(Close Window)
Topic: Is this a contrast, or what?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 20, 2011 05:18PM)
Do you think these two excerpts reveal a difference in character and leadership?

One:

[quote]The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today,on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em. [/quote]

Two:

[quote]And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside ofPakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan .[/quote]

Discuss.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (May 20, 2011 05:21PM)
Or what.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 20, 2011 05:25PM)
That's some good cherry-picking, that is.

I read it first at Fox, though.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 20, 2011 05:41PM)
[quote]On 2011-05-20 18:25, balducci wrote:
That's some good cherry-picking, that is.[/quote]
One thing about cherry-picking: the cherries gotta be there first before you can pick 'em.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 20, 2011 06:10PM)
The experiment could be repeated a dozen times, and it would give similar results. It is hard for a narcissist to think that there is anything else in the world but I I I I I I . . . .
Message: Posted by: Payne (May 20, 2011 06:21PM)
Boy it still just tears you up inside that a someone else got Osama in less than two year on the job while your guy couldn't find him in seven years. And goofed up big time by taking his eye off the ball by invading the wrong country to boot.

BTW President Obama also had this to say

"Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot. . . .Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

I'm starting to think that maybe Chance was right after all :)
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (May 20, 2011 06:24PM)
OPQ:

No.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 20, 2011 06:24PM)
Who was President when UBL got whacked doesn't bother me at all. That's not the point. The way different Presidents conduct themselves is what interested me in the two quotes.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 20, 2011 06:32PM)
In this case the first statement was designed to accept responsibility for the decision to act.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 20, 2011 06:37PM)
P.S. I am far from an admirer of all of President Bush's policies & actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. But I think it only fair to recognize the man's humility and forebearance. He never once lashed out at his critics the way certain other Presidents have done, and the care with which he physically assisted an ailing Senator Robert Byrd, even after the vitriolic calumnies which Senator Byrd abused him, was a demonstration of charity and civility.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 20, 2011 10:56PM)
"I am the decider . . ."

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

The United States of Amnesia.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 20, 2011 11:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-20 19:21, Payne wrote:
Boy it still just tears you up inside that a someone else got Osama in less than two year on the job while your guy couldn't find him in seven years.
[/quote]

How very Al Angelo of you.

If Bush had the same dedication and personally went door to door throughout the Middle East like Obama did, this would have all been over years ago.
Message: Posted by: Payne (May 21, 2011 12:59AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-20 19:37, Woland wrote:
P.S. I am far from an admirer of all of President Bush's policies & actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. But I think it only fair to recognize the man's humility and forbearance. He never once lashed out at his critics the way certain other Presidents have done, and the care with which he physically assisted an ailing Senator Robert Byrd, even after the vitriolic calumnies which Senator Byrd abused him, was a demonstration of charity and civility.
[/quote]

Yeah, cause nothing says humility and forbearance like landing on an aircraft carrier in full flight gear underneath a mission accomplished banner :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 21, 2011 01:14AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 01:59, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-20 19:37, Woland wrote:
P.S. I am far from an admirer of all of President Bush's policies & actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. But I think it only fair to recognize the man's humility and forbearance. He never once lashed out at his critics the way certain other Presidents have done, and the care with which he physically assisted an ailing Senator Robert Byrd, even after the vitriolic calumnies which Senator Byrd abused him, was a demonstration of charity and civility.
[/quote]

Yeah, cause nothing says humility and forbearance like landing on an aircraft carrier in full flight gear underneath a mission accomplished banner :)
[/quote]

Heh heh.

Full point.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (May 21, 2011 04:44AM)
Consider, if you will, that the banner was by and for the crew of the Carrier which had just completed their mission.
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 06:07AM)
But the photo op placed the Banner over Bush's head. More about Bush less about the crew, in my opinion.
Also the insinuation that Bush himself flew and landed the Aircraft.
It was all about Bush.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 06:23AM)
Au contraire. I think if you speak with men & women in the military, they understand that the President's interactions with them were all about them.
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 07:00AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 07:23, Woland wrote:
Au contraire. I think if you speak with men & women in the military, they understand that the President's interactions with them were all about them.
[/quote]

That very well may be true but the majority who watched it on tv were not military. It was a Bush photo-op for sure.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 07:39AM)
When you consider the things that President Bush did for and with military personnel and their families, the things that he continues to do, behind the scenes, often with with no press allowed, you realize that the press coverage of something like the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a sideshow.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (May 21, 2011 07:42AM)
Granted, a photo op. Easily accomplished due to the size of the banner and probably a bit of euphoria felt by all on board. An important man stood on deck, a large banner in the background...not exactly spiking the ball, though forgivable if somebody thought it was a 'moment' of fortuitous camera placement. How petty if the Bush handlers had demanded the banner be removed and the crew tribute slighted.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 07:45AM)
Perhaps some of the cold-readers might comment on the body language here:

[img]http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/BushByrd.jpg[/img]

and here:

[img]http://www.cehwiedel.com/blogs/traces-pix/2009/08/ObamaGatesCrowley.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 07:48AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:39, Woland wrote:
When you consider the things that President Bush did for and with military personnel and their families, the things that he continues to do, behind the scenes, often with with no press allowed, you realize that the press coverage of something like the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a sideshow.
[/quote]

A sideshow that had nothing to do with the Bush administration?

I find it insulting that Bush had no time to serve honorably himself but had time for a photo-op.

I guess all those stories about our military having to supply some of their own protective equipment was just a media lie. And charging the hospitalized soldiers for their meals while laid up was just another media lie.
I stand corrected, Bush is the Man. Brave and Heroic. What a Guy, what a role model.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 08:15AM)
President Bush did serve honorably as a fighter pilot, in a unit that was in theater in Viet Nam at the time he joined. No one claims he was a war hero, but he did serve.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 21, 2011 09:19AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:45, Woland wrote:
Perhaps some of the cold-readers might comment on the technique here:

[img]http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/cherrypicking.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 09:42AM)
It's not cherry picking when the details are merely convenient illustrations of observations that can be repeated time and time again. Personnel is policy.
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 10:02AM)
Here is just one bag of cherries to munch on.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf

I don't expect anyone to believe this. After all it's the Media that put this out (New York Times) a very unreliable source.
I have many more crates of cherries if you don't like this batch.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 21, 2011 10:08AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 10:42, Woland wrote:
It's not cherry picking when the details are merely convenient illustrations of observations that can be repeated time and time again. Personnel is policy.
[/quote]

What disappoints me is that you likely believe this.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 21, 2011 10:16AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 14:43, Woland wrote:

You forgot to mention that Robert Byrd [was] an unrepentant racist, segregationist, KKK leader
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:45, Woland wrote:
Perhaps some of the cold-readers might comment on the body language here:

[img]http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/BushByrd.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Based on what you said back in January about Byrd and assuming that it is Byrd in the photo, as it is labelled, I'll take a shot.

Here in the photo, Bush is being deferential and obsequious to Robert Byrd, an unrepentant racist, segregationist, and KKK leader?
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 10:19AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 11:08, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 10:42, Woland wrote:
It's not cherry picking when the details are merely convenient illustrations of observations that can be repeated time and time again. Personnel is policy.
[/quote]

What disappoints me is that you likely believe this.



John
[/quote]

What scares me is too many people don't believe this.

Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 21, 2011 10:30AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:45, Woland wrote:

[img]http://www.cehwiedel.com/blogs/traces-pix/2009/08/ObamaGatesCrowley.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
And here, I believe we have Sgt. James Crowley assisting Professor Henry Louis Gates. Recall, Crowley was in the news for allegedly racially profiling and arresting Gates.

Probably very appropriate that Crowley was the one assisting Gates in this case, rather than Obama. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if that photo were not 'staged' just to show how Crowley and Gates were getting along. Recall, both Crowley and Gates eventually worked together to defuse the situation.
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 10:36AM)
Was this photo taken before or after the beer party?
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 21, 2011 10:37AM)
Now that we know what the photos are in context, I'd love to hear Woland's take on them.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 21, 2011 10:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:48, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:39, Woland wrote:
When you consider the things that President Bush did for and with military personnel and their families, the things that he continues to do, behind the scenes, often with with no press allowed, you realize that the press coverage of something like the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a sideshow.
[/quote]

A sideshow that had nothing to do with the Bush administration?

I find it insulting that Bush had no time to serve honorably himself but had time for a photo-op.
[/quote]

Bush served "honorably," he just got strings pulled so he didn't have to go into combat!
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 10:51AM)
The contexts that have been supplied are not quite right, and the contexts are not necessary in order to read the body language.

First of all, what's significant about President Bush helping Senator Byrd, is that the picture was taken at a ceremony honoring Byrd, if I remember correctly, after Byrd had delivered a series of veritable Philipics denouncing Bush in the most vitriolic language imaginable. Yet President Bush still respected him and assisted him as one would assist any venerable statesman. (The fact that the ranking member of the Democratic Party in the Senate was an unrepentant segregationist and unapologetic former leader of the Ku Klux Klan is irrelevant. Nobody in the Democratic Party ever worried about that.)

Second, the picture of President Obama shows him striding off, alone, leaving his two guests together. He is oblivious to them. He lives in a different world.

A world where, as I've mentioned before, the evening that he claimed the Democratic Party nomination for President was to be heralded as a epochal hinge in the world's history:

[quote]I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. [/quote]

That attitude is apparent in the photograph.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 21, 2011 11:03AM)
The point is this: Woland despises his President and will take any opportunity to show why he is inferior to his predecessor. All evidence in support, Woland takes to be significant. All evidence in contrary, Woland takes to be irrelevant or misleading.

Here's one.

[img]http://www.themiddlefinger.com/photos/president/bush_finger_flip.jpg[/img]

Oh look, here's my Prime Minister:
[img]http://emptybottle.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/stephen-harper-441x269.jpg[/img]

And the Pope:
[img]http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/political-pictures-pope-benedict-spanish-inquisition.jpg[/img]

This is fun!

John
Message: Posted by: irossall (May 21, 2011 11:25AM)
I don't care that Bush gives the finger, just shows he has no more class than me or most American's.
I do have an issue with the disrespectful way he is holding OUR Flag (under his arm pits?).
The Flag should be higher than your head when carrying it open the way he is in the photo. Also the Flag is supposed to be held by the staff.
To give the bird with one hand, while the Flag is carried by the other is disrepectful (at least in my mind it is)
But then again. Too many American's don't stand and remove their hats when our Flag passes by in a parade. I mentioned this to some Friends of mine at a local parade where a good 50% of the crowd remained seated as the Flag marched by. I was chastized by my Friends, who thought that I was nuts to be concerned about such a petty thing. Go Figure.
Iven "patty:
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 21, 2011 12:34PM)
Pretty devastating essay, Irossall. Though not new, it's nice to have it all in one place.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 21, 2011 12:34PM)
Thanks, Magnus, for posting those lovely pictures. I like the Pope's hat. Very practical in the sunshine. His red shoes are great with it, too.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 21, 2011 02:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 11:16, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 14:43, Woland wrote:

You forgot to mention that Robert Byrd [was] an unrepentant racist, segregationist, KKK leader
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:45, Woland wrote:
Perhaps some of the cold-readers might comment on the body language here:

[img]http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/BushByrd.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Based on what you said back in January about Byrd and assuming that it is Byrd in the photo, as it is labelled, I'll take a shot.

Here in the photo, Bush is being deferential and obsequious to Robert Byrd, an unrepentant racist, segregationist, and KKK leader?
[/quote]

You are not going to believe this but I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 21, 2011 03:01PM)
As for photo 2 my first thought was it was staged. (Grrrrrrr just like balducci!) Having the officer who had the problem with the professor assisting him, yea seemed staged and disapointed me in the officer. I think it said far more about the officer than our President. In fact the only thing is that perhaps you could argue that the President has an arrogant look to him. Well he is the President, so why shouldn't he?

Again, and this is just me but I think time is better spent on his policy issues. OF WHICH THERE ARE A GREAT MANY. The rest of the stuff is cool for The View or what not. I think the way he reacted by calling the police stupid could be discussed as opposed to a photo opportunity.

In short I don't think the first photo makes Bush look good, or the second makes President Obama look bad. I am not a supporter of either really.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 21, 2011 03:15PM)
Danny is agreeing with me. Twice in rapid succession! The world is ending today after all! :)
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (May 21, 2011 03:26PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 11:46, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:48, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:39, Woland wrote:
When you consider the things that President Bush did for and with military personnel and their families, the things that he continues to do, behind the scenes, often with with no press allowed, you realize that the press coverage of something like the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a sideshow.
[/quote]

Bush stood behind our troops...

the poor enlisted ***s at the bottom of the ladder at Guantanamo went to prison while Bush, Chaney and their cronies hid safely behind them.

And I suspect this whole sub-thread violates the politics rule on all sides.

But it wasn't the bush administration that did these...

HR 3219, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2010

(April 23, 2010), the United States Congress passed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act, giving severely wounded warriors and the family members who care for them some much-needed support to ensure the warriors receive the highest quality of care available and remain out of nursing homes.

Quite a list here of all the things that the democrats are doing for Veterans, Service People and their families:
http://www.goldstarmoms.com/News/Legislation/Legislation.htm

And then there is this...

Military Families United Backs Presidential Initiative
John Ellsworth, Chairman of Military Families United and Gold Star father, released the following statement in regards to an initiative put forward by President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Dr. Jill Biden that establishes a coordinated and comprehensive Federal approach to supporting military families.
http://www.militaryfamiliesunited.org/releases/mfurelease_012411.html

Ofcourse, facts weigh pretty lightly when compared to preconceptions in most peoples perceptions. And apparently the latest right wing marching lie is that somehow only they care about our appreciate our men and women in arms.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 21, 2011 04:42PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 16:15, balducci wrote:
Danny is agreeing with me. Twice in rapid succession! The world is ending today after all! :)
[/quote]

This makes 3! A man on a pale horse and I am outta here!
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 05:51PM)
[url=http://www.cenedella.com/job-search/i-obama-the-president-and-the-personal-pronoun/]Marc Cenedella has an interesting graph[/url] on Presidential use of the first person pronoun, "I." Those of us who remember President Nixon may recall how fond he was of informing us that some event was the first time an American President had done something, or the first time Richard Nixon had done something -- he was almost incapable of making a presentation without mentioning some "first" or other. Well, the graph seems to bear out my recollection of President Nixon's speechifying:

[img]http://www.cenedella.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Iword1.png[/img]


Now this only shows results of analyzing 12 addresses, so it is far from complete. And you have to correct for the length of the addresses. Nixon was also rather talkative:

[img]http://www.cenedella.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Iword3.png[/img]

There's more at the link.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 07:53PM)
1) What happened to LBJ?
2) Is there any reason whatsoever for this "study" except as some bizarre right wing talking point?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 22, 2011 07:53PM)
LOL Woland. Being interested in social research, I of course wondered how he got these numbers. How can he compare word usage of American presidents?

Random selection? Nope.

Broad sample of their work? Nope

Entire corpus of their speeches? Nope.

So how did he pick them? He never says. He doesn't imply that he read more than what he chose.

Now who wrote these addresses? Nobody seriously thinks the presidents write their own material do they? Of course not, they have staff writers.

But that's ok Woland. You hadn't made an anti-Obama post for over 24 hours. I was wondering if you were ill.

John
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 07:58PM)
Beat you to it this time John. :)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 22, 2011 08:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 20:58, landmark wrote:
Beat you to it this time John. :)
[/quote]

My pleasure.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 22, 2011 08:39PM)
Just for fun, I thought I'd run the test myself. I picked one of Ronald Reagan's speeches at the Presidency Project--the same site Cenedella picked his sample from. Reagan's "Farewell Address to the Nation" contains roughly 3300 words (depending on how you count). He uses "I" 72 times. So Reagan's (not very randomly) chosen speech is 50% longer than either of the Obama addresses, but contain more than double the usage of the word "I".

Well go figger.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 08:54PM)
Magnus,

Mr. Cenedella chose addresses delivered to the CIA by each president. If you want to do your own experiment, then compare the Farewell Addresses of the 12 presidents whose speeches he analyzed. Don't just pick one.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 22, 2011 08:57PM)
The point, Woland, is that this is a stupid measure. But if I get some spare time and access to the texts I'll run the batch through a corpus analysis engine.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 22, 2011 09:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 18:51, Woland wrote:

Marc Cenedella has an interesting graph ...

There's more at the link.
[/quote]
Indeed there is. Marc ends in part by noting:

---
But putting a longer lens on it, we must also note that the present situation is one in which the nation’s security is primarily secured by the type of specialized, professional operations conducted by the CIA and special forces teams.

And with my CEO hat, I’d note that leadership sometimes requires the ‘I’ and not the ‘we’. In times of crisis, or in situations where significant or substantial organizational hurdles block the path to success, it can be the case that the leader needs to switch from the congratulatory ‘we’ to the responsibility and accountability of the ‘I’.

...

It may be that given the inevitable red tape, bureaucracy, and SNAFUs that undercut special teams’ operational effectiveness in the field, that the personal interest and commitment of the President is required as an indication to those who are putting their lives on the line.
---
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 22, 2011 09:35PM)
Ok I must be bored. I compared the use of the word "I" in every inaugural address from Obama back to Kennedy. Make what you will of the results.

President Speech Length Use of "I" Rate
Barack Obama 2396 3 0.13%
GW Bush (2005) 2092 10 0.48%
GW Bush (2001) 1612 15 0.93%
Bill Clinton(1997) 2158 8 0.37%
Bill Clinton(1993) 1600 15 0.94%
GH Bush 2332 39 1.67%
Ronald Reagan (1985) 2598 13 0.50%
Ronald Reagan (1981) 2446 31 1.27%
Jimmy Carter 1226 6 0.49%
Richard Nixon (1973) 1805 16 0.89%
Richard Nixon (1969) 2128 29 1.36%
Lyndon Johnson 1508 15 0.99%
John Kennedy 1366 4 0.29%

This is interesting. If use of the first person singular indicates something awry with a President, then the worst offenders on the list are Ronald Reagan (1981), GH Bush, Richand Nixon (1969) and Lyndon Johnson. And the most humble of all, is Barack Obama.

Who would have predicted that? And if I had blogged it, who would have posted it to the Café? Such difficult questions for the day after the Rapture.

John

PS the table looked perfect before submitting. Sorry about the mess.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 10:09PM)
Nice work. I wouldn't have expected Jimmy Carter to be the briefest. Or Barack Obama the wordiest.

Woland

P.S. You'll note that in my original post of Mr. Cenedella's results, the only President I mentioned was Richard Nixon, and it was to illustrate a point about how I remembered his speeches, that I posted the graphs. You guys were the one who rushed to the defense of President Obama - running when you weren't chased. Is that a form of Magician's Guilt?
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 22, 2011 10:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 23:09, Woland wrote:

P.S. You'll note that in my original post of Mr. Cenedella's results, the only President I mentioned was Richard Nixon, and it was to illustrate a point about how I remembered his speeches, that I posted the graphs.
[/quote]
Right. You posted a link to an article entitled "I, Obama: The President and the personal pronoun" ONLY to make a point about Nixon.

Still, that might be remotely believable if not for your other posts in this thread including your original one.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 10:25PM)
Right,--it's only the continuation of your long-time running posts against Nixon.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 10:26PM)
You beat me to it balducci!!!!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 22, 2011 10:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 23:09, Woland wrote:
Nice work. I wouldn't have expected Jimmy Carter to be the briefest. Or Barack Obama the wordiest.

[/quote]

Second wordiest. Both of Reagan's were longer.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 22, 2011 10:31PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 23:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 23:09, Woland wrote:
Nice work. I wouldn't have expected Jimmy Carter to be the briefest. Or Barack Obama the wordiest.

[/quote]

Second wordiest. Both of Reagan's were longer.

John
[/quote]
LOL.

:applause: :applause: :applause:
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 22, 2011 10:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:00, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 07:23, Woland wrote:
Au contraire. I think if you speak with men & women in the military, they understand that the President's interactions with them were all about them.
[/quote]

That very well may be true but the majority who watched it on tv were not military. It was a Bush photo-op for sure.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]


As you said in your first post on this topic. "IN YOUR OPINION", and we all know about opinions. So yours is no different than anyone elses and means just as much except to yourself.

One should learn to keep their opinions to themselves as most people do not want to hear "opinions" as they have their own.

Now if you have some "facts" lets hear them. But stiffle the opinions.

As they say, "move on nothing here to see" just another meaningless opinion.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 22, 2011 10:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 16:26, Cyberqat wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 11:46, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:48, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-21 08:39, Woland wrote:
When you consider the things that President Bush did for and with military personnel and their families, the things that he continues to do, behind the scenes, often with with no press allowed, you realize that the press coverage of something like the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a sideshow.
[/quote]

Bush stood behind our troops...

the poor enlisted ***s at the bottom of the ladder at Guantanamo went to prison while Bush, Chaney and their cronies hid safely behind them.

And I suspect this whole sub-thread violates the politics rule on all sides.

But it wasn't the bush administration that did these...

HR 3219, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2010

(April 23, 2010), the United States Congress passed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act, giving severely wounded warriors and the family members who care for them some much-needed support to ensure the warriors receive the highest quality of care available and remain out of nursing homes.

Quite a list here of all the things that the democrats are doing for Veterans, Service People and their families:
http://www.goldstarmoms.com/News/Legislation/Legislation.htm

And then there is this...

Military Families United Backs Presidential Initiative
John Ellsworth, Chairman of Military Families United and Gold Star father, released the following statement in regards to an initiative put forward by President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Dr. Jill Biden that establishes a coordinated and comprehensive Federal approach to supporting military families.
http://www.militaryfamiliesunited.org/releases/mfurelease_012411.html

Ofcourse, facts weigh pretty lightly when compared to preconceptions in most peoples perceptions. And apparently the latest right wing marching lie is that somehow only they care about our appreciate our men and women in arms.
[/quote]


Lets also not forget that great president that stood behind our troops..in fact so far behind them that he avoided the draft competely by being a draft dodger...do you remember slick willie..aka clinton? Now there is a typical left winger isn't it? He really respected the American Soldier. It is a disgrace that he was ever called the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2011 12:01AM)
Draft dodger? Oh, you mean typical left wingers like Trump, Gingrich, Rumsfeld and Cheney, who, like Clinton, had student deferments, or like George W., who managed to avoid Viet Nam by using his connections to get into the Air National Guard and then rarely showed up for duty?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 04:57AM)
1) Secretary Rumsfeld served as a Navy pilot. He was on active duty from 1954 - 1957 and continued in the active reserve until 1975.

2) Based on his stated positions, Donald Trump is a liberal.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 05:09AM)
And thank you, balducci and landmark, for informing me that (unlike every other writer in this forum) I am not allowed to change the subject . . . .
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2011 07:55AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 06:09, Woland wrote:
And thank you, balducci and landmark, for informing me that (unlike every other writer in this forum) I am not allowed to change the subject . . . .
[/quote]

Now where did either of them say that?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 08:37AM)
By claiming that I wasn't writing a post about Richard Nixon because the discussion started about Barack Obama . . .
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 23, 2011 10:57AM)
By all means, I look forward to more Richard Nixon posts. Aside from perhaps Abe Lincoln, to me, he is the most intriguing President from a psychological point of view.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 23, 2011 11:00AM)
Nobody's down with Buchanan anymore.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2011 11:21AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 05:57, Woland wrote:
1) Secretary Rumsfeld served as a Navy pilot. He was on active duty from 1954 - 1957 and continued in the active reserve until 1975.

2) Based on his stated positions, Donald Trump is a liberal.
[/quote]

I stand corrected on Rumsfeld. You are right. My only point was that getting deferments (or "draft dodging" as it was put) was not the sole province of 'liberals.' I guess I could be called a 'liberal' but that didn't stop me from enlisting in 1968.

As for Trump - I don't think the liberals want him any more than the conservatives do. :)

Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2011 11:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 12:21, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 05:57, Woland wrote:
1) Secretary Rumsfeld served as a Navy pilot. He was on active duty from 1954 - 1957 and continued in the active reserve until 1975.

2) Based on his stated positions, Donald Trump is a liberal.
[/quote]

I stand corrected on Rumsfeld. You are right. My only point was that getting deferments (or "draft dodging" as it was put) was not the sole province of 'liberals.' I guess I could be called a 'liberal' but that didn't stop me from enlisting in 1968.

As for Trump - I don't think the liberals want him any more than the conservatives do. :)

Best-

Bob
[/quote]

Wait a second. Lets at least use the term right. A "draft dodger" is a term for one who simply refused to go and ran to Canada. If Clinton had a deferment, or anyone did, then whatever. Why call names anyhow?

I for one simply wish we could oppose people on ideology. It would be a much better world.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2011 11:34AM)
I agree with you totally, Danny. I was annoyed that Clinton was referred to as a 'draft dodger' simply because he had a student deferment, when deferments were common across the political spectrum.

BTW, Danny, while we will probably never agree on most political matters, I have always had the utmost respect for you as a performer and agree with just about everything you post in other areas of the forum (the hypnosis forum for example). That's one of the things I like about this place- our common love for the art seems to override everything else.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 12:42PM)
Yes, landmark, Richard Nixon is a profoundly interesting character. In only one active term as President, almost half of which was pre-occupied with "Watergate," look at what he accomplished - now I'm not saying I agree with any or all of it, but the list is impressive -

[list]
Successfully "Vietnamized" the war, withdraw all US combat troops.
Then successfully negotiated an armistice with the D.R.V.
Ended the post-WWII draft.
Established the E.P.A.
"Detente" with the U.S.S.R.
SALT agreements.
Established diplomatic relations with the P.R.C.
Wage & price controls.
Revenue sharing with the States.
Appointed Chief Justice Rehnquist.
The first moon landing occurred during his Presidency.
Defeated George McGovern by an historic margin.
[/list]

I think Nixon is a truly tragic figure, whose own inner demons drove him. The story is worthy of the stage. It is a pity that John Adams's opera is so shallow, and the music so migraine-inducing.

Woland
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2011 01:53PM)
I think that the film FROST NIXON pretty well captured the tragic side of Nixon. I don't agree, though, with the notion that his appointment of Rehnquist was "impressive." But, then again, that's the liberal in me.
Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 23, 2011 06:52PM)
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.

An interesting read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2011 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 12:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I agree with you totally, Danny. I was annoyed that Clinton was referred to as a 'draft dodger' simply because he had a student deferment, when deferments were common across the political spectrum.

BTW, Danny, while we will probably never agree on most political matters, I have always had the utmost respect for you as a performer and agree with just about everything you post in other areas of the forum (the hypnosis forum for example). That's one of the things I like about this place- our common love for the art seems to override everything else.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Well thank you. I think even within the performance areas, there is room for other opinions. I TRY to be "fair" as I see it at least. Not easy because we all bring our own bias to the table. But hey I TRY! Thanks again.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2011 08:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.
[/quote]

Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillClinton-Pew-ranking-record/2011/03/24/id/390592
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 08:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 21:53, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.
[/quote]

Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillClinton-Pew-ranking-record/2011/03/24/id/390592
[/quote]


Yea the clintons have so much going for them. He is a liar and wife cheater, lied to the grand jury and she will sell her soul to gain public office. No wonder everyone loves them. Shows the mentality of the public. The clintons are definitely role models. Got to love those libs...they are just so liberal with their morals.

I was in the military and almost every one in the military that I know hated his guts along with his twofaced ambitious wife. To me they are just a step above and I might add a small step above trash.

Speaking about pesky facts did you forget about Monica and the dress and the cigar and the phone sex...yea great role models and should be looked up to. What the heck is wrong with you?

Now cover the other eye and choose not to see them as they really are.

Is there anything I said here a lie?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 24, 2011 09:04AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 09:33, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 21:53, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.
[/quote]

Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillClinton-Pew-ranking-record/2011/03/24/id/390592
[/quote]


Yea the clintons have so much going for them. He is a liar and wife cheater, lied to the grand jury and she will sell her soul to gain public office. No wonder everyone loves them. Shows the mentality of the public. The clintons are definitely role models. Got to love those libs...they are just so liberal with their morals.

I was in the military and almost every one in the military that I know hated his guts along with his twofaced ambitious wife. To me they are just a step above and I might add a small step above trash.

Speaking about pesky facts did you forget about Monica and the dress and the cigar and the phone sex...yea great role models and should be looked up to. What the heck is wrong with you?

Now cover the other eye and choose not to see them as they really are.

Is there anything I said here a lie?
[/quote]No, but there's a lot that's opinion.

Clinton hardly holds a monopoly on infidelity. Remember- Newt Gingrich, the man who was pushing to impeach Clinton, was, at the same time, having infidelity issues of his own... including serving his wife divorce papers on what he thought was her death bed.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 24, 2011 09:06AM)
A few posts above, I made reference to President Nixon's style of speechifying. Well, it seems that the manes of Richard Milhous Nixon are being invoked again. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-milhous-obama/2011/05/23/AFzdYn9G_print.html]Marc Thiessen writes in the Washington Post:[/url]

[quote]In a television interview last October, President Obama accidentally let slip a key element of his political philosophy: “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

Obama later apologized — not for the underlying sentiment, mind you, but for his word choice. “I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of enemies,” the president declared.

This incident is worth remembering as the president prepares to issue a far-reaching executive order that would require the government to collect detailed information about the political activities of anyone applying for a federal contract. The proposed order would require businesses to furnish, with each contract proposal, a list not only of their contributions to political candidates and committees, but also their contributions to groups that do not under current law have to reveal their donors. The president’s order would force anyone seeking a federal contract to declare whether they are a friend or an enemy — excuse me, “opponent” — of the Obama White House. Worse still, it would set up a central database listing those contributions at a federal government Web site — creating what amounts to an electronic, searchable “enemies list.”

Why is this a bad idea? Recall that in August 1971, Richard Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean penned a confidential memorandum in which he proposed creating a list of “our political enemies.” The purpose of the exercise, according to Dean, was to “determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts.. . . etc.)” Since then, enormous steps have been taken to clean up the federal contracting process and ensure that government contracts are granted solely on the basis of merit. Obama’s proposed executive order would undermine that progress, reverse years of effort to remove politics from contracting decisions and create incentives for impropriety.

Even if no corrupt action is ever taken by the president’s political appointees, just the existence of these new rules would have a chilling effect on free speech. Businesses that disagree with the president’s policies would be discouraged from exercising their right to free expression for fear that doing so would jeopardize their chances of being awarded government contracts. Meanwhile, there would be an unspoken incentive for businesses seeking contracts to contribute to candidates and causes supported by the White House.

The proposed executive order is so bad that even some senior Democrats on Capitol Hill are refusing to go along. Last week the second-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer, broke ranks with the administration, declaring “The issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractors’ bid and capabilities. I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political implications in the context of awarding contracts.” Meanwhile Sens., Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate subcommittee responsible for contracting oversight, joined Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in writing a bipartisan letter warning that the proposed order “risks injecting politics into the contracting process” and urging President Obama to reconsider. “The requirement that businesses disclose political expenditures as part of the offer process creates the appearance that this type of information could become a factor in the award of federal contracts,” the senators wrote.[/quote]

Of course, there is no evidence that being on President Nixon's "Enemies List" ever did anyone any harm. A close frind of my mother's was on the list, and told me that he had never been subjected even to an IRS audit, much less any governmental interference as a result. For him, as for most of the people on the list, it was a point of pride, a source of free drinks from their comrades, and a welcome affirmation. What the current administration proposes does seem far more sinister -- even to Democratic Party politicians.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 09:38AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 10:04, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 09:33, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 21:53, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.
[/quote]

Yep - don't let them pesky facts get in your way:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BillClinton-Pew-ranking-record/2011/03/24/id/390592
[/quote]


Yea the clintons have so much going for them. He is a liar and wife cheater, lied to the grand jury and she will sell her soul to gain public office. No wonder everyone loves them. Shows the mentality of the public. The clintons are definitely role models. Got to love those libs...they are just so liberal with their morals.

I was in the military and almost every one in the military that I know hated his guts along with his twofaced ambitious wife. To me they are just a step above and I might add a small step above trash.

Speaking about pesky facts did you forget about Monica and the dress and the cigar and the phone sex...yea great role models and should be looked up to. What the heck is wrong with you?

Now cover the other eye and choose not to see them as they really are.

Is there anything I said here a lie?
[/quote]No, but there's a lot that's opinion.

Clinton hardly holds a monopoly on infidelity. Remember- Newt Gingrich, the man who was pushing to impeach Clinton, was, at the same time, having infidelity issues of his own... including serving his wife divorce papers on what he thought was her death bed.
[/quote]


I absoutely agree that no one holds a monoply on infidelity. However not everyone has such a great approval rating nor are they the past president of the United States or lied to the grand jury. Also we are not talking about Newt are we? We are talking about clinton and his approval rating. That is the part I do not understand. However I stand by what I said they are a small step above trash and he has the same morals as an alley cat.

Also I do not think Newt was pushing to impeach clinton on his affair or whatever you want to call it. Probably more on the lying to the grand jury under oath. Which I believe is a felony. I may be wrong in this not really sure. However if I were you I would not try it. I think it would turn out different for you. Like prison time.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 09:56AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 10:06, Woland wrote:

What the current administration proposes does seem far more sinister -- even to Democratic Party politicians.
[/quote]
At least, as reported by the conservative press. :)

Anyway, from the Washington Post: "Obama thinks it is crucial to allow taxpayers to learn more about contractors who seek federal funds"

Isn't the above a GOOD thing? If the public is aware of who the contractors are contributing money to, isn't it better able to determine whether the contracts are being awarded objectively and fairly or not? Here's another take on it:

[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2011/0524/Rein-in-government-contractors-who-use-taxpayer-money-for-political-advantage]Rein in government contractors who use taxpayer money for political advantage[/url]
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 10:14AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 10:56, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 10:06, Woland wrote:

What the current administration proposes does seem far more sinister -- even to Democratic Party politicians.
[/quote]
At least, as reported by the conservative press. :)

Anyway, from the Washington Post: "Obama thinks it is crucial to allow taxpayers to learn more about contractors who seek federal funds"

Isn't the above a GOOD thing? If the public is aware of who the contractors are contributing money to, isn't it better able to determine whether the contracts are being awarded contracts objectively and fairly or not? Here's another take on it:

[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2011/0524/Rein-in-government-contractors-who-use-taxpayer-money-for-political-advantage]Rein in government contractors who use taxpayer money for political advantage[/url]
[/quote]


I have no problem if some agency is going to check that contracts are awarded properly. However I do not think anythingis wrong with a company whose main purpose is dependent on defense weapons to lobby for more of a defense budget. Do you reallybelieve they should lobby for a smaller budget? Again I have no nproblem as long as the contract is awarded to the best provider.

If your job was maintaining lawns would you lobby for people to have smaller lawns and no laws for maintaining their property or would you want bigger lawns and stricter controls as to how the lawns look? DUH?

If Joe was for smaller lawns and did not care how they looked he would not get my support if I was in the lawn maintenance business. However if John was for bigger lawns and laws that made the owner keep them groomed I would support him. I have to ask. Isn't that logical? It really does not sound devious to me at all.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 24, 2011 10:53AM)
Well Woland, if the people on the enemies list were not damaged in some way, it wasn't for lack of trying (and there's no way to know the full extent of CIA/FBI involvement--remember we still don't even know the full motive for the illegal Watergate break-in).

The efforts of Nixon to use the IRS to destroy his enemies were fortunately sidelined somewhat by the integrity of the IRS commissioner Don Alexander who refused to do Nixon's bidding. Of course, Nixon attempted to fire him because of that.

"Mr. Alexander refused to launch tax audits of those on Nixon's infamous "enemies list," blocked an effort by the Agriculture Department to obtain the tax returns of all American farmers and sharply curtailed IRS participation in federal investigations into drug trafficking, organized crime and white collar crime. He repeatedly urged Congress to stiffen taxpayer confidentiality laws, which it did in 1976.

He later said restrictions on seeing tax returns were so lax that the IRS ran virtually "a lending library" of private tax data, and governors sometimes were shown tax records of their opponents."

More about Mr. Alexander here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020503675.html

And of course, if you remember, Nixon himself was a tax cheat (IIRC it was in his articles of impeachment) and was ordered to repay over $400,000 in back taxes and penalties.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 11:14, acesover wrote:

I have no problem if some agency is going to check that contracts are awarded properly. However I do not think anythingis wrong with a company whose main purpose is dependent on defense weapons to lobby for more of a defense budget. Do you reallybelieve they should lobby for a smaller budget? Again I have no nproblem as long as the contract is awarded to the best provider.

If your job was maintaining lawns would you lobby for people to have smaller lawns and no laws for maintaining their property or would you want bigger lawns and stricter controls as to how the lawns look? DUH?
[/quote]
That's fine for lawns, but I don't see how the no laws versus stricter controls figures into the defense budget lobbying issue.

If it figures in at all, I think it is more of a "smaller lawns with tight controls" versus "bigger lawns and less controls" sort of situation. Because I don't think many defense contractors lobby for tighter controls on the work they do.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 24, 2011 12:45PM)
So BUsh helps an older man walk....And this means what? WE SHOULD HELP OUR ELDERS... Why are people being pointed out for doing things that we should??????
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 24, 2011 01:44PM)
Because not everybody does what we should . . . . and in the case you cite, it was also an example of turning the other cheek, and loving one's enemies . . . or should I say, "opponents" . . . .
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 24, 2011 01:49PM)
Weak
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 24, 2011 01:50PM)
Actually, landmark, your comments prove the point that the President Nixon's "enemies list(s)" hurt no one except himself . . . . are you aware of even one single credible account of anyone who was materially damaged by being on the "enemies list"?
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 02:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 13:33, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 11:14, acesover wrote:

I have no problem if some agency is going to check that contracts are awarded properly. However I do not think anythingis wrong with a company whose main purpose is dependent on defense weapons to lobby for more of a defense budget. Do you reallybelieve they should lobby for a smaller budget? Again I have no nproblem as long as the contract is awarded to the best provider.

If your job was maintaining lawns would you lobby for people to have smaller lawns and no laws for maintaining their property or would you want bigger lawns and stricter controls as to how the lawns look? DUH?
[/quote]
That's fine for lawns, but I don't see how the no laws versus stricter controls figures into the defense budget lobbying issue.

If it figures in at all, I think it is more of a "smaller lawns with tight controls" versus "bigger lawns and less controls" sort of situation. Because I don't think many defense contractors lobby for tighter controls on the work they do.
[/quote]

You may have read my post but obviously did not read my post. My whole point was and is, is that one would not campaign for less money being spent in ones industsry but rather do what they can do to increase that spending. While your point is that of increasing the military budget is an entirely different matter. By the way, I feel the military budget should e increased and cuts should be made in other places but that is not what we are discussing here. One does not bite the hand that feeds it. So by contributing to someone who would by their thinking and actions would help your industry they should recive your support. I am sure you would not see teachers contribute to those who propose education cuts. Again that is another topic and not what we are discussing here.

So I guess I am saying that your quote: "That's fine for lawns, but I don't see how the no laws versus stricter controls figures into the defense budget lobbying issue." is really a non issue as it veers off in another direction from this topic. One does not suport someone or something that would hurt their industry. That is not a difficult concept to follow.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 02:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 15:30, acesover wrote:

So I guess I am saying that your quote: "That's fine for lawns, but I don't see how the no laws versus stricter controls figures into the defense budget lobbying issue." is really a non issue as it veers off in another direction from this topic. One does not suport someone or something that would hurt their industry. That is not a difficult concept to follow.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but YOU were the one who introduced the "no laws versus stricter controls" bit into this conversation. I'm still not sure what you mean by that.

In fact, you appear to be contradicting yourself. First you say a lawn care industry would support "bigger lawns and stricter controls" but now you seem to be saying that defense contractors would support bigger projects and more spending with FEWER controls (because they do not want restrictions on their lobbying activity).

BTW, I said NOTHING about increasing or decreasing defense spending. Several of my family members are presently serving in the U.S. military, so for all I care please do increase military spending so long as it benefits them.

I certainly have to agree with your comment "One does not suport someone or something that would hurt their industry." Of course, there are probably differences of opinion on what is good for the industry within the industry itself (e.g., big and small contractors probably have some differences of opinion).
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 03:00PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 15:46, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 15:30, acesover wrote:

So I guess I am saying that your quote: "That's fine for lawns, but I don't see how the no laws versus stricter controls figures into the defense budget lobbying issue." is really a non issue as it veers off in another direction from this topic. One does not suport someone or something that would hurt their industry. That is not a difficult concept to follow.
[/quote]


Excuse me, but YOU were the one who introduced the "no laws versus stricter controls" bit into this conversation. I'm still not sure what you mean by that.

In fact, you appear to be contradicting yourself. First you say a lawn care industry would support "bigger lawns and stricter controls" but now you seem to be saying that defense contractors would support bigger projects and more spending with FEWER controls (because they do not want restrictions on their lobbying activity).

BTW, I said NOTHING about increasing or decreasing defense spending. Several of my family members are presently serving in the U.S. military, so for all I care please do increase military spending so long as it benefits them.
[/quote]

Of for God's sake forget it.

The only point I was trying to make, and maybe I did not make it clear enough for you, was to say that no one will do things to hurt themselves but will do things to support themselves and to this you seem to find fault. No real issues here for either side fo spending or non spending just simple logic. I am not trying to debate who can contribute or who cannot just say9ing that if one contributes it will surely be to their benefit not their detriment. To you this sems to be a faulty concept. I find it nothing more than good business sense. Forget the issues here just the concept. You do not contribute to someone or something that will hurt you but rather to those that will benefit you. End of stsory no moral story here or special group just common sense. Don't bring in any issues. That is why I picked something as mundane as lawns but you can even twist that. Phewww...you are something.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 24, 2011 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.

An interesting read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
[/quote]


I think you are very wrong!
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 03:08PM)
"The only point I was trying to make, and maybe I did not make it clear enough for you, was to say that no one will do things to hurt themselves but will do things to support themselves and to this you seem to find fault."

I guess you missed it, and (to use your words) maybe I did not make it clear enough for you, but I just finished saying that I agreed with you about no one doing things to hurt themselves etc. So, no, I find no fault with that particular statement. As for the rest of it, by all means let us forget it as you suggest.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 05:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 16:06, kcg5 wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 19:52, acesover wrote:
Yea he had a deferrment and then became the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. I think every soldier that ever saluted him, after doing so probably puked.

An interesting read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
[/quote]



I think you are very wrong!
[/quote]


You could be right. Or wrong.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2011 05:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 16:08, balducci wrote:
"The only point I was trying to make, and maybe I did not make it clear enough for you, was to say that no one will do things to hurt themselves but will do things to support themselves and to this you seem to find fault."

I guess you missed it, and (to use your words) maybe I did not make it clear enough for you, but I just finished saying that I agreed with you about no one doing things to hurt themselves etc. So, no, I find no fault with that particular statement. As for the rest of it, by all means let us forget it as you suggest.
[/quote]

Done....thanks for pointing that out. I do see where you said that.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 24, 2011 09:01PM)
There's an old saying about bowing to the crown, not the man wearing it.
We've had some very flawed individuals holding the office of POTUS, but I still respect the position and I respect the rights of the voters to pick whatever idiot they want to hold it.
All this crap with people like Chuck Norris wanting Texas to secede just 'cause he don't like the guy the American people chose. Real patriotic. He ain't even from Texas.
Guess what? We have term limits. That means every four years, if you don't like the jerkwad that's in charge, there's hope that we might get a better one. It never happens, but there's always a shot.
America is the greatest country on the planet, warts and all.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 24, 2011 09:35PM)
Agreed 100% Critter. [url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/obama-guinness-ireland-limo-accident.html]But this is hilarious:[/url]

[quote]“The first time I had Guinness,” Obama said, “is when I came to the Shannon airport. We were flying into Afghanistan and so stopped in Shannon. It was the middle of the night. And I tried one of these and I realized it tastes so much better here than it does in the States.”[/quote]
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 10:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 22:35, Woland wrote:
Agreed 100% Critter. [url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/obama-guinness-ireland-limo-accident.html]But this is hilarious:[/url]

[quote]“The first time I had Guinness,” Obama said, “is when I came to the Shannon airport. We were flying into Afghanistan and so stopped in Shannon. It was the middle of the night. And I tried one of these and I realized it tastes so much better here than it does in the States.”[/quote]
[/quote]
Unless he has lived in a cave and never drank beer for most of his life, he probably meant that the first time he had Guinness in _Ireland_ was at the Shannon airport. But not the first time ever.

By chance if you are commenting on the "tastes so much better here than it does in the States" bit ... I've heard many people make that claim. I'm not entirely sure I buy it, but it is hard to do a side by side taste test.

I was very amused by the limo video. And the 2008 date kerfuffle.
Message: Posted by: Payne (May 24, 2011 10:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 23:08, balducci wrote:

Unless he has lived in a cave and never drank beer for most of his life, he probably meant that the first time he had Guinness in _Ireland_ was at the Shannon airport. But not the first time ever.

[/quote]

It's not unbelievable that Obama never had Guinness before going to Ireland. I remember the first time I was in Chicago and being appalled at the lack of variety I saw in the beer aisle. It was strictly major American brewed swill and not a foreign or micro brew in sight. Granted, that was over 20 years ago. I am sure things have changed. However dark beers are not terribly popular stateside. So one could quite easily avoid them for most of their lives. Many people tend to favor certain brews and will only venture to try a unfamiliar brand when theirs isn't available.

[quote]

By chance if you are commenting on the "tastes so much better here than it does in the States" bit ... I've heard many people make that claim. I'm not entirely sure I buy it, but it is hard to do a side by side taste test.

I was very amused by the limo video.

[/quote]

Again this is true. Not only do most "pubs" state side serve Guinness cold. A horrible sacrilege which makes it almost totally unpalatable. However the major consensus is that it just doesn't travel well. Many people claim that there is a marked difference between a pint in Dublin and one served in England. Being improperly drawn also seems to be a major concern. I've never had a pint in Dublin. But I had a pint in England and there is a marked difference between it there and here.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 10:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 23:28, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 23:08, balducci wrote:

Unless he has lived in a cave and never drank beer for most of his life, he probably meant that the first time he had Guinness in _Ireland_ was at the Shannon airport. But not the first time ever.
[/quote]

It's not unbelievable that Obama never had Guinness before going to Ireland. I remember the first time I was in Chicago and being appalled at the lack of variety I saw in the beer aisle.
[/quote]
My understanding is that Obama is a beer drinker. And he did ride in the Chicago St. Patrick's Day parade at least once. And I imagine he participated in other Irish community events in Chicago, as a local politician there. At many of those events, I imagine some Guinness would be nearby.

So while it is possible that he never tasted Guinness prior to his trip to Ireland, I would be surprised if that was indeed the case.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 23:28, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 23:08, balducci wrote:

By chance if you are commenting on the "tastes so much better here than it does in the States" bit ... I've heard many people make that claim. I'm not entirely sure I buy it, but it is hard to do a side by side taste test.
[/quote]

Again this is true. Not only do most "pubs" state side serve Guinness cold. A horrible sacrilege which makes it almost totally unpalatable. However the major consensus is that it just doesn't travel well. Many people claim that there is a marked difference between a pint in Dublin and one served in England. Being improperly drawn also seems to be a major concern. I've never had a pint in Dublin. But I had a pint in England and there is a marked difference between it there and here.
[/quote]
When I was in Dublin 2 years ago, most of the traditional Irish pubs there were serving Guinness cold. At least as cold as I get it here in Canada, anyway. (When I was in London about a decade ago, the big thing in the pubs was serving beer "extra" cold).

Surprisingly, Guinness was not the beer of choice in the pubs among the Irish customers when I was in Dublin. I believe Budweiser was actually 'king' among locals at the time. This is what I was told when I toured a Guinness brewery there. Budweiser is brewed, marketed, and sold by Guinness in Ireland.

I know that Guinness is brewed under license in many different countries. It is in Canada for instance. So the 'travel well' thing does not really apply here, as it is brewed locally. My understanding is that Guinness is brewed locally in at least some parts of the U.S. (London, England, is possibly close enough to Ireland that all Guinness there is imported.)

Anyway, I am happy to drink Guinness anywhere, anytime, at any temperature they're serving it at. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 24, 2011 11:24PM)
What a lot of great distraction. I must say that I am absolutely NOT a supporter of our President. Do not agree with much of anything he does. Ok, but really isn't he just doing sort of a PR tour anyhow? I mean who cares about a fake Irish accent he is horrible at, and a limo stuck and whatever the heck WHO CARES?

I was more upset about his 67 lines speach than any of that stuff! Again something of SUBSTANCE to talk about and we get video of a limo and people clamour to find fault with the guy. I mean come on, does it REALLY matter when a politician of any sort says something about a beer in a country little bigger than Michigan?

No I do not happen to think he is very "statesman" like or whatever. But he is our President for pity sake! Lets have the partasianship end at the shores, THE SAME WAY I WANTED IT TO WITH THE LAST PRESIDENT! He is out there doing sort of a PR tour and is our President.

Oh and by the way, IF you were in Chicago any time after 1992 and could not find Guinness served the right way, you simply didn't go into enough places. The company had reps teaching how to pour it, make the shamrock in the head and serve Black and Tan as well. I was a bartender, trust me it was easy to find.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2011 11:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-24 23:49, balducci wrote:

Surprisingly, Guinness was not the beer of choice in the pubs among the Irish customers when I was in Dublin. I believe Budweiser was actually 'king' among locals at the time.
[/quote]

I was a bartender at a Chinese restaurant for a couple of years. As a very reliable general rule, the white guys who would come in would order Tsing Tao, and the Chinese guys who came in would order Budweiser.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 24, 2011 11:26PM)
While serving in the Army, I was stationed in Germany twice, Bad Tolz the first time and Mannheim the second. Both times, I managed to find an out or the way gasthaus that very few Americans went to. Both times, after befriending the owners, bootleg American beer and, especially, whiskey were the order of the day. Many friends were made over a fifth of Jack or Southern Comfort bought from the tax-free post exchange. At the Mannheim gasthaus, a place called the Nesthachen, Coors was as good as gold.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:

I mean who cares about a fake Irish accent he is horrible at, and a limo stuck and whatever the heck WHO CARES? ... I mean come on, does it REALLY matter when a politician of any sort says something about a beer in a country little bigger than Michigan?
[/quote]
All true, but it is still a pleasant change from the birth certificate nonsense. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2011 09:00AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 00:32, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:

I mean who cares about a fake Irish accent he is horrible at, and a limo stuck and whatever the heck WHO CARES? ... I mean come on, does it REALLY matter when a politician of any sort says something about a beer in a country little bigger than Michigan?
[/quote]
All true, but it is still a pleasant change from the birth certificate nonsense. :)
[/quote]

Thank you for the perspective, and to inch just a bit closer to the end of the world I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!
Message: Posted by: critter (May 25, 2011 10:25AM)
[quote]
Surprisingly, Guinness was not the beer of choice in the pubs among the Irish customers when I was in Dublin. I believe Budweiser was actually 'king' among locals at the time. This is what I was told when I toured a Guinness brewery there. Budweiser is brewed, marketed, and sold by Guinness in Ireland.
[/quote]

My German teacher told us that Budweiser was a Danish beer first, and then America made our version. She said the version you can buy in Europe is way different than ours.
She told us this because we were going through some grocery store ads from Germany and I said, "Man, why do they like Bud so much?"
Not that I have anything against American beers. We have some local microbrews that I'd put against anything in the world.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 10:30AM)
Budweis is actually a town in Bohemia, in what is now the Czech Republic. There is a Czech Budweiser beer, and there were some trademark issues, especially when a controlling interest in Anheuser Busch was sold to a Belgian company. Don't know how it worked out.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2011 10:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 11:25, critter wrote:
[quote]
Surprisingly, Guinness was not the beer of choice in the pubs among the Irish customers when I was in Dublin. I believe Budweiser was actually 'king' among locals at the time. This is what I was told when I toured a Guinness brewery there. Budweiser is brewed, marketed, and sold by Guinness in Ireland.
[/quote]

My German teacher told us that Budweiser was a Danish beer first, and then America made our version. She said the version you can buy in Europe is way different than ours.
[/quote]
That may be true historically, but the Bud that Guinness brews today in Ireland is without a doubt the American style.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 10:41AM)
Considering the fact that the natural ingredients which are used in its manufacture must vary considerably from batch to batch, and that the water supply in the various cities where it is brewed also vary, the uniformity of (American) Budweiser is quite an accomplishment of art and science. They also have the best commercials.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2011 10:51AM)
I was a bartender in England briefly years ago, and the Guinness there was much better than what we got in the states at the time. First, the Guinness was on tap from a keg, not from bottles, which made a difference. And as someone else has mentioned, supposedly the ship voyage over shook the stout too much and messed it up. Now there are some bars in NYC where you can get Guinness on tap, but I don't know if it's better than the bottles.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 11:12AM)
If we may revenons a nos moutons, [url=http://americanglob.com/2011/05/24/royal-flush-obama-screws-up-toast-to-the-queen-of-england/]this list will no doubt be considered inconsequential by the serious thinkers in this forum:[/url]

[quote]How many times has Obama flunked diplomatic protocol in the United Kingdom?

Let us count the ways…

1. Immediately after taking office, Obama shipped the White House bust of Winston Churchill [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html]back to England.
[/url]
2. Then Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown [url=http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/05/classless-obama-gives-dvds-to-british-prime-minister-gordon-brown.php]a bunch of cheap DVDs as a gift.[/url]

3. A few weeks later, Michelle Obama broke centuries of international protocol by [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0402/michelle-obama-hugs-queen-breaks-royal-protocol]hugging the queen.[/url]

4. Then Obama gave Queen Elizabeth the gift of an iPod, [url=http://www.760kfmb.com/story/10118080/tacky-obama-gives-queen-of-england-ipod-whis-speeches?redirected=true]filled with his own speeches.[/url]

And 5 makes a Royal Flush…

5. Obama just [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/awkward-moment-during-obama-toast-to-queen-.html]completely screwed up a toast to the Queen.[/url][/quote]

But I think [url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes]Michael Barone underscores consequential aspects of the administration's policies:[/url]

[quote]
Question: What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.
Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.

Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.

On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.[/quote]

He concludes:

[quote]
One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.

Another principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting a legislature to pass a new law.

The Obamacare waiver process appears to violate that first rule. Two other recent Obama administration actions appear to violate the second.

One example is the National Labor Relations Board general counsel's action to prevent Boeing from building a $2 billion assembly plant for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, which has a right-to-work law barring compulsory union membership. The NLRB says Boeing has to assemble the planes in non-right-to-work Washington state.

"I don't agree," says William Gould IV, NLRB chairman during the Clinton years. "The Boeing case is unprecedented."

The other example is the Internal Revenue Service's attempt to levy a gift tax on donors to certain 501(c)(4) organizations that just happen to have spent money to elect Republicans.

A gift tax is normally assessed on transfers to children and other heirs that are designed to avoid estate taxes. It has been applied to political donations "rarely, if ever," according to New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom.

"The timing of the agency's moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way," continues Strom, "is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the IRS could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations."

In a Univision radio interview during the 2010 election cycle, Barack Obama urged Latinos not "to sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' "

Punishing enemies and rewarding friends -- politics Chicago style -- seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS' gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.

They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government.

One thing they don't look like is the rule of law.[/quote]


Woland
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 11:29AM)
Write something for your self. Excuse me, I'm going to quote war and peace
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2011 12:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 12:12, Woland wrote:
If we may revenons a nos moutons, this list will no doubt be considered inconsequential by the serious thinkers in this forum:

Woland
[/quote]
Since I don't consider myself a serious thinker, I was daydreaming fondly of my favorite Presidential diplomatic gaffe (no, not GWB massaging the alluring Angela Merkel's shoulders) but this: President GH Bush vomiting on the Japanese prime minister.

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

W., Sometimes you just bring out the devil in me.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 25, 2011 12:36PM)
Ditto.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2011 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 12:12, Woland wrote:

5. Obama just [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/awkward-moment-during-obama-toast-to-queen-.html]completely screwed up a toast to the Queen.[/url][/quote]

As the article notes in the second paragraph it was the orchestra that was at fault. They simply should not have started playing until the President had finished speaking. Furthermore (from another article): while attending a meeting at 10 Downing Street with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg , reporters heard Clegg say, "when the music starts...I thought you did exactly the right thing".

Obama was given standing ovations in Ireland and in Britain over the last few days ... I'm sure those just slipped your mind. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2011 12:54PM)
Speaking of contrasts:

"In 1991, while his father was president, George W. Bush is said to have introduced himself to the Queen as “the black sheep of the family,” and dared to ask her who his equivalent was in the Windsor family, according to the BBC. When he realized his error, he winked at the monarch, committing another etiquette no-no."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/how-not-to-toast-the-queen-obamas-awkward-royal-gaffe/article2034461/
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 12:56PM)
Yes, landmark, that was an immortal moment! Although I think he was actually sick with something.

Anyway, we should rename this forum Tu Quoque, shouldn't we?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2011 01:08PM)
I think it's really the Reverse-Tu-Quoque. The ongoing fallacy by the forum's most partisan members isn't a belief that parallel misdeeds from the other side of the aisle excuse one's own team's misdeeds, but rather the belief that the misdeeds are only (or overwhelmingly) happening on the other side of the aisle.


Political blunders and wrongdoings are like a number line going from 1 to 100, with the Republicans and/or conservatives saying, "Wow, look, 3, 7, 11, 17, 19, 23, 65...man, there are a lot of odd numbers on this number line," and the Democrats and/or liberals saying, "2, 6, 14, 28, 34, 42, 50...man, there are a lot of even numbers on this number line."
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 01:30PM)
Woland==

"How many times has Obama flunked diplomatic protocol in the United Kingdom?

Let us count the ways…

1. Immediately after taking office, Obama shipped the White House bust of Winston Churchill back to England.

2. Then Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a bunch of cheap DVDs as a gift.

3. A few weeks later, Michelle Obama broke centuries of international protocol by hugging the queen.

4. Then Obama gave Queen Elizabeth the gift of an iPod, filled with his own speeches.

And 5 makes a Royal Flush…

5. Obama just completely screwed up a toast to the Queen."


these might all be true, in some way... But ALL the links are for one sided websites, nothing of value-no respected papers. Just local stations, talk radio ect-drivel
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 01:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 12:12, Woland wrote:
If we may revenons a nos moutons, [url=http://americanglob.com/2011/05/24/royal-flush-obama-screws-up-toast-to-the-queen-of-england/]this list will no doubt be considered inconsequential by the serious thinkers in this forum:[/url]

[quote]How many times has Obama flunked diplomatic protocol in the United Kingdom?

Let us count the ways…

1. Immediately after taking office, Obama shipped the White House bust of Winston Churchill [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html]back to England.
[/url]
2. Then Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown [url=http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/05/classless-obama-gives-dvds-to-british-prime-minister-gordon-brown.php]a bunch of cheap DVDs as a gift.[/url]

3. A few weeks later, Michelle Obama broke centuries of international protocol by [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0402/michelle-obama-hugs-queen-breaks-royal-protocol]hugging the queen.[/url]

4. Then Obama gave Queen Elizabeth the gift of an iPod, [url=http://www.760kfmb.com/story/10118080/tacky-obama-gives-queen-of-england-ipod-whis-speeches?redirected=true]filled with his own speeches.[/url]

And 5 makes a Royal Flush…

5. Obama just [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/awkward-moment-during-obama-toast-to-queen-.html]completely screwed up a toast to the Queen.[/url][/quote]

But I think [url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes]Michael Barone underscores consequential aspects of the administration's policies:[/url]

[quote]
Question: What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.
Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.

Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.

On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.[/quote]

He concludes:

[quote]
One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.

Another principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting a legislature to pass a new law.

The Obamacare waiver process appears to violate that first rule. Two other recent Obama administration actions appear to violate the second.

One example is the National Labor Relations Board general counsel's action to prevent Boeing from building a $2 billion assembly plant for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, which has a right-to-work law barring compulsory union membership. The NLRB says Boeing has to assemble the planes in non-right-to-work Washington state.

"I don't agree," says William Gould IV, NLRB chairman during the Clinton years. "The Boeing case is unprecedented."

The other example is the Internal Revenue Service's attempt to levy a gift tax on donors to certain 501(c)(4) organizations that just happen to have spent money to elect Republicans.

A gift tax is normally assessed on transfers to children and other heirs that are designed to avoid estate taxes. It has been applied to political donations "rarely, if ever," according to New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom.

"The timing of the agency's moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way," continues Strom, "is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the IRS could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations."

In a Univision radio interview during the 2010 election cycle, Barack Obama urged Latinos not "to sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' "

Punishing enemies and rewarding friends -- politics Chicago style -- seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS' gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.

They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government.

One thing they don't look like is the rule of law.[/quote]


Woland
[/quote]


4-http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+gordon+brown&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&pq=obama%20gordon%20brown&xhr=t&q=obama+ipod+queen&cp=11&qe=b2JhbWEgaXBvZCA&qesig=RZ3A0p21lGkvdfQRUDTiHw&pkc=AFgZ2tm1RutpmyBUTYobUDs-elbkZpVl07KNSc_0gfMzPgjtcD_NPgjwyEYpc6r7AkaaGbugm_MzIq7dCvsTHSiI017z2GCV0w&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=safari&rls=en&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=obama+ipod+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8b618d97646e59ef&biw=1280&bih=610



No mention of his own speeches.... par for the course
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 01:34PM)
While it is valid to point out that our estimations regarding a President's performance should take into account the available evidence concerning the performance of previous office holders, I am more concerned with the difference between this President's actual performance on the one hand, and the exalted impression he himself and his admirers have about him, on the other hand, than I am concerned about how his peerformance compares with other Presidents.

On the face of it, after two years in office, with record high misery-index figures, unemployment at 9 or 10% despite removing from the rolls all of the poor saps who have given up even looking for work, gasoline more than double what it was 2 years ago, inflation at levels we haven't seen in this century, the worst job growth following a recession in decades, ear economic collapse in the EU, and catastrophic rises in food prices worldwide, a new, undeclared war that has endured past the 60-day War Powers Act limit with hardly a whisper of concern from Congress - on the face of it, the actual record is terrible.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 01:37PM)
Well, kcg5, as you say, all those items might be true in some way . . . it doesn't matter where the links came from. The truth is still the truth.

That list didn't even mention, with respect to giving the British Prime Minister a few movie DVDs, that Gordon Brown is blind. Giving him movie DVDs was not just a diplomatic gaffe, it was stupid, and cruel.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 01:55PM)
Wellllll, Obama did NOT give the queen an ipod with his speeches, and Brown is blind in one eye-not blind as in he cannot see..... Any more misinformation?
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2011 02:04PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 14:34, Woland wrote:

On the face of it, after two years in office, with record high misery-index figures, unemployment at 9 or 10% despite removing from the rolls all of the poor saps who have given up even looking for work, gasoline more than double what it was 2 years ago, inflation at levels we haven't seen in this century, the worst job growth following a recession in decades, ear economic collapse in the EU, and catastrophic rises in food prices worldwide, a new, undeclared war that has endured past the 60-day War Powers Act limit with hardly a whisper of concern from Congress - on the face of it, the actual record is terrible.
[/quote]
Of course, most of the things you mention cannot legitimately be pinned as the fault of ANY President's policies.

So while you are at it, why not blame Obama for the devastating 2011 tornado season?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2011 02:08PM)
I'll take an ipod. You can preload stuff on it if you want.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 02:27PM)
In Imperial China, he would've been blamed for it. They called it "The Mandate of Heaven."
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 02:54PM)
Woland, any response? Your untruths are getting old.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 03:03PM)
Response to what?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 03:21PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 14:55, kcg5 wrote:
Wellllll, Obama did NOT give the queen an ipod with his speeches, and Brown is blind in one eye-not blind as in he cannot see..... Any more misinformation?
[/quote

to this....

You say Brown is blind, and it was an insult to give him DVDS, while he is not. You said Obama gave the queen an ipod with his speeches on it, which he did not
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 25, 2011 03:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 15:04, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 14:34, Woland wrote:

On the face of it, after two years in office, with record high misery-index figures, unemployment at 9 or 10% despite removing from the rolls all of the poor saps who have given up even looking for work, gasoline more than double what it was 2 years ago, inflation at levels we haven't seen in this century, the worst job growth following a recession in decades, ear economic collapse in the EU, and catastrophic rises in food prices worldwide, a new, undeclared war that has endured past the 60-day War Powers Act limit with hardly a whisper of concern from Congress - on the face of it, the actual record is terrible.
[/quote]
Of course, most of the things you mention cannot legitimately be pinned as the fault of ANY President's policies.

So while you are at it, why not blame Obama for the devastating 2011 tornado season?
[/quote]

You are right about blaming Obama for the tornado season, because if it was Bush you would have blamed him. So it is only fair that the blame falls on Obama. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2011 04:30PM)
I would add that the canard of Obama sending the Winston Churchill bust back to England is getting old. It was moved to another room in the White House. And yet there are those who continue to parrot this now thoroughly discredited right-wing talking point.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 25, 2011 04:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 12:12, Woland wrote:
{snippage}

Woland
[/quote]

Continuing your discussion of Richard Nixon, I see :)
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 04:50PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 12:12, Woland wrote:
If we may revenons a nos moutons, [url=http://americanglob.com/2011/05/24/royal-flush-obama-screws-up-toast-to-the-queen-of-england/]this list will no doubt be considered inconsequential by the serious thinkers in this forum:[/url]

[quote]How many times has Obama flunked diplomatic protocol in the United Kingdom?

Let us count the ways…

1. Immediately after taking office, Obama shipped the White House bust of Winston Churchill [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html]back to England.
[/url]
2. Then Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown [url=http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/05/classless-obama-gives-dvds-to-british-prime-minister-gordon-brown.php]a bunch of cheap DVDs as a gift.[/url]

3. A few weeks later, Michelle Obama broke centuries of international protocol by [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0402/michelle-obama-hugs-queen-breaks-royal-protocol]hugging the queen.[/url]

4. Then Obama gave Queen Elizabeth the gift of an iPod, [url=http://www.760kfmb.com/story/10118080/tacky-obama-gives-queen-of-england-ipod-whis-speeches?redirected=true]filled with his own speeches.[/url]

And 5 makes a Royal Flush…

5. Obama just [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/awkward-moment-during-obama-toast-to-queen-.html]completely screwed up a toast to the Queen.[/url][/quote]




Woland
[/quote]

To further question your posting, the queen didn't seem to mind when Michelle put her hand on the queens back..(gasp!!!) And as to the toast.... "completely screwed up"? HUH? He paused in the middle of a sentence and the band thought he was done so they started playing... Your description of events is lacking. Would you describe a debate as "loud noises and words"?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2011 05:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 17:50, kcg5 wrote:
Would you describe a debate as "loud noises and words"?
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOC-hDULX1c
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 05:19PM)
I'm terribly sorry, kcg5, but I just disagree with you. I think that for the President of the United States to present the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom a few movie DVDs, when the PM is legally blind, is cheap, stupid, and cruel.

And Master Mind Reader, I think you are mistaken about the [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html]Churchill bust:[/url]

[quote]A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.


The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London. [/quote]

. . . . unless you believe that the British Ambassador's residence is "another room in the White House." And the British did perceive that as a snub.

For most of the last 10 years, the left claimed the right to dissent. How many times did John Kerry tell us, misattributing the quote to Thomas Jefferson, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism? How many times were we shown posters of President Bush decapitated, or with his neck in a noose, or with a pistol to his head? A mockumentary was made showing his assassination, it was portrayed on the stage, and it was described in a novel -- all of which were hailed as the most wonderful expression of true American patriotism.

Now however, their tune has changed. No more criticism of the President or of his administration's inept and failing policies is apparently permitted.

Well, the Emperor has no clothes, kids. Even though the captive media devote themselves to dithyrambic paeans to his tailoring, the Emperor has no clothes.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 25, 2011 05:23PM)
Obama returned an item loaned to his predecessor? The b@stard!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2011 05:37PM)
So, it turns out 'dithyrambic' really is an actual word.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 25, 2011 05:44PM)
I got a million of 'em . . . .
Message: Posted by: Payne (May 25, 2011 05:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 18:19, Woland wrote:

Now however, their tune has changed. No more criticism of the President or of his administration's inept and failing policies is apparently permitted.

[/quote]

You obviously don't get out much. There is plenty of criticism of Obama from the left as well. His dropping the ball on single Payer Health care. His failing to close Guantanamo. His inexplicablly continuing of many of the Bush era policies. His expansion of aggression in the middle east. His uneven energy policies in regard to drilling for oil. The caving on the tax cuts for the rich. His apparent allegiance to the banks and Wall Street. All serious let downs for many of his supporters.
However for the opposition to continually harp on every single bit of minutia that comes along only makes you guys look like whiners and malcontents. To be for a policy for years and then suddenly be against it just because Obama now supports it is infantile.
There is plenty to criticise about Obama. As there is any President. Just criticise him on matters of substance and not these cheap petty shots. Unless of course you enjoy looking like you suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 06:22PM)
Lobo, that was exactly the clip I was thinking of...


Woland, he is blind in one eye-he can still see. The "article" you linked to called him blind-as in cannot see. It is a big difference. (plus they are stupid gifts, how many do you think the president gives and gets with each state visit? Or the PM?)

And the Ipod "filled with his speeches"? No, it had two, along with video, pictures and other things of the queen.

His "complete(ly) screwing up a speech"? The band cut into it....

As has been noted, the bust is not "back in England" like your post says.....
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2011 09:04PM)
Oh come on now. The President goes to Best Buy and picks out his own gifts. I have seen it happen.

My lord it is almost as if he has done nothing else we can disagree with, we have to discuss the stupid gifts? I want to pull my hair out! Did anyone listen to the borders he wants Israel to have? 8 Miles! Man I am afraid if this is the best opposition to the man anyone can come up with, we will definately have another 4 years of this crap.

I guess I will pile on then. (This is not serious but tongue in cheek!) Did anyone find it ironic but me that the President could trace his roots to Ireland many many generations ago, but can't figure out where his birth certificate is? (Al by the way that is the proper use of the word "irony".)

I hope that made balducci laugh! ALL this crap is just as dumb as the birth certificate nonsense.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2011 09:26PM)
Those crazy Israelis...they want a moat...then a bigger moat...with alligators in it!
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 25, 2011 10:43PM)
They need a moat monster.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2011 10:51PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 23:43, Dreadnought wrote:

They need a moat monster.
[/quote]
Golems.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 25, 2011 11:07PM)
I agree, but I like poking holes in his "stories"
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 26, 2011 12:54AM)
Woland-

Sorry. I was wrong about the bust being moved to another room in the White House. I remembered Glenn Beck had started a crazy consipiracy theory about the bust a few years ago and knew it had been debunked. The details about Beck's "theory" and the non-story about the return of the bust is laid out pretty completely here:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006290073
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 26, 2011 05:02AM)
Thanks, Bob. Except, I wouldn't call that a "conspiracy theory," I would call it an attempt to divine the deeper significance of an apparently minor action, as is often done in a literary or (perish the thought) psychoanalytic context. All kidding aside, the British press has carried a great deal of commentary on whether the "special relationship" will survive the current American administration.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 10:27AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-25 17:50, kcg5 wrote:

To further question your posting, the queen didn't seem to mind when Michelle put her hand on the queens back..(gasp!!!) And as to the toast.... "completely screwed up"? HUH? He paused in the middle of a sentence and the band thought he was done so they started playing... Your description of events is lacking. Would you describe a debate as "loud noises and words"?
[/quote]
And here we have Obama pulling the chair out from under the Queen as she is about to sit down. It's true!

Or, at least, likely only a matter of time until it is spun that way. :) Here is the photographic evidence.

[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/26/article-1390800-0C44BD1200000578-759_634x753.jpg[/img]

Story [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1390986/Michelle-shines-U-S-party-attended-David-Beckham-Colin-Firth-JK-Rowling.html]here[/url].
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 26, 2011 10:35AM)
Balducci, you missed the smoking gun.

[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/26/article-1390986-0C4372BA00000578-242_634x286.jpg[/img]


Michelle Obama is an Islamist!

The LIBERAL PRESS has been covering this up!

:rotf:
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 10:40AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 06:02, Woland wrote:

All kidding aside, the British press has carried a great deal of commentary on whether the "special relationship" will survive the current American administration.
[/quote]
Like this: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390869/Meet-Jason-Do-Jamiyu-Mojaji--beat-Obama-Cameron-table-tennis.html]Special Relationship "rocked"[/url]?

Seriously, I'm sure there is SOME commentary in the British press as Woland described if only because Rupert Murdoch is in charge of several newspapers over there.

But considering the absolutely fabulous positive reception Obama received everywhere he went in Britain, from the public and from the politicians, I wouldn't put much stock in a couple of negatively biased opinion pieces.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 26, 2011 10:58AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 11:35, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Balducci, you missed the smoking gun.

[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/26/article-1390986-0C4372BA00000578-242_634x286.jpg[/img]


Michelle Obama is an Islamist!

The LIBERAL PRESS has been covering this up!

:rotf:
[/quote]

This is no surprise smoking gun; obviously, Barack would not have married outside the faith.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 26, 2011 11:08PM)
What's an Islamist?

Muslim? Muslim Supporter?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 26, 2011 11:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 00:08, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
What's an Islamist?

Muslim? Muslim Supporter?
[/quote]

The term is usually used (here) to describe political Islam, such as what you see in Iran.

John
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 26, 2011 11:30PM)
You mean like evangelical Islam? Just like it says to do in their good book?
Spreading the word of the Prophet - making sure those who practice apostasy and blaspheme are punished? Protecting the faithful from incursions from infidels who have a long history of imposing their unclean habits on others?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 04:50AM)
If you read the writings of those that we might consider "Islamists," they don't use that term themselves. Nor do they call themselves "militant" or "radical." From our standpoint, the political ideology they espouse is extreme and we can separate it from their religion. They portray themselves as the main stream, and their religion and ideology are seamless. It's not as if they have a political ideology that is informed by their religion, rather their political ideology is a manifestation of their religion, and vice versa.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 02:24PM)
Let me turn back for a moment to the character of Presidents. Some of us will think that with the following exploit, we have reached a new high; others will think it marks an unimaginable low. I'll report, and you decide:

[quote]As noted here on Boing Boing yesterday, the US has renewed three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that were to have expired last night at midnight, granting four more years of overly broad surveillance of Americans. After the Senate and House rushed the extension with only a few lawmakers drawing attention to civil liberties concerns, the bill went before President Obama, to be signed into law.

What makes this news even more depressing? The president, who is on tour in Europe, didn't even sign it in person. According to a White House spokesperson, Obama used a device called an autopen, which mechanically reproduces a human signature.

This was an act so important that it must be signed into law at once to protect us from what Harry Reid suggested could be immediate terrorist acts, but not so important that the president might be inconvenienced during a foreign trip to return to Washington, D.C.

A Reuters item is here. Gawker has a timeline of Great Moments in Autopen History here, and links to this video (animated gif, Flash-ified?) of an autopen device in action. Over at the New York Times, Michael Shear notes that it's unclear whether president Bush ever used an autopen to sign a bill into law.

ABC News examines the constitutionality of using an autopen here, but that isn't enough to comfort conservative Georgia Republican congressman Tom Graves, who sent an email to reporters today:

[quote]I thought it was a joke at first, but the President did, in fact, authorize an autopen to sign the Patriot Act extension into law. Consider the dangerous precedent this sets. Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen. For example, if the president is hospitalized and not fully alert, can a group of aggressive Cabinet members interpret a wink or a squeeze of the hand as approval of an autopen signing? I am very concerned about what this means for future presidential orders, whether they be signing bills into law, military orders, or executive orders.[/quote]

I don't know that I agree with Graves' fears (a wink! a squeeze!). But something just seems wrong about automating the process of signing this particular bill into law, given its far-reaching implications for the privacy and liberty of all Americans, and all the secrecy this law entails.

Maybe I'm having a Bill Keller moment: maybe the technology doesn't matter, and the analog ceremony of a human hand and a pen and a piece of paper is just familiar theater. But in this case, could the president have been any more detached? [/quote]

[url=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/27/about-that-autopen.html]The links are in the original, at the boing boing site.[/url]

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 02:35PM)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/robama-is-it-ok-for-a-president-to-autopen-a-bill-into-law.html

In 2005, President George W. Bush was told by his Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice that he could use an autopen given “the legal understanding of the word ‘sign’ at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified and during the early years of the Republic. We find that, pursuant to this understanding, a person may sign a document by directing that his signature be affixed to it by another.”

This, the OLC found, was supported by opinions of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice “addressing statutory signing requirements in a variety of contexts. Reading the constitutional text in light of this established legal understanding, we conclude that the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7...

“We emphasize that we are not suggesting that the President may delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill, only that, having made this decision, he may direct a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to the bill.”
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2011 02:36PM)
Here's the part I agree with:



[quote]
Maybe I'm having a Bill Keller moment: maybe the technology doesn't matter, and the analog ceremony of a human hand and a pen and a piece of paper is just familiar theater.
[/quote]



Regardless of what you think of the Patriot Act, in the 21st century, I think it's impractical to the point of silliness (this is the kinder, gentler me; 'stupidity' first came to mind) to suggest that if the President were to sign the bill, he should have traveled from Europe to D.C. just to put pen to paper.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 02:41PM)
In any case, perhaps instead of an "autopen" Obama should have used the remote controlled "longpen" invented by Canadian author Margaret Atwood for real time remote signings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/06/topstories3.books

http://www.longpen.com/index.html
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2011 02:46PM)
Seriously this is a discussion?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 02:51PM)
So what does this say about President Bush's character, Woland?

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 02:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 15:46, Dannydoyle wrote:

Seriously this is a discussion?
[/quote]
I empathize with your pain. :)
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 03:08PM)
I agree with you, balducci, I think the use of a remotely manipulated pen under the President's direct control would be more aesthetic -- something like the surgical "Da Vinci" device.

I was unaware that the expedient of the autopen had been used before. The fact that President Bush used one does not reflect well on his judgment - but I've never said that I hold him up as an example of everything good. I think he does deserve recognition for the good things about him.

And I don't think that Laura Bush ever invited to perform at the White House, [url=http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/25/first-lady-brings-controversial-rapper-while-talking-british-students#comments]a poet who celebrated cop-killing, and then bragged about it:[/url]

[quote]
"We had a poetry session and we invited young kids in just last week from all over the country. And they talked to some of the most outstanding poets, and they read their poetry in the state room," the first lady said to a group of high school girls gathered at Oxford University. "And then we had a poetry night and Common was there. He's very cute. But everybody from poet laureates to hip-hop folks, being able to mix up the world in that very interesting way, the White House allows you to do that."

Common's invitation to the White House poetry event earlier this month raised the eyebrows of some conservatives, and the ire of New Jersey police officers because of his tune "A Song for Assata." It pledges support for Assata Shakur who was convicted of killing a trooper in the Garden State in 1973. Some of Common's other lyrics criticize the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Still, others argue the rap artist is a positive force whose music and message have matured over the years.[/quote]

(Incidentally, Assata Shakur --just the sort of person whose exploits should be celebrated in the White House-- was broken out of prison by armed men in 1979 and who is now living as a "political exile" in Cuba, is the sister of Mutulu Shakur, who helped plan the 1981 Brinks robbery that involved the murder of two Nyack policeman, one of whom was white, and the other black. Mutulu Shakur was the stepfather of the rapper Tupac Shakur who was gunned down in an apparent gang drive-by shooting in 1996.)

W./
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 03:14PM)
Ah, Woland. I must say, I look forward to another five and a half years of your entertaining anti-Obama posts.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 03:18PM)
My Gawd, Woland. You keep lobbing these soft balls. Maybe try a change-up or something.

[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:08, Woland wrote:

And I don't think that Laura Bush ever invited to perform at the White House, [url=http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/25/first-lady-brings-controversial-rapper-while-talking-british-students#comments]a poet who celebrated cop-killing, and then bragged about it:[/url]
[/quote]
So the big controversy in the news this week is how Chicago rapper Common was invited to the Obama White House. Republicans and conservative commentators, Fox News anchors like Sean Hannity, and talk radio people like Glenn Beck are all up in arms, because Common has a few verses in a few of his songs that are of a violent nature, anti-police, etc.

What they forgot was that Eazy-E, the late, controversial rapper from the gangster rap group NWA, was also invited to a Republican White House luncheon on March 18, 1991, when George H.W. Bush was president.

If you don’t know about Eazy-E, let’s just say that he makes Common look like Vanilla Ice when it comes to violent lyrical content. Just about all of Eazy-E’s songs concerned killing cops in lurid detail, raping women, shooting people, robbing people, etc.

And yet, it didn’t stop then Republican Senate leader Bob Dole from inviting Eazy-E (aka Eric Wright) to attend an exclusive luncheon with the president and Senatorial Inner Circle.

http://oddculture.com/weird-celebrities/flashback-eazy-e-invited-to-george-bush-white-house/
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 03:20PM)
We are, indeed, judged by the company we keep.

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tBqi5ja-dgs/SyGplVoopFI/AAAAAAAAB6U/_clzeMWgwgU/s320/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 03:39PM)
Actually, balducci, you make a convincing case that the cultural rot of the West has affected both parties.

Magnus, the shadows on that picture make it look photo-shopped. There is an authentic video clip showing Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in Baghdad in 1983, during the Iran-Iraq war.

Do you think that is any more d***ing than FDR shaking hands with Josef Stalin, and surrendering Eastern Europe to him at Yalta?

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 03:51PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:20, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
We are, indeed, judged by the company we keep.

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tBqi5ja-dgs/SyGplVoopFI/AAAAAAAAB6U/_clzeMWgwgU/s320/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I'm guessing that you are right.

This one is authentic, I believe.

[img]http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/drekhead/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 03:55PM)
That's the one! Is that any worse than Churchill & FDR sitting down, breaking bread, shaking hands, and sending weapons and material to Stalin?

According to the immortal Varlam Shalamov, some of the trucks that were used to steam-shovel into open, mass, unmakred graves, the still corpses of zeks who died of the cold in the Kolyma canmps, were Studebakers provided to Stalin under lend-lease provisions.

Pretty disgusting. But Germany & Japan had to be defeated first. It's too bad that Saddam didn't finish off Khomeini.

W./
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 03:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:55, Woland wrote:
That's the one! Is that any worse than Churchill & FDR sitting down, breaking bread, shaking hands, and sending weapons and material to Stalin?

According to the immortal Varlam Shalamov, some of the trucks that were used to steam-shovel into open, mass, unmakred graves, the still corpses of zeks who died of the cold in the Kolyma canmps, were Studebakers provided to Stalin under lend-lease provisions.

Pretty disgusting. But Germany & Japan had to be defeated first. It's too bad that Saddam didn't finish off Khomeini.

W./
[/quote]

Of course not. That is my point. You are picking individual interactions and trying to draw conclusions about the characters involved. The world of politics is significantly more complex than that.

Check out the murderer Ronald Reagan was caught hanging with:

[img]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1717/4218627658qe8.jpg[/img]

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (May 27, 2011 03:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 15:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
Seriously this is a discussion?
[/quote]

Indeed. I too am distressed that most people are concerned about HOW Obama signed it. Not THAT he signed it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2011 04:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Check out the murderer Ronald Reagan was caught hanging with:

[img]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1717/4218627658qe8.jpg[/img]

John
[/quote]

Hey, is that Charles Ng?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 04:26PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 17:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[Hey, is that Charles Ng?
[/quote]

Wow. Now that's wit! I am in awe.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2011 04:32PM)
Just a little Memorial Day serial killer humor.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 27, 2011 06:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 15:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Here's the part I agree with:



[quote]
Maybe I'm having a Bill Keller moment: maybe the technology doesn't matter, and the analog ceremony of a human hand and a pen and a piece of paper is just familiar theater.
[/quote]


Regardless of what you think of the Patriot Act, in the 21st century, I think it's impractical to the point of silliness (this is the kinder, gentler me; 'stupidity' first came to mind) to suggest that if the President were to sign the bill, he should have traveled from Europe to D.C. just to put pen to paper.
[/quote]
Geez, I'm having a Danny moment here. This is the best, Woland, you can come up with, in disagreement with Obama? I guess it's that in fact his policies are basically just the same as the "other" side, and it might be imprudent to point that out. The "Patriot" Act, a massive invasion of our constitutional rights is routinely renewed with nary a change, and very little opposition, and the best you can come up with is the autopen. SMH.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 27, 2011 06:11PM)
Common believed the woman in Cuba was innocent I believe. Oriely "challenged" Jon Stewart to a debate on it, and had people vote on the winner on his (orielys) site. Stewart won, in every state.

Bono wrote a song about Leonard Peltier, someone convicted of killing FBI agents, but Bush had him at the white house. But he is white, and not a rapper, and does so much for Africa....or something.

the entire thing is idiotic.

I hope at least one of you watches the "debate"...It was awesome.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 06:46PM)
I think Leonard Peltier was very likely guilty . . . however, if he had not run away, and had decided to stand trial with the others who were indicted for those crimes, Bob Robideau and Dino Butler, he probably would have been found not guilty because of self defense, as they were. By the time his trial came around, the jury in Fargo was not as sympathetic to the cause as the jury in Cedar Rapids. But I agree, Bono should not have been invited to the White House. As I said, celebrating the degradation of American culture did not begin with the present administration. But the crimes of the past do not excuse the crimes of the present.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2011 07:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:58, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 15:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
Seriously this is a discussion?
[/quote]

Indeed. I too am distressed that most people are concerned about HOW Obama signed it. Not THAT he signed it.
[/quote]

My friend, (and I am serious when I say that, and say it about balducci also.) if you were here I would be buying you a beer.(Along with balducci.)

I would rather talk with those I disagree with about things of substance than The View version of politics! I know you each like this for the reason I despise it. If anyone seriously thinks this is the way to win the White House... lord kill me now.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2011 07:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:07, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 15:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Here's the part I agree with:



[quote]
Maybe I'm having a Bill Keller moment: maybe the technology doesn't matter, and the analog ceremony of a human hand and a pen and a piece of paper is just familiar theater.
[/quote]


Regardless of what you think of the Patriot Act, in the 21st century, I think it's impractical to the point of silliness (this is the kinder, gentler me; 'stupidity' first came to mind) to suggest that if the President were to sign the bill, he should have traveled from Europe to D.C. just to put pen to paper.
[/quote]
Geez, I'm having a Danny moment here. This is the best, Woland, you can come up with, in disagreement with Obama? I guess it's that in fact his policies are basically just the same as the "other" side, and it might be imprudent to point that out. The "Patriot" Act, a massive invasion of our constitutional rights is routinely renewed with nary a change, and very little opposition, and the best you can come up with is the autopen. SMH.
[/quote]

I did not mean to leave you out of my list of those I disagree with but would buy a beer.

As for the dueling rapper thingie happening one thing I always enjoy is when one side does something obviously stupid (which inviting the rapper was) then they go back and mine information till they find an instance of which the other side did the same thing. Then we get the 2nd grade response of "well you did it too". Come on. As dumb as the attack is in light of the fact that Obama has planned and executed an assasination on prosperity, the defence of it was pretty stupid also.

I have to say something about our President which is a contrast though. Bush II did not defend himself much in public. Much of the lies and distortions were simply deflected and let go. He didn't lower himself into too many pie fights. Some yes, but mostly not so much. And the media savaged him for 8 years. Our current President seems to answer each and every charge. The glaring exception being the birth certificate nonsense. I am not saying it is good, or bad, simply a little bit of a difference is all.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 27, 2011 08:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:08, Woland wrote:
I agree with you, balducci, I think the use of a remotely manipulated pen under the President's direct control would be more aesthetic -- something like the surgical "Da Vinci" device.

I was unaware that the expedient of the autopen had been used before. The fact that President Bush used one does not reflect well on his judgment - but I've never said that I hold him up as an example of everything good. I think he does deserve recognition for the good things about him.

And I don't think that Laura Bush ever invited to perform at the White House, [url=http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/25/first-lady-brings-controversial-rapper-while-talking-british-students#comments]a poet who celebrated cop-killing, and then bragged about it:[/url]

[quote]
"We had a poetry session and we invited young kids in just last week from all over the country. And they talked to some of the most outstanding poets, and they read their poetry in the state room," the first lady said to a group of high school girls gathered at Oxford University. "And then we had a poetry night and Common was there. He's very cute. But everybody from poet laureates to hip-hop folks, being able to mix up the world in that very interesting way, the White House allows you to do that."

Common's invitation to the White House poetry event earlier this month raised the eyebrows of some conservatives, and the ire of New Jersey police officers because of his tune "A Song for Assata." It pledges support for Assata Shakur who was convicted of killing a trooper in the Garden State in 1973. Some of Common's other lyrics criticize the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Still, others argue the rap artist is a positive force whose music and message have matured over the years.[/quote]

(Incidentally, Assata Shakur --just the sort of person whose exploits should be celebrated in the White House-- was broken out of prison by armed men in 1979 and who is now living as a "political exile" in Cuba, is the sister of Mutulu Shakur, who helped plan the 1981 Brinks robbery that involved the murder of two Nyack policeman, one of whom was white, and the other black. Mutulu Shakur was the stepfather of the rapper Tupac Shakur who was gunned down in an apparent gang drive-by shooting in 1996.)

W./
[/quote]Good Lord, Woland. John Bleeping Stewart covered this the other night. The rapper's appeared with Elmo, for God's sake.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 08:40PM)
Who's Elmo?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 27, 2011 09:35PM)
I think who cares if peliter was at the white house? What real difference does it make? None. Who cares that jinny cash has been there? It's a dumb arguement, a dumb subject.


Elmo was the Prime Minister of poland
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 10:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:09, Dannydoyle wrote:

My friend, (and I am serious when I say that, and say it about balducci also.) if you were here I would be buying you a beer.(Along with balducci.)

I would rather talk with those I disagree with about things of substance than The View version of politics! I know you each like this for the reason I despise it. If anyone seriously thinks this is the way to win the White House... lord kill me now.
[/quote]
Cheers and thanks. :)

Some may find it hard to believe, but I really do not care much one way or the other about who is President. Nor does the choice of U.S. President affect me here in Canada all that much (if at all). It may affect some of my U.S. relatives (mostly Republican and Tea Party types, believe it or not), but they are all old enough to look after themselves.

I do enjoy the political talk because I find it interesting. And U.S. politics and the perpetual U.S. election cycles are so much more interesting than what we have up here in Canada (e.g., our 30 day election cycles).

I'd rather talk about substantial political issues over the silly stuff but if people want to talk about silly stuff so be it. I am fortunate in that I can simply appreciate the entertainment value provided by the inanities (e.g., birth certificate, autopen, toast to the Queen, stuck limo, bust of Churchill, etc.).

You have my sympathies that you are not in the same boat.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 10:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:40, Woland wrote:
Who's Elmo?
[/quote]

Don't you watch Sesame Street?

Come on you had to know that was coming.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2011 05:53AM)
Agree that QE2 does an admirable job. A bit worried about the succession, however.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2011 08:51AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:25, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:08, Woland wrote:
I agree with you, balducci, I think the use of a remotely manipulated pen under the President's direct control would be more aesthetic -- something like the surgical "Da Vinci" device.

I was unaware that the expedient of the autopen had been used before. The fact that President Bush used one does not reflect well on his judgment - but I've never said that I hold him up as an example of everything good. I think he does deserve recognition for the good things about him.

And I don't think that Laura Bush ever invited to perform at the White House, [url=http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/25/first-lady-brings-controversial-rapper-while-talking-british-students#comments]a poet who celebrated cop-killing, and then bragged about it:[/url]

[quote]
"We had a poetry session and we invited young kids in just last week from all over the country. And they talked to some of the most outstanding poets, and they read their poetry in the state room," the first lady said to a group of high school girls gathered at Oxford University. "And then we had a poetry night and Common was there. He's very cute. But everybody from poet laureates to hip-hop folks, being able to mix up the world in that very interesting way, the White House allows you to do that."

Common's invitation to the White House poetry event earlier this month raised the eyebrows of some conservatives, and the ire of New Jersey police officers because of his tune "A Song for Assata." It pledges support for Assata Shakur who was convicted of killing a trooper in the Garden State in 1973. Some of Common's other lyrics criticize the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Still, others argue the rap artist is a positive force whose music and message have matured over the years.[/quote]

(Incidentally, Assata Shakur --just the sort of person whose exploits should be celebrated in the White House-- was broken out of prison by armed men in 1979 and who is now living as a "political exile" in Cuba, is the sister of Mutulu Shakur, who helped plan the 1981 Brinks robbery that involved the murder of two Nyack policeman, one of whom was white, and the other black. Mutulu Shakur was the stepfather of the rapper Tupac Shakur who was gunned down in an apparent gang drive-by shooting in 1996.)

W./
[/quote]Good Lord, Woland. John Bleeping Stewart covered this the other night. The rapper's appeared with Elmo, for God's sake.
[/quote]

Well I guess Comedy Central has the final word in all things huh? Are you even serious when you post?

And incidently lets just say that a caucasion President had some racist metal band at the White House but had Cookie Monster there. Would that make it ok?

I don't care either way, but really your messiah probably miscalculaated here.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 28, 2011 01:26PM)
[quote]
And incidently lets just say that a caucasion President had some racist metal band at the White House but had Cookie Monster there. Would that make it ok?
[/quote]

The Cookie Monster's metal band is [i]not[/i] racist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WaRrh1CpQw&feature=related