President Obama

[Andrew]

Apparently Obama handed Republicans their asses during Q&A yesterday. Fox news stopped airing it before Obama was done.

Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore

35 minute mark Obama gives it to them.

How often did Bush go to Democrat Q&A?

[Andrew]

Obama's 2011 Budget Kills Any Hopes of NASA Returning to the Moon

Good, nothing good ever came from the space program. Big waste of money. oh wait

Why not put a couple mars rover device on the moon? If they were able to put 2 on mars and they lasted years, surely they can put one on the moon since research is already done and designs would be similar. No dust storms to worry about, and no human aspects (oxygen/living requirements if it crashes) needed.

The Obama administration instead will fund research into technology that would be used for a manned mission to Mars.

Umm, if we havn't put a man on the moon in like 30 years, how the hell do they expect to put someone near mars?

It's one of those promises politicians make and the date to be completed is after they are out of office which means it has no chance of happening (then they get to blame next admin about not finishing it).

I really don't like the idea of the government using money to pay private corporations to do space stuff. It's like when government pays for infrastructure (phones/internet) and then gives it to private corps cheap who then suck money out of population with no real competition.

[chatfsh]

In general, I'm delighted with the relatively recent election results in New Jersey, Virginia and now, Massachusetts. The tide continues to turn rather nicely. Heh, I can't wait to see what happens this November. But it's with even greater anticipation that I look forward to the 2012 elections. That is of course, if the POTUS isn't impeached prior to that time...

[SandChigger]

(Do you squelch when you walk? Just wondering.)

Oooh, can hardly wait till the Republicans get back into the White House and we can get back to the job of founding the theocracy! :D

[Edric O]

In general, I'm delighted with the relatively recent election results in New Jersey, Virginia and now, Massachusetts. The tide continues to turn rather nicely. Heh, I can't wait to see what happens this November. But it's with even greater anticipation that I look forward to the 2012 elections. That is of course, if the POTUS isn't impeached prior to that time...

Well, at least you have to give the POTUS credit for trying really hard to make the future transition to a Republican administration as smooth as possible, by governing as if he was John McCain.

[chatfsh]

President Palin in 2012?  Why, I

[Andrew]

President Palin in 2012?  Why, I

[SandChigger]

::)

Yeah, look how well things went the last time there was a brain-dead Republican in office.

[Wolf]

Running Palin would be absolutely suicidal for their elections prospects. There is no way even a majority of people in the US thinks she's sane, much less a better potential candidate than Obama. I think the more interesting question is... is there any chance that Obama isn't seeking reelection?

[Dunenewt]

Jeb Bush for President in 2012?

[Andrew]

Her bracelet has her son's name on it. And those bracelets are for POW and MIA soldiers. Odd the media never said anything about her son being a POW or MIA. Maybe it's not that type of bracelet, but obviously using her sons military career to further herself.

She got paid $100,000 for an hour of work, so I guess she is smarter than I am.

[athanasios]

So a person's IQ can be counted by checking how much money he makes? ::)

[Edric O]

Somewhat off-topic, here is why polls asking people to respond to political labels are unreliable:

Socialism viewed positively by 36% of Americans

Gallup makes a big deal about the level of support for "socialism", but, in my opinion, the more significant finding of the poll is that the results are incoherent. 17% of Republicans and 20% of people calling themselves "conservatives" view "socialism" positively. The reaction to the term "free enterprise" is radically different from the reaction to the term "capitalism", even though the former is just a euphemism for the latter. At least 3% of Americans have a positive view of both socialism and capitalism. And so on. This should cast serious doubt on all those other polls that try to count the numbers of conservatives and liberals in the US - because there are large minorities in both camps that clearly don't fit with the typical view of what a "conservative" or "liberal" should stand for.

[chatfsh]

Because it would insure Obama a second term?

Not according to this recent Gallup poll.  Apparently any Republican candidate would at least tie Obama in a presidential race.  While Mitt Romney leads the pack, Sarah Palin is the second most popular Republican candidate being pitched to run against Obama.  No surprises in the preferences amongst Democrats and Republicans, however, Independents seemed to favor a Republican candidate over Obama.  Though

[Edric O]

Not according to this recent Gallup poll. Apparently any Republican candidate would at least tie Obama in a presidential race.

Hwi, that's not what the poll says. It asks about a generic Republican candidate - in other words, whatever the person being interviewed sees as the "average Republican". The poll does not at any point imply that 42% of voters would support any Republican candidate. It stands to reason that certain candidates would get less votes than the average, generic Republican (and others would get more).

I doubt even a conservative as hardline as yourself would be willing to say that they would vote for anyone - absolutely anyone - that happens to be nominated by the Republican Party.

Edit: Also, while you are indeed correct that Palin is the second-most popular candidate among Republicans, you neglected to mention that she scores second place with an abysmally low 11% - and this is just among Republicans. With the most popular option (Mitt Romney) at a similarly pathetic 14%, it looks like the GOP still remains a headless chicken. That "generic Republican" guy is so much more popular than any actual Republican leader, that it might be best for the GOP to simply look for the most bland, nondescript candidate they can find and run him against Obama.

[SandChigger]

Oh, Edric, please stop picking on the ole gal. I mean, after the total humiliation of the abiogenesis thread, she has so few <b>gaps</b> left in which to invest her delusions. :(

[chatfsh]

Edric, I'm fairly certain that the people being polled are perfectly aware of the current pool of Republican candidates. Therefore, when they speak of the "generic Republican" candidate, it's in reference to the existing pool.

The salient point here is that even wihout placing a name on the Republican ticket, a large percentage of voters, particularly Independents, would vote for the Republican against Obama. That is huge in that it is a clear repudiation of the Obama administration.  This is essentially what we witnessed in NJ, Virginia and Massachusetts.

Furthermore, at this early stage in the game, it is not so unusual to see such low numbers amongst a broad field of candidates.  As time progresses and the field narrows, the poll numbers will likely increase. In other words, if given 20 candidates from which to choose, the votes may be spread much thinner. Whereas, if you only had 3 candidates from which to chose, you would likely see a higher concentration of votes for each candidate.

SandChigger, I find it utterly laughable that you would have the nerve to talk about anyone being humiliated in that thread. Heh, in that regard, YOU are the very last person who should be pointing a finger. ;D

Every time you open that mouth of yours, my triumph only grows sweeter. 

[Andrew]

Anyone see Daily Show last night?

Obama invited Republicans to a televised debate about health care reform (for which Obama was criticized for not doing even though he promised it, and now he is doing it), and all the news media and republicans talked about it being a trap. Gee make up your minds. You attack him for not televising debate, and when he wants to it becomes a trap?

Also Daily Show with John Oliver in Hawaii talking to Republicans was priceless. Hawaii apparently has "social" healthcare for past 40 years (>=20 hours a week and employer forced to provide insurance). Not really Canadian socialized, but at least if you hire full time, they end up getting insurance.

[Tatar Khan]

The problem Obama is facing is that bipartisanship has grown by leaps and bounds through the year. Republicans just cry no to anything Obama says. IT became an instinct type of response.

[Andrew]

OBAMA: DUMBER THAN SARAH PALIN

Nice trollish article.

oh noes Obama is focusing on Health Reform instead of economy.

I thought the bailout and recession bailout were to fix it?

[Anathema]

Actually, I was thinking of using a very small number of highly trained operatives to infiltrate the enemy and carry out assassinations and sabotage - which is basically the same strategy Al-Qaeda is using.

What exactly do you mean by "neutralizing Afghanistan as a terrorist threat", and why is it necessary?

Consider the following simple math: Suppose that, in the absence of US military spending, there would be one 9/11-scale attack every single year. This is an extreme assumption that vastly exaggerates the scale of the terrorist threat; I am trying to concede as much as possible to your fear of terrorists. Now, this means about 3000 Americans killed by terrorists every year. Like I said, it's an extreme scenario. If this nightmare is what would happen in the absence of 900 billion dollars of military spending, that means that the amount of money spent for each life saved is... about three hundred million dollars. This is without a doubt the absolute worst, most costly, most inefficient way of saving lives ever known to man! If you put all that money into health care, or disaster relief, or fire-proofing buildings, or almost anything else, you could save far more than one person for every $300,000,000!

Even on the assumption of imminent catastrophic terrorist attacks, current levels of military spending are still far too high. The opportunity cost is too great. It's not worth it. Use the money for something else instead, and you'll save more people.

Some action against Afghanistan was required because they housed Al-Quada terrorists and assets and didn't even try to hide it. Letting them get away with it would have encouraged extremists to join them; and economic sanctions wouldn't have done a damn thing against Afghanistan's sorry excuse for an economy.

I suppose that Mossad-style assasinations (think Black september), coupled with regular bombardment directed from Pakistan, might also have done the trick at much lower cost. An added bonus would be that being hit by a bomb or a shell isn't exactly a glorious martyr death and would make for poor propaganda for jihadists. But, under the present circumstances, withdrawing before the Afghan army can fend for itself is simply not an option.

Also, the direct monetary damage of terrorist attacks (i.e. destroyed buildings and damaged train stations, etc) is the most trivial aspect. That's like saying that we shouldn't bother to remember WW1, because the Spanish Flue epidemic that followed killed even more people in a few months' time.

....

Also, I don't have a particular opinion about Obama's healthcare plans. I think it's a little disturbing though that a 59-41 minority can frustrate legislation by merely threatening to filibuster. Filibuster used to mean that the opposition was willing to stay up day and night, consecutively, to make a stand against something...nowadays the majority just takes their word for it and drop the issue.

[Andrew]

Obama tops Bush at ducking reporters: No formal press conference in 215 days

This is all part of his Master Plan for Socialism.

/I thought Obama wanted more transparency

//oh wait American Idol is on, Americans are placated

///I'm trolling :)

[Edric O]

Edric, I'm fairly certain that the people being polled are perfectly aware of the current pool of Republican candidates. Therefore, when they speak of the "generic Republican" candidate, it's in reference to the existing pool.

Yes. But that's not what you said. You said that anyone willing to vote for a generic Republican over Obama would also be willing to vote for Sarah Palin over Obama. That is not true. The only thing the poll shows is that a majority of people are willing to vote for some Republican - not any, but some - over Obama.

The salient point here is that even wihout placing a name on the Republican ticket, a large percentage of voters, particularly Independents, would vote for the Republican against Obama. That is huge in that it is a clear repudiation of the Obama administration.  This is essentially what we witnessed in NJ, Virginia and Massachusetts.

Oh yeah, Obama sucks. I thought we agreed on that a while back.

Furthermore, at this early stage in the game, it is not so unusual to see such low numbers amongst a broad field of candidates.  As time progresses and the field narrows, the poll numbers will likely increase. In other words, if given 20 candidates from which to choose, the votes may be spread much thinner. Whereas, if you only had 3 candidates from which to chose, you would likely see a higher concentration of votes for each candidate.

Maybe, but I rather think that most of that increase will be in favour of people like Mitt Romney. Sarah Palin has a small core of dedicated supporters and little else. Same as Ron Paul.

Some action against Afghanistan was required because they housed Al-Quada terrorists and assets and didn't even try to hide it. Letting them get away with it would have encouraged extremists to join them; and economic sanctions wouldn't have done a damn thing against Afghanistan's sorry excuse for an economy.

Alright, but they could have taken some purely symbolic action - or arrange a few assassinations of key leaders and let infighting do the rest, like I said.

Also, the direct monetary damage of terrorist attacks (i.e. destroyed buildings and damaged train stations, etc) is the most trivial aspect. That's like saying that we shouldn't bother to remember WW1, because the Spanish Flue epidemic that followed killed even more people in a few months' time.

I was talking about the monetary cost of fighting terrorism, which is massive (and several times larger than the damage actually done by terrorists). And what does remembrance have to do with anything? Of course we should remember WW1. But should we fight another war like it? Hell no!

But, under the present circumstances, withdrawing before the Afghan army can fend for itself is simply not an option.

Why not? The Afghan army is little more than a gang of hired thugs for yet another US-backed dictator, anyway (I expect Karzai to get well over 110% in the next free and fair elections, heh).

[chatfsh]

Edric, this minor point is hardly worth quibbling over. So fine, you're right, a majority of people would rather vote for "some" Republican candidate over Obama. As long as a conservative Republican wins, I'm a happy camper! ;)

[Edric O]

So I guess your bank didn't get any of that bailout cash, eh? Maybe an executive bonus would change your perspective. ;)