6/10/2009 11:41:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZjc7q2h5dA

Incredible Cinderella story...this unknown comes out of nowhere...to lead the pack..at Augusta...It's in the Hole!



[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 1:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2009 1:43:22 AM

Nobody has posted this?

Bill Maher on Obama: 'This is not what I voted for.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWulnfog20c

6/15/2009 6:45:09 PM

i haven't watched the video, but maher says "that's not what i voted for" regarding obama basically every week.

6/15/2009 6:46:42 PM

^ Yeah, and it's not like I really care what Maher says. I just find it amusing that more and more folks on the left are expressing pretty much the same sentiment about Obama--including you.

Quote :

"obama is not very credible when it comes to civil liberties to me. he has let me down time after time."

sarijoul

message_topic.aspx?topic=556098&page=25

6/15/2009 6:49:07 PM

why is that amusing to you?

6/15/2009 6:50:54 PM

i gotta admit. so far i'd give obama a halfway score of 5/10...not as good as the 8/10 i expected from him at this point...still feel he'd be doing better than mccain right now, but i guess i'll never know

6/15/2009 6:51:14 PM

^^ Why not?

6/15/2009 6:52:53 PM

i don't know. i don't particularly like a president who doesn't fully respect civil liberties. apparently you do.

6/15/2009 6:54:38 PM

6/15/2009 7:05:35 PM

^^^^^

Maybe he's amused that the left isn't as blindly zealous as the right?

6/15/2009 9:46:48 PM

Quote :

"Nobody has posted this? Bill Maher on Obama: 'This is not what I voted for.' "

yeah, he has a few things like that every week, where he reminds his audience, after criticizing Obama for something, "be loyal to the idea, not to the person"

anyway, i was planning on posting his "this is not what i voted for" rant in The Liberal Media thread, as soon as the transcript from last week's show was up on his website
http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html

6/15/2009 9:55:47 PM

Quote :

"Maybe he's amused that the left isn't as blindly zealous as the right?"

-moron

haha i'm sure that's it.

that or maybe hooksaw finds it amusing that some folks on the left are now echoing the criticisms he made of Obama during the election--he's an empty suit: all talk, no experience, no action.

Personally, I think its a bit too early to judge Obama too harshly. But I don't think the criticisms coming from Obama supporters are unfair or really unexpected. The ability of Presidents to achieve their legislative goals tends to decrease over time. So the more time that passes, the less likely it will be that Obama will get the reforms he wants.

And it wouldn't be the first time that happened to Democrats in recent years. Just ask another President who came to office on a "mandate for change" in the middle of a recession. That President also faced a weak opposition because the Republican Party as a whole lacked a clear leader. But significant internal delays gave the opposition a chance to rally and in the end few of his big dreams were realized.


If you don't think administrative incompetence or disorganization could foul up reforms in the new administration, just ask imothy Geithner about his plan to deal with "toxic assets" held by banks.

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ``]

6/16/2009 9:06:12 AM

It's true about Clinton--I lived through it. And about Obama. . .

6/16/2009 9:16:07 AM

That's a shop. I can tell by the pixels. And having seen a few shops in my time.

6/16/2009 9:22:11 AM

White House Blocks Access to Visitor List

The U.S. Secret Service is refusing to release the list of guests to the White House since Jan. 20, 2009, prompting a lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.



woohoo!

6/16/2009 12:53:53 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/obama-administration-aims-to-fix-broken-real-id-act.ars

Obama admin trying to fix the Real ID act, making it easier for the states to implement.
(this is good and bad I guess)


---------------------------

Quote :

"that or maybe hooksaw finds it amusing that some folks on the left are now echoing the criticisms he made of Obama during the election--he's an empty suit: all talk, no experience, no action."

Except Maher and others here aren't saying he's an empty suit with no action, they're saying his actions aren't as left leaning or sweeping as people want them to be.

The past 6 months have been chock full of Obama admin policy decisions. You'd have to be delusional or senile to just say Obama's being an empty suit.

I agree with you though that it's far too early to be judging him. In other 5-6 months, if Guantanamo is still mired in bureaucracy, the Obama admin hasn't clarified their goals for civil rights, and Geithner hasn't adjusted to the changing conditions, then I can take the empty-suit criticisms as more than just partisan hackery.

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

6/16/2009 2:33:10 PM

state dept. asks twitter not to do maintenance because of its importance in the resistance in iran:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSWBT01137420090616

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department contacted the social networking service Twitter over the weekend to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that could have cut daytime service to Iranians, a U.S. official said on Tuesday. "We highlighted to them that this was an important form of communication," said the official of the conversation the department had with Twitter at the time of the disputed Iranian election. He declined further details."

6/16/2009 2:51:33 PM

^ That isn't what Maher said in the video. He did not say his policies did not go left enough, he said that Obama was a celebrity that is spending more time on TV than he is getting stuff done. I sum that up as being an empty suit, but maybe that isn't the best term to use.

As far as what Obama has done thus far, he has certainly made a lot of decisions and policies, but that's kind of his job. That doesn't mean he is nailing the domestic agenda he set out in the campaign.

1)Health care is being bickered about in congress, but we have not seen any substantive legislation.
2)Obama admin has laid out an "outline" for new federal regulations on financial institutions, but the specifics are not in.
3)Similarly, the Obama admin has floated a lot ideas about how to deal with bank solvency and the toxic assets still on their books, but nothing really different from what Paulson et al were doing.

Sure he has the stimulus under his belt and it may result in making a lot of infrastructure improvements around the country. But Bill Maher did not vote for Obama to fix roads. He apparently wants to know why Obama is traveling to NY to see a show and eating cheeseburgers with Joe Biden instead of relentlessly calling for more action and moving forward on his plans.

*shrug* Can't say I blame him. Of course, I disagree.

6/16/2009 2:57:52 PM

Quote :

"Obama Wants New Financial Agency for Consumers WASHINGTON –President Barack Obama is proposing a new regulatory agency ....."

It's as if Obama is erecting a multitude of New Offices, and is sending hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people and eat out their sustance.

6/16/2009 9:37:03 PM

comrade, you had better watch your tongue...

6/16/2009 9:45:41 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamagays17-2009jun17,0,2575638.story

Obama to extend benefits to SOs of gay federal employees.

It's like as soon as I say something, Obama does it. ;-)

6/17/2009 3:13:36 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/obama.same.sex.benefits/index.html

Quote :

"# Story Highlights # President to sign memorandum Wednesday, officials say # Move comes after criticism over Defense of Marriage Act # Obama frequently spoke in favor of gay and lesbian rights during campaign "

He said during the campaign he'd be a "a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans" and I guess this is a start on keeping that promise.

6/17/2009 6:03:23 AM

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 7:50 AM. Reason : ``]

6/17/2009 7:44:47 AM

Quote :

"a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian....and I guess this is a start on keeping that promise"

By fierce advocate, I guess that means handing over more tax-payer money to gays/lesbians?

And do you realize how huge the potential for easy corruption will be? This is not advocating for gays, it's an election pay-off.

Obama is no different than any other politician. Split up everyone into special interest groups, get them pitted agaisnt each other..profit.

6/17/2009 10:34:13 AM

^^^except this is totally just a token move to try to shut the lgbt community up. the order excludes health coverage. it's like the definition of why marriage shouldn't have a different legal standing if it is between two people of the same sex or opposite sex. because it WILL be treated differently.

6/17/2009 10:38:23 AM

Quote :

"...the order excludes health coverage."

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama will sign a memorandum Wednesday granting health care and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, two senior administration officials said."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/obama.same.sex.benefits/index.html

6/17/2009 10:43:28 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17gays.html?_r=1&hp

Quote :

"President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage."

and most of this is to try to right the sinking ship that is the dnc gay fundraiser dinner thing which donors are bailing from left and right after the DOMA brief fiasco.

here's a gay perspective:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/16/some-federal-employees-are-more-equal-than-others

not to mention that a presidential memorandum holds even less weight than an executive order which holds less weight than a law. so this speaks pretty negatively of obama's handling of gay rights issues to this point in my mind.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2009 10:45:44 AM

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obama-regulations18-2009jun18,0,2966575.story

Quote :

" Obama unveils 'sweeping overhaul' of financial regulations ... Reporting from Washington -- President Obama today unveiled what he described as a "sweeping overhaul" of the rules governing the financial system, saying bold action was needed to repair the regulatory failures that were a major factor in the nation's economic collapse. "It is an indisputable fact that one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was an unraveling of major financial institutions and the lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess," Obama said during a White House speech."

6/17/2009 3:14:55 PM

Quote :

" lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess"

By this he means making it so people who cant afford loans cant get them, right?

6/17/2009 3:24:00 PM

moron

and we went from broad outline of future regulations to a slightly more detailed outline. As Paul Krugman notes, all of the details are again left for later.

Quote :

"Good stuff. On the other hand, all the details are left to be decided by future high-level committees."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/yhtmaaaiyp-2/

Tyler Cowen concurs.

Quote :

"I would say we still don't know what is actually going to be done."

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/06/the-new-regulatory-reform.html

Not saying that this stuff should happen over night. But we've heard this kinda hype before only to be left waiting for specifics. Remember the perpetual build up by Geitner and Obama to the admin's plan to deal with the so-called "toxic assets" that were impairing bank solvency? As far as I know, nothing particuarly note worthy came out of all that hype and the current plan looks a lot like the Bush plan. I don't think the media even bothers to cover it anymore (I stopped following it myself).

Like I said, I don't expect everything to happen in a day. But admin chearleaders are wearing me out. "World Changing Initiative Are Right Around The Corner." So I've heard. Come get me when you get the details.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ``]

6/17/2009 3:32:16 PM

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/17/holder-refuses-to-stand-by-statements-saying-violating-fisa-breaks-the-law/

the link really says it all. there is questioning of holder by feingold where holder basically contradicts statements he made about bush breaking the law by not adhering to FISA. but now he won't say the same when obama is keeping that same status quo.

6/17/2009 5:20:09 PM

Quote :

"Obama: "It is an indisputable fact that one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was an unraveling of major financial institutions and the lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess," Obama said during a White House speech."

The unraveling was caused mostly by gov't intervention in the economy...forcing banks to loan to people who couldn't pay back. Barney Frank's escapades with Fannie and Freddie were the "abuse and excess".

Quote :

"Obama: "We know that there were many who took out loans they knew they couldn't afford. But there were also millions of Americans who signed contracts they didn't always understand offered by lenders who didn't always tell the truth,""

So just because people didn't read or understand what they were signing, the rest of us have to suffer under more gov't regulation and meddling?

Quote :

"Obama: Those ridiculous contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out, those things will be a thing of the past."

You know what pres. Obama... as long as you're so interested in fine print not confusing everyone...why not first work on the over-complicated mess that is the federal income tax system? Show us how you can fix that, then we'll look at private businesses.

Obama is so quick to distrust business and tell us to put faith in gov't. Governments have killed more people, caused more pollution, destroyed more lives and wasted more money than private industry.

6/17/2009 9:22:49 PM

except that fannie and freddie didn't have nearly the amount of risky assets and over-leveraging that private banks had. but whatever. it's all the fault of government regulation. we should definitely go back to the gold standard and pre-depression non-regulation of banks. that would be a marvelous idea.

6/17/2009 9:28:26 PM

^
If you got the gov't out of the banking business, banks would be regulated fine by the Free Market system.

If a bank knew it could fail and would not get any assistance from a gov't central bank, it would be much more careful. Banking customers, who would be totally responsible for their own finances, would be much more aware of the fractional reserve amounts the banks they are doing business with are holding.

6/17/2009 10:17:17 PM

you keep on believing that. i'm just glad that people who matter don't believe that.

6/17/2009 10:56:03 PM

^ hear, hear

6/17/2009 11:19:05 PM

Quote :

"If a bank knew it could fail"

The problem was that the banks were "too big to fail but just big enough to lobby".

6/17/2009 11:22:10 PM

Quote :

"i'm just glad that people who matter don't believe that."

Ad Hominem...

Do you have an counter argument in favor of the regulation of capitalism?

Quote :

" "too big to fail but just big enough to lobby"."

And if a bank cannot use the gov't as a crutch against risky behavior, no more lobbying.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2009 11:26:57 PM

how is that an ad hominem?

it's not like regulation happened out of thin air for the purposes of hurting the economy.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2009 11:31:14 PM

Quote :

"it's not like regulation happened out of thin air for the purposes of hurting the economy. "

Thin air? No.
Regulation is the product of politicians eager to gain power and influence. Who do you really trust to look out for your interests...politicians like Barney Frank? Nancy Pelosi? George Bush? Barack Obama?

6/17/2009 11:44:07 PM

Personally, I think its really weird how some Democrats went from distrusting everything the government said and did when George Bush was President to wanting it to run health care and create litany of new regulations now that a Dem is in charge. I think Reason magazine nails it...

http://reason.tv/video/show/350.html

Synopsis of interviews w/individuals at "Funk the War" protest:

Quote :

" Interviewee: I think George Bush has illustrated that we cannot have faith in the government to make big decisions like when to go to war and how to conduct that war effectively. Its vietnam all over again, mmaaaannnnn. Interviewer: But you have enough faith in the government to be in charge of big decisions about what types of health care you recieve? Interviewee: uh, yah? Interviewer: Um, why? Interviewee: Uhh, Democrats are magic!!!! "

If government only works when people you agree with are in charge, then government doesn't work. You have to keep in mind that in a democracy, people you don't like will eventually get into office and they will have the exact same powers you give the people you do like. To over simplify the point: more power to Obama today means more power to George W. Bush II tomorrow.

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ``]

6/18/2009 9:37:03 AM

you started by claiming that people didn't "trust the government" under Bush, and ended by asking, "therefore, how an the government work under Obama?"

Now, I'm not going to claim that Democrats and Obama are magic and can (or will) turn around this freight train of a runaway government on a dime, but that's a completely different question of why we didn't trust anything that came out of the White House under Bush. Bush gave us plenty of reasons to be wary of nearly every word that came out of his mouth.

6/18/2009 9:44:15 AM

Quote :

"Bush gave us plenty of reasons to be wary of nearly every word that came out of his mouth."

And what would lead you to believe that we shouldn't be wary of every word that comes out of Obama's mouth? He has lied, mislead, & flip-flopped on enough topics to see that he is nothing special- just another hack politician.

6/18/2009 10:07:15 AM

I don't know anyone who has ever said we can't "trust" the government to get in to a war. It was just obvious from the beginning that they had no real reason for the Iraq war. People did and many still do support action in Afghanistan and even NK. It was not about Bush the person, it was about what/why he did what he did.

6/18/2009 10:08:23 AM

Quote :

"It was just obvious from the beginning that they had no real reason for the Iraq war."

It was so obviously wrong that folks like prominent members of the Obama admin supported it anyways (Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden if you don't recall).

And this is kinda my point. Decisions like going to war are not made by a single individual. They are made by hundreds of people with different backgrounds and representing different interests. And This is really true of most decisions the federal government makes, including how involved the federal government should be in the market for health care

Democrats love to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, but it actually took hundreds of people (including prominent members of their own party) missing the "obvious". I think that should be the most important lesson of the Iraq War. Smart people that you ideologically agree with can still be very very wrong.

Given that, I don't see why we should believe the feds will execute a public health care plan any better than they executed the Iraq War.

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ``]

6/18/2009 11:54:02 AM

because state-run health care (or even just health care reform) has been done successfully in countries before. "bringing democracy" to a foreign country almost never does. it's not all that complicated.

6/18/2009 12:49:43 PM

^ I have never heard of a country doing what Obama is doing in proposing a public alternative plan that would compete with private insurance plans.

But even if we are talking about countries with truly "socialized" medicine like Canada, I'm not sure if I would call it "successful".

But success is all in how you define it. Iraq is now free of a totalitarian government, has held elections, witnessed a significant decrease in violence, and is gradually moving toward stability (we hope). If you ask GW or anyone at the WeeklyStandard, they would tell you that this what makes Iraq an overall "success" in their eyes.

So the fact that you think countries that have pursued socialized medicine have been "successful" doesn't surprise me.

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ``]

6/18/2009 1:39:40 PM

do you actually believe in ANYTHING?

i swear you have argued every side of every issue i can think of.

6/18/2009 1:51:26 PM

theres no argument. Hes just saying that your view of socialized healthcare in other countries as a success is the same as Bush's view of success in iraq.

6/18/2009 1:59:03 PM