Author: J G
Date:   03-30-09 01:30

...and no, no, no.. I'm not saying I wish I had voted for McCain..

All I'm saying is..

Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.

And of course all I mean by that is.. same 'ole bureaucracy.. sole 'ole red tape.. some 'ole shi1t.. different Pres.


What a sincere bummer.

Author: Wonky
Date:   03-30-09 01:49

Who do you wish you HAD voted for, if not McCain?

Author: Mya Bell
Date:   03-30-09 05:52

I still don't know what I think of the new Pres.

I like some of the things I'm hearing.

I don't like some of the things I'm hearing.

And it hasn't been long enough yet to know which promises were genuine and which were simply "elect me" promises.

He's a very charismatic president, so I find I have to close my eyes and listen very carefully (and read the White House sites) to separate reason from emotion.

I'm trying to follow it all, but there's a lot going on and then we also have this scary business with the Federal Reserve taking over trillions in loans. As voters we had no choice in those shenanigans. It doesn't bode well and I can't fully comprehend all the ramifications of it or how much control the President had over that Fed "take-over."


I didn't dislike McCain, but I didn't think he had the brains, the vigor, or the knowledge to be the best leader. He made so many factual errors in his speeches. He showed some concrete knowledge of middle east politics, but his understanding of world affairs or science didn't seem to stretch very far beyond that. And he had a chip on his shoulder where the private sector was concerned. It bothered him that the private sector earned so much more than members of Congress. How that would have affected his performance if he had been elected, I don't know. Business is a driving force in this country, the driving force, you might say.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to talk business pretty well, but that also makes one wonder just how deeply he's interconnected with some of these Old Boy networks that are clandestinely running more social systems than we care to admit. I can't tell. On the one hand he seems sincere and independent in his thinking, on the other, he's talking some of the party line of the big shadow banking interests. Who knows how much of their agenda will play out. I just hope he's removed enough from that to forge a good path for us.

I have my fingers crossed. I have hope. I guess we'll see.

--- Mya Bell

Author: dan z
Date:   03-30-09 06:47

I don't wanna sound like an alarmist, but this more than eloquent prez we got ourselves, is spending us into disaster. When the treasury is nearly empty, over-spending and joyfuly throwing the future generation into the deepest financial abyss of debt is not the wisest solution.
He bailed out the banks first, so the people can get loans and get the real estate markets moving again, while the people are loosing jobs left and right. WE all know that only jobs will bring money back into the treasury by means of taxation, yet the bulk of the bail-out cash went to the ones responsible for the crisis we're facing today. I think that he's been sold to major interests long before becoming prez, and is now paying back "the favors", the huge amount of cash these interests invested in the process of getting obama elected. He is in these interests' back pocket, it seems, and his act seems that of not even a puppet but a muppet, a puppet with someone's hand up the arse.
I say this in light of the latest scandal, the AIG deal. It was his cabinet that forced the addition of the "bonus guarantees" into the bail-out proposal, meaning that his own cabinet ok'd those bonuses to be paid, forcing sen Dodd to ok it as well.
Well, guess who his cabinet answers to when it comes to approving the new bail-out?
The prez of course, he had approved it, knew about it, then put up an act of solidarity with the inflamed masses, by threatening with a 90% taxation. I found that to be hypocritical on the prez's side. I think AIG had a big part in financing his pres. campaign... but then again, I could be seeing it wrongly, either way, I don't agree with his over-spending ways. We'll soon be a bancrupt nation, but we'll rejoice in his oratory skills.

Author: the cat came back
Date:   03-30-09 08:08

He's way too liberal for my taste; he's spending the next generation into bancruptcy; displays a politics-as-usual approach to the mechanics of government despite all his fine campaign talk about transparency and the like; shows a mild contempt for the rule of law when it comes to things like punishing the people who outsmarted him with 90% taxes; and has, on too many occasions, looked like a real amateur, especially in some of his Cabinet appointments.

Plus, he personally annoys me: I think that he's thin-skinned (we'll see that more and more), chooses his words way too carefully, and has delusions of Lincolnhood.

Anyone who writes not one but two memoirs by his tender age is just too full of himself for my liking.

Author: Keith .
Date:   03-30-09 08:42

Have you seen that pic where Reagan is in the USSR and a common citizen asking him a question turns out to be Putin, planted by the KGB? Remember Obama's town hall meeting last week?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html?hpid=topnews

I'm not saying Obama's KGB-sinister, but it's managed propaganda, pure and simple.

Author: Rogue Mutt
Date:   03-30-09 09:17

He's been on the job for a whole two months now. I guess we really are a nation of short attention spans--and apparently so is Canada.

Author: Kate B.
Date:   03-30-09 11:13

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that Obama's done so far in his 69 days of being president...but I'm trying to understand what you expected when you voted for him.

Government is government. He's not going to get everything he campaigned on done. If he could do that, he'd be a dictator. But what he's TRYING to do is what I like. When Bush was TRYING to wiretap our phones, make a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, go to war on two fronts, etc, etc, etc...I was rooting against him. Some he got done and some he didn't, but I was against his very principles.

With Obama on MOST (not all) issues, I hope he gets his way. That's why I voted for him in the first place.

Things I like: Guantánamo closing, 90% tax on CEO bonuses for companies that took bailout money, stopping the abstinence-only education abroad, appointing Hillary as Sec of State, and a timeline to get out of Iraq.

Things I don't like: the way the bailout money is being spent (I think if the government is giving loans, they should be giving them to the people in the form of micro-loans...call it "trickle-up" economics), the derisive way Obama spoke about the possibility of legalizing marijuana, and that the White House is forcing GM to fire it's CEO.

That being said, I'm getting what I voted for....

Author: Patrick Edwards
Date:   03-30-09 11:40

I'm with the man. Folks kinda tend to think that the President is a person who lords over everything and his word is "it." It is a collaboration of folks who are handling things. Of course, the President is the "head" of all, and no one is shocked by that; least of all, the President himself. That said, I have a confidence in the man as our leader. I would follow if he were charging across a field and said "Come with me, young man. We will succeed." (Using a war-type reference, but meaning more. Duh. :)) If Bush or McCain or even Hillary or anyone else in the running last year were to say that, I think I would serve up a pause that would've stretched into a long delay, ending in me turning and moving in opposite direction.

Something about Obama allows me to believe in him in not only a short-term view, but in a long-term one as well. I'm gonna sit back and watch his time in office unfold, and I believe I won't be disappointed.

George Bush may have been the smartest guy ever--a good thing--however, I did not have confidence in him as a man I would follow into a crisis. But, again, he may've been The Man for the job, but it was not displayed in a way that struck confidence in me.

That said, I think this is eloquently put (by Kate B):

Government is government. He's not going to get everything he campaigned on done. If he could do that, he'd be a dictator. But what he's TRYING to do is what I like. When Bush was TRYING to wiretap our phones, make a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, go to war on two fronts, etc, etc, etc...I was rooting against him. Some he got done and some he didn't, but I was against his very principles.

With Obama on MOST (not all) issues, I hope he gets his way. That's why I voted for him in the first place.

Author: J G
Date:   03-30-09 14:10

My motive for saying what I said (while admittedly, a little dramatic), came only from his actions regarding the economy so far. Yes, he's only been in office a few months, sure, but damn.. the money he has allowed to be spent in those few months is downright scary.

That's kind of the point.. it's *only* been two months.

Author: jayce
Date:   03-30-09 16:15

Get the facts: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Author: nancy drew
Date:   03-30-09 16:33

Cute website, jayce.

Author: jayce
Date:   03-30-09 16:43

Cute?... hmm. Never quite thought of Politifact that way.

Author: nancy drew
Date:   03-30-09 16:56

Dagnabbit. Don't tell me "pants on fire" is one of them there fancy political terms.

I blame it all on Miss Rosenberg. Didn't learn me a thing in my American History class.

Author: jayce
Date:   03-30-09 17:06

Oh, that part. Yeah, I like it when they catch somebody in a pants-on-fire lie.

Author: leslee
Date:   03-30-09 17:19

INAPPROPRIATE JOKE ALERT:

When my pants are on fire, it takes a big hose to put the fire out.

Thank you. You've been a beautiful audience.

Author: the cat came back
Date:   03-30-09 17:21

BTW, I like the new color scheme.

Author: dan z
Date:   03-30-09 17:34

Leslee, are we to understand that your pants are extremely large, therefore creating a large fire, thus the need of a large hose? Ha ha ha ha ha, funnnnyyyy!!!!!!

Author: leslee
Date:   03-30-09 17:36

No. Small pants. Just like a big hose, that's all

Author: dan z
Date:   03-30-09 17:42

I see, you meant that you are an extremely horny lady.

Author: Sapphire Savvy
Date:   04-01-09 17:07

I would never have voted for this idiot. If for no other reason than the fact that he won't even make his own birth certificate publicly available. HOW many states are suing him now?

Author: Liza B.
Date:   04-01-09 18:07

Many wingnuts with too much free time are still insisting there is no birth certificate, but that has been debunked over the past few months countless times and, in fact, the Supreme Court threw out the case. Obama's birth certificate has been proven to be legit by several sources. The link includes a photo of it.

From FactCheck.org:

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."

Obama: Born in the USA:

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

Author: Patrick Edwards
Date:   04-02-09 12:08

Yeah, I like that politifact site.

Author: Sapphire Savvy
Date:   04-02-09 15:48

Oh, gee, trust a site run by Obama's payroll. Speaking of wingnuts.

Author: Liza B.
Date:   04-02-09 16:28

That's ridiculous.

About FactCheck.org
Our Mission:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

Brooks Jackson, Director, Annenberg Political Fact Check:

Brooks Jackson is a journalist who covered Washington and national politics for 34 years, reporting in turn for The Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and CNN. At CNN he pioneered the "adwatch" and "factcheck" form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements starting with the presidential election of 1992. His investigative reporting for The AP and the Journal won several national awards. He is the author of three books: "Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process" (Knopf, 1988); "Broken Promise: Why the Federal Election Commission Failed" (Twentieth Century Fund, 1990); and "unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation" with Kathleen Hall Jamieson (Random House, 2007).

Author: the cat came back
Date:   04-02-09 17:03

Factcheck is well-known for its left-leaning slant.

Go, Savvy!

Author: Sapphire Savvy
Date:   04-03-09 14:32

ROFL, Cat. I hope you're being serious, not sarcastic!

Patrick, everybody--websites, TV stations, magazines, newspapers--are really just people with jobs. People get paid by *somebody*, no matter how neutral they want to appear. I am sorry, I have seen them "fudge" a lot of Obama statements, despite their claim of being a fact-checker. A person really has to look at a lot of different sources to get info these days.

Author: Liza B.
Date:   04-03-09 14:45

ROFL! It's so pathetic that even in the fact of massive amounts of legal proof that debunk their ridiculous claims, the wingnuts and racists can't get past their hatred of the African-American in the White House and keep trying to delegitimize his Presidency. Barack said it best: "I won." Deal with it.

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

Author: the cat came back
Date:   04-03-09 15:52

ROFL, Cat. I hope you're being serious, not sarcastic!

Absolutely, I'm being serious, my darling. You rockl!

Look at this:

ROFL! It's so pathetic that even in the fact of massive amounts of legal proof that debunk their ridiculous claims, the wingnuts and racists can't get past their hatred of the African-American in the White House and keep trying to delegitimize his Presidency.

Anyone who doesn't do the Obama mamba is a wingnut and a racist!

Barack said it best: "I won." Deal with it.

We all do, each in our own way.

:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Author: the cat came back
Date:   04-03-09 15:52

Oops, that should be:

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Author: the cat came back
Date:   04-03-09 15:53

Yes, that's much better.

Author: Patrick Edwards
Date:   04-03-09 17:21

Sapphire Savvy said: Patrick, everybody--websites, TV stations, magazines, newspapers--are really just people with jobs. People get paid by *somebody*, no matter how neutral they want to appear. I am sorry, I have seen them "fudge" a lot of Obama statements, despite their claim of being a fact-checker. A person really has to look at a lot of different sources to get info these days.

Never said it would be my major source of news :) I just said I like the site. Shoot, I kinda like Ann Coulter, but I don't accept everything she says (I take it in to my insides, douse it with what I already think I know, find more stuff to add to the mix, then spit out something extremely unintelligent. See current paragraph for example).

Author: the cat came back
Date:   04-03-09 21:32

Coulter certainly shows grace under fire.

Author: Sapphire Savvy
Date:   04-06-09 17:57

No, sure, Patrick. I wasn't trying to imply I thought it was your major source of news, by any means. Just that every source needs checking.

Why Liza has a problem with that....whatever.

Cat....smoochies!! :D

Author: the cat came back
Date:   04-06-09 19:29

Why Liza has a problem with that....whatever.

Too long a sentence. "Liza has a problem." Much better.

Cat....smoochies!! :D

Purrrrrrrrrrr.