Journal Timex's Journal: The honeymoon is over 29
An interesting op-ed piece at Der Spiegel gives an opinion that does not seem to be isolated.
I'm left to wonder what Obama did to piss off his speech writer(s).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The honeymoon is over
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?
Heh (Score:2, Troll)
I predicted this. Yesterday I heard some leftist pundit saying, Obama became President because of moments like this, this is where he shines, blah blah blah. My response was: yeah, he can give a good speech when he doesn't have to worry about facts and reality. It won't work this time.
And that's exactly what happened.
Not that I am some great prognosticator ... all you have to do is listen to his speeches over the past few years somewhat critically, and you know that he is all flash and no bang.
The honeymoon is over? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Captain, I am not quite sure I follow you.
My feeling is the speech was grey, because the situation is not black or white.
And Der Spiegel, being Germanic, is very much into black or white. Due to the verb being at the end of the sentence, don't you know. Like other Germanic thinkers, don't you know.
So are you saying Main Stream Media (MSM) is impatient with gray, complexity, an absense of sound bites?
I notice how so many media streams seem to think the withdrawal is promised to be complete by July 2011. E
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad to see someone buy in to the MSM's bullshit.
No, anyone that buys into the MSM's BS is doing all they can to lick Obama's boots.
Anyone that buys into the MSM's whims buys into the idea that Obama has "proven himself" to be a natural-born American citizen, despite the fact that the only document he has provided as "proof" isn't enough to get a Federally-issued passport.
Anyone that buys into the crap the MSM spews is willing to gloss over the fact that Obama has spent (to date) almost $2 million in legal fees, trying to make sure his school records stay
Re: (Score:2)
Independents? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Anyone that buys into the MSM's whims buys into the idea that Obama has "proven himself" to be a natural-born American citizen, despite the fact that the only document he has provided as "proof" isn't enough to get a Federally-issued passport.
Oh, fuck me FAIL. Nice to know the Supreme Court's not good enough for you.
Anyone that buys into the crap t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fuck me FAIL. Nice to know the Supreme Court's not good enough for you.
Get your head out of darker regions and use it for what it was intended. What did the SCotUS SAY when they heard the case? As I recall, every court that has thrown-out or dismissed the cases brought before them about Obama refused to hear the case because they felt the plaintiffs didn't have standing. Not one case brought before any court at this writing was decided on the evidence, because the cases didn't get that far. Don't tell me that the cases were fairly heard, because they weren't. They never
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't. Cases thrown out or not heard are a dime a dozen, and are a part of the legal process. Tough cookies your pet issue didn't make the cut.
Just because you don't give a flip about Obama's "qualifications" doesn't mean that others don't
Doens't make any more relevant. He was elected. Get over it and kick his as in 2012. The point is you're whiny babies, focusing, like the MSM, on trivialities.
I'll even go so far as to say that you really
Borat Obama - Change you can't believe in (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/240382 [slashdot.org]
The increase in troops is a direct contradiction to his campaign promises. The support of Wall Street on the backs of the people is a betrayal of trust. He will find some reason not to run for re-election, or there's going to be one hell of a fight to dump him as a toxic asset. People have long memories.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Nope. Afghanistan's the "Good War", and Obama pledged support for it on the campaign trail. [boston.com] Now, if he doesn't pull out of Iraq in the next twelve months, have at him, but this surge is in direct line with what he promised in '08. Congrats on getting hoodwinked by the latest right-wing concern troll meme.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
Contrast that to this [washingtonpost.com]:
Having 50,000 troops in Iraq after the "withdrawal" is not "nearly all".
Re: (Score:2)
The increase in troops is a direct contradiction to his campaign promises.
You seem surprised. Obama is a politician, after all. I expected nothing short of a long list of broken promises.
The support of Wall Street on the backs of the people is a betrayal of trust.
Many in the US have been saying this since Day One, but we've just been shouted-down as "Birthers", "nut cases", and worse. I won't say "I told you so", but I will gladly point people to Matthew 24:25. :D
He will find some reason not to run for re-election,...
IF he makes it that far, we'll see...
...or there's going to be one hell of a fight to dump him as a toxic asset.
That's already in the works. Refer to my previous comment regarding being shouted-down.
People have long memories.
Lies. There's something "magical" about the American voting booth
Re: (Score:2)
Hi: Thanks for responding.
For me, this has nothing to do with the birth certificates or the death camps arguments and everything to do with the last 40 years of US politics producing a lot of trashy leaders. Kennedy and Clinton couldn't keep their dicks in their pants, Nixon and Reagan catered to big business rather than the voters' interests, Bush #2 and Obama were druggies ... where DO you get these people? I know *anyone* can be president, but do you have to take it so literally? :-)
Maybe we're luc
Re: (Score:2)
For me, this has nothing to do with the birth certificates or the death camps arguments and everything to do with the last 40 years of US politics producing a lot of trashy leaders. Kennedy and Clinton couldn't keep their dicks in their pants, Nixon and Reagan catered to big business rather than the voters' interests, Bush #2 and Obama were druggies ... where DO you get these people? I know *anyone* can be president, but do you have to take it so literally? :-)
I would argue that the "anyone can be president" belief hasn't held true for at LEAST 30 years. Look at everyone that has held Congressional office lately: they all are affluent, generally richer than most of their constituents, and presidential candidates seem to be WAY "richer" than the average American. I understand that campaigns are paid for by donations, but donations only come to those that can afford to get their name "out there", you know? In the end, that pretty much rules out the possibility o
Re: (Score:2)
The increase in troops is a direct contradiction to his campaign promises. The support of Wall Street on the backs of the people is a betrayal of trust.
I told everyone before the election that Obama would not be significantly different on foreign policy, especially on Iraq; that if he was different on Afghanistan it would only be in significant increases in troops; that he would not do anything significant on most of the things he was promising.
Leftists told me I was crazy. Shrug.
Unfortunately, I also said he would drastically increase spending and government control over businesses and the economy, for no tangible benefit and significant tangible loss, a
Re: (Score:2)
You're certainly right - Obama is a major disappointment. The big question isn't how to apportion blame between Bush and Obama (no matter what Obama apologists will say - because Obama has to take responsibility for the decisions he's made), but "what the heck can be done to fix this - if anything?"
Do you think that anything *can* be done to fix this in the next couple of years, short of a massive uprising (btw - saw an article this morning about Goldman-Sachs employees doing a run on gunshops because th
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that anything *can* be done to fix this in the next couple of years, short of a massive uprising
Get an actually conservative Congress -- as opposed to the one that controlled most of the Bush years -- that will cut spending, cut government power, restore fiscal sanity, protect our rights, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is "how?" Up here, we elected liberals who were fiscal conservatives, and managed to turn things around, because successive governments knew that if they screwed up, they wouldn't last through their full mandate. In the US, once you're elected, you're basically "king" for the next 4 years -
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is "how?"
How do you cut spending once elected, or how do you get conservatives elected?
In the US, once you're elected, you're basically "king" for the next 4 years
Not in Congress.
The disregard of people's constitutional rights and the diversion of funds to special interests ("too big to fail", etc) shown by both the current and previous administration shows that neither party is likely (or even able) to do the right thing.
Your analysis is a bit flawed. The majority of Republicans in the House voted against TARP, even under Bush. Not saying the GOP is perfect -- obviously -- but it's better than the Dems, IF the GOP puts actual conservatives up for election.
Which is why I am pushing hard for my local county councilman to run for Congress. He is one of the best, principles, intelligent, fiscal conservatives I've known.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the hw, I'd say both - how do you get people who say they're going to be proper trustees of the people's resources elected, and how do you keep them from changing their minds and putting their noses into the trough and catering to the PACs and special interests afterwards? I'd say the elimination of PACs, and limits on campaign financing, would be a good start.
And then there's the whole "electronic records will fix the waste of $$$ in health care" boondoggle coming down the road - the latest study u
Re: (Score:2)
For the hw, I'd say both - how do you get people who say they're going to be proper trustees of the people's resources elected, and how do you keep them from changing their minds and putting their noses into the trough and catering to the PACs and special interests afterwards?
Well, for starters, we get John Koster to run, and then get him elected. But that's still only one of 435. :-)
I'd say the elimination of PACs, and limits on campaign financing, would be a good start.
You cannot eliminate the right to band together to push for political action. That's a strongly guaranteed right in the Constitution, and I'd say, a human right. That's all a PAC is.
You may want to limit some of the acitivities of PACs, but ... eh. I think a better solution is FEWER limits, but MORE (and more immediate) reporting.
And then there's the whole "electronic records will fix the waste of $$$ in health care" boondoggle coming down the road
Yeah. Electronic records are great if you start from them, but mo
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at Kosters bio - what he's saying about "you can't spend your way out of debt" resonates. As does his warnings about this being the gretest heist in history - that if you *could* spend your way out of debt, why not give it to the people directly (which makes sense, since it's the taxpayer who's on the hook for it) ... I think you're right - he'll probably win.
We have one advantage up here - we're quick to kick people out when they piss us off. We've reduced the ruling party from the largest maj
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at Kosters bio - what he's saying about "you can't spend your way out of debt" resonates. As does his warnings about this being the gretest heist in history - that if you *could* spend your way out of debt, why not give it to the people directly (which makes sense, since it's the taxpayer who's on the hook for it) ... I think you're right - he'll probably win.
He has a chance. I've known him for several years, and one thing I love about him is that you know when he says stuff like that, he means it, and he acts on it.
Some liberal the other day attacked him for something in the voter pamphlet in 2000 ... he said:
Re: (Score:2)
Our PM Harper is also from a fundie background, and he's taken flack from some of the more extreme who say that he's not being true by refusing to let his religious beliefs influence government policy - he obviously understands that if you want to remain in power, you have to realiz
Re: (Score:2)
he obviously understands that if you want to remain in power, you have to realize that your personal beliefs are just that - personal - and that you can't use the political process for religious proselytizing
Sure, but on the other hand, if your religion influences you to believe slavery is wrong, most people wouldn't say you should keep that view "personal." Abortion is similar.
That said, you shouldn't force it on a country that won't accept it. Lincoln would not force abolition on the country, and only freed the slaves after the South seceded.
Of course up here being openly anti-gay, rather than just saying that for yourself, you don't "get it", is the kiss of death for most politicians up here
"Anti-gay" is just the term liberals use for people who aren't pro-gay. Most people on the right simply don't want to grant SPECIAL rights to gays (e.g., we have only c
Re: (Score:2)
The big question isn't how to apportion blame between Bush and Obama (no matter what Obama apologists will say - because Obama has to take responsibility for the decisions he's made), but "what the heck can be done to fix this - if anything?"
Let's not forget Congress. They have a certain amount of responsibility, apportioned them by the Constitution. Yes, the president signs bills sent to him, but Congress has to write the bill, and they have the ability to override a VETO.
Re: (Score:2)
So turf them all out. And keep doing it until you get a congress that responds to the will of the people, regardless of party affiliation. People up here vote across party lines all the time - we call it "vote parking" for a reason :-)
I could never understand the "I'm voting $PARTY_AFFILIATION because that's what I am, and my $PARENT was, yadda yadda yadda." Maybe everyone needs to say "I'm independent - you want my vote? Earn it!"
If the vast majority were independents, politics would be different,
Re: (Score:2)
So turf them all out. And keep doing it until you get a congress that responds to the will of the people, regardless of party affiliation. People up here vote across party lines all the time - we call it "vote parking" for a reason :-)
By law, no more than a third of Congress is up for election/re-election in a given cycle, which is two years. In theory, it would take three cycles (six years) to replace all members of Congress.
I could never understand the "I'm voting $PARTY_AFFILIATION because that's what I am, and my $PARENT was, yadda yadda yadda." Maybe everyone needs to say "I'm independent - you want my vote? Earn it!"
I have to agree with you here. Voting "the party line" is, in my opinion, rather ignorant. It's one thing to vote with a party because it happens to be stumping what you think should happen. It's something else altogether different to vote with a party simply because "that's what was always done"... Myself, I v