State of Obama's Economy

[B-Man]

Let's see if mister "I'm concentraring on jobs" ignores this (again) or in a campaign year will he throw his Green supporters under that crowded bus of his................

 

 

The Hill

 

Obama's jobs council report says 'drill'

By Andrew Restuccia - 01/17/12 03:43 PM ET

 

 

President Obama’s jobs council called Tuesday for an “all-in approach” to energy policy that includes expanded oil-and-gas drilling as well as expediting energy projects like pipelines.

 

“[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.

 

“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the report says.

 

The report retreats slightly from an interim report released in October that addressed the Keystone XL pipeline directly. The interim report appeared to offer cautious support for Keystone, calling on officials to “balance” environmental protections while realizing what it called the benefits of the pipeline.

 

But Keystone supporters will point out that the year-end report released Tuesday argues that energy projects like pipelines will result in economic and security benefits. It even echoes a common refrain from Republicans and the oil industry: that such energy projects "can support hundreds of thousands of jobs."

 

{snip}

 

Under a payroll tax cut packaged signed into law in December, the president must make a decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21. White House and administration officials have said they will have little choice but to reject the pipeline under the deadline, arguing they will not have enough time to adequately review the project.

 

 

 

.

[KD in CA]

No, he "lifted employment" by 2.5-3.6 million jobs, according to the White House report. So, how many were created and how many were saved with that 862 billion dollar farce?

 

Can't you just see Obama standing on the shore, effortlessly extending his arm while the X-wing fighter slowly rises from the water and millions of people magically find employment?

 

It's nice to know that so many uncreative journalism majors have found work pimping for Obama.

[Juror#8]

Not even close to correct.......you bring the candor of all your other statements into question with this alone.

 

It's very correct. Here is why:

 

Criticism of Bush, from media sources, was ideological and political. DCTom made a point about Farenheit 911. Michael Moore, who is hypocritical is so many ways, was making a connection between Bush's associations with the Saudis and Pakistanis and the events of 9/11. His point was attenuated and required a lot of reaching, but it was a decidedly POLITICAl point. Call Bush a communist and reference instances that (to Moore) supports that: political point. Say that Bush was derelict in his vetting of political partnerships (with respect to Musharraf): political point. Insinuate that Bush could have done more with respect to intelligence pre-9/11: political point. Insinuate that Bush pushed the war in Iraq andf that the war fueled business interests that peripherally benefitted people that he was close with: political point.

 

The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

 

I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins.

 

There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic).

 

Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits.

 

There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair.

 

The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come?

 

I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush.

 

 

Just of the top of my head.....are you forgetting how Obamacare was forced through...few Independents approved of that process.

 

Do you remember the pulse of independents in late 04 towards the Iraq War? Do yourself a favor and check it out. The Iraq War was a calculation that far exceeded (financially and otherwise) the potential exposure of the new healthcare legislation.

 

Bush was still elected.

 

So again I say, there are a bunch of dolts out there thinking Obama is going to lose in 2012 on the strength of partisan criticism. This movie have been shown before. It's unfortunate.

[Jauronimo]

It's very correct. Here is why:

 

Criticism of Bush, from media sources, was ideological and political. DCTom made a point about Farenheit 911. Michael Moore, who is hypocritical is so many ways, was making a connection between Bush's associations with the Saudis and Pakistanis and the events of 9/11. His point was attenuated and required a lot of reaching, but it was a decidedly POLITICAl point. Call Bush a communist and reference instances that (to Moore) supports that: political point. Say that Bush was derelict in his vetting of political partnerships (with respect to Musharraf): political point. Insinuate that Bush could have done more with respect to intelligence pre-9/11: political point. Insinuate that Bush pushed the war in Iraq andf that the war fueled business interests that peripherally benefitted people that he was close with: political point.

 

The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

 

I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins.

 

There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic).

 

Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits.

 

There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair.

 

The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come?

 

I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush.

 

 

 

 

Do you remember the pulse of independents in late 04 towards the Iraq War? Do yourself a favor and check it out. The Iraq War was a calculation that far exceeded (financially and otherwise) the potential exposure of the new healthcare legislation.

 

Bush was still elected.

 

So again I say, there are a bunch of dolts out there thinking Obama is going to lose in 2012 on the strength of partisan criticism. This movie have been shown before. It's unfortunate.

I suppose you've never heard "Bush Lied, People Died!" or "No Blood for Oil," or any of the other popular slogans of the past decade? It was nightly news that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton. Or perhaps you missed the characterization of the war on terror as a new Crusade based on GW's fundamental Christian beliefs? Post Katrina GW didn't care about black people (and that point wasn't just made by Kanye) or don't you recall that either? Ever see any of the myriad depictions of Bush as a confused monkey?

 

What a convenient memory you have.

[B-Man]

It's very correct. Here is why:

 

Criticism of Bush, from media sources, was ideological and political. DCTom made a point about Farenheit 911. Michael Moore, who is hypocritical is so many ways, was making a connection between Bush's associations with the Saudis and Pakistanis and the events of 9/11. His point was attenuated and required a lot of reaching, but it was a decidedly POLITICAl point. Call Bush a communist and reference instances that (to Moore) supports that: political point. Say that Bush was derelict in his vetting of political partnerships (with respect to Musharraf): political point. Insinuate that Bush could have done more with respect to intelligence pre-9/11: political point. Insinuate that Bush pushed the war in Iraq andf that the war fueled business interests that peripherally benefitted people that he was close with: political point.

 

The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

 

I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins.

 

There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic).

 

Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits.

 

There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair.

 

The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come?

 

I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, your well reasoned reply relies on a fair amount of revisionism that those of us who were around can easily recognize.

 

It boils down to "criticism of Bush was political, while criticism of Mr. Obama is more vitriolic because it is personal (and by your own examples...based on race.)

 

The examples that you use of anti-Bush ARE the policy related ones. I am wondering where are the "he's just a dumb, rich, frat boy"? Where is the "oh, he's a cocaine user, an alcoholic, a hypocritic religious "adulterer" stories that were pretty commonplace during his run for the presidency?

Where is the Bush is a ChickenHawk coward" who deliberately skipped out on his Vietnam duties?

 

Where is the "he hates Black people" Katrina proves it, nonsense?

 

Meanwhile, unlike the race-related examples (which were certainly NOT in the mainstream medai, except for the defensive response)

Where is the rise of the Taxed Eneough Already Party in response to the Administration's stimulus spending, and rising debt?...Oh, I know..its explained as racially motivated.

 

Where is the majority of Americans negative response to the Dems and Obama pushing through (so-called) healthcare reform, which greatly increased, and rightly so, criticism of Mr. Obama.

 

 

I agree with you that there really is no need to regurgitate this....you are coming from the mindset that the majority of the complaints against Mr. Obama are against him personally and not his policies.......I disagree

 

Mr Obama's poor administrative skills have been called into question by many, many people on the right, and the left, the bigoted criticism of him has NOT been the majority response and you are wrong to imply so.

 

Thanks.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 18, 2012 by B-Man

[Juror#8]

I suppose you've never heard "Bush Lied, People Died!" or "No Blood for Oil," or any of the other popular slogans of the past decade? It was nightly news that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton. Or perhaps you missed the characterization of the war on terror as a new Crusade based on GW's fundamental Christian beliefs? Post Katrina GW didn't care about black people (and that point wasn't just made by Kanye) or don't you recall that either? Ever see any of the myriad depictions of Bush as a confused monkey?

 

What a convenient memory you have.

 

My memory isn't "convenient." There is nothing that you've mentioned that I didn't address in my post.

 

1. I mentioned that their were caricatures of Bush that were entirely inappropriate. Just none that implicated a protected classification and none that referenced cooly a long history of injustice.

 

Notice that I didn't mention the myriad pictures of Obama as a monkey. The one that goes over the top paints HIS PARENTS as monkeys and since he is the direct descendent of chimps that explains his birth certificate being "lost." And it was circulated amongst local Republican party officials:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/gop_official_wont_resign_over.html

 

Monkey generally suggests someone as doltish. That's fine and is an acceptable politcal point (for black, white, whomever) if made in the scope of political commentary (e.g., "this person is clueless, let's illustrate him as a monkey.")

 

This wasn't made as a political point. It came from an irascible and boarish place and relates to a intrinsic characteristic.

 

Different. If you can't see that, it's not because it's not there; it's because you don't want to see it.

 

2. The slogans were/are conspicuously political points - as they were during Vietnam (Johnson and Nixon) when similar slogans rang loud. They were fine then and they're fine now. Democrat and Republican - fine. The signs against Obama concerning Afghanistan - FINE. Whatever.

 

Secondly, I'm not talking about any Joe Blow who can make a noxious sign. I'm talking about commentary that is media-driven or that is of a conspicuously media disseminated moment.

 

Again, it's still fine, because it's within the context of political discourse. But there are distinctions.

 

And with respect to the "nightly news [that ran stories expressing] that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton," I addressed that too. Again, conspicuously political point that draws inferences from data.

 

The inferences are incorrect. The inferences are specious. It is a truncated conclusion. But they're grounded in something that is uniquely political and with data that is verifiable (i.e., there was a war, Halliburton was there, some in the Administration worked for Halliburton at one time, the justification for war was dodgy and unsubstantiated).

 

Truncated conclusion. Verifiable facts.

 

Please read the above paragraph and sentence again. It's important and since I'm confident that you breezed through it, you've likely missed something that I won't be compelled to address again.

 

So how does that relate to birth certificates, and watermelon, and terrorist, and Christianity, and non-citizen, and Manchurian Candidates, and blah...blah...blah?

 

How about this, I'll accept the truncated conclusion, just show me the verifiable facts.

 

What individual or outlet, of national media moment, articulated that Bush doesn't care for black folks?

 

Wanna try again?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Juror#8

[Jauronimo]

My memory isn't "convenient." There is nothing that you've said that I didn't say in my post.

 

1. I mentioned that their were caricatures of Bush that were entirely inappropriate. Just none that implicated a protected classification and none that referenced cooly a long history of injustice.

 

Notice that I didn't mention the myriad pictures of Obama as a monkey. The one that goes over the top paints HIS PARENTS as monkeys and since he is the direct descendent of chimps that explains his birth certificate being "lost." And it was circulated amongst local Republican party officials:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/gop_official_wont_resign_over.html

 

Monkey generally suggests someone as doltish. That's fine and is an acceptable politcal point (for black, white, whomever) if made in the scope of political commentary (e.g., "this person is clueless, let's illustrate him as a monkey.")

 

This wasn't made as a political point. It came from an irascible and boarish place and relates to a intrinsic characteristic.

 

Different. If you can't see that, it's not because it's not there; it's because you don't want to see it.

 

2. The slogans were/are conspicuously political points - as they were during Vietnam (Johnson and Nixon) when similar slogans rang loud. They were fine then and they're fine now. Democrat and Republican - fine. The signs against Obama concerning Afghanistan - FINE. Whatever.

 

Secondly, I'm not talking about any Joe Blow who can make a noxious sign. I'm talking about commentary that is media-driven or that is of a conspicuously media disseminated moment.

 

Again, it's still fine, because it's within the context of political discourse. But there are distinctions.

 

And with respect to the "nightly news [that ran stories expressing] that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton," I addressed that too. Again, conspicuously political point that draws inferences from data.

 

The inferences are incorrect. The inferences are specious. It is a truncated conclusion. But they're grounded in something that is uniquely political and with data that is verifiable (i.e., there was a war, Halliburton was there, some in the Administration worked for Halliburton at one time, the justification for war was dodgy and unsubstantiated).

 

Please read the above paragraph again. It's important and since I'm confident that you breezed through it, you've likely missed something that I won't be compelled to address again.

 

Truncated conclusion. Verifiable facts.

 

Now how does that relate to birth certificates, and watermelon, and terrorist, and Chirstianity, and non-citizen, and Manchurian Candidates, and blah...blah...blah.

 

I'll accept the truncated conclusion, just show me the verifiable facts.

 

What individual or outlet, of national media moment, articulated that Bush doesn't care for black folks?

 

Wanna try again?

Jesse Jackson flatly declared that the response to Katrina that he viewed to be insufficient was racially motivated, while Rep Elijah Cummings merely insinuated the same. Do I have to do the rest of your homework for you, or will that suffice?

[B-Man]

"Captain Obama" political cartoon

 

 

 

 

I hope that this not seen as a slur against Italians........

 

.

[3rdnlng]

It's very correct. Here is why:

 

Criticism of Bush, from media sources, was ideological and political. DCTom made a point about Farenheit 911. Michael Moore, who is hypocritical is so many ways, was making a connection between Bush's associations with the Saudis and Pakistanis and the events of 9/11. His point was attenuated and required a lot of reaching, but it was a decidedly POLITICAl point. Call Bush a communist and reference instances that (to Moore) supports that: political point. Say that Bush was derelict in his vetting of political partnerships (with respect to Musharraf): political point. Insinuate that Bush could have done more with respect to intelligence pre-9/11: political point. Insinuate that Bush pushed the war in Iraq andf that the war fueled business interests that peripherally benefitted people that he was close with: political point.

 

The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

 

I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins.

 

There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic).

 

Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits.

 

There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair.

 

The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come?

 

I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush.

 

 

 

 

Do you remember the pulse of independents in late 04 towards the Iraq War? Do yourself a favor and check it out. The Iraq War was a calculation that far exceeded (financially and otherwise) the potential exposure of the new healthcare legislation.

 

Bush was still elected.

 

So again I say, there are a bunch of dolts out there thinking Obama is going to lose in 2012 on the strength of partisan criticism. This movie have been shown before. It's unfortunate.

 

 

So, we've spent more than two trillion dollars on the Iraq war?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23551693/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/studies-iraq-war-will-cost-billion-month/

Edited January 18, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Juror#8]

I'm sorry, your well reasoned reply relies on a fair amount of revisionism that those of us who were around can easily recognize.

 

It boils down to "criticism of Bush was political, while criticism of Mr. Obama is more vitriolic because it is personal (and by your own examples...based on race.)

 

The examples that you use of anti-Bush ARE the policy related ones. I am wondering where are the "he's just a dumb, rich, frat boy"? Where is the "oh, he's a cocaine user, an alcoholic, a hypocritic religious "adulterer" stories that were pretty commonplace during his run for the presidency?

Where is the Bush is a ChickenHawk coward" who deliberately skipped out on his Vietnam duties?

 

Where is the "he hates Black people" Katrina proves it, nonsense?

 

Meanwhile, unlike the race-related examples (which were certainly NOT in the mainstream medai, except for the defensive response)

Where is the rise of the Taxed Eneough Already Party in response to the Administration's stimulus spending, and rising debt?...Oh, I know..its explained as racially motivated.

 

Where is the majority of Americans negative response to the Dems and Obama pushing through (so-called) healthcare reform, which greatly increased, and rightly so, criticism of Mr. Obama.

 

 

I agree with you that there really is no need to regurgitate this....you are coming from the mindset that the majority of the complaints against Mr. Obama are against him personally and not his policies.......I disagree

 

Mr Obama's poor administrative skills have been called into question by many, many people on the right, and the left, the bigoted criticism of him has NOT been the majority response and you are wrong to imply so.

 

Thanks.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

 

I hope that you read post #26. It addresses much of what you referenced in your post above and provides a glowing distinction.

 

This is not about picking the personal for one and policy for the other. It is about a square distinction that exists.

 

If you don't see it, or if you don't want to see it, we'll jsut have a difference of opinion. But I've made the point that I feel needed to be made.

 

I'm satisfied with that.

 

So, we've spent more than two trillion dollars on the Iraq war?

 

We haven't spent 2 trillion dollars on anything that relates to the healthcare legislation.

 

They're both progressive spend initiatives.

 

I accept your question and raise you a question:

 

Was all the money spent for the Iraq War "on-the-books," budgeted and allocated dollars?

 

"Captain Obama" political cartoon

 

 

 

 

I hope that this not seen as a slur against Italians........

 

.

 

You're better than this.

 

Jesse Jackson flatly declared that the response to Katrina that he viewed to be insufficient was racially motivated, while Rep Elijah Cummings merely insinuated the same. Do I have to do the rest of your homework for you, or will that suffice?

 

I ask you a question and this is how you respond....with a non-answer.

 

Stop wasting my time.

 

Politicians are not paid to communicate information to the masses. They're not tasked with objectivity. They're paid to legislate. They have opinions too and sometimes they feign a good thought. But just like Alan Grayson and Joe Wilson, they're opinions are mostly stupid. For the reasons contained herein:

 

I. Asked. For. Media. Moment.

 

You answered with Jesse Jackson.

 

Figures.

[B-Man]

I hope that you read post #26. It addresses much of what you referenced in your post above and provides a glowing distinction.

 

This is not about picking the personal for one and policy for the other. It is about a square distinction that exists.

 

If you don't see it, or if you don't want to see it, we'll jsut have a difference of opinion. But I've made the point that I feel needed to be made.

 

I'm satisfied with that.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough....... I still think that you are being swayed by the undeniable bigotry in some of the anti-Obama examples you have noted.

 

The point was not about whose content was worse, but in sheer volume..........and in that Bush critics still secure the win.

 

Even the example that you link, in reply 26, is horrble yes, but also was some local politicos on Long Island who rightly deserve both scorn and obscurity.

 

The Bush slanders were repeated ad nausem by national outlets, heck it pretty much built MSNBC.

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

I hope that you read post #26. It addresses much of what you referenced in your post above and provides a glowing distinction.

 

This is not about picking the personal for one and policy for the other. It is about a square distinction that exists.

 

If you don't see it, or if you don't want to see it, we'll jsut have a difference of opinion. But I've made the point that I feel needed to be made.

 

I'm satisfied with that.

 

 

 

We haven't spent 2 trillion dollars on anything that relates to the healthcare legislation.

 

They're both progressive spend initiatives.

 

I accept your question and raise you a question:

 

Was all the money spent for the Iraq War "on-the-books," budgeted and allocated dollars?

You're better than this.

 

 

 

I ask you a question and this is how you respond....with a non-answer.

 

Stop wasting my time.

 

Politicians are not paid to communicate information to the masses. They're not tasked with objectivity. They're paid to legislate. They have opinions too and sometimes they feign a good thought. But just like Alan Grayson and Joe Wilson, they're opinions are mostly stupid. For the reasons contained herein:

 

I. Asked. For. Media. Moment.

 

You answered with Jesse Jackson.

 

Figures.

 

The article stated estimates by two economists and the CBO.

 

"In their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," Stiglitz, of Columbia University, and Bilmes, of Harvard, report the two wars will have cost the U.S. budget $845 billion in 2007 dollars by next Sept. 30, end of fiscal year 2008, assuming Congress fully funds Bush administration requests. That counts not just military operations, but embassy costs, reconstruction and other war-related expenses."

 

I didn't say anything about healthcare. All I was doing was questioning a figure that I thought was exagerated.

[Jauronimo]

I hope that you read post #26. It addresses much of what you referenced in your post above and provides a glowing distinction.

 

This is not about picking the personal for one and policy for the other. It is about a square distinction that exists.

 

If you don't see it, or if you don't want to see it, we'll jsut have a difference of opinion. But I've made the point that I feel needed to be made.

 

I'm satisfied with that.

 

 

 

We haven't spent 2 trillion dollars on anything that relates to the healthcare legislation.

 

They're both progressive spend initiatives.

 

I accept your question and raise you a question:

 

Was all the money spent for the Iraq War "on-the-books," budgeted and allocated dollars?

 

 

 

You're better than this.

 

 

 

I ask you a question and this is how you respond....with a non-answer.

 

Stop wasting my time.

 

Politicians are not paid to communicate information to the masses. They're not tasked with objectivity. They're paid to legislate. They have opinions too and sometimes they feign a good thought. But just like Alan Grayson and Joe Wilson, they're opinions are mostly stupid. For the reasons contained herein:

 

I. Asked. For. Media. Moment.

 

You answered with Jesse Jackson.

 

Figures.

I guess you'll have to provide me your approved list of political and media figures if we are to continue debating your carefully qualified and arbitrary opinions.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jauronimo

[Juror#8]

The article stated estimates by two economists and the CBO.

 

"In their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," Stiglitz, of Columbia University, and Bilmes, of Harvard, report the two wars will have cost the U.S. budget $845 billion in 2007 dollars by next Sept. 30, end of fiscal year 2008, assuming Congress fully funds Bush administration requests. That counts not just military operations, but embassy costs, reconstruction and other war-related expenses."

 

I didn't say anything about healthcare. All I was doing was questioning a figure that I thought was exagerated.

 

I mentioned the healthcare thing because I figured that you brought up the 2 trillion in response to me saying that the cost of the Iraq War far exceeded the value of the healthcare legislation.

 

I incorrectly assumed. Good article by the way.

[Juror#8]

I guess you'll have to provide me your approved list of political and media figures if we are to continue debating your carefully qualified and arbitrary opinions.

 

 

What are you talking about? Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?

 

I NEVER ASKED FOR POLITICAL FIGURES.

 

You just added that in to make your own point.

 

And who amongst Elijah Cummings and Jesse Jackson is a media or journalist figure?

 

Fair enough....... I still think that you are being swayed by the undeniable bigotry in some of the anti-Obama examples you have noted.

 

The point was not about whose content was worse, but in sheer volume..........and in that Bush critics still secure the win.

 

Even the example that you link, in reply 26, is horrble yes, but also was some local politicos on Long Island who rightly deserve both scorn and obscurity.

 

The Bush slanders were repeated ad nausem by national outlets, heck it pretty much built MSNBC.

 

 

.

 

I definitely respect your opinion on this. I see it differently though. But still, good points.

[Adam]

Didn't read either article and not planning to. Without reading it, I know our economy is suffering. It is not because of President Obama, and despite some questionable decisions, it isn't because of President Bush either. It is not the Obama economy, the Bush economy, my economy or your economy- it is the US Economy.

 

Like it or not, our economy is tied to the rest of the world's and that isn't going to change- there are things we can do here and there (which would take sacrifice and work ethic- so forget it), to make things a little better. Things aren't going back to the way they were 15-20 years ago, anytime soon. That may not be a terrible thing, either.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Adam

[Jauronimo]

What are you talking about? Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?

 

I NEVER ASKED FOR POLITICAL FIGURES.

 

You just added that in to make your own point.

 

And who amongst Elijah Cummings and Jesse Jackson is a media or journalist figure?

You asked for examples of such criticism of Bush.

 

I provided two examples with ease.

 

You dismissed them based on your vague criteria.

 

In one post you cite personal emails being exchanged between congressman as evidence of unwarranted criticism of Obama and with the next dismiss the open opinions of a politician which were broadcast on major news outlets. Mainstream media outlets openly discussed the merits of said accusations and opinions, similar to your nameless "they" in the media who discussed whether or not Obama's past associations are a reflection on his judgement and ability to lead the nation. If we are to continue, you'll have to shed some light on who "they" are and the context in which "they" waged such an unprecedented campaign of criticism which cannot possibly be explained as political in nature. One would think that ability to lead is the essence of political when discussing whether or not a candidate is qualified for the most powerful position on the planet.

 

You've asserted that the criticism of Obama is unprecedented. In respect to the racial epithets, that is certain. As far as religion goes, see Romney, Bush, or even JFK. Every politicians' past is on full display and past associations or indiscretions have been fair game forever. "They" said Bush was a war monger and a criminal.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jauronimo

[B-Man]

Let's see if mister "I'm concentrating on jobs" ignores this (again) or in a campaign year will he throw his Green supporters under that crowded bus of his................

 

 

The Hill

 

Obama's jobs council report says 'drill'

By Andrew Restuccia - 01/17/12 03:43 PM ET

 

 

President Obama’s jobs council called Tuesday for an “all-in approach” to energy policy that includes expanded oil-and-gas drilling as well as expediting energy projects like pipelines.

 

“[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.

 

“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the report says.

 

The report retreats slightly from an interim report released in October that addressed the Keystone XL pipeline directly. The interim report appeared to offer cautious support for Keystone, calling on officials to “balance” environmental protections while realizing what it called the benefits of the pipeline.

 

But Keystone supporters will point out that the year-end report released Tuesday argues that energy projects like pipelines will result in economic and security benefits. It even echoes a common refrain from Republicans and the oil industry: that such energy projects "can support hundreds of thousands of jobs."

 

{snip}

 

Under a payroll tax cut packaged signed into law in December, the president must make a decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21. White House and administration officials have said they will have little choice but to reject the pipeline under the deadline, arguing they will not have enough time to adequately review the project.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

It appears that the verdict is in from President Obama.....and votes has won over jobs.

 

 

CNBC..Keystone Pipeline Set to Be Rejected by Obama

 

 

It seems that Mr Obama is more concerned with the appearance of wanting to create jobs than actually creating them.

 

Why does he keep appointing commisions to recomend solutions if he is just going to keep ignoring them ? ?

 

 

.

Edited January 18, 2012 by B-Man

[Adam]

You asked for examples of such criticism of Bush.

 

I provided two examples with ease.

 

You dismissed them based on your vague criteria.

 

In one post you cite personal emails being exchanged between congressman as evidence of unwarranted criticism of Obama and with the next dismiss the open opinions of a politician which were broadcast on major news outlets.

Many of the criticisms of President Bush tick me off. Yes, his decision to go to war without raising taxes to pay for it was a bad one (and the two sides could discuss many of the war, ad nauseum). But the attack on 9/11 was going to hurt our economy one way or another. THAT ISN'T HIS FAULT! We had to respond in some manner, and that would further damage the economy- that isn't his fault either.

 

The problem is that with the damaged economy, people who were ALREADY living beyond their means were more damaged, and instead of adjusting their lifestyle, they want to blame someone else and keep screwing up- that's their problem- not President Bush's, not President Obama's. Learn to live within your means, and things fall into place. I know some may find that heartless, but it really isn't.

[Juror#8]

You asked for examples of such criticism of Bush.

 

I provided two examples with ease.

 

You dismissed them based on your vague criteria.

 

In one post you cite personal emails being exchanged between congressman as evidence of unwarranted criticism of Obama and with the next dismiss the open opinions of a politician which were broadcast on major news outlets.

 

I also mentioned the unfair criticism of Bush that were the product of "open opinions."

 

The email was only relevant insofar as it concerned (what I believe to be) racist carictures.

 

The point that we've been focusing our discussion on is individuals saying that "_______ doesn't care about _______ people."

 

You're conflating two things to make a single point.

 

So as I mentioned before: Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Juror#8