The Worst (First 100) Days Ever - Page 3

Madeleine Albright has a nice take on Obama's first 100 days.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madele..._b_192503.html

Yeah, she writes and submits to the HP.

<<<>>>

er. Wrong thread.

Nice link.

Here's an editorial in The New York Times on the first 100 days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/op...2&pagewanted=1

Just like the Bible, those people who truly understand the Constitution don't try to manipulate it, and understand that things like RTBA need to be taken in full context, and that the spirit of the Constitution DEFINITELY included the concept of separation of church and state, even if those words don't exactly appear. They don't try to lie and claim that the framers of the constitution were all Christian and meant for the US to be a Christian nation. The people who claim that Christianity belongs anywhere NEAR the constitution of the United States or other laws thereby related do NOT respect the Constitution.

The Constitution includes the concept that there should not be a state-run religion or an "official" religion.

This "separation of church and state" business has been used by the anti-religious to try to stifle freedom of religious expression.

Careful reading of the writings, letters, etc. of the Founders will indicate that they were indeed religious, god-fearing men and mentioned God often in public discourse.

One prime example is George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789.

While most of the framers of the Constitution were indeed Christian, you are correct, they did not intend for the US to be a "Christian nation".

Editorial letter

Letter to the editor notes the reason why many news organizations and papers are losing sales and ratings.


It seems like a few of these points aren't being explored very much.

I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to argue against those statements, however I'll try and research at least some of them to form an opinion.

Whilst I support Obama generally, I am still convinced that the whole financial institution is corrupt and in need of major changes, that give people back their hard earned wealth, rather than forever being in debt to banks who have the magic ability to produce it out of thin air and charge interest to boot, keeping us all slaves. No doubt Obama's plan benefits often those who control the strings, but I don't doubt it's a rough juggling act for presidents.

Yeah! He seems like a Sarah Palin supporter. A conservative viewpoint from a conservative rag. From Nova Scotia no less. I'd bother taking these point by point but the ideological doifferences are the same as many items brought to us by you.

For instance :
Now why are such drastic measures necessary in the first place? We've been over this. As a matter of fact we've been over much of this. It's just repackaging.

Here's another :
Intel indicates N Korea has enough material to make six war heads.

How does a cut to our already more than sufficient missle defense seem relevant to this?

What we really need to worry about is a sneek attack on say Japan that would start a big conventional war.

This is just more of you trying to dig up something damning on Obama. You should ask yourself : " Is it really worth it if I have to try this hard to find something and keep coming up short? "

Careful reading of the writings, letters, etc. of the Founders will indicate that some of them were indeed religious, god-fearing men.

This statement is true. Yours is not.

Meanwhile, discussing God in public discourse (as I am doing with you now) is a non-sequitur in your statement, as it is no indication of one's religious beliefs, except where explicitly defined. For instance, if I were to say that I'm sure Jesus wouldn't approve of waterboarding, it would be a rhetorical point, and could not be used as evidence of whether or not I believe in Jesus.

Meanwhile, public display of a public financed religious article in a public facility cannot be construed as anything other than involving church in state affairs. Allowing publicly displayed organized prayer of a single majority religion in publicly funded schools cannot be construed as anything but promotion of that religion.

There's nothing ambiguous about those two issues. If there is no official religion, then the Ten Commandments can not possibly be displayed in a courthouse. If there is no official religion, then open organized prayer cannot be allowed in public schools. If there's no official religion, then "under God" and "in God we trust" cannot be included in official functions and on official documents.

To deny the veracity of these points is to deny the spirit of the constitution.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...n-show-nation/


Don't miss the video, where (wearing the world's most ironic T-shirt), Max interviews some of these rational, upstanding patriots.

Circumstantial ad-hom. The points are not right or wrong due to where they are published or based off who presented them.


Actually it has not been presented. You've justified it with some circular reasoning and nothing more. You've applied various circumstantial ad-homs aka "You lost get over it," "I don't think you complained loud enough or often enough to be able to complain now" and finally "Bush spent so when Obama spends much, much more it is justified as clean up but I don't have to explain how or why this so, it is simply so due to the fact that you lost."

There has been no presentation of fact to justify the Obama spending.


By what measure is are missile defense "sufficient?"

How is this relevant? Ask the people of Japan who are watching a nuclear power send rockets over or within reach of their mainland while maintaining a historical grievance against them.


Clearly that sneak attack would be nuclear and thus the concern about missile defense. It would be impossible for North Korea to mount much of a conventional war against anyone.


This is nothing more than questioning the intent of the poster and characterizing it. I really wish there were some valid counter-points made in your post.

Obama cannot promise change and then do the same or even a larger version of the same. If earmarks are lobbyists are campaigned against as the problem, you can't turn around and ignore it when it is your interest groups now raiding the national piggy bank. The fact is Obama is signing bills with earmarks and excusing his own administration hiring former lobbyists with a loophole/exception he crafted. People have noted that this is also his stance on torture for example.

The Rapture Rap

Scary stuff, scary shit just waiting to happen.

How is displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or including the phrase "In God We Trust" on our money any indication of an official or state sponsored religion?

Hmmmm......

I live in Japan and, while a little worried about the recent NK test, there is no panic here as they do not feel that NK has that many missiles yet. Also, any major defense system based in the US would not be able to intercept a missile launched by NK on Japan.

ABM systems are very expensive and not necessarily all that effective. If a country can develop an ICBM, then they can also equip it to defeat ABM systems (multiple warheads, biological agents that would still work even if the missile were intercepted, etc). I think the Union of Concerned Scientists or whatever it's called discussed this a ways back.

The US currently has the Aegis equipped ships in its Navy that are quite capable and the Patriot missile has been vastly improved from its first not-so-very-effective deployment in the first Gulf War.

Also, the nature of the enemy has changed. During the Cold War, we were worried about large strikes, as were the Soviets. They placed their one allowed system around Moscow; the US placed their around, drum-roll, the ICBM launch sites off the map in Nevada. The current threat is no longer a well planned, intense attack but rather the random launch by a rogue country.

The GBMD system has so far had a spotted record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-...course_Defense

Also, I love the notion that Obama is reducing defense spending. He is not. Rather, he is re-allocating spending to try to create a military more suited for the new battlefield: We are no longer facing a Soviet rolling invasion of Europe, for which much of our military muscle was designed. Even the M1-A1 tank, the "most powerful tank in the world" literally was getting its butt kicked in Iraq (it was weakly armored in the rear and thus not suited for urban warfare). Our Navy lacks littoral combat ships of any deployable number; Norway has a fantastic program already producing a full line of ships, as does Sweden. (But those are evil socialist countries that the US should not imitate in any way, according to some radio mouths.) The F-22 needs cutting in favor of a more deployable machine that doesn't cost so darned much; the F-35 program needs increasing.

Gotta get some work done.

I watched that video and I could spend five minutes with a camera on any school or university campus and have some similar. I would just need to ask about the "truth" behind 9/11, say the words "oil cartels" or perhaps I could say "vaccines."

It is unfortunate that the "documentary" makers describes the radio quotes as "screeds" and thus desires to frame the debate from the first second.

What I find most interesting though is if anything, his video shows the ridiculousness of attempts at gun control. It shows there isn't a middle ground. You ban a .50 caliber weapon and watch them create a .49 caliber to circumvent the law. Anyone who has looked into this issue knows that any and all gun limitations can be overcome.

The biggest irony though is that those arguing it often do the same thing themselves with electronics. Oh I don't like my carrier limitations on my phone, so I'll flash it with with this ROM from another carrier. I'll jailbreak it, I'll hack it. I'll go online and find the backdoor the company installed that allows the DVD player to be region-free or turn off macrovision, or whatever the concern happens to be. I'll find the software utility that "overclocks" the chip that they declared slower to artificially charge more for the "faster" one that is appropriately clocked.

Why is it that a group can so easily understand this while say, pulling down torrents of their favorite show they missed last night and then turn around and think people won't have the brains to do the same thing in an area with which they don't agree. It is like the group for the advancement of medical marijuana arguing against assault rifles or something similar. It is easy to see that the law can almost never rationalize away a true right and all it can do is turn everyone into a criminal eventually.

Here's a much better video for ya... Trombone Shorty is covering Al Green's Let's Stay Together on the trumpet right now...

http://music.att.net/s/editorial.dll...ent=1&xslid=23

That's why I used Japan as an example. Something that would stir things up that we couldn't intercept.

However if they were caught bombing say Tokyo they would probably be condemned by many other countries. They would also probably be flattened by someone in response. They know this. 6 warheads doesn't leave you very much room to retaliate.
This makes that an unlikely scenereo.

Starting another war in the South would be more likely. Which wouldn't require a ABM response from us.

No really?

Do you mean like the polls I submit that you try to discredit? I forgot though. Only your polls and links are accurate.

First this still addresses the poster. It is more dust.

If you don't trust 538.com as a source of polling accuracy then question it, not me.

There are plenty of times I share opinions and declare them as such. Likewise I do this with predictions, speculation, gossip or whatever.

The difference is the unwillingness to work with different elements and have an enjoyable discussion here versus tossing up a bunch of dust trying to confuse people. There are plenty of times when I really want to hear the insights people might have about current or future events. Someone will come in screaming about a lack of facts. Facts can inform speculation but they can't change the nature of it. Likewise there are past events and even principles that people are not going to give up regardless of their popularity. If you produced a poll right now saying my wife was unpopular, I wouldn't care. I didn't marry her because of a popularity poll.

No one has the "facts" on say, the 2010 midterm elections yet. Any such claims would be false. Even being wrong about a past even doesn't guarantee the future event prediction won't be accurate. I've never seen a country or a person borrow its way to prosperity. A poll claiming many believe that still wouldn't change that principle for me.

Let's all use and enjoy the tools we have here to talk about politics. Let's not use them to talk about each other.

Really,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Criticisms

Took a while, but prosperity returned.

As for people, think about it.

Is that the Brazilian Wandering Spider??????

http://www.badspiderbites.com/banana-spider/

They need to stick with what they know, making computer chips... huh? Oh, not that Intel.

Fair enough. I'll remember that next time I produce the results of a poll for you.


No but give a monkey enough bananas he could make a good enough guess given the climate surrounding the GOP.

It doesn't matter if you don't want to hear this.

It doesn't matter that Obama's popularity coinsides with most Americans thinking he has the right approach.

Times have changed and if you can't see that I can't help you. Not an insult just an observation.

This has always been cyclic. We were in a conservative part of the cycle now we're in the liberal part.

We will go back to the conservative part someday.

It's always been this way.

With everything that's happened and the amount of Obama's current popularity it's highly unlikely we're be back there in only 2 or even 4 years.

Sorry if that's news you didn't want to hear.

Now from your arguments I seem to be hearing that you're counting on some big political faux pas to take out Obama's popularity and thereby leaving the path open for the republicans.

Well I wouldn't hold your breath. You see it's more than just Obama. It's the times we're in. Cyclic remember?

Why do you think we have two parties?

If you want the republicans back in the limelight you'll just have to have patience.

2016 or 2020 would be my guess.

The GOP spring training was held at a pizza place.

Well, the fact that they limited their display to the 10 Commandments, to the exclusion of every other religion is significant. Also, strictly speaking, placing "In God We Trust" on currency, of all things, would typically be considered blasphemy.

Just a stab: Money Is God?

So what happened to the OP, posts on a Thursday and 3 days later, nothing to defend his nutty thread.

It's a mere recognition of the fact that our country and its laws were founded on Biblical principles.

Also, more than one religion considers the Bible or parts of it to be cannon.

I ask again, how is displaying a monument to the 10 Commandments in a courthouse any indication of a state-run or national religion?

It isn't brain surgery - The 10 commandments are associated with two particular religions, and putting that symbol on government land is an indication of government support for those two religions.

America Acknowledges God

Carefully read through the list linked above.

Nobody has been forced to join or conform to any religion as a result of these things. This country has enjoyed greater freedom of religion than any other in history BECAUSE of its Biblical foundations.

No problem. I'm more apt to believe a poll that is done regularly with the same methodology over time than I am one that just appears to shape a story. You can have your own preferences of course.


There is a reason I tend to be a contrarian by nature. One it has served me well for investing purposes but second, it shows the limits of consensus or perhaps conventional wisdom to address reality in regard to understanding it. The reality is that things often don't change until they do and when they do it tends to be dramatic and swift. I enjoy data as much as the next guy but trailing indicators often make it hard to figure out where something is going. It sort of like trying to drive by looking in the rear view mirror.

The point you make about Obama above is a type of fallacy that goes under a couple different names but it is the associative fallacy. It is the same as correlation as causation. The reality is that most presidents start out fairly popular and with most Americans thinking they have the right approach, otherwise they would not have been elected. Obama isn't an exception to this but the election is what causes this and not anything special about Obama. Obama cannot govern in opposition to reality just because he is popular. Popular won't alter reality.

For example in that list I posted, we were told that our allies weren't helping because we were fighting the wrong war, were doing it unilaterally and finally Bush was just not having people go along with his "cowboy" diplomacy. Obama changed all those and guess what, no help or troops to deal with Afghanistan.

We were told the Iraq war savings, electronic medical files and a tax increase on the top 5% would pay for health care reform. The reality isn't even close to that.

Overtime such actions will alter that popularity. Looking back won't help us see forward. I can't guarantee it or prove it but no one can. However we can look at the past to guess what could happen based off those actions in the past. The result doesn't look good for Obama.


Times will continue to change and if you don't want to believe that, I can't help you either.


It doesn't have to always be this way. The government could collapse. The economy could as well. Our currency and the world experiment with fiat currencies could fall apart in a race to the bottom. When you talk about the way it has always been, I assure you that is the way it has always been when governments begin manipulating currency. I'm not talking U.S. history, I'm talking world history.


I gave you the very clear example of Bush 41. You've never addressed it. Clinton clearly went from having all branches to losing Congress. Bush was unstoppable until 2006 when it all came down. It only is until it isn't.

You know people weren't happy when I was telling them their $450k house was going to be worth $200k or less in a couple years. "Everyone knows" and "historical timelines" were the first thing they all pulled out of their ass. Rents and median income determine house prices as a long term average. Nothing else matters.

A country either produces, saves and invests or it doesn't. Ours doesn't and Republicans and Democrats haven't fixed that fact. Republicans haven't come up with a good plan for fixing that fact but if it gets worse people will do what they have always done and toss the bums out.


I'm not counting on any faux pas. I'm counting on the economy not getting better due to the fact that the government is sticking its foot right in the middle of things actually sorting themselves out. Things out there are ALMOST getting back to where they should be. Home prices have gotten to something reasonable. People have started saving a bit and aren't consuming more than they make. Resources and personnel are being shed and reallocated. The government is going to dump a big pile of stimulus shit into the middle of this stuff working out and it will make us broke and make the economy worse. It might not sort out by the midterm but I suspect it will by the end of the first term. We will see of course.

Actually, the Ten Commandments are undisputed and widely accepted by three major world religions.

Well my reasoning served me well during the last election.

Cycles are really undeniable. There's a cycle that governs economic ups and downs as well.

If you use that model sure there are aberrations that occur making each cycle unique. But basically it's still a cycle. We go from a Bull market to a bear market. Albeit individual cycles are more pronounced or less.


So what you're saying is you'd rather be right and watch us all suffer than be wrong about Obama and his approach is successful?


Are you actually hoping for this just to be right?

I think our leaders have been wise in letting a two party system evolve. When one get's out of hand ( Republican or Democrat there's an alternative ).

We tried the let it run on it's own thing and you can see what happened.

I don't know for sure if Obama's plan will fix things but as Krugman says " At least he's doing something. Which is what I've been saying all along about this. Doing the same thing that got us into this by just letting it run on it''s own obviously won't work. We deregulated the banks and you can see what happened.

We didn't have time to try the same thing over again.


Huh?

Myself I hope Obama's plan works. I don't know that it will but it's a better outcome to look forward to than the alternative. No matter who's in office.


Yes we will.

I'll tell you it's not as soon as you show me "In the Gods We Trust" on an official document or a display of the Koran in one of the Capitol buildings.

As I recall, In God We Trust wasn't used until the time of the Civil War and wasn't used on paper money until 1957.

I do believe that most of the founders believed in God.
Thomas Jefferson said that religion, or faith is "Between a man and his God".

Correct and it is cycling from fear to greed. There hasn't been a way conjured yet to stop both so it will continue. Also though a cycle can affect the overall economy but that doesn't mean it has to effect you to the same degree. If you can see where fear and greed are currently acting, you can try to mitigate that. So for example I didn't buy houses at that high water mark nor even near it. You can tell when things have left their fundamentals and say instead of just noting the cycle you can have it work for you.

Here are some cycles I'm sure you don't want to think about. Americans like divided government. An elected president and his party often lose several house seats in the first term. I know this because you kept counting on it all those years from 2000-2004. and noting it. Republicans overcame that trend twice.


When you look at those factors, you see what makes the cycle unique. Housing versus stocks as examples or perhaps both the next time when you were only counting on one to bubble.


If Obama spent two trillion dollars trying to stop the rotation of the earth and it didn't work, why should I be accused of wanting him to fail? Reality is reality. Delusions are the opposite of reality so noting both will remain as they are does not mean one is wishing suffering or failing on anyone.

Financial bubbles are bubbles for a reason. They are driven by collective greed. Obama thinks he can fill that bubble gap by spending. Everyone here has noted that gap and understands his reasoning. He state the economy was 13 trillion of activity and now will be 10 trillion and we need to fill that gap somehow. However the gap is created due to people no longer financing and spending more than they make due to a desire to speculate out of greed. Conjuring up $2 trillion of spending won't change those behaviors. It will be wasted money and what is hilarious is that if you asked if they want the factors that created that level of spending restored they will say no. They just want the number sans the greed.


I don't have to hope for the sun to rise or for gravity to be a fundamental force. They just are and if someone declared they would spend money to make that not so, I don't have to hope for failure there either.

As for doing something, the something should be related to reasoning. You could be bit by a poisonous snake and I could hit you with a stick. I would be doing "something" but it wouldn't accomplish much. If you complain about being hit not being effective, me declaring you actually have a desire to see me fail or for us to collectively "suffer" won't alter the reality either. In reality hit people with sticks doesn't fix the poison from a snake bite.

This is what is a bit strange in your reasoning, you note the cycle but then want to give someone else motivations for noting that it cannot be altered. If everything is cyclical, then part or realizing that is that anyone who fails to follow that is being harmful. If the downtimes are cyclical, then someone spending $2 trillion to stop what cannot be stopped is being delusional. People noting it cannot be stopped are not wishing or hoping for anything, just remembering reality.


If everything is cyclical, then you should hope it doesn't "work" in that you should hope that the cycle will continue on regardless of the claims of others.

Let's reverse this for a moment Jimmac. Suppose Republicans were in power and we had this cycle we call day and night. The day cycle ends and the night cycle begins. Republican declare that they have just the right policies to return that wonderful daylight again and that if you don't endorse them that the woeful lack of light known as night will continue on and might even get worse.

Noting that the sun will rise without Republicans doesn't mean you are wishing or hoping anything bad for anyone.

Likewise what you really don't want is people getting their reasoning assigned as correlation with causation. Suppose the Republicans go and invade Iraq. Then the daylight returns. Now you are stuck arguing with people that we don't need to invade countries to stop the night from coming nor to cause the daylight to return. When the night returns now you are stuck with a bunch of idiots declaring we should just make some bombs and drop them somewhere. "We have to do something" would be the refrain "since it is night."

Fear puts an end to greed. When people forget their fear they will start acting greedy again, hopefully with less debt and with economic resources properly reallocated. However if you stick trillions into the mix to obscure this fact then the next time it is night you have people arguing with the same bad reasoning, we need to do something, we can't possibly let the cycle be the cycle and worse still instead of looking at fear and greed, they will look at something else. Dust tossed into the mix.