Light at the end of the tunnel: The 2008 Election, its aftermath and the future

Obama is wrong on Afghanistan and once again Ron Paul was/is right about this issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srl9I7-mIa0&feature=channel_page
(3 min vid)

Obama is a smart man, I thought he would be able to learn from this type of history.

 

Obama is wrong on Afghanistan and once again Ron Paul was/is right about this issue

I wreally like this guy, i dont know too much about economics though.

 

David Brooks sums it up best, IMO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/08/brooks-gop-spending-freez_n_172838.html

 

This pissed me off more.http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565. The guy has been office for two months, we gave GWB eight years!

 

Yes because the news has no right to point out how a website is whitewashing and distorting a presidents past.

This is getting sad. I guess censorship is okay as long as it helps Messiah Obama.

 

Kid, it is wikipedia, everyone knows that wikipedia is a load of bull. Obama is not the first person wikipedia has "whitewashed" and he won't be the last.

This just proves how sad Fox is, this shouldn't even be news.

 

Newsflash: losers like to fight the culture war on Wikipedia.

 

Nice

 

Culture wars are for people with nothing better to do.

 

False. Obama has plent of better things to do, yet doesn't mind spending valuable time away from the economic crisis on fighting culture wars. Like making sure scientists have the right to create life to destroy it in a totally unnecessary fashion due to recent biomedical advances.

I want Obama to be successful, but I do see that he seems to be trying to do too much too fast, and in the issue of Stem-Cells does seem to be mimicking the Bush administration. Torture is a serious moral issue, and it is not just a tool to be used. Embryonic Stem Cell research creates serious moral implications for our society, and I see the same "with us or against us" language used by Democrats on that issue as Republicans used on torture. Perhaps if it were a choice between saving a 50 year old and a 5 day old, there would be a point in sacrificing the 5 day old. But with recent advances making the use of embryos unnecessary, it is a false choice, and one Obama & Co. seem fine overlooking to satisfy their base.

This economy is falling apart, and don't let today's DOW fool you, we are in deep trouble. I'm a David Brooks conservative. I think it is accurate that the living room is on fire and Obama wants to redecorate the bedroom. Obama's press secretary said all the rooms are on fire. The fact is they aren't. We might have a hole in the roof over healthcare, but it isn't raining yet and the storm is still on the horizon. Obama knows that if his economic plan fails he won't get to do anything else. But by trying to do everything at once, he runs the real risk of not doing anything well. He doesn't have more than 2 years to turn this thing around or at least stop the bleeding, and at that point he runs the risk of Republicans catching a brain.

 

The best part is in that Wired article, which points out how the story's author is pissed that he himself (or "a researcher who works for him") got re-edited for posting his BS birth certificate conspiracy crap.

Well, that's one thing. By "culture wars," I mean O'Reilly style, "war on Christmas" manufactured outrage.

 

Newsflash: scientists aren't "creating life to destroy it". Do the research and understand what the process is before you attack it. Two key elements to consider: the embryonic stem cells already exist in the form of discarded embryos from a number of sources, including fertility clinics. Second, the embryos that already exist are disposed of, typically via an incinerator. These clumps of zygotes were basically being tossed out with the garbage under the Bush Admin. Yay pro-life!

And as an aside, I think it's appaling that someone can say they are pro-life, fight for the rights of unborn fetuses, and yet fight against and vote down legislation that would help living children (ie health care, education, etc). Talk about your hypocrits.

And finally, ewverything Obama has enacted (or overturned) has been for the benefit of our country. Taking your example, the purpose of refunding embryonic stem cell research is to work toward curing ailments that (from an economic perspective only) severely drain health care. Everyone (even Rush and Hannity) agrees that health care is the singlemost draw on federal funds.

 

But with recent advances making the use of embryos unnecessary, it is a false choice, and one Obama & Co. seem fine overlooking to satisfy their base.

Actually, if you are truly familiar with this research, you will know that the recent "breakthrough", is neither complete nor yet obviates the needs for using embryonic stem cells. ESC are still the "gold standard", and will be needed to help scientists fully understand how to work with pluripotential stem cells. Without ESC to guide them, this new "breakthrough" will be meaningless.

To use a BSG analogy, it would be like discovering a pound of tyllium and then trying to build an FTL without a working model. You may have the tools, but if one is lacking the blueprint, you won't get anywhere. At the very least, it will take a lot longer.

Also, to those who are railing against Obama for "fighting the culture wars" instead of fixing the economy, that is completely disingenuous. Presidents are expected to do more than one thing at a time; I noticed that there wasn't an outcry from conservatives when Bush instituted the policy that Obama has just now reversed. Indeed, it was applauded, and no-one was complaining about the move being done "too fast", or the fact that the majority of Americans did not, and still do not, support the federal ban.

I believe that is known as hypocrisy, ladies and gents. If Obama had continued Bush's policy, you would be very happy. Those of us who support ESCR are pleased with his move, and were very dismayed by the previous administration's position.

The complaining now honestly just looks like sour grapes.

Peace,

V-03

 

Actually, no, no it isn't.

Link

It's a DailyKos article so it is biased as all hell, but they have no reason to lie about this idiocy.

 

Oh, that's funny. You'd think someone like Klein (and like his miniscule entourage of WND assistants and aides) would know how easy it is to track data on the internet, particularly on sites like Wikipedia.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2213287/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/258hdaij.asp#

As these articles mention, we aren't just talking about discarded embryos, because to create actual treatments they would want to use new cloned embryos.

I think it's appaling that someone can say they are pro-life, fight for the rights of unborn fetuses, and yet fight against and vote down legislation that would help living children (ie health care, education, etc). Talk about your hypocrits.

Please PPOR that I have ever fought against helping living children. What others do is of no relevance to my own position. And just because someone is wrong on one issue doesn't make them necessarily wrong on another. Address the actual issue, not the person.

Yes the President can do more than one thing at a time, but that doesn't mean he can do everything at once. Obamatrons can't seem to grasp that just because I diagree with some of the things Obama is doing I didn't automatically support Bush. I voted for Obama, and like the rest of the moderates in this country expect his first job to be to fix our broken economy. If he was doing that swimmingly, he would be able to say he can do more than one thing at a time. But seeing how he is dithering on repairing our broken banks and we are loosing more and more jobs, the only reason to focus on these side issues is to get them through while he has the chance.

 

I was speaking specifically to the voting record and lobby efforts of Conservatives across the nation. 1st rule: fight abortion. 2nd rule: cut or prevent funding for health care/education. Those should be privatized, after all. That is why I began the sentence with: "And as an aside", and did not mention you or anyone here by name. I'm speaking to the national effort, not the individual.

 

Espaldapalabras, that's assuming there is more he can do about the economy that he's not already doing, specifically that he's not doing because he's doing other things. I'm not sure that's the case, as government has some but certainly limited control in a capitalist or mixed economy and the executive can't make certain policy unilaterally without support from the legislative branch as well, which takes time and study from the legislators. I'd like to know what else you would suggest he do about the economy he hasn't/isn't doing, if that's your concern.

 

Dithering? He's only been in office for 50+ days and he's already made sweeping changes, signed executive orders, and pushed through a stimuulous bill in record time. He's right now working on get the budget bill passed. Yeah, sheesh, I wish he'd just get off his hands and do something.

Do you realize that the economy is not a sitcom: it cannot be resolved in 30 minutes or less. Additionally, there are 24 hours in a day, and the President can only do so much before he has to pass his ideas on to Congress. Do you think he should sit and twiddle is thumbs waiting for Congress before he moves on to the next agenda item? That may have been what Bush did--scratch that; he didn't twiddle his thumbs, he went on vacation to Crawford--but I'm rather glad to see a president multitasking to put our country back on track.

 

I agree, the economy is going to take awhile to fix. Would you guys rather have Obama do nothing? And he said it best, all president have to multitask. Lincoln, FDR, and JFK all did so in their years in office.

 

I said he was dithering in regards to fixing the banks, which is very different from doing all the other things he has done.

Yes the economy is going to take time to fix, but I don't see that he has addressed the problem of the zombie banks in a serious way. They are basically doing more of the same of what Bush did, and it isn't working. They keep trying different variations of how to get the taxpayers to put in money for nothing, when if Obama was being decisive he would come out and tell us which banks we are going to own and which ones we aren't. I understand everyone is making it up as they go, but I think in a few years we are going to be regretting legislation passed so quickly in a moment of crisis. Well we already there, it is called the Patriot Act. I just don't want to see it happen again.

 

Edit: Wrong thread.

 

I missed these gems from JediSmuggler.



The "Not My President" comments about Bush were coming LONG before 2004 (for instance, Julia Roberts made that comment in 2001).

Okay, 2001, whatever. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. And the fact that you can utter such a stupid line doesn't make it any less of a stupid thing to say. Your justification for it also sets the bar pretty damn low for people claiming that. It was a response to the controversial way that GWB became President. Your response is because, and I'm paraphrasing now, "Waaaahhhh....my guy didn't win! That's not fair!" Grow up. Seriously.



And, as for the idiocy stopping... well, let's just say I find your choice of a stopping point awfully convenient. Why not stop that idiocy in 2005? I think we all know the answer why.

Do you? Because I'm a 'Demmycrat?' Really? No, I listed that date because I knew of more people claiming it then. I'm a registered independent. I have no stake in either party succeeding or failing. In fact, I hope they both destroy each other. I just hate Republicans slightly more than Democrats.


As far as I'm concerned, I'm simply taking the tactics your side used against Bush and turning them on Obama. Contrary to my brother's post, I am not going to pretend to be a saint - I'm pretty open that this is a combination of revenge and utilitarian tactics, nothing more.

'Tactics' of 'my side'? Are you for real? I have no 'side' here. Except maybe anti-stupidity. I hate it when both 'sides' do this. And the fact that you're just doing it because, 'they did it first,' is just infuriating. This is not the way adults should act in decent society. And yet our system fosters just that. I find it very pathetic when anyone acts this way. Including myself when I occasionally act this way.

And the only reason why I'm responding to this **** is because I hate it when someone claims I have a 'side'. No, I've never had a 'side' and I never will. I hate conservatives and American liberals equally for the BS that they do. It destroys this country and makes it a little bit weaker whenever we act this way toward each other. So go on, continue to be part of the problem in this country. You think you're being 'patriotic', but you're not. You're just adding to the poison in this country. If the United States falls it'll be because of people like yourself who just can't get past this team mentality.