He will freeze his White House senior staff pay at current levels to the full extent allowed by law ... The President and his staff recognize that in these austere times, everyone must do more with less, and the White House is no exception.
In the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel, the President, first, prohibits executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists. Second, he closes the revolving door that allows government officials to move to and from private sector jobs in ways that give that sector undue influence over government. Third, he requires that government hiring be based upon qualifications, competence and experience, not political connections.
the President instructs all members of his administration to operate under principles of openness, transparency and of engaging citizens with their government. To implement these principles and make them concrete, the Memorandum on Transparency instructs three senior officials to produce an Open Government Directive within 120 days directing specific actions to implement the principles in the Memorandum. And the Memorandum on FOIA instructs the Attorney General to in that same time period issue new guidelines to the government implementing those same principles of openness and transparency in the FOIA context.
This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
On January 22 2009 07:47 Scorch wrote: That Obama guy seems kinda dedicated. He won't have much to do during his second term if he keeps this tempo up.
Most of the activist and politicaly painful decisions MUST come at the beginning of the administration, as they usually lead to a loss of voters. Politicians always spend last months before re election on populist moves.
And whats more, the world is changing so fast and business cycles are getting deeper again that the economical and political leader will always have a lot to do
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
On January 22 2009 07:29 oneofthem wrote: what's wrong with receiving gifts from rich people with money to spend.
It's a problem also known as "bribing".
Good work Obama! I for one am excited to see what else he is going to accomplish.
On the topic of bribery, does anyone know were bribery is illegal in the world? I heard China does not allow bribery, and if so, are there other countries that do not welcome the practice?
On January 22 2009 08:28 ilovehnk wrote: start with north korea, then middle east....
Nah i think start with america first, then worry about fucking up other nations. A new puppet government can be installed in North Korea any time, don't worry about that.
On January 22 2009 09:26 Divinek wrote: I dont really get what the last two are saying exactly. Could someone put it in layman english please? Thanks.
The first one will create a memorandum that mandates transparency in the government. Basically it helps the regular citizens be informed, and be involved in politics. An "open government" has more citizen involvement.
The second one disallows people who aren't the president from acting like the president. Under Bush Dick Cheney and the Chief of Staff had too much power, so this will prevent things like that from happening.
On January 22 2009 07:29 oneofthem wrote: what's wrong with receiving gifts from rich people with money to spend.
they've done studies
even when the person receiving the gift is both aware that they might be affected in judgement by the gift and resolves not to be affected, it still affects their judgement
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
....are you complaining that Obama did not do away with the entirety of the Supreme Court-verified power of executive privilege? Do you even know what executive privilege is? Besides, if you had read the article, you would have seen that the order
also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Personally, I think these are great moves. I'm always in support of adding transparency and accountability, limiting any executive power, and diminishing the power of lobbyists.
I also have no doubt that within the week he will order the DEA to stop shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries in states that have medical marijuana laws.
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
Yeah it's a really good idea to throw all your power away during an economic crisis so you can't do anything about it.
On January 22 2009 09:26 Divinek wrote: I dont really get what the last two are saying exactly. Could someone put it in layman english please? Thanks.
The first one will create a memorandum that mandates transparency in the government. Basically it helps the regular citizens be informed, and be involved in politics. An "open government" has more citizen involvement.
It doesn't mandate anything. FOIA already exists for that purpose and Bush created executive orders to block its usage on the Executive branch. The rules for transparency exist. The rule to bypass those rules exists. Obama needs to repeal rule #2.
On January 22 2009 09:26 Divinek wrote: I dont really get what the last two are saying exactly. Could someone put it in layman english please? Thanks.
The first one will create a memorandum that mandates transparency in the government. Basically it helps the regular citizens be informed, and be involved in politics. An "open government" has more citizen involvement.
It doesn't mandate anything. FOIA already exists for that purpose and Bush created executive orders to block its usage on the Executive branch. The rules for transparency exist. The rule to bypass those rules exists. Obama needs to repeal rule #2.
It's probably going to end up in legislature with X amount of clauses protecting and encouraging transparency and oversight.
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
you're an idiot
no you are
Edit: Didn't mean that, of course: just making the point that childish name-calling is pretty much a waste of time
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
you're an idiot
no you are
Edit: Didn't mean that, of course: just making the point that childish name-calling is pretty much a waste of time
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
....are you complaining that Obama did not do away with the entirety of the Supreme Court-verified power of executive privilege? Do you even know what executive privilege is? Besides, if you had read the article, you would have seen that the order
also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Well about your second point, when I read the article I assumed that that referred to claims made by others besides the President again, but on second look, I suppose I didn't have a good reason for that assumption.
Re your first point, I'm not complaining about anything: just saying essentially the same thing that Jibba did in the post immediately below mine: limiting his own powers would show integrity; this--maybe it's good, maybe not, but it's not something I'm particularly impressed by.
Arguments can be made for and against executive privilege. You yourself said that you're in favor of transparency, yet in the case of the President, you're for executive privilege at the expense of transparency. It's debatable in the case of the President and it's debatable in the case of any other member of the executive branch. Precedents (even Supreme Court precedents) can be and are rewritten all the time--in fact, that's exactly what Obama has just done. As I say, I have no opinion on the actual order here, it just seems like a flashy bit of beginning-of-term power-flexing that costs Obama nothing personally. Nothing to swoon over.
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
you're an idiot
no you are
Edit: Didn't mean that, of course: just making the point that childish name-calling is pretty much a waste of time
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits.
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits.
1. Obama has never even implied that he will take a lax stance on terrorism. Is the rejection of the Bush Doctrine, and the dismissal of torture, preemptive invasion, and refusal of diplomacy isn't a weak stance. His stance against terrorism is stronger than Pres. Bush's do to the fact that Bush essentially ignored the central network of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and various other terrorist networks in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan for oil money in Iraq. 1.5. Establishing your dominance in the world is part of a philosophy that is fading in the post-nationalist era. Citizens in first-world nations are becoming increasingly aware of global issues rather than state issue, and the idea of a global nation is starting to be framed. Whether or not this occurs in a global state is anyone's guess, but I would say it won't be long before the United Nations has a lot more power. 2. Regulation isn't the problem, bad regulation is the problem. Bi-partisanship has consistently led to bad economic policy, not socialist/democratic economics. Congress didn't push the banks to begin giving out bad loans; it was the deregulation that allowed them to, further proving the point that deregulation doesn't work in America. 3. Blame the Republican majority congress, regressive tax, and the Reaganite philosophy of public policy for our economic situation. 4. Is the affirmative action reference a pun?
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits.
On January 22 2009 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make").
....are you complaining that Obama did not do away with the entirety of the Supreme Court-verified power of executive privilege? Do you even know what executive privilege is? Besides, if you had read the article, you would have seen that the order
also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.
Well about your second point, when I read the article I assumed that that referred to claims made by others besides the President again, but on second look, I suppose I didn't have a good reason for that assumption.
Re your first point, I'm not complaining about anything: just saying essentially the same thing that Jibba did in the post immediately below mine: limiting his own powers would show integrity; this--maybe it's good, maybe not, but it's not something I'm particularly impressed by.
Arguments can be made for and against executive privilege. You yourself said that you're in favor of transparency, yet in the case of the President, you're for executive privilege at the expense of transparency. It's debatable in the case of the President and it's debatable in the case of any other member of the executive branch. Precedents (even Supreme Court precedents) can be and are rewritten all the time--in fact, that's exactly what Obama has just done. As I say, I have no opinion on the actual order here, it just seems like a flashy bit of beginning-of-term power-flexing that costs Obama nothing personally. Nothing to swoon over.
But limiting executive privilege to only himself DOES limit Obama's power by limiting the power of his administration. Even more dangerous than the President gaining some power is the entire Executive branch gaining too much power. This is because any power that the Presidents close friends and political allies have will undoubtedly be used to support him. This has happened repeatedly in the past 8 years, and has been a major factor in creating the least Constitutionally restrained presidential administration in modern history. To call limiting the power of the Executive branch "power-flexing that costs Obama nothing personally" is to ignore the political reality that any administration wishing to take unfair advantage of executive power will be able to gain that power by working together.
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits.
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits.
lol
because deregulation + neocon economics had nothing to do with this
you forget it was a republican who invented voodoo economics
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
I hope you're not referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, because there have been no valid empirical claims that the CRA caused the economic crisis. For one, the subprime mortage crisis was NOT caused in urban settings where the CRA was designed to be put to use (to prevent discrimmination). In addition, "the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks" [source]. Even Alan Greenspan admits that the economic crisis was caused by the Republicans' favorite word: "deregulation".
On January 22 2009 12:34 SmoKing2012 wrote: lol how noble of him to do that after spending $150+ mil of taxpayer money on his inauguration ceremony. Moar change plz!
Wake me when he legalizes weed..
It also happened to have the largest number of attendees in American history by far, and they let anyone that wanted to attend, attend. So they made some money out of it, although it probably didn't cover the costs at all.
Secondly, would you really lash out against your lap dog?
Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed
i think obama will do good things for your country
i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience
Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush.
On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
ahahadha
I really hope no one gives you a serious response
you don't deserve one
Really? Or is it that you cannot refute what is simply fact? Barakoli is going to be the biggest let down since the sub prime loans went bust.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
ahahadha
I really hope no one gives you a serious response
you don't deserve one
Really? Or is it that you cannot refute what is simply fact? Barakoli is going to be the biggest let down since the sub prime loans went bust.
Okay. I was willing to let it slide the first time you said this in the inauguration thread. And the second time you said it in this thread. But really, the word "barakoli" is not NEARLY clever enough to be used THREE times. If the only way you can express your political views is through infantile portmanteaus coupling the President's name with a vegetable, feel free to stop by the nearest elementary or middle school, where you can "debate" with intellectual elders whose level of knowledge will be closer to your own. But don't waste space in this thread, where people with different viewpoints are willing to have a reasonable discussion.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
Rahm Emanuel talked to Blagojevich on the phone once, therefore he is irrefutably involved in the scandal.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
Rahm Emanuel talked to Blagojevich on the phone once, therefore he is irrefutably involved in the scandal.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
Rahm Emanuel talked to Blagojevich on the phone once, therefore he is irrefutably involved in the scandal.
Ok, I already knew this. They talked about the senate appointments which makes perfect sense since Rahm Emnauel and Barack Obama obviously have a huge vested interest in the appointments.
It would be illogical for him not to converse with Blagojevich about the senate appointments.
Thanks for the pretentious one-liner and link to an article I've read versions of in about 4 different newspapers though. It really opened my eyes.
So your saying that it is ok that one of baraks top officials was involved "Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat."
That is ok with you? Personally i don't believe so. The fact that the chief of staff is buddy buddy with this blagojevich says alot.
Change we can believe in? no. Stop kidding yourself. It's barak and Clinton's people in the cabinet. We have hillary, and bill richardson so far. Clinton 2.0 imo
On January 22 2009 16:56 Misrah wrote: So your saying that it is ok that one of baraks top officials was involved "Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat."
That is ok with you? Personally i don't believe so. The fact that the chief of staff is buddy buddy with this blagojevich says alot.
Change we can believe in? no. Stop kidding yourself. It's barak and Clinton's people in the cabinet. We have hillary, and bill richardson so far. Clinton 2.0 imo
No, it's not ok for him to be involved in the scandal. Luckily there is 0 reasonable evidence he was, so you can move on now. Assuming everyone who talked to him about anything is involved in the "conspiracy" is ridiculous, especially considering that Rahm Emanuel is the chief of staff and really has no choice but to discuss senate appointments with Blagojevich, as well as Patterson, and any governor. Nothing shady about it at all.
Ok, he chose experienced and credible democrats who worked under Clinton, so what? Otherwise he'd be dipping into the Carter administration and he'd have to go to the graveyard to find his Secretaries. 2 people does not signify the return of an old administration. You could say this about any president.
He's also brought a lot of fresh faces to the table, and some experienced ones. That's a smart thing to do.
Your saying that Clinton was a "good" president? I disagree entirely.
While the current financial crisis can really start back in the conception of fannie and freddy mack- Clinton was a prime catalyst in creating the financial meltdown (along with some really outrageous leveraging by some investment banks). Sub prime loans... Anyway im sure you know the whole story about the "great society" and all of that stuff the recent democratic presidents always try and push through government. So in light of all this, you deem Clinton successful?
I disagree. Clinton failed, and his "economic gain" was mealy the spin of of what Regan had salvaged out of the 1982 recession.
Basically, IMO barak brings nothing new to the table. He has ZERO experience, ZERO ideas, he is a good orator, but simply his ideas- especially his more grandiose idea of "universal health care" are all talk- and frankly a poor idea at best. For example: Barak said that to cover the defecate that universal health care will cause the US tax payers, he can save 80Billion by switching the medical files all from paper to digital. basically he is going to change everything to computers, and magically save "80 billion" In reality quite the contrary is true: Switching to computers is not going to save any money, in fact it is probably going to cost more money, and cause more medical catastrophe. (source is from times, from some medical journal: i will find it for you)
Basically my whole problem with barak is this:
more taxes.
I don't want to give more to the government, hell i already give enough. America should be outraged, at the amount of money we give the government now. yet barak is going for more? Universal health care is a joke. His fix for the economy is a joke. He is promising for more public works programs, like fixing our highway system ext. to help bring us out of the recession. Do you know what strikes me as funny? FDR did the EXACT SAME THING during the great depression, and guess what? It failed.
So i don't get it? Why does everyone like the guy? Is it because he is black? Because the media tells you to? Because Colbert and Anderson cooper love the guy? Is it because he can speak well? Is it because "lets jump on the I HATE BUSH BANDWAGON?"
Doc: "Ok, he chose experienced and credible democrats who worked under Clinton, so what?" Misrah: "Your saying that Clinton was a "good" president? I disagree entirely." Doc: "Ok, he chose experienced and credible democrats who worked under Clinton, so what?" Misrah: "Your saying that Clinton was a "good" president? I disagree entirely."
misrah you are like the dumbest person in the entire world
On January 22 2009 17:39 Misrah wrote: Basically, IMO barak brings nothing new to the table. He has ZERO experience, ZERO ideas, he is a good orator, but simply his ideas- especially his more grandiose idea of "universal health care" are all talk- and frankly a poor idea at best.
First of all, spelling Barack's name correctly would make you appear less incompetent. Obama has lots and lots of ideas, certainly more than Bush before him. Some good, some bad of course.
As for universal health care, wouldn't you like to be cared for even if you were poor? America is very backward in many social matters, but let me tell you that public health care is certainly not a poor idea. Survival of the fittest does not constitute a good society system.
For example: Barak said that to cover the defecate that universal health care will cause the US tax payers, he can save 80Billion by switching the medical files all from paper to digital. basically he is going to change everything to computers, and magically save "80 billion" In reality quite the contrary is true: Switching to computers is not going to save any money, in fact it is probably going to cost more money, and cause more medical catastrophe. (source is from times, from some medical journal: i will find it for you)
I have no idea if 80 billion is a realistic number, but it's quite obvious that running records digitally is by far more efficient. Of course the transition costs much, but a lot can be saved long-term. We haven't had a medical catastrophe in Austria yet, although we use this mysterious futuristic device they call a "computer".
Basically my whole problem with barak is this:
more taxes.
I don't want to give more to the government, hell i already give enough. America should be outraged, at the amount of money we give the government now. yet barak is going for more? Universal health care is a joke. His fix for the economy is a joke. He is promising for more public works programs, like fixing our highway system ext. to help bring us out of the recession. Do you know what strikes me as funny? FDR did the EXACT SAME THING during the great depression, and guess what? It failed.
You do realize that you get something in return for your tax money? Universal health care mentioned above, infrastructure, education, retirement pensions, and - since you seem like the kind of guy to care about that - military "defense". Having people pay high taxes is a good thing, since it enables public benefits for everybody and reduces the rift between rich and poor.
So i don't get it? Why does everyone like the guy? Is it because he is black? Because the media tells you to? Because Colbert and Anderson cooper love the guy? Is it because he can speak well? Is it because "lets jump on the I HATE BUSH BANDWAGON?"
I just don't get it.
Because McCain is like a hundred years old and Clinton is a hag? Because he gives the impression of being an idealistic, charismatic leader? Because he stands for everything anti-Bush? Not to say he's a messiah, but better than the other candidates by far.
I spell baraks name because it is a sign of my respect, or lack of respect for the man. All he has done so far is talk. Talk is cheap, and until he gets his administration underway, and is a year or two in I would finally be able to make an evaluation about how he is doing in the white house. If he has done well, and America is a better place- then I am wrong. Until that happens, i will spell his name however i want.
Second: About the poor people. I will never be poor, because i have a brain and i plan to use it. My parents are not helping me with college, and yet here i am- going to college. Education is key for a successful life. That and hard work. You need nothing more.
Do i care about poor people? Yes i am going to school to be a doctor. Second, considering that universal health care is probably the worst idea ever for a nation is because of the following:
1. people are more willing to go to the doctor and use more expensive treatments because they are free.
2. costs a ton of money. Money out of my pocket, that i worked for.
3. Bigger government is never ever the answer.
4. The government may not "cover" more expensive, and or specialized treatments. So what then?
I am so glad that you socially progressive people in Austria find Government regulated health care so attractive. I will make sure to tell all of my socially backwards American friends to change up quick. Tell me how does it feel to have tons of your hard earned money swiped up by the government?
Also the transition from paper to digital- you think it will go flawlessly? Also teaching all of the medical staff at hospitals to use the new systems will also go flawlessly? You think that if those two occurrences were to occur that there would not be a significant mistakes and or blunders? Your an optimist i give you that.
Something in return for my tax money? OK lets take a look at your list:
Health care: I will be able to afford it later in life. Until then, i am thankful that my father has a health care insurance plan from his job- that still covers me for a few more years- after that it is a risk i am willing to take.
Infrastructure: Yes i expect to pay taxes for this. I need a road, i need electricity and sewer pipes. (however you could make the argument that privatizing these amenities could be more cost efficient.)
Education: Public schools? Are you joking? Public schools are terrible, compared to private schools. (Hell barak believes this as well. His kids are attending a really snazzy private prep school)
Retirement pensions? wtf? Save money yourself. If your smart enough to put money away and save and invest properly, all should be well. Social security is funny- because by the time i am that old- it isn't going to be around.
Military: I don't condone the military, and i find it hilariously funny that America spends so much of my money on bombs- when they could be doing so much more useful things, like perfecting solar power, or going towards cancer research. So no, i am not that type.
So mccain is "like a hundred years old and Clinton is a hag?" What are you talking about? Typical media dogma. Also that hag is now our secretary of state. "Gives the impression of being an idealistic, charismatic leader." I would like you to take notice :Gives the impression is very important. He has done nothing but talk.
And no- he is not the best candidate. Ron Paul was.
I spell baraks name because it is a sign of my respect, or lack of respect for the man. All he has done so far is talk. Talk is cheap, and until he gets his administration underway, and is a year or two in I would finally be able to make an evaluation about how he is doing in the white house. If he has done well, and America is a better place- then I am wrong. Until that happens, i will spell his name however i want.
Do what you want then, Missrat. Now that was mature, wasn't it?
Second: About the poor people. I will never be poor, because i have a brain and i plan to use it. My parents are not helping me with college, and yet here i am- going to college. Education is key for a successful life. That and hard work. You need nothing more.
Good for you. What about people who aren't blessed with a brain? Or those who have one but their company needs to close down?
Do i care about poor people? Yes i am going to school to be a doctor. Second, considering that universal health care is probably the worst idea ever for a nation is because of the following:
1. people are more willing to go to the doctor and use more expensive treatments because they are free.
Maybe a bit, yes. But hardly anyone takes (or gets) an unneeded treatment just for the hell of it.
2. costs a ton of money. Money out of my pocket, that i worked for.
Other people's money too, if that makes you feel better. Everybody pays, and everybody gains. Also, it would cost money to get a treatment privately too. The total sum would probably be more or less the same.
3. Bigger government is never ever the answer.
One government, or managements of a hundred health companies?
4. The government may not "cover" more expensive, and or specialized treatments. So what then?
You pay the difference yourself, just like you would pay more for an expensive treatment in a private system.
That article is of low quality, incredibly polemic and biased, just look at the first sentence. Arguments can be found against each of the points, although I'm too lazy to write that down (Easy way out, I know, but it's really a lot of work). Point 12 makes for a good laugh by the way
I am so glad that you socially progressive people in Austria find Government regulated health care so attractive. I will make sure to tell all of my socially backwards American friends to change up quick. Tell me how does it feel to have tons of your hard earned money swiped up by the government?
I shouldn't have said backward, I apologize. I don't mind paying taxes at all. I'd even like to increase the percentage very rich people have to pay since they'll still have lots of money anyway. I'm not a communist by the way.
Also the transition from paper to digital- you think it will go flawlessly? Also teaching all of the medical staff at hospitals to use the new systems will also go flawlessly? You think that if those two occurrences were to occur that there would not be a significant mistakes and or blunders? Your an optimist i give you that.
I already acknowledged there would be problems and high costs for the transition. The long-term savings should easily make up for that though. I'm sure you're not going to write records on paper in 200 years, so the transition has to be made sometime anyway.
Something in return for my tax money? OK lets take a look at your list:
Health care: I will be able to afford it later in life. Until then, i am thankful that my father has a health care insurance plan from his job- that still covers me for a few more years- after that it is a risk i am willing to take.
You're an optimist, I give you that If you wanna gamble without an insurance, that's cheaper of course.
Infrastructure: Yes i expect to pay taxes for this. I need a road, i need electricity and sewer pipes. (however you could make the argument that privatizing these amenities could be more cost efficient.)
Good luck when the largest private sewer company goes bancrupt, or the Chinese buy the most important power companies and turn off the light at will.
Education: Public schools? Are you joking? Public schools are terrible, compared to private schools. (Hell barak believes this as well. His kids are attending a really snazzy private prep school)
Might US public schools be terrible due to a lack of funding? Public schools are the norm in Europe, and I consider myself adequately educated. So why can't it work in America?
Retirement pensions? wtf? Save money yourself. If your smart enough to put money away and save and invest properly, all should be well. Social security is funny- because by the time i am that old- it isn't going to be around.
What about the people who couldn't afford to save money? Should they starve when they are old? Or people who are to stupid to save? Our system forces you to save, they take it away from your loan directly (if you earn enough). You are free to save privately on top of that if you can afford to.
Military: I don't condone the military, and i find it hilariously funny that America spends so much of my money on bombs- when they could be doing so much more useful things, like perfecting solar power, or going towards cancer research. So no, i am not that type.
Good to hear, I agree.
So mccain is "like a hundred years old and Clinton is a hag?" What are you talking about? Typical media dogma. Also that hag is now our secretary of state.
McCain is definitely very old, that's not a media dogma. Plus I don't embrace his republican ideals, but that's subjective of course. Clinton stands for everything I despise in politicians: hunger for power, falseness, calculating, negative campaigning; no, I just don't like her.
"Gives the impression of being an idealistic, charismatic leader." I would like you to take notice :Gives the impression is very important. He has done nothing but talk.
I know, that's why I wrote "gives the impression". We can't say more definite things yet, but I didn't even like the impressions the other candidates gave. We'll see how things turn out.
And no- he is not the best candidate. Ron Paul was.
Let's say the best of the three candidates who ever had a serious chance.
On January 22 2009 19:33 Misrah wrote: Ron Paul was.
There we go. That's what everyone was waiting for. So let me ask you, have you ever read Road to Serfdom or Constitution of Liberty or is your super right wing bias based solely off .info websites like most Ron Paul fans?
Do what you want then, Missrat. Now that was mature, wasn't it?
I don't give a shit. I will always stand by my beliefs, call me what you like but i think that my way- is the right way.
Good for you. What about people who aren't blessed with a brain? Or those who have one but their company needs to close down?
People with out a brain? Unheard of. Also for the ones that company closes down- too bad for you. There is inherit risk in anything. It is impossible to try and reduce the risk of living through government. The only thing you can count on is yourself. Your hard work, dedication and spirit will always see you through the day.
Maybe a bit, yes. But hardly anyone takes (or gets) an unneeded treatment just for the hell of it.
So what it should never be there in the first place. Also it is so prevalent that there is actually a medical condition knows as Münchausen syndrome which describes exactly what you are saying.
Other people's money too, if that makes you feel better. Everybody pays, and everybody gains. Also, it would cost money to get a treatment privately too. The total sum would probably be more or less the same.
Socialism has never worked, and will never work. Communism will also fail. Until the world can function at a resource base economy- capitalism is the way to go. America> Austria. And no- i don't care about the money, i care about people that expect things given to them in life. Life is hard, unfair- and biased. To hell with that. If you belive in yourself and put your mind to it and work- anything is possible.
Might US public schools be terrible due to a lack of funding? Public schools are the norm in Europe, and I consider myself adequately educated. So why can't it work in America?
yes and no. No amount of money will make teachers teach better. It is the education system inherent that is the down fall. Private schools have more progressive curriculum- and don't have to deal with the "no child left behind shit- or teachers union." The system is inherently flawed.
What about the people who couldn't afford to save money? Should they starve when they are old? Or people who are to stupid to save? Our system forces you to save, they take it away from your loan directly (if you earn enough). You are free to save privately on top of that if you can afford to.
I don't have an answer to all of the problems. But there are programs for people like this. Also when people are old- they have family to look after them. I work in a nursing home, and i see what happens when families don't look after their grandparents. It's sad. For people that are too stupid? They need to wake up. Taking from you directly? You can have your bank do that for you- and place it in a saving's account. Problem solved. So really if you are stupid, don't have a work ethic and don't have any skill, you fail. As you should.
Good to hear, I agree.
Out of curiosity- how do you feel about nuclear power?
McCain is definitely very old, that's not a media dogma. Plus I don't embrace his republican ideals, but that's subjective of course. Clinton stands for everything I despise in politicians: hunger for power, falseness, calculating, negative campaigning; no, I just don't like her.
That is fine that you don't like him. But don't like the man because of his ideas- not because of his age. As for Clinton, i despise her as well. But she is our new secretary of state. woo hoo. I hate billary.
I know, that's why I wrote "gives the impression". We can't say more definite things yet, but I didn't even like the impressions the other candidates gave. We'll see how things turn out.
That is the problem. The "impression" the candidates give us is so filtered during the race for president- that you can never tell what they will do in office. It's politics. And scummy politicians.
Let's say the best of the three candidates who ever had a serious chance.
Even so you always have to try, and fight!
Scorch i respect you, and your ideas. But
I think that life should be about what you earn, and what you do while you are on this rock. It's your life, your spirit, vs the world. Make of it what you will. I know for a fact that things go wrong, but hey you can always try and make the best of it. That is why i hate communism and socialism- they give things away. I can't stand that. some things are inherent human rights- but beyond that? I believe that you are the fabricator of your own destiny, and i am sure as hell not going to let anyone leach off me. (they should be living their own lives)
So that is why i love constitutionalists- capitalists and all that jazz.
Where did you grow up, how much did your parents make and what color is your skin? My guess is that you're blind to the fact that you've already leeched off other people, and that many people do not get that luxury.
Socialism has been in place for hundreds of years. What you want is simply to pay less taxes because you think government is inherently inefficient, but society should be based on justice, not efficiency.
And how do you expect capitalism to function if the banking industry had died? Credit cards are going to burst next, and you think we should just let Citi and co. fall under? Do you have any idea what the long term consequences would be? They won't pick themselves off and do better next time, because it'll be an incredibly long time before there is a next time, meanwhile consumer spending without credit will send most businesses under.
On January 22 2009 16:56 Misrah wrote: So your saying that it is ok that one of baraks top officials was involved "Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat."
That is ok with you? Personally i don't believe so. The fact that the chief of staff is buddy buddy with this blagojevich says alot.
Change we can believe in? no. Stop kidding yourself. It's barak and Clinton's people in the cabinet. We have hillary, and bill richardson so far. Clinton 2.0 imo
LOLOLOLOL
"Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat."
ahahahahaha
I would prefer them to all be EQUALLY CLOSE TO BLAGOJEVICH
I don't have time right now to answer everything you said, so just a couple important points:
We can't find a consensus on the fundamental choice between capitalism and socialism. Let me just say that I believe it is our task to care for people who don't have as much as we do. Since people don't do that deliberately out of avarice, it is the government's task to force them. In first world countries, there is enough money for us all to live, it's all just a matter of how to distribute it. It is ok that some people have more than others, but enough is enough. When one makes twenty million, ten thousand people lose. This time of financial crises is an unlucky moment to deem unbounded capitalism the ultimate solution to all problems, as you basically do When things don't work out, bankers are more than happy that there is a government to socialize losses, whereas they had their private winnings earlier. I believe pure communism cannot work either, because humans are to greedy by nature for that to work. There has to be a middle ground. I find many of your views on social topics disturbingly cold-hearted. When people fail in life, it is often not their fault. Not everybody who is poor is a lazy moron. A country's social system needs to care for everybody. Yes, there are a few people who abuse this privilege, but I say this sacrifice must be made for the benefit of the many who really need the help. Well maybe I'm too idealistic for my own good
As for nuclear power: i have ambivalent views. In Austria, we had a referendum in the 1970s against nuclear power, so you basically inherit a good portion of skepticism when you grow up here. There are undoubtedly huge dangers with nuclear power. When something goes boom, shit hits the fan big time. On the other hand, it is indeed a cheap and clean source of energy. But when we get so much energy "for free" by nature (sun, wind, tides, rivers), why shouldn't we use that energy instead? It is basically a tradeoff between money and safety. For me, nuclear power ranks in front of coal, gas etc., but behind renewable clean energies.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
Rahm Emanuel talked to Blagojevich on the phone once, therefore he is irrefutably involved in the scandal.
On January 22 2009 14:43 Misrah wrote: Jeez what the media will do lately to help bring about the "profound greatness that is Barakoli"
Also about his new flurry of activity, and this anti corruption shit. His CHIEF OF STAFF (Rahm Emanuel) is also caught up in the whole Blagojevich fiasco. Stopping corruption? LOL The last i recall the FBI was going to do something with him, however- now that he is one of barakoli's boys i doubt anything will be done. I cannot believe that barakoli is the new pres. The guy that has never had one of his senate comity bills passed to the senate floor- is now our commander and chief.
Soon we will have government funded health care, which will be more of a quagmire.
I am so frustrated right now.
Rahm Emanuel talked to Blagojevich on the phone once, therefore he is irrefutably involved in the scandal.
On January 22 2009 14:41 EsX_Raptor wrote: bla bla bla boring discussions about politics -.-zZzZz
(no offence)
You'll grow up to a fine democratic citizen one day.
Yeah coming from a communist Venezuela... I don't know what the hell you all call Democracy.
Oh I figured you were one of those idiots who put something like Venezuela as their country to be cheeky. Sorry, in that case I get it.
:/ how awkward
I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be saying who is from where.
Just because my English seems so retardedly good doesn't neccesarily imply I'm not from Venezuela (Spanish is my first language)
Or do you want me to give you some real proof? Oh wait, I don't think you understand a single Spanish word whatsoever, that won't work.
I was actually feeling some kind of sympathy towards you for the fact that your hispanic friend passed away, but seeing how retarded you can get about shit you don't even know just tells me how much you're still stuck in 7th grade.
That's it, I won't lower my level any further, do not reply as it will be of no use.
On January 22 2009 12:34 SmoKing2012 wrote: lol how noble of him to do that after spending $150+ mil of taxpayer money on his inauguration ceremony. Moar change plz!
Wake me when he legalizes weed..
It also happened to have the largest number of attendees in American history by far, and they let anyone that wanted to attend, attend. So they made some money out of it, although it probably didn't cover the costs at all.
They made about $45 mil through contributions, the other $100 mil plus was taxpayer money. Money that could've been spent feeding poor people, or given back to the consumers it was taken from (something that would actually help the economy).
Secondly, would you really lash out against your lap dog?
On January 22 2009 14:41 EsX_Raptor wrote: bla bla bla boring discussions about politics -.-zZzZz
(no offence)
You'll grow up to a fine democratic citizen one day.
Yeah coming from a communist Venezuela... I don't know what the hell you all call Democracy.
Oh I figured you were one of those idiots who put something like Venezuela as their country to be cheeky. Sorry, in that case I get it.
:/ how awkward
I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be saying who is from where.
Just because my English seems so retardedly good doesn't neccesarily imply I'm not from Venezuela (Spanish is my first language)
Or do you want me to give you some real proof? Oh wait, I don't think you understand a single Spanish word whatsoever, that won't work.
I was actually feeling some kind of sympathy towards you for the fact that your hispanic friend passed away, but seeing how retarded you can get about shit you don't even know just tells me how much you're still stuck in 7th grade.
That's it, I won't lower my level any further, do not reply as it will be of no use.
Fuck, there are a lot of people who do that I figured it wouldn't be too ridiculous if you did too. I'm not asking for proof, I don't even care.
I'm not telling you where you're from, I just figured you were like a lot of people who choose a non-western country to be cheeky. That doesn't make me an immature idiot, or a retard. Why the fuck are you so offended? I'm really surprised you're flaming me at all, you have no reason to be upset.
On January 23 2009 02:26 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Oh I figured you were one of those idiots
Please note that I wasn't the one who started the flame towards you.
Just because you encounter 3 zergs in a row @ iccup doesn't mean there's a zerg revolution or something going on. Same thing with those people you mention that "choose their countries" for their own benefit.
And yes, you're right about something, I'm very flammable; need to control that -.-
However, I did not choose to be Venezuelan you know, and since I grew up in such a trash pit (politically) I have developed a negative view towards politics in general.
So bear with me on that and you can trust I'll chill out a bit XD
On January 23 2009 02:26 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Oh I figured you were one of those idiots
Please note that I wasn't the one who started the flame towards you.
Just because you encounter 3 zergs in a row @ iccup doesn't mean there's a zerg revolution or something going on. Same thing with those people you mention that "choose their countries" for their own benefit.
And yes, you're right about something, I'm very flammable; need to control that -.-
However, I did not choose to be Venezuelan you know, and since I grew up in such a trash pit (politically) I have developed a negative view towards politics in general.
So bear with me on that and you can trust I'll chill out a bit XD
No, I know but this has happened a lot particularly on TL.net so it wasn't too far-fetched.
I don't think there is anything wrong with being Venezuelan, and I totally understand your view towards politics because of it. I'd hate to start shit/make enemies over something this silly.
On January 22 2009 07:28 KingofHearts wrote: he's osama saddom huseein
-sigh- what a bunch of xenophobic assholes ban?
Don't you think you assholes should judge a man by "the content of his character" not his name? It's assholes like you who piss and moan about our current economic status, blaming the president while they are doing their best to do what is right. Presidents are only one small bit of the American federal government. idiot, this comment is so immature its ridiculous
On January 22 2009 12:34 SmoKing2012 wrote: lol how noble of him to do that after spending $150+ mil of taxpayer money on his inauguration ceremony. Moar change plz!
Wake me when he legalizes weed..
It also happened to have the largest number of attendees in American history by far, and they let anyone that wanted to attend, attend. So they made some money out of it, although it probably didn't cover the costs at all.
Secondly, would you really lash out against your lap dog?
Is that official? I know it wasn't watched by the most people. More people watched Reagan's inauguration and the population was smaller then.
'course Reagan was a lot more popular than Obama is.
EDIT: Holy smokes, it was expensive:
"President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993."
On January 22 2009 12:34 SmoKing2012 wrote: lol how noble of him to do that after spending $150+ mil of taxpayer money on his inauguration ceremony. Moar change plz!
Wake me when he legalizes weed..
It also happened to have the largest number of attendees in American history by far, and they let anyone that wanted to attend, attend. So they made some money out of it, although it probably didn't cover the costs at all.
Secondly, would you really lash out against your lap dog?
Is that official? I know it wasn't watched by the most people. More people watched Reagan's inauguration and the population was smaller then.
'course Reagan was a lot more popular than Obama is.
EDIT: Holy smokes, it was expensive:
"President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993."
I think the amount spent is absolutely ridiculous, but I will say that the TV ratings are irrelevant. People had 20" TVs when Reagan was president, schools/public establishments didn't have TVs and it wasn't streaming on the internet.
I will say this. I don't agree with Bush's expansion of executive authority during his 8 years. It looks like Obama is sincerely dedicated to reversing some of that and that is a very good thing.
I just wanna see if he can stand up to more liberal democratic leaders on their pet projects.
I don't have much to complain about now...but I will be here for the next 4 years so we will see...
EPT
If you wanna gamble without an insurance, that's cheaper of course.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Hammer_and_sickle.svg/414px-Hammer_and_sickle.svg.png)
