Chainsaw Buffet / Gamers' Grotto / Sakura Tees Forums

Our president has gone golfing 7 times since the gulf oil leak began.
7 times.
in his first year in office he has golfed more times than the previous president did in 8 years - while presiding over the worst deficit and the worst economic downturn since the depression. don't you ever wonder what is more important? us or his handicap?

And Bush got criticized for not immediately rushing to New Orleans after the hurricane. It's the same nonsense in a different key.

This is the 21st century. Just because someone spends a few hours on a golf course doesn't mean they're out of touch. If need be, Obama could order the Pentagon to nuke Tehran from his Blackberry. Although I really hope he upgrades to something more modern...

Yeah, I'm not inclined to really play the numbers game with politicians. Depending on what number you focus in on, you can paint any picture you want.

I mean, I always heard from the right how Clinton had usurped power because he'd issued more executive orders than any other president. Then I heard from the left how Bush had issued more executive orders than any other president. Ironically, neither side was really bothered by their own guy's supposed excesses.

Or how Bush had taken more vacation days than any other president, and how that was horrible given September 11/Afghanistan/Iraq/etc.

Or how Obama took too long to speak about the attempted bombing on Christmas, when he actually responded more quickly than Bush did about the shoe bomber (IIRC).

Or how Obama is disrespecting the military by not attending the service at Arlington on Memorial Day, when in fact almost every other president in the last 20 years has, at one time in their presidency, not attended that service.

Basically, to conservatives, Obama can't catch a break. And to liberals, Bush couldn't catch a break. Some of it, on both sides, is deserved criticism. But there's a certain element of the opposition that will decry the president's laziness if he's not taking action and will say he's destroying the country if he is.



FWIW, I used to be really conservative, and I've gotten extremely tired of politics... it's sports to some people, and it's religion to others (I think I was mostly in the latter camp--with just enough of the former to be smug about it). I think both can be unhealthy.

While this is true, everything went exactly as it should have. let me explain...
if i may use 9/11 as an example?
the first responders on 9/11 were NYPD, FDNY, and the NYC EMTs. Then the Guiliani administration made it to ground zero. then Governor Pataki made it there, and lastly the federal government. THIS is how it is supposed to work. When Katrina hit, LA was so corrupt and the people so used to handouts that they even refused to evacuate knowing it was coming. they piled into the superdome expecting FEMA to be there when the sun came out. It should have been the Parish president, then the governor, then the fed. but instead, everyone sat on their hands and waited for their federal handouts.

now, the major difference in all of these, is 3 fold.
1) the oil leak is so far out that it is NOT the responsibility of LA to take care of it. it is "land" leased to the oil company by the federal government. it is their responsibility FIRST, to make sure that this doesn't happen.
2) Gov. Jindal has offered to do EVERYthing in his power to help, but the administration has turned away every helping hand. he even offered equipment that could help clean up the oil... even offered to drive it HIMSELF to the coastline if they would just USE it... and still he was refused. the only thing that he is permitted to do is sit and watch the oil lap up onto his shores.
3) there were plans in place pre-approved for use in case such a thing happened. pre-approved by the federal government. the first measure is to burn it off. as soon as the pipe busted, they should have lit it up. secondly, anything that escaped being burned off was to be chemically dispersed. both measures were disallowed by the administration. and so it flows. instead of a terrible localized event, it now spreads hundreds and hundreds of miles.


and on a side-note... as the administration weeps over photos of oil-covered pelicans, the president is ACTIVELY trying to lift the international ban on whaling. *scratches head*

[quote="DylanW"]
Or how Obama is disrespecting the military by not attending the service at Arlington on Memorial Day, when in fact almost every other president in the last 20 years has, at one time in their presidency, not attended that service.

Basically, to conservatives, Obama can't catch a break. And to liberals, Bush couldn't catch a break. Some of it, on both sides, is deserved criticism. But there's a certain element of the opposition that will decry the president's laziness if he's not taking action and will say he's destroying the country if he is.
[quote]

Lemme adress each of these points in turn.

First.
Some presidents have been to Arlington every year of their terms. Clinton was 8 of 8. Bush was 7 of 8 and the one he missed he was in Normandy, France for a special ceremony there. Obama is 0-2. He, according to the original schedule released by the White House, was not planning on attending the ceremony in the National Cemetery south of Chicago until political pressure from both sides forced him too.

If you don't want to go, then don't. To go because it is politically expedient is just as bad or worse than not going. You should go to honor and give thanks to the men and women who died for our freedom.

Second.
That's politics as usual. Occasionally you get a president like Reagan who can get the other side to work with him.

I have heard a few stray comments here and there from individuals, not organizations, about how they wish Obama were dead, he should be shot, etc. Some of its political, some of its racial. Either way, its wrong. BUT, there were books written and sold in major retailers, as well as [b]two[b] movies made advocation the assassination of George W. Bush. And no one in the regular news (CNN, ABC, NBC, etc) said anything about how wrong that is.

We conservatives, as a whole, fringe radicals not withstanding - both sides have them- do not want Obama assassinated. He has a family who should not go through that. We want him out of office. If we can take control of at least one of the houses in Congress, then he and his agenda can be slowed if not stopped. But we do not want him dead. Most of us do not know Obama, so we may or may not like him as a person, but we do not like his politics and his ideals and we want him to fail.

If you look at his numbers and his record, he's bad for America. Real unemployment is at just under 18%, the deficit by 2020 will be over 18,000,000,000,000. That's 18 trillion for those of you from Polk County. Our taxes will go up and up and up in January when the Bush tax cuts expire. For example, our income tax will go up 5% on average. My math may be a little wrong, but if you make $50,000 a year you will pay $2500 more a year in taxes. Corporate taxes will go up even higher, as will capital gains taxes. And we all know that corporations and small businesses don't pay taxes. That cost gets passed on to us, the consumer. If you plan on dying and leaving money to someone, do it before January, because the estate tax will fo from 0% to 55%.

After the Bush tax cuts were implemented, tax revenues rose up to their highest amounts in over 15 years when guess who was President. Ronald Reagan.

And that's not even mentioning the Value Added Tax.

He has bad policies. Like he told Joe the Plumber, we need to spread the wealth around. Meaning, instead of pulling the poorer up, they bring the rich down. When the rich get poorer, they quit spending, they quit hiring, they lay people off, and more people suffer.

How is that good for America and Americans?

But George H.W. Bush didn't attend any of them, so Obama could still beat his record. Reagan attended 4 of 8, which is just half--Obama could still match his record. (snopes)

Which is not to impugn Bush or Reagan's support of the military, or suggest Clinton was more respectful. You could easily point out that Bush has been the only president in the last 30 years that was a veteran of a war. Or that Clinton attended the service more than any other president in at least the last 30 years. The facts can be framed to direct hate or admiration in any way you want, depending on which ones get mentioned and which ones get conveniently left out.

My point is, when propagandists start dredging up statistics like this trying to get you riled up, they're jerking you around. If you're going to be mad, you should be mad at them for trying to use your outrage to further their own agenda. (Likewise, lefties should get mad at propagandists on their own side when it happens.) And you can do so while still disagreeing with the president or Democrats on other issues.

From the obama speech tonight

"One of the lessons we've learned from this spill is that we need better regulations better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked - not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs - but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation - workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy - because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party - as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development - and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fear hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny - our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how to get there. We know we'll get there.

It is a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region's fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It's called "The Blessing of the Fleet," and today it's a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea - some for weeks at a time.
The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago - at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, "The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always," a blessing that's granted "...even in the midst of the storm."

The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through - what has always seen us through - is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America."

Yeah. OK? And?

Do you want us to pick it apart paragraph by paragraph?

OK, let me clarify. I was expecting to hear your thoughts on the speech. When they weren't there I was surprised. I was like, "why is he just posting the speech?"

yea... i guess the speech was supposed to make it all better?

One of the problems i have when anything gets overly organized is that people feel a need to defend their "team" no matter what the situation is. Any speech, text, thought is just a grouping of meaningless words until some concrete action occurs. I choose not to be on a side, not to say I don't vote but when I vote it's by the issues and not because of how I voted four years ago or what the parentals said I should vote for...what I'm trying to get at is that it's all well and good for the people that post here to be involved in a rational discussion of the events transpiring in the world around us, but no matter what any of us say here about national politics for the time being Obama is the President of the US and so what he states (especially in a nationally televised speech) is worse or less the course the country will be on for a bit...the talking points the political pundits will be discussing pro and con. I guess I posted it mainly as a position paper. It talks about several things being discussed in the soapbox lately and thought it might move the discussion along a bit more.

The biggest lie of the speech. They are drilling in water a mile deep because they are not permitted to drill on the land (ANWAR, the Dakotas) and shallow water drilling has also been prohibited (the kennedys don't want to see oil wells disrupting their view from Martha's Vineyard). The US is the Saudi Arabia of shale oil, and there is enough oil in ANWAR alone to sustain the US for 500 years... we just aren't allowed to grab it.

Oil companies can ONLY drill where they are leased land to drill upon by the federal government. the further you go out on the branch, the more likely it is for the branch to break.


talking about something doesn't create a free-market solution to a perceived problem. if the tech were here, and we could find some amoeba fart that is more abundant, more efficient and more easily attainable than oil, then THAT would be the new fuel because THAT is what the free market would naturally demand.



ok i think we got it. you are open to new ideas as long as they involve more regulation, more spending, and more probing into money spent by private companies. got it. seems to be par for the course.


REALLY?! Mr. "unemployment will never go over 8% if we pass the stimulus bill" even though it's well over 10% now?
most honest economists are predicting a second and WORSE dip in the recession next year when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.



this is infuriating. this is the reason i made the post in the first place! he not only has done NOTHING to stop or clean up the oil spill, but he has REFUSED others to do it FOR him. he won't even LET others help. ships have been offered by ally countries to help skim the oil off the surface. nope. the government has it's own warehouse full of the equipment needed to outfit their own ships to help clean it up. all they have to do is fly it from Maine to Louisiana. he refuses to listen to good ideas from people who just want their hands untied so that they can HELP.

i do not see how it can even be argued that our president and his administration is USING US and this oil spill to move the Overton Window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window in order to allow him to pass legislation that would be unthinkable before the spill. the worse the spill gets, the more the window moves (in his eyes).

God help all of us.

also, i need to edit my original post. 8 times now*

and on a side note, it's not a "left" or "right" thing. it's an Obama thing. Clinton would be down there with oil on his hands, washing a damn pelican himself if he were still president.

Just a couple of counterpoints. Not that I'm necessarily an Obama fan, I just try to be neutral about these things.


I don't think there is a purely "free market" solution at this point, depending on how "free" you're talking about. There's been a lot of investment getting oil to this point--the reason it's cheap is because we've developed the technology and infrastructure to make use of it so readily.

And the problems with oil aren't affecting us economically in the short term--and they won't affect the free market until they are. So there does have to be some sort of incentive (government funding, tax breaks, etc.) to make alternative fuels attractive to the market, or to make oil less attractive.

The use of those solutions isn't a bad thing (after all, there are large segments of the American economy are dictated by them), it's how they're managed. Good example: watch the documentary King Corn. The reason corn is so prevalent in our diets is that the government subsidizes it; otherwise it wouldn't be profitable in many cases. Not necessarily a bad thing, or even as bad a decision as the movie makes it out to be. But you don't see a lot of mainstream outrage about the fact that the government is sticking its fingers into our diets like you do with energy.


He's definitely using this as a PR opportunity to force a different stance on the oil companies. And to a certain extent, rightly so. The fact that we have oil spills can't be divorced from the fact that we use oil. It's part of the (non-monetary) cost, and therefore accidents and incidents should spur changes to the industries and processes that caused them--it's a little spoiled to think we should not consider those economic and environmental costs as part of the total cost of using oil. The real question is not if but how much he uses the oil spill to change policy, and whether that's good or effective change.

Example: no one would argue that, after 9/11, a certain amount of increased security was a necessary. That was a use of, but not an abuse of, the Overton Window, to react to a real problem. Controversy came into play when the increased security started raising questions of privacy and constitutional rights--and that's the point where one has to ask when the Overton Window is being abused.

Ironically, I think the term "Overton Window" has been made into something terrifying by people who have themselves mastered the (ab)use of the Overton Window.

Yeah, for most people, I don't think that it's necessarily an left/right thing. My point is more that these people are getting fired up by talking points from the right-wing media--and the people who are starting these memes in the right-wing media seem a bit disingenuous.

You're hearing that "number of golf outings" stat because it's easily repeatable, and it frames the situation in such a way that's damning to Obama. It's the same reason you heard that, even in the wake of 9/11 and Iraq, Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president--it's a way of criticizing the person without looking at the whole picture. It's a valid criticism but it's not the sum of the person's actions.

And I have my doubts that the right-wing media would really be happy if Obama's response was different. After all, I wouldn't have trusted Keith Olbermann if, let's say, he claimed Bush didn't do enough post-9/11 to protect us. Would there be no remarks about "I can't believe he's working with that country," or "deficit spending," or "government takeovers" if his reaction was different?

It's not that I think Obama's necessarily handling it well; I'm actually not paying that much close attention. I just think it's too early to get too committed to the shoulda/couldas here without considering the source.

you seem to be pretty jaded with the political system, and i find your disdain for the purveyor of a certain message to be confusing.
as an example... if a hooker is raped, and tries to prosecute the rapist, would you still say "consider the source"?

all i am trying to say is that i don't really CARE about the source. the truth is obvious. attacking the people who are getting the word out is a very common tactic used by liberals. whenever they lose a debate, or cannot back up a statement with fact, it turns into name-calling and mud-flinging.

The truth remains, and the political affiliation of the teller is inconsequential in this case.

as an update, Gov. Jindall has decided to create the barriers WITHOUT federal government approval. THAT will be carried over into a new thread that i will be making soon.

Jindal also had barges pumping oil out but the Coast Guard was ordered to stop them.