American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Walleye- Hate to disappoint but I am not going to respond to every single comment someone makes. Especially when some of them are too far out to be taken seriously. Where did you believe you 'called me out'? Was it your comment about the Easter Bunny? Was it when you implied I was weak minded? I'm afraid that's only in your imagination. However, if you really feel I've avoided responding to something and want me to address it, just let me know what it is and I'd be happy to do so.

BTW, I was intrigued by your use of the word 'whitey' to address me. I wasn't sure what you meant, whether it had some meaning I was not aware of. So I went on Google to look it up. Here's what I found - I thought you would be interested to read it.

From urbandictionary.com:

whitey
"A person with no pigment to their skin, always refered to a man. Also used as a derogatory term to white people or people acting "white" by people who haven't the intelligence to come up with a real insult. The people who use the insult seem to be more rascist than the target of the slur."

And also further proof that liberals do not have a sense of humor.

Mongers,

Obama is not doing a good job but he certainly cannot be blamed for sinking GM and / or Chrysler. Those companies are failures because of gross mismanagement that lead to shortsighted product development and the resulting non-competitive products in today's car market. Ford is back to profitability in all markets because of talented management and modern product development; they make quality cars that consumers want. A staunch capitalist such as Sidney should be in favor of letting losers such as GM and C die off while competitive winners such as Ford rise up to take their market share.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Esten, in an earlier post you credited Obama with the rise in the stock market from the mid 6000 to 10500 at that point in time, now with the continuing problems with the economy, bad jobs report (even after all the adjustments - how do you loose jobs but lower unemployment numbers? - you cherry pick your sources of course) do you now also credit Obama with the market's fall to under 10,000 today?

Just wondering if Obama only gets credit from you, but none of the blame. Guess this is still George Bush's fault right? I guess not since you are now blaming the fall on Brown's election in MA, in your book it has always got to be one of those dirty Republicans / conseratives that are responsible, never the Big O.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

Obama is not doing a good job but he certainly cannot be blamed for sinking GM and / or Chrysler. Those companies are failures because of gross mismanagement that lead to shortsighted product development and the resulting non-competitive products in today's car market. Ford is back to profitability in all markets because of talented management and modern product development; they make quality cars that consumers want. A staunch capitalist such as Sidney should be in favor of letting losers such as GM and C die off while competitive winners such as Ford rise up to take their market share.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Exactly right. For years GM and Chrysler have been marching themselves toward the precipice of failure. After falling over the edge, they then look for someone to blame. It strains credibility to suggest that Obama should be blamed for their failure. Their failure starts with the fact that they negotiated bad union contracts, made poor development and design decisions, had bloated dealer networks, lacked any management foresight, and had years of government assistance that helped them sell the wrong vehicles. This started and played itself out decades before Obama took office. Cancer doesn't overtake its victims overnight, nor is the last doctor on call responsible for causing the disease.

Sid may be a capitalist but he's certainly not a free market capitalist. He was in favor of government handouts to the car companies, and went on record here as being in favor of one for CIT, as well. To my knowledge, the only time he's criticized any of the bailouts has been after-the-fact. His point seemed to be that bailouts are a good thing if they save jobs -- kind of like how Obama measures the effect of his stimulus program with an asterisk: 1 million jobs created [b]or saved[/b]*.

GM & Chrysler should have been allowed to file for protection under Chaper 11, down size, and emerge from bankruptcy leaner and meaner - able to compete without a dime of tax payer money. But NOOOO the Obama has to "rescue" them with OUR money. Who did Obama really "rescue" his pimps in the UAW - you see in Chapter 11 you are allowed to void your labor contracts and Obama could not let that happend now could he?

Walleye - No problem. I'm sure many other people are having exchanges and disagreements not entirely different from ours. I will not be in BA for awhile, but if / when we are both in town I will take you up on your offer. I typically have a dry sense of humor, but will come prepared with my best joke. If I can't make you laugh, drinks are on me.

Doppelganger - you have me misunderstood. My post on the market last year was simply to balance your post in which you implied a large drop was due to Obama. I think much of the action last year was just a normal correction to an extreme oversold condition, helped by Fed and government policies and some short frying thrown in. My post about Brown and the market was a total joke (hence the smiley) in response to Sid's silly assertion that a big down day was Obama's fault. I don't have much interest in speculating on short term movements. Though I think we were long due for a downward correction. I am capable of faulting Obama and crediting Bush, I am not entirely one-sided. I credit Bush for prodding Congress to approve the financial bailout, which I think at the time was needed and the right thing to do. Bush had the unfortunate honor of becoming a wartime president. BTW, I supported the Iraq war. I think Bush (and others) mis-managed the economy, but I am not much of a Bush-hater. My larger issues are with Republican policies and the downsides of capitalism.

"The Tea Party is the future of American politics."

- Sarah Palin, speaking at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, February 6 2010

[url]http://tv.gawker.com/5466004/did-sarah-palin-write-notes-on-her-hand-at-the-tea-party-convention-update-yes[/url]

If she's the future of the Republican party.

El oh el

Question : "What should a republican congress's top 3 priorities be?"

Answer : "Stop spending," "energy policy," and ..............

[QUOTE=Sarah Palin]"I think, kind of tougher to put our arms around, but allowing America's spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we're not afraid to say especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we're not afraid to say, you know, we don't have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that you know – they have to be afraid of what the media said about them if they were to proclaim their alliance to our creator."[/QUOTE]

At first, I thought the Tea Party stuff was a thinly-disguised veil for the Republican party and / or the part of Fox that opines (as opposed to their very good news outlet)

Then I read something about Ron Paul's 2008 campaign for President. All major news outlets (including Fox! Completely shunned Ron Paul during the Republican convention, even though he was showing strong and ended up second behind MacCain toward the end, even without such support from any media.

The only person who DID NOT SHUN Ron Paul was Glenn Beck. He had him on his show and did a question-answer session with him for the entire hour - the only real coverage Paul got during his campaign.

I know a lot of liberals (particularly "progressive" liberals) think Glenn Beck is the spawn of the devil, and to tell the truth I don't like the way he presents his views. But it turns out that I DO like MOST of his views (just keep me away from the religious crap)

Glenn Beck is libertarian in thought, if not in name.

For those of you who don't now who Ron Paul is - he's a congressman from Texas's 14 district. He is a Libertarian who joined the Republican party in an attempt to not be so marginalized in our two party system. He is a man of high character and is a consitutionalist and a States' rights activist. He has been presenting a bill for the last 20 years to get the US out of the UN, to get rid of the US Department of Education, and many other things that impinge on US sovereignity and States' right. He's my kind of guy.

Back to the Tea Party stuff.

I went to their site last week because of Glenn Beck's connection to libertarianism and some of the things I've seen him talking about on his show.

Turns out that this is really a grass roots movement that has been left intentionally leaderless to see where it goes.

The site itself has a "Contract From America." According to them, this is the opposite of the "Contract WITH America" that the Republicans tried in the 90s. That was a bunch of legislators getting together and telling the American public what they were going to do as Republicans if they were elected in a majority. This time, the "contract" is coming from the people and is a statement of desire of conduct for our elected officials. The intention is that those who do not adhere to the contract do not get funded by that organization. If it becomes big enough, that could have significant meaning.

The Tea Party movement is intending to develop a platform with which they intend to support candidates that follow the precepts they have laid out. Some basis of those precepts are smaller government, adherence to the Consitution (which we haven't really done as a nation for quite some time, except when it's "convenient") and trying to move towad a truly free market, which we have NEVER had in this country (nor has really existed elsewhere either)

The manner of their platform development is interesting to me. They are requesting members to get together online and give suggestions as to what they would like to see, and then other members will vote on those suggestions. The Tea Party organizers plan to pick what they consider best fit the stated ideals and goals of the organization and begin supporting cadidates FROM ANY PARTY that will adhere to those precepts.

Can you imagine Obama and his ilk actually asking the American people what they want and PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM?

What I like about this is that they are getting people together and discussing how to get control of the government. For those who think that things are ok, and that the government is a good thing that just needs a little adjustment - I believe you are dead wrong and for the good of the country should be strongly opposed. Just as, I'm sure, those same people probably think that what I'm talking about here must be opposed as strongly as possible by people like Obama and the other progressives.

I once made a comment on this forum that Obama and his people weren't "evil" - that what they were trying to do was surely what they thought best for the country, that they were just wrong-headed about that.

After seeing what's happened with health care and many other things that Obama wants to do, listening to Pelosi saying that they will pass healthcare no matter what, will do whatever they have to do to get it done, even in the face of a clear majority of Americans that don't want what the progressives were trying to push, I have changed my mind.

The progressives are trying to change the US. They are trying to make it over in their image, not work within the Constitution and the framework of working together in order to accomplish what the majority of Americans really want. They are trying to TELL the Americans what is best for them, running against what was laid out in the Constitution and many, many writings of the founding fathers who wrote that document.

The Republicans are not much better in many ways. Aside from the war and the problems I have with that, Bush didn't pay enough attention to us domestically and we are paying the price for an inattentive Republican, in my opinion. Republican Senators and Congressmen as a whole are no better - they are not working diligently to make government smaller - they are in it just as deep as Democrats.

What I like about the Tea Party is that they are trying to get back to the roots of what government should be. So far, they have not gotten into too much religious crap - most of it is conservatism related to economy and government, not religion.

I do think that it is unfortunate that Sarah Palin was the first keynote speaker of this organization in their first national convention, and in an interview with someone afterward the interviewer mentioned "Palin for President" which she shrugged off with a smile. I don't know if she is really the idiot that everyone portrays her to be, but right now she could hurt the movement in my opinion because of the perception of many. We'll have to see how that goes.

But the good thing is, the Tea Partiers are not a political party in and of themselves - they are a PAC that are supporting what I consider to be the correct way of thinking about government and I am going to watch what they do and may even become involved where I can if I like where it goes.

You're right Bad Man - what we should be doing is standing straight in the aisles with our jackboots clicking together, cheering whatever Obama has to say.

Go read the Tea Party site and see what they have to say. Palin is one person - there are others. While the liberals make fun of her, they can hardly make fun of some of the things being proposed on that site and I truly hope that they begin quaking in their boots and worrying about trying to implement the socialist view in the US.

Religion, however, be damned! If the Tea party succumbs to religious fervor, screw them. So far, there are some idiots on the Tea Party site talking about things like that, but there are many talking sense, saying "stay away from that or you are going to turn this movement into a right-wing religious movement and that's not what we're about."