Quote :

"When's the last time "terrorist" was included in any kind of criticism? And when has it ever been included in any legitimate criticism? Random signs and yells during a campaign don't count as criticism as far as this discussion is concerned."

i don't think it's been done to obama directly as much as during the campaign. but his nominees have been accused of being anti-israel and there's this latest thing with koh being accused of wanting to implement sharia law. that might not be a direct accusation of being a terrorist or whatever. but it might as well in the subconscious of most americans

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2009 12:27:09 PM

Quote :

"the criticism of Bush started from day one and there's no way Obama criticism has been close to as bad"

lol
you dont think the criticism started day one for Obama?
lol
really?
lol

4/2/2009 12:31:18 PM

hell. it started pre-day 1.

but there are much bigger problems for our country this year than there were in the first few months of 2001.

there should be more serious questioning and criticism now than then.

4/2/2009 12:32:21 PM

Quote :

"lol you dont think the criticism started day one for Obama? lol really? lol"

wait, aimorris made an assertion as to when the criticism started for obama?

sounds to me like he thinks they both got it from the beginning. He was referring to his views of the severity of the criticism.

4/2/2009 12:34:23 PM

lol
too bad
lol
i didn't actually say that
lol

Quote :

"It also drips from Glenn Beck's rhetoric."

I totally disagree but I've actually listened to Glenn Beck before he went on Fox News and was grouped into "THOSE CRAZY NEO-CONS ON FOX NEWS." Beck's actually been more critical of Congress - Dodd, Frank, and Pelosi in particular - than Obama himself.

4/2/2009 12:35:16 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTzCdY6SqDQ

4/2/2009 12:37:06 PM

Hell ya! ... Pulling the world out of recession! I would have expected the world leaders to look a little more dour. Here's Obam and friends at the G20:





[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason : pic fail/typo]

4/2/2009 12:37:56 PM

^^ and?

Since when did fascism = terrorism?

He specifically says it's not the "Adolf Hitler Nazi" kind and he specifically does not advocate any kind of violence. Disagree with his viewpoint all you want, and there are many times that I do myself, but because he has a show on Fox News now, everybody is just going to dismiss him as a crazy lunatic neo-con hating rabble-rouser.

He had callers on his show many times during the campaign who tried to use bullshit Joe the Plumber-type rhetoric and call Obama "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and Beck always told them how stupid it was and to stop. He called out that type of shit when it was going down at rallies all the time.

Yeah he doesn't like Obama. He was not exactly a McCain supporter though and he's been critical of George Bush many times on his radio show. He definitely leans right but this isn't the second coming of Karl Rove. Or maybe his TV show is completely different from what I've heard on his radio show, I've never watched it.

4/2/2009 12:51:05 PM

Quote :

"the criticism of Bush started from day one and there's no way Obama criticism has been close to as bad""

actually other than the questioning of the supreme court situation there was an overwhelming support of bush from the start and even well into 2003. The NY times even supported him during the start of the war. The press has questioned Obama with far more scrutiny than they did bush at the start.

4/2/2009 1:04:37 PM

They should be scrutinizing Obama considering the circumstances, Bush wasn't dealing with this in his few months. But we still had to hear about how he "stole the election" over and over...

I'm not saying Obama is getting a free pass, but I just don't think Obama is getting it worse than Bush did over his two terms, which is what the original comment claimed.

4/2/2009 1:11:04 PM

I am not even going to argue this.

Thanks for making my points for me.

4/2/2009 1:13:45 PM

If Obama just sat back and let the recession take its toll; dibbling in policy making here and there than the same fucks going ape shit over the current legislation getting passed or has passed; could be going ape shit that Obama is not doing anything or acting fast enough to fix the situation.
As far as pleasing the Karl Roves, Ann Coulters, and Rush Limbaughs of america it really is a no win situation for the current administration.

4/2/2009 1:21:16 PM

Putting the country in debt that our children will be paying off is serious business.

Quote :

"Or maybe his TV show is completely different from what I've heard on his radio show, I've never watched it."

I never listened to his radio show but I watch his TV show a lot and I can tell you that he bashes the majority of Congress, be it Republican or Democrat.

4/2/2009 1:49:58 PM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/source-obama-pl.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-signs-emerge-that-apf-14832054.html



[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM. Reason : -]

4/2/2009 2:40:59 PM

^^ It wasn't serious business in the past 8 years?

Or 24 years ago?

4/2/2009 3:17:10 PM

^ don't you care about the children?
come on, man, think about the children!!

4/2/2009 3:30:29 PM

Quote :

"Putting the country in debt that our children will be paying off is serious business. "

{erhaps you should have thought of this before reelecting Bush in 2004
but
No big deal though in blowing trillions and setting records with budget deficits with George Dubya b.c we are gettin them turrists and stopping the axis of evil!

If only we had a conservative president like Bill Clinton who actually had a budget surplus.

4/2/2009 4:11:32 PM

I would take George Bush's $400 billion deficits anyday.

4/2/2009 4:57:12 PM

^Guess what HUR....Bush spent to much money too.....Everyone knows that. Thats part of the reason why he lost his base support. ~30% approval rating.

They're both wrong!

Bush spent too much money...you and I both agree!!! Obama is spending even more money (he may even bankrupt the country in a few years at this rate) and yet only I think its wrong. Please tell me you see the hypocrasy here. You're defending a spender with a spender.

4/2/2009 5:00:44 PM

Here's hoping. I fear it may not be technically possible to bankrupt the United States.

4/2/2009 5:26:21 PM

Quote :

"I was under the impression that they blamed us for the current economic conditions that happened as a side-effect of the housing market bubble burst and credit market collapse?"

Yes, because the market went south YEARS ago. You are quite daft

Quote :

"is this what the O'Reilly factor told you last night? "

can you not read? The sentence at the end of that post said where I got my information, dickhead.

4/2/2009 6:30:12 PM

^^^^ Obama's guy Ourzag claimed 1.3T of that was "inherited" on The Daily Show.

4/2/2009 7:06:40 PM

so the other 1.7 comes from?

4/2/2009 7:43:15 PM

Why do people think a good counter-point to "Obama is spending too much money" is "Well Bush did too!"

4/2/2009 7:50:24 PM

Because no one ever says "obama is spending too much money."

4/2/2009 7:54:37 PM

A lot of people are saying it. I mean, I guess he's not really spending it, he's just sort of...conjuring it up.

4/2/2009 8:00:47 PM

None of the usual suspects here have said that.

It's usually "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN," when the children have BEEN screwed for decades. Or OMG OBAMA'S a COMMUNIST, or some other dumbshit partisan hyperbole.



No one's disputing that Obama is spending a LOT of money, even Jon Stewart has been bashing him about this (Ourzag does strike me as a competent guy though). But it's not a back-breaking amount (as the above chart shows-- note that social security is excluded), and they seem to expect a halving of the deficit (not debt) before the end of the first term.

The bailout money is spent (that Bush, McCain, and the same republicans in congress who are bitching now supported too), it looks like GM/Chrysler might not get anything, and we still have our normal budget concerns to worry about.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 8:09:28 PM

Quote :

"and they seem to expect a halving of the deficit (not debt) before the end of the first term."

Yeah, but they only accomplish that by looking at the number at 2010, by which point Obama has already quadrupled the deficit.

4/2/2009 8:27:09 PM

Quote :

"You're defending a spender with a spender."

I do not particularly like Obama's economic plan. I just do not think Republicans have a very viable alternative to offer
for 2012. At one time i was an ardent McCain supporter until he transformed into McPalin that is.

4/2/2009 8:50:26 PM

I love all these people that are now all, "brand new". You know, pretending that Obama didn't have this crisis - the worst economic crisis since the great depression - dropped in his lap. Pretending that it's just, "typical liberal spending." No one denies that much of the deficit is necessary.

I do admit that he is using the opportunity to implement some of his social policies, but that is comparatively small compared to the financial system and auto bailout. Not to mention, I happen to believe that we've been on the wrong track for a number of years and agree with many of the social changes.

The Republicans do have a plan - bail out only the financial institutions that fucked things up, and leave everyone elso to their own devices. To use a hockey allegory, when they asked Wayne Gretzky about the secret to his success, he simply said, "I skate to where the puck is going" For too long this country has been skating toward the past. It's good to see someone leading with the future in mind.

4/2/2009 10:22:15 PM

Quote :

"To use a hockey allegory,"

..Obama is trying to keep Capitalism in the penalty box.

4/2/2009 10:30:51 PM

^^ He may have had it dropped in his lap, but doing more of what Bush was doing (and worse) is not the way to go about doing things. Bush's plan bailed out the people that got us into this mess. People were pissed about that. Obama seems to think that the reason people were pissed is because they weren't getting any money either, not that the government was handing out our tax money like tips at a strip club.

4/2/2009 10:55:33 PM

Quote :

"I love all these people that are now all, "brand new". You know, pretending that Obama didn't have this crisis - the worst economic crisis since the great depression - dropped in his lap. Pretending that it's just, "typical liberal spending." No one denies that much of the deficit is necessary. I do admit that he is using the opportunity to implement some of his social policies, but that is comparatively small compared to the financial system and auto bailout"

Quote :

"doing more of what Bush was doing (and worse) is not the way to go about doing things"

Beyond just spending money like there is no tomorrow i'd say Obama is not doing anything that bush has.

Quote :

"Bush's plan bailed out the people that got us into this mess. People were pissed about that. Obama seems to think that the reason people were pissed is because they weren't getting any money either, n"

The people are pissed b.c after getting laid off from their job, the same banks that is foreclosing on their house (after jacking up their ARM interest rate mulitiple percentage points as a desperate measure to get back
money lost on the snowballing loans that are defaulting), are begging the government for bail outs paid using tax payer money.

aaronburro's dream of a hyper-capitalist economy and free markets was shot down to hell as soon as the ex-president bush even began considering bailing out the industry. As a pure free market supporter EarthDogg you should be ashamed of both parties. Simply having elected McPalin or some other RNC candidate last year would not mean we would be entering the new golden age of capitalism.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:14 PM. Reason : l]

4/2/2009 11:14:05 PM

Quote :

"Beyond just spending money like there is no tomorrow i'd say Obama is not doing anything that bush has. "

Spending money, surrounding himself with industry insiders with a vested interest in getting bailed out (quite the opposite of his campaign promises), allowing other politicians to dictate how things happen, appointing poor choices to government positions, then there's the whole telecom immunity bit, and the international protocol goofs that he's been making which are on par with some of the stupid shit Bush did. All in all, things haven't exactly changed much since Bush was in office, just the people who are defending the president.

4/3/2009 7:45:23 AM

Quote :

" All in all, things haven't exactly changed much since Bush was in office, just the people who are defending the president."

QFT

4/3/2009 8:22:37 AM

-

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 8:30 AM. Reason : --]

4/3/2009 8:30:23 AM

4/3/2009 10:05:56 AM

Quote :

"As a pure free market supporter EarthDogg you should be ashamed of both parties. "

I am. They both suck.

Quote :

"Simply having elected McPalin or some other RNC candidate last year would not mean we would be entering the new golden age of capitalism."

Perhaps not. But at least we wouldn't be slipping into the dark age of socialism so quickly.

4/3/2009 10:52:13 AM

The US has been socialist to an extent for decades. Obama isn't putting capitalism in a penalty box, unless you see capitalism as being in the penalty box for the past nearly 80 years.

Quote :

"Spending money, surrounding himself with industry insiders with a vested interest in getting bailed out (quite the opposite of his campaign promises), allowing other politicians to dictate how things happen, appointing poor choices to government positions, then there's the whole telecom immunity bit, and the international protocol goofs that he's been making which are on par with some of the stupid shit Bush did. All in all, things haven't exactly changed much since Bush was in office, just the people who are defending the president."

Are you serious? You are ignoring a TON of stuff that Obama has done differently than Bush, and distorting some of the stuff he HAS been doing.

4/3/2009 11:19:14 AM

Quote :

"You know, pretending that Obama didn't have this crisis - the worst economic crisis since the great depression - dropped in his lap."

I read a lot of economics literature and I have seen nothing to suggest this economic crisis is worse than previous recessions. In fact, I have seen several Fed. economists predict this will be yet another short recession has been the tradition since the early 1980s.

Quote :

" Pretending that it's just, "typical liberal spending." No one denies that much of the deficit is necessary."

I deny that most of the deficit is necessary. Yes, some of it is necessary because tax revenues fall during a recession and therefore running deficits during a recession is sensible. But borrowing so much that you crowd out the private sector accomplishes nothing good.

4/3/2009 11:24:41 AM

^totally agreed.

Quote :

"I do admit that he is using the opportunity to implement some of his social policies, but that is comparatively small compared to the financial system and auto bailout. Not to mention, I happen to believe that we've been on the wrong track for a number of years and agree with many of the social changes."

Comparatively small? Obama's trying to railroad carbon cap and trade through his budget, something that over the years could yield the government over a trillion dollars in taxes. Compared to well less than $100 billion for the auto bail out and I don't see how you can make the comparision. Furthermore, unless Obama gets all that money from the evil carbon emitters there's no way he can reduce his budget deficit like he promises.

4/3/2009 1:33:06 PM

Quote :

"Although Democrats trimmed Obama's initial plans and ignored his ideas for offsetting the costs of new programs, the thrust remained largely intact. The Obama budget would borrow an estimated $9.3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, doubling the public debt as a share of the nation's output from 41 percent to 82 percent. The budget calls for nearly $4 trillion in deficits over the next five years."

Quote :

"The GOP alternative, however, rested largely on continuing Bush administration policies that still would have left deficits in the $500 billion range each year. Republicans called for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, slashing corporate and capital gains taxes and hacking two-thirds of the spending from the stimulus measure approved earlier this year. The GOP budget still would have raised borrowing sharply, to 62 percent of the national output over 10 years."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/02/MN4416RHS0.DTL

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/3/2009 2:40:04 PM

Quote :

"Are you serious? You are ignoring a TON of stuff that Obama has done differently than Bush, and distorting some of the stuff he HAS been doing."

Yes I'm serious. And yes, Obama has done a lot of things differently, but I call using a national crisis to railroad your particular agenda through without pause for consideration to be the same action, regardless of the specifics of that agenda. But please, enlighten me as to how Obama has brought The Change™

4/3/2009 6:17:04 PM

Quote :

"After the Strasbourg summit, Mr Obama ruffled some feathers in Europe by explicitly backing Turkish membership of the EU - prompting a sniffy rebuke from Mr Sarkozy that that would be Europe's decision, not America's. In Istanbul today, Mr Obama was asked about Mr Sarkozy's comments. "It is true that the United States is not a member of the EU, so it's not our decision to take, but that doesn't prevent me fro having an opinion," he replied. "I've noticed that the Europeans have a lot of opinions about US policy for a long time and they've not been shy about expressing them. That's what friends do.""

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece

I can honestly say, without any sarcasm what so ever, that is the best bit of completely on point snark I've heard out of an american politician in a long time. My only quibble is I would have left off the "That's what friends do" bit, but I know exactly why it's there.

GG Obama.

4/7/2009 11:27:35 PM

Quote :

" that is the best bit of completely on point snark I've heard out of an american politician in a long time."

Indeed. Way to out-snark the French, Obama - that alone is an accomplishment.

4/7/2009 11:34:31 PM

I don't think the EU should accept Turkey though. Or at least, I haven't read anything convincing me they'd be a good fit, but i've read some indicating they may be a bad fit.

[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM. Reason : ]

4/8/2009 12:33:09 AM

Too bad this wasn't real.

Quote :

"Car and Driver’s April Fools’ prank ended up being a serious misfire. The prank stated that President Barack Obama had made Chevrolet’s and Dodge’s departure from NASCAR mandatory if the companies wanted to receive further financial support. NASCAR fans blew their tops. People in the racing community were offended. Members of the media picked up on the story and treated it as if it were true. Even NASCAR wasn’t pleased. My first impression was that everyone needed to lighten up. But after doing some research and spending a little time thinking the controversy over, I realized that the situation was a little more complicated. A key component of writing or drawing humor is the use of exaggeration. That’s how you make a real situation funny and signal to the reader that what you’re saying is not to be taken literally. But when it comes to an April Fools’ “joke” this rule doesn’t necessarily apply. April Fools’ jokes really aren’t jokes. They are more like a trick. Something is presented as reality, hoping to trick the victim into believing the false reality. If the prank were presented in a humorous fashion, no one would believe it to begin with, so it’s crucial to any April Fools’ prank that it has the air of credibility to trick a person into taking you at your word. This is what Car and Driver was attempting to do. It’s a reputable publication and people trust what it has to say. This, in theory, would make the prank more effective since it would be more believable. The real problem with the April Fools’ prank was that it touched on a subject that was too close to home for NASCAR, NASCAR fans and the racing community. NASCAR is concerned about it’s future in this economy. Teams depend on corporate America and what is now a debilitated auto industry for the financial backing to make their cars run. Fans are worried about NASCAR’s future, too. In addition, fans that often feel free to criticize the sport they love can be very protective of the sport when others criticize or make fun of it. So everyone is on edge as they fret about what the future will bring for them personally and for Sprint Cup racing. What Car and Driver needed to ask itself was if this prank was worthwhile given the sensitive nature of the current state of the sport, the apprehension about people’s job security and the dire circumstances surrounding the auto industry. If the prank had been a humorous attempt at examining the state of the sport, it may have worked. But given the way an April Fool’s prank must be executed, this ‘joke” was doomed to fall flat from the beginning."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/bloggity/2009/apr/03/why-car-and-drivers-april-fools-prank-about-nascar/

This is one of those extremely rare moments where it might have been worth it to have yahoo bumpkin Nascar fan rednecks around just so I could have seen their reaction to this. Sadly, they get the last laugh because it wasn't true.

4/8/2009 1:01:16 AM

Quote :

"April 3, 2009 · 7:40 PM"

old

4/8/2009 1:39:29 AM

I know, I know. I meant to post it sooner but this is the first chance I got around to it. I am surprised that no one beat me to it.

4/8/2009 1:41:43 AM

I read C&Der's original NASCAR article online and I thought it was hilarious.

I guess this just proves that even NASCAR fans can be some seriously whiny bitches.

4/8/2009 1:04:36 PM