General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2157763

    Inauguration and an independents view of it

    Locked

    by jdclyde ·

    Ok, we have a new President. Some of the things I have noticed since the election.

    First, we don’t have the pathetic bickering and sabotage that we had as the Clinton Administration left office. This has been neat, orderly, and civil, even respectful.

    Second, there have not been the bickering of insane people complaining about fictitious “stealing” of the election. We had the election, someone won, someone lost, we moved on. Had Obama not come out on top, would it be the same, or would it be like the last two elections?

    Third, for the last two years, we kept hearing this was NOT an election about race, but it now seems clear this is a Presidency about race. We don’t have a half white man, we don’t have a half black man, we don’t even have a MAN, we have a black man. Is Obamas skin color really going to be the only thing I am going to hear about for the next 4 years? I hope he can get away from that and actually DO something positive.

    Fourth, feminists celebrated the advancements of women after the election, even though there were not any new female accomplishments out of the election. All offices have not only previously been held by women, but a BLACK woman. Oh yeah, Republican, so not a real woman or really black. Silly me.

    Fifth, the actual inauguration. Four years ago, Democrats called for a “somber” inauguration, and Bush spent $40 mill. We are STILL in the same war, but Obama is breaking every spending record on the major partys he is having. Where are the calls for “somber” celebration? Oh yeah, again, Democrats were calling for a Republican to do it. Doesn’t mean the same people will have the INTEGRITY to make the same call of a fellow Democrat.

    Sixth, and last for now. Schools, colleges, and even government work places were taking time out of their day to watch the inauguration. I guess I missed hearing about them doing the same for the last few?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2750012

      Did anyone hear him take the oath?

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      Where was the “great orator” we kept hearing about? You would think he would have practiced that once or twice before hand.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKsL-j7-9No&feature=related

      you can jump up to :38

      • #2750007

        The issue was

        by cmiller5400 ·

        In reply to Did anyone hear him take the oath?

        The issue was that Chief Justice Roberts screwed up the oath. He did not put “faithfully” in the correct place. Obama caught this and did not say it until Chief Justice Roberts repeated it correctly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28753348/

        (if that is what you were referring to, I can’t access youtube at work)

        • #2749672

          When you get home

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The issue was

          you can judge for yourself, right?

        • #2751444

          Obama retakes oath of office

          by cmiller5400 ·

          In reply to The issue was

          Obama was re-sworn in last night. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780417/

        • #2751432

          Heard that on the radio on the way into work

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Obama retakes oath of office

          Did you watch the video from the first time around?

          Sure, the Justice took the blame, but Obama flubbed.

          Notice even when it was repeated correctly, Obama said the original and incorrect version.

          The great orator, isn’t. Not the first time he has flubbed his lines, and is what happens when he isn’t reading a script. I expect a lot more of this to come.

        • #2751375

          Yup.

          by cmiller5400 ·

          In reply to Heard that on the radio on the way into work

          I saw that he flubbed the dub as well. Oh well, I would need several changes of shorts if I was in his position. I DON’T like crowds.

        • #2750645

          That was the way I saw it

          by shasca ·

          In reply to Heard that on the radio on the way into work

          If OB would have held his huge arrogant ego in check two more seconds and not walked all over the words,Roberts would not have had an issue with his side.

          Then Biden made Dmbas comment about it later in the day as the WH. staff was being sworn in. Once again condescending to the people they were sworn in to be serving.

          I’m nervous, very very nervous.

        • #2750625

          You folks are really nit-picking

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to That was the way I saw it

          I think he might have had a hair out of place too!

          You have to really grasp at straws to make a big deal out of this. Roberts pauses then Obama starts and Roberts spits out the rest of the first line. Obama continues to finish the first line and Roberts incorrectly starts the second.
          Obama didn’t make an issue or get upset with Roberts, he acted very cordial.

          If these are the thoughts and reflections you came away from the event with, then I feel very sorry for your mental state.

        • #2750610

          No one made a big deal out of it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You folks are really nit-picking

          but it was something that happened, and fair to make note of.

          If you look, you will find EVERY slip that Bush said, followed by ignorant hateful people saying how stupid he is.

          I did not reflect this against his intelligence, just that this is hardly the first time he has flubbed his lines.

          Maybe feeling a little hyper sensitive about this?

        • #2750598

          Sensitive are you using

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to You folks are really nit-picking

          a mirror?

          “If you look, you will find EVERY slip that Bush said, followed by ignorant hateful people saying how stupid he is.”

          This then is your new position?

          Reflect on your own posts to this thread and the partial distortions and half-truths, amongst those;
          Claiming that Reid is a member of the “win at all cost Dems”, hmmm, that would seem very Karl Rovish.

          The reflection on the Clinton to Bush changeover (after it took the Supreme Court to declare the election, either side would have been let down and from the way both campaigns operated, neither would have shown the grace our former and new President handled the transistion), but failure to mention the previous Bush to Clinton transisition. That was not a pretty sight from a party that lost a one term presidency.

          You claim to be an Independant now? I believe (perhaps wrongly) that it is more of a very right leaning conservative that was disenfranchised with his party’s candidate. Exactly what parts of the Independant platform attracts you the most?

          Least I forget, one of the strongest messages to come from this election and the current status of our Nation and the World is perhaps now should be the time to work togather for common causes and solutions to dire problems. Problems that require the strength and leadership of many people from both sides.

          Or you can sit back and claim that it is now the Dems problems. 😉

        • #2750548

          It’s not nit-picking…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You folks are really nit-picking

          Just noticing … We’re paying attention … as we should!

          We (every citizen of the United States) have the right… [b]even the obligation…[/b] to hold his feet to the fire.

          Nobody here is being unduly harsh … certainly nothing even remotely close to the Bush bashing that has taken place here in the last four years that I know of… and nobody wants him to fail…

        • #2750357

          Did anyone else notice

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to That was the way I saw it

          That his hand wasn’t on a bible for the second swearing in? In fact I didn’t see a bible anywhere near him.

          If I were a conspiracy nut, I’d think they botched the first one on purpose so Obama wouldn’t have to really swear on the bible to get sworn in.

        • #2750353

          Oh come on….

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Did anyone else notice

          If he didn’t care about the bible, why did he take the care to use the Lincoln bible.

          The bible isn’t required for the swearing in.

          James

        • #2750352

          There was no bible at the second round

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Did anyone else notice

          But with the rules in place, the oath is just a formality now, and flubbing it the first time did not invalidate anything.

          For someone with a reputation of supposing to be a great speaker, is there any wonder he would want a re-do?

        • #2750349

          The oath is always a formality

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Did anyone else notice

          It is tradition thats its a big ceremony with big attendence, but it could be done (and has been) by a notary public and a couple of witnesses.

          The reason for the redo was to prevent any court challenge at some point down the road.

          James

        • #2749327

          James….

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Did anyone else notice

          I believe he used the Lincoln bible to assist the MSM in painting him as a cross between JFK and Lincoln. All I heard for several days prior to the inauguration was all of the comparisons to Lincoln or JFK. He certainly helped perpetuate that point of view with his train trip.

          I realize that the bible isn’t required for the swearing in and never claimed it was. There was such a big deal made out of him using Lincoln’s bible that I was surprised he didn’t also use it the second time. But you know that there will be nuts out there who think it was an evil plot.

          I actually pity the guy. Because of his vagueness on so many key points, there’s no way he can accomplish everything that he’s “promised” because he left it up to the individual to determine what he was promising.

        • #2749321

          I honestly think he reveres Lincoln

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Did anyone else notice

          Because he was a war leader, because he was a great orator, because he made the emancipation proclamation, because he was from Illinois, because he had a cabinet with representation from both parties etc. The fact that Lincoln was a Republican also make him look more bi-partisan.

          James

        • #2749309

          And it doesn’t hurt

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Did anyone else notice

          to try to stand in the glow of other great men, huh James?

          The reason Kerry was trying to push himself off as the next JFK, what a joke. Kennedy was likable.

        • #2749042

          Who installed

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to The issue was

          that judge … (some salt for the wound, makes it realy flaming hence clean, oops) 😉

      • #2749615

        My biggest scare

        by shasca ·

        In reply to Did anyone hear him take the oath?

        I watch very little of the pomp and cercum..
        I watched the Fox News recap for highlights. I then checked back and caught some of the Cameos the new first couple made at the Balls.
        Their respective Body Language at each event scared the begeebuss out of me.
        We are the new owners of the world was the aura that exuded from both. I have a feeling we will not recognize our great nation in two years time once they get on a roll.

        GW always had a certain self assured posture about him also but wholly Crap not “I’m not sure we should make them bow before us quite yet” strut.

        I’m nervous very very nervous!!!

        • #2749612

          So what do you think is going to happen?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to My biggest scare

          What’s going to change in 2 years?

        • #2749593

          little by little? or just me?

          by shasca ·

          In reply to So what do you think is going to happen?

          I watched the Prayer service this mornig for about 20 mins. It to had an appearance of a Southern Baptist revival from the deep south.
          It didn’t look regal and stuffy as these type of events always have in the past It was very discocerting to me but I’m sure why it hit me that way.

          Guantanamo trials have been put on hold for 4 months. How is that a good thing for the countries security.

          OB said several times in the inaug. speech that we need to open up more and welcome the Muslim world. I don’t understand that statement either. We retaliated against those that attacked us not as a religion or nationality. The GW administration did not disdain for Muslims so what does that mean?

          I may just be paranoid but like I said I just don’t like the Body language.
          I don’t feel that I am a bigot/Racist but if that is the way these opinions seem please let me know. That would be bad if I come across that way as I would never condone it.

        • #2749581

          Not racist, but, IMHO, ill informed

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to little by little? or just me?

          Ug, the prayer service was depressing. It was long winded and pointless, but I’m not surprised, this isn’t atypical at this kind of event. Not to mention that the prayers were just rambling and more or less BORING…But, once again, not atypical.

          As for Gitmo, there is no proof Gitmo is a good or a bad thing. It would be best to give the people in Gitmo a fair trial, and let the law decide. To keep them prisoners forever is an exercise in futility. How many people are we going to arrest? Why suspend the law? If they are unlawful combatants, the law can deal with that as well.

          The Muslim world is pissed off at us, even if a little rhetoric helps bridge the gap, then so be it. I don’t see what it hurts…

          I’m not tracking on the body language thing…

        • #2749569

          ILLIN

          by shasca ·

          In reply to Not racist, but, IMHO, ill informed

          Which is the uninformed part.
          My being from Wyoming and all. You seem to be making a counter point without any points.
          Body Language is a perceptual thing. Lots of people can’t read or interpret body language. Others are experts.

        • #2749535

          Que???

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to ILLIN

          What didn’t I explain well? I’ll try to explain further or provide links for.

          As for the body language, having watch some of it, it just looks normal to me…I was hoping you could point me to something that I should look for…

          I also not once mentioned anything about Wyoming (I honestly didn’t know why you brought it up until I looked at your profile)…

        • #2749471

          So are you a qualified expert?

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to ILLIN

          I watched everything to do with the Inauguration yesterday and didn’t see anything that put me off. I kind of thought that, from a distance, Mrs. Obamas ballgown looked like it was made out of toilet paper but other than that, nothing. In fact, I thought they looked pretty cool walking hand in hand down the parade route.

          Maybe you are being a little paranoid. If you’re a body language expert, please enlighten us.

        • #2749563

          Gitmo trials

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not racist, but, IMHO, ill informed

          I don’t see where the federal courts should take over instead of the military courts. Combatants on the battle field in Iraq and Afghanistan broke no US Federal law, did they? Bringing them here for civil trials just doesn’t make sense.

          On the other hand, just locking them up forever isn’t a good choice either, and they SHOULD be brought before the military courts and hash it out one way or the other. If not guilty, drop them back where we got them, do NOT allow them into the US just because they are unwanted by where we picked them up at.

        • #2749539

          Never said Federal Courts, but…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Gitmo trials

          If they are unlawful combatants, that means that they will need a different trial than the typical military tribunal and the legalities of such are difficult…

        • #2749531

          Kangaroo Court

          by beilstwh ·

          In reply to Gitmo trials

          As an American,the use of the military courts bothers me.The rules are setup to allow hearsay and testimony obtained under torture. Also the defendant or his lawyer is not allowed to see the evidence against them and we have to take the word of the court that they are guilty. They are nothing more then kangaroo courts and should be abolished.

        • #2749511

          Kangaroo Court

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Gitmo trials

          There are always those that are quick to believe anyone else over our own government.

          I am not one of those people. What did it take to make you one?

        • #2749447

          re: kangroo Courts

          by beilstwh ·

          In reply to Gitmo trials

          Actually it was the FBI report and their refusal to participate in the trials and interrogations, which there own people labeled as torture and as useless. Because people will say what you want, not the truth when the are being tortured.

        • #2750393

          You mean this?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Gitmo trials

          http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/fbi.interrogations/index.html

          I didn’t see anything in there that qualifies as abuse.

          Sleep deprivation? Sure, why not?

          The closest to “torture” I read about was the three instances of waterboarding.

          There is a difference between something being a violation and something being against FBI policies of what they can do in the United States.

          [i]”rapport-building techniques in interviews”[/i] what a joke.

          That is the basis for trusting someone picked up on the battle field fighting against us over our government. I suspect the report only gave you an excuse for an anti Bush administration stance that was already there.

        • #2750376

          re: Kangaroo Courts

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Gitmo trials

          [i]As an American,the use of the military courts bothers me.The rules are setup to allow hearsay and testimony obtained under torture. Also the defendant or his lawyer is not allowed to see the evidence against them and we have to take the word of the court that they are guilty. They are nothing more then kangaroo courts and should be abolished. [/i]

          Many states have different rules of evidence… Some allow hearsay. Some allow surreptitious recording of conversations. Some require one person be aware of the recording. Some require ALL be aware of it. They also have differing rules of “discovery”. Them’s the breaks. It’s not supposed to be a walk in the park for the criminals. If you don’t like a particular court’s rules, don’t commit a crime under that court’s jurisdiction!

        • #2750470

          Really,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Not racist, but, IMHO, ill informed

          [i]If they are unlawful combatants, the law can deal with that as well. [/i]

          Civilian courts are tied to their territory (and a few other places… embassies, ships under flag, etc, that have been specifically defines as “territory” for the purpose)… and only have jurisdiction over crimes committed within that territory, so exactly what “law” are you referring to that “can deal with” it?

        • #2750443

          There isn’t

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Really,

          why would our CRIMINAL or CIVIL courts be set to handle what our MILITARY courts are designed to do? Answer, they aren’t.

          Non-citizens do NOT have our constitutional protections.

          Our civil/criminal court systems will be overwhelmed if enemy combatants are dumped into them.

          And there IS such a thing as national security that is to be considered. You do NOT show sources of information, as you would a criminal.

        • #2750387

          I was only questioning jurisdiction

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Really,

          [i]Non-citizens do NOT have our constitutional protections.[/i]

          I would argue that if a person is a proper defendant (meaning they are accused of committing a crime within the territory of the jurisdiction in which they would be tried) in one of our civilian courts, that they do indeed have the same constitutional protections as any other defendant.

          [i]Our civil/criminal court systems will be overwhelmed if enemy combatants are dumped into them.[/i]

          On this, we agree. Unless the crime occurred on US territory, no civilian court in the US can legally try the case. In all other instances where the US is the victim or intended victim, I believe it should be a military matter.

        • #2749558

          Muslim world

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to little by little? or just me?

          I saw it as reaching out, to re-clarify what Bush has said all along, this has NOT been a war against Islam, but crazy terrorist.

          I don’t see that as a bad thing, but I think it is insane to think that just because we have a black President willing to be nice to them, that they are going to be nice to us.

        • #2749516

          Nope

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Muslim world

          I don’t think President Obama will be any kind of a pansy or pacifist. In his speech he said, “We’re willing to extend a hand, if you first unclench your fist.”

          And truthfully, I haven’t seen any politicians (aside from the presidential race) saying that being Muslim is bad. It’s post 9/11 America that has painted all Muslims/Middle Easterners as terrorists. There’s a family of Chaldean Catholic refugees from Iraq whom I have had the pleasure of taking to mass, and on a couple of occassions to the grocery store, and I see the looks these people are getting. People hear them speaking Assyrian and assume they’re terrorists, here illegally. Um, NO, They’re political refugees. The father in this little family was working with the US Security teams in Iraq and had his leg blown off by an IUD, in which blast, he also lost his brother. The family was in Lebanon for 2 years waiting for a sponsor, to allow them to come into the US.

          My own friends, when I said I was inviting this family to our New Year’s get together asked me if they would be offended if we had ham and alcoholic beverages?!?!? Hello, THEY’RE CATHOLIC!

          It’s not the politicians that are causing the problems with MidEasterners in the US, it’s our own perceptions.

        • #2749512

          I think you might be wrong.

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Nope

          The problem really is geo-politics; and what countries have to do to each other. Ignorance exists through out the globe, and that is not the cause of the problems.

          When geo-politicking causes problems, people identify that ignorance/arrogance causes these problems. These might be annoying but are not the cause of major issues.

        • #2749501

          Bliss, please elaborate

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Nope

          As I don’t quite understand the point you are making here.

          Thanks.

        • #2749494

          I will try

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Nope

          Jesse’s post implies that some Americans are ignorant and stereotype others. And Jesse concludes that it is the people who cause the real problems.

          My view is that all the ignorance and arrogance we see out there in America exists through out the World. Well-informed and ill-informed people live everywhere. Unless these folks are involved in the foreign policy making decisions, these people do not cause the problems.

          Eventually people see or perceive one country interfering in another country’s affairs and conclude it to be good or bad. Some like it, some don’t.

        • #2749433

          I respectfully disagree

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Nope

          As a person who has had ample opportunity to form an opinion all my own, I have to say that it IS the people who cause all the race problems. Now, I’ll agree with you that it’s not just in the US of A. We do not have a patent on either stupidity or remarkable intellect, but MY only experience is of America, and Americans, so we are the only group about which I feel able to speak intelligently.

          I can only tell you from what I’ve seen, that there is a general concensus, at least in the midwest, that all middle Easterners are Muslim, and all Muslims are terrorists, neither of which are true. There are good and bad in every group, no matter their color, religion, country of origin, or sexual preference. But I don’t think it comes down to geo-politics. It comes down to each individual person, and what they believe.

        • #2749428

          I was coming from the…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Nope

          ….side that was looking at what causes global tensions.

        • #2751579

          Crazy Terrorist.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Muslim world

          If you really want peace in the region and want to see whether it is terroristic or not, pull all troops out of the mid-east and let the Israelis and the Arabic groups/factions hash it out. Throughout history Israel never had their own land until after WWII. Shortly after the problems started. The Israelis have throughout history always been dominated by some other nation and have alway interfered in the politics of other nations.

          I do not remember which Arabic holy book states that as long as there is one gentile in the holy places fighting will continue.

          As a final kicker for you to think about, one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. As an example, think Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Now think about all the terroristic actions, as we define it today, that the U.S. has started or been involved in. When you lack weapons or face a very large force, you use what tactics you can – think the “Art of War,” by Tzu Sun, the “Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho),” by Mimato Mushashi, and “The Prince,” by Nicolai Machiavelli.

        • #2751476

          Justify them if you wish

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Crazy Terrorist.

          If you think that some cowardly bastards who specifically target civilians is some kind of freedom fighter, you are beyond any range of reason to hold a rational discussion with.

        • #2750397

          Study the American revolution

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Crazy Terrorist.

          Tories (civilians who supported the King) were often run out of town on a rail or tarred and feathered – was that not terrorism? But they were called patriots in their day. Same thing happened in France, Russia, many other nations.

          The first terrorists in the modern land of Israel were the Irgun who routinely bombed both British military and civilian targets;
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing

          The man who lead the Irgun, Menachim Begin, eventually won the Nobel Prize for Peace after negotiating with Carter and Sadat. He was at that time Prime Minister of Israel.

          James

        • #2750369

          Attacking a military headquarters is terrrorism?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Crazy Terrorist.

          Who is also to blame for the decision NOT to evacuate?

          Either way, I refuse to condone indefensible behavior based upon someone 100 years ago did this or that.

          I also will not make excuses for people that target civilians, and am disgusted when people like above, try to push these bastards off as honorable freedom fighters.

          I guess the next question is, what twisted imagination thinks attacking civilians is fighting for freedom, and who are they fighting against? There is no freedom to be gained by fighting the US as we are not taking spoils of war.

        • #2750362

          King David Hotel

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Crazy Terrorist.

          The hotel was still operating as a hotel, as well as housing a few offices. So obviously the the Irgun had no regard for civilian casualties. And the Irgun were not an army, and raised money through extortion. My point was that the head of the organization was a “terrorist” at one point and a peace maker at another.

          And that wasn’t 100 years ago, it was closer to 50, and had a direct impact on why we are having problems in Gaza today.

          James

        • #2749308

          Justify?

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Crazy Terrorist.

          “If you think that some cowardly bastards who specifically target civilians is some kind of freedom fighter…”

          Now where did you come up with that being my conclusion?

          But now that you mention it:

          911 targeted things that all military forces in the world consider legitimate targets: military establishments, government seats, and symbols (WTC). There is substantial evidence that 911 is not what the government asserts. View “911 – In Plane Site,” a documentary.

          The U.S. Government attacked an island, Grenada, that did not have even a police force to defend itself. The military attacked civilians and civilian establishments to route the despised Cuban Terrorists that were: 1) only five, and 2) commissioned military consultants.

          Zimbabwe and their revolution killed out of hand many civilians.

          In WWII the United States practiced a slash and burn philosophy by ruthlessly bombing cities. Do you think there was any remorse? In war, you do what you have to. In current practices, civilians are part of the support chain of the military. Think about it.

          In Iraq, the military is complaining that they are facing unconventional tactics; in Afghanistan, the military is complaining about facing conventional tactics. Both allegedly come from the same source – the Al Quida with supposedly Bin Ladin as the leader. The U.S. trained and supplied Bin Ladin.

          I guess you know nothing about Viet Nam. Whole villages of civilians were destroyed out of hand by U.S. forces because it was asserted that those villages were either NVA or NVA supporters. Like to saw off heads with a Kbar and spike them on poles, anyone? How about the “Body Snatchers.” They would shoot the target of interest in the thigh and then detonate Claymores to destroy the escort, mostly civilians. What about using Agent Orange to defoliate? This attacked civilians.

          So save your assertions of “Justification.” It is just the way it is.

          Finally, from the day you were born you have never had a guarantee that you would live to the next minute. This renders your security null.

      • #2749576

        Actually both parties goofed

        by dadspad ·

        In reply to Did anyone hear him take the oath?

        President Obama started saying the first stanza of the oath before Chief Justice Roberts finished, and Chief Justice Roberts put faithfully in the wrong spot in that stanza of the oath.

        Actually, President Elect Obama was officially President Obama at noon on the 20th of January, slightly before the oath was taken. The 20th Amendment changed how the presidency shift of power happens.

      • #2751630

        poor

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Did anyone hear him take the oath?

        there was no pressure, it was the standard pulic address that he can be expected to make on a regular basis. There were no distractions or ambient noise.

        This definitely illustratates his poor literacy and shows just how poor a speaker he really is. Especially when stacked up against the silver tongued lingust and English scholar he just replaced.

        • #2750684

          pressure?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to poor

          this is the first time he has spoken in front of large crowds?

          This should have been a walk in the park.

        • #2750435

          Of course

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to pressure?

          I speak in front of large groups quite often, have done for years. I have no problem speaking in front of lots of people, however I think even if the crowd size was the same I would probably be a little choked up and distracted by such an event as a Presidential inauguration.

          Your judgment is weak, thin and irrelevant. If you actually think that anyone’s slip up in such a situation displays incompetence as president, you are sadly mistaken. I know you like to dig deep for such arguments, but that one is pretty bad.

        • #2750420

          You see what you want to see

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Of course

          I pointed this out to show they hypocrisy of the people that were stupid enough to think that every misspoken statement Bush did meant anything.

          But that is different, right?

          If you want to show where I have said Obama was incompetent over this or anything else, knock yourself out.

      • #2750356

        When you become president, you can practice the oath too

        by neon samurai ·

        In reply to Did anyone hear him take the oath?

        I think I’d stumble over the oath even with practice. It’s a little bigger than giving the boy-scouts oath.

        The other bit is that this really is historic. I thought it was a little heavy on the religion and race card but it’s still a huge historic step forward for your country. I don’t think even Mr. King could ever have imagined that by 2009, the US would elect a black president.

        I also hope the next four years are not about race and that the president can keep up with his inaugural speech. We’ll have to watch and see how it goes though.

        Either way, congratulations to all the US citizenry, there is reason to celebrate a little before you get back to work.

        • #2750350

          Boy scouts oath is harder

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to When you become president, you can practice the oath too

          because you don’t have someone else feeding you your lines! :p

          [b]
          On my honor
          I will do my best
          To do my duty to God
          and my country
          and to obey the Scout Law;
          To help other people at all times;
          To keep myself physically strong,
          mentally awake,
          and morally straight.

          [/b]

          B-)

        • #2750342

          Canadian version

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Boy scouts oath is harder

          On my honour
          I promise that I will do my best
          To do my duty to God and the Queen
          To help other people at all times,
          And to carry out the spirit of the Scout Law.

          Of course it was different when I was young.

          The Cub version was:
          I Promise,
          to do my best,
          to do my duty, to God and the Queen
          To keep the laws of the wolf cub pack
          and to do a good turn to someone every day.

          James

        • #2750341

          The original version

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Canadian version

          On my honour I promise that—

          I will do my duty to God and the Queen.
          I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me.
          I know the scout law, and will obey it.

        • #2749330

          Because of changes over the years

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The original version

          I did go to the Scout site to post the current version.

          I didn’t remember a few of the lines, so need to go back and check if that is what it used to be in “my time” or not.

          I DID find a whackjob site about how the scouts used to be nazis…. :0 It was pretty ignorant of reality….

        • #2749326

          The cub for me was memory

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Because of changes over the years

          Since after graduating from Boy Scouts, I became a Cub Leader. So lots and lots of practice (I can also yell Pack, Pack, Pack and get attention).

          James

        • #2749289

          if you had Beavers in there, you’d be listing my childhood

          by neon samurai ·

          In reply to Canadian version

          What can I say, there is not much to do in a small town so beavers, cubs, scouts was a popular progression.

          Actually, for anyone that it may interest, the progression used to be beavers, cubs, scouts, cadets, military back in the day. The heaviest push being from the various branches of cadets into affiliated military branches. I’d have ended up a pilot over Britain if in cadets during war time.

        • #2749226

          we start with tiger scouts

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to if you had Beavers in there, you’d be listing my childhood

          then it is the cubby monsters of bobcat, wolf, bear. Then webelos, then boy scouts.

          When I went through, there wasn’t a tigers. once i got into boy scouts, I had moved to a different section of town and couldn’t stand the people in the new pack so I quit.

        • #2749189

          that’s a much more detailed progression

          by neon samurai ·

          In reply to we start with tiger scouts

          I’ve been out of it for a long while now though I’m not surprised that it has evolved or is a different progression in other areas.

          gah.. now I have to go look up “webelos”.

        • #2748900

          ATC

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to if you had Beavers in there, you’d be listing my childhood

          When in Englans, ATC was the big draw, Air Training Corps.

          Trap jumping was cool (tethered to the wing at low altitude), but my older brother got to freefall, I was too little. 🙁

          But still had cubs, as well as ATC, ATC was something i was allowed to do to experience the future of scouting, as you say that’s where it winds up.

          In Canada, its Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, Venturers, Rovers (though Rovers are usually just leaders). got every badge and accolade i could possibly get them moved on to the next group. Sure did help me a lot later in life, I know how to take care of myself in the woods, know how to survive, developed leadership skills that will be with me forever and it was also my start in sales.

          I made sure I always outsold calendars chocolates etc on ANYTHING we were given, I would work long and hard every night and spend hours canvassing or at the Liquor Store to make as much as I could. I learned buyers are liars, before I was 9, I learned how to charm a close, I knew how to tag and remember people going in the liquor store and catch them on the way out, “Okay you said you’d have change on the way out, so is it one for $2 or are you going to take the 2 for $4 deal?” For a 4′ tall, 60lb munchkin, I still knew how to get what I wanted, plus the British accent helped.

          Yeah, I was a cocky kid too. 🙂 I took advantage of people’s weakness for cute kids, but always won fair and square.

          Other kids would pi$$ me off though, they’d go home and give mom their chocolates(or whatever) they had to sell and she’d take them to work and sell them to friends.

          I’d be door to door over MILES of neighbourhood, at several liquor stores for hours and hours repeatedly for weeks, and I’d sell heaps of stuff, cases of cookies, calendars etc., all for the good of the pack of course, and then get so pissed that these lazy losers got to go camping too when they did f-all to earn it.

        • #2749290

          starting each tuesday night with the oath helped too

          by neon samurai ·

          In reply to Boy scouts oath is harder

          I’m surprised I remember back that far to be honest. Practiced in a group, repeated at the start of each scout night.

        • #2748906

          16+ years

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Boy scouts oath is harder

          Started in Cubs worked my way to Senior Sixer (and KEO, asst, BEaver leader), then moved on to Scouts made my way to Chief Scout (Same as US Queens Scout)and was Keo for Beavers and Chill (Asst cub leader)then on to Venturer’s (worked through to Queen’s Venturer)and was Akela (pack leader) for cubs, still worked with Beavers and was an assistant scout leader.

          Always participated in the most active groups, no sitting around meeting halls and playing games, it was outdoors most of the time and plenty of camping/outdoors skills (even beavers, 5-7yrs, were overnight tenters).

          After 14 years and far too many uniforms to keep changing, I had to pack it in due to work.

          The beaver promise was always the most daunting though, “Work had and help you family and friends”.

          As a fully grown adult that is a daunting task, god bless any 5 year old kid who has to live up to those expectations, what about being a kid for Christ’s sake!

          At 5yrs old you are expected work hard AND help your family and friends?

          I see scouting now and it saddens me, you can’t give kids knives and axes and show them how to build camps by themselves anymore, they don’t even like kids sleeping in tents in most places (SAD!). They are co-ed, leaving nothing for Scouts to sneak out and cross to the Girl Guide camps for, kids that come home are now clean and look like they stayed at the Radisson for the weekend. I remember getting home from camp so dirty and physically beaten, mum would put me STRAIGHT into the tub for a long soak while she went through my backpack full of just about anything a 9 year old kid could find outdoors in the woods and deem neato.

          If you take kids home in that state these days, you will end up in a courtoom due to overly protective, pansy parents who want their boys to grow up in a phony world full of rainbows and lollipops. Scouting has fallen apart, sadly, and I see no attraction anymore nor any reason to send your kids other than to get them out of your hair once a week, sad.

        • #2748879

          And because everyone is a pervert

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to 16+ years

          EVERY meeting has to have at LEAST two adults at all times. Don’t have second adult, meeting canceled for the week.

          I never accepted it legitimate for girls to be in the boy scouts. They had their own exclusive group to run as they saw fit. Agreed about the co-ed, now you have to have TWICE as many parents, twice the ISOLATED sleeping accommodations and bathrooms, as well as a place to blowdry hair and do makeup….. Hello?

          It is sad how kids can’t cope with the real world because the only world they have ever known is TV and video games.

        • #2748790

          sleeping accommodations and bathrooms

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And because everyone is a pervert

          Damn that’s not camping!

          When I was in scouts, Venturers (ages 15-17) were co-ed, which was pretty neat. I was at a Scout leaders camp, as a Venturer, and met a girl I dated for over a year. She was a hottie and lived 30 minutes from my place (by bike of course), don’t know why we ever broke up, or if we actually broke up or simply stopped calling each other or whatever you do as a kid, but she was awesome!

          Co-ed Venturer’s was something to look forward to as a pubescent Boy Scout, Venturers and women!!! We had been chasign Girl Scouts for years but now they were right there!! Not too many though, just the odd crew with a girl or two in it that was usually the leaders daughter or someone’s sister (Venturer’s have ‘crews’ as opposed to Scouts having ‘troops’).

          I remember going to the World Jamboree in Kanaskis Alberta in ’83, where our troop hosted a troop from Austria, they had female Austrian scouts, MAN WHAT A HOOT!!! Really, REALLY cute, blonde girls, half a world away from home, with a soft, sexy accent to boot…phew, I’ll just leave it at that then.

        • #2748778

          The problem with chasing the cute girls

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to sleeping accommodations and bathrooms

          after you catch them….. 😀

          Camping. These days, it always amazes me that such a majority of people think camping includes sleeping in an air conditioned RV. 🙁

          Where I go, there is no running water or electricity, and each camp site is separated.

          My plan for this summer, got my boys geeked on the idea of a canoeing/camping trip. Three days and Two nights on the river.

        • #2748720

          That’s the bordeline for me

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to sleeping accommodations and bathrooms

          If there is an ‘area’ where you camp, that’s about as public as I will go and only on occasion. ‘Campsites’ are not for me, camping in the bush, making your own site etc. is what I am all about.

          As for other campers, if I am within 6 miles of another groupd of people, I have not gone far enough out of town and will fire up the truck and keep going.

          I do the odd weekend with a friend that has a campervan, but he still gets it into the middle of nowhere as it is a 4X4 van. he doesn’t crash in his van though, always pitches a tent and just uses the van as storage, stove, dry spot in torrential rains etc.

          I do have it pretty easy though, living in BC leaves a billion spots you can completely disappear to in no time. If there is any person in charge, such a a park ranger or just someone you have to pay for a spot in the dirt, forget it, I am outta there real fast.

    • #2749663

      Since the political parties pays for the inaugural festivities

      by nicknielsen ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      Let them spend their money the way they wish.

      I don’t believe that the money the government spends on the inauguration itself is significantly more than the amount spent preparing for any other public appearance by the President.

      Your items one and two are quite closely related in the minds of many Democrats. I’ve spoken with many self-avowed “dedicated Democrats” who appear to believe that the issue in your item two justified the behavior in your item one. Items three and four were created by the media because anything more in-depth would exceed the capabilities of most modern reporters…and a good many of their readers.

      As for the taking time out, I know that when I was teaching, every civics class (and a good many other classes) in the school district watched both the 2000 and 2004 inaugurations. I don’t think it was a big thing then and I don’t think it would have been that big a thing this time either if the media were capable of something more intelligent than pandering to the “historic occasion” clamor.

      edit: slpel

      • #2749644

        Money the party is spending

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Since the political parties pays for the inaugural festivities

        It was the PARTY that was crying for a somber performance the last time around because we were at war. STILL at war, and that same party is spending over 4 times as much.

        Hypocrites.

        Point one and two, only one political party can maturely handle themselves after an election? That is the loud and clear message that has been sent.

        There was NOT the same indoctrination in the schools When Bush won the last two times around. My boys GEOMETRY class went into the auditorium where they had it projected up on the big screen. It isn’t just the civics classes.

        • #2749438

          Good. They got to see history being made.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Money the party is spending

          I remember back in elementary school, a long time ago, when the entire student body got to sit cross-legged in the halls and watch the astronauts go into space on black and white TVs. It was a big thing and having an African-American as President is a big thing. Geometry will always be there. There’s only one chance to see a historical event as it happens. If it was my kids I’d be glad they got to see it.

        • #2751470

          Right

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Good. They got to see history being made.

          so the election was/is about race. That is what I thought.

        • #2751431

          You can make out of it whatever you want.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Right

          Mainstream media is feeding the masses the African-American angle. For the most part, I think, the voters are the ones who’ve made the Presidency about race and you know damn well that it would’ve been about women if Hillary had been nominated and won.

          If you watched much TV you may have noticed that there seems to be more African-Americans getting airtime than ever before. It doesn’t bother me but I’m positive it bothers some racist pigs that I know. Makes me laugh.

          Racism, in any form, is not pretty. Why do you care that it is presented by MSM as being about race?

        • #2751374

          Because it is stupid and insulting

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You can make out of it whatever you want.

          Consistency is a big thing with me.

          It is racist to be anti-black and go on about it. To be honest, the other side of the coin also has to be true.

          It is wrong for someone to be denied something based upon the color of their skin.

          It is wrong for someone to be granted something based upon the color of their skin.

          It degrades everything Obama says he is working for, to have real issues buried while everyone gushes over our first black. It distracts from things at matter and effect EVERYONE.

          I will take your word about the black air time, and can say, I don’t miss TV at all, especially since we got our xbox360 back and got Gears of War2 for Christmas. B-)

          The racist gits are going nuts about Obama being in there, aren’t they? 😀 I am glad that I don’t personally know that many like that. It allows me to pretend that it is a rare mental disorder and not the norm. B-)

        • #2749110

          I have to agree.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Because it is stupid and insulting

          After all, I did say that racism, in any form, is not pretty.

          I’d like to see MSM quit putting their spin on everything and just report the news. That’ll probably never happen.

        • #2749065

          if it’s still all about racial background in three months, you can comlpain

          by neon samurai ·

          In reply to Because it is stupid and insulting

          Since it’s only three days in, sit back and let those that want to gush have a few minutes. if it continues to be about racial background in a month when the honeymoon stage ends then I’ll be right beside you expressing disappointment.

        • #2749043

          I keep it to myself

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Because it is stupid and insulting

          Some things are just more important to some than others, so let people enjoy it.

          Did you see the mess the pigs made of Washington Square? I thought it was the caring Democrats that cared about pollution and the environment?

          Not real happy what I am hearing about Obama’s planned tax system. We already have over 1/3rd of our citizens that pay zero federal taxes, and he wants to make it over 1/2? Gee, what will that do for the country when over half of the voters pay NOTHING in taxes? It will make it so a major voting block won’t CARE about how high taxes get for people that work for a living.

        • #2748947

          They might…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because it is stupid and insulting

          [i]It will make it so a major voting block won’t CARE about how high taxes get for people that work for a living. [/i]

          when it gets passed down to them in the form of higher prices.

          That’s the whole thing from that side… further widen the distinction between the classes. “But it’ll be OK… We’ll take care of you…. give you what (we think) you need.”

        • #2749072

          we set up two viewing areas for the staff at work

          by neon samurai ·

          In reply to Good. They got to see history being made.

          half the office crowded in front of the presentation projector on a spare wall while the other half squeezed in around one of the workstations. Even for us outsiders, it was a historic even to see.

        • #2749357

          And this surprises you because?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Money the party is spending

          [i]It was the PARTY that was crying for a somber performance the last time around because we were at war. STILL at war, and that same party is spending over 4 times as much.

          Hypocrites.[/i]

          On points one and two, I said only that some people thought it was justified and should have made clear that I disagree with that point of view.

          And how did we get from just taking time off to watch the inauguration to it being indoctrination? Like OnTheRopes, I remember being in school and having the entire school gathered in the cafeteria to watch TV during significant events. I can remember the Kennedy assassination, Presidential inaugurations, the launches of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft, and, of course, the World Series every year.

          When I was teaching, we watched the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, 9/11, the Iraq invasion, and other events on classroom television. Most of these “time-outs” were approved by administrators at the request of the history/civics teachers.

        • #2751473

          how we got from one to the other

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And this surprises you because?

          Just like last year when the SCIENCE teacher was forcing her class to watch AlGores slideshow. There are parts that have been shown to be completely inaccurate, yet the show was still being put out as fact, without any discussion or correcting of the known inaccuracies.

          When I contacted the instructor, (and CC’d the Principle) I made it clear I didn’t mind them watching this show, but especially in a science class, they had an obligation to set the record straight. Her response was they are trying to teach the kids to think for themselves and they would discuss the topics in a few months.

          I stated this was unacceptable, because as instructors, they are put in a position as authorities on the topics they are allegedly teaching, and to knowingly pass out misinformation was not credible.

          Rather than take the time to set the record straight, they stopped watching it.

          I have seen many issues first hand, in the schools, and in college, where this is very common, and not just from retards indoctrinating civics classes.

      • #2749572

        It’s all about the message…

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Since the political parties pays for the inaugural festivities

        [i]Since the political parties pays for the inaugural festivities Let them spend their money the way they wish.[/i]

        … not about the amount of money spent, and they sent the little people a BIG message… that “we’re the elite, you’re not, therefore we’re more important and we’ll do whatever we want”. It’s clear that they have no respect for the people who put them where they are. The sad thing is, the same thing would have happened no matter who had won the election.

        • #2749564

          You’ve obviously not seen yet

          by jessie ·

          In reply to It’s all about the message…

          that President Barack Obama’s first act as President is to seperate lobbyists from government, if you’re going from a government job to a lobbyist job, you cannot lobby on the same issue you were pushing in the government, and if you’re a lobbyist and want to work for the government, you cannot have been a lobbyist in the past two years before taking a government job.

          He also put a freeze on all salaries over 100,000 for White House staff, including himself.

          Elitist? Really?

        • #2749497

          Are you getting a freeze?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You’ve obviously not seen yet

          I’m not… between cuts and furloughs I’m losing over a third! It’s OK though… I’ve been seeing this coming for quite awhile and have planned ahead.

        • #2749448

          Nope, not frozen.

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Are you getting a freeze?

          I’d prefer a freeze to seeing my friends or myself get laid off yet again. I think the politicians have to start somewhere, and saying nobody gets a pay raise while the budget is in such disrepair is a good place to start.

        • #2749338

          Personally

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Nope, not frozen.

          I think the pay of government officials should be tied directly to the median wage of the people they represent. Ten times it for the president, and work down from there. Then the better off we are, the better off they are.

        • #2750602

          I think that could work.

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Personally

    • #2749630

      View from another Independent

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      1) This was a good thing and about damn time. McCain had probably the best concession speech in modern history. McCain helped in defusing a lot of the crap, so kudos to him.

      2) See 1.

      3) Gads, the media. Let’s see, where do I start? The media has about as much depth in reporting as a puddle. They can’t get past race because that would mean they actually have to report something.

      As an American, I voted for Obama, not because of race, but because of policy, the last 8 years, and the poor choice of Sarah Palin.

      4) I haven’t heard this, but I’d chalk it up to the media. Rice was the first black female to hold the Secretary of State position, which is huge. If we are still racist (as the closing prayer with the crap of “I’m hoping for the day when black won’t be asked to get back. When brown can stick around. When the yellow man can be mellow, man. When the red man can get ahead, man. And when white will do right.”) then explain to me Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Obama…

      5) I chalk that up to the numbers. Look at the attendance, it was around 2 million people…With that in mind, it was stupid expensive, but it’s SOP for the government.

      6) I think because this was a historic inauguration. It is the first minority in the office the President, so that’s a pretty big deal. I remember taking time to watch the Challenger take off (and explode) when I was in school or watching the beginnings of the Gulf War in school or watching various political topics on CSPAN in college…

      Oh and the Hannity/Limbaugh trip that all colleges are liberal havens is crap. While there ARE colleges that are left leaning, for the most part they are agnostic and typically in the real programs (read not Liberal Arts, Art Appreciation, etc) it is normal to be moderate to conservative (esp Engineering or Physics)

      • #2749608

        I saw it as a good thing

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to View from another Independent

        to see an end of the sour grapes politics from the last two elections (HATE). I was hoping that Republicans would show themselves to be better than that, and they did.

        I would love to see Democrats be able to behave that way next time around, but time will tell.

        I did not vote for Obama, but I didn’t vote for McCain either. Both had to many horrible ideals for me to even consider either, and I refused to vote for “lesser evil”.

        As for liberal on college, I have seen a lot of it first hand, from different campuses. It is also rabid at the K-12 level.

        Lately though, I have been finding out that there are a lot more racist people in America than I had thought even a year ago. 🙁

        • #2749598

          Racism is just louder now….

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I saw it as a good thing

          I don’t think there are more racists, they are just more vocal. The fact that Obama 52% of the popular vote (to 46% for McCain) shows that the majority of Americans are not racist and voted for who we thought the best man for the job was.

          With that being said, I have seen an uptick in slurs and racially motivated posting on various message boards. I actually say a VERY racial slur against Obama in on a popular news site (it was taken down about 1 hour later). I’m not sure if it’s going to continue for a long time, but I have a feeling it’ll run out of steam in 6 months or so…

        • #2749551

          Loud and clear

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Racism is just louder now….

          And I disagree. A lot of that 52% WAS racist. Stats show blacks typically voted 6 to 1 Democrat, but this time it was more like 30 to 1. He got a lot of votes because he was black, to get the First Black President, more than because of his positions.

          As for the slurs, my boy told me of a few around school. One of the boys said he wanted to watch the inauguration because he wanted to watch the president get shot. What a stupid thing for someone to say. It makes me sad that such stupidity is coming out in the open, because I REALLY didn’t believe so much still existed. More the fool, I, huh? 🙁

        • #2749420

          I expect comments like that from some people I know.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Loud and clear

          I just hope that the Secret Service is paranoid enough to keep our President safe. There are a LOT of nutcases out there. I know some who are borderline psychos too. What would it take to drive them over the edge? Who knows?

        • #2751619

          I’m not big on prayer but that’s one thing I pray [i]does not[/i] happen!!!

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to I expect comments like that from some people I know.

          Regardless of what [i]you[/i] expect of Obama and whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat; the expectations of this man are beyond the realm of reason. There are those who think that the only reason he hasn’t walked on water yet, is that he doesn’t want to get his shoes wet. He is the first one to acknowledge that the expectations are too high and tries to damp things down. How long people will be patient with him and give him a chance, is anybody’s guess but given the economic times, he has a very tough row to hoe. Let’s hope he’ll be given a fair chance to demonstrate his abilities and capabilities and that the kooks and crazies are kept at bay and as far away as possible.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #2751464

          Exactly

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I’m not big on prayer but that’s one thing I pray [i]does not[/i] happen!!!

          Although he is already building in the excuse for his failure, and that is blame Bush.

          Demonstrate his abilities and capabilities. Yes, it would be nice for him to start showing if he has any. He has done nothing to justify the cult following he has other than make a few speeches and have a black father.

          It was stupid when people were saying it about Bush, and it is stupid to say it about Obama.

          An assassination would also stop him from falling on his face. I hope he will succeed in a fashion, because it is in the best interests of this country and all of it’s allies for her to do well. If he tried to turn America into the land of free milk and honey, I hope he fails miserably.

        • #2750382

          JD you are so naive…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I’m not big on prayer but that’s one thing I pray [i]does not[/i] happen!!!

          Every new leader gets to blame the old administration during the honeymoon. Thats not new, and every party does it.

          The trick is the point where you stop using that excuse.

          I’ve heard it used 2 terms later.

          James

        • #2751461

          They HAVE to be

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I expect comments like that from some people I know.

          I don’t think anyone doesn’t think there some people that are insane enough to want to kill him because of his being part black.

          What a dumb reason to hate.

        • #2751384

          Even my MIL uses the “N” word. She’s ignorant.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to They HAVE to be

          I have tons of reasons for not liking people, being part black is not one of them. I still have a problem with the Japanese but I’m working on it.

        • #2751352

          My buds dad is like that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to They HAVE to be

          and I think new years eve was my boys first real exposure to open racism.

          I think there ARE a lot more racist people out there, but most know it is unacceptable, so they hide it. Some are more honest with the way they feel.

          Race isn’t a hangup for me, but stupid people really grate on my nerves. B-)

      • #2749574

        I saw it as a good thing

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to View from another Independent

        to see an end of the sour grapes politics from the last two elections (HATE). I was hoping that Republicans would show themselves to be better than that, and they did.

        I would love to see Democrats be able to behave that way next time around, but time will tell.

        I did not vote for Obama, but I didn’t vote for McCain either. Both had to many horrible ideals for me to even consider either, and I refused to vote for “lesser evil”.

        As for liberal on college, I have seen a lot of it first hand, from different campuses. It is also rabid at the K-12 level.

        Lately though, I have been finding out that there are a lot more racist people in America than I had thought even a year ago. 🙁

      • #2749538

        I saw it as a good thing

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to View from another Independent

        to see an end of the sour grapes politics from the last two elections (HATE). I was hoping that Republicans would show themselves to be better than that, and they did.

        I would love to see Democrats be able to behave that way next time around, but time will tell.

        I did not vote for Obama, but I didn’t vote for McCain either. Both had to many horrible ideals for me to even consider either, and I refused to vote for “lesser evil”.

        As for liberal on college, I have seen a lot of it first hand, from different campuses. It is also rabid at the K-12 level.

        Lately though, I have been finding out that there are a lot more racist people in America than I had thought even a year ago. 🙁

        • #2749417

          Interesting timestamps for a doublepost.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I saw it as a good thing

          What’s happening?

        • #2749355

          Maybe he thought it was important?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Interesting timestamps for a doublepost.

          Or maybe he got distracted and forgot he had already posted it. I’ve done that.

        • #2751671

          posted and then went back to work

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Interesting timestamps for a doublepost.

          came back later and saw the 404, so I hit refresh. That put in the double post. Quality, huh? ;\

        • #2751379

          That explains it.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to posted and then went back to work

          I often get 404’s while posting. Quality? Where? I’ve tried to unsubscribe to the email for TR Pro that I get everyday and get to an error page when I try it. I unsubscribed to all commercial content and it took all of my subscribed discussions with it and I STILL get the fooking TR Pro email. I just now sent an email to custservice@newsletters at TR and created a filter to delete it from my mail server. I shouldn’t have to do that.

        • #2751360

          The hive

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That explains it.

          knows what is best for you and won’t allow you to do anything that could harm you in any way.

          not receiving the tr pro email could harm your delicate mental state…. :p

        • #2751349

          Getting it when I don’t want to

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to The hive

          can harm my delicate mental state too. :0

        • #2750682

          Oh you want it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The hive

          you want it BAAAADDDDD!

          You just don’t realize it, yet…. ;\

    • #2749583

      And then some

      by jessie ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      First… yeah that deal with the changeover from Clinton to GW was bad.

      Second, no insane bickering about stealing the election, except for the one gubernatorial election and it wasn’t for my governer so I’m not even sure where it was, or who won in the end… there will always be insane bickering when a race is within a few hundred votes, but who knows.

      Third, in the United States, you’re considered black if one of your great grandparents was black, making you 1/16th black, but still legally considered black. My oldest son is mixed and because of the color of his skin, he considers himself black. My younger children, just as mixed, but of lighter skin, consider themselves white. President Obama is not the one who has made any of this about race. He merely begrudgingly acknowledged that some would paint it that way. Speaking of which CNN cheesed me off yesterday when they had BowWow on as a guest to get his views on the inauguration… If we’d elected a Jewish pres I wouldn’t care about Adam Sandler’s opinion on it either.

      Fourth, a stride for any minority group is a stride for feminists. When we are ALL equals, then and only then shall we be free. My husband, a black man with a Bachelors degree has LESS earning power than me, a white woman with an Associates degree. Anything that lifts up his circumstances can’t help but be a boon to my own.

      Fifth, Did you listen to the inaugural speech? You can’t get much more somber than that. Yes, they went to 10+ inaugural balls, but you can bet that the First Lady didn’t have to buy her dress. Designers kill for the opportunity to have one of their creations get shown off that much and that well.

      Sixth, as for the schools taking time out of their day to watch the inauguration, you are aware, that this is a HUGE step for all Americans, right? We have just proved to the world that we can rise above race issues and vote in the person we truly feel is best for the job (which I do). I wasn’t fond of either candidates VP pick, but I truly do believe that President Barack Obama will be good for this country. The John McCain of eight years ago would have been good for us too, but like my mother said, “I’m tired of putting geriatrics in the White House.”

      • #2749543

        I disagree

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to And then some

        with the choice of both Obama AND McCain, and don’t agree with either of their platforms. I am HOPING that Obama does good because it is good for us. I HATE the politics that has been standard of anything that is bad for the country is good for the party our of power, which is exactly what the Democratic party has been doing. That can’t end soon enough. Wish we could do away with BOTH major party. X-(

        Discrimination/equality, as a middle age white guy, living in mostly whitebread regions, I just don’t SEE the discrimiations, but am saddened that such still exists. Sure, I used to get discriminated because I had long hair, now I am because I have no hair and am overweight, but I know it is nothing compared to what some have and still face. Hopefully, that is going away.

        As for insane bickering, look at the Minnesota election. Funny how it went from the Republican winning, and then after some questionable recounts, THOUSANDS of Franklin votes have been found? It is in the courts right now, and we will find out if there was voter fraud or not.

    • #2749565

      Let them have their day in the sun.

      by melissab ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      There’s a lot of hard work out there waiting to be done by a PRESIDENT. One who’s integrity is judged “not by the color of his skin but the content of his character.” MLKjr.

    • #2749556

      8 years

      by onbliss ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      We had 8 years of Bush bashing & supporting here at TR. Now we are going to start bashing & supporting Obama. It is like NFL, one team goes on offense until they lose the ball; then they become the defense.

      I predict interesting times at Tech Republic, good to be back here 🙂

      • #2749540

        Did I bash Obama?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to 8 years

        Is there anything in my initial post that you saw as an unfair bash on Obama?

        I see a LOT of hypocrisy by the Democratic party though.

        • #2749533

          Not you.

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Did I bash Obama?

          It was just an observation on our beloved TR. I can see it coming, don’t you 🙂

          I have not seen his speech yet, hope to catch it on the Internet. My son’s class had the opportunity to watch parts of the inauguration yesterday.

          Added: Sorry if my post implied you were bashing Obama. I did not mean to imply that.

        • #2749506

          Fair enough

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not you.

          just wanted to be sure. I tried hard to keep myself from simply attacking Obama because he is a Democrat, as has been the standard against Bush since before he ever set foot in the White House.

          You see, I am better than that. B-)

          I don’t think you will see the same kinds of hateful posts directed towards Obama as you have towards Bush, because your more liberal people tend to also be your more emotional people.

        • #2749500

          But I am sure….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          …you are going to bash Democrats, am I correct?

        • #2749487

          It is great sport

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But I am sure….

          But I have also been bashing and will continue to bash the Republicans as well. B-)

          Neither party represents me anymore, and it is sad. This was my FIRST time ever of NOT voting Republican for a national election.

          Of course all the PRO-Obama people always ASSUME that just because I bash a Dem, that I support a Rep. That is their shortcoming though, not mine.

          I recently explained it to my VERY liberal Aunt the difference in mine and her political beliefs. She believes Republicans are evil, while I believe politicians are evil. B-)

        • #2749425

          Evil. I don’t know….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to It is great sport

          …but politicians sure are in the mix of things. But we elect them, so we have to blame ourselves. And of course the media 🙂

      • #2749530

        Welcome back…long time no see…

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to 8 years

        Where you been?

        • #2749515

          Thanks…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Welcome back…long time no see…

          …just had got addicted to some non-technical websites 🙂

        • #2749509

          :0

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Thanks…

          you were cheating on us with another site?

          :p

        • #2749498

          It reminds me of….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to :0

          …a lengthy thread you had started. Hope your boys are doing all fine.

        • #2749481

          Boys are doing great

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It reminds me of….

          Not sure if you knew, but I have had full custody of them for two years now, and they rarely see their female-parental-unit.

          She is suppose to get them Christmas day, but because she now lives an hour away, last year she told them it “wasn’t worth” driving all the way into town for just the one day, and would wait for the weekend. Best Christmas present I ever got. This year worked out the same way, but she didn’t slip with the “not worth” comment this time.

          Ya know, if wasn’t for that “lengthy tread”, I don’t think I would have become attached to this site, or the people on it.

        • #2749427

          Good….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Boys are doing great

          …that things are working out for you.

        • #2749416

          [/i]. . . .if wasn’t for that “lengthy tread”[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Boys are doing great

          Hey, we’re kinda’ like family, aren’t we?

        • #2749364

          We’re like a family.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Boys are doing great

          Every family seems to have a few b******s in it. No offense meant, of course.

        • #2749365

          Taking advantage of a double-post

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Boys are doing great

          I used to have a black t-shirt with “Black Sheep” on the front of it just so’s people would know who they were dealing with. Great shirt for Cleveland-style clambakes.

        • #2751457

          Just like family

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Boys are doing great

          after all, who but a brother or sister would treat you so badly? 😀

      • #2749423

        Bush supporters versus Obama supporters

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to 8 years

        Or perhaps more accurately called, Bush bashers versus Obama bashers?

        Over the years, those on the left have displayed an almost psychopathic hatred of George W. Bush. They despised the man, and actually ranted on and on about how evil both he and his administration really were. Heck, Dick Cheney has actually been given the nickname Darth Vader – AND it was perpetuated in the media. The depth of their hatred and contempt for the man (as opposed to his policies) is seen by many (including me) as irrational at best, or downright sick at worst. And when they did try to challenge or question his policies, they presented them in such a skewed manner that it almost bordered (or did border) on dishonesty.

        The same irrationality is actually what got Barack Obama elected. What was the political platform on which He ran His campaign? It was [i]change[/i]. [i]Change[/i]? What does that mean? Every election has been about change? What made this one different, however, is that the Democratic Party political machine (and their willing accomplices in the media) successfully demonized a very good man (GWB) and painted a picture of pending doom and gloom all because of him.

        [i]Change[/i]? What does that really mean? The Obama campaign was VERY successful in being the most evasive and noncommittal in my lifetime, yet it gave all those who supported Him the [i]hope[/i] (the second political platform position) that the [i]change[/i] was actually whatever any given person thought it meant. One person obviously can’t [i]change[/i] all things for all people, yet all those who voted for [i]change[/i] seem to think so.

        I’ll never demonize Barack Obama like those who demonized George Bush. I’ll question His policy positions, to be sure, if I disagree with them – and if He ever gets around to defining what they really are, that is.

        That same blindness and irrationality displayed towards hating George Bush is what Barack Obama rode to the White House – blind and irrational [i]hope[/i] for [i]change[/i]. Talk about uninformed voters, I’ve never seen such a thing in my life. People are literally gushing over the Guy – both voters and those in the media. The way He’s idolized and praised is crazy – and He hasn’t even done anything. This is a political phenomenon unlike anything I’ve ever seen. After listening to three days of almost nonstop inauguration coverage, what everyone apparently thinks about Him can be summed up in five words – He will save the day.

        By the way, one reason these people loathed GWB was because of his [i]illegal wire tapping of Americans[/i] – I suppose they thought it was only under the guise of identifying potential terrorists – and they’ve actually called for GWB to be impeached or even arrested because of it. Nothing will change, however, and the practice will continue, but there will be nary a mention of it anymore. Moreover, if it was so bad and illegal, why didn’t President Obama issue an executive order immediately halting the program as His first presidential act? And since He has the power to stop it, but He hasn’t taken the steps to stop it, does that make Him just as guilty as President Bush? Of course not. Because behind every double standard there’s an underlying and unspoken single standard. I guess He thought that signing an insignificant order freezing the salaries of His aids was more important – most of them probably millionaires already.

        All symbolism, no substance – just like His campaign. But when the substance does start to trickle out, I’ll continue to be a voice for true liberty and freedom, and an advocate for taking personal responsibility over bigger government. I will battle in the arena of ideas, and stay out of the gutter of irrational contempt for the one individual who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. (If I can find the time, that is.)

        Let the games begin.

        P.S. Good to see you again, my friend!

        (Edited to fix a few typos.)

        • #2749411

          As usual….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Bush supporters versus Obama supporters

          …..a good quality and substantial post from you. Good to see you.

          Is Bush a good man? I don’t know. On the same token I don’t know if he is a bad man either. One of his choices which I strongly have disagreed is changing focus from Afghanistan/Pakistan to Iraq. Now we see Afghanistan/Pakistan simmering. Pakistan’s SWAT and FATA is virtually being over run by the Talibans.

          You are right, Obama got elected because people were deeply disappointed by Bush and his administration. Were all the disappointments rightly placed? Some yes, some not. In democratic elections, leaders seek to inspire people. They sway people with oratory skills and rhetoric. Obama is good; he ran his campaign well. He beat McCain, who did not run his campaign well.

          Time will tell if Obama has substance and is going to be an effective and inspirational leader. Analysts have already listed some of the tasks he has to handle – Afghanistan, Russia, Economy, Energy etc. If he manages to even control these issues, he will find history books treating him well.

          And for records, though I couldn’t vote I was a Obama supporter :-). I say ‘was’ because I was following the politics until the elections, then I took a break. I am not sure what he is up to these days. I thought he should have nominated Hillary for Secretary of Health and Human Services instead of Secretary of State. Wasn’t that her passion? Anyways….

          And I never have demonized Bush. I consider foreign policies do not stem from one individual. It is the entire system – think tanks, academia, power financial groups, business interests & politicians who all shape the country’s interests and how it reacts to World events. And to a large extent it does not matter which party controls the Congress or Presidency.

        • #2751674

          He COULDN’T give Hilary health/human services

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to As usual….

          That is kennedys, and he has senority. There was talk about it, but he went ballistic.

          Anything that Obama fails at is just going to be placed at the feet of Bush. He came in with orgasmic expectations, there is no way he can do half of what people thing he stood for.

          All from a man that has done nothing in his political life to justify the expectations.

        • #2751673

          [i] . . .from a man that has done nothing in his political life . . .[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to He COULDN’T give Hilary health/human services

          Nothing in his political life? You give him too much credit.

        • #2751670

          Sometimes. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to [i] . . .from a man that has done nothing in his political life . . .[/i]

          …..I just crack me up.

        • #2751453

          Trying to give

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to [i] . . .from a man that has done nothing in his political life . . .[/i]

          as much benefit of the doubt as I can.

          And to give him as much credit as possible, I can say, he has done NOTHING.

          Did you see they redid the oath?

        • #2751378

          Redid the oath

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Trying to give

          Yes, I did see that. Were they concerned the first one flubbed itself into invalidity?

        • #2751365

          Just to be on the safe side

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Trying to give

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780417/

          I don’t blame him, even if no one was allowed to witness the second time.

          Maybe they should have given him a teleprompter? ;\

        • #2750643

          Roberts or Obama

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Trying to give

          It was call and respond, like wedding vows – if the preacher messes up, do you blame the groom for not recovering?

          He wasn’t the first to redo the oath.

          James

        • #2751354

          Political life

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to He COULDN’T give Hilary health/human services

          He has shown to be an astute politician to take advantage of his personal story, his charisma, his oratory skills. His campaign was run well. He took advantage of the public sentiment in the country.

          A good politician, right 🙂 ?

        • #2750678

          Sure, a good sales man

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Political life

          he could sell used cars, so what? ;\

          He has accomplished nothing to show what kind of politician or leader he is or will be.

          He has accomplished nothing to make the world believe he can save us all.

        • #2750668

          Save us all….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          You are placing too big of onus on him, just like his followers 🙂 He is a politician. He his going to do some good and some bad things. He is not going to save the World or us all. If anybody thinks that, then it is their issue.

          See you are not giving him the credit 🙂 He has shown he has the characteristics. He has made promises and claims. Only time will tell if how many of them he will fulfill.

        • #2750621

          He has zero record

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          on following through on promises.

          My point all along.

        • #2750406

          He made a good start yesterday

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          The most significant was the restrictions on lobbyists. Of course that was only to White House staff, if he could do the same to congress, then he’d have made a big and lasting CHANGE. I sincerely HOPE he can.

          The Gitmo thing was interesting. Obama the pragmatist gave himself a year to sort out Gitmo, I’m sure some of his followers were expecting him to wave his wand and have it dissapear over night.

          James

        • #2750398

          That was the expectation

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          “He is going to shut down Gitmo!”

          Waiting to see what happens when all the anti-Iraq war people see he isn’t “bringing the troops home”, he is deploying them to fight a different front of the War.

          Because Obama is leading it, will HIS war be a good thing, or will ALL war still be bad?

          Now that Obama is in office, he will be responsible for us bombing villages full of women and children…. right?

        • #2750395

          All througout the campaign Obama was clear on Afghanistan

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          He said we needed more troops in Afghanistan, though he didn’t use the term surge, you know thats what he meant.

          He was very clear that he thought that Afghanistan was more important than Iraq in protecting US from terrorists.

          I don’t see any inconsistency in that at all. I do think though that the anti-Iraq war people tuend out when he started to talk about Afghanistan. The war resisters in Toronto are suggested they hope he pardons them. I HOPE he doesn’t – in theory if they return they could be shipped to Afghanistan.

          James

        • #2748892

          His war vs ALL war

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          You still show your inherent desire to dig for ANY way to discount Obama before he has even sat down at his desk. You have been trying to discount his possibility and anyone’s belief in him since mid campaign. Your bias is based on unqualified fears, and things that have not yet come to pass but exist purely in your imagination.

          HIS was is the war that Allied Troops all supported and Canadians lead the fight in today also. I think anyone in the world sees Afghanistan as necessary, well I have one friend who doesn’t but his political views (and views on just about anything else) are completely FUBAR’d.

          The war MOST people object to is Iraq, a false war sold to the people based on weak, unverified facts and unqualified accusations. Which is also a war with no game plan, no resolve and no hope nor end in sight, so many years and billions of dollars later, just as so many foresaw.
          “But no, its all part of the big plan to make the world a better place!” Sure you’ll believe anything if you believe that horsesh1t.

          HE knows very well that you left Afghanistan prematurely, that the administration had made a horrendous turn and the change in focus was an awful mistake for both the soldiers that would then go to die, the people who believed in and supported it and the people in Afghanistan that still needed full allied presence in order to stop reversion to old ways.

          Today, Afghanistan see the worst fighting it has ever seen, they are retaliating against the US occupation in Iraq as well as local Taliban fighting to retain control of their chosen regions.

          Its the worst mess ever and yet people still can’t turn an eye away from Iraq, which posed a possible yet unconfirmed threat while tens of thousands of those who actually DID attack the USA continue to plot and build up strength to attack you once again.

          Pretty f’in stupid move really. You should have stayed in Afghan and Obama knows it and will revert to the plan that was justified and effective.

        • #2748873

          Actually

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          If I understand which comment you are referring to, I was talking about the far left and the way THEY will react.

          We have had to listen to people from that far region of mental illness make the statement that we shouldn’t HAVE a military and if we were to disband the military there would be peace.

          There is a large segment that still think we deserved 911 and it was our own fault. These people will not accept more than grudgingly that Obama is not ending the war. If you actually listen to most, you get the impression our soldiers are coming home, not being sent into a different war zone.

          Yeah, that is me being anti-Obama.

        • #2748779

          Fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sure, a good sales man

          You’re right. I was talking to my friend’s brother, a few moths older than I, and he’s so far left that its laughable.

          He has some really screwed up ideas on the world and is into spirituality and all the happy things that exist in a perfect world.

          I had to shut down the conversation a few times as it was just like walking back in time or talking to someone who lived in the clouds.

          He thinks Canadian solders should not be in active combat and that they are peace keepers. Peacekeepers? Sure that’s the role they have fit for a long time, as has Germany, the US and many others who took on such roles after WWII and the Cold War.

          But he seems to not realize that Canadian solders have always been first to war, have always shown great ability in wars and have some of the world’s most advanced hardware with them that other nations love to have beside them in the battlefield.
          Canadian solders were the first to land on D-Day, made it farther towards their objectives than any other force that landed that day.

          Today they are still trained to fight, they are soldiers, they are our military (as large or small as that may be in comparison to others). They lead the efforts in Afghanistan today and are imperative in the fight against terrorism.

          But he feels they ARE just peacekeepers.

          as for Iraq, he still believes it is a stupid war because Saddam’s been killed and we should leave, as if killing Saddam was the only effort there. While I didn’t agree to the war in Iraq at all, and feel it was sold to the US public on false pretenses, it was still started and even if you lose another 2 million soldiers, you need to at least finish what you started, for once. I do feel that more Us support is needed in Afghanistan, as it has been that way since the bulk of troops, the Embassy and funding to support rebuild efforts there were first pulled.

          While I do see the far, radical left as you do, I just don’t try and make it seem like the represents all those opposed to the war.

        • #2750367

          “His war” ?

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Political life

          He promises to focus back on Afghanistan. It is not a new war America or he is starting.

        • #2750360

          Just watch

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “His war” ?

          How many times have you heard nutjobs going on about Bush’s war?

          With Obama taking over the war, he either ends it, or it becomes “his”. Once it is “his”, a lot of the nutjobs will sit down and STFU because he isn’t Bush.

          Some of the extreme nutjobs will stew about it, but I don’t think they will risk upsetting their own ally, and so the protesting will die down.

        • #2749317

          Nut jobs…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to “His war” ?

          ….call the Iraq war as “Bush’s war”, right? The attack on Taliban had more backing from the public, than the Iraq war. Hence they don’t call the war in Afghanistan as “Bush’s war”. So if Obama shifts the focus back to Afghanistan, it still can not become “Obama’s war”. That was my point.

        • #2748890

          How stupid

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “His war” ?

          With the opposition focused on two things, Iraq being an unjust war and Bush being a complete farking idiot and a blatant liar, it is a no brainer that they will sit down once Bush is gone and focus is turned back to those that terrorized your country.

          So to sound somewhat correct, you are going to FORSEE this like some kind of fortune teller and suggest its because it is Obama’s war now.

          Many Americans may be slower than the norm, many Americans may be easily lead, but they are not so blatantly stupid that they can’t see that Bush started the unjust war and Obama will finish it. It’s Bush’s war, always will be, until it is resolved in which case it is rightly Obama that ended Bush’s war. Any other sightline is simply misguided.

          Spin it how you will, if you sit and ponder long enough I am sure you can find some other weak crap to spew and fuel your desire to sound correct, even when due to completely different circumstances.

          O

    • #2749341

      VE Day

      by thechas ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      I have been at a loss myself to explain the response to President Barack Obama.

      The last time in history that the citizens of the US acted out with so much emotion and celebration might have been VE day in 1945.

      I agree that the events of the next few weeks and years will show us if there is substance behind the charisma.

      I think that the biggest challenge that President Obama will face is keeping Congress under control.

      The only prediction I have for the short term is that President Obama will make use of the veto much more than GWB did. It will be the only tool at his disposal to keep spending in check, and Congress focused on the priorities of the White House.

      Here’s to hope for positive change that benefits all Americans and helps the country move forward.

      Chas

      • #2751679

        Agree and disagree

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to VE Day

        Agree: The euphoria is quite perplexing.

        Disagree: The veto? Are you serious? Who are you trying to kid? He will no more veto a Democratic controlled Congress than sh** doesn’t stink.

        Hold on to your wallets. We have socialism knocking on America?s doors ? and Barack Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress will be the doorman holding the doors wide open.

        But that’s what you really want, isn’t it Chas? You win, I lose. Collectivism wins, liberty loses.

      • #2751660

        Hope and change

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to VE Day

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=283829&messageID=2684304

        Hope and change? Hope and change? Hope for what kind of change? What an empty expectation.

        People who place [i]hope[/i] in others so that their own personal situation will [i]change[/i] might as well start pissing in the wind.

        (Shaking my head in disbelief – [i]hope[/i] and [i]change[/i]? Unbelievable.)

        • #2751631

          erm yeah

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hope and change

          You have very strict and rigid values which I have come to respect, whether I agree or disagree, over the years.

          [i]People who place hope in others so that their own personal situation will change might as well start pissing in the wind.[/i]

          “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that [b]whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”[/b] JOHN 3:16

          [i]People who place hope in others so that their own personal situation will change might as well start pissing in the wind.[/i]

          I believe you are also a devout, active and proud Christian and believer in Christian faith, are you not?

          [i](C’mon Max, you gotta give me kudos for that one, it was great! 🙂 )[/i]

        • #2751613

          Chuckle

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to erm yeah

          That was good. That was very good.

        • #2751553

          It was good if you like a guy attempting to slide into home plate . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Chuckle

          …..only to find himself in the visitor’s dugout.

        • #2751558

          You say I am a [i] devout, active and proud . . . .[/i]?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to erm yeah

          Other than philosophical-type discussions (not religious ones), such as what happens to a person after death, or how this wacky world got started (there’s an element of faith in both evolution and creationism regarding how/when it all started), you’ve never seen me comment on such things, I’ve never participated in any religious-type discussion – not even once – and I’ve never commented on what I am and/or believe one way or the other.

          And you want kudos?

          You?ve (again) pigeon-holed me into a stereo-type based on what I do support. You apparently think something like, [i]I support Bush on the war, therefore I support Bush on everything, therefore I?m a religious guy, just like Bush[/i] ? that?s laughable.

          Wow! Quoting scripture? This is definitely a first between us.

          I would answer your question, but then I would break my rule by answering it. (My rule is to NEVER discuss religion in these threads – one I’ve yet to break.) Ask me in an e-mail and I?ll answer, but only if you promise not to divulge.

          [i]People who place hope in others so that their own personal situation will change might as well start pissing in the wind.[/i]

          You know exactly what I meant by that, and I know you don?t really disagree. If a person wants to better him/her self, if he/she waits for someone else to do it (including government), he/she is gonna? die waiting. (What happens after that is a matter for a different discussion.)

        • #2750441

          My mistake (but it was still great)

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You say I am a [i] devout, active and proud . . . .[/i]?

          You don’t openly discuss your faith, or even a lack of faith, however your morals/values are those of a someone with faith and typical American family values, and no it had NOTHING to do with your support for Bush, I know that your trust in Bush doesn’t encompas all he stands for, you’ve been clear on that so I didn’t use it as support.

          Perhaps I was wrong in suggesting your were a Christian, should have said devout Muslim I suppose, but close enough. 😉

        • #2751450

          America is a great country

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Hope and change

          and with your help, Obama will change that….

    • #2751634

      nice one

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      “Had Obama not come out on top, would it be the same, or would it be like the last two elections?”

      I would like to think the McCain voters would be respected the same as Obama voters, but I don’t know if it would be a reality. as far as no bickering over Obama, I have seen a mature acceptance on TR, but nowhere else.

      Another website which has been posting copies of the Debates and Inauguration were filled with the mist ridiculous comments about him, including many ni**er references and conspiracy theories. That particular site is rife with trolls though, so its to be expected.

      In general I think most are just happy to see change, and have hope for change while he is in office. I saw similar affection towards McCain though who has also struggled like Obama, earned his post and learned the ropes the hard way.

      I think race was as much as a strength as it was a hinderance during the election, I think now it is celebratory as a landmark presidency. Funny enough by a nation that swears against racism accusations, however focuses on race as being the big issue with regards to the presidency. Watching his Bio was very interesting, certainly he has many other merits and accomplishments that have been ignored by the media due to the racial focus.

      Feminists, yeah. As feminists are also generally very left leaning, I am sure they do want to find some unrelated reason for celebration, otherwise we just may forget about them.

      Inauguration, is 100% media. It is not a necessary ceremony for the transition at all,it is purely contrived for media spew,what do you expect? According to Wiki, Coolidge was sworn in by his father at home, where he had no electricity, running water of telephone. Now THAT would be a cheap one!! 🙂

      For many, seemingly most, seeing Bush out and Obama in offers hope for a new future. Hope that is much needed in these dire ecomonical and politically trying times. I suppose many see it as important as D-Day 1944, Man landing on the moon in 1969, Woodstock in 1969, 911 in 2001 or the Iron Maiden World Slavery Tour in 83-85. (okay I added 9/11 and man landing on the moon too, though they probably hold a bit less relevance).

      • #2751435

        I will admit

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to nice one

        when I saw the title, I expected something… less…. 😀

        And yes, I was there for the world tour ;\

        Monumental days to remember for me, Challenger explosion, 911, gulf war.

        The others, ancient history.

        First black. Because I personally don’t judge people positively or negatively based upon what they look like, this holds nothing special for me. I did see how there was nothing special when a black woman was Secretary of State, this is no different.

    • #2750650

      Point/Counterpoint

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      This is where Dan Ackroyd would say to Jane Curtin;”Jane, you ignorant slut” (wonder if that will make it through the filters).

      I would agree that the Bush administration has been cordial with the transition. I don’t recall Bush and Clinton hugging like Obama and Bush did. But more importantly, they both respected each other during the transition time, and while Obama started early, he tread very carefully. Part of that is some integrity and good sense on Bush’s part, part of that is the nature of the task before Obama – two wars and a recession. Give them both some credit.

      I don’t agree that the presidency is about race. The inauguration celebrated a milestone, but the inauguration is not that big a deal compared to 4 years in the president’s office. Many president’s have had lacklustre inaugurations and gone on to great feats and vice versa.

      I don’t think its Obama who has to get away from it, its the black community. You could hear in Obama’s speech that he is trying to lower expectations and rightly so. But the expectations are set by the people. And people, not just the black community, but especially the black community, expect this huge change. Clinton to a certain extent suffered the same thing, but it will be worse for Obama. I’m here to tell ya, I think he is a great orator, a great leader, but he can’t walk on water, he is as human as any other president, and he has pressing issues with the economy, and the wars that he must deal with. He can’t solve all the problems people are looking to him to solve. He won’t end discrimination, or poverty or racism.

      The best he can do is govern well and set a good example.

      As for taking the time off, believe it or not it was shown in Canada as well, though in my kids schools, it was lunchtime anyway. Some of the mostly black inner city schools made an event out of it.

      My company (US based) sent out a note about not streaming the video to our desktops to avoid killing our bandwidth but some people defied it and did it anyways.

      James

      • #2750616

        Led people on

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Point/Counterpoint

        it is classic. Say just enough to get people thinking, and let them imagine the details. It is what makes a book better than a movie.

        He allowed and encouraged people to imagine the details, and the dream is going to be shattered.

        I don’t see him ABLE to do 1/3rd of what people think he is going to do. And again, it will all be Bush’s fault.

        As for the change-over, it showed the ZERO class of the Clinton administration, top down.

    • #2750391

      pardon me for the interruption

      by jck ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      of your rant…but…

      [b][i]Third, for the last two years, we kept hearing this was NOT an election about race, but it now seems clear this is a Presidency about race. We don’t have a half white man, we don’t have a half black man, we don’t even have a MAN, we have a black man. Is Obamas skin color really going to be the only thing I am going to hear about for the next 4 years? I hope he can get away from that and actually DO something positive.[/i][/b]

      If you’re gonna blame it on Obama, show me quotes where he’s gone on about being black.

      You won’t see it.

      You are trying to blame Obama for a press corp and media outlets over which he has [b][u]NO[/u][/b] control.

      Blaming Obama for the spin of the press corps, would be like me blaming you for what the KKK says and does.

      [b][i][u]Fourth, feminists celebrated the advancements of women after the election, even though there were not any new female accomplishments out of the election. All offices have not only previously been held by women, but a BLACK woman. Oh yeah, Republican, so not a real woman or really black. Silly me.[/u][/i][/b]

      I beg to differ:

      From the Congressional Research Service:

      [i]Fourteen African American women serve in the 110th Congress, all in the House.6 A record
      number of 15 African American women served in the 107th Congress, all in the House. A total of
      28 African American women have served in Congress.
      The first African American female Member was Representative Shirley Chisholm (D-NY, 1969-
      1983). Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL, 1993-1999) is the only African American woman to
      have served in the Senate. The African American female Members of the 110th Congress are
      Delegates Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Donna Christian-Christensen (D-VI) and
      Representatives Maxine Waters (D-CA), Corinne Brown (D-FL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX),
      Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Diane
      Watson (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Donna
      Edwards (D-MD), and Marcia Fudge (D-OH). The other African American female Members, in
      addition to Representative Chisholm, Senator Moseley-Braun, and currently serving Members,
      were Cardiss Collins (D-IL, 1973-1997); Barbara-Rose Collins (D-MI, 1991-1997); Yvonne
      Brathwaite Burke (D-CA, 1973-1979); Katie Hall (D-IN, 1982-1985); Barbara Jordan (D-TX,1973-1979); Eva Clayton (D-NC, 1992-2003); Carrie Meek (D-FL, 1993-2003); Denise Majette
      (D-GA, 2003-2005); Cynthia McKinney (D-GA, 1993-2003, 2005-2007); Juanita Millender-
      McDonald (1996-2007); Julia Carson (D-IN, 1997-2007); and Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH,
      1999-2008).[/i]

      There’s a trend there I see:

      All the black women voted to Congress have been Democratic.

      I guess there’s integrity there? I guess there are no qualified black Republican women in the 40 years since Shirley Chisholm took her seat?

      [b][i]Fifth, the actual inauguration. Four years ago, Democrats called for a “somber” inauguration, and Bush spent $40 mill. We are STILL in the same war, but Obama is breaking every spending record on the major partys he is having. Where are the calls for “somber” celebration? Oh yeah, again, Democrats were calling for a Republican to do it. Doesn’t mean the same people will have the INTEGRITY to make the same call of a fellow Democrat.[/i][/b]

      Bush has spent over $750,000,000,000 in Iraq in 5 years.

      I think he’s done his fair share of spending real well.

      Your assertion is the pot calling the kettle black, and quite un-“independent” of you.

      Especially if you consider…Barack Obama’s $170M inauguration didn’t get an American or an Iraqi killed like Bush’s $750B “war”.

      [b][i]Sixth, and last for now. Schools, colleges, and even government work places were taking time out of their day to watch the inauguration. I guess I missed hearing about them doing the same for the last few?[/i][/b]

      Oh yes, such a shame that America takes notice of the first man of any significant African American heritage to hold the office of President.

      I guess it was wrong to cover the crossing of segregation lines in Little Rock too, as well as the Rodney King beatings, or the Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have A Dream” speech.

      Let’s just ignore accomplishments of those who have made advancements in society. Let’s strike Jim Thorpe’s being called the first Native American olympic track star. Hell, let’s ban education of Vikings landing Newfoundland in North America.

      If it wasn’t an Anglican white man doing it, it just isn’t worth covering…right?

      I just can’t believe your “reasoning”:

      It’s okay to give a spoiled rich kid credit whose done little in running our country, but a guy who was raised part time by his mom and part time by his grandparents and had to [b]WORK[/b] for what he got…you can’t give him credit because…he’s a Democrat?

      Give me a break.

      You crack me up…independent’s ass. You’re about as “independent” as Al Sharpton.

      • #2750364

        How many minority appointees from our “first black president”?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to pardon me for the interruption

        How many minorities did Clinton, our “first black president” have?

        How many did Carter have?

        Attorney General, Secretary of State, some of the highest appointable positions in the free world, and it was your hated President Bush who filled them with minorities.

        Like usual, you have nothing to add, and instead pick a point and go off on your own unrelated tangents.

        Independent, just as I voted, because I am no longer supported by the ideals of the Republican party and have never been supported by the ideals of the Democratic party.

        I suppose “conservative” might have made you happy? No, you would only go off on your weenie tangents again, and continue to lie about being anything but a core un-conservative. There is nothing conservative about your political or social issues you have spewed.

        I suppose you can go try to suck up to Oz again, although, unlike you, he has been reasonable and thought out in this discussion. I can tell he took it serious because there weren’t any spelling errors, so he didn’t knock out a fast off-the-cuff response.

        Knock yourself out.

        • #2749331

          hahaha…you are funnier than ever

          by jck ·

          In reply to How many minority appointees from our “first black president”?

          unrelated tangents?

          Prove to me that “all offices” have been filled by black women republicans?

          Can’t do it…sorry. WRONG. Condoleezza Rice was the ONLY Republican black female appointed to his cabinet. So sorry for you, and thank you for proving me wrong with your inaccurate point.

          BTW,

          John Ashcroft…not a minority
          John Roberts…not a minority
          Rove…
          Bennett…
          Rumsfeld…
          Paulson…
          Snow…
          Gates…
          Mukasky…
          Kempthorne…
          Shaffer…
          Evans…
          Leavitt…
          Thompson…
          Preston…

          In fact if you look at this cabinet all 8 years, Bush had only 2 jobs that were taken and remained held by “minority” appointees for all 8 years: Secretaries of Transportation and Education.

          The majority of his cabinet appointees: White males.

          And also I’d like to point out: In the 1970s, the presence of female candidates for public office was far more rare than it is now since that was pretty much during/at the end of “womens’ lib”.

          Despite that, Carter had 4 appointments who were female and 1 of them served in 2 different posts.

          I guess next you’ll fault Congress for not having more blacks during the Civil War.

          As for this big hullabaloo about minorities you’re going on about:

          You making a big deal out of race of those people Bush put in…is A-OK…jdclyde can brag about Bush and his helpin a brotha out.

          But, the press can’t make a deal out of Obama being significantly African American?

          Pot calls kettle black…again.

          As for being conservative: I’m far more conservative than you. You are a “conservative” in the sense that you are just like Bush: do as you wish, and tell others not to so that it makes up for you.

          Typical, egocentric behavior.

          I am a moderate though, and have NEVER espoused to being a total conservative.

          I am not overly religious.
          I am not a miser.
          I am not a proponent of ending any government program totally.
          I am not a someone who thinks my way is the right way.

          And, I don’t suck up to Oz. I might agree with him on occassion, but I don’t suck up. I make friendly conversation, just as I’ve done with you.

          And if that makes me a suck up, then you are the industrial grade Hoover vacuum of nose-to-ass contact in the suck-up department.

          Oh, and if you don’t mind…”Mr. Independent”:

          Give Bill Clinton his due-

          Women appointed by Bush: 7 of 15 posts
          Women appointed by Clinton: 11 of 14 posts

          So…gonna compliment Bill and blow so loud for his being so proactive in nominating minorities?

          Probably not. Status quo as usual for you. Say Bush did good with 8 years, then say Obama has done totally wrong after 2 days.

          Real fair of ya, jd…real fair…real independent. *cough cough*

        • #2749324

          Are you dumb or just stupid?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to hahaha…you are funnier than ever

          Knock yourself out on showing where I have said Obama has done totally wrong?

          And I said “Minorities”, not black women. Nice that you just show how little you pay attention.

          You are dismissed.

        • #2748979

          did ya now?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Are you dumb or just stupid?

          [b][i]And I said “Minorities”, not black women. Nice that you just show how little you pay attention.[/i][/b]

          Did ya? Really?

          Lemme refresh your memory:

          [i][u]jdclyde said:[/u]
          [b]Fourth, feminists celebrated the advancements of women after the election, even though there were not any new female accomplishments out of the election. All offices have not only previously been held by women, but a BLACK woman. Oh yeah, Republican, so not a real woman or really black. Silly me.[/b][/i]

          Funny..in the paragraph about women that [b]you[/b] wrote…[b]you[/b] never said “minorities”, “minority”, or any derivative there of, jd.

          In fact, you said “black” twice in the paragraph about women.

          I’m not dismissed. I’m right. Gonna try and say you didn’t type that now?

          You being an independent in political alignment is a joke and a farce.

          BTW…where is the praise for Clinton hiring more women into his cabinet in 8 years than Bush? You pointed how great it was that Bush did it. Not any praise for Clinton now? How does that show your political independence?

          Told you that you’re biased. You have no objectivity.

          You are the one who should be dismissed…as well as ostracized by your claimed independent brethren.

        • #2748969

          If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to did ya now?

          then post under that one.

          If you go to the post that you replied to, you will see your error.

          Clinton appointed women in his staff, but how many sued him and/or filed charges against him?

          How many were minorities?

          blahblahblah…. There is very little about Clinton to talk well about that has nothing to do with the big “D” behind his name.

        • #2748948

          get your facts right

          by jck ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          A) women, even though more in number, are still considered a “minority”…so get that right first of all

          B) I believe I did reply to your original post, and I’ve quoted you and called you out on all your Coulter-style BS.

          C) How many were minorities? All the women plus the non-White males…according to the US government.

          I love it. He puts more women and more minorities in his cabinet, yet you won’t praise him for that. You are so biased, it’s not even funny.

          I wish you’d move in next to Bush. Then you could share your scotch with him and talk about what studs you are.

        • #2748942

          healthcare, I have to give him some credit there

          by neon samurai ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          One thing Clinton did do was place a cap on the amount one can claim against medical malpractice. Loose a finger, you get this much $$$. Loose a leg, you get that much $$$. Previous to that, obsurd “reach for the sky” litigation was quickly destroying healthcare and medial insurance.

          He made plenty of questionable decisions but that particular one is something he is due credit for.

        • #2748938

          yeah Neon

          by jck ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          But now, the insurance industry (who are making record profits with a practically cornered market) is killing medicine.

          Some insurers require doctors to spend as little as 4 minutes with a patient. They have to fill “quotas” on the number they see in an hour.

          How stupid is that?

        • #2748735

          jck-Do you have any citations for that four minutes per patient?

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          I’d like to see them.

          Personally I just think that it’s greedy doctors and not insurance companies forcing them into it. Last time I went to see my GP she spent about 45 minutes just talking to me along with the examination.

        • #2748718

          Ropes

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          What do you have that I don’t have to deserve a lady GP?

          All I ever get to do is surrender my dignity to anyone and everyone, including the high-school age receptionist in that four minutes.

        • #2748689

          Santee- Chalk it up to small town healthcare.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          My GP’s daughter is the receptionist and her husband is a doctor too but he recently retired. The last time I saw my doctor her and I talked about flowers for most of the time. I told her about TRGC and had the distinct feeling that if I’d asked her she would’ve let me wander around her home’s property looking at all of her plants. Turns out she’s a gardener too. The rest of the time, when we weren’t talking about what brought me there, we spent talking about retirement. She doesn’t want to retire as she enjoys her practice so much. I certainly enjoy having her as a doctor. Her daughter: “You can either pay now or just mail us a payment when you get home.” B-)

        • #2748673

          Ropes

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          He meant AFTER we get universal health care. When you take into account the shortage of doctors and nurses and the added patients they’ll be forced to see, you’ll be lucky to get four minutes. 🙂

        • #2748671

          Maybe there’s a shortage where you live puppybreath.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          Where I live, whenever I need labwork I’m usually no further than third in line. Most of the time I don’t have to wait more than five minutes. If Universal Healthcare means that there’s going to be an influx of sick and needy people I’m against it.

        • #2748653

          Look around, Ropes; look around.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          Psychiatric services, in particular. Including the dispensers trying to figure out where they’re at.

        • #2776781

          Santee- I’ve given the matter more thought

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          I see a lot of folks without healthcare and people like my MIL who can’t afford the medicine that they need to prevent their conditions from worsening and the whole thing sickens me. Something is seriously broken and it’s beyond me to fix it. I suspect that it’s going to take a well-qualified group of people to do it right.

          Right now we’re living without health insurance. I keep telling myself that the pain I have in my throat is nothing but sinus trouble or something that I don’t need to worry about. One medical crisis would sink us and I’m not breaking our bank to save my sorry ass. Not going to do it.

          I can see the lines forming in my minds eye. Necessary lines.

        • #2776779

          I got tales to tell, too.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          All of them add up to the one thing you said about who is in charge: you. And for me, me — my sorry ass. In charge means that what goes down, goes down — or up — on account of what I do. Can’t point my finger anywhere else.

          This big system — “Healthcare” — needs a big dose of that. Didn’t hear much about it, though, in the original subject and subsidiary threads of the discussion. Everybody pointing everywhere else.

        • #2776766

          obama talked about nationalized healthcare

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you wished to reply to something said over 100 posts ago

          but what he was talking about was NOT free, and he even said he would force people to pay for the required care.

          unfortunately, government run care will be worse than the HMO’s.

      • #2749332

        Who

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to pardon me for the interruption

        [i]If you’re gonna blame it on Obama, show me quotes where he’s gone on about being black.
        [/i]

        said Obama’s to blame? Who said he was the one “going on” about being black? Paraphrasing from one of JD’s other posts: In previous elections blacks voted Democrat about 6 times as often as they voted Republican, but in this election is was more like 30 times as often. It is extremely clear who was “going on” about it, and it wasn’t Obama.

        [i]I beg to differ:

        From the Congressional Research Service:

        Fourteen African American women serve in the 110th Congress, all in the House.6 A record[/i]

        Uh… you misread something. I believe JD was talking about advances “As a result of Obama’s election”.

        [i]Bush has spent over $750,000,000,000 in Iraq in 5 years.
        [/i]

        Again you misunderstand. He was talking about spending [b]on the inauguration[/b] and related festivities (even WITH full knowledge of the economic problems this country is facing). This was way over the top of good judgment… and borders on a lack of taste as well… They could have spent half of that, and had enough left over to keep quite a few families from being evicted.

        Ah, but that’s not the Democrat way… to spend THEIR OWN money to help others… They’d rather blow theirs and spend someone else’s.

        Me? Things are working out and looking up… We’re soon going to be getting seven more kids… I have to buy a bigger house… 5 bedrooms isn’t enough…. and I did the math and figured out with the cuts that are planned, that I’ll have $500 more a month if I go ahead and retire than if I stay…. so I’ll take about $140k out and buy a new house, and I’ll be out of here about 9 months sooner than I’d planned.

        • #2749325

          replies to Tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to Who

          [i]said Obama’s to blame? Who said he was the one “going on” about being black? Paraphrasing from one of JD’s other posts: In previous elections blacks voted Democrat about 6 times as often as they voted Republican, but in this election is was more like 30 times as often. It is extremely clear who was “going on” about it, and it wasn’t Obama.[/i]

          He laid blame on the “election”…

          And, you don’t think that for decades that whites have not drastically be majority voted for whites??

          [i]Uh… you misread something. I believe JD was talking about advances “As a result of Obama’s election”.[/i]

          On this point, he was pushing the issue of feminists, and particularly not having been any black women placed in “all offices”.

          However, the republican party has never placed a black, female candidate in any office of congress.

          [i]Again you misunderstand. He was talking about spending on the inauguration and related festivities (even WITH full knowledge of the economic problems this country is facing). This was way over the top of good judgment… and borders on a lack of taste as well… They could have spent half of that, and had enough left over to keep quite a few families from being evicted.[/i]

          Bush as known the economy has been in a downturn here for 3+ years. If that is the determining factor, why hasn’t Bush taken public transportation to and from Crawford and Camp David instead of Air Force One?

          Bush has been the largest spending president ever to enter an office with a budget surplus. Go to the General Accounting Office’s website and see for yourself.

        • #2749310

          Questions…

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to replies to Tony

          You stated “Bush has been the largest spending president ever to enter an office with a budget surplus.”

          How many modern day presidents actually entered the office with a surplus?

          Did he do all that spending on his own, or did he perhaps have some help from Congress?

          Would that include the Democrat controlled Congress for the last two years or is this totally a Republican problem?

        • #2748973

          Bush’s spending

          by jck ·

          In reply to Questions…

          Bush initiated his “conservative…cough cough BS cough” spending in 2001…and ramped it up through the “war on terror”.

          The continuation of that spending by Congress is a pretty clear cut move to hold ground. What party is going to totally cut off funding for troops overseas?

          Answer: None.

          Besides, it was bad enough that Bush would not even fund proper armor for all his troops and their equipment over there when they started sending troops into Iraq. A close personal friend of mine is married to an Army man, and he has been to Iraq 4 times now. They did not armor plate most humvees, and there for most soldiers would sit on their flak jacket (if they had one) while riding as to prevent as much as possible being killed by an IED.

          In fact, my friend had to get the money together to buy her husband his own body armor.

          Pretty sad Bush will order the Pentagon to give contracts to and pay Halliburton billions out of “discretionary” funds, but won’t order them to buy proper equipment for their troops to be as safe as possible.

          And, Bush’s spending was all initiated under Republican controlled Congresses between 2001 and 2006.

          If you define modern day, I might be able to give you a figure. last 30 years? 50? 100?

        • #2748971

          And like always

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bush’s spending

          your post has nothing to do with this discussion.

        • #2748955

          doesn’t it?

          by jck ·

          In reply to And like always

          Bush’s spending had nothing to do with this discussion??????

          Let’s see what you said in your ORIGINAL POST:

          [i][u]jdclyde said:[/u]
          [b]Fifth, the actual inauguration. Four years ago, Democrats called for a “somber” inauguration, and Bush spent $40 mill. We are STILL in the same war, but Obama is breaking every spending record on the major partys he is having. Where are the calls for “somber” celebration? Oh yeah, again, Democrats were calling for a Republican to do it. Doesn’t mean the same people will have the INTEGRITY to make the same call of a fellow Democrat.[/i][/b]

          Lets see…you talk about Bush…and his spending being so “great” in comparison to Obama’s for an inauguration.

          Yet, Bush has run us into financial bankruptcy as a country (just like he did with 3 companies he ran).

          Anyways, it’s pointless to argue with you. Your bias is evident. Obama spends $170M for an inauguration, and he’s a heel now like Bush.

          When he brings this country back from the black hole of debt that Bush got us in going on wild goose chases overseas in Iraq, I expect you to be praising him left and right.

          Otherwise, you’ll be no better than Limbaugh or Coulter; a hot bag of air who couldn’t disseminate true quality from a lot of sensationalist spew.

          Talk about a lack of integrity, Mr. Independent…where is your lack of bias toward a party…hm?

          Good day to you.

        • #2748946

          I will try to use little words so you can understand

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And like always

          we were talking about the amount spent on [b]inauguration.[/b]

          Is that simple enough for you to comprehend, finally?

        • #2748939

          better save those small words

          by jck ·

          In reply to And like always

          so you don’t run out.

          so…spending on an inauguration (a one time event) is worse than spending on an on-going military action for 5 years?

          Spending in government during a downturned economy is to be analysed at every level, not just the inauguration.

          BTW, get ready for more spending. Obama is gonna have to spend more to get us out of the hole Bush dug…or will you not admit that Bush has done nothing “conservative” fiscally to try and get us back on our economic feet?

          again, you want to chide Obama for his inaugural spending simply because it was more than Bush’s. yet, Bush has spent more in so many more areas than any other president (republican or democrat) and you tend to ignore that.

          As well, you don’t give any praise to a Democrat who did better at something than Bush did. The Clinton example is one of many things that could be pointed out.

          Oh and btw, get something else right: i’m not anti-conservative or anti-republican.

          I’m anti-idiot.

        • #2748925

          As I clearly said from the beginning

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And like always

          The hypocrites that called for Bush to have a somber inauguration and complained he spent to much on it (at $40M) are the same that went and broke every spending record for inaugurations.

          So, you are anti-yourself?

        • #2748883

          irrelevant

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to And like always

          [i]so…spending on an inauguration (a one time event) is worse than spending on an on-going military action for 5 years?[/i]

          Since the subject was not about military action. It was about rich Democrats (most of the rich ARE Democrats, don’t you know… just check out forbes.com) choosing to spend their money on lavish parties instead of helping out their less-well-heeled brethren they claim to care about.

          As I’ve said, it’s entirely within their rights to choose to spend their wealth any way they wish, but it’s also within my rights to expose the hypocrisy of their choice.

          I mean, honestly, if the country really were the way they’re trying to make it (socialist) they couldn’t legally even exist! So what they must really intend is to make the REST of the country socialist, all except them, that is.

          And if that weren’t bad enough, the majority of the Republican party seems to have adopted the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” attitude… and in a few more years, there will be no real differences between the parties… leaving the voters with no choice at all.

        • #2775689

          what i am, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to And like always

          I am someone who doesn’t hold someone on high or defends them when they have NOT been doing their job.

          As for funding, you still would seem to:

          A) Hold Obama accountable for what his predecessors in Congress did, not him, in criticizing Bush.

          B) Not hold Bush accountable for activities that he had direct control over as President.

          Did Obama also really spend $170M of taxpayer money?

          From things I read: No. The fesitivities were privately funded. The finance, insurance, and real estate sector businesses pulled together some $7M+, communications sector $3M+, miscellaneous business almost $5M. Countless people gave as much as $50,000 each, and groups were bundling up as much as $300,000 donations to underwrite it.

          So, don’t go thinking this was all “taxpayer money” that was used.

          When the real numbers come out, I would like to see if he really spent more taxpayer dollars than Bush…or if it was more typical political spin on your part.

          And, I am not self-hating. If I were, I’d play more golf and wear stylish name-brand clothing to give myself a false sense of worth.

        • #2775679

          But you said you were anti-idiot

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And like always

          And I have to assume you are going through a phase, for not being coherent enough to follow a simple discussion such as this.

          Sure, you may be simple enough to believe that Obama had no control over the inauguration, but not the intelligence enough to understand [b]the slam was against the democrats that called for a somber inauguration from Bush but not a word about Obama breaking every record. [/b]

          You are so caught up with just being a pissy bitch that the whole conversation passed you by, again.

          It doesn’t matter WHO’s money it is, after the Hypocrite party you love so much called for somber from one, and then blew the wad on the next, but that is to simple and direct for you to comprehend, once again. You have issues.

          You can make up any topic you want, but it doesn’t change this topic, and you missed the boat.

        • #2775649

          ok…let’s get this straight…

          by jck ·

          In reply to And like always

          a) Other Democrats bitch about Bush
          b) Obama said nothing about Bush
          c) Obama is to be held responsible for the actions of others?

          What makes sense in that?

          If that were such a noble and necessary thing, wouldn’t Bush be held to be “conservative”?

          And basically: Yeah, it does matter where the money comes from. If it’s not YOUR money, you have no right to tell anyone how to spend it. Keep government out of your pocket…remember?

          The fact that the Democratic “party faithful” rode Bush’s ass doesn’t mean it was part of Obama’s view or his offices’.

          You will stick Obama with the responsibilities of his party, but at the same time you don’t apply the same responsibility to Bush.

          Now, why is that?

          Are you not showing favoritism?

          Have you still not admitted and praised Clinton for having appointed both more women and more ethnicities to his cabinet than Bush, when you diligently gave Bush credit for doing so?

          There is a point to all this:

          You have seem to lost the point that you will nitpick to death Obama for things he had no control over or has no adequate time to deal with as President.

          Yet, you will give leeway or dismiss accounts against Bush who had 8 years to deal with things and has not proved to be an effective leader in keeping our country prospering.

          Do Democrats whine about things? Sure, but so do Republicans.

          Republicans whined about the spending Clinton did to create jobs. However, Clinton’s 8 year unemployment dropped steadily. Bush’s increased steadily. Yet, you still hold Bush above Clinton…and based on your remarks, essentially because he cheated on his wife.

          Have you ever credited Clinton, a Democrat, with having revived the economy and brought unemployment to new lows?? Nope.

          But, I leave you to have your stake in Republicans and enjoy your satisfaction of the country they have fostered over the past 8 years.

          I will hold my stake in what can, seemingly, only get better.

          Enjoy and keep golfing. It stimulates the economy.

        • #2775590

          If that is your idea of straight, I would hate to see what you bring home

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And like always

          I didn’t talk about Obama AT ALL for the spending.

          Now, is THAT simple enough for even you?

          The party complained about Bush and 40mil and said he should be somber because of war.

          The party hopped on board to spend over 180m and encouraged dancing in the streets.

          How can even you not understand such a simple statement?

        • #2775528

          and then…

          by jck ·

          In reply to And like always

          when you talk about Obama’s inauguration and the overspending, who are you trying to say is responsible for the spending if you are not speaking of Obama?

          The Party?
          The Donors?
          The Senate?
          Famous Amos?

          So who is spending all the money?

          Well according to About.com:

          “…other than the swearing-in ceremony, events and festivities associated with a presidential inauguration are not government functions and are not paid for with taxpayer money. Presidential inaugural committees raise money from private donors to hold these events.

          http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/tp/the_inauguration.htm

          I’d like to point out to you that the government spending on the inauguration is NOT a Democrat-only function, but is a bi-partisan panel.

          This inauguration’s committee was:

          Sen. Dianne Feinstein
          Chairman
          D-CA
          Harry Reid

          Sen. Harry Reid
          U.S. Senate Majority Leader
          D-NV

          Sen. Bob Bennett
          Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
          R-UT

          Rep. Nancy Pelosi
          Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
          D-CA

          Rep. Steny Hoyer
          U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader
          D-MD

          Rep. John Boehner
          U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leader
          R-OH

          http://inaugural.senate.gov/index.cfm

          Kinda seems both sides spent the taxpayer paid portion, now didn’t they?

          Did you ever hear Bennett or Boehner complaining about it? I never did.

          I rest my case. It’s not Democratic overspending only. Republicans have a hand in it too. So, lay 33% of the blame or half or whatever you like.

          But, at least do it fairly.

        • #2775492

          You have long forgotten how to be objective or honest

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And like always

          Dems protested for Bush to keep it low key.

          Dems did NOT protest during the same war, for Obama to keep it low key.

          Are you a complete retard that you can’t understand such simple hypocrisy? It would seem so.

          You can do your bitchass whining about Republicans this or that, but your pathetic attempts to distract from your precious Democrats is pointless and showing you for the biased fool that you are.

          Since you won’t even try to be honest in your posts, this is over.

        • #2776273

          MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

          by jck ·

          In reply to And like always

          Bush thought it was over too.

          Let’s put it this way, since my own personal “shock and awe” didn’t get you to open your eyes to how things work in real life politics and public opinion.

          Bush has pushed for the war to keep it going and “liberate” the Iraqis. Since that was the case, most people in the public saw it as:

          a) it was a re-election inaugural…should not be a huge thing for him to stay in office.

          b) since he was pushing for more money to be sent over than previous times to Iraq and Afghanistan, it made no sense to have a big inaugural. Money would be better spent being sent there.

          Now versus Bush’s 2nd inaugural, let’s analyze why it was a “big deal” for the Obama inauguration:

          a) he’s the first ever president to be elected in the United States of any significant African heritage. Since the civil rights movement in this country is a major event in our history, this is a big deal to a lot of people who grew up and lived through times when blacks did not have the same rights as you or I would.

          b) Obama is someone who has said that he will (and has already made the moves to do so) scale back troops in Iraq as a sign of America wanting the Iraqis to take charge of their own country and so that we can paying more attention to our own domestic issues as well as the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan and that region.

          Now, you can say all you want about me being biased. However:

          1) a bi-partisan committee of Democrats and Republicans did approve the monies for that inauguration, not just Democrats.

          2) all non-official functions were funded by private enterprise, and even you have said in certain terms that government should not tell you how to spend your money before… therefore government should not be able to tell those companies and people how to spend it on parties for his inauguration.

          3) If mine is a bias, then yours is a hatred. This is especially true when it comes to Bill Clinton, whether it is because of his political affiliation or the fact he cheated on his wife. Bill Clinton did (and it has been shown with statistics) more positive things for the United States citizenry than Bush has, yet you refuse to not only simply acknowledge his achievements but also to not give him the same level of praise for which you gave Bush for the same (and in most cases, more than Bush) achievements.

          So, it’s not over. It never will be. Your implicit disgust for someone simply because of party or a personal matter between him and his wife is closed-minded.

          You bash “Obama’s inauguration” because of cost, yet say you’re not bashing Obama for it…then won’t say who you’re bashing? Those who spent taxpayer dollars on the official parts? That would be BOTH parties…not just Democrats.

          You bash Democrats for having bullrushed Bush not to spend so much, but if there was nothing wrong with it then why did he back down? Why didn’t the majority Republican committee not vote through the appropriation for anything Bush wanted if it was okay to spend the money? Perhaps because Bush had just started that war not even a year before and he needed to maintain support for it in lieu of the “bad intelligence” blunder having been used as the whole reason to start it??

          Perhaps because at that point, Bush knew that he’d followed bad intelligence from his own people and needed to tread lightly and did it as a political move to keep Americans from being more upset about a war that, at that point, was going terribly wrong?

          And maybe money was considered better spent there when it was actually a somewhat accepted military action? As compared to now when 64% of Americans feel the Iraq War was not worth it?

          It’s not just as simple as “Democrats don’t have any conscience”. It’s politics, and it’s far more complicated than just the black and white BS spin rhetoric that you chew up and digest as gospel from all the right-leaning airbags in the press that you think only tell the truth.

          Trust me, I used to be a BIG Rush Limbaugh fan. But, I got wise to his antics and spin. He, and his like, are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Republican party.

          And before you go saying “Well you just watch leftist liberal weenies”…most of my news coverage I get from overseas. I tend not to watch American network television. The news is crap, and the television shows are too.

          I learned long ago not to trust the American press. Maybe you should take a step back and look at that yourself, before you go on believing in all these things you consider to be truths.

        • #2748846

          Armor

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Bush’s spending

          “It was bad enough that Bush would not even fund proper armor for all his troops”

          Sounds like you’re holding Bush solely responsible for the funding for armor. You don’t actually believe that do you? Seems to me that Congress had a say in the matter.

          Or did you expect Bush to pull out his American Express card when the funding bill in Congress didn’t go through?

        • #2748829

          Yes

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Armor

          he does

        • #2775704

          what i expect of a president

          by jck ·

          In reply to Armor

          is that when he finds out that soldiers are sitting on their flak jacket rather than wearing it…solely because the Humvee they are riding in through known danger areas has no body armor…and he does nothing to get funding to upgrade that?

          How about making sure each soldier had one flak jacket and chicken plate? Nope. Didn’t do that either.

          He could make sure Halliburton got their contracts, but couldn’t make sure the sons and daughters of this country were properly equipped to do their duty.

          Pretty damned pitiful of a “leader”.

          Sending troops into Iraq with less-than-sufficient body armor and less-than-ready military vehicles…is simply negligence and incompetence.

          And, please…don’t go telling me the president of the USA can’t make the Pentagon do things. All he has to do is dismiss the guy who won’t do what he wants, and put the one who will in. He did it with the Attorney General’s office and HUD. He can do it with the Pentagon too.

          And, Bush didn’t seem to need Congress to spend. He sets up an “Office” within the organization of the White House and uses “discretionary” funds to do what he wants.

          I believe, as commander in chief, Bush WAS responsible for making sure things were done right. It was HIS responsibility. That’s why they call it the EXECUTIVE branch.

          Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court interprets them. Executive branch executes them.

          He didn’t do his job well. Soldiers died because of his not making sure things were done right under his watch. Or, are you gonna tell me Congress is responsible to run the military now?

          QED

        • #2749302

          Well,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to replies to Tony

          [i]And, you don’t think that for decades that whites have not drastically be majority voted for whites??[/i]

          Since the vast majority of those who have run have been white, I suspect so, but the unprecedented shift from 6:1 to 30:1 in a single election cycle is even more suspect!

          [i]However, the republican party has never placed a black, female candidate in any office of congress.[/i]

          Therefore what? Should they have done so? Why? Just to say they did? That in itself would be racist.

          [i]Bush as known the economy has been in a downturn here for 3+ years.[/i]

          But his last inauguration was 4 years ago, when the need for restraint was less ($40 million was STILL too much).

          [i]Bush has been the largest spending president ever to enter an office with a budget surplus.[/i]

          Again you missed the point. We’re not talking about Obama or Bush. They didn’t pay for the parties, Get it?

        • #2749280

          At least don’t

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to Well,

          rely on JD’s tongue in cheek numbers. 🙂
          From 6:1 to 30:1; That was a made up figure.

          The parties were paid for with DONOR’s monies. Neither party can lay claim to a good or bad thing here, it is simply the donors contributing to host the pomp and ceremony follow on parties for their winner.

        • #2749171

          I think it’s a pretty safe assumption

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to At least don’t

          that mostly Democrats donated to Obama’s shindigs,and mostly Republicans donated to Bush’s. And I’m NOT claiming that it’s not their right to spend their money in any way they wish…only that ones choices show one’s character.

          [i]From 6:1 to 30:1; That was a made up figure.
          [/i]

          The only thing I could find with all the numbers in one place (MSNBC and CNN both have 2004 and 2008 individually and the numbers are the same) was:

          http://tinyurl.com/d55fb7

          which shows 10:1 in 2000, 8:1 in 2004, and 23.75:1 in 2008 … Close enough to JD’s numbers to support his hypothesis.

        • #2748964

          Thanks for the link

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to I think it’s a pretty safe assumption

          I too would have preferred to see most of that money spent on worthier causes, however (like you) can not deny them the opportunity to party and celebrate the long trail to the apex.

          The link does show a nice break down of the exit poll numbers. But to be fair to call JD’s numbers close enough would be to call a distortion from the other direction as accurate but much less dramatic (which wouldn’t support his claim). There was a 15.75:1 change as opposed to the stated 24:1 change, that is a rather large (8.25:1) variance and truely doesn’t pass muster. An equal distortion could have stated that it swang from 10:1 (2000 data) to 18.25:1 (also an 8.25:1 variance). 😉 (OK sometimes I can be a number geek). 🙂

          The other factor in this is the swell in the number of Black voters and the large discrepancy between Black voters choosing Dems as opposed to Reps that the Dems have had for years. With that demographic a 7% change from voting Rep to the Dem advantage causes the ratio to jump rather quickly.

          I would think that the numbers for the Hispanic, over $100K group, and the college graduates, would be cause for alarm or at least a re-think of platform objectives.

          But to re-emphisis, Thank you for the link.

        • #2748957

          Hey number guy

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I think it’s a pretty safe assumption

          are the Hispanics really just a dollar value to you? 😀

          The big expansion of Hispanic voters will be when Obama grants amnesty to the illegals.

        • #2748920

          :-) Seperate demographic

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to I think it’s a pretty safe assumption

          hence the commas. For those that didn’t get the joke (or didn’t look at the charts, we can’t all be Ross Perots 😉 );

          The $100K group is combined races and jumped ship to change the #’s from favoring Reps 58 – 41% to a balanced 49%;

          College grads from a balanced 49% to a Dem advantage of 53 – 45%;

          Hispanics from a Dem 53 -44% to a whooping 67 -31%.

        • #2749071

          Yikes!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to replies to Tony

          I just re-read this…

          [i]However, the republican party has never placed a black, female candidate in any office of congress.[/i]

          The party doesn’t put people in office, the voters do.

          By the way, did you know that the first several black men to be seated in Congress were Republicans? and that Democrats didn’t elect a black to the Senate until 1992… over 100 years AFTER the Republicans did?

        • #2749050

          That is to be ignored

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yikes!

          because it doesn’t fit into his anti-Republican mind set.

          And yeah, I saw the bit about “placing” too….

          Some peoples kids, right?

        • #2748954

          yeah…kids…

          by jck ·

          In reply to That is to be ignored

          some peoples’ kids don’t sit and consider themself to be right about everything, and can think outside of their own little world.

          why don’t you move to Crawford Texas? You’d like it there. You can chew straw with Bush and go duck hunting with Cheney when he visits.

        • #2748958

          and you guys say i don’t get the point

          by jck ·

          In reply to Yikes!

          here’s how it is:

          jd said they had put a “BLACK WOMAN”.

          okay…1…Condoleezza Rice.

          however, they have never seated a black woman in congress, nor as a governor of a state.

          the republican party is inherently biased toward men, mainly because of the long time (and still by many in the party…i know…i have been to precinct meetings in 2 states) held philosphies of:

          1) due to many Republicans being “Christian”, most consider under that ethos that men are more of “leaders”, e.g.- men are the head of the household, bread-earner, etc., within Chrstian ethos.

          2) many Republicans are also old-school, and still follow old-time social concepts that men are “stronger” and should be in positions of power.

          I am just surprised at the lack of Republican women who have not only been elected, but the percentage of candidates from the Republican party who run for office.

          Of course if all the women the republican party supports for office are like Ann Coulter, I’d never vote for one either.

          BTW, I have a LOT of admiration for Condoleezza Rice. She’s a brilliant woman, and I would like to see her as VP or President one day.

          As for Bush’s “minority” cabinet appointments, out of 33 people who were in those positions:

          1 black woman: Condy Rice
          1 asian woman: Elaine Chao(Labor)
          6 women total: Rice, Chao, Veneman (Agri), Norton (Interior), Peters (Trans), Spellings (education)
          3 black males: Paige (Ed.), Jackson (HUD), Powell (State)
          1 asian male: Mineta (Trans)
          3 hispanic males: Martinez (HUD), Guitterez (Commerce), Gonzalez (Att. Gen.)

          20 of 33 were white males. about 2/3.

          Compare that to Clinton’s. Bush can’t touch Clinton with respect to minorites, yet jd hasn’t given him praise. That in itself backs my offer that jd is very biased and won’t give credit where it’s due.

          See, jd leans toward the Republican party (even though he claims to be independent) because they match his machismo attitude and selfish leanings.

          I lean toward who is putting someone in office who will do the best job, no matter what their party.

          But anyways, I am tired of arguing about it. I pointed out in another post where he can’t even remember what he said about “BLACK WOMAN” or anything.

          nuff said.

        • #2748897

          You say it as if it is a goal…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to and you guys say i don’t get the point

          [i]however, they have never seated a black woman in congress, nor as a governor of a state.[/i]

          Do you think it should be?

        • #2776686

          He clearly believes in quotas

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You say it as if it is a goal…

          Fill positions using racism of taking based upon color or gender rather than ability or even desire to run for the position.

          Is it any surprise in the cities like Detroit that have a high black population that the vote would be for a black Democrat rather than a black Republican? Rocket science? I think not.

          Maybe we need an busing program to import blacks to non-Democrat strongholds so we can meet his quota?

          Clinton appointed a lot of women, Bush appointed a lot of minorities (and didn’t get sued for sexual harassment by any of them)

        • #2776633

          Of course,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You say it as if it is a goal…

          to illustrate what’s wrong with it, one only has to REALLY think it out to its logical extreme (I mean, what if every neighborhood, every city, every county, every state… were to be diversified to exactly the same ratios?). I suspect they wouldn’t like the result one bit!

        • #2775700

          i think that

          by jck ·

          In reply to You say it as if it is a goal…

          there have been qualified, intelligent, competent members of all races and either sex.

          However, the “good ole boy” network is in full effect, especially when it comes the Republican party.

          I think the severely incompetent have been allowed to run this country for 50 years now. We’d rather elect someone based on their looks or charisma, rather than their ability to rationalize and formulate.

          I think qualified people have been passed over, simply because they weren’t part of the “in crowd” of the GOP.

          And as someone who has been registered GOP for 20 years, it pisses me off.

          I just find it ironic that the GOP 90+% of the time only finds white, male candidates to have run for office. Yet, the DNC can find a more varied candidate pool that more closely resembles the makeup of our country.

          Do I think someone should be given anything because of their race? No.

          But, you can’t convince me that places like the Carolinas and Virginia which have large black population centers that for years have only had white, Republican males elected.

          When the party backs a candidate, they get the benefit of people and access to donors who will back the party line that others won’t get.

          Anyways, it’s typical old school politics.

          I think that one reason you see folks like Jackson and Sharpton now shut up is that Obama was neither a mainstream Democrat, nor an activist black candidate. He believes in work, doing what is best, and making a difference for everyone. And, Jackson and Sharpton never were given favor by him as they were with other black members of congress such as Mfume and Rangel.

          But odds are, Republicans have had opportunity to place minority candidates in the past. However, their ties to “conservativism” in a lot of areas which are their political strongholds tend to lean their choices of candidates to those their party backers are most comfortable: white, conservative, religious-siding candidates.

          Therefore, I see the percentage of Republican minority candidates being backed/offered/voted in/placed being askew from what the demographics of regional voting should be resulting.

          But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe all of congress should be white, male, and legal-degree-laden members.

        • #2775547

          Of course they have.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You say it as if it is a goal…

          [i]But odds are, Republicans have had opportunity to place minority candidates in the past.[/i]

          In fact, the first three black members of the Senate were Republican (By the way, there have also been only three black Democrat Senators), as well as the first twenty-two black members of the House of Representatives. How does that jibe with how you are trying to portray the Republican party?

          [i]But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe all of congress should be white, male, and legal-degree-laden members. [/i]

          To “expect” ANY particular racial make-up of a body is itself a racist thought. You might consider asking yourself “Why is this even a question?”

        • #2775529

          A racist can fine things to pretend to be offended about

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You say it as if it is a goal…

          Such as pretending that it isn’t his racism against whites that thinks we should have people in because of their race rather than their abilities and desire to take a position.

          Can you say “White Guilt”?

          Maybe if more minorities voted for a conservative platform, more minorities would run for the same?

          He pretends like it is logical that whites need to hunt out blacks to fill his quotas.

        • #2776264

          you know, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to You say it as if it is a goal…

          I’m not a racist. I hate everyone equally.

          But, I don’t feel guilt for anything. I am happy this country finally got over the eyre and fear of having a minority president.

          But, I am even more glad that we elected someone who did not grow up being given everything, someone who believes in hard work, who believes all people should be treated fairly, and that America is a country who should exercise all options rather than “dictate” things to other countries.

          When I voted Obama, I did so because he is literate, well-spoken, well-educated, worked for everything he had, didn’t take hand-outs, didn’t take the easy way out in doing things, and faces issues head-on.

          It had nothing to do with race. Period.

          I still would also like to point you out to a speech that Obama made early on in his campaigning in Chicago that helped me make up my mind about who he was.

          He told a black organization that he didn’t want them to vote for him because he was the black candidate for president, but that because he is the right candidate for president.

          To me, that says a lot about the man. You would never hear Jackson, Sharpton, or most other black politicians say that to a group of their own ethnicity.

        • #2749320

          Best of luck with that Tony

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Who

          getting seven more kids? Foster kids? Exchange students? Cheap labor in your garden? 😀

          As for jck, he doesn’t read what I put. He skims enough to think he has enough to slam me on and then goes off. He won’t even admit where in two posts he has been shown to be wrong already. Who cares. Let him be wrong if it gets him through the day.

        • #2749169

          Same kids

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Best of luck with that Tony

          I’ve been concerned with for 5 years (although it was only 4 at that time). I found an old store (45×40 two story store, two block garages and a shed) that I can probably get for around 60k. The great thing about it is it is almost completely open on both floors. Some insulation…some stud walls… some plumbing…

    • #2749193

      Honestly

      by av . ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      I didn’t vote for Obama, but he has overcome the bickering and sabotage that we’re used to in Washington. I don’t know if its because of what he represents or if its because the country is in such bad shape.

      This election was very much about race. It wasn’t possible in the past for a black man, even a part black man to ever aspire to be president. Obama did it and I like that it has done more for racial equality in this country in one moment than any previous efforts in the past. I think that in itself was important because from now on, everyone is equal.

      Hillary did get elected as Secretary of State, but I think it was a political debt that Obama had to pay. Even though I might not agree with everything, I know that Hillary will work tirelessly for this country.

      Bush was never given any credit for the diversity in his cabinet. He had Colin Powell and Condi Rice as Secretary of State, but their race was never mentioned in that context. I think the Republican party doesn’t see that as something that should be trumpeted. Race never mattered to begin with if the people were competent.

      I don’t know what Obama spent on the inauguration, but I think it was important for the country to have a party to boost morale. People want to see more than a somber celebration, even if just for a night.

      Where I work, we decided that we would use internet access in our lunchroom to broadcast the inauguration. Most people showed up and we avoided having our T1 lines taken down by everyone watching it on their own. It was a bit dicey at times, but people really appreciated it.

      It was a special day for many people and I think a new beginning. I’m hoping Obama can pull it off. He really got stuck with the bag.

      AV

      • #2749093

        appointed, not nominated.

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Honestly

        Secretary of State is an appointed position, made by the President. There has been concern because Bill gets a LOT of contributions from other countries, and there is always the concern about them buying influence.

        Everyone is equal NOW? Other than the symbolism of someone that has “made it”, nothing has changed in the day to day lives of the people living in downtown Detroit or Chicago. As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, I am seeing MORE racism than I ever dreamed could still exist. Guess just because I don’t live that way, I didn’t realize so many others still do. Of course that goes both ways, as black on white racism is showing it’s self to be alive and well too. How sad.

        As for Republicans and race, don’t forget our Attorney General. Again, Republican and Hispanic, so doesn’t count. THAT says more about the Democrats than it does about the Republicans, and none of it good.

        • #2748672

          Yes, I did mean appointed

          by av . ·

          In reply to appointed, not nominated.

          Elected was a bad choice of word. Hillary will be an effective Secretary of State, but her appointment is really a conflict of interest because of Bill’s contributions. Theres a thin line there.

          I think Obama appointed Hillary to a high position in his cabinet in exchange for the Clinton’s support during the election. Quid pro quo. If anyone can walk that tightrope though, its Hillary. She is tough as nails and Billary is even tougher.

          Everyone’s lives are still the same, but Obama gave hope for a better future to black people. Obama is the embodiment of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream . . ” speech.

          I think the issue of race is front and center with this election. Its pretty ugly, but maybe we can get it all out and then move on. I know. Wishful thinking.

          No one ever talks about white racism. I work in a diversified place, and I see racism in some of the people there. I’ve experienced white racism personally. Its really sick either way.

          When we broadcast the Obama inauguration in our office lunchroom, one person got up and walked out saying “this is sickening”. Our office building has a lunchroom for several businesses, so thankfully, I don’t have to work with that guy.

          AV

      • #2748787

        Got stuck?

        by puppybreath ·

        In reply to Honestly

        Get real. He paid an enormous amount of money and knew EXACTLY what he was buying and what he was getting into. I’d hardly called that “getting stuck”.

        • #2748773

          Of Course

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to Got stuck?

          that little economic implosion that happened after we only had two candidates left (september) was totally expected?!
          😉

        • #2748771

          Been up and down for nine years

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Got stuck?

          As there was a clear down-turn before Clinton left office.

          All the woulda/shoulda of wondering how things would have turned out if Clinton would have nailed Osama when he had the chance instead of refusing to take him. Would his lunatic fringe followers have still done 911?

        • #2748739

          hard to tell, but probably….

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Been up and down for nine years

          If nothing more than as a statement of how “weak” we were and couldn’t stop them, even if we had killed or arrested Osama…

        • #2748711

          Yet, most econimists claim it started in

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to Been up and down for nine years

          Mar of 2001 and was a very mild recession.
          There have been swings, but nothing like this “sudden” implosion since the Great Depression.

          Osama and 9/11 was/is nasty, but had we gone into only Afganistain …….

        • #2775364

          It started in 1913

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yet, most econimists claim it started in

          with the (false) adoption of the 16th Amendment.

        • #2748667

          Obama was given a heavy burden

          by av . ·

          In reply to Got stuck?

          Two wars he knew about, but not the economic collapse. You have to admit, it’s a REALLY bad situation for any incoming president to step into. He has been presented with the ultimate challenge. How can he now deliver on his campaign promises given the current economic climate? The greater question is how can he keep this country out of a new Great Depression?

          Thats what I call getting stuck with the bag. Its the culmination of 20 years of waste from previous administrations. Its all Obama’s problem now.

          I think Obama knew the road ahead would be hard, but I don’t think he ever imagined how much.

          AV

      • #2748740

        Stuck with just *A* bag!!??? How about a bag with angry hornets

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Honestly

        He has a number of things going against him:
        A) Unrealistic expectations. Partially this is the media’s fault, partial this is people just being stupid. The reality is, he’s just a man and can NEVER live up to being what some people think he is

        B) He has been given a country in pretty poor shape. We have an economic crisis on our hands, two wars, problems in the Middle East from all ends, Russia pounding the drums of war, and of course, domestic issues like the infrastructure that need tending to.

        C) There will be racism issues for the next 4 years (from all colors). If the worst happens and someone does manage to assassinate him, expect SERIOUS racial tensions for at least a generation. If he serves him term(s), then all should start to mellow, especially as the 60’s activist start to die off.

        The reality is that anyone taking this job for the next 4 years is into it…it’s going to be rough seas ahead for at least half of the term and it won’t be clear sailing for the last half of the term either…It’ll be interesting (at least from a historical view point) to see what happens.

        I really have to wonder how the history books will present Bush, once the bias starts to fade? Will he be like Nixon or will he be more of a smaller foot note like LBJ?

        • #2748661

          Yeah, lots of hornets

          by av . ·

          In reply to Stuck with just *A* bag!!??? How about a bag with angry hornets

          I hope team Obama is up to the challenge. We are in deep sh*t in this country, and we need the best of the best to tackle our problems.

          I think Obama is an honorable man and a very smart one. Yes, theres racism. I hope that doesn’t get in the way of his presidency. I hope assassination is never attempted. It would take away everything gained.

          To me, Bush is going to go down in history as the President that kept us safe in dire times. That will be his legacy. He is disliked for sure at this time, but eventually I think his “beacon of hope” in the middle east will bear fruit. Then, Bush will have his legacy.

          AV

        • #2776760

          It’ll be interesting in 100 years what the history books say…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Yeah, lots of hornets

          When you have all of the current bias behind you, it’ll be interesting to see what is said about Bush. I mean look at some of the past Presidents (Jackson comes to mind) that were loved AND hated, but know are academically interesting and shaped the nation.

          Bush will probably fall into that category IIF the Middle East calms down in the next 100 years.

        • #2776684

          There will be books

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It’ll be interesting in 100 years what the history books say…

          about Bushaphobia as well.

          There was an irrational hatetred for all that is Bush before he even got into office, let alone before we went into Iraq.

          Weakminded fools that are overly emotional are easily manipulated when fed strong emotions like being told to hate someone.

        • #2775598

          Kind of describes the Republican programming technique of the last 25 years

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to There will be books

          “Weakminded fools that are overly emotional are easily manipulated when fed strong emotions like being told to hate someone.”

          Yup. That’s talk radio for you.

        • #2776147

          If that is the case

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Kind of describes the Republican programming technique of the last 25 years

          you should stop listening to it, huh? B-)

          Funny, I don’t see HATE as a message from the Republican party. Must just be one of my blind spots, right?

        • #2777389

          Filling in the blind spot :-)

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to Kind of describes the Republican programming technique of the last 25 years

          http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000819.htm

          Then add in the likes of Ann Colter, Sean Hannity, Rush L., etc, etc, etc.

          It is also easy to forget that Clinton actually tried to incorporate Reps. into his administration. They played all sweet until it was time to strike, and strike hard they did.
          Here is a very good read;

          http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html

        • #2776619

          Try…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to It’ll be interesting in 100 years what the history books say…

          Franklin Pierce. Cannonading the shores of Africa and generally accepted as the worst U.S. president.

        • #2776603

          I donno…Millard Fillmore was pretty worthless

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Try…

          Even his own party hated him…

        • #2775597

          Buchanan

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Try…

          A lot of historians say Buchanan was the worst. He used his Presidency to test the thesis that if you pretended hard enough that national divisions weren’t deepening, then there would never be a civil war.

    • #2775645

      Here’s another one JD

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Inauguration and an independents view of it

      People were slamming the auto execs for flying in private jets… but there were more than 600 private jets used by rich Democrats flying in for the inauguration.

      http://tinyurl.com/bc6kfo

      • #2775586

        Doesn’t surprise me at all

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Here’s another one JD

        Guess Obama was the only one to take a train. Probably to keep the air space clear for his donors to land.

        Next they screams will start back up about how evil Republicans are destroying the world with their greedy ways……

        Have you noticed, there is NEVER any talk about global warming and planes by the anyone but a few unheard of websites? I have.

        • #2775557

          Maybe

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Doesn’t surprise me at all

          they all planted a tree before takeoff 🙂

        • #2776259

          global warming and planes

          by jck ·

          In reply to Doesn’t surprise me at all

          The FAA and other organizations have published studies on this.

          Planes are far more efficient (per seat) fuel-wise than automobiles.

          That’s why they have pushed carpooling so long in the USA. Because auto emissions in this country count for over 35% of all the greenhouse gases, while air flights only account for about 3%.

          That’s why you don’t hear talk about it: it’s not the major issue causing the problem.

        • #2776171

          All part of the plan…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to global warming and planes

          you’re just not seeing it yet….

          Control of money. Control of energy. Control of Health care… It’s leading somewhere… somewhere not very nice if you’re not part of The Elite…

        • #2776158

          then educate me…

          by jck ·

          In reply to All part of the plan…

          oh wise one…where is it going? Castle Greyskull?

          You sit and talk about doom and gloom because of Democrats now taking over.

          However, the oil companies have been in control of the energy market for basically the past 2-3 year and what has been the result? oil nearly tripled in price. so did gasoline. So, they have been exploiting Americans for all the money they could.

          Under the Bush administration, insurance carriers have been able to put tighter restrictions on the things that medical professionals can do to treat patients…so big business has been allowed to exploit medical care and the American people for all the money they can.

          Now tell me:

          If this is so good for America because business is doing good things for our country with these record profits…

          where are the new jobs?

          where is the better pay?

          where is the lower unemployment?

          I don’t see any of it.

          So, I feel perhaps your view of what will happen under Democrats…has already happened under the Republicans.

        • #2775986

          Castle Greyskull?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to then educate me…

          [i]You sit and talk about doom and gloom because of Democrats now taking over.[/i]

          It’s not because the Democrats are taking over. It’s because government is taking an ever increasing percentage of the GDP to provide “services” that we can provide better, cheaper, and faster ourselves.

          [i]However, the oil companies have been in control of the energy market for basically the past 2-3 year and what has been the result? oil nearly tripled in price. so did gasoline. So, they have been exploiting Americans for all the money they could.[/i]

          Bull… Except for some speculators, who are independent of the oil companies, the price of oil is controlled by supply and demand… YOU control it. Or did you not notice how quickly the price dropped when the demand fell through the floor?

          [i]Under the Bush administration, insurance carriers have been able to put tighter restrictions on the things that medical professionals can do to treat patients…so big business has been allowed to exploit medical care and the American people for all the money they can.[/i]

          The government has no business involved in the providing or pricing of medical services. If you can’t afford it, too bad… die! You don’t have the right to leech off of someone else against their will. Taking their money is no different than taking their blood.

          [i]If this is so good for America because business is doing good things for our country with these record profits…

          where are the new jobs?[/i]

          They’re overseas, where this government’s regulatory and tax burdens drove them. Eventually that’ll quit working for them though… as our economy continues to weaken.

          [i]where is the better pay?

          where is the lower unemployment?

          I don’t see any of it.[/i]

          And you won’t until someone figures out that our own government is doing this to us and demand that it stop.

          These bailouts are a bad idea! The only place they can come up with the money is to simply print it. Since the stuff that’s now in existence equals, more or less, the amount of money in circulation, every increase steals value from the money already in circulation (in other words, you just got a massive pay cut, though you don’t yet realize it), and the cost of “stuff” cannot do anything but sharply increase. They think they can keep this from getting out of hand but eventually we’re going to have to pay the piper… and when the bill comes due, we’re toast! The only people who won’t be affected are those who are in control of the money… and the elite (not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not even just politicians and not even just in this country!) are fighting amongst themselves to make sure it’s them… and to hell with the rest of us!

          THAT’S the plan.

          [i]So, I feel perhaps your view of what will happen under Democrats…has already happened under the Republicans.[/i]

          Indeed… It’s been going on at least since before World War I, accelerated by FDR and to a lesser extent LBJ, and continued to accelerate through every presidency since, though the slope is generally steeper under the Democrats.

          It’s not an insurmountable problem, but it’s going to require some major adjustments to the way we do things… governments must get smaller! People have to become more self-reliant! Nothing is free… you must earn your right to exist!

        • #2775778

          actually:

          by jck ·

          In reply to Castle Greyskull?

          [i]It’s not because the Democrats are taking over. It’s because government is taking an ever increasing percentage of the GDP to provide “services” that we can provide better, cheaper, and faster ourselves.[/i]

          That isn’t the case, and this is coming from someone who has worked for 3 county governments.

          We have found (in all 3 places I’ve worked) that the vast majority of outsourcing gives no improvement of monetary savings, and usually declines quality of service to the citizenry.

          So, I can deny your claim at the local government level based on years of work experience in that arena.

          [i]Bull… Except for some speculators, who are independent of the oil companies, the price of oil is controlled by supply and demand… YOU control it. Or did you not notice how quickly the price dropped when the demand fell through the floor?[/i]

          Actually, I saw oil prices start dropping 2-3 weeks before the election. Demand had begun to drop all the way back into July during the summer travel season. AAA reported that June and July fuel demand by travellers was down over 20% against the previous summer because people couldn’t afford to travel.

          So, prices didn’t realistically drop into response to lowered demand or usage. They dropped because oil companies the Republican administration was most likely (by every poll out in October) lose the election to Democrats who were ready to make sweeping change.

          (btw…you need to look into Valero and BP, two of the biggest oil companies who are also distributors in the USA)

          [i]The government has no business involved in the providing or pricing of medical services.[/i]

          Then who protects you from being ripped off? Can I go shoot someone for charging me a 1000% markup if I want to have my kid treated for a cold?

          Have you ever heard of market fixing?

          [i] If you can’t afford it, too bad… die! [/i]

          I sincerely hope you never lose your insurance and you have a dependent child who gets a malignant brain tumor.

          My parents faced that shit with insurance, and it’s hard enough.

          I hope you never have no insurance and someone looks at you and says “I can’t treat your child without being paid. Let him die.”

          [i]You don’t have the right to leech off of someone else against their will. Taking their money is no different than taking their blood.[/i]

          You should know better, Tony.

          You can survive without your money.

          You can’t survive without your blood.

          [i]They’re overseas, where this government’s regulatory and tax burdens drove them. Eventually that’ll quit working for them though… as our economy continues to weaken.[/i]

          Actually, tax breaks for corps have gotten more plentiful for years.

          The reason most corps moved jobs overseas: up to 95% reduction in labor cost.

          a) An Indian worker in a call center who makes $2000 a year is cheaper than a $25,000 a year American

          b) Most Indian and Chinese workers don’t get benefits or paid leave or insurance. Most American full-time workers do.

          It wasn’t really about regulation and tax as you think. It was about screwing over American workers to make a bigger buck.

          And if our government had any balls, it’d tell the corporations they lose their tax breaks if they offshore jobs.

          [i]And you won’t until someone figures out that our own government is doing this to us and demand that it stop.[/i]

          You are claiming that the government MAKES corporations not use their profit margins to make more jobs? HAHAHAAHAHHAAHA! You are funnier than Richard Pryor, man.

          [i]People have to become more self-reliant! Nothing is free… you must earn your right to exist![/i]

          How did your children earn the right to exist? They didn’t do it. You did it for them. So, they were leeches by your own standard and by your own words they had no right to do so.

          Was it against your will? Hm. Were all your children planned? Did you have to change your stance to facilitate them?

          Yet, you approved of them leeching from you as well as that of other various things they benefitted from indirectly due to the system providing those things.

          Yep. Irony is a bitter pill.

          Fair across the board means fair across the board 100 percent of the time…not just when it doesn’t inconvenience you.

        • #2775375

          OMG…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Castle Greyskull?

          [i]We have found (in all 3 places I’ve worked) that the vast majority of outsourcing gives no improvement of monetary savings, and usually declines quality of service to the citizenry.[/i]

          Of course it doesn’t!!!!, since you’ve inserted the government as a go-between.. a middle man… who must get a cut…. ADDING to what would otherwise be the cost.

          That’s what’s wrong with the system!!!! It adds cost, but not value!!!!!

          You just went five steps backward.

        • #2775073

          i didn’t go backward

          by jck ·

          In reply to Castle Greyskull?

          i just gave you facts about what was found.

          a) the cost of employment of a staff person versus that of a contracted employee ends up being more less in most cases.

          b) quality of service usually goes down because contract workers didn’t work as diligently, considered themselves “there temporarily”, etc.

          c) you have less instability of employees, i.e.- being highly transitional, not caring if they show up late regularly, etc.

          d) annual work projects tended to suffer delays under contract/outsourced labor that they didn’t with permanent staff.

          we just found that in every case (i think the exceptions were all the places were grounds maintenance and parks crews), permanent staff performed better, costed less, and had a better work ethic.

          we were doing work better than the private sector, cheaper than the private sector, and faster.

          that’s just real life…not going backwards.

          if you’re looking for the majority of the frills and slow-arsedness in government, there’s usually one dependable place to look: at the top.

      • #2776261

        Question, Tony

        by jck ·

        In reply to Here’s another one JD

        Were those all corporate owned jets?

        I believe the issue was that Ford, Chrysler and GM’s CEOs all flew in at an average cost of $22,000 for a few days, when they could have taken public transportation for several hundred.

        And the fact that they were begging congress for $10Bs while splurging on luxuries for themselves isn’t exactly flattering when you’re begging, huh?

        • #2776173

          You’re getting there…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Question, Tony

          [i]And the fact that they were begging congress for $10Bs while splurging on luxuries for themselves isn’t exactly flattering when you’re begging, huh?[/i]

          That’s all I was saying… Yes, they had the “right” to choose to fly in in their jets, but they also have the responsibility to accept the PR consequences. Just like the bank that gave their execs a retreat does. Just like Merrill Lynch does for remodeling their executive suites. It’s ALL about appearances!

        • #2776153

          I would be willing to bet that…

          by jck ·

          In reply to You’re getting there…

          most of those “600 jets” were not banking execs, automotive execs, etc., using corporate jets.

          I bet they were probably old money like the Bush family and their relatives, Kennedys and their relatives, etc etc.

          Trust me on this, Tony. If those guys would have flown down to that inauguration in [b]corporate jets[/b], someone in the press would have been all over it.

          If they use their own personal monies, there shouldn’t be PR consequences. Right? Spend as you wish?

        • #2775982

          Spend as you wish…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I would be willing to bet that…

          yes. Avoid consequences… impossible. Drop a pebble in a still pond, and the ripples soon cover it, no matter how much you try to avoid it.

        • #2775772

          but…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Spend as you wish…

          what in the hell does a CEO’s personal spending habits of his/her own personal monies…have squat to do with them and their use of corporate monies?

          Nothing.

          If they flew in on a personal or chartered jet, it’s a non-issue. They earned that money, and according to your own ethos no one has a right to complain about that.

          If it had been use of corporate property, there would be a stink…especially for anyone who has been involved in their company being bailed out.

        • #2775367

          but… but… but….

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Spend as you wish…

          [i]but…
          what in the hell does a CEO’s personal spending habits of his/her own personal monies…have squat to do with them and their use of corporate monies? [/i]

          Nothing really, but to the masses, there is that inescapable appearance…

          Sorry, I didn’t make the rules…

        • #2775069

          i haven’t perceived that

          by jck ·

          In reply to but… but… but….

          from anyone i know…people making a fuss of it.

          now, i have heard people going “what the hell does he need a jet for.” or “he should have to sell that thing and pay back the shareholders” and what not in jealousy.

          but not over personal spending because the company they run got bailed out.

Viewing 11 reply threads