Obama and the Supreme Court

[rogue06]

It was "synthetically created and then managed from beginning" though it quickly expanded from there with the help of sympathetic local politicians (who gradually became less and less sympathetic) and media. They tapped into legitimate complaints but the start of the OWS movement was orchastrated and didn't evolve from a grass roots organization.

[seanD]

It was "synthetically created and then managed from beginning" though it quickly expanded from there with the help of sympathetic local politicians (who gradually became less and less sympathetic) and media. They tapped into legitimate complaints but the start of the OWS movement was orchastrated and didn't evolve from a grass roots organization.

Of course they weren't grassroots and aren't now. Grassroots implies a political movement with a political agenda. If it was as orchestrated as you claim, then they would have had a clear agenda. The fact they didn't have a clear agenda from the start and don't have one now is just more evidence that disproves your theory. And you couldn't be any more incorrect of the MSM's ( if that's who you were referring to) coverage. The MSM ignored it for the most part at first. Networks like CNN, Fox News, CNBC did everything it could to discourage it (whether this was intentional or not is not clear) by belittling and ridiculing it when it did cover it. It was after the movement grew and expanded into different cities that the media took more notice..

[Nathan Poe]

Of course they weren't grassroots and aren't now. Grassroots implies a political movement with a political agenda. If it was as orchestrated as you claim, then they would have had a clear agenda. The fact they didn't have a clear agenda from the start and don't have one now is just more evidence that disproves your theory. And you couldn't be any more incorrect of the MSM's ( if that's who you were referring to) coverage. The MSM ignored it for the most part at first. Networks like CNN, Fox News, CNBC did everything it could to discourage it (whether this was intentional or not is not clear) by belittling and ridiculing it when it did cover it. It was after the movement grew and expanded into different cities that the media took more notice..

Of course -- Whatever its origins, OWs was an anti-corporate movement. And who owns the MSM?

[Jaecp]

Of course they weren't grassroots and aren't now. Grassroots implies a political movement with a political agenda. If it was as orchestrated as you claim, then they would have had a clear agenda. The fact they didn't have a clear agenda from the start and don't have one now is just more evidence that disproves your theory. And you couldn't be any more incorrect of the MSM's ( if that's who you were referring to) coverage. The MSM ignored it for the most part at first. Networks like CNN, Fox News, CNBC did everything it could to discourage it (whether this was intentional or not is not clear) by belittling and ridiculing it when it did cover it. It was after the movement grew and expanded into different cities that the media took more notice..

What Nathan said,

Also,

There are plenty of clear agenda's Sean, go check out the webpage or facebook group for the occupy group nearest where you live. Ask them and they will tell you.

OWS is not a left wing teaparty and we aren't nearly as monolithic as some like to claim (or as organized, much to my chagrin)

[seanD]

Of course -- Whatever its origins, OWs was an anti-corporate movement. And who owns the MSM?

Sometimes your posts throw me because you either parrot what I say or state the obvious from what I say and make it look like somehow you disagree. Were you confirming what I said, or are you driving at something else?

[Nathan Poe]

Sometimes your posts throw me because you either parrot what I say or state the obvious from what I say and make it look like somehow you disagree. Were you confirming what I said, or are you driving at something else?

Confirming, of course -- I think it's good that the MSM is blamed for something besides "liberal bias" for once.

[seanD]

Confirming, of course -- I think it's good that the MSM is blamed for something besides "liberal bias" for once.

Just to be clear, I'm "blaming" the media in how they treated the OWS movement because of what I observed with my own eyes and ears, not because I'm taking any sort of political stance one way or the other. It's because it's a fact, plain and simple.

[rogue06]

Of course they weren't grassroots and aren't now. Grassroots implies a political movement with a political agenda. If it was as orchestrated as you claim, then they would have had a clear agenda. The fact they didn't have a clear agenda from the start and don't have one now is just more evidence that disproves your theory. And you couldn't be any more incorrect of the MSM's ( if that's who you were referring to) coverage. The MSM ignored it for the most part at first. Networks like CNN, Fox News, CNBC did everything it could to discourage it (whether this was intentional or not is not clear) by belittling and ridiculing it when it did cover it. It was after the movement grew and expanded into different cities that the media took more notice..

Actually when you say something is a grassroots movement you're merely saying it arose spontaneously from the bottom up rather than the top down. And AdBusters definitely had an agenda -- opposition to capitalism in general and promoting envy towards those who are successful. They found much to their chagrin that organizing the protesters was like herding cats.

The MSM did anything but ignore it. Many were excited at the prospect of there being a potential liberal counterpart to the Tea Party and they were quite happy to promote it. Some, like Michael Moore, complained about an initial lack of coverage but the fact is that ABC, CBS, Bloomberg, the New York Daily News and even Fox News* were covering it from day one. The rest of the media was there within the next few days. Within two weeks it was nearly saturation coverage.

Over time as increasing reports of violence and the like kept coming out the MSM became increasingly disenchanted with them.

The coverage was in stark contrast to how the Tea Party was covered. From the very start the MSM either ignored them or disparaged them.





* Here is Fox's initial report: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/17...#ixzz1YFzksRx3

[rogue06]

Of course -- Whatever its origins, OWs was an anti-corporate movement. And who owns the MSM?

The owners and CEOs who head the various news outlets are generally in the 1% but that hasn't ever stopped them from supporting increased taxes, government regulations and the like before.

[Darth Executor]

Just to be clear, I'm "blaming" the media in how they treated the OWS movement because of what I observed with my own eyes and ears, not because I'm taking any sort of political stance one way or the other. It's because it's a fact, plain and simple.

What are you talking about? The OWS movement got a far more generous treatment than they deserve.

[seanD]

The owners and CEOs who head the various news outlets are generally in the 1% but that hasn't ever stopped them from supporting increased taxes, government regulations and the like before.

That's because the 1% use loopholes or their government connections to avoid tax regulation. Also, corporate conglomerates that run media networks, such as GE and Newscorp are part of the crony capitalist club that gets bailed out by government or access to free interest loans, so more taxes means more bailout funds and government insurance coverage for them to fall back on. For example, people like Buffet, who's definitely part of the 1%, runs around trumpeting the "tax the rich" motto because he not only avoids tax regulation using his government connections, but his investment stakes actually get bailed out by tax payers. Supporting increased taxes is not only the way the 1% stomp out their lower level free market capitalist competition that don't have the government connections to avoid this burden, but a way they get more bail-out funds to uphold their crony capitalist club, and can also play both the liberal facade and hero to the poor as an extra benefit.

[odis]

Well, I know you're not referring to either Iraq or Afghanistan, so -- did you have another war in mind?

Oh "shucks" your right... Those were just kinetic hostile military actions, not wars..... 2 completely different things.....

Well, without bringing Bush into this, (that's a road neither of us want to walk down for various reasons) I'll agree that while Obama was dealt a rotten hand by Nov. of '08, he does have to take responsibility for what he's done since then -- and it's been a mixed bag. I didn't much care for his early gripes about having inherited the problems of the last administration (no matter how much truth was to them), because in the words of another Democrat president, "the buck stops here."

Disappointing? perhaps. But hardly disastrous.

Define disastrous. It may not be bad for his administration, but this is our lives that swing in the balance and he doesn't seem to care. I will never vote for a leader who intentionally allows people to be hanging like pinatas no matter whose fault it actually was. A failed attempt is better than no attempt at all.

Again, the Buck stops with Obama, not Biden -- In the days before the Cheney administration (as I like to think of it), the Veep was sometimes little more than throne insurance -- look at some of the duds who were only a heart attack/assassin's bullet away from the oval office -- Agnew? Quayle? Palin?

Biden's a dud, but hardly the first or the worst. It's what Obama says that matters in the end.

Except that Obama picked Biden. Obama chose him for a running mate. That being said Biden should either be wearing a muzzle or not giving out speeches which is easy to achieve since the only job the VP has, is to survive long enough to appoint a successor in the event he is called upon.

As far as I know, after Keystone was slapped with numerous lawsuits and criticisms from everyone from environmental groups to members of Congress, the State Department gave various federal agencies time to determine whether or not this pipeline was actually in the country's best interest. Obama gave those agencies an extension until 2013.

when/if i find time, ill look into it more.

Obama often comes across as too cautious, but in this case, making sure that all the ducks are lined up and that we're sure this project isn't going to be a national embarrassment is worth another year -- measure twice, cut once.

sections of the pipeline can be built at the same time as other parts are still being designed otherwise i would agree. This isnt building a building where you have to pour the foundation before you can start building.

First of all, from what I've heard, Netanyahu pretty much is a troglodyte -- but agreed, Obama should've watched out for those open mics.

When you dont have many friends, you cant afford to insult any friends.

Britain? Really? Returning a bust of Winston Churchill counts as a major insult? You want to hear worse stories, check your history books.

I'm fully aware. That particular link was just one i came across in the other link and i think we can agree that this administration has been rather unfriendly to everyone in general.

As for the police, Obama has tended to side against them in controversial brutality/abuse cases -- but that's hardly an insult.

If you feel betrayed, imho, you've been insulted. If i was an officer, i'd feel pretty #$%# betrayed.

I'm sure you can come up with plenty more, but nothing here is particularly earthshaking. Just a lot of huffing, puffing, and manufactured outrage from the Right.

Nothing huge but he has done enough that i dont think many people are still 100% for him anymore. I know many die hard democrats who arent sure they can support Obama.

Which is never what it means in the case of any president -- it's not as if they're completely incommunicado or out of reach wherever they go.

Sounds to me like you got some bad info from an anti-Obama source -- no problem; you're not the first.

yes and no. I knew that Obama had spent less money at the actual vacation and i didn't care to bother with the number of days on vacation because at least one president in history has gone on "vacation" and then spent all his time with diplomatic matters. What i was focused on was the president's overall lack of getting work done; He doesnt seem to prepare for his speeches, he doesnt seem to have any knowledge of whats written in many of his bills, he doesnt seem to care that he hasnt fulfilled most of his campaign promises, and he doesnt seem bothered by the fact that there are a growing number of people becoming irritated with him.

Meanwhile, Newt went on record as saying that he would not only disrespect the court, but actually defy any decision he didn't agree with. In essence, he made a campaign promise to put himself above the law of the land.

I'd take another 4 years of Obama over 2 with newt....

[odis]

What are you talking about? The OWS movement got a far more generous treatment than they deserve.

If any part about the OWS movement was covering up crimes is true, then above statement isnt nearly.... I dont even know how to finish that sentence. Can you imagine if the tea party tried to cover up any crimes? it would be another excellent example of the double standard in this country.

[Nathan Poe]

Oh "shucks" your right... Those were just kinetic hostile military actions, not wars..... 2 completely different things.....

Whatever you want to call them, they started and were in full swing years before Obama was elected, so why you would want to blame him for them is a mystery.

Define disastrous. It may not be bad for his administration, but this is our lives that swing in the balance and he doesn't seem to care. I will never vote for a leader who intentionally allows people to be hanging like pinatas no matter whose fault it actually was. A failed attempt is better than no attempt at all.

Obama said he would bring the troops home -- Since he took office, combat troops in Iraq have indeed been brought home. That just leaves Afghanistan. I'd hardly call that "hanging like pinatas."

Except that Obama picked Biden. Obama chose him for a running mate. That being said Biden should either be wearing a muzzle or not giving out speeches which is easy to achieve since the only job the VP has, is to survive long enough to appoint a successor in the event he is called upon.

I'll list this as one of his faults -- Obama made the second-worst pick for Vice president back in 2008. But tell the truth; we dodged a bullet on that one.

when/if i find time, ill look into it more.

Fair enough.

sections of the pipeline can be built at the same time as other parts are still being designed otherwise i would agree. This isnt building a building where you have to pour the foundation before you can start building.

No, this is a national engineering project that's going to stretch for over a thousand miles over several states. So some parts of it are ok, others need more planning.

The point is, the project you said he wasn't doing is being done -- albeit not perhas in the way or at the rate you wold appreciate.

When you dont have many friends, you cant afford to insult any friends.

True, but Obama has more friends now than he did when he took office. He's still ahead of the game, even after our name in the international community was dragged in the muck and left there.

I'm fully aware. That particular link was just one i came across in the other link and i think we can agree that this administration has been rather unfriendly to everyone in general.

Actually, we don't agree on that.

If you feel betrayed, imho, you've been insulted. If i was an officer, i'd feel pretty #$%# betrayed.

Unless you're an officer who happens to think that your fellow officers did indeed step over the line -- as the ones I know have said. Their biggest beef with Obama is that he should've kept out of it completely, regardless of his opinion -- just because local issues make the national news doesn't mean the president needs to weigh in with his opinnion; he's got bigger things on his plate.

Congress did the same thing (far more egregiously) with the Terry Schiavo debacle a few years back. No reason that ever had to go to DC

Nothing huge but he has done enough that i dont think many people are still 100% for him anymore. I know many die hard democrats who arent sure they can support Obama.

You don't say! Yes, Obama has been a letdown, but people are going to look at him, look at his opponent (whoever he may be) and still see Obama as the lesser of two evils. It's possible that an Obama supporter would switch sides and vote for Romney instead, but there not a snowball's chance in Hades that they'd do it for Gingrich.

yes and no. I knew that Obama had spent less money at the actual vacation and i didn't care to bother with the number of days on vacation because at least one president in history has gone on "vacation" and then spent all his time with diplomatic matters. What i was focused on was the president's overall lack of getting work done; He doesnt seem to prepare for his speeches, he doesnt seem to have any knowledge of whats written in many of his bills, he doesnt seem to care that he hasnt fulfilled most of his campaign promises, and he doesnt seem bothered by the fact that there are a growing number of people becoming irritated with him.

So you were actually complaining about something totally different than going on vacation. Well why didn't you say so!

Sure, we can talk about his lack of getting things done -- in fact, there are entire websites devoted to that -- such as:

http://obamaachievements.org/list

or http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=2

Why yes, he's been sitting on his thumbs for the last three years, hasn't he?

Doesn't seem to prepare for his speeches? How so?
Doesn't know what's written in many of his bills? Examples, please?
Doesn't care about fulfilling campaign promises? This is news?
Not bothered by people who don't like him? How worried should he be about his "image"?

Really, can't you find something with substance to complain about?

I'd take another 4 years of Obama over 2 with newt....

Ask, and he shall receive.

[odis]

Whatever you want to call them, they started and were in full swing years before Obama was elected, so why you would want to blame him for them is a mystery.

i was referring to lybia.... *crosses fingers and hopes i'm not referring to Iran as well*

Obama said he would bring the troops home -- Since he took office, combat troops in Iraq have indeed been brought home. That just leaves Afghanistan. I'd hardly call that "hanging like pinatas."

The majority of the fighting was over by the time he took office. At that point it would have been a bigger trick to keep them there. Afghanistan on the other hand, he is hardly in touch with his military such to the point he had to replace his former general because the general did not respect Obama in the least. On top of that bush was fighting 2 wars and lost 4852 troops while he was in office. Obama is mostly just cleaning up after the 2 (and mostly just fighting 1) and hes already lost 1578 troops. His methods of fighting this war are leaving our troops out to dry.

I'll list this as one of his faults -- Obama made the second-worst pick for Vice president back in 2008. But tell the truth; we dodged a bullet on that one.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. The guy has been caught sleeping during Obama's speeches.

No, this is a national engineering project that's going to stretch for over a thousand miles over several states. So some parts of it are ok, others need more planning.

The point is, the project you said he wasn't doing is being done -- albeit not perhas in the way or at the rate you wold appreciate.

The real problem is that Obama has been trying (or at least it appears that he has) to raise gas prices and he doesnt have a problem with things being too expensive as he did actually state, "...energy prices would necessarily skyrocket."

True, but Obama has more friends now than he did when he took office. He's still ahead of the game, even after our name in the international community was dragged in the muck and left there.

And what will happen to his new friends when/if we dont elect him again? will they cause problems? will they just leave? will they stick around at all? what about our old friends? while its unlikely anything terrible will happen, i dont like the questions.

Actually, we don't agree on that.

he continually mocks/attacks the right until he needs their help and then claims that they are being greedy and self centered. From the republicans can help but they gotta sit in the back to claiming that the country needs the republicans to agree with the democrats to get the country back on track.
the Sarkozy thing was an accident although certainly not helpful and i was surprised to see that Barack defended Ann Romney.
Then there was the bait and switch with the contraception crap.
The other bait and switch with Obama's now top general.
the lies about carbon-credits fixing our country.
ill consider continuing this list later.

Unless you're an officer who happens to think that your fellow officers did indeed step over the line -- as the ones I know have said. Their biggest beef with Obama is that he should've kept out of it completely, regardless of his opinion -- just because local issues make the national news doesn't mean the president needs to weigh in with his opinnion; he's got bigger things on his plate.

fair enough.

Congress did the same thing (far more egregiously) with the Terry Schiavo debacle a few years back. No reason that ever had to go to DC

Because when 2 wrongs dont make a right, keep trying.

You don't say! Yes, Obama has been a letdown, but people are going to look at him, look at his opponent (whoever he may be) and still see Obama as the lesser of two evils. It's possible that an Obama supporter would switch sides and vote for Romney instead, but there not a snowball's chance in Hades that they'd do it for Gingrich.

well heres something we can both agree on for sure. thank god Gingrich wont win...

So you were actually complaining about something totally different than going on vacation. Well why didn't you say so!

Sure, we can talk about his lack of getting things done -- in fact, there are entire websites devoted to that -- such as:

http://obamaachievements.org/list

or http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=2

Why yes, he's been sitting on his thumbs for the last three years, hasn't he?

Which is why when i realized how difficult it was going to be to argue the point, i'd rather just concede. some points ill fight ya tooth and nail, while others i'd rather just not fight at all.
i guess ill just make a couple comments instead of just giving up. First is that most of those things came in such massive bills you cant show me where in which bill most of them came from. i can easily say i did a thousand things today and then say well i picked up 6 apples and 4 oranges, so that makes 10 things i did. No all i did was my grocery shopping and all he did was pass the buck. Secondly, that list includes things like his memorandum that doesnt mean anything. Presidential Memorandum protecting gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights (4/15/2010) didn't modify/change/alter/extend a single thing. I have 2 gay cousins and my wife's brides maid (who is not only gay but male) had never had a problem in any state they had ever been to. I also have a cousin who works as a nurse and another who does some lower level admin stuff and they agree that the memorandum did nothing.

Doesn't seem to prepare for his speeches? How so?

He is lost without his teleprompter. He "um"s and pauses about as much as Bush did (no i dont actually know for certain but it sounds like it). Add this to the way he seems to flip flop between 2 ideals, it just doesn't feel like he read through his speech before he got to it or thought about how he felt about what hes talking about.

Doesn't know what's written in many of his bills? Examples, please?

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.-Nancy Pelosi
she had to say it because while Obama was running around making one set of claims, it was extremely easy to make another set in part because the health care bill was changing so much and was so large. most of the claims run by the republicans about the bill ended up being true. he should not have said anything about the health care bill that was malleable and he was wrong/lied about the rest. deficit neutral? only for the first 10 years, ya know until the thing really gets started and it sets in.

Doesn't care about fulfilling campaign promises? This is news?

Its a problem in this country and a problem with every president since.... before i could remember at least. It should still be listed.

Not bothered by people who don't like him? How worried should he be about his "image"?

Its not his image thats the problem. Thats why his ratings are still so high. People have a hard time disagreeing with someone they like who is supposed to know more than them. what people arent liking is that their situation only seems to be getting worse. the republicans' arguments are showing to be true.

Really, can't you find something with substance to complain about?

I thought complaining about the lack of progress had substance. What about falling victim to the same list of failures as every other president in recent history? What about his inability to learn from his mistakes? His inability to build a cohesive cabinet?