New Obama Controversy [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

JohnMichael

11-20-2008, 02:16 PM

Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences
Stirs Controversy
Stunning Break with Last Eight Years
November 18, 2008
Associated Press

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS' "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota , some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off."

The President-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska .

"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.

basite

11-20-2008, 02:36 PM

If I were an American, I'd be proud if my president spoke grammatically correct English.
I mean, come on guys. Your president, he represents the whole continent, he should show he can represent it.

To me, speaking a language fluidly, and correct, doesn't really represent elitism. To me it represents education, and respect for the language. He will get lots of respect for this from outside of the USA.

Here in Belgium, we have a strong duality in our country, one part speaks Dutch, and the other part speaks French, those are our 2 main (first) languages. Everyone learns both at school (although the language education here in the dutch speaking part is better than in the french speaking part). Yet our own king, and the entire royal family, has difficulties speaking dutch. It's a shame. If we see or hear anything here on tv or on the radio, about the royal family, it always sounds like it's about some kids that escaped from kindergarten.

Please, now you have a proper educated president, be happy, for once.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

bobsticks

11-20-2008, 03:08 PM

Hey Bert,

I'm pretty sure the article is false, a sarcasm-laden bit to take a swipe at Bush's many foifbles with the English language. Clearly there's a lot of material with GW but it's kind of a "glass houses" proposition. If you actually check out any of the vids from townhall meetings, Q&A's or any other non-scripted or teleprompted events you'd find hat Obama is not the most gifted speaker. His speech tends to be littered with "uh's" and "um's".

In fairness to the President-Elect, countless hours on the campaign trail not spent in Congress voting would be exhaustive, not conducive for perfect grammatics or speech. Also in fairness, none of his syntactical issues approach the drivel of Bush Two's content.

In any case, we all remain hopeful. BTW, good to see you posting again. I trust the summer job was rewarding.

Peace,
M

NP: http://www.musicdirect.com/shared/images/products/large/chusa9110.jpg

02audionoob

11-20-2008, 04:07 PM

We will also have to suffer hearing the correct pronunciation of the word "nuclear" for the next 4 years. It's just not right.

thekid

11-20-2008, 05:49 PM

Dittoes JM ...er..... wait there has been a change.......
Kudos JM!!!

Mr Peabody

11-20-2008, 08:09 PM

Hey, we just want us a maverick, don't ya know. We don't want to use no dern dictionary just to understand hows we're gettin shafted, oops, I mean, what they're goin to do fer us. We need more people to come here to Alaska and live in an igloo. Alls you need is to shoot some mooses and catch some fish, you got it made. Those guys in the lower states are just panty waste whiners any way. Here's our motto, "come to Alaska and see Russia from your back yard".

RoadRunner6

11-20-2008, 08:52 PM

Being firmly entrenched in the middle politically, I hope I can offer a fair evaluation. I was not that impressed with either McCain or Obama. I did become more impressed with McCain in the last month or so. His concession speech was a classic. Obama is a superb speaker and political organizer. I have been mostly impressed by him after the elections. He seems to be very focused and strongly directed. I applaud his statement that he will allow embryo stem cell research.

However, when It comes to extemporaneous speaking, Sarah Palin is more articulate and impressive. To mock her folksy Alaskan demeanor is unreasonable. I was there on business many times and their friendliness is real and refreshing. I have to agree with Sticks that when off the teleprompter, Obama is somewhat hesistant and almost seems to stammer at times. Her being a former television reporter undoubtedly helps in her on camera professionalism and smoothness.

Unfortunately, the far left and far right seem to jump on any opportunity to pounce on their opponent with questionable comments. This humors me from the reports that Palin was unaware that Africa was a continent to Obama being a muslim (both nonsense). They both seemed to me to be underqualified, experience wise, for the offices they were seeking.

With maturity comes the wisdom in both life and our political views that no one issue or person is the answer to all. I am frequently reminded of this as I observe the actions of the NRA members buying up guns in record numbers after Obama's election to the demonstrations at churches by the Proposition 8 opponents. I don't have any problem with these people expressing their views but some of them seem to see single issues to be the end all.

I sincerely hope that Obama does well as our president. I only regret that many of those that I strongly admired are not still with us to see this day: Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, McKinley Morganfield (Muddy Waters), Nat King Cole, Eubie Blake, Marian Anderson, Buck O'Neil, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall and on and on. I do not wish to cannonize any of these folks. It is just that they are people who impressed me. The fact that they had to sit in the back of the bus, eat in separate restaurants, drink from separate drinking fountains and stay in separate hotels was an appalling insult to their human dignity.

RR6

Feanor

11-21-2008, 04:39 AM

...
However, when It comes to extemporaneous speaking, Sarah Palin is more articulate and impressive. To mock her folksy Alaskan demeanor is unreasonable. I was there on business many times and their friendliness is real and refreshing. I have to agree with Sticks that when off the teleprompter, Obama is somewhat hesistant and almost seems to stammer at times. Her being a former television reporter undoubtedly helps in her on camera professionalism and smoothness. ...

I do agree with both the Palin and Obama sides of the above statements. I thank the the JM's orginal quotes are unfairly disparaging of Palin (by insinuation). It wasn't Palins folksy manner that bothered me but rather her lack on insightful content.

... Unfortunately, the far left and far right seem to jump on any opportunity to pounce on their opponent with questionable comments. ...

There IS no "far left" in the U.S. worth mentioning. The Democratic Party is a solidly centrist party by the standard of world politics. And the whole U.S. political spectrum certainly skewed to the right by the broader standard. The Repulican party still includes many centrists with a financially conservative slant, however since the end of the "yellow-dog" southern, (i.e. conservative), Democat era that party has become overwhelming right-wing. [EDIT: That is to say, since the Republican Party absorbed the former "yellow dogs".] Really, an unwholesome alliance of economic right-wingers, and social conservatives and pharisaic religionists. IMO, the former group have coopted the latter and are using them as naive voters to advance extreme right-wing, anarcho-capitalist policies that can ultimately benefit only large corporations and the ultra-rich.

Ajani

11-21-2008, 05:13 AM

If I'm not mistaken the article quoted by JM is from a political satirist... I actually read it yesterday on the Huffington Post... it's more a stab at Bush than anything else...

Palin gets mocked not for being cutesy and folksy but for being (or at least appearing to be) a moron (basically a female G.W.Bush)... There is absolutely nothing wrong with being from a small town and being friendly, but if you intend to run for the highest (or 2nd highest) office in the land you need to be Smart, Experienced or Both - if you don't desire to be mocked relentlessly by the media and the public...

My hope still remains that 1) Obama can do a good job and help move both parties closer to the center and turn America into one big purple state... 2) The Republican party not only moves towards the center and lets the extremists (whether pro-guns, pro-life, pro-war or pro-evangelical) start their own crazy little parties... but also gets back to basics with good old fashioned fiscal prudence... it's a damned shame when the Democrats have more credibility with balancing the budget than the Republicans...

kexodusc

11-21-2008, 05:16 AM

.

However, when It comes to extemporaneous speaking, Sarah Palin is more articulate and impressive. To mock her folksy Alaskan demeanor is unreasonable. I was there on business many times and their friendliness is real and refreshing. I have to agree with Sticks that when off the teleprompter, Obama is somewhat hesistant and almost seems to stammer at times. Her being a former television reporter undoubtedly helps in her on camera professionalism and smoothness.

Unfortunately, the far left and far right seem to jump on any opportunity to pounce on their opponent with questionable comments. This humors me from the reports that Palin was unaware that Africa was a continent to Obama being a muslim (both nonsense). They both seemed to me to be underqualified, experience wise, for the offices they were seeking.

Here's the thing - the majority of Palin's speeches and appearanced during the campaign were the sort of lob-balled, canned, pre-prepared question and answer stuff that every candidate does well at these days - Even Bush. The ones that weren't pre-canned she was either very good with, or very bad. There was no mediocre with her. She'll be practicing I'm sure.

The presidential candidates faced much harder impromptu questions and had much more stress and consequence associated with their responses. I don't put much weight in the "umms" and "uhhs" a person might interrupt their repsonses with. That's no big deal, every public speaker I've ever seen has been reduced to that from time to time. It's actually a positive, it shows Obama can thing fast and deeply on his feet while still delivering a coherent response with precision. McCain did much of the same, and I thought was underrated himself.
What you usually get with politicians is a "the same ol' answer" to questions of common themes, which gives us nothing new, and sometimes, not even the answer to the question we want. Just catchphrases and slogans. Neither of those guys did that.

I personally felt McCain and Obama were two of the better impromptu responders in recent history, umhs and uhhhs aside, they were sincere, intelligent, and didn't dodge or can their responses. Hope that's a sign of things to come.

ForeverAutumn

11-21-2008, 07:06 AM

I didn't follow the US campaigns nearly as much as you all did. But I will say that I think that Palin got a bad deal. In the interviews that I did see, I thought that she came off as intelligent and down to earth.

Sure she flubbed some interviews and answered some questions poorly, but seriously, what politician hasn’t done that. One of the biggest criticisms that I heard about her was her lack of experience. If that’s true then some interview faux pas are to be expected. Just because one doesn’t perform well in an interview, under pressure, in a situation that is new, doesn’t mean that one is not intelligent or capable of doing the job. Yet that is the conclusion that everyone seemed to come to. I’m not suggesting that ultimately the conclusion isn’t correct. I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t. I’m just saying that I don’t think the logic that led to it is correct.

Frankly, I thought that Palin was a refreshing change from the usual “old boys” that we tend to see in politics. This was someone that I could relate to. Someone that I felt like I could sit down and have a real conversation with over a glass of wine or a cup of tea. A person who felt “friendly”. I think that she was a great choice for a V.P. candidate for all of those reasons. The only fault with the plan, that I could see, was her lack of experience in such a high pressure situation. If she had had more time to learn the ropes and cultivate her skills, I believe that she would have been more successful. I do think that she has opened the door for someone else with her grassroots traits to try again.

And, just to be clear, I don’t think that person has to be a woman. I didn’t feel that way about Clinton. Although a woman, she seemed to me to fit right into that old boys camp.

The political climate is changing. People are tired of the liars and thieves that run our countries. They want change. They want a leader that they can believe in and relate to. I would love to have a person like Palin, someone that I feel “friendly” towards, run in a leadership race in my country. The stout old boys have held the reigns for far too long and look where we all are. It’s time for a new breed of politicians.

Rich-n-Texas

11-21-2008, 07:12 AM

With the exception of the above post...

:Yawn: :Yawn: ... :sleep:

And now, back to the :23:

Ajani

11-21-2008, 07:45 AM

With the exception of the above post...

:Yawn: :Yawn: ... :sleep:

And now, back to the :23:

Leg Humper!

Ajani

11-21-2008, 08:13 AM

Woochifer

11-21-2008, 02:04 PM

Yeah, but according to the right-wingers over at PowerLine, (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022038.php) Obama's got a long way to go before he achieves the verbal discipline and gaffe-free thinking of that "careful" and "precise" wordsmither, George Dubya Bush! :3:

Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated.

02audionoob

11-21-2008, 02:26 PM

It's a good thing Dubya hasn't committed gaffes. If he had, there might be websites dedicated to them. Letterman might poke fun at him. Whew! Thank goodness.

JohnMichael

11-21-2008, 02:41 PM

If I'm not mistaken the article quoted by JM is from a political satirist... I actually read it yesterday on the Huffington Post... it's more a stab at Bush than anything else...

Yes exactly and thank you for getting it.

nightflier

11-21-2008, 04:00 PM

Some thoughts:

On McCain's concession speech: I find it particularly insulting that he had the gall to invoke the suffering of African Americans while his own campaign used some blatantly racist tactics to try and win. Yes, it seemed conciliatory, but let's be frank, his campaign played the race card over & over again, and he certainly didn't reign in the lipsticked bulldog.

Speaking of Bible Spice, to suggest that she was at all qualified to be vice president, completely negates her appalling political record of power-grubbing and arbitrarily executive management. Has everybody forgotten that she idolized Cheney, that she lobbied for the spot for months with Washington insiders on their Alaskan cruises, that she fired people for personal and religious reasons, that she flip-flopped on the bridge to nowhere, and that she alienated anyone who did not agree with her political or religious views? Let's remember she sued George Bush Jr. for the right to kill Polar Bears and just last week was seen on camera pardoning a turkey, while in the background the rest of the screaming coop was being beheaded in a most disgusting manner? That's hypocrisy for you! Did we really come that close to having Cheney 2.0 for president? You betcha.

And why does everybody keep comparing Caribou Barbie with Obama? They weren't running against each other, people. She was running against Biden, who apparently came off looking, or rather sounding, even better as a result - he's not exactly known for being tactful. Perhaps the reality was that both McCain and Palin were running against Obama and that Biden was the distant third wheel, but that still doesn't put her anywhere near the caliber of Obama as far as presentation, speaking ability, or appearance. So she wears a skirt, she also carries a gun, so I'm sorry but the white gloves are off. She was a disaster on so many levels that it's hard to even think we came so close to the brink.

On whether our political spectrum is centrist. Pluuueeeze, maybe in comparison with Uzbekistan (where they boil people alive instead of water-boarding them). But to the rest of the Western world we are anything but centrist. There is no left in this country, aside from a few marginalized souls. Go anywhere else and you find anarchists, communists, and atheists that would make Kucinich and Nader look like saints. No, to the rest of the Westernized world, we are opportunistic, callous, infantile, and laughable. Has everybody forgotten Anita Hill and the pubic hair in the wine glass hearings? How about when we impeached a president because he had an affair with an intern? So leme get this straight, that wasn't OK, but diverting critical intelligence resources that could have prevented 9/11 was OK? Lying to get us into war, that's OK? How about Outing Valery Plame because her hubby didn't agree with him, that was OK? How about using Chinese Water Torture (aka water-boarding) in violation of international and national law was OK? Eavesdropping on our most private conversations and forcing phone companies to participate, is OK? Bankrupting the country, bailing out his friends, and then letting the whole kit-n-caboodle sink to crap is OK? But having an affair was not. Yeah, OK, we're real civilized.

Let's remember, this country is so far down the crapper that we said, OK, I guess I'd rather vote for the liberal black guy who looks like Malcolm X. We can only thank providence that Obama's support was so great in Ohio that even the 100,000 or so flipped votes for McCain (yes, that's this year, not 2004) were not enough to steal this election. Because if McCain / Palin had won, things would be so much worse right now, and they'd only be headed further South for the next four years (sorry Tex, I didn't mean in your direction... or maybe I did...). Yes, the economy is not stellar, but at least it is reasonably stable now. Most analysts don't see things going much lower, and that's a testament to Obama winning this last election.

Give Obama two years, and we'll all be asking McCain-who?

Rich-n-Texas

11-21-2008, 04:07 PM

Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Blah blah blah.BLAH blah blah blah BLAH. Fixed!

Have a drink flyboy! :frown2:

:biggrin5:

:23:

nightflier

11-21-2008, 04:40 PM

Hmmm, I thought it was worthy of a few more Blahs. Maybe you should take an Alaskan cruise. I hear Palin is quite the entertainer....

Rich-n-Texas

11-21-2008, 05:03 PM

Hmmm, I thought it was worthy of a few more Blahs. Maybe you should take an Alaskan cruise. I hear Palin is quite the entertainer....
Well, she does have great legs ya know?

nightflier

11-21-2008, 05:11 PM

Yeah, just watch were she points that gun, when you start getting frisky.

Mr Peabody

11-21-2008, 06:28 PM

McCain made a mistake by NOT being a maverick and letting himself be handled by the Republican machine. Some body brought Palin in without doing their home work and McCain had to make the best of it. I ain't buying all of his kind words and support for her. She came off on TV with all the intelligence of Jessica Simpson. Ajani got it right, it wasn't her "folksy" act that repulsed me, it was her ignorance and, well, if she didn't have to talk. People get made fun of if they are different. Comics make a living on it, so don't cry over a joke on Palin's dialect. She has plenty of other points we can make fun of. I was a McCain supporter way back before Bush when he was for reform in Congress. Back when he was all about "there's going to be blood on the Senate floor". Talking all that crap before Bush took office. When Bush got elected they shut McCain down like flipping a switch. You can't walk and talk like a duck for eight years and then try to convince people you are a wolf. McCain seemed like he started his campaign with no ideas what so ever then when Obama started gaining support with his plans McCain thought "well I had better come up with something" and that something was a load of crap, taxing our health benefits? Giving $5k to health insurance companies for us when it costs an average of $12k now? The Republicans have lived so high on the hog and raping this country so long they are totally out of touch and out of their minds. I don't mind saying I am basically a concervative but regardless of what you may think I'm not stupid either. Obama may not have been the ideal candidate but much of what he planned to do made sense and a lot better for my family than what McCain was wanting to do.

NF, I'd give you a chicklet if I could, you made plenty of good points.

It did seem like it was Obama against both Palin and McCain. But Joe handed Palin her head when they debated.

Mr Peabody

11-21-2008, 06:45 PM

Rich-n-Texas

11-21-2008, 07:16 PM

...NF, I'd give you a chicklet if I could, you made plenty of good points...
Mr. P., forgive me for reducing your thoughtful response to just one line, but truthfully, I didn't understand a word NF said. :nonod:

ForeverAutumn

11-21-2008, 08:09 PM

FA, I followed your comments in the abortion thread, I find it very interesting that you think you could sit down and have a conversation with Palin. You two are about as polar opposites as two people can get. The commonality, you are both women. I have a high school friend, she used to be my girlfriend, is the same way. She told me she don't like Obama and not sold on McCain so she don't know for who or if she will vote. But once Palin was on the ticket boy she was sold on McCain/Palin, no matter what stupid ideas they came up with. For the most part at first I think picking Palin was working to swing women voters just because she was a woman.

I didn't like her religious views or her views on abortion and gay marriage. In general I don't like the moral view that most Conservatives take, including those in my own country. Although, I do consider myself to be Conservative, when it comes to the moral issues my views are definitely more liberal.

I guess it was more her attitude that I was liking rather than her views. As I said, I didn't see nearly as much of her as you all must have. Maybe I just saw the clips that put her in the best light and missed the stuff that made her look stupid. And I wouldn't say that it had anything to do with being a woman.

02audionoob

11-21-2008, 08:15 PM

We saw moments like this...

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

Rich-n-Texas

11-21-2008, 09:09 PM

Yeah, just watch were she points that gun, when you start getting frisky.
My guns're bigger than hers anyway, so who cares?

Feanor

11-22-2008, 05:49 AM

I didn't like her religious views or her views on abortion and gay marriage. In general I don't like the moral view that most Conservatives take, including those in my own country. Although, I do consider myself to be Conservative, when it comes to the moral issues my views are definitely more liberal.

I guess it was more her attitude that I was liking rather than her views. As I said, I didn't see nearly as much of her as you all must have. Maybe I just saw the clips that put her in the best light and missed the stuff that made her look stupid. And I wouldn't say that it had anything to do with being a woman.
As I explained before, (who listens?), Palin was selected -- not by McCain but more likely Republican back-room advisors -- to complement him in various respects. One of McCain's perceived "weaknesses" was that he doesn't have a particularly strong religious bent. (Of course, another was that he is male.)

As I've also explained, there is no necessary link between financial and social conservatives, but the financial conservatives would have great difficulty being elected without support from other constituencies. At one time, especially in the southern US, conservatives voted Democat, (recall I mentioned "yellow-dog" Democrats). But as the Democrats more came more clearly linked with socially progressive policies, beginning with racial equality, the "yellow-dogs" began to rethink their support. The Republicans, before then largely fiscal conservatives, shrewdly courted these voters and did so with great success.

A couple of weeks ago I checked out the NY Times analysis of voting trends. Geographically, if not by numbers of voters, the US has continuously shifted from Democat to Republican since 1992 per the Times, and actually longer than that. Amazingly even in this year's election when most areas shifted back to the Democrats, the Republican vote increased futher in some areas. Which areas were these? Well mostly the Appalacian plateau and the Ozarks: have you heard the term "hillbilly"?

02audionoob

11-22-2008, 06:31 AM

The whole conservative Democrat thing was a confusing phenomenon to me as a kid in Texas. This staunchly conservative state elected governors from the Democratic party continuously from the late 1800's until the 1978 election. Lt Governor (elected separately from the governor) went to the Democrats uninterrupted until 1998. After that first Republican governor of the century, two more Democrats served as governor, but they were of the liberal variety. I suspect we've seen the last of that for a while.

Mr Peabody

11-22-2008, 12:16 PM

When Feanor talks, everyone listens!!!

It's not "hillbilly" it's "religious right". Well.... probably hillbilly too.

Rich-n-Texas

11-22-2008, 01:10 PM

HUH? Who said what?

Is the outsider complaining again? :nonod:

Auricauricle

11-22-2008, 06:03 PM

Say what you will, but isues of politics, race and religion were all part of an inevitable momentum that was bound to push the pendulum back to the middle. I have little doubt that while the installation of reactionary and divisive persons and policies will attend Obama's ascent, they will be thoughtfully placed. Obama has already worried some loyalists with his inclusion of Hillary but this decision making, hard as it is, signals prudence and a willingness to proceed with dispassion. While these measures signal a decisive interest in "righting the ship", the forces that have contributed to the status quo of the last eight years will certainly resist these forces with urgent vigor.

The crisis that is before is one that lays the onus of culpability on both parties. While neocoms set out to do their work, Democrat representatives who were charged to keep them in check abdicated their responsibilities with miserable cowardice. Recent weeks have shown renewed Democrat intestinal fortitude, but they should not be let off their respective hooks that easily.

I am not sure if Obama will embrace a centralist position, once the dust settles and the accountable are lined up to get what they deserve. I don't expect a purging, for it would only be symbolic and would fail to deal with forces at work that lay well outside the Beltway's confines. In the end, Washington is a Good Old Boys Club, of which Democrat and Republican reps are all members....

One thing is for sure, the world will be watching!

Feanor

11-23-2008, 04:13 AM

...

As I've also explained, there is no necessary link between financial and social conservatives, but the financial conservatives would have great difficulty being elected without support from other constituencies. At one time, especially in the southern US, conservatives voted Democat, (recall I mentioned "yellow-dog" Democrats). But as the Democrats more came more clearly linked with socially progressive policies, beginning with racial equality, the "yellow-dogs" began to rethink their support. The Republicans, before then largely fiscal conservatives, shrewdly courted these voters and did so with great success.

... the US has continuously shifted from Democat to Republican since 1992 per the Times, and actually longer than that. ...

I ought to have said economic conservatives rather than "financial". Or "fiscal' -- heck, I'm a fiscal conservative myself, that is, a believer that governments should normally balance their budgets and be held tightly accountable for their spending.

The social conservative connection with the Democratic Party went all the way back to the Civil War of course. The belated and lengthy migration to the Republican party by the red-necks and hillbillies bespeaks the mindless but typical tendancy to vote the way one's parents do. We can note too that for a long time southern Blacks voted Republican because it was historically the party of Lincoln and emancipation, but that this too has changed.

Hmmm ... for an outsider I think I know a good deal about U.S. history and politics: strange. :confused5: But I suppose I'm not typical of foreigners.

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 06:40 AM

Ajani

11-23-2008, 10:05 AM

"New Obama Controversy"?

Is anyone aware of a more important one: serious questions over his COLB, his birthplace, his real country of citizenship? There are several legal actions ongoing on this issue. The Kenyan ambassador has admitted Obama was born in Kenya, and his Kenyan birth cert has been tracked down. Since he travelled in the past on an Indonesian passport, his citizenship is in question too, which also puts into question his qualification to run for President. It will be bemusing to see how this works out...

Laz

Nope, never heard of that one... seems highly unlikely given how much scrutiny would have gone into checking his legal status from before he even ran for the Democratic Nomination... Also, I'd like to see an article even mentioning such a 'controversy' on a credible newsource such as CNN...

Do you have a link you could provide?

02audionoob

11-23-2008, 10:27 AM

Obama was born to an American mother. It doesn't matter if she was in Kenya at the time.

Rich-n-Texas

11-23-2008, 11:08 AM

Nope, never heard of that one... seems highly unlikely given how much scrutiny would have gone into checking his legal status from before he even ran for the Democratic Nomination... Also, I'd like to see an article even mentioning such a 'controversy' on a credible newsource such as CNN...

Do you have a link you could provide?
Spoken like a true liberal. "..credible newscource such as [insert *liberal* here]CNN..."

:lol:

You should've seen the way Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson were falling all over themsleves with joy and how giddy Sawyer got when ABC projected Obama as the winner.

Please dude. You'll never get a liberal to agree the news media is left-leaning, but the rest of the world knows better. Do you read the newspaper Ajani? Do you go past page one? Look for it on page 7. It'll be a tiny little 3 paragraph article. :rolleyes:

Rich-n-Texas

11-23-2008, 11:10 AM

Obama was born to an American mother. It doesn't matter if she was in Kenya at the time.
The father was a Tribal Chief?

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 11:31 AM

Obama was born to an American mother. It doesn't matter if she was in Kenya at the time.

Actually, given the way the law reads, it does matter.

Here's a credible source, as requested:

An Open Letter to
Barack Obama
By John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
11-2-8

I know you are busy running for President of the greatest country in the world, but there are a couple of things about your background and qualifications for the office that concern me and many of my fellow Americans. Never before has a Presidential candidate failed to fully disclose routine information about their background that might help the voters make an informed choice in an election. It seems that many records concerning your background have either be been sealed or are temporarily unavailable for review. I know that any honest person like yourself, who is running for the highest office in the land, would never overtly want to keep such information from public review.
Here's a partial list:

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released (sealed?)
8. Certified Copy of Certification of Live Birth -- Not released (sealed?)
9. Birth records from Kenya -- (Sealed by the government of Kenya until after Election Day)
10. Your record of Christian Baptism -- Not released or unavailable
11. Illinois State Senate schedule - 'Not available'
12. Illinois State Senate records - Destroyed

I believe items #7,8 and 9 are the most critical and concern two issues that are very important to the American people:

1. Are Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? and

2. Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

In a recent federal court case in Pennsylvania, an American citizen, Philip Berg, filed a lawsuit claiming you were not a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified to be President. During that case, you never denied Mr. Berg's claims, but neither did you provid a valid birth certificate or other proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore qualified under the Constitution to be President. Rather, you hid behind technicalities in the law to avoid the issue and the federal judge hearing the case dismissed Mr. Berg's lawsuit stating that Mr. Berg, acting as a "citizen," did not have legal standing to make such a challenge. This is a prime example of another outrageous decision by a federal judge to deny the American people their rights clearly outlined in the constitution.

There have been lawsuits filed, or currently being filed, in 7 or 8 states with various state Boards of Elections, claiming you are ineligible to be on their ballots because you have not produced proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States. Mr. Obama, if you are truly and honorable man and a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" you can clear up this issue very quickly. Just produce a certified copy of your birth certificate in any one of the names you have been know by (Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham).
Your avoidance of the issue and your subsequent failure to prove you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" is very suspicious and raises a very important constitutional issue that must be addressed before the November 4th election. Stop using legal technicalities, record sealing and courtroom maneuvers to avoid the issue. The American people have every constitutional right to know and they will eventually find out.

Try using honesty and truthfulness for a change and put this issue to rest. Either prove that you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the U.S." and are legally qualified to hold the Office of President, or withdraw the race.

If you do not do one of the other, the American people, regardless of party affiliation, will surely stand up and kick you out.

John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/

02audionoob

11-23-2008, 11:41 AM

Actually, given the way the law reads, it does matter.

I assume you're referring to the requirement to be a "natural born citizen". That phrase doesn't stipulate that the candidate be born inside the borders of the country.

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 11:56 AM

I assume you're referring to the requirement to be a "natural born citizen". That phrase doesn't stipulate that the candidate be born inside the borders of the country.

Actually, I was referring to the law concerning foreign birth: to be an automatic American citizen although born overseas, Obama's mother needed to be at least nineteen years of age at the time of his birth, which she was not. At least that is how it was told to me.

Laz

Ajani

11-23-2008, 12:03 PM

Spoken like a true liberal. "..credible newscource such as [insert *liberal* here]CNN..."

:lol:

You should've seen the way Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson were falling all over themsleves with joy and how giddy Sawyer got when ABC projected Obama as the winner.

Please dude. You'll never get a liberal to agree the news media is left-leaning, but the rest of the world knows better. Do you read the newspaper Ajani? Do you go past page one? Look for it on page 7. It'll be a tiny little 3 paragraph article. :rolleyes:

So since the media is all liberal (I assume you don't include Fox News in that) then should I just believe any claim made against a candidate, with no regard to the actual source of the story?

Without a credible source, it's not news, it's just gossip...

And in the case of this particular story I find it strange that a story of this "significance" would not be more prominent... especially back in the Democratic primaries, when Hilary supporters would have jumped on any opportunity to knock Obama out of the race...

You'll never get a liberal to agree the news media is left-leaning, but the rest of the world knows better.

Since you are an American, then (using your own logic, that you apply to Feanor and us foreigners) you shouldn't talk about the "rest of the world", since you don't live there and hence know nothing about it...

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 12:12 PM

I find it strange that a story of this "significance" would not be more prominent... especially back in the Democratic primaries, when Hilary supporters would have jumped on any opportunity to knock Obama out of the race...

You never heard of backroom political deals? It may be no coincidence that Hillary Clinton has been selected as Secretary of State. You just have to connect the dots...

Laz

Feanor

11-23-2008, 12:16 PM

Actually, I was referring to the law concerning foreign birth: to be an automatic American citizen although born overseas, Obama's mother needed to be at least nineteen years of age at the time of his birth, which she was not. At least that is how it was told to me.

Laz

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) says he was born in Hawaii. But we know that Wikipedia can be unreliable -- infiltrated as it is by left-wing radicals :smilewinkgrin:

Ajani

11-23-2008, 12:22 PM

You never heard of backroom political deals? It may be no coincidence that Hillary Clinton has been selected as Secretary of State. You just have to connect the dots...

Laz

Sure Laz, it could be possible, but without real evidence it's still just gossip... Also, why would Hilary agree to that? Why accept Sec of State, when she could have been President? Unless we further speculate that Obama knew some dirty secret of hers as well...

And we can keep speculating to eternity on this one...

Ajani

11-23-2008, 12:27 PM

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) says he was born in Hawaii. But we know that Wikipedia can be unreliable -- infiltrated as it is by left-wing radicals :smilewinkgrin:

I've always heard that he was born in Hawaii... that's been the official story for the entire campaign... And since I don't think either he or his mother ever lived in Kenya, the notion he was born in Kenya seems even stranger... His parents met at University in Hawaii... But who knows? it could be the liberal media who've kept this info locked down to prevent Sarah Palin and her VP J. McCain from taking the White House...

JohnMichael

11-23-2008, 01:22 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php

McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born-citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.

Interesting that many have forgotten that McCain was the first to have his eligibility to run for president questioned. This may open the doors for President Arnold.

Auricauricle

11-23-2008, 01:30 PM

Oh, don't even go there, JM....That's the last thing this country needs: "Mr. Terminator"....

Hey, where's my group hug and beer? That's 1017 posts I've popped over to you scoundrels, you know! (Leaves playgound, kicking dirt and a little rock).

02audionoob

11-23-2008, 02:14 PM

Actually, I was referring to the law concerning foreign birth: to be an automatic American citizen although born overseas, Obama's mother needed to be at least nineteen years of age at the time of his birth, which she was not. At least that is how it was told to me.

Laz

The time minimum doesn't apply in this case. Citizenship is transmitted by blood. If the mother had been a naturalized citizen instead of a native, it would be an issue.

thekid

11-23-2008, 02:39 PM

Well I thought the election would have ended alot of this type of discussion but........

As for the canard re Obama's birth.......Information does not exist in a vacum and public records like birth certificates are not "controlled" by any special interest group. If people not aligned with the "liberal media" wanted to find out where Obama was born it would not be too hard. However that is not their goal, instead they would rather imply a problem rather than resolve it.

This is not the Little League World Series where someone just comes out of nowhere for 2 weeks charming the media while using doctored Birth Certificates and throwing fast balls. This election lasted 2 years with Obama being the front runner for at least 8 months so there were plenty of people who had a vested interest in uncovering the "fact" that Obama is not a citizen qualified to hold the highest office...........

02audionoob

11-23-2008, 02:55 PM

We Americans all know almost the entire national media is extremely biased toward the left. The one exception is Fox News, which is very balanced and gives equal time to both sides.

Ajani

11-23-2008, 02:58 PM

We Americans all know almost the entire national media is extremely biased toward the left. The one exception is Fox News, which is very balanced and gives equal time to both sides.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God, that was the best one I've heard in ages....

Here in St. Kitts, people refer to Fox News simply as "The Republican Channel"....

I think Fox News' Conservative biases alone, more than balances out the entire "Liberal" Media....

Auricauricle

11-23-2008, 03:06 PM

COUGH!!!!!

If there was any doubt about Obama's citizenship, I have little doubt it would have been cleared up and addressed before it came to a head and was worthy of even a whisper, let alone this infernal banter, here! Can't you guys think of anything more sustantive to discuss, like what sort of redecorating Michelle O's gonna do? I think the White House is way overdue. Perhaps some shag carpet and a velvet Elvis....

ForeverAutumn

11-23-2008, 03:07 PM

Actually, given the way the law reads, it does matter.

Here's a credible source, as requested:

An Open Letter to
Barack Obama
By John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
11-2-8

I know you are busy running for President of the greatest country in the world, but there are a couple of things about your background and qualifications for the office that concern me and many of my fellow Americans. Never before has a Presidential candidate failed to fully disclose routine information about their background that might help the voters make an informed choice in an election. It seems that many records concerning your background have either be been sealed or are temporarily unavailable for review. I know that any honest person like yourself, who is running for the highest office in the land, would never overtly want to keep such information from public review.
Here's a partial list:

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released (sealed?)
8. Certified Copy of Certification of Live Birth -- Not released (sealed?)
9. Birth records from Kenya -- (Sealed by the government of Kenya until after Election Day)
10. Your record of Christian Baptism -- Not released or unavailable
11. Illinois State Senate schedule - 'Not available'
12. Illinois State Senate records - Destroyed

I believe items #7,8 and 9 are the most critical and concern two issues that are very important to the American people:

1. Are Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? and

2. Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

In a recent federal court case in Pennsylvania, an American citizen, Philip Berg, filed a lawsuit claiming you were not a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified to be President. During that case, you never denied Mr. Berg's claims, but neither did you provid a valid birth certificate or other proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore qualified under the Constitution to be President. Rather, you hid behind technicalities in the law to avoid the issue and the federal judge hearing the case dismissed Mr. Berg's lawsuit stating that Mr. Berg, acting as a "citizen," did not have legal standing to make such a challenge. This is a prime example of another outrageous decision by a federal judge to deny the American people their rights clearly outlined in the constitution.

There have been lawsuits filed, or currently being filed, in 7 or 8 states with various state Boards of Elections, claiming you are ineligible to be on their ballots because you have not produced proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States. Mr. Obama, if you are truly and honorable man and a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" you can clear up this issue very quickly. Just produce a certified copy of your birth certificate in any one of the names you have been know by (Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham).
Your avoidance of the issue and your subsequent failure to prove you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" is very suspicious and raises a very important constitutional issue that must be addressed before the November 4th election. Stop using legal technicalities, record sealing and courtroom maneuvers to avoid the issue. The American people have every constitutional right to know and they will eventually find out.

Try using honesty and truthfulness for a change and put this issue to rest. Either prove that you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the U.S." and are legally qualified to hold the Office of President, or withdraw the race.

If you do not do one of the other, the American people, regardless of party affiliation, will surely stand up and kick you out.

John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/

This is what you consider a credible source? An editorial letter from a guy who plans on running for office on a Republican platform? My guess is that this so-called law suit gets laughed out of court.

It didn't take me more that two seconds to find a biography of Obama naming his birthplace as Hawaii. His dad is from Kenya, his mom from Kansas. http://www.barackobama.com/about/.

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 03:08 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God, that was the best one I've heard in ages....

Here in St. Kitts, people refer to Fox News simply as "The Republican Channel"....

I think Fox News' Conservative biases alone, more than balances out the entire "Liberal" Media....

Some folks refer to it as "Faux" News, in the spirit of "All the News that's Print to Fit."

FA, there are those who consider, and for reasons that seem good to them, that Obama's Hawaii birth cert is a complete fraud. Keep in mind that it is an after-the-fact document. Oh, and I can ply you with many more articles on this issue, and from a variety of sources.

Laz

ForeverAutumn

11-23-2008, 03:10 PM

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 03:17 PM

Oh, oh, oh. Or that picture of the dogs playing poker! I love that one.

Any of those decor abominations (pun intended) should be grounds for impeachment. You know: high crimes AND misdemeanors.

ForeverAutumn

11-23-2008, 03:25 PM

Some folks refer to it as "Faux" News, in the spirit of "All the News that's Print to Fit."

FA, there are those who consider, and for reasons that seem good to them, that Obama's Hawaii birth cert is a complete fraud. Keep in mind that it is an after-the-fact document. Oh, and I can ply you with many more articles on this issue, and from a variety of sources.

Laz

Don't waste your time Laz. I don't really care. I just didn't think that this particular source was credible. And I'm pretty sure that somebody would have taken the time to check for citizenship before any name landed on the ballot. It sounds like a great big conspiracy theory to me. And if it's not...well...it'll be fun to watch the **** fly. :)

Auricauricle

11-23-2008, 03:29 PM

Ah the Dogs Playing Poker series. I have a relative who has the set in her beach house. 'Tis true, 'tis true....I like the velvet series, myself, as it plays so well against a blacklight. Trollgirl, yer just...harsh....Knowwhatimean? BTW: It really is amazing that Faux gets away with this shizu. I wonder if it's all a lampoon, but when I see people with gleams in their eyes and large, well developed teeth (like some unnameable contributers whose initials resemble F's and M's), I have to remind myself where I am....

02audionoob

11-23-2008, 03:36 PM

While argument continues about what is known as "jus soli" Barack's a citizen based on "jus sanguinis".

Auricauricle

11-23-2008, 04:35 PM

Isn't that jus ducky!

02audionoob

11-23-2008, 05:56 PM

Isn't that jus ducky!

What does that mean?

trollgirl

11-23-2008, 06:15 PM

What does that mean?

Have you ever played Duck, Duck, Goose?

Mr Peabody

11-23-2008, 07:27 PM

Laz, that is trumped up internet crap that was spread before the election and has no merit what so ever. I know from news stories that most of those things on the list are not true which leads me to doubt any of them are.

FOX is as right wing as a so called news agency can be, in fact, most talk shows are right wing conservatives so if any of that stuff was anything other than embarrassing they'd be all over it.

It's pathetic when a party can't win on their own record so all they can do is spread lies to play on ignorant peoples fears.

The internet and email was plagued with false information about Obama spread by racists and the ignorant. You doubt, did you receive this crap in your box about Carey in the last election? Did we receive any McCain crazy email? As low as Bush's rating was, did emails go out about him? Sure Bush was made fun of a plenty but no one spreading out right lies like they did with Obama. Obama is the president and it's time to give it a rest. Those who don't like Obama will have to suck it up andlive with it just like every one had to live with Bush in the White House until last election.

Groundbeef

11-24-2008, 03:40 AM

OMG. I about puked reading that people are still hung up on Obama, and whether he is a citizen or not. Here is a nice article to answer the question.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/is_barack_obama_a_us_citizen_y.html

Here is a little excerpt:

"This was clarified by the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, which provided that 'All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.'"

"Senator Obama was born in the State of Hawaii two years after it became a state on Aug.21, 1959 As such, he acquired United States citizenship automatically at birth. While it is not necessary to go into all of the other legal errors contained in the posting (and there are many), the simple fact is that, with rare exceptions (children of diplomats), everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States at birth."

He has provided a copy of his Hawiian birth certificate as well.

Of note, it might also be pointed out that McCain wasn't born in the USA at all. However, he was born of US Citizens, thus making him a citizen anyways. I belive that he was also born on a US military base abroad. He could have been born in a cab in Poland though, and it still wouldn't have mattered.

Ajani

11-24-2008, 04:45 AM

OMG. I about puked reading that people are still hung up on Obama, and whether he is a citizen or not.

Yeah, I know the feeling...

I think a lot of us (whether we were pro or anti Obama) are still trying to adjust to the fact that it's over.... Having gotten used to watching CNN daily , following all the polls and articles (even tuning into Fox News every now and again for a good laugh), it just feels so strange to no longer have any presidential politics to discuss...

As a foreigner, I can tell you that the funniest part of all this is that many of us foreigners were far more interested in the US elections than our own local ones...

nightflier

11-24-2008, 01:32 PM

Boy this thread sure filled up in a couple of days. What is most disgusting about the questioning of Obama's birth, is what Mr.P pointed out: a white-haired pale-faced Republican presidential candidate never gets this kind of scrutiny and criticism. My friends overseas were absolutely appalled at the overt racism and bigotry that permeated this election. It makes us look rather dum and immature, folks. To put this in perspective, let's remember how much better a black person has always had to be to get on equal footing with someone who isn't black. Obama's qualifications in comparison with McCain's were such a painful case-in-point about this racist legacy we all contribute to, that it's amazing it has to be repeated once again.

As Grounbeef said: it's over. Obama won. So he's got a funny name, he's black, he's a moderate, he doesn't own a purebred dog, he actually knows what grassroots campaigns are, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in him mouth, and he's going to change things. Live with it, already. If you think about how miserable life has become for so many millions of people elsewhere in the world in the last eight years, this little conservative temper tantrum about not wanting to accept it, is odious to the extreme. So the economy isn't doing so well and some industries are hurting. Are you kidding me? There are people just south of our border, heck there are people on our own "reservations" and in our city ghettos who won't eat today. They'll be lucky to find clean water to drink. All these people wanted nothing more than Obama to win this thing and they could care less about whether he was a citizen or not.

I don't hear anybody here saying they're going to have to sell their $3K speakers to make ends meet, so I'm presuming things aren't all that bad with most of us on this forum. So stop with the wining about Obama's birth, you're starting to sound like Coulter, Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura, who just can't accept that the world is changing all around them. Not that these folks were ever that cheery or positive to begin with, but now at least they can justify the misery they fear. Well it's about time for these nitwits to be relegated back to the woodwork from where they emerged, and hopefully to stay there. That kind of thinking is not mainstream and it should never have received the kind of national attention that it did get. So for those who want to be counted with that sorry lot, go ahead and keep questioning Obama's legitimacy. In the meantime, the rest of society will be moving on.

It's over. Live with it. Pretty soon we'll all also see that it was the best thing that could have happened to us and that the alternative could never have measured up. In 4 years, when the economy is back in order, industry restored to manageable levels, jobs are created, education is once again given priority, most of our troops in Iraq are replaced by other peacekeepers, and we all have affordable health-care, we'll all be wondering why we were even having this discussion.

The fact is, it doesn't matter if Obama is foreign-born or not. From the cabinet that he's putting together it's obvious he cares deeply about fixing this country. He cares about the welfare of Americans and people all over the world, he is reaching across party lines, and he is an honorable, respectable, and a hardworking president-elect. He will change things, but is anyone really worried that he is going to do damage? Well Maybe Coulter, Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura might be - they could find themselves without an audience. But for the rest of Americans, there are no worries. Granted, Bush lowered the bar more than it has ever been, but that does not change the fact that he surpasses that level of mediocrity already, but perhaps more importantly that he will raise that bar, perhaps higher than we've ever seen.

So, trollgirl, why do you care so much about Obama's birth? It's not like you're worried about things getting any worse than they already are, is it? I mean does it really matter if Obama is Kenyan, Indonesian, or whatever? Has he ever indicated that his American upbringing isn't paramount to all that? If this really does trouble you, then maybe you will find common cause with the rest of the religious conservatives who are still hoping to find an audience.

The rest of us have moved on.

02audionoob

11-24-2008, 04:18 PM

trollgirl

11-25-2008, 03:41 AM

So, trollgirl, why do you care so much about Obama's birth? It's not like you're worried about things getting any worse than they already are, is it? I mean does it really matter if Obama is Kenyan, Indonesian, or whatever? Has he ever indicated that his American upbringing isn't paramount to all that? If this really does trouble you, then maybe you will find common cause with the rest of the religious conservatives who are still hoping to find an audience.

The rest of us have moved on.

You're right, you're absolutely right. The citizenship thing is almost a red herring isn't it? You know, what really worries me is Obama's political connections, how he came so rapidly from obscurity just like Bill Clinton, as if he had powerful and wealthy backers, his hawkishness, his proposals for a domestic army, and the veil over his past. Ah well, presidents are just errand boys these days, even sock puppets. Obama is going to be president because he swore to his Masters that he would do as he was told...

About the name thing, brought up by the previous poster: a co-worker of mine, Abdul by name, who is black, went to an Obama rally but was told by rally security that he needed more documents to present to them to show that he was safe. Other people have said that Obama would not be able to attend his own events.

Laz

Feanor

11-25-2008, 06:17 AM

You're right, you're absolutely right. The citizenship thing is almost a red herring isn't it? You know, what really worries me is Obama's political connections, how he came so rapidly from obscurity just like Bill Clinton, as if he had powerful and wealthy backers, his hawkishness, his proposals for a domestic army, and the veil over his past. Ah well, presidents are just errand boys these days, even sock puppets. Obama is going to be president because he swore to his Masters that he would do as he was told...

About the name thing, brought up by the previous poster: a co-worker of mine, Abdul by name, who is black, went to an Obama rally but was told by rally security that he needed more documents to present to them to show that he was safe. Other people have said that Obama would not be able to attend his own events.

Laz

Let us please eschew character assassination based on rumor and innuendo.

Rich-n-Texas

11-25-2008, 07:04 AM

I think Barack's "funny name" helps alleviate some of the racial issue. I'll bet someone with a name like Harold Washington wouldn't have as good a chance as Barack Obama. Just a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Washington
I honestly thought at first his name was Osama Obama. Really. It sounds like poetry don't you think?

Rich-n-Texas

11-25-2008, 07:09 AM

You're right, you're absolutely right. The citizenship thing is almost a red herring isn't it? You know, what really worries me is Obama's political connections, how he came so rapidly from obscurity just like Bill Clinton, as if he had powerful and wealthy backers, his hawkishness, his proposals for a domestic army, and the veil over his past. Ah well, presidents are just errand boys these days, even sock puppets. Obama is going to be president because he swore to his Masters that he would do as he was told...

About the name thing, brought up by the previous poster: a co-worker of mine, Abdul by name, who is black, went to an Obama rally but was told by rally security that he needed more documents to present to them to show that he was safe. Other people have said that Obama would not be able to attend his own events.

Laz
Fight the good fight Laz. :thumbsup:

Let's see where the left-wingers are next March or April when liberal/socialist philosophies start to take hold.

Feanor

11-25-2008, 07:34 AM

I think Barack's "funny name" helps alleviate some of the racial issue. I'll bet someone with a name like Harold Washington wouldn't have as good a chance as Barack Obama. Just a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Washington

From a certain perspective, Obama isn't actually an "African-American". Sure, his father was African and his mother American but neither were African-Americans. His early upbring was largely by his white American grandparents and in a mainly white milieu. I suspect that Obama's electability was improved by the lack of cultural baggage that African-Americans, with their unhappy history, have to carry.

On the other hand I don't mean to imply that Obama doesn't understand African-Americans, given his work with them and marriage to one of their number. Nor do I imply that an African-American, struggling with baggage or not, is in the least degree ineligible to lead the United States.

Ajani

11-25-2008, 08:14 AM

From a certain perspective, Obama isn't actually an "African-American". Sure, his father was African and his mother American but neither were African-Americans. His early upbring was largely by his white American grandparents and in a mainly white milieu. I suspect that Obama's electability was improved by the lack of cultural baggage that African-Americans, with their unhappy history, have to carry.

On the other hand I don't mean to imply that Obama doesn't understand African-Americans, given his work with them and marriage to one of their number. Nor do I imply that an African-American, struggling with baggage or not, is in the least degree ineligible to lead the United States.

Two points:

1) I find the distinction between who is Black/African American and who is 'mixed' to be seriously stupid... Racists don't look at Obama and think "Oh geez, he's part white so that makes him OK or one of us" or "he's only part black so we don't hate him as much as the full blacks"... He looks Black and so he'll be as 'discriminated against' as any other Black person.. in fact he might well have it worse, since Non-Blacks regard him as Black and many Blacks disown him... so he's a minority within a minority... Unfortunately for me, I fall into this category, so I know how stupid people can be....

2) The fact that he doesn't fit the Stereotype of the "Angry Black Man" or "Angry Minority" is a large part of why he could appeal to so many voters... No sane person (who is not part of that angry minority) is likely to vote for someone who probably hates them... I sure as hell wouldn't vote for an angry white man, so why would I expect a white person to vote for an angry black man? This is a point I've long argued to other minorities: You can't expect to get results and racial equality if you walk around with a chip on your shoulder... This is why leaders like Jesse Jackson have become irrelevant compared to calmer leaders like Obama...

Feanor

11-25-2008, 09:29 AM

Two points:

1) I find the distinction between who is Black/African American and who is 'mixed' to be seriously stupid... Racists don't look at Obama and think "Oh geez, he's part white so that makes him OK or one of us" or "he's only part black so we don't hate him as much as the full blacks"... He looks Black and so he'll be as 'discriminated against' as any other Black person.. in fact he might well have it worse, since Non-Blacks regard him as Black and many Blacks disown him... so he's a minority within a minority... Unfortunately for me, I fall into this category, so I know how stupid people can be....

2) The fact that he doesn't fit the Stereotype of the "Angry Black Man" or "Angry Minority" is a large part of why he could appeal to so many voters... No sane person (who is not part of that angry minority) is likely to vote for someone who probably hates them... I sure as hell wouldn't vote for an angry white man, so why would I expect a white person to vote for an angry black man? This is a point I've long argued to other minorities: You can't expect to get results and racial equality if you walk around with a chip on your shoulder... This is why leaders like Jesse Jackson have become irrelevant compared to calmer leaders like Obama...

Right on both points, IMO.

It's a commentary on something or other that the media, et al., routinely refer to Obama as "Black" without any sense of irony. Technically, he's as entitled to be called White as Black. Is that part of the reason he is "not Black enough" for some African-Americans? Or is it just his "calmer" nature?

02audionoob

11-25-2008, 10:59 AM

I believe it will be an even greater step, racially, when a person who fits the entire mold of the African-American is elected President of the USA. But this was a pretty darn great one all by itself.

Groundbeef

11-25-2008, 11:26 AM

Fight the good fight Laz. :thumbsup:

Let's see where the left-wingers are next March or April when liberal/socialist philosophies start to take hold.

This is probably why politics isn't the best thing to discuss. Unless you are joking Rich, your status has dropped through the floor for me.

What do you think has been going on for the last long 8 years. A steady erosion of our rights in relation to the courts.

A complete and utter power grab by the executive branch, with a complete and total lack for constitutional control.

As far as "socialist" give me a break. In the last few months we have had more money poured into private industries/banks than I can remember. The crash of '87 has nothing close, S&L scandle? Not even close. What the hell happened to "market forces" and "free markets". Are those only Republican ideals when the going is good, and the markets are up? But when the sh1t hits the fan, all of the sudden it's the Governments job to bail out these firms?

Or has it been the steady loss of jobs to third world economies, and the utilization of tax shelters by corporate America to not pay their share that makes you worried? Has tax evasion now been elevated to a "free market" ideal, and the thought that compaies that reap the benefits and actually have to pay a portion somehow "socialist"?

Give me a break. Our country is mired in a war that we can't afford. Our economy is in the crapper, and we are going to have to borrow our way out. And you are crying that perhaps people with money are now actually going to have to contribute?:yikes:

Personally I cannot wait for Bush to get out of dodge. His policy's have made us hated world wide. Our budget surpluses have been replaced by record breaking deficits. And my children will be paying for it long after I am dead.

I can't say more, lest I give myself a stroke.

Feanor

11-25-2008, 12:42 PM

...

As far as "socialist" give me a break. In the last few months we have had more money poured into private industries/banks than I can remember. The crash of '87 has nothing close, S&L scandle? Not even close. What the hell happened to "market forces" and "free markets". Are those only Republican ideals when the going is good, and the markets are up? But when the sh1t hits the fan, all of the sudden it's the Governments job to bail out these firms?

...

Rich and others accept a ludicrously broad definition of "socialism" the encompasses any sort of social walfare and any sort of government intervention in the economy. I won't bore with a lecture on appropriate definitions of socialist. :3:

The current US and world situation is the result of private enterprise run amuck; it's proof-positive that unregulated anarcho-capitalism doesn't work -- not even for the rich. A wee dose of "socialism" might have prevented the situation, for example, by preventing the proliferation of complex, debt-based derivatives. These bizzare instuments' effect was to obfiscate the underlying problem of huge personal and national debt, and give large and supposedly smart investors an entirely false impression of their own vulnerability.

It's quite true on the other hand that the current bail outs are corporate welfare. So there you have: government intervention is consumate evil when it tries to protect the poor and middle class but just the ticket for protecting the rich. It's amazing how fast the latter group losses its libertarian principles when its wealth is going down the drain.

The situation has us between a rock and hard place: we have to bail out the biggies because their failure at this juncture would be catastrophic. The trick will be to prevent them from shafting us again in future. Who's got the balls for the task?

Rich-n-Texas

11-25-2008, 01:55 PM

This is probably why politics isn't the best thing to discuss. Unless you are joking Rich, your status has dropped through the floor for me...
My guess beef is my status with you dropped a long time ago.

But since you've forced my hand... joking wasn't my intention, antagonizing was my intention. I just love watching the pack mentalitry that exists with the liberals here. Someone with a more conservative view will be ganged up on every single time. And like I said before, no one's mind will be changed no matter what.

If we all met at a bar, you'd find me at the jukebox with a cold beer in one hand, air guitar in the other. What would you be doing? How 'bout nightflier? How 'bout you Feanor?

FVCK POLITICS!

nightflier

11-25-2008, 02:16 PM

...he and Troll are getting kind of lonely in their corner.

The trick will be to prevent them from shafting us again in future. Who's got the balls for the task?

Someone without a pair: Hillary!

Seriously, though. If there is one thing that has been utterly disgusting in this sad bail-out saga is that there's no restrictions on how this money is going to be used. I mean think about it, Paulson actually had the gall to tell Congress that he won't tell them how the money is being spent. That's kind of like Cheney saying he doesn't have to appear in front of congress to answer questions related to High Crimes. And even with no strings, what's so wrong with setting down some ground-rules about not ever doing it again?

The whole bait-and-switch is being repeated with the bail-out for the car companies. They are crying foul because they have to build hybrids (not a lot, mind you), and are now saying that they don't have to because they think that Congress will bail them out no matter what. Apparently they think they are too important and I'm starting to think that those spineless jellyfish in Congress are going to give in. In the meantime, the banks are laughing all the way to... well... their own mattresses, I guess. Even after getting busted twice since the bail-out, AIG is still planning more luxury vacations for it's top brass. I half expect Congress to turn around, bend over, and with a chorus yell out "Thank you sir, may I have another!" This is comedy of the worst kind, folks.

Regarding Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the lot of 'em, I don't just want them to clear their bloody, grubby hands out of the white house, I want to see those SOBs stand trial. I'm sorry, but Bill Clinton allowed all the Iran-Contra badies to get away with it, and rather than thank him, they stabbed him in the back. In letting that slide he set the stage for his own demise. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Emanuel and the rest of the new-deal-team need to set an example. Get the Bushies in court and then follow that up with the Paulsons, Bernankes, the Board of AIG, and the sleazeballs at Goldmund Sacks. If Obama doesn't stand firm on this, he will loose far too much credibility to be re-elected a second term, and the sleazeballs too, will eat him alive.

Groundbeef

11-25-2008, 06:45 PM

If we all met at a bar, you'd find me at the jukebox with a cold beer in one hand, air guitar in the other. What would you be doing? How 'bout nightflier? How 'bout you Feanor?

I'd buy you a beer. Then, I'd keep my eye on GM, so that he doesn't bother my wife.

Politics aside, I like your posts.

Mr Peabody

11-25-2008, 07:24 PM

trollgirl

11-25-2008, 09:01 PM

Laz, you want to talk about sock puppets you need to look at the 180 McCain did right after Bush took office. It's like they stuck a sock in his mouth and put him in Bush's closet. They turned Mr. Maverick into a prancing pony.

Yes, indeed, they are all, in fact, sock puppets, and the people who are ACTUALLY calling the shots are people whose names we have probably never heard spoken. Benjamin Disraeli said as much many years ago. Had McCain been elected, it would be no different excepting the details. As Garrison Keillor said, we're all Republicans, now.

Since you urge everyone here to wake up, may I recommend that you all read Albert Pike's letter to Mazzini? It was written about 1870, and lays out the plans for three world wars, and the world is now slipping into #3, just as Pike set forth [some 138 years ago!]. It's easy to find on the www. I note that someone is calling it a fake, but that is always done when something genuine is turned up. It must be real, or a very, very, very lucky guess...

It may help you to see thru the illusion. Heck, I'll make it easy, here's the relevant part:

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

Laz

nightflier

11-26-2008, 12:31 AM

Wow, I don't even think Tex wants to walk down that path with you, Trollgrl.

Feanor

11-26-2008, 03:13 AM

...

Since you urge everyone here to wake up, may I recommend that you all read Albert Pike's letter to Mazzini? It was written about 1870, and lays out the plans for three world wars, and the world is now slipping into #3, just as Pike set forth [some 138 years ago!]. It's easy to find on the www. I note that someone is calling it a fake, but that is always done when something genuine is turned up. It must be real, or a very, very, very lucky guess...

...

Here's some more Pike (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/pike_mazzini.html)...
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

Pike's letter is an obvious hoax, written sometime after the 2nd WW and most likely not before the '70s. I can't easily find the details, but this looks world conspiracy theorist humbug. If you believe this stuff was written in 1871, you'll believe anything.

(By the way, I'm not a Freemason.)

ForeverAutumn

11-26-2008, 06:48 AM

"UNLEASE THE ATHEISTS!"

I don't know why, but I find this very funny. :lol:

Ajani

11-26-2008, 07:06 AM

I'm actually not liberal, especially socially, but after Bush's train wreck I can't afford to be conservative. Everyone's so afraid of Obama and is he American, Bush has tried, and in some instances successfully, to bust unions, they sent our jobs overseas and put their friends at the government feeding troth and I could go on, but that to me is unAmerican. Bush, corporate America and the elite rich basically tried to take over the country but their stupidity nearly brought it down.

That's the right approach... I find too many people get caught up in the nonsense of just 'belonging' to one political party or the other... so they will support that party no matter what, will ignore all the failings of their party and keep re-electing them just because...

That's STUPID... don't belong to a party, think for yourself and vote based on who you think will do the better job or at least won't screw things up as badly...

I've seen how nasty politics can get when people just vote along party lines... The outright hatred and ignorance that comes out at election time simply because someone belongs to the other party...

Bush was a BAD President and I don't think too many people, whether Democrat or Republican, American or Foreigner think otherwise...

Laz, you want to talk about sock puppets you need to look at the 180 McCain did right after Bush took office. It's like they stuck a sock in his mouth and put him in Bush's closet. They turned Mr. Maverick into a prancing pony.

8 years ago John McCain was a maverick... but he lost the nomination to Bush... he got pissed off with his own party and flirted with the idea of switching sides... my belief is that he realized that he sure as hell could not win the Democratic nomination... and decided that the only way to win the Republican nomination was to align himself with the leaders of the Republican party... hence his voting record of 90% agreement with the President...

He gave up being a Maverick to ensure victory in the Republican Nomination, but that strategy screwed him when he reached the Presidential nomination because of how badly Bush had failed as President...

You guys need to wake up and see what's happening. The U.S. used to be well ranked in education now we are down in the 20's from the top. We need to start strengthing our foundation. Who will be the engineers, scientests and leaders of the future?

I'll tell you what's scary is how much in debt we are to China over this financial bale out stuff. It's a little hard to get a fair trade deal when the opponent practically owns you.

Now imagine the US trying to question China's human rights violations or having any tough negotiations with China, while China practically owns the US Economy... Not all wars are won with military force... owning the enemy is possibly the best way to achieve victory...

ForeverAutumn

11-26-2008, 07:07 AM

Here you go nightflier. Maybe this will help you feel better...

American International Group, Inc. announced voluntary restrictions on executive compensation Tuesday.

The restrictions include a US$1 salary for its chief executive officer; no 2008 annual bonuses and no salary increases through 2009 for AIG’s top-seven-officer leadership group; and no salary increases through 2009 for the 50 next-highest executives, in addition to other bonus, severance and retention award restrictions.

The troubled insurance giant is also developing a funding structure to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used for annual bonus or future cash performance awards for AIG’s “senior partners,” the top 60 members of management.

“We are extremely grateful for the assistance we have received, and we know we have an obligation to use that assistance to help AIG recover, contribute to the economy and repay taxpayers,” said Edward Liddy, AIG’s chairman and CEO. “This action by the senior management team demonstrates not only that we understand our obligation to taxpayers and shareholders, but also that we are committed to the future success of this organization.”

Under the voluntary restrictions announced today: Liddy, who joined AIG on September 18, will receive an annual base salary of US$1 for 2008 and 2009. His initial compensation will consist entirely of equity grants. He will not receive an annual bonus in those years, although he may be eligible for a special bonus for extraordinary performance payable in 2010. Liddy will not be eligible for severance payments.

ForeverAutumn

11-26-2008, 07:12 AM

Worf101

11-26-2008, 07:44 AM

Wow... I thought this stuff was done and over with. Several things I've noticed since the election....

1. Right Wingers still dreaming bizarre thoughts - If you listen to conservative-right wing- talk radio (and I do almost daily) you'll see that several trends have emerged:

a. Pretend the election hasn't happened - Mike Savage and others of his ilk keep repeating that Obama is NOT an American citizen, that he's a closet Muslim that he's the great grandson of Karl Marx, a modern day Hitler. They somehow believe that if they repeat these lies long and hard enough they'll become fact and the American people will throw this guy out of office somehow.

b. Praying for a 5 quarter miracle - The biggest being that Razko is "spilling his guts" to the Feds about how Obama was/is a bagman for the Chicago Mob and he'll be indicted any day thereby puttin Biden in Office.

c. Blame the new guy BEFORE he's in Office - Rush is already calling the current recession the Obama Recession because he believes scared billionaires are pulling their money OUT of the market before socialist Obama can steal it. When the Markets go down it's Obama's fault, when they go up it's because of Bush's sterling leadership.

2. Lots of scared rural white folks are buying all the guns they can.

3. Lots of folks are hoping for a reversal of fortune by gunfire.

4. The President Elect is moving forward the best he can and realizes he'll be "unable to please everybody all the time".

5 Some folks want all the bailouts to be "white collar". Let the thieving CEO's get anything and everything but let's not give some poor slob on an automobile assembly line one god damn cent. The guys that "cooked the books" with these phoney debt instruments get let off the hook but the folks that toiled under bad management but built the products they were asked to build, they can go starve and die in a hole somewhere... brilliant.

6. January 22 can't come fast enough for me.

7. A lot of people are still hopeful, optimistic and prayerful that the new Government (all branches, Dems, Repubs and Independents) are equal to the task of navigating us through these troubled times.

Da Worfster

kexodusc

11-26-2008, 07:59 AM

Now imagine the US trying to question China's human rights violations or having any tough negotiations with China, while China practically owns the US Economy... Not all wars are won with military force... owning the enemy is possibly the best way to achieve victory...
...I see a lot of folks holding over China and the whole debt thing...This is a pretty baseless source of anxiety...

Let me put it to rest.

Mr. P, Ajani...do you guys know what it's like to have loaned someone money? Who's more at risk, your buddy, who at the very worst I suppose might worry about you sending hired goons to break his legs (unlikely), or you, wondering if your deadbeat roommate will ever pay you back that $300 he owes you?

China loaning the US money does not give them some unimaginable position of strength and influence over the US. If anything it's the opposite. Think of a company that borrows billions from the bank. Then it experiences some tough times. The bank is at risk all of a sudden, worried it won't get ALL of it's money back as planned. Then bankruptcy comes and the bank in a weakened, panicked state, accepts pennies on the dollar just to recover some of their investment out of fear of receiving nothing back.
That's the worst case scenario for China right now.

China doesn't have an instantaneous call option on the money we owe them. There's terms on the debt. They are absolutely, desperately, 100% at the mercy of our ability to pay it all back. Their economy is more dependent on ours than it is any other nation. If we're not buying a whole bunch of cheap products, they starve. That's partly the freakin' reason they kept lending us so much money in the first place, it was an indirect investment in manufacturing for them, with a value added risk-free component (or so the Chinese thought).

Things have been dreadful in China's economy lately too - record growth is suddenly gone. But their problems are worse than ours. Their infrastructure is terrible, decades behind. While ours is in disrepair, at least a truck can drive on it, electricity reaches homes, your toilet flushes. In much of China, there's isn't even constructed yet. This downturn is coming at a terrible time for them because they were completely structured for rapid growth and now they're suddenly fighting off recession.

So what are they going to do about us owing them a lot of money?
Invade? Please.

Absolutely nothing. If things get really bad for us, they'll loan us even more money to help us get by so we can pay it all back. It's a mutually beneficial relationship for them.

Who the creditor is is far less important than the magnitude of outstanding debt itself. Wouldn't be any different if Sweden loaned us all that money. The most a country can do is influence the credit worthiness, but in today's modern economy, it wouldn't be in their best interest to play that game with the US. If they downgrade our credit substantially, the value of the US dollar falls, and guess what...they take a huge loss on all that money they loaned us, and worse, the cost of their goods goes up for us, so we buy less from them. They're economy suffers twofold.

In a weird way, they've become a very unlikely partner.

Groundbeef

11-26-2008, 08:07 AM

Nice post Kex.

Also interesting to note that Russia, and Venezuela haven't been making much noise. Now that the price of oil is in the tank, they don't have the petro-dollars to sling around to the populace. (Not that much actually made it to the masses).

It's a lot harder to rattle sabers when you can't pay for the sabers to rattle!

ForeverAutumn

11-26-2008, 08:24 AM

Great post Kex! I hadn't looked at it that way. Food for thought.

Feanor

11-26-2008, 12:17 PM

...I see a lot of folks holding over China and the whole debt thing...This is a pretty baseless source of anxiety...

Let me put it to rest.
....

Who the creditor is is far less important than the magnitude of outstanding debt itself. Wouldn't be any different if Sweden loaned us all that money. The most a country can do is influence the credit worthiness, but in today's modern economy, it wouldn't be in their best interest to play that game with the US. If they downgrade our credit substantially, the value of the US dollar falls, and guess what...they take a huge loss on all that money they loaned us, and worse, the cost of their goods goes up for us, so we buy less from them. They're economy suffers twofold.

In a weird way, they've become a very unlikely partner.

Partnership is very key; a reciprocal relationship. U.S. buys Chinese products; China evens the current exchange balance by picking up US debt. The US doesn't really have to worry about China calling its loans. The bigger worry is what China will pick up less of the US debt in the future. There is a general trend world-wide to hold fewer US$ as foreign reserves, and more of other currencies. (Huge volumes of US$ are held off-shore by foreign interests including governments.)

If foreign corporations and governments become less interested in US$ as a reserve currency, the value of the US$ will fall making oil and everything else the US imports more expensive for Americans. However I don't think the foreign governments, including China, are much interested in seeing the US$ sag since it would mean their own currencies would gain relatively, making it harder for US consumers to buy their goods.

Heck, that's pretty much what you said, isn't it?

nightflier

11-26-2008, 12:18 PM

Kex,

Here's a thought that somehow seems to escape everyone: why not allow the Chinese to take on some of that "peace-keeping" work we've been doing in Iraq and and Afghanistan? It would alleviate the burden (financial and human) on us and allow us to bring our troops home, for a change. It's time for Obama to turn guns to plowshares, hopefully greener ones at that, to borrow an often misused phrase.

But this won't happen because of the fear we, and much of the Western world has about China, a fear that as you correctly pointed out is rather baseless, if not downright racist. The irony about this is that China's military posturing over Korea, Japan and Taiwan is largely because of overconfidence. If they were mired in the kinds of messy wars we tend to sink into, they'd be a whole lot less aggressive, I'm guessing.

I was in Europe last year, and for all the criticism against Bush and us wicked Americans, they are all pretty friggin glad we're the ones bleeding all over the Middle East to fight these wars and secure the oil that they use with similar abandon. For all their criticism, they forget that France's largest export is weapons, which makes war a profitable business for them, and that the concept of rendition is something they turned us onto. Germany may be opposed to the missiles we want to put in the Czech Republic publicly, but under their breath, they kind of hope they are placed there, and rather there than on their own soil. And let's not forget that China is about $30B invested in the US, but Britain alone owns over $280B, and those pot-smoking Dutch (all 16 million of them) another $80B all to themselves. So when there's another downturn in our stock market, it's the Europeans who have the white house on speed-dial.

Now I know this is over-simplifying things a bit, but the fact is, the reason Wall Street is tanking, i.e. the white elephant in the room, is that we are fighting a never-ending and economically crippling war (has anyone read the Handmaid's Tale or 1984?). We can't afford it anymore, no matter how much the world (and a few dim-witted hawks left over in our government) wants us to keep it up. I say, let's get the hell out of dodge and let the pieces fall where they may. I guarantee you that our "friends" will be sending troops there to replace us in short order. The burden of fighting small terrorist cells should be borne by everyone in the world. Bush for a bunch of murky and perhaps even treasonous reasons completely bungled that concept, but at least Obama has an opportunity to right that ship. And if it takes a little humility to ask China to help, then that's fine.

Auricauricle

11-26-2008, 01:41 PM

I ain't gonna talk about no Obama. The arguments and things being said here, IMMHO are just too stupid to touch. Instead...

If I was asked, I'd say that the root of many of our problems boils down to the disintegration of the pipe dream America has enjoyed for so long that has countenanced top-heavy economics at home and self-serving political machinations abroad.

Call me a bleeding-hearted liberal, but fiscal finagling that benefits the top tiers of society at the expense of a destitute lower class is bound to fail. We have provided much in the way of availing resources to the poor, but the poor have precious few resources to draw upon to get themselves out of the beaurocratic and class quagmires they were born into. You can argue all you like about better schools and other benefits of "the gracious Fed", but it takes an awful lot more than these to get Joe Sixpack and Ned Nightrain outta the 'hood.

Similarly, while America slept, the Other America was out supporting Big Mo(ney) at home by supporting proxy wars and other schemes that have made a great number of people rich with blood money (who can spell Halliburton?). The 9-11 disaster was a wake-up call that America is by no means a Lone Ranger and that its indifference and avarice will no longer be tolerated. Likewise, support of Big Mo has failed domestically in serving unrestrained and dysregulated practices that gave free reign to folks who were interest in lining their own pockets. They failed to note that folks who hadn't a clue were lulled by dreams of Eldorado to make decisions and invest in schemes that were simply too good to be true.

As far as China goes, don't count them out just yet. China is a very old and very wise country, in spite of their support for despots who still use "old school" ways of "handling" things. Entrenched in the minds and souls of many Chinese there is there a deeper underanding that may make their foolish sounding propositions and practices of the presence more well grounded than they appear. China is no paper tiger, and is not sleeping; she is a virile thing that can and will pounce when it is necessary to do.

What evil lurks in the hearts of men?

The Tao knows!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Mr Peabody

11-26-2008, 05:44 PM

trollgirl

11-26-2008, 06:36 PM

Laz,....... you are out there dude. I'm always amused by people who are so eager to believe the silliest of things written by some man yet it is so hard for one to believe in God or His written word by His own inspiration.

Would it surprise you to hear me say that I believe in YHWH and His inspired Word too? You seem to consider things like Pike's letter to be among "...the silliest of things..." but it is but on point of data on a multidimensional grid of evidence, all reinforcing. It takes years of study to see the outlines, and it is just impossible to present convincingly in an internet post. Ah well...

YHWH's Word is a whole higher order of multidimensionality. If you were to study into the underlying mathematical patterns, it would blow your mind. The worded message is no less mind-blowing.

Laz

Mr Peabody

11-26-2008, 06:56 PM

But some of the things shown here in the letter no one could have known about in the period it was supposedly penned.

Feanor

11-27-2008, 03:25 AM

...

Since you urge everyone here to wake up, may I recommend that you all read Albert Pike's letter to Mazzini? It was written about 1870, and lays out the plans for three world wars, and the world is now slipping into #3, just as Pike set forth [some 138 years ago!]. It's easy to find on the www. I note that someone is calling it a fake, but that is always done when something genuine is turned up. It must be real, or a very, very, very lucky guess...
...

Laz

Laz,

It is a world conspiracy theorist hoax. I don't believe fortune telling: the references in the document could only be know to a person writing after WWII and possibly no earlier than the '70s.

Only gulible people can be believe this nonsense. Laz, please don't put this rubbish in front of rational, informed people. If you want to argue your points, please present objective evidence that we can all accept.

The argument for Pike is that Bolshevism, Nazism, etc., where known in 1871 because these things were the creation of the "Illuminati" and its peons who had them in the works at the time as part of their plan for continued world domination. In fact there has never be an substantial evidence for the existance of the Illuminati or any group of such power.

It is in the character of consipiracy theories that they can be difficult to disprove. Of course, that is because to conspirators are so powerful that they can suppress or discredit the evidence for their existence. The existence of God is the same sort of thing: not really proven, but impossible to disprove.

Groundbeef

11-27-2008, 05:10 AM

Hey, I would have belived Pike, except for this little nugget that is rarely seen/presented from the document. It was an addendum of sorts. This is what it said:

"After the fall of the great communist bear, peace will slowly spread across the land. It will be tenous of course. Then the great Audio Co Bose will slowly make its move to rule the airwaves. Because of dubious marketing, and the subjective nature of sound, the Bosites will rise up to grab power. Walking around malls, and other areas of masses, they will mumble things like 'sound tube' and 'best sound I've EVER heard'. And slowly the message will take hold. The presidents radio will in fact be Bose. The campaign slogans of the future will be 'A Bose in every Home'. It will be the rallying cry of the ages"

Yeah, thats the part not talked about by the conspiricy nuts. But I think it's all true. Every word. Honest.

Mr Peabody

11-27-2008, 05:26 AM

Not only is it a fake, it looks like it was written by some one from AR. Check the archieves, we can make a list of possibles by who our biggest Bose bashers are. Take me off the list, I didn't do it. Once we have our list we can start comparing writing styles for possible clues. Hey! Scoobie! that was my sandwich!!

We'll have to get the word out to the media of the conspiracy and have them ask if Obama has a Bose. Maybe those people snapping up fire arms are enlightened.

I don't think some one in 1870 would be aware of nazi's either.

On a serious note did you all see the attack in India yesterday? I saw a piece on PBS. I'll have to check later to see if any of the mainstream media picked up on it.

thekid

11-27-2008, 05:42 AM

Kex

I would agree with you in the short term there is a sort of a economic MAD pact (Mutual Assured Destruction) with China in regards to our trade debt. Trump basically pulled the same thing back in the 80's when the commercial real estate market tanked and he was so deep into the pockets of the banks that they could not call their loans on him without hurting themselves.

However long term our debt load with China should be a concern. As we see their manufacturing base grow and ours decline they have become the source of manufactured good for other countries as well. Our debt with them is huge and will not dissappear or even shrink significantly in the next several years. As they become a larger player in the rest of the world and their trade balance with the US becomes less of a part of their overall economy the chips start to tilt in their favor. At a certain point if they want to start using their debt to play havoc with the US they will be able to afford it.

Think of it this way; if you wanted to go to war with a country and could choose between spending several 10's of billions of dollars to build tanks,planes and divisions to destroy your enemy or sell the equivalent amount of that enemies T-Bills which would also destroy your enemy which would you choose?

I am not trying to be an alarmist here but who you owe your money to is just as important as how much you owe them. The Saudis are supposed to be our allies but they don't have any problem jerking the chain on us through the world oil markets when it suits their purposes. Don't think China has not seen how we react in those situations. We are better off from a Geo-political sense to not be beholding to any one country in terms of our debt or natural resource needs.

Feanor

11-27-2008, 06:08 AM

A Rep Point is coming your way.

Feanor

11-27-2008, 06:18 AM

Would it surprise you to hear me say that I believe in YHWH and His inspired Word too? You seem to consider things like Pike's letter to be among "...the silliest of things..." but it is but on point of data on a multidimensional grid of evidence, all reinforcing. It takes years of study to see the outlines, and it is just impossible to present convincingly in an internet post. Ah well...

YHWH's Word is a whole higher order of multidimensionality. If you were to study into the underlying mathematical patterns, it would blow your mind. The worded message is no less mind-blowing.

Laz

One tends to be a skeptic or one does not.

nightflier

11-27-2008, 10:37 AM

I don't stereotype but people who would poison their own children's milk for profit or care less whether lead paint gets on children's toys are the lucifers of this earth. I might have the strength of leverage over lending money wrong but China's perception in my eyes is that of a criminal power structure that would do ANYTHING for a buck. Piracy of other peoples property and ideas run rampid. I don't have to go through the whole laundry list of tainted products brought into this country from China, there for a while it was a toy or food product every week or more. So don't give me that China is a victim crap. The only victims in China is the people who do the work there and can't even see their damn sky because of the pollution.

If I were to list the things our own country has done and is still doing "for profit" it would certainly be a whole lot longer than anything you could come up with about China. The fact is that all humans will succumb to profit-motivated evil, and it doesn't matter what their ethnic, cultural, religious, or racial background is. It's a fact of human nature. To suggest that the Chinese are worse in any way than others is silly.

Mr Peabody

11-27-2008, 10:54 AM

kexodusc

11-27-2008, 11:38 AM

Kex
However long term our debt load with China should be a concern. As we see their manufacturing base grow and ours decline they have become the source of manufactured good for other countries as well.
No doubt it's been a big source of economic gains for them, and it's come at the expense of other nations. The circumstances favoring China's manufacturing boom is also starting to hurt them. Their labor force is relatively cheap and abundant compared to ours, but know what, they're losing a ton of manufacturing jobs to other emerging markets and developing countries now too. And they don't have a skilled service sector or infrastructure sufficient to support a full out manufacturing economy. They're not just gonna miracle these deficiences away. And they're facing a brutal recession like the USA right now too don't forget. Where people get off thinking they're just gonna emerge as a world-dominating powerhouse in the next few decades is beyond me. They're double digit growth rate would need to be increasing, instead of decreasing steadily the last decade as it has. They're gonna be big, but not so big they can't be handled.
The economics don't add up. China's economy can only grow as fast as the economies that feed it. That reality is why they're fighting a recession of their own.

And they've got their own problems with losing jobs too - India, and other emerging markets and developing nations are stealing a lot of jobs from China as well. Market forces are at work, and China isn't immune to them.

Our debt with them is huge and will not dissappear or even shrink significantly in the next several years. As they become a larger player in the rest of the world and their trade balance with the US becomes less of a part of their overall economy the chips start to tilt in their favor. At a certain point if they want to start using their debt to play havoc with the US they will be able to afford it.
What havoc will they wreak? A few years back when their economy was still growing at year over year paces in the double digits, they were decades away from catching up with other Western countries, (UK, USA, Canada, Germany, etc). They have insufficient capital to invest, insufficient schools, doctors...can't grow enough food to feed their population, don't have enough natural resources, and are every bit the slave to Oil that we are. They are dependent on nations with raw goods. Even more than the US is. That will never change for them. If nothing else, that will keep them in check.

Fear doesnt make this obstacles any less real. If they started playing games vs the US, they would lose their biggest customer, and several of her biggest friends who prefer fair, stable market conditions without the kind of games you suggest (think Britain, France, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc...). China can't afford that.

Think of it this way; if you wanted to go to war with a country and could choose between spending several 10's of billions of dollars to build tanks,planes and divisions to destroy your enemy or sell the equivalent amount of that enemies T-Bills which would also destroy your enemy which would you choose?

Them selling our T-bills wouldn't destroy us, the most it would do is redistribute their holdings to other nations. Someone else has to buy them or the reach maturity. If they dump them, they take a huge loss. Too many economies depend on the US and would buy the debt up just as fast. They're a slave to market forces like everyone else.

When the economic crisis (a worldwide crisis, remember) hit, what did all the nations do? They didn't buy oil, or gold, they bought the US dollar because no matter how bad it is here and how much we complain, we continue to have the unparallel capacity and resources to pull out of it with a vengeance. If even our enemies are willing to bet US and see it as the safest investment in uncertain times, maybe we should too.

I am not trying to be an alarmist here but who you owe your money to is just as important as how much you owe them. The Saudis are supposed to be our allies but they don't have any problem jerking the chain on us through the world oil markets when it suits their purposes. Don't think China has not seen how we react in those situations. We are better off from a Geo-political sense to not be beholding to any one country in terms of our debt or natural resource needs.
China's the biggest debt holder, but not the only debt holder. And again, China holding our debt is pretty safe - they play games with us, we cut them off the gravy train and all that costly manufacturing their doing dries up fast. They have neither the infrastructure nor natural resources to afford to try and cause hardship on the USA without hurting themselves as bad, or likely worse.
If the world really thought that risk was there, it'd be built into the risk premium on US currency and it's obviously not.

Middle East Oil is different as I mentioned earlier...I'm more concerned about oil cartels, and the possible influence of radical ideologies that control oil and other real resources than China. I hope nothing ever really bad ever happens because of that, but China would be far down my paranoid list of possible economic threats compared to OPEC.

If a war happens on earth, it's historically been for one of two reasons. 1) A struggle over tangible resources, or 2) ideas (religion, philosophy, hate, etc). When you put both of those together, it has ugly potential. I hope the human spirit prevails.

Feanor

11-27-2008, 11:38 AM

Whatever, I know the U.S. has done things for profit that wouldn't make us proud but we haven't knowingly put lead in kids toys or contaminated kids milk. I don't even see how you can come and defend such actions. Your defense is like, oh why is everyone upset over 9-11, we've, bombed stuff before too.

Who is the "we" you're talking about? I suggest to you that there are plenty of American entrepreneurs who'd do it in a heartbeat if they could make a buck. The big difference is that US government has the regulatory mechanismsto prevent it, and government officials are kept sufficiently honest by the democratic process and an independant media.

It isn't the policy of the Chinese government to poison people, but their government doesn't yet have the regulatory mechanisms, nor, more importantly, the democratic processes to prevent corruption.

kexodusc

11-27-2008, 11:52 AM

Leave it to Kex to interject some common sense. And, EVERY BODY ELSE, to act like, "oh yeah, that's what we thought too". :)

I don't stereotype but people who would poison their own children's milk for profit or care less whether lead paint gets on children's toys are the lucifers of this earth. I might have the strength of leverage over lending money wrong but China's perception in my eyes is that of a criminal power structure that would do ANYTHING for a buck. Piracy of other peoples property and ideas run rampid. I don't have to go through the whole laundry list of tainted products brought into this country from China, there for a while it was a toy or food product every week or more. So don't give me that China is a victim crap. The only victims in China is the people who do the work there and can't even see their damn sky because of the pollution.

Yeah, they haven't been the first to get in line for peacekeeping or human rights initiatives for sure, so I don't expect that to change any time soon. And they've got a lot of problems at home right now to fix before they go playing puppeteer on the world stage.

I'm not sure I'd want them mediating international disputes yet either, and they don't have the deployment capabilities in their military to be quite as active globally.

A good friend of mine is there now in a city of several million people that I can neither spell nor pronounce. He's teaching English and Bible studies to kids. He says it's poorer and in more disrepair than any African nation he visited with the Red Cross. He showed me the "manual" he was given, including the list of censored subject he's not allowed to talk about. Talk about Big Brother and conspiracy theories...I wonder if their people have some doosies to share?

thekid

11-27-2008, 03:18 PM

What havoc will they wreak? A few years back when their economy was still growing at year over year paces in the double digits, they were decades away from catching up with other Western countries, (UK, USA, Canada, Germany, etc). They have insufficient capital to invest, insufficient schools, doctors...can't grow enough food to feed their population, don't have enough natural resources, and are every bit the slave to Oil that we are. They are dependent on nations with raw goods. Even more than the US is. That will never change for them. If nothing else, that will keep them in check.

They would not have to sell the T-Bills to another country they could cash them in to the US Treasury which if we could not honor them would cause quite a problem. The reason people turned to US dollars has more to do with our governments historical stability. If China or any of the other countries that hold a large amount of US debt cash it in and we can not honor it then others will stop financing our debt. My only point is that once you become a debtor nation and rely on others to bail you out you are teetering on a precipice.

We should have been running balanced budgets and paying for our foreign policy decisions these last 8 years. Because we did not and the current economic crisis is requiring us to run huge deficits,the hole we are in is twice as deep as it should have been.

kexodusc

11-27-2008, 03:52 PM

They would not have to sell the T-Bills to another country they could cash them in to the US Treasury which if we could not honor them would cause quite a problem. The reason people turned to US dollars has more to do with our governments historical stability. If China or any of the other countries that hold a large amount of US debt cash it in and we can not honor it then others will stop financing our debt. My only point is that once you become a debtor nation and rely on others to bail you out you are teetering on a precipice.
Not all the notes they hold are short term t-bills they can just cash in, and of those that are well, yes, I suppose they could put a run to the US that way, but again, there'd be a short term crisis while the US refinanced to new creditors to pay that off. Given the world's reliance on the US economy, we wouldn't need to act alone. And it's not like China doesn't have a ridiculously large debt-to-GDP ratio of their own, last time I checked it was only half as bad, but their credit worthiness is far worse. All the nations that hold the $US wouldn't appreciate China devaluing their investment, and would prop it up to secure their own interest, and likely respond in kind by cashing in some rice bonds. A lot of nations wouldn't be too happy with them if they pulled such a stunt. I'm sure it would cause them far more harm than us.
The debt market doesn't operate in these extreme hypothetical scenarios. If you truly believe these doom and gloom stories are possible, well, the only thing I can say is you is to do one of two things: 1) Believe the Chinese prefer prosperity for themselves over MAD, or 2)You'd better start learning Chinese because you believe evil China could bankrupt us tomorrow morning and there's nothing we can do about it.
What's done is done and there's no going back now.
For my part, I don't necessarily agree with their politics or human rights issues, but I do believe in their greed, and their fortunes are too intricately tied too our own.

We should have been running balanced budgets and paying for our foreign policy decisions these last 8 years. Because we did not and the current economic crisis is requiring us to run huge deficits,the hole we are in is twice as deep as it should have been.
You won't get any argument from me on fiscal responsibility and living within your means. Debt itself isn't bad, unmanageable debt is. We're getting close to that. It certainly isn't uncommon in big economies, and history provides a few examples of debt ridden countries turning things around in short period of time (10 years) so there's hope. We'll all have to change expectations.

thekid

11-27-2008, 04:45 PM

You won't get any argument from me on fiscal responsibility and living within your means. Debt itself isn't bad, unmanageable debt is. We're getting close to that. It certainly isn't uncommon in big economies, and history provides a few examples of debt ridden countries turning things around in short period of time (10 years) so there's hope. We'll all have to change expectations.

Agreed.
Not trying to sound like a xenophobe but I do worry that we have become too comfortable with letting our debt being held by other countries who do not have a history of friendly relations with the US.

I hope you you are right that we will start turning things around. If there is a silver lining in this current crisis its that people will once again stick to sound financial basics.

Have a Happy T-Day!

Feanor

11-28-2008, 04:28 AM

Agreed.
Not trying to sound like a xenophobe but I do worry that we have become too comfortable with letting our debt being held by other countries who do not have a history of friendly relations with the US.

I hope you you are right that we will start turning things around. If there is a silver lining in this current crisis its that people will once again stick to sound financial basics.

Have a Happy T-Day!

The US national debt has been relatively far higher than it is today, that is during and just WWII. But I'm no sure whether at that time the debt was held much more by US residents than it is today. My guess is that there are pitfalls to debt held outside the country. I suspect that Kex is perfectly correct that China others won't suddenly cash in their holding, however they might do so over time causing a downward trend in exchange value of the US$. That would cause, for example, the price of oil to go up for US consumers.

A bigger issue, IME, is personal/consumer debt in the US, (and Canada and some other western countries). There has been a huge ballooning of personal debt in the last 2-3 decades. In essense the lifestyles of working and middle class people has been sustained by easier credit, not by wages and salaries which have fallen. You can blame Fanny Mae+Freddie Mac machinations and debt derivatives as contributing factors, but real cause of the current crisis is the fact the typical citizen just owes too much money and can't meet interest payments.

This fact has critical implications for stimulus. I'd guess that small tax decreases and interest rate adjustments will be quite insufficient. What are more likely to work are programs that directly create employment, e.g. infrastructure replacement and green energy creation.

kexodusc

11-28-2008, 05:11 AM

The US national debt has been relatively far higher than it is today, that is during and just WWII. But I'm no sure whether at that time the debt was held much more by US residents than it is today. My guess is that there are pitfalls to debt held outside the country. I suspect that Kex is perfectly correct that China others won't suddenly cash in their holding, however they might do so over time causing a downward trend in exchange value of the US$. That would cause, for example, the price of oil to go up for US consumers.
Could happen, but it would mild downward pressure, not the bottom-out collapse some people fear. I'm somewhat doubtful of this scenario too, based on China's position. The big reason they buy so much US debt is their policy of pegging the Yuan to the USD. They need to buy and sell a ton of $$$ fast to achieve their currency peg targets.
China's economy is more than 50% manufacturing, is hugely dependent on exports. A strong Chinese currency relative to Japanese, US/Canadian, Euro currencies is bad for them. Take away their currency advanatage and they're not an attractive outsource destination, nor a cheap product anymore.

A bigger issue, IME, is personal/consumer debt in the US, (and Canada and some other western countries). There has been a huge ballooning of personal debt in the last 2-3 decades. In essense the lifestyles of working and middle class people has been sustained by easier credit, not by wages and salaries which have fallen. You can blame Fanny Mae+Freddie Mac machinations and debt derivatives as contributing factors, but real cause of the current crisis is the fact the typical citizen just owes too much money and can't meet interest payments.

This fact has critical implications for stimulus. I'd guess that small tax decreases and interest rate adjustments will be quite insufficient. What are more likely to work are programs that directly create employment, e.g. infrastructure replacement and green energy creation.
I think you nailed it here. A big tax cut or Bush/Klein style stimulus/rebate cheques is more likely to go to Visa and Mastercard than it is towards spending on goods and services to prop up the economy. That's not a criticism of those leaders' decisions, there's only so many things they can try, but it shows that even intervening government has limited options and influence.

bobsticks

11-30-2008, 05:07 PM

kexodusc

11-30-2008, 05:20 PM

Y'know, one of the things that's been bothering me about our national dialogue as a whole is the propensity of many to jump to negativity.

I have many concerns over the proposition of an Obama Presidency but I think I'll at least let the guy get innagurated before passing judgement.
Good point

For all the doom and gloom, people have to put this "crisis" into perspective. In the 1930's, it was quite common read stories about how people were starving, surrendering children, losing everything, etc.

Not to downplay the severity, and I know that hard cases exist far more than they should, but I suspect most people will continue to have 2-3 TV's, 2 cars, cell phones, etc, etc.

My grandparents would wack me upside the head if they heard me calling 2008 "hard times".

bobsticks

11-30-2008, 05:38 PM

Good point

For all the doom and gloom, people have to put this "crisis" into perspective. In the 1930's, it was quite common read stories about how people were starving, surrendering children, losing everything, etc.

Not to downplay the severity, and I know that hard cases exist far more than they should, but I suspect most people will continue to have 2-3 TV's, 2 cars, cell phones, etc, etc.

My grandparents would wack me upside the head if they heard me calling 2008 "hard times".

That's what I'm sayin'.

It would also be well for us to remember that many of "hard times" that have befallen some Americans are of their own doing.

Will he be a good ambassador for us in all matters foreign, which is after all his true job? I suspect so or at the very least he will impart a more realistic and certainly less drastically fascistic face of the American people than...ahem... previous administrations.

Will he support fiscal policies and social doctrines in which I do not believe? Probably but as is usual in most of these arguments folks fail to remember that it's ultimately Congress which will make these decisions.

Hopefully every Congressman (especially after these absolutely evil bailouts) remembers to ask themselves this question: "How are we going to pay for it?"

At the end of the day I think this is a time for cautious optimism but, more importantly, national unity.

Feanor

12-01-2008, 06:18 AM

...

At the end of the day I think this is a time for cautious optimism but, more importantly, national unity.

By "unity" are you referring to bi-partisanship? But if change is necessary -- and I allow, 'Sticks, that you might not think so much is needed -- shall a Democratic majority congress compromise the necessary change to accomodate Republican sensibilities????

We have an interesting situation here in Canada that cannot happen in the US. Our Federal Parliament has four substantial political parties. The current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is the leader of the plurality party who won only 38% of the popular vote in the November election. However in the current, as well as the preceding Parilament where the vote split was similar, he has governed as though he had a majority -- the antithesis of bi-paritisan (or multi-partisan) unity.

Harper believes he "has a mandate to government" and is effecting to be shocked now that a couple of the minority parties are threatening to defeat him and form a coalition. He is blustering that this would "flout the will of the people" and similar b/s. However it could happen. As you know no doubt know, we don't have fixed election terms, so if the government is defeated on vote of confidence there are two possibilities: (1) Parliament could be disolved and another election called, or (2) the leaders of the minority parties might agree to agree and proposed to the Governor General that they form a coalition. I suspect the majority of Canadians, excepting only the most die-hard Conservatives, would much prefer a coalition at this time.

bobsticks

12-01-2008, 07:15 PM

By "unity" are you referring to bi-partisanship? But if change is necessary -- and I allow, 'Sticks, that you might not think so much is needed -- shall a Democratic majority congress compromise the necessary change to accomodate Republican sensibilities????

In that it's the potential working mechanism available to us then, yes, I'm referring to "bi-partisanship"...but I'm not stuck on the permanency of the two-party system to begin with.

Nor would I position myself that my idea of "change" or the extent thereof was the only workable solution. There's many workable roads to reach an ends and I care not one wit if "Republican sensibilities" are met.

The difference between you and I, Feanor, is that I share none of your doctrinaire entrenchment. I view politics as form and function of the immediacy, a matter of utility rather than ideology. I'm a Centrist serving a middleground rife with long periods of inertia but sometimes moved by tumultuous upheaval...

...because at the end of the day, Marx was right. Not in his oft-misinterpreted vision of communism as a "final stage" but that the body politic is both evolutionary and reactionary and must always resist from time to time the call of both the sword and the ploughshare.

Feanor

12-02-2008, 03:21 AM

....

The difference between you and I, Feanor, is that I share none of your doctrinaire entrenchment. I view politics as form and function of the immediacy, a matter of utility rather than ideology. I'm a Centrist serving a middleground rife with long periods of inertia but sometimes moved by tumultuous upheaval...

....

I've said it before: the US political reality is skewed heavily to the right versus the balance prevalent in the rest of the democratic world. Oddly, I consider myself a centrist too.

The Democrats, including Obama, are overwhelmingly centrist too, (certainly from a world perspective). The change that they might bring might be significant but are unlikely to tumultuous in any genuine sense of that word. According to right-wings the sky will be falling, granted.

trollgirl

12-02-2008, 08:03 AM

Feanor

12-03-2008, 11:52 AM

Vital information here, note in particular the very end where recent events in Kenya involving Obama's cousin are mentioned. Election fraud, unrest, genocide, churches (not mosques) burned, and Obama helped. America could be next.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/obama/future.html

Bush - paranoid schizophrenic

Cheny - sociopath

Obama - narcissistic personality syndrome

FaithFreedom is first and foremost an anti-Muslim site. I have certain ambivalence towards it.

On the one hand, as a profund skeptic, I like the fact that one of its apparent purposes is to lead people away from their unconditional acceptance of religion, specifically Islam, but implictly all religion. I suspect many of his, (Ali Sina's), observations about Islam have some truth to them.

On the other hand I deplore the site first of all because it is intolerant. Basically it begins by making the worst possible case against Islamic doctrine and history. But the majority of Muslims today worldwide adhere to much less extreme interpretations than are presented. And I suspect that Ali Sima's portrayal of Muhammad is inaccurate at least and probably slanderous.

Apparently Sina loves finding psycho-physiological explanations for things, for starters, Muhammad's alleged temporal lobe epilepsy and acromegaly. Thus also Bush's supposed paranoid schizophrenia, Cheney's sociopathy, and Obama's narcissism.

Frankly I don't understand Sina's attact on Obama which seemingly comes from nowhere except allegations made by his worst, (and least rational), enemies. I think that Sima's "information" about Obama is largely slander, that is, on Sina's part or on the part of his sources, (basically none of which are sited). I don't believe any of his predictions will come true.

Incidentally, its totally unjust for the Sina, et al., to demand that Obama prove is birth certificate, etc.. If you want to make outrageous, off-the wall allegations its up to you to prove them, not up to your victim to prove they're wrong.

trollgirl

12-03-2008, 11:13 PM

Incidentally, its totally unjust for the Sina, et al., to demand that Obama prove is birth certificate, etc.. If you want to make outrageous, off-the wall allegations its up to you to prove them, not up to your victim to prove they're wrong.

"Totally unjust"? It is really an excellent demand, in view of the existence of birth certificates from Hawaii, British Columbia, and possibly Kenya. Calling the allegations "outrageous" and "off-the wall" does not make them so. There are too many unfilled blanks in Obama's past. Here's another link for your edification:

http://www.rense.com/general82/pbb.htm

Laz

Woochifer

12-04-2008, 11:06 AM

"Totally unjust"? It is really an excellent demand, in view of the existence of birth certificates from Hawaii, British Columbia, and possibly Kenya. Calling the allegations "outrageous" and "off-the wall" does not make them so. There are too many unfilled blanks in Obama's past. Here's another link for your edification:

http://www.rense.com/general82/pbb.htm

Laz

The birth certificate rumors have been debunked repeatedly. Barack Obama won the election decisively, and will be sworn in as President on January 20th. Get over it.

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

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Factcheck.org examined the actual birth certificate and extensively chronicled why it's legitimate. Yet, you'd rather believe some unsubstantiated net post showing a Canadian birth certificate signed by DUDLEY DORIGHT??? :lol:

Also, if Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, then why did his name show up in a Honolulu newspaper birth announcement back in 1961? Was the 10-day old baby Obama already scheming with his American grandparents and Kenyan dad for a future Presidential run? I guess for some people it's easier to believe wild leaps of logic than the shortest logical path. :out:

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Birth%20Certificate/announcementclose-up.jpg
Obama's birth announcement

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

Rich-n-Texas

12-04-2008, 11:58 AM

Yet, you'd rather believe some unsubstantiated net post showing a Canadian birth certificate signed by DUDLEY DORIGHT??? :lol:
Feanor signed Obama's Birth Certificate? GOOD, now I can turn him in to the FBI and we'll finally be rid of him! Praise Jesus!!! :D

GMichael

12-04-2008, 12:13 PM

Obama would not have been my first choice to run the country. But he won, and will be. I will support him until which time that he proves not to deserve it. May he turn out to be as good as the media makes him out to be. We sure need it.

Mr Peabody

12-04-2008, 06:46 PM

trollgirl

12-05-2008, 01:17 PM

The Republicans and Hillary herself sifted Obama's past like so much grain, Laz, rest easy, if there was anything even remotely colorful in the past they would have dug it up. Instead they had to make a stink over sermons from Obama's preacher and any other wild connections they could fabricate.

I'll rest easy in the grave, dude...

As for Woochifer's rebuttal, I took another look at the Canadian COLB, and "Dudley Doright" is just an interpretation of the sig. The name is not printed anywhere. Numerous lawsuits are still pending on this issue, and so it remains controversial and unresolved. Snopes.com is not the final authority for what is real and what is not. In the end, as I have said many times, you have to do your own homework.

Laz

Groundbeef

12-05-2008, 02:10 PM

This is the the last gasp of a crazy nutjob organization made up of the likes of Alan Keye's. The supreme court will rule on this shortwith, and it will be done. You are a nutjob, and I can't wait unitil this non-issue is overwith.

Woochifer

12-05-2008, 02:38 PM

I'll rest easy in the grave, dude...

As for Woochifer's rebuttal, I took another look at the Canadian COLB, and "Dudley Doright" is just an interpretation of the sig. The name is not printed anywhere.

Interpretation of the sig? I see this as someone's prank, and they are laughing themselves silly over how many people they pwned.

The conspiracy crowd keeps claiming that the Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery, yet people who physically examined the document have verified that it matches Hawaii's certification procedures and is legitimate. Hawaiian officials have also verified its authenticity. And the whole fact pattern matches the 1961 newspaper announcement. Personally, I'd rather believe evidence and objective verification than biased conjecture.

Has anyone actually seen the Canadian birth certificate and subjected it to the same scrutiny as the Hawaii birth certificate? And does anyone even know how someone could've gotten hold of this Canadian birth certificate and leaked it out to the Internet, given how sensitive these documents supposedly are? And given how explosive a finding this supposedly is, wouldn't it have made more sense to share it with an actual news gathering organization than to put it up an image scan on an obscure right-wing website?

Numerous lawsuits are still pending on this issue, and so it remains controversial and unresolved.

Controversial only to a few remaining conspiracy nuts. The "unresolved" and "pending" parts will go away when these suits get tossed out in short order.

Snopes.com is not the final authority for what is real and what is not.

I certainly trust them and Factcheck.org a helluva lot more than the paranoid bloggers and reich-wing talkers who are pushing this smear meme.

In the end, as I have said many times, you have to do your own homework.

I did, by actually questioning whether the evidence of conspiracy stands up to any kind of logical scrutiny. Anything is possible, but you also have to assess what's in the rhelm of reality and what exists more in imaginary terms.