them. The people who published the original article should have covered those bases in the original article for you. You were left hanging in the wind by people who were interested in a good lead and a good headline and not with the reality to back that sort of stuff up. Some of your assumptions may be absolutely true. The fact that I don't happen to think so merely makes me a Democrat and doesn't make me right. I admit that. But your sources are treating you badly because they aren't giving you the extra details that you need about stuff like this, and that's unfair to you. They have you repeating allegations that they haven't shown you evidence to back up. Even if the Bushes paid for the cost of their own family food , and it's a great story and may even be true, do your really think that makes much of a difference? The First Lady, should she be foolish enough to go out shopping for that food herself, would risk the lives of several Presidential Protection agents from the Secret Service without a lot of justification other than saving a few hundred back a week. Do you really think that's worth it? The possibility that she may be assassinated or others may die protecting her so she can buy groceries for the family? And do you really think that the food that's bought for the White house all comes from one particular store on a predictable schedule? I don't think so. I think they probably have to buy a great deal of many varieties of food for safety, in case somebody was trying to poison one or more members of that family, so that several different versions of several different meals would have to be prepared, simply for safety. Again, the secret service would have to vet the vendors and potential vendors and the cooks. Do you understand the cost and the risks involved in the security alone? We're not simply talking about the cost of five or six meals here; the first family couldn't even begin to cover the cost, given the security and safety questions involved. If there's company, the whole things complicates itself astronomically. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Right-wing blogosphere, where tabloids serve as credible news sources" “This is what it has come to. The right-wing is so desperate to attack Obama that they'll actually resort to citing tabloids as credible research.” http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006080004 .................................... “President Barack Obama has blown $10 million on drunken White House parties” http://www.globemagazine.com/story/454 http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/0608-globecover.jpg |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Facts can come from the most unusual sources, even tabloids. A good example of that would be the National Enquirer, which broke the story of John Edwards affair and love child. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the Obama White House has held 27 concerts in 17 months. What is fuzzy is what the breakdown of the costs are, what is underwritten by corporations and what comes out of the taxpayers' pocket (and yes, Bob, the annual entertainment allowance afforded Obama by Congress does come out of the taxpayers' pocket). If the White House refuses to release details then it will remain an unknown. But any expenditure that isn't necessary in this economic climate is wasteful, and I believe that a bit of restraint should be shown out of respect for all those 'regular folks' who are suffering. Maybe cut it down to one party a month, or one party every other month, that's all. And maybe the entertainment budget would then have a surplus which could be used to reduce the deficit. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the Obama White House has held 27 concerts in 17 months." If I do can you list them? Working on trying to figure out how to send you those 47 copy and paste pages of the discussion draft, Denise. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not really, Denise. If you want to cut the deficit, cut the tax cuts to the wealthy, which actually loose the government and the treasury money. Not the entertainment budget, which is approved by congress for a purpose. If you don't like that, then you might try writing some of your representatives and ask why they have voted for the budget that includes this money, not only during this administration, but, say, during the period of the first Bush recession, or the Reagan recession and stagflation period or at other periods of time when the economy was either up or down. I suspect the amount is small compared to the tax cuts for billionaires. You are right that the congress votes taxpayer moneys for entertainment, but you haven't said how much is spent, nor have you said how much is spent from private sources, so your insinuations of profligacy are themselves profligate and based on lack of knowledge. Near as I can tell, your source thus far has been information I've supplied saying that congress budgeted money for entertainment. You haven't really done any research at all in support of your claim; or if you have, you have yet to offer it with any attributions. After all, I'm reasonably clear what I said. And according to your rules, you're the one who should be supporting your assertion with facts. I'm willing to believe there may be some, I'm simply curious about what they may be. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I can't know how much is spent, Bob, if the White House won't release that information. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You would certainly have the information to write about that, then, wouldn't you? Think of how much was written about the information V.P. Cheney didn't re;lease about his energy policy conference at the beginning of the first Bush administration to good effect. The more Cheney kept quiet, the worse he looked. Even today. You can write about how quiet today's White house is being about entertainment expenditures with perfect justification, so long as you keep your focus on that story, about which you do have information, and which makes the President look hinky. You have a right to do that (as you do about this story, as well, but without facts here, your point doesn't seem as solid) and you have information about that on an ongoing basis. It's a solid hook into a real story, that accomplishes much the same as the one that piqued your interest in the first place. Except this is probably where he's a bit weaker. I don't know for sure. It might be worth thinking about, anyway. Unless there are other places where you could get information about what money the president spends on entertainment and how it comes in. Would there be some sort of tax trail on the part of the people making donations. Would this show up on the President's tax return. What does he have to declare? I guess it depends on how interested you are in following up on the facts of this sort of thing to see what the facts really are? Depending on how you're put together, it could be a fascinating puzzle or it could be a terrible bore. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I do have a full time job, Bob. My time is limited. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Terrible bore it is, then, Denise. Nobody said anything about time deadlines, you know, only about relative importance to you. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not at all, Bob. If I had that kind of time to get involved in that level of investigation, with not even having a clue on how to go about obtaining some of the information needed like tax record trails, etc., I might add, I'd jump in with both feet. But what would be the point in the end? To find out the extent to which taxpayer money is being wasted? It's enough for me to know that any of it is being wasted at all. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
You mentioned “Obama White House has held 27 concerts in 17 months” several times, Denise so you must have that information. Could I have that list please? Thanks! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It came from the article I shared earlier, Jen. I don't have a list. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
That’s ok, Denise, not a problem, just that when I googled couldn’t come up with anything near 27. Which reminds me, has anyone read Ashbery's collection "Chinese Whispers"? Reviews are rather mixed, not sure if I should buy to keep or just pick it up from the library. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, I'm not up to date on Ashbery, I'm sorry to say. I'm reading The Mitchell translation of Rilke right now, and enjoying it. It makes me wish I actually had some German beyond the barest of bare essentials, or a little less. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Your assumption that taxpayer money is being wasted is not proven, Denise. Your animus toward the man is. If you want the luxury of having proved something, the best course is to prove it and not simply insinuate it. If you don't wish to put the time and effort in to prove your point, then asking other people to prove their points is hypocritical on your part, isn't it? Blaming other people for your inability or unwillingness to prove your point seems, by the standards that you've set here, to be less than what you require of others. This appears to be a difficulty in your position. I offered a possible way out of the contradiction, which is too much effort for you. What now? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What part of "I have a full time job" to attempt do in-depth investigative work, as you have suggested, which would probably consume every waking hour for the rest of my life and even then would not yield anything acceptable to you because each thing I did manage to uncover, you would want sourced ten different ways from Sunday. Life would be so much simpler, wouldn't it, if we actually had an open, honest and transparent administration? There are enough other ways that this administration is wasting taxpayer money every day, even if the concert schedules for the past 17 months are nothing out of the ordinary, which I tend to doubt given the increased wasteful spending with the so-called stimulas, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, the subsidising of the auto industry, sweetheart deals to unions, confiscation of our healthcare system, and the planned continuation of the confiscation and resdistribution of wealth since his election. He hasn't done anything to earn my respect as a leader. But maybe I am overlooking something noteworthy that he has done for this country in the past year and a half that you could point me to. And his world-wide apology tour doesn't qualify. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
This one's gonna get me in hot water, but hot water is good for whiplash--but what the man did to earn my respect was employing a tactic to combat terrorism which entailed...simple diplomacy. I'm not real popular either, not here, not where I am sitting, but I think that being open to discussion when we are confronted with the enemy of a mindset of arrogance, intolerance and greed (because that IS how I believe we are perceived in foreign press) is just...why, it's wonderful. It rather reminds me of a therapy session me and the hubs had long ago, where we realized while speaking through a third party, that we actually AGREED on goals. I guess I won't get a lot of agreement, since I do believe that Al Quaida isn't a PLACE--it's a reaction of rebellion. And I do not believe that my belief makes me any less patriotic. *wince* Could one of you great fact-checkers confirm this idea for me? I like to think that our Constitution was written with a feather. But yes, the ink was blood. The poet in me likes the metaphor... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I'm easy, I'd be happy to see just a list of those 27 concerts. That really bugs me. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Email Barack or Michelle, Jen! Maybe they will give up the info to you! I checked out the White House site today as well. They don't even have a full listing there, and only a few photos that I could find from three events. And we know there much more than three. Very disappointing site to try to gain actual information, in my opinion. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're correct Karen, Al Quaida isn't a place. It's an ideology of oppression and hatred that seeks to deprive people of freedom and life, the exact opposite of the ideology that motivated our Founders. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Michelle and Barack didn’t make that statement about 27 concerts, Dardick did and seems you agreed with him since you mentioned them several times. Don’t you think before you trash someone for doing something you should have a least a little concrete evidence to support your claim? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Is that the philosophy you live by, Jen? I didn't trash anybody. I simply said that in these bad economic times they should not be wasting taxpayer money. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
It's what I try to do when I post in a discussion forum, check the facts as best I can from different sources. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you, Denise. I hope I'm not upping the temperature to the point of discomfort, but I have to ask--do you not see a parallel (or the parallel(s of our own country's successful bid for independance with what is now the resulting consequence of decades of foreign dispute as side-affected self-interest on our accord, as we dabbled, successfully, to encourage other countries to end our cold wars as we espouse ourself as a nation which embraces not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion? Don't get me wrong--things are good here--really good--even in this economy--but surely, you do understand how relieved I am to see a president that was elected without doubt, address issues currently instead of the stammering inadequateblustering of a poor teleprompter reader attempting a swagger of damage control--uaually self-inflicted damage at that. I confess I do not understand these times--we seem to all agree that government is too big--until something too big for our government to control happens... Come July, I'm not sure whether to wave a flag, or kowtow to a corporate-sponsored event that puts on a pretense for the consumers located in the U.S. I got my own feelings hurt when I posted a poem and a fellow Louisianian asked me how I liked our "communist" president now? <--paraphrased, but it's there... and if I hadn't been blind-sided by a comment of total kindness and affection, I would have asked my fellow if he investigates the product where he sends his hard-earned energy--his DOLLARS--how much of his hard to find monies are spent on totally U.S. product? I won't even pretend that I do that--we have no idea what is outsourced from "Amerckan" corp. to other countries, and until we can proudly proclaim that we buy American, support American corp.? We're full of... fill in the blank. But I'm not mad at you, I'm just mad at the guy who suggested I support Communism because I support our Commander-in-chief, while the same guy who suggested he had some inkling of my ideology probably bought at least a gross of plastic Chinese beads made by little girls for a salary of two bucks a month who had no idea what women and men will do for such baubles...way..over..HERE.  But I do go on, now don't I? *shrug* It was my birthday. SOMEBODY should took me dancin'...or, um, somethin'... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
ooooh--http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?no_interstitial Could it be the verge of a trade agreement? tsk...I dunno. They've got oil andlithium. *helpless shrug* My lithium levels are still fine despite the rumors in my head--er...anybody wanna check my oil? Heh.  (Sorry Denise--seems I've had to amuse m'self tonight!)  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: It certainly would be better if we had a more open, honest and transparent administration, Denise. I have some questions I'd like answered myself. These would be about Bagram Air Base, The Treaty on The Rights of The Child, why there has been no appropriate clarification on torture as U.S. policy and why there has been no legal action taken against those people who sanctioned its use during the last administration and those who may continue its use during the current administration. Those are the beginning of my list. I have made no secret of my problems with this administration and with at least some of its policies. Have I said anything thus far that is actually news to you? I'd be surprised if it was. Perhaps you think that my time is less fully taken up than yours? Sorry. It's also private. Sorry again. Even if I spent my time in riotous debauchery, I would still be feel obligated to keep those things I talk about within the realm of the verifiable unless I made a point of being fanciful and people were aware of it. I don't demand that you verify things a hundred ways from Sunday. When you go for a dictionary, I don't hold out for the OED, for example; all I want is something that's generally thought of as good enough for a grown up discussion. When folks want source material around here, they frequently get fairly picky. I'm not the guy who runs down the Main Stream Media, Denise, as though they had no virtues to match their many flaws. I try to be very clear about who I am quoting. If folks have difficulty with my sources, I'm happy to talk about them. Many of them are Mainstream Media, which you, among others, have spent a fair number of electrons knocking. I make a point of also using some Right Wing and neutral media as well. All it takes to satisfy me is use of reliable sourcing and a solid attempt at getting at the real story, whatever that happens to be. Some right wing publications are good at that. I've spoken of Janes Defense Weekly before and of The Economist, both of which have sources that put the national intelligence services of some nation states to shame. Both of which are excellent sources. I should read both more frequently. The thing that I find about this administration is that it seems substantially more open, more honest and more transparent than any of the last several administrations. Perhaps you might care to suggest an administration that was more open, honest and transparent than this one within your memory. The one that comes closest in my mind is that of Bush the Elder, and he was driven out of office by the loathing and disrespect of his own party as much as by any other factor. At the time, if you'll remember, much was made of his connection with the CIA and there was a fair amount of international and national distrust of the man and his motives. Perhaps you're comparing President Obama's openness, honesty and transparency with that of Bush II, who was forced to acknowledge lying about many of his statements before leaving office. President Clinton? President Reagan, who was forced to admit lying on purpose about Iran/Contra in fact but not feeling that there was a lie in his heart. ( As a psychotherapist, I can't tell you how many cheating spouses I've heard trying to get away with the same line.) President Carter may certainly have been as honest, open and transparent, but somehow I don't think he'd be up there on your scale. Perhaps I'm misjudging you there. And President Nixon? Should we go on? I suspect you're comparing President Obama with something else, and not with something or somebody real. And, yeah, I'd like more from him, too. quote: Lotta big words there, Denise. Lotta nasty insinuations. You can't prove the concert stuff, but saying baseless stuff against a public figure isn't libel. Maybe it's baseless, maybe it isn't baseless, and you're too overworked to check it out. Saying vile sounding things that you can't or won't prove, so what? Who's going to stop you? It's only the guy's reputation, and you're already sure that his reputation's no good because you listen to other people who say the same thing, and the facts are too tiring to get to. Not too tired to keep repeating the same nasty stuff, though. Confiscation and redistribution of wealth? You voted for the Republicans who voted for the Tax Cut for the wealthy, didn't you? If that's true, you're not against confiscation and redistribution of wealth, you're simply against letting some of that money go to the poor. It appears that the money that goes to the rich at the expense of the economy doesn't bother you at all. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Maybe you are, but then you’d need to be the judge of that. Here are some possibilities to consider: http://rchristm.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/03/3582337-a-list-of-the-initiatives-and-accomplishments-of-president-obama-and-the-democratic-congress-january-2009-through-november-200 9- http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1102/one-year-after-his-election-what-has-obama-achieved/(page)/2 http://www.slate.com/id/2236708 http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1984460,00.html |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*scratchin' my head* (Or even Bob's) Honestly, if you are going to pick on Presidential Entertainment, you'll have to give me the ballz of the Gollywood Libertarians swilling to charge a fee to fawn at his feet. <--THAT is total sarcasm. (yer an interesting guy, Bob) but yeah, Denise, most people just kinda show up and tap dance for the white house. ? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Happy Birthday, Karen. I hope you enjoyed it! We may never agree politcally, but I'm not mad at you either. I'll have to try to emulate you more in the future, Jen. Vile, Bob? What in the world did I say that was vile? And no, I voted for the Republicans who voted for tax cuts for everybody. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yes! Happy Belated Birthday, Karen! Had I known, I would have taken you dancing. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Except the tax cuts the Republicans voted the super-rich tended to cost the country money, Denise, and the tax cuts those who weren't so well off got ended up at least breaking even. I went over that before with references in previous postings. The tax cuts for the very rich tend to go into the bank or into long term investments. The net effect is that they don't circulate and have little if any multiplier effect on the economy. They cost the country about 25% of every dollar in lost revenues on top of the cut. Tax cuts for the poor actually make money for the treasury, about 25% over the cost of the cut. For every buck the government cuts, they get a buck twenty-five back in stimulus. The Republicans say they give tax cuts for everybody, but they're damaging the country with the cuts for the rich and they're trying to help balance that off unsuccessfully with cuts for the poor. And they've got you believing in free lunches that are yummy for everyone. TANSTAAFL, Denise. Never has been, unlikely there ever will be. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What happens when the tax rates go up for the rich and jobs are lost and jobs that may have been created aren't? What does that do to the economy? Jobs aren't being created now partly due to the fact that the job creators know that the tax cuts are ending in January and going up in other areas. Everyone is circling the wagons and hunkering down for the economic tsunami that is most likely on its way. I don't belong to the party that believes in free lunches, Bob. I have no idea how you could confuse me with a Democrat. Again, what did I say that was vile? *And I fixed my typos and misspellings to save you the trouble of pointing them out, but if I missed any, please feel free to let me no [sic]*  [This message has been edited by Denise (06-14-2010 09:44 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The "vile-sounding things" I was speaking about appeared in quotation marks directly before my comments, Denise. You heard "vile." I said, "vile-sounding" because that is exactly how they sounded to me. This was the passage that provoked my ire. quote: 1) You state that you cannot prove that the accusations that you make about the man are true in part or in their entirety, then go ahead and suggest that you wish to assert these accusations anyway. 2) You go ahead to say why you wish to go ahead and make these assertions. You wish to make them, "given," you say,"the increased wasteful spending with the so-called stimulas [sic][.]" You make this assertion about the "stimulas[sic]" as though this were settled fact. Clearly it is to your mind, but the reality is this is your belief, and you are making an unsupported assertion here. That would be, from my point of view, another unsupported assertion. You believe that the money for jump starting purchases of American cars and similar expenditures was wasted, and your tone is disdainful in the extreme. You have every right to disagree and to have your own opinion. I have a right to expect to see you back that up, and to be upset when you don't. I see that sort of thing as simple smear tactics, about the level of calling the fat kid stupid and hoping that everybody else will join the pig pile. I want to see what the facts are. I will make my own judgements based on the facts and not on what everybody says is supposed to be true, thank you very much. 3) I would like to know what health care system has been taken away from whom, for example, when you talk about the health care system being confiscated. What health care system do you own or did you ever own? What ownership share has been taken away from you, and by whom? If it has been confiscated, who is it that now owns it? 4) And which sweetheart deals have the increasingly less powerful unions been getting from from whom? You have been making a series of unsubstantiated assertions that I have been objecting to on a more or less continuous basis for months. I have brought up absolutely nothing new here. Near as I can tell, you don't even understand my objections. You asked me what I thought might be a decent answer to your question about President Obama's accomplishments. I offered some fairly detailed references with fairly detailed replies that certainly went well beyond your assertion of Nothing. What is your reaction? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think most folks who aren't 'collectivist-minded' see the new healthcare law as a confiscation of our healthcare system, Bob. Here is more government insertion into our lives: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=166597 Obama has done nothing in my estimation that has been good for this country, but much that has done harm. We'll never agree on that, of course, no matter how many links we provide each other. I see him as a Socialist, at best, you see him as Republican-Lite. I think that says it all about our divergent political views. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And yet I offered several lists that offered considerable detail, including material that I believe is material that should meet with your approval, even at your end of the spectrum. I am not asking that you love or even like the man, Denise. I am not even asking that you stop despising him. quote: But your statement was on the order of your being unable to think of any accomplishment of his. I have a problem with that. It suggests that there haven’t been any; and that, Denise, I cannot allow to go unchallenged. I include here items from a list on the web site noted below. I have not printed the whole list, though I happen to like it. Should you wish to see the whole list, feel free. I do believe that at least some of the items I’ve left in my edited list are items that even you would agree would be worth doing, and decent accomplishments for any President. You might even feel, justifiably in my opinion, that they would have been worth doing under the administration of any previous president, no matter which party he (and someday, one might imagine, she) might belong to. They have been divided up by areas of concern. I have simply eliminated some that might bore you or which you might not agree with. I’m certain I’ve gotten some, but I hope, not all of them wrong. If I have gotten them all wrong and there are some items here that you think are items that shouldn’t have been done or aren’t worth doing, I am sorry for having wasted your time. http://rchristm.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/03/3582337-a-list-of-the-initiatives-and-accomplishments-of-president-obama-and-the-democratic-congress-january-2009-through-november-200 9- Governance initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient. Reports to the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budgets. Specific duties require finding new efficient ways of operating. 2.Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut future spending. 3.Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices. 4.Initiated changes in federal procurement policies and procedures. 5.Implemented 'PayGo' procedures by telling congress that no bill will be signed if there is not a way to pay for it (Cuts in other programs, increased taxes, etc.). 6.Initiated more press conferences and town halls as well as providing more media access than previous administration. 7.Encouraged greater media access (CSpan) of congressional hearings and meetings. 8.Insuring that the White House and federal government respect the Freedom of Information Act. 9.Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible. 10.Placed limits on lobbyist's access to the White House. 11.Placed limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration. 12.Required lobbyists to be removed from federal advisory study panels. 13.Suspended acquisition of expensive fleet of 28 new (foreign built) Marine One helicopters that was projected to be over budget by billions of dollars. A new domestically produced modified version of current production civilian helicopters is being looked at by the Pentagon. 14.Limited salaries of senior White House aides and cut maximum salary to $100,000. 15.Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters and paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket. Economic initiatives and accomplishments: 2.Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter bill in January.. 5.Improved loan guarantees to small businesses and lowered small business loan interest rates. 6.Initiated policies that allow the public to meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying. Has further reinforced the policy to improve usage of the program. 7.Instituted a new focus on reducing mortgage fraud. 8.Reinforced previous administrations' financial and banking rescue plan to insure greater transparency and reporting on the program. 9.Closed offshore tax safe havens. 10.Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals. 11.Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs. Initiated a new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back. 12.Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies. Replaced it with new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices. Moved dates of implementation forward when credit card companies arbitrarily upped rates ahead of planned reform date. Education initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Has initiated a major push for education reform that includes bipartisan support. 2.Has increased student loans while reducing the costs to the federal government by 87 billion dollars over ten years. 3.Students struggling to make college loan payments can now have their loans refinanced. 5.Provided new funds for school construction in stimulus program. 6.Initiated 'Race to the Top' education grant program for states that develop strong new programs. 7.Announced 'Educate to Innovate', a public/private partnership to put 236 million dollars into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) education. Energy initiatives and accomplishments: 2.Initiated energy saving retrofits for government buildings and facilities. 5.Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government. 6.Established new CAFE standards and rules that eliminate the need for individual states to enact their own higher standards. Manufacturers welcomed the change because it eliminated multiple standards. 7.Has initiated energy reform legislation development. 8.Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources. 9.Announced the long-term planning and development of a national energy grid. 10.Announced the development of renewable sources and cleaner, more efficient energy production. 11.Instituted studies in six western states by the BLM and the Interior Dept. to see if they can support large-scale solar installations. Foreign Relations initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Re-established diplomacy and the state department as a significant factor in foreign policy. 5.Closing secret CIA detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. 6.Ended the previous administration's torture policy and returned US to compliance with the Geneva Convention standards. 7.Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure and protocols. Started this effort as a senator with Senator Lugar (R) Indiana. 10.Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Senator Jim Webb to secure the release of an American held captive. 11.Renewed loan guarantees for Israel. Global Warming & Environmental initiatives and accomplishments: 4.Reversed Bush administration policy and halted new uranium-mining claims near the Grand Canyon, proposed new preserves for wild mustangs and funded the expansion of the Petrified Forest National Park 5.Restored protections under the Endangered Species Act which had been removed by a last-minute rule change in the final days of the Bush administration. 6.Recommitted to clean up of superfund sites. 7.Ordered the EPA to reconsider its decision to deny California a waiver under the Clean Air Act enabling California and 17 states to impose stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. 8.Reversed the Bush rule that opened the door to mountaintop removal coal mining and canceled several individual mountaintop mining permits. 9.Put offshore drilling and oil shale exploration on hold and restored protections for public lands. 10.Announced a new initiative to lease U.S. coastal waters for the purpose of generating electricity from wind and ocean currents. 11.Reaffirmed science and the rule of law as the standards by which federal environmental decisions shall be made. Health and Health care reform initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Initiated reform of the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves more than 40 million without health insurance and millions more under insured. 2.Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules. 3.Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare. 4.Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children. 5.Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research and initiated federal support for new biomedical research. 6.Provided new federal funding for science and research labs. 7.Expanded vaccination programs. 8.Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs. The federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings thus lowering the drug costs for seniors. Also requiring providers of Medicare drug plans to be more transparent in their marketing so seniors can better evaluate different plans. 9.Signed tobacco legislation in June that has the FDA now regulating tobacco products. Homeland Security initiatives and accomplishments: 2.Insured immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters. 3.Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness. 4.Ordered a release of funds and cutting of red tape that was holding up Katrina recovery effort. Infrastructure initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect. 2.Provided funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools. 3.Initiated efforts to expand broadband Internet access to rural areas. Military initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Started the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. 2.Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan. 3.Deployed 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in March. Request sat on President Bush's desk for months. 4.New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans. 5.Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date. 6.Insured that better body armor is now provided to our troops. 7.Reviewed Afghanistan war effort and increased troop commitment to 30,000 plus. Required an exit strategy and committed to the time plan outlined in General McChrystal's review. 8.Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel. 9.Improved housing for military personnel. 10.Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses. 11.Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals. Actually started this effort as a senator. 12.Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB. 13.Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information. 14.Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family. 15.Started the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to develop a more modern fighting force designed for expected future requirements. The process includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc. 16.Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts. 17.Started phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which were never used nor needed in Iraq/Afghanistan. 18.Eliminated the expensive and unproven Bush European missile defense program and replaced it with a known workable solution that cuts $1.4 billion in 2010. Science and research initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Proposed increasing the amount of government and private money spent on scientific research to three percent of the nation's economic output. 2.Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports. Anti-terrorism initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job. 2.US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast. 3.Initiating trials of remaining Guantanamo detainees. Veterans initiatives and accomplishments: 1.Appointed a proven leader to head the VA in General Shinseki and improved benefits for veterans with the largest veterans' benefits increases in decades. 2.Signed a bill with significant improvements in health care, information systems, and staffing to insure that veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled. 3.Initiated a new GI Bill to provide college tuition to recent veterans. 4.Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I read the information in the links previously, Bob. Great list of the Democratic Talking Points. I got a particular chuckle out of: Encouraged greater media access (CSpan) of congressional hearings and meetings. (except for unimportant things like healthcare legislation hearings.) Initiated more press conferences and town halls as well as providing more media access than previous administration. (he just had his first press conference in, what, 9 months or so, last week, and his first address to the naton from the oval office tonight? Most of his town halls have been staged events with preselected attendees.) Implemented 'PayGo' procedures by telling congress that no bill will be signed if there is not a way to pay for it (Cuts in other programs, increased taxes, etc.) (while he has plans for another 80 billion for another stimulus and has just requested another 50 billion for aid to States in distress. I guess we'll be seeing huge tax increases real soon.) Insuring that the White House and federal government respect the Freedom of Information Act. (ahahahahaha...show us your credentials, sir.) Placed limits on lobbyist's access to the White House. (I think the nation's supply of paper was depleted from all the waivers that he issued.) Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job. (he delayed his authorization for 3 days while lives were at stake.) I'm sorry, Bob, I'm not impressed. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
2.Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut future spending. Have they produced anything or cut spending? 3.Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices. Have they cut any wasteful spending? 5.Implemented 'PayGo' procedures by telling congress that no bill will be signed if there is not a way to pay for it (Cuts in other programs, increased taxes, etc.). That's a joke...they have done just the opposite. 6.Initiated more press conferences and town halls as well as providing more media access than previous administration. Obama then went for weeks with no press conferences whatsoever. 7.Encouraged greater media access (CSpan) of congressional hearings and meetings. ..And then shut them out of health care conferences. 10.Placed limits on lobbyist's access to the White House. and has set a record for lobbyists and spending 12.Required lobbyists to be removed from federal advisory study panels. ...and then made exceptions. Bob, you are simply listing things which show how Obama has failed on his promises and actions. Thank you. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And you are 1) comparing these to what? and 2) checking out the fact-checks that the site says it has checked these things off against or not? And 3) I notice that you cherry picked some of these that you didn't like out of a very long list and failed to comment on others. Denise's comment was not that there were some things Obama didn't do or weren't worth remembering. Denise actually chose the far more difficult to defend position that she couldn't think of any of them. For a woman who says she has no extra time on her hands, that's a very unwise position to take, since it obligates her to take on all comers, doesn't it? Or acknowledge that her statement was ill considered in its breadth, which for a woman who claims that her time is limited, it certainly was. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
To take a single example, your first, Mike quote: President Obama, the site folks say, did order this review. I notice you do not dispute this. The site folks claim they have fact-checked this claim. You do not dispute the factuality of the claim. Rather than dispute that P{resident Obama has done what the Site claims he has done, you attempt to change the subject to something where you may dispute a claim that you are saying President Obama should have made. This one: Have they cut any wasteful spending? Alas, Mike, You believe that the president should have made that claim for reasons of your own. The fact that he did not make such a claim doesn't mean that the goernment has or has not cut wasteful spending. You haven't researched it for us, and the discussion isn't about that. It's about the thing that the site claims that President Obama did in fact do, and which you do not dispute. I would wager that they have cut some wasteful spending, though you and I would probably have quite a go-around about what wasteful spending is. If you have a look at some of the other projects on the list, you'll notice some cuts on there, but again, that's not what we were talking about, is it? I was responding to Denise's request for examples of things that the President did do. And he did order a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices, didn't he? Next, quote: Again, he did make these statement, didn't he? Here, however, things seem to be a bit different, because, while you don't deny that he made this statement, you do say that his statement is really a travesty of the truth. "That's a joke...they have done just the opposite." While you may be right on this matter, I can't claim to say that I know you are right. You'd have to offer me at least a single well documented example in which the man signed a law that didn't have a means of payment stipulated. I'm easy to convince. If it's as obvious as you say, there should be well documented examples in all the decent publications. Shall we try another? quote: This is true. What do you do to make this sound bad? Oh yes! Obama then went for weeks with no press conferences whatsoever. So you don't dispute that President Obama had more press conferences than President Bush. Perhaps even more by a year and a half into his administration to make President Bush look a bit on the withholding side. The point was that President Obama was supposed to have more than President Bush and he did, right? I've noticed that you seem to keep doing this thing. You try to make the president look bad by saying he didn't do something you think he ought to do that's different than what he said he'd do. He promised x and you say he's a failure because he didn't do a good job at y. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
All you have said here, Bob, is that he did indeed make statements. Big whopee. He made lots of statements, in the same way me made statements and promises in his campaign. I don't think people are that interested in statements. WHat they want to see is positive results from those statements. " don't know. Whether they have or not is another question, though, and as far as this question goes, it appears that the positive answer is one you would rather discount than acknowledge. It is, however, true."l Again, you do the same. You run from any question of whether any actions were taken and use "truthful statment" as to mean he said them, nothing more. Once again, big whoopee. " So you don't dispute that President Obama had more press conferences than President Bush. Perhaps even more by a year and a half into his administration to make President Bush look a bit on the withholding side. " Sure he did at the beginning. He was trying to ram his agenda down the public's throat and needed the silver tongue to keep going, while people still believed him. When they began ro stop, however, when things got a little rough and his popularity started a nosedive, all of a sudden the press conferences stopped to the point that the press was saying "Wha' hoppin'?" "While you may be right on this matter, I can't claim to say that I know you are right. You'd have to offer me at least a single well documented example in which the man signed a law that didn't have a means of payment stipulated. I'm easy to convince. If it's as obvious as you say, there should be well documented examples in all the decent publications." Surely you jest! Look at the debt. Look how we are broke. Look at the spending he has done. Explain to me how deficit neutral can plungle us into the highest national debt we have ever sxperienced. I don't have to offer anything. All you have to do is open your eyes and view things that are right in front of your face. "I'm easy to convince"....please don't tell me you actually typed that, Bob. LOLOLOL! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The truth is often monsterous, Mike, like Dracula; and is not always visible to everybody who looks into the glass. This is why I requested it be pointed out clearly and specifically and unmistakably to me by your hand. I have no doubt that we are in debt, but even bail-outs may be structured in debt neutral ways, as loans with scheduals for pay-backs and with penalties for non-payment. You may remember this is how we ended up with GM. They thought we'd let the debt ride, and we didn't because President Obama was serious about the debt-neutral aspect of the bill. You'd like the ability to kvetch about it whether we took the debt-neutral part seriously or not, I know. I'm just reminding you of the history. So, forgive me for asking you to give me examples, but it may be that things you'd offer as examples may not actually be examples, as in the situation I've just offered. And of course you don't have to offer anything, but then you were the person making the assertions of untruth, weren't you? And I'd think that saying Harumph! wouldn't really work well as a way for you to disprove anything. As I said, If you're right, you haven't offered any proof of you're being right. As you say, you don't have to. On the other hand, if you wish to call the site, which claims to have been fact-checked, wrong, then I guess you either do have to offer proof of being right or take back your assertion that the site is wrong, don't you? You may simply have over-reached yourself, and there's nothing terribly wrong with that. Happens all the time. As for opening my eyes and looking, that covers all sorts of sins. Mostly because people have to think as well, and they come to all sorts of funny conclusions, like why the earth shouldn't be round. People would fall off, especially the outside. Which is worth more, a nickle or a dime? It depends on how old you are. For most people, under a certain age, no matter how hard you work you can't convince them that the dime's worth more, because it's smaller. It has to do with something called "conservation of size." |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
