The Obama mega-thread II (merged)

[SUBMAN1]

Nooooooooo!!!!

"Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President"



http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/white_house_knocks_jim_cramer_for_calling_obama_bu dget_greatest_wealth_destruction_by_a_president_11 0203.asp

-S

[Dowly]

Sssshhhh :O:

[SUBMAN1]

A was hoping to give him a chance, but he has already screwed us.

-S

PS. Another take on the situation:

Breathtakingly Bold Barack?
As Gov. Bobby Jindal began to offer a Republican response, it became apparent that he would be no match with Barack Obama in the soaring-oratory department. The Republicans really should have tried a gimmick instead. Perhaps Jindal could have simply walked on and said, “Today, the president held what he called a fiscal responsibility summit.” He could afford a wide smile at that point, knowing his audience had erupted in laughter.

Honestly, now: Are we quite ready finally to declare the Era of Obama As Fiscally Conservative is over? Last year, Republicans warned that Barack Obama was ultraliberal – a socialist, in fact – but the media handlers typically presented this as a conservative smear. Instead, they painted Obama as an aspiring moderate-Republican deficit reducer. Take New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt last August: “Obama’s aides optimistically insist he will reduce it [the deficit], thanks to his tax increases on the affluent and his plan to wind down the Iraq war. Relative to McCain, whose promised spending cuts are extremely vague, Obama does indeed look like a fiscal conservative.”

How ridiculous does that sound now? John McCain probably would have been a moderate Republican president. But the idea that President Obama would turn out to be a stronger fiscal conservative than McCain should inspire a pink-faced laughing fit at the preposterousness of The New York Times.

Now that Obama’s emphatic ultraliberalism is the elephant in the room, and liberals are cheering the reversal of everything Ronald Reagan tried to accomplish economically, the media still don’t want to call it liberal. Instead, it’s a pollster’s list of positive adjectives: bold, ambitious, audacious, and even breathtaking.

Here’s how Charles Babington of the Associated Press began his analysis: “Breathtaking in its scope and ambition, President Barack Obama's agenda for the economy, health care and energy now goes to a Congress unaccustomed to resolving knotty issues and buffeted by powerful interests that oppose parts of his plan.” Obama is the giant with breathtaking ambition, while members of Congress are mere mortals unaccustomed to accomplishment. Obama’s agenda is not described as liberal. Instead, it’s a plan “to undo major elements of Ronald Reagan's conservative movement.”

His AP colleague Liz Sidoti echoed the meaningless chatter: “Barack Obama is embracing the worst economic conditions in a generation as an opportunity to advance an audacious agenda that, if successful, could reshape the country for decades to come.”
The wire service Agence France-Presse found the president bristling with action: “Obama also highlighted his audacious 3.55-trillion-dollar budget plan for 2010, which bristles with economic reforms and spending on healthcare, climate change and education in a bid to end America's worst economic crisis since the 1930s.”

Then there was The Washington Post, the industry leader in budget salesmanship. In a front-page story, editor Karen DeYoung oozed Obama’s withdrawal plan from Iraq came “just a day after he transformed the domestic political landscape with a breathtakingly bold budget plan.” Two pages later, reporter Alec MacGillis somehow left out a cheerleader’s purse full of exclamation points in a story on Vice President Biden’s middle-class task force: “Commentators left and right have reacted with awe to the ambition and transformative potential of President Obama’s economic blueprint.”

Commentators on the right reacted with awe? Only at the shameless boosterism of the leg-tingling Obama press corps.

Later came a front-page Post story by Philip Rucker, which began, “President Obama’s budget is so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, and services for veterans, that experts say he will need to hire tens of thousands of government workers to realize his goals.” The Heritage Foundation suggests it means a quarter of a million new bureaucrats for the federal establishment.

As an adjective, “ambitious” is meant to be a positive word. But George Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein was “ambitious,” and the media didn’t applaud its scope. In fact, they paraded the liberals around arguing the Iraq war was unsustainably swelling the deficit. The late Tim Russert pressed Bush in February of 2004: “How, why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?”

Today, a $500 billion deficit would sound like progress. Obama’s budget aspires to reduce the projected 2009 deficit of $1.75 trillion by more than two-thirds, to $533 billion, by the end of his first term – which, if successful, would make it worse than the worst performance by President Bush.

It should be laughable for the White House to promote a “fiscal responsibility summit” days after they shoved through a $787 billion “stimulus” bill through Congress. But the gooey flood of positive adjectives from the press demonstrates that they are not government watchdogs. They’re “breathtakingly bold” Obama enablers. The honesty deficit in our press just grows, and grows. http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2009/col20090304.asp

[SUBMAN1]

He is looking to repeal all tax breaks associated with buying a home:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030601536.html

-S

[Enigma]

Yes. He's anti home ownership. :har:

You're a genius.....

[Zachstar]

What do you expect Enigma? You've got a whole party out there that wants Obama to fail in this crisis and by proxy America as it is the ONLY way they can delude the country enough to vote them back in 2012.

So you can expect stuff like this from Subman and of course plenty of minions coming fresh from their daily Brainwash by defacto Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh.

As far as I am aware Obama is doing nothing to harm a person's right to purchase property. Just less tax incentive. But don't let that stop your fake ass panic attack.

[Onkel Neal]

omg, another Obama thread, kept alive by the inevitable replies....:yawn:

[Enigma]

omg, another Obama thread, kept alive by the inevitable replies....:yawn:

Your problem is with the replies, not the OP's thread? Huh.
By the way. Welcome to the replies. :yeah:

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, I cannot curb someone's freedom of speech just because it annoys me, but you can certainly limit the length of time the 100th anti-Obama thread appears by not pumping life into it with a reply. :-? Unless you like these type of posts... :)

[Frame57]

I for one am an Independant conservative. I want Obama to succeed because that is good for the Country. As far as Obama wanting me to live in a tent, hell I do most of the time anyway. :damn: When I am in the sticks that is...Who is Rush Limbaugh?

[Digital_Trucker]

..Who is Rush Limbaugh?

Wasn't that some '80s big hair rock band from Canada?

[Digital_Trucker]

How is criticizing the man (or his party for that matter) wanting him to fail? We all want the country to succeed, we just have different opinions about how that should/could/would happen.

[Frame57]

:har: ..Who is Rush Limbaugh?

Wasn't that some '80s big hair rock band from Canada?

[GoldenRivet]

How is criticizing the man (or his party for that matter) wanting him to fail? We all want the country to succeed, we just have different opinions about how that should/could/would happen.

HUGE AGREE THERE!!!

[SteamWake]

-- Why cut these deductions? Very simply, to raise tax revenue so the government can spend the money elsewhere, such as for health care.

Good night and good luck :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

The home interest deduction is the last tax haven. It is there to get people to buy, not become just another payment that can not be deducted. It looks like he is going after the those that make quite a bit of money and changing the percentage that can be written off.

Welcome to big government. It was voted for...remember?

[Digital_Trucker]

In some places, $250,000 is a lot of income. In others, it's pretty close to minimum wage relative to the cost of living. If he's gonna tax folks based on how rich they are, it should, at least, be adjusted for cost of living. But, again, for a politician that would make too much sense.

[AVGWarhawk]

In some places, $250,000 is a lot of income. In others, it's pretty close to minimum wage relative to the cost of living. If he's gonna tax folks based on how rich they are, it should, at least, be adjusted for cost of living. But, again, for a politician that would make too much sense.

I think it makes for too much work really. True, $250,000.00 in NY is much different than the same amount in MD or any other state for that matter. Personally, I think he should keep away from this and this is a very bad move. The incentive to purchase a home does get smaller. People do want homes and I have heard it over and over, 'oh, the interest is a write-off." The write-off that one receives on the interest usually provides a nice return on taxes. This money goes right back into the economy. I does in my household. New appliances and other items for the home. Vacation, etc. He is effectively giving more money to himself. The the economy.....AIN'T THAT PROBLEM RIGHT NOW....THE ECONOMY???????:06: :06: :down: That spendable cash is now gone.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes. He's anti home ownership. :har:

You're a genius.....

Genius is all relative. Do you understand the implications of this? Do you realize this maneuver takes spendable cash out of the consumers hands? Do you understand that to get the economy moving is to have consumers spend money? For years homeowners would take the interest write-off and use this cash for other things. Things that spur-on the economy. Nice down payment on a vehicle. Appliances or furniture. Clothing for the kids. Making a payment on a college tuition. Effectively he is taking cash out of the consumers hands. Last time I checked, Washington wants you to spend and get the economy going. I can't buy anything when I have nothing to purchase goods with. I do not think you understand how this will affect the other end of the spectrum...the economy. Millions of households with thousands to pour back into the economy. People do not sit on it. They spend it. Effectively this will take that buying power out of the consumers hands. It is a bad deal concerning the end result. :down: Furthermore, this write-off is an incentive to purchase a home. Washington knows home purchases drives the economy....go figure Enigma....housing crisis, home foreclosing=the situation we are in today. This incentive was offered by the US government to help people make that decision to purchase a home thus driving the economy. He needs to stay away from this notion.

[Tribesman]

So when the government gives incentives to buy houses it is fueling the bubble which leads to an economic crash , and when it takes away incentives it is stopping people spending money which will lead to an economic crash .

[SteamWake]

So when the government gives incentives to buy houses it is fueling the bubble which leads to an economic crash , and when it takes away incentives it is stopping people spending money which will lead to an economic crash .

Close but not quite, what caused the bubble was the goverment "suggesting" that the banks make bad loans to people whom obviously could not afford them, artifically inflating the demand, driving up the home prices. Tax incintives had little to do with that.

When these artifically priced houses forclosed or devalued due to market adjustment has a lot to do with the economic crash. Tax incintives had nothing to do with that.

The other factor driving the market down down down is all the doom and gloom and trepidation over the massive debt the Oministration is saddeling the country with. Taxes have a lot to do with that.

Tax incintives for buying a new home should be left alone. After all arent we trying to create jobs? Now is not the time to be dicking around and slapping even more hurt on the people trying to do things 'the right way'.

But cash strapped and in debt beyond measure every feasable way to tax american citizens will be conisidered.

[Frame57]

It is true. The more money you have, naturally the more you spend. The problem is that for it to be viable the money spent has to be real and not credit which gets defaulted. Credit is OK so long as it gets paid in a relatively short amount of time. Credit should only be given to those who are credit worthy. It is just good business.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tax incintives for buying a new home should be left alone. After all arent we trying to create jobs? Now is not the time to be dicking around and slapping even more hurt on the people trying to do things 'the right way'.


Amen! Speaking of the right way...I do not qualify under the new plan for mortgages. I do not get to partake in the reduced income to cost ratio of 31% for the mortgage payment. It would reduce my mortgage by $250.00/month. In short, I get nothing for doing the right thing. Now he wants to reduce my interest write-off to boot. What next?

[SteamWake]

Tax incintives for buying a new home should be left alone. After all arent we trying to create jobs? Now is not the time to be dicking around and slapping even more hurt on the people trying to do things 'the right way'.


Amen! Speaking of the right way...I do not qualify under the new plan for mortgages. I do not get to partake in the reduced income to cost ratio of 31% for the mortgage payment. It would reduce my mortgage by $250.00/month. In short, I get nothing for doing the right thing. Now he wants to reduce my interest write-off to boot. What next?

Why all your property will go to the goverment of course.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tax incintives for buying a new home should be left alone. After all arent we trying to create jobs? Now is not the time to be dicking around and slapping even more hurt on the people trying to do things 'the right way'.


Amen! Speaking of the right way...I do not qualify under the new plan for mortgages. I do not get to partake in the reduced income to cost ratio of 31% for the mortgage payment. It would reduce my mortgage by $250.00/month. In short, I get nothing for doing the right thing. Now he wants to reduce my interest write-off to boot. What next?

Why all your property will go to the goverment of course.

I do not think it will come to that but I believe he is getting into things he has no business getting into judging by his experience. Not only that, it is getting stupid. What was last week? It was an entire week of going after Rush Limbaugh:06: Get back on track in Washington!!!!!!!! WTH does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?

[SteamWake]

Tax incintives for buying a new home should be left alone. After all arent we trying to create jobs? Now is not the time to be dicking around and slapping even more hurt on the people trying to do things 'the right way'.


Amen! Speaking of the right way...I do not qualify under the new plan for mortgages. I do not get to partake in the reduced income to cost ratio of 31% for the mortgage payment. It would reduce my mortgage by $250.00/month. In short, I get nothing for doing the right thing. Now he wants to reduce my interest write-off to boot. What next?

Why all your property will go to the goverment of course.

I do not think it will come to that but I believe he is getting into things he has no business getting into judging by his experience. Not only that, it is getting stupid. What was last week? It was an entire week of going after Rush Limbaugh:06: Get back on track in Washington!!!!!!!! WTH does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?

Just a diversion tactic, with the added benifit that if they actually do 'demonize' Mr. Limbaugh they may be able to silence voices of discontent.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :rotfl:

[Enigma]

Warhawk,

I understand your points, yes.

I still stand firmly to the fact that accusing Obama of being Anti - Home ownership is so silly it's hilarious. That's all.

[SteamWake]

Warhawk,

I understand your points, yes.

I still stand firmly to the fact that accusing Obama of being Anti - Home ownership is so silly it's hilarious. That's all.

Your right Im sure that O is not "anti home ownership" but I seriously doubt that he has thought through all the consiquinces of his and his cabiinets actions.

Right now its the "We need money and we need money NOW" mindset.

[AVGWarhawk]

Warhawk,

I understand your points, yes.

I still stand firmly to the fact that accusing Obama of being Anti - Home ownership is so silly it's hilarious. That's all.


No, Obama is not anti-home ownership. Hell, he got his for a song, perhaps a dance, but that is neither here or there. However, the end result of this preposed plan is less money in he consumers hands. This is not the direction we need to go to boost the economy. If anything, get those in default back on track. Must be qualified and who seemly have the longevity to carry the house after all is said and done. The more you get back onboard the stable mortgage train the more you have every year with thousands to spend at tax time.

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't see this as being anti-home ownership - I agree however that its an absolute HORRIBLE move for the economy. This was done without enough thought, thats for sure. Don't count on it getting the support needed to happen.

Boy - doing away with taxes except for a true consumption tax is looking better and better ain't it?

[AVGWarhawk]

If he gets away with this...nothing will be untouchable for Obama. That is a scary thought.

[Platapus]

I think that before we get too excited here, perhaps we should go back and read the referenced article

" The administration isn't commenting on anything beyond what was proposed in its first budget, submitted last week..."

"housing and banking trade groups are worried that the proposal to cut back on the ability of upper-income families to write off mortgage interest and other expenses is just the opening move in a longer-range effort to reform the federal tax code."

Sounds like more of this "future doom" stuff to me.

"What did the Obama budget propose specifically on mortgage interest and property tax deductions? Starting in 2011, homeowning households with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 and above could take write-offs only at a 28 percent marginal tax bracket rate. "

Adjusted Gross Income is calculated by taking an individual's gross income and subtracting the income tax code's enumerated deductions, and is an important benchmark determining certain other allowed benefits. $250,000 AGI is pretty rich! and Obama always said he would be taxing the rich more. I wish I had a quarter of a million dollars AGI.

The homebuilders, banks and mortgage associations don't like it but they are only concerned with their profit. "No trade group has offered specific projections of price or sales reductions attributable to the cutbacks, however."

"Obama has not referred to a broader agenda..." Some of his advisors have suggested other things but they are not the President. I am sure the President get all sorts of suggestions they don't take.

Besides this all has to pass Congress. As we have already seen, even the Democrats in Congress are not rubber-stamping what President Obama wants.

As it should be, what the President wants and what Congress may give him may be very different.

This article sounds like another camel's nose to me.

Let's wait until an actual bill is written before getting all spun up.

[August]

I think that before we get too excited here, perhaps we should go back and read the referenced article

" The administration isn't commenting on anything beyond what was proposed in its first budget, submitted last week..."

"housing and banking trade groups are worried that the proposal to cut back on the ability of upper-income families to write off mortgage interest and other expenses is just the opening move in a longer-range effort to reform the federal tax code."

Sounds like more of this "future doom" stuff to me.

"What did the Obama budget propose specifically on mortgage interest and property tax deductions? Starting in 2011, homeowning households with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 and above could take write-offs only at a 28 percent marginal tax bracket rate. "

Adjusted Gross Income is calculated by taking an individual's gross income and subtracting the income tax code's enumerated deductions, and is an important benchmark determining certain other allowed benefits. $250,000 AGI is pretty rich! and Obama always said he would be taxing the rich more. I wish I had a quarter of a million dollars AGI.

The homebuilders, banks and mortgage associations don't like it but they are only concerned with their profit. "No trade group has offered specific projections of price or sales reductions attributable to the cutbacks, however."

"Obama has not referred to a broader agenda..." Some of his advisors have suggested other things but they are not the President. I am sure the President get all sorts of suggestions they don't take.

Besides this all has to pass Congress. As we have already seen, even the Democrats in Congress are not rubber-stamping what President Obama wants.

As it should be, what the President wants and what Congress may give him may be very different.

This article sounds like another camel's nose to me.

Let's wait until an actual bill is written before getting all spun up.

Damn fine analysis and advice there Platapus

[JetSnake]

I can't stand the Kenyan as much as the next guy, but I do realize they ask for more than they know they will get once a bill goes through both houses: before it is voted, signed etc. However, the danger is having die-hard loonies controlling both houses like now(pelosi/reid). Reid just slightly less loonie than the botox crack whore in charge of congress. That is the danger with majorities and a like-minded executive branch they will get mostly what they want, while the whole idea of partisanship is flushed down the toilet. Unless you believe like liberals do that partisanship means: we won deal with us.

Oh and to you flaming liberals, what goes around comes around. Remember during 2006 51%of dems wanted Bush to fail as well. I hope the Kenyan fails super hard, because we can't afford his spending bills. He even put Bush to shame and it hasn't been 3 months yet.

[Enigma]

Jetsnake,

Your post alone, even to the right wingers amongst us, should leave you with zero credibility on the issue, being that it's so pathetically infantile. Slander, inaccuracies, hatred, and revenge. the make up of an infantile mind. Be on your way, sonny.

[Sea Demon]

While I don't believe Obama is "anti-homeownership" as a cause, I do believe the direction he's charted will eventually remove the incentive and make it harder to own. Obama was a large taker of Fannie and Freddie money, while government regulators were pushing bad loans on lending institutions to people who could not afford them. To me, Obama is classically naive in the worst as a result. Especially if he doesn't understand that many people can see this clearly.

The problem is guys like Obama don't actually understand the results from bad policy that they've supported in the past, while the whole thing crumbles right in front of them. Ideologues like him cannot see past it. Obama and other left wing Democrats pushed for this stuff while the Bush administration warned of dire consequences if this policy was not changed. Well, Mr. Bush seems to have been correct here. And all guys like Obama can do is pretend that government regulators weren't a huge part of the problem, and push for even more intervention.

This is why Obama will fail. He's pushing for more of what's caused the problems to begin with. If he pushes for big government, over-regulation, higher taxes......yes, I hope he fails in doing those things. I hope he fails in this because his plans here will not actually increase prosperity, home ownership, or personal responsibility. Nor will it foster economic growth and economic expansion as a whole. It will merely raise debt, drive inflation, disincentivize capital risk, and make lending for economic growth very difficult. His plans will not work from a historical context despite the hopes from some of his most ardent supporters.

[August]

Jetsnake,

Your post alone, even to the right wingers amongst us, should leave you with zero credibility on the issue, being that it's so pathetically infantile. Slander, inaccuracies, hatred, and revenge. the make up of an infantile mind. Be on your way, sonny.

Seconded.

[Sailor Steve]

Thirded.

Or do I just cast a vote now?

[SUBMAN1]

Time for Obama to get with the program. Maybe he should read this. Try a bit of peace in the middle east for once.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08aswany.html?_r=1&em

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Well the Muslim world isnt exactly famous for its listening skills.

[SUBMAN1]

Well the Muslim world isnt exactly famous for its listening skills.True, but at least an olive branch must be extended, and if that is not accepted, than maybe replace it with a sledgehammer.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Up to 324K sigs and rising:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

-S

[Etienne]

http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg

That the one?

Gotta love Wikipedia.

[SUBMAN1]

That is a fake. Already proven to be a fake. This is why the subject still exists. Someone from the Obama administration sent this digital version. There is no hard copy. The Supreme Court has already rejected the version above.

-S

[SteamWake]

We saw Mr. Obama as a symbol of this justice. We welcomed him with almost total enthusiasm

Thats been goin around I hear.

[CaptainHaplo]

Had it been valid it would have had the raised state seal. Note that it doesn't. This is the fake that was put out by his election team when the issue was first raised.

Subman is right - thats a fake.

[SteamWake]

Even I can see that is faked.

That doesent prove anything though. After all its the interwebs.

Has no one actually seen the real thing?

[Etienne]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

They say it's real. And, to quote from their article,

Aside from the inherent absurdity of such claims (i.e., that a major party presidential nominee would risk his entire candidacy on a fraud that could be uncovered simply by a check of state health records), the supposedly incriminating details don't pan out: the certificate is consistent with others issued in the same time and place, and the embossed seal and signature don't show through very well on the scanned front image made available on the Internet because they were applied to the back of the original document, not the front. Those who have actually touched and examined the original certificate have verified and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth.

Seriously, if anyone's campaign had decided to release a forged birth certificate, don't you think it'd be gigantic, worldwide front page new?

[Max2147]

How long before some conservatives challenge the legality of the US annexation of Hawaii in order to make Obama a foreigner?

[baggygreen]

How long before some conservatives challenge the legality of the US annexation of Hawaii in order to make Obama a foreigner?lol, post of the day:har:

[SUBMAN1]

Even I can see that is faked.

That doesent prove anything though. After all its the interwebs.

Has no one actually seen the real thing?
No. That is why the Supreme Court asked for it. Snopes is even wrong on this one.

-S

PS. This is the thread that doesn't die! :)

[Zachstar]

Figured you would be a birther Subman

[SUBMAN1]

Figured you would be a birther Subman

Anything to help bring you information man! :salute:

-S

[Zachstar]

Figured you would be a birther Subman
Anything to help bring you information man! :salute:

-S

Like the PUMAs and Chemtrail people before you idiots?

Yall are just the front of a long line of conspiricy theory idiots.

Commies Everywhere! 'ers, Moon Landings R Fake111!!11 'ers ,9/11 was an inside job 'ers, Al Gore is trying to take over the world 'ers, Obama stole queen Clinton's Presidency so lets become idiot PUMAs 'ers,

The sad thing is. This is old news. Its not even "hip" conspircy theory.

[Enigma]

Feel free to be a laughing stock with this insanity. Works in the favor of us who support President Obama. :salute:

[Onkel Neal]

How about commenting without throwing out words like "idiots" and "insanity".

[SteamWake]

Seriously, if anyone's campaign had decided to release a forged birth certificate, don't you think it'd be gigantic, worldwide front page new?

Yea... about that news...

[SteamWake]

But cash strapped and in debt beyond measure every feasable way to tax american citizens will be conisidered.

Hate to quote myself but...

NY 'stripper' tax..

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112009/news/regionalnews/stripper_tax_is_hard_to_bare_158991.htm

[SteamWake]

One more and Ill stop.. since this is now 'consolidated'.

Someone once said "A great leader surrounds himself with compitent, reliable people".

"Good men all of them" (das boot)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/

[Konovalov]

Some article here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/obama-wiki-fiddler-caught-redhanded/2009/03/11/1236447270592.html) about President Obama, Wiki, and some bloke from some web based news named WorldNetDaily (WND). Dodgy goings on by WND guy.

[SteamWake]

More quality people in the service of Obama

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1622618

[SteamWake]

Man and I though Kerry was a flip flopper...

Hey Obama which is it "The worst crises since the great depression" or "Not as bad as we thought" :doh:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SP30G5&show_article=1

[AVGWarhawk]

He discovered that talking gloom and doom breeds more gloom and doom. When Citi stepped to the plate and said 'hey, we made a profit', what did the markets do? They went up and continued to go up. Today they are staying stable. If you preach gloom and doom there is a chance of the self fulfilling prophecy.

[SteamWake]

He discovered that talking gloom and doom breeds more gloom and doom. When Citi stepped to the plate and said 'hey, we made a profit', what did the markets do? They went up and continued to go up. Today they are staying stable. If you preach gloom and doom there is a chance of the self fulfilling prophecy.

This is nothing alot of us dident know from the start that doom and gloom is self fulfilling.

Curious the timing of this about face only after the bill "Which must be signed or we may never recover" has been signed.

Did it really take him 50 days to come to this realization?

[Thomen]

Not to start a new thread about this, so...

Anyone realize that the DVD set that Obama gave PM Brown wont work in Europe if the DVDs are in area (region) code 1?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/19/confirmed-dvds-obama-gave-gordon-brown-are-the-wrong-format/

[Digital_Trucker]

:har:Guess he better send him a DVD player and TV set now, too:D

Best line from the article:

By the way, when Obama’s unlikely gift was disclosed, a reader emailed me to ask if Clueless was among the films. Funnily enough, it was not.

[SteamWake]

I dont know if you saw Obama's performance on 60 minutes but I fould it to be creepy / chilling.

Yes of course its good to have a sense of humor but to joke about a global crisis :doh:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20339.html

[IanC]

:har: I see the General forum is spammed by these 'Obama is pure evil/anti-Democrat' threads. SUBMAN1 is anybody taking this seriously anymore? The problem is that you've pushed this to such an extreme, that it's becoming a joke now.
Oh well, I'll come back in a month and see if things have changed in here.