DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Presidental BS conference
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 241, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/12/2009 04:27:31 PM · #76
Yeah, ask the folks in Now Orleans whether they think wetlands restoration is "pork" ... my guess is that the work involved will create jobs which can't be outsourced.

Please explain why restoring habitat to a less-polluted environment used by many species (not just that mouse) is a bad thing to be doing, especially if it creates local jobs right away?
02/12/2009 05:11:11 PM · #77
Originally posted by Flash:

Faux News also printed this story on fossil proof of evolution. Must be false due to the source. Those darn Faux editors should know that no one believes their crap. Why even print this piece in support of evolution? That dog gone Faux News anyway. Crap - just crap.


I was a little disappointed that the recently discovered Maiacetus inuus wasn’t included in the article. It just one on a list of fossils showing the evolutionary development of whales to have been discovered over the last twenty years.

Here’s the Fox News article published on MSNBC if you think scalvert will find that source more palatable.
02/12/2009 05:24:09 PM · #78
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

...and drive the car off the bridge (unless you're George W. Bush).


Don't you mean Kennedy?
02/12/2009 06:17:01 PM · #79
As long as we're going to talk about Fox...Here

Fox news is a joke. It's basically a bunch of conservative activists masquerading as newscasters.
02/12/2009 07:34:53 PM · #80
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

As long as we're going to talk about Fox...Here

Fox news is a joke. It's basically a bunch of conservative activists masquerading as newscasters.


Almost - if not every [TV] news agency is a joke. Each tilts one way or the other for their on political and monetary gain. If you want to know the truth about anything politically motivation you are going to have to do your own research to get a non-bias point of view.
02/12/2009 07:52:44 PM · #81
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by karmat:

Going on hearsay here, and haven't had time to properly document it, but wasn't here something about promising 5 days from a bill being passed before he signed it -- giving the public time to "look" at it?

"We will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it."

The question is whether this economic crisis qualifies as an emergency. It probably does.


It was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I don't think it would constitute an emergency.

It was passed, he signed it, then was added to the website for comment.
02/12/2009 08:01:50 PM · #82
Those 22,000 layoffs Obama claimed Cat would pull back if the stimulus passed?

Yeah, not so much...

Damn right wing Cat and ABC news!!!!!!

02/13/2009 11:31:41 AM · #83
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Those 22,000 layoffs Obama claimed Cat would pull back if the stimulus passed?

Yeah, not so much...

Damn right wing Cat and ABC news!!!!!!


LoudDog - the operating word in Obama's current claim is "saved". He likes to associate it with the word "created" but in reality his intent for the stimulus bill is to "save" 3.5 million (used to be 4 million) jobs. This allows him to still have the economy tank worse, blame that on the Repubs (since he inherited it) - and claim that without "his" stimulus package it would have even been 3.5 million jobs worse, thus he "saved" them due to this 800 billion spending bill.
02/13/2009 12:56:30 PM · #84
Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises
Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


Interesting...

Sorry for the hijack. Carry on
02/13/2009 02:25:09 PM · #85
Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises
Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


Interesting...

Sorry for the hijack. Carry on


Dahkota has already posted on Lott's credibility and others have weighed in as well. Again - regardless of your views on the author - are his points on Obama failing to keep his campaign promises, accurate or not? So far, most of the commentary has been against the messenger, whilst Obama's recurring campaign mantra of "This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" apparently meant, "this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression but I didn't really KNOW it was the greatest financial crisis - I was just using campaign speak to get the job - but holy crap - this really IS bad." No kidding - Sherlock. Maybe if we had suspended our campaigns and dealt with it like grown ups instead of making it just one more political football to kick downfield loaded with pork, we might have stabalized, by now. But no, we threw 700 Billion at Wall Street as an emergency measure because we had to act swiftly, and 3 months later we are worse off. Now we have to throw nearly a Trillion more at it, with 65% loaded with...

02/13/2009 02:32:08 PM · #86
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises
Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


Interesting...

Sorry for the hijack. Carry on


Dahkota has already posted on Lott's credibility and others have weighed in as well. Again - regardless of your views on the author - are his points on Obama failing to keep his campaign promises, accurate or not? So far, most of the commentary has been against the messenger, whilst Obama's recurring campaign mantra of "This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" apparently meant, "this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression but I didn't really KNOW it was the greatest financial crisis - I was just using campaign speak to get the job - but holy crap - this really IS bad." No kidding - Sherlock. Maybe if we had suspended our campaigns and dealt with it like grown ups instead of making it just one more political football to kick downfield loaded with pork, we might have stabalized, by now. But no, we threw 700 Billion at Wall Street as an emergency measure because we had to act swiftly, and 3 months later we are worse off. Now we have to throw nearly a Trillion more at it, with 65% loaded with...


Do you really believe the economy would have stabilized by now? Don't blame the current president for the actions of the previous. Do you really think that one month in office is enough time to evaluate the new president on whether promises are being kept or not?

Are we worse off because the money thrown at the banks made it worse? Is it worse because there were weak/no checks and balances in the original bailout? How much longer could the country stand having the previous administration in office? How long would it take to agree on the checks and balances under the previous administration?
02/14/2009 12:23:36 PM · #87
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises
Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


Interesting...

Sorry for the hijack. Carry on


Dahkota has already posted on Lott's credibility and others have weighed in as well. Again - regardless of your views on the author - are his points on Obama failing to keep his campaign promises, accurate or not? So far, most of the commentary has been against the messenger, whilst Obama's recurring campaign mantra of "This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" apparently meant, "this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression but I didn't really KNOW it was the greatest financial crisis - I was just using campaign speak to get the job - but holy crap - this really IS bad." No kidding - Sherlock. Maybe if we had suspended our campaigns and dealt with it like grown ups instead of making it just one more political football to kick downfield loaded with pork, we might have stabalized, by now. But no, we threw 700 Billion at Wall Street as an emergency measure because we had to act swiftly, and 3 months later we are worse off. Now we have to throw nearly a Trillion more at it, with 65% loaded with...


I think the substance of your criticisms and Lott's critique have been addressed, but the message isn't penetrating your absolute inflexible rejection of Obama's policies and your desire to see him/his policies fail. Obama promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts but has changed his position in that regard, at least for the foreseeable future, but I don't hear you complaining about that. Why has he decided not to repeal the tax cuts now? Obviously, his understanding of the financial crisis has evolved as the crisis itself changes, and he is flexible enough to adapt his policies to enact what he and his advisors decide is the most appropriate course of action. Also remember that 3 million jobs have been lost in the last year, but half of them, 1.5 million, have been lost in the last three months (November, December and January). So the crisis has accelerated since the election, and I would expect any competent and responsible leader not to stick doggedly and irrationally to so-called "promises" that now don't make any sense given the new circumstances. Why is this concept of responsible and flexible leadership so difficult for you to understand?

And by the way, only half of the $700 billion for the banks has been spent to date. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the bank/credit crisis would have improved by now had we NOT spent that $350 billion? Or any evidence to suggest that having spent that $350 billion has exacerbated the crisis?

Message edited by author 2009-02-16 18:48:15.
02/16/2009 05:21:14 AM · #88
Originally posted by Flash:

Maybe if we had suspended our campaigns and dealt with it like grown ups instead of making it just one more political football to kick downfield loaded with pork, we might have stabalized, by now. But no, we threw 700 Billion at Wall Street as an emergency measure because we had to act swiftly, and 3 months later we are worse off. Now we have to throw nearly a Trillion more at it, with 65% loaded with...


Ah yes. The republicans were famous for their non-partisan, cross-bench policies and political approach based on independent advice, always looking for the deeper answer rather appealing to sound bite politics. What really amazed me was the way that they carefully managed to avoid excess spending and refrained from cynically using global events to further their personal and political aims.

Oh - actually, maybe I am thinking of someone else.

[I find amusing the idea that we might have stabilised the global economy by fine tweaking the US rescue package...!]
02/16/2009 07:28:10 AM · #89
Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:

Maybe if we had suspended our campaigns and dealt with it like grown ups instead of making it just one more political football to kick downfield loaded with pork, we might have stabalized, by now. But no, we threw 700 Billion at Wall Street as an emergency measure because we had to act swiftly, and 3 months later we are worse off. Now we have to throw nearly a Trillion more at it, with 65% loaded with...


Ah yes. The republicans were famous for their non-partisan, cross-bench policies and political approach based on independent advice, always looking for the deeper answer rather appealing to sound bite politics. What really amazed me was the way that they carefully managed to avoid excess spending and refrained from cynically using global events to further their personal and political aims.

Oh - actually, maybe I am thinking of someone else.

[I find amusing the idea that we might have stabilised the global economy by fine tweaking the US rescue package...!]


Your last line Matthew, reads as though the "global" economic problems were outside the US's control. Great. Our "tweaking" would have had minimal if any impact. By reading other posts, it seems that Bush and the republicans and the domestic automobile manufacturers were the cause of the crisis. It is their fault the world went spiraling downward. Is this not so? Is this some how above the fault of the americans and specifically the american right?
02/16/2009 07:55:26 AM · #90
Originally posted by Flash:

Your last line Matthew, reads as though the "global" economic problems were outside the US's control. Great. Our "tweaking" would have had minimal if any impact. By reading other posts, it seems that Bush and the republicans and the domestic automobile manufacturers were the cause of the crisis. It is their fault the world went spiraling downward. Is this not so? Is this some how above the fault of the americans and specifically the american right?


You have a very odd view of things. I thought that you said at some point that you had a background in economics?

The trigger point for the global downturn is fairly squarely laid at the feet of US banks which lent too easily, the ratings agencies that overvalued the security of that lending when repackaged as CDOs, and the international banks who bought the loans (in CDOs) at face value without investigating them in detail.

By this process, US toxic lending has infected most banks globally, causing the banks to reassess how much money they have compared to what they thought they had, and then stop lending (or increase the price of borrowing).

Because lending has stopped and loans have become more expensive, businesses that are highly leveraged (ie have a lot of debt) are struggling. They are laying off people.

Individuals have stopped buying, because employment is going down and because their major assets have been devalued (because there are fewer buyers out there). Businesses are therefore making fewer sales. Businesses that sell high cost products or luxury items, are suffering most.

The automotive industry has it bad both ways: (1) high debt that it cannot refinance, and (2) a business model that relies on people buying new cars, which are a high cost luxury item (when compared to making your current car last for another year). It is not the cause of the crisis, but a dual victim - it might not have been had it been historically more prudent/efficient.

So the crisis can be blamed largely on the US lending banks. It is not the fault of the US automotive industry.

Whether the US rescue package involves what you call "pork" spending or not is fairly irrelevant (hence my comment on tweaking): it is designed to push cash into the economy and reverse the downward spiral of (at its simplest) jobs lost = reduced spending = lose more jobs.

Criticising the administration for focussing on the big picture at the expense of some election promises is short-sightedness in the extreme.

ETA: most other countries are implementing their own rescue packages - the US package is probably the biggest (reflecting the size of the economy to be rescued), but it will not rescue the global economy alone.

Message edited by author 2009-02-16 08:04:13.
02/16/2009 08:53:17 AM · #91
Originally posted by Matthew:

You have a very odd view of things. I thought that you said at some point that you had a background in economics?


You must have me confused with another.

From your post - you say that US banks were the catalyst and thus the perveyor of the current world economic meltdown. You post examples of how a lack of regulatory oversight and overvaluing, infected other countires banking institutions when they purchased CDO's. You post as though you do believe that the US is the core culprit. Is there any responsibility on institutions to evaluate the risk of purchases and investments they make? If EU banks bought/invested in risky products, why would they not be responsible/accountable for their own choices?

This is the consistent theme/mantra of liberals, it is always someone else's fault. Even our President claims it is "not me". Even with him as a sitting Senator during this event. If he had the foresight to not support the Iraq War, then why didn't he have the foresight to encourage his own party to support more regulation over the banking loan practices? Reads like just more politics to me.

Regardless - with the new administration, the world will now see the US more favorably. Americans can travel again without fear of kidnapping, terrorism will shrivel up and wither away, the enviornment will heal itself, and encomomic prosperity will come to all.
02/16/2009 06:46:36 PM · #92
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:

You have a very odd view of things. I thought that you said at some point that you had a background in economics?


You must have me confused with another.

From your post - you say that US banks were the catalyst and thus the perveyor of the current world economic meltdown. You post examples of how a lack of regulatory oversight and overvaluing, infected other countires banking institutions when they purchased CDO's. You post as though you do believe that the US is the core culprit. Is there any responsibility on institutions to evaluate the risk of purchases and investments they make? If EU banks bought/invested in risky products, why would they not be responsible/accountable for their own choices?

This is the consistent theme/mantra of liberals, it is always someone else's fault. Even our President claims it is "not me".


Matthew cited three categories of institutions that were major catalysts, "US banks which lent too easily, the ratings agencies that overvalued the security... and the international banks (emphasis added) who bought the loans (in CDOs) at face value without investigating them in detail," without assigning more or less blame to any of the three entities.

Your accusation of blame shifting really lacks credibility at this point. I wish I had a dime for every time you (and the right-wing generally) have blamed the Dems for the failure of Bush administration policies during the last eight years. If the Republicans want to be the party of "personal responsibility" again, you all had better start owning your mistakes.
02/16/2009 06:48:51 PM · #93
right on, Judith!
02/16/2009 08:25:45 PM · #94
Originally posted by NVPhoto:

Originally posted by skewsme:

check your facts - he writes his own speeches for the most part


He doesn't write his own. Probably wrote some of his own, but he has a speechwriter for the big ones. Not only that, but the speech writer is 27yrs old!!
speechwriter


Does it really matter who writes the speeches. It is the President who reads and approves the speech that was wrote for him. I'll guarantee you that Obama would not read anything in a speech that he did not agree with. Let's face it... the Job of President is never ending and as was alluded to before there are not enough hours in the day to do everything yourself and get done everything that needs to get done.
02/16/2009 09:46:01 PM · #95
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:



Your accusation of blame shifting really lacks credibility at this point. I wish I had a dime for every time you (and the right-wing generally) have blamed the Dems for the failure of Bush administration policies during the last eight years. If the Republicans want to be the party of "personal responsibility" again, you all had better start owning your mistakes.


Unfortunately, it has been my experience that members on both sides of the aisle are readily available and exponentially skilled at blaming the other "side."

I also don't see it stopping anytime soon.
02/16/2009 11:46:56 PM · #96
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:



Your accusation of blame shifting really lacks credibility at this point. I wish I had a dime for every time you (and the right-wing generally) have blamed the Dems for the failure of Bush administration policies during the last eight years. If the Republicans want to be the party of "personal responsibility" again, you all had better start owning your mistakes.


Unfortunately, it has been my experience that members on both sides of the aisle are readily available and exponentially skilled at blaming the other "side."

I also don't see it stopping anytime soon.


Hmm...I just saw a ranking of presidents from best to worst good ol George W. Bust was 7th from the bottom. Can't say where Obama will rank, but I'd say that given W.'s rank, the Republicans could make a good start by admitting his nomination was the first in a long line of boo-boos.
02/17/2009 08:31:18 AM · #97
Originally posted by Flash:

This is the consistent theme/mantra of liberals, it is always someone else's fault. Even our President claims it is "not me". Even with him as a sitting Senator during this event. If he had the foresight to not support the Iraq War, then why didn't he have the foresight to encourage his own party to support more regulation over the banking loan practices? Reads like just more politics to me.


Do you claim that the republican position is one of fault acceptance?
02/17/2009 11:37:54 AM · #98
Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:

This is the consistent theme/mantra of liberals, it is always someone else's fault. Even our President claims it is "not me". Even with him as a sitting Senator during this event. If he had the foresight to not support the Iraq War, then why didn't he have the foresight to encourage his own party to support more regulation over the banking loan practices? Reads like just more politics to me.


Do you claim that the republican position is one of fault acceptance?


The conservative/republican position is typically one of individual responsibility verses the liberal/democratic position of group responsibility. This is the main philosophical difference between the parties.

I read an article today about 2 cities in dire housing crisis (Las Vegas and Detroit). Include in that article was a particular sentance that to me sums up quite appropriately the typical mindset difference.
"But starting in the 1960s, Detroit began a precipitous decline. Detroit's population is now 900,000--half what it was in the middle of the century--and many of its neighborhoods languish in varying states of decay. Most scholars blame rapid suburbanization, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and federal programs they say exacerbated the situation by creating a culture of joblessness and dependency."

This "culture of joblessness and dependency" was the direct result of a long standing democratic (liberal) controlled government.

article
02/17/2009 11:46:03 AM · #99
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:

This is the consistent theme/mantra of liberals, it is always someone else's fault. Even our President claims it is "not me". Even with him as a sitting Senator during this event. If he had the foresight to not support the Iraq War, then why didn't he have the foresight to encourage his own party to support more regulation over the banking loan practices? Reads like just more politics to me.


Do you claim that the republican position is one of fault acceptance?


The conservative/republican position is typically one of individual responsibility verses the liberal/democratic position of group responsibility. This is the main philosophical difference between the parties.

I read an article today about 2 cities in dire housing crisis (Las Vegas and Detroit). Include in that article was a particular sentance that to me sums up quite appropriately the typical mindset difference.
"But starting in the 1960s, Detroit began a precipitous decline. Detroit's population is now 900,000--half what it was in the middle of the century--and many of its neighborhoods languish in varying states of decay. Most scholars blame rapid suburbanization, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and federal programs they say exacerbated the situation by creating a culture of joblessness and dependency."

This "culture of joblessness and dependency" was the direct result of a long standing democratic (liberal) controlled government.

article


What a crock.

If individual responsibility were really part of the Republican philosophy, we'd have had 8 years of transparency in the White House under GWB. We'd also know who in the administration outed Valerie Plame, in fact, they'd have come out and said , "It was me, I made a mistake." ohhhhhhhhhhhh the list goes on and on for miles, there's not enough space to post it all. Senator Larry Craig would be out of the closet. Ted Stevens would have acknowledged his illegal gifts (or not taken them in the first place.)
02/17/2009 12:03:45 PM · #100
Originally posted by Flash:

... This is the consistent theme/mantra of liberals ...

No, as demonstrated by how many times you've repeated this distorted accusation, the consistent "mantra" is yours.

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you go vote on a challenge or try to improve your photography or something? This site is good for that, too!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/02/2020 02:54:30 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/02/2020 02:54:30 PM EDT.