another stupid question posed by the morons at rnn.

The correct question should read:

"Does Obama suck or what?"

One got us into our present situation and one is trying to get us out.Fact check that,before you start parroting"talking points".

I think Obama has done a outstanding job-of destroying this Country

First and foremost, what would you people say about the fact that an idiot like Bush got us into the current economic situation in the first place? Although Obama is a genius, he is not super human, and he is doing his best to alleviate some of the pain and pressure of the previous administration. Having passed healthcare reform is a positive step in the right direction. A feat no other president has ever accomplished. If this man had been republican and white, he would be herald up as the second coming. It's really sad that some people can't look beyond race, to see that this brilliant man has accomplished a lot for the people of the US in his short time in offer. One thing he can not do is create jobs out of thin air. Only within the minds of Americans can jobs be created. Something has to fuel that and it's not going to come from government, it's going to come from the intelligence of Americans. That being said, Obama has fought to alleviate some of the pressure of joblessness by fighting republicans to extend unemployment benefits. What else do you want this man to do besides bleach his skin, straighten his hair,and put less swag in his voice!

I agree with Fred and Doug. Obama is a complete loser with no expierence and makes idiot Bush look like Einstein. I never thought in my life that there would be someone dumber than idiot Bush and worse than Jimmy Carter, but Obama is that man. I can't wait for this loser President to be voted out of office.

There we go,it's turned into the race card=how RNN LOL
And Mags I agree with you,Bush was a total idiot-I voted for Obama for change,not these kinda changes.He's gotta go!!!
Obama's lack of leadership has NOTHING to do with his race,I was one of the BIGGEST Bush bashers out there and BTW I happen to be white

Her's a guy that has a total handle on the race situation:
http://weblogs.wpix.com/news/larrymendte/

Why are we even comparing an idiot (Bush) to someone who has brains.

The economy was bad when Obama took over from Bush. However, Obama tripled down on the deficit, unemployment has gotten worse, he lied about the healthcare bill, foreign policy isn't the sunshine a roses we were promised and none of Obama's policies are making ANYTHING better. Things have gotten worse and all Obama can do is blame Bush.

Obama is doing a horrible job. What has he done to better the economy.

I prefer and always did wanted Bush to stay in power,
He was Smarter, calm,knew what he was doing and did not affraid to do anything to protect our country.

I do not se Obama as President, he doe's not even have the appearance of a reall president for me. We miss bust and felt secure with him better then Obama, I did not vote for Obama and I was right,

R,

where's the change people?where's the hope?did he pull out the soldiers in iraq? Everyone who voted for obama got suckered into lies sry people. He's a liar!

Bush Was the best, people do not really feel it until they lost it.

From the comments that I see,i am reposting my comment:
:One got us into our present situation and one is trying to get us out.Fact check that,before you start parroting"talking points".

Bring some "Facts" not gripes.

The most positive accomplishment by the Bush Administration was saving lives from overseas AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa. His administration created the worst deficit since the Reagan Administration through his tax cuts to the wealthy and wasteful and expensive wars.

I would much prefer President Obama who has the courage to acknowledge our economic, educational, and environmental looming disasters. His vision to tackle these issues by giving us more freedom via freedom from being ripped off by big business, freedom from lack of health care, and freedom from dying as a nation from lack of clean economy jobs by funding cutting edge technology. A continued focus on funding big business via tax rip-offs will lead us to disintegrate and not remain competitive.

Let us speak facts here. Unfortunately the recent 2010 Presidential Rankings was not important enough to appear on TV news - this is compiled by the top 200+ Presidential historians in the nation. Ooooppps! President Obama came in 15th right behind President Clinton who came in 13th; Bush the second came in 37th. Which ranking elevated Pres. Obama the most? - Intelligence. President Bush's score in that category was abysmal. RNN, would you be interested in discussing these facts?
Secondly, who can compare the HUMAN faces of Katrina with the BP oil spill which the federal government had limited expertise in fixing? How did that become Obama's fault?
Lastly, where were the conservatist Fox News type people when we were spending the money we were spending on the fake, false pretense Iraq war? Where was the outrage? Was Iraq transparent? Perhaps one should look in the mirror as they ponder these questions.

Cakky O bama sucks plain and simple

"First and foremost, what would you people say about the fact that an idiot like Bush got us into the current economic situation in the first place?"


The American and worldwide economies have natural cycles of highs and lows. President Clinton handed Bush a recession at the beginning of his presidency which Bush was able to control by a series of tax cuts that naturally stimulated the economy into recovery.Obama and the Democratic left Congress seized upon an opportunity to fulfill a lifelong socialistic wish list which greatly exacerbated a recession, started at the end of the Bush presidency into a near depression implementing a leftist formula that will unfairly saddle many generations into the future of paying for worthless and destructive programs, that the great majority of Americans wanted no part of, in the first place. America will never be the same because of the leftist greed generated by this administration.

I agree with Mags, Fred and Doug. In my opinion, Obama is the worst president ever, even worse then Bush. I also agree with Robert in that we really should be examining the facts and not just parroting what we hear.

Question:
Who got us into this PRESENT situation and who is trying to get us out?

Factual Answer:

We had a financial meltdown during the Bush administration. Bush used TARP monies to try to get the banks to loan money again, PERIOD.

Opinion:
Obama is trying to get us out of this situation. Really? How is that a fact? I know he and his Administration SAY they should be thanked for getting us out of trouble but have they made things better with all their spending. Did they bring down unemployment? Did bailing out the car company's and financial institutions save the economy. Is this a fact?

Obama passed Obamacare. Is it a fact this is a great thing or a victory for the American people? Who SAYS it is?

Is it a fact he is giving us freedom? Freedom from big business? Who SAYS he is?

Is it a fact Obama has no responsibility with the BP spill? Could he have responded quicker and used more resources? Who SAYS he did all he could?

The 2010 Presidential survey who says he is ranked 15th. Is it a fact he is that good? Did the people rank him? Who said he deserved a B+ rating?

Obama refused to cut part of our multi- trillion dollar budget in exchange for extended unemployment benefits but instead just adds to the deficits AS HE SAYS, "we must cut the deficit for our children’s sake."

DON'T YOU SEE THE PATTERN? IT IS OBAMA HIMSELF, HIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE MEDIA ON THE LEFT TELLING YOU WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO HEAR BUT IF YOU EXAMINE ALL THE FACTS, YOU WILL SEE IT DOES NOT MATCH THE TRUE PICTURE.

Top Banks Paid $1.6 Billion in Excessive Bonuses, U.S. Finds

With the financial system on the verge of collapse in late 2008, a group of troubled banks doled out more than $2 billion in bonuses and other payments to their highest earners. Now, the federal authority on banker pay says that nearly 80 percent of that sum was unmerited.

In a report to be released on Friday, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Obama administration’s special master for executive compensation, is expected to name 17 financial companies that made questionable payouts totaling $1.58 billion immediately after accepting billions of dollars of taxpayer aid, according to two government officials with knowledge of his findings who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the report.

The group includes Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and the American International Group as well as small lenders like Boston Private Bank. Mr. Feinberg’s report points to companies that he says paid eye-popping amounts or used haphazard criteria for awarding bonuses, the people with knowledge of his findings said, and he has singled out Citigroup as the biggest offender.

Even so, Mr. Feinberg has very limited power to reclaim any money. He can use his status as President Obama’s point man on pay to jawbone the companies into reimbursing the government, but he has no legal authority to claw back excessive payouts.

Mr. Feinberg’s political leverage has been weakened by the banks’ speedy repayment of their bailout funds. Eleven of the 17 companies that received criticism in the report have repaid the government with interest, so they have no outstanding obligations to reimburse.

As a result, Mr. Feinberg will merely propose that the banks voluntarily adopt a “brake provision” that would allow their boards to nullify or alter any bonus payouts or employment contracts in the event of a future financial crisis. All 17 companies have told Mr. Feinberg that they will consider adopting the provision, though none has committed to do so.

Mr. Feinberg is expected to call the payouts ill advised but not unlawful or contrary to the public interest, the people with knowledge of his report said.

On Wall Street, meanwhile, profits and pay have already rebounded. Goldman Sachs is on pace to hand out an average of $544,000 per worker in salary and bonuses, though many could earn several times that amount. JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank is on track to pay its workers, on average, about $400,000, while the average Morgan Stanley employee could collect about $262,000.

If the second half of 2010 plays out like the first half, Wall Street bonuses will be paid out at about the same level as last year and similar to 2007 levels, when the crisis had just started to unfold.

“It’s healthier than I would have ever expected a year ago,” said Alan Johnson, a longtime compensation consultant who specializes in financial services.

Mr. Feinberg was named last month as the independent administrator for claims tied to the BP oil spill, making it likely that the release of his findings on the financial companies will be his final act as the overseer of banker pay.

The review, mandated by the 2009 economic stimulus bill, broadened the scope of Mr. Feinberg’s duties to include examining the pay packages of top earners at 419 companies that accepted bailout funds. However, it did not give him the power to demand changes to the compensation arrangements, as he did in each of the last two years at seven companies that received multiple bailouts.

Mr. Feinberg spent five months reviewing compensation paid to each company’s 25 highest earners between October 2008, when the first bailouts were dispensed, and February 2009, when the stimulus bill took effect. He narrowed his scrutiny to about 600 executives at 17 banks, with payouts totaling $2.03 billion.

Mr. Feinberg’s criteria for identifying the worst offenders were large payouts, in aggregate or to specific individuals; overly generous exit packages; or a failure to provide clear performance criteria or other rationale for extra pay.

Mr. Feinberg then approached each of the 17 companies with his proposed remedy during conference calls over the last two weeks. The 11 companies that have fully repaid their bailout money are American Express, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Boston Private, Capital One Financial, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo.

The six companies that have not fully repaid their bailout funds are A.I.G, Citigroup, the CIT Group, M&T Bank, Regions Financial and SunTrust Banks.

Among the banks that have not fully repaid the government, Citigroup was identified by Mr. Feinberg as having the most egregious compensation packages during the bailout period, according to officials with knowledge of his report. The bank handed out several hundred million dollars in pay in 2008 as it struggled to stay afloat.

Roughly two-thirds of the outsize payouts were from bonuses awarded to Andrew Hall and another trader who were part of the bank’s Phibro energy trading unit. Citigroup sold that business to Occidental Petroleum last fall, under pressure from Mr. Feinberg, after the disclosure that Mr. Hall had received a $100 million payout.

Mr. Feinberg is not expected to name individual executives who received the highest awards.

His review is among several compensation initiatives scrutinizing banker pay. In June, the Federal Reserve ordered about two dozen of the biggest banks to address several pay practices that, even after the crisis, it said encouraged excessive risk-taking.

European banking regulators introduced tough new standards for bonus payments earlier this month. And the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is developing a plan that would partly tie bank insurance premiums to the perceived risk of their executive pay packages. That proposal could be reviewed by the agency’s board as early as next month.

ANOTHER $1.6 BILLION IN POCKET MONEY TO THOSE WHOSE PRACTICES BROKE THE SYSTEM

"With the financial system on the verge of collapse in late 2008, a group of troubled banks doled out more than $2 billion in bonuses and other payments to their highest earners."

"Mr. Feinberg’s political leverage has been weakened by the banks’ speedy repayment of their bailout funds. Eleven of the 17 companies that received criticism in the report have repaid the government with interest, so they have no outstanding obligations to reimburse."

“It’s healthier than I would have ever expected a year ago,” said Alan Johnson, a longtime compensation consultant who specializes in financial services."


Makes you wonder what really would have happened if we did not bailout these institutions. What if we did nothing? Would they have bounced back on their own or would they have allowed their ship to sink, paying bonuses out all the way to the bottom of the ocean? Did they really NEED all our taxpayer money? It certainly does not seem that way.

"DON'T YOU SEE THE PATTERN?"

Yes I do,but its not the one that you are trying to present.

Go ahead Robert, elaborate.

Just the facts Robert. No opinion needed.

In political science, historical rankings of Presidents of the United States are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Fred:
No elabaration/opinion just facts.

I have no reason not to think that the '08 downturn would have been a full-blown depression by now without the bailouts and stimulus bills started by Bush and carried through by Obama. The difference between a recession, in which some 10% of people don't find work, and a depression, in which 25%of people go without work for years, is not something you can with intellectual honesty pretend is neither here nor there. Holding off a depression is by itself enough to rank Obama as one of the more important presidents.

He passed healthcare, which no one else had managed to do for 60 years. You can whine that he didn't represent YOUR wishes (he's not a representative, but a leader), but you can't slight the accomplishment. Social Security and Medicare were seriously compromised bills when first passed, and were fixed later, as healthcare will be, too. This will put him right up there with the giants, FDR and LBJ.

The criminal lack of financial regulation that enabled the financial near-disaster was addressed by Obama's financial regulation bill, another accomplishment that you can pick apart but which provides the framework for one of the most needed of reforms.

Lily Ledbetter and other acts.

Obama is too modest and you are too whiney.

RNN: "WE EARNED IT." CSEA PRESIDENT, MR. DANIEL DONOHUE TELEVISION COMMERCIAL ON YOUR PROGRAM--BUT WE CAN NOT GET IT!

It will take the UNION REPRESNTATIVE, CSEA 3-4 MONTHS ("MONTHS") TO HANDLE WHAT SHOULD BE A SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION:

WHILE GRABBING THE EMPLOYEES' MONEY(UNION DUES WHETHER YOU WANT TO PAY THEM OR NOT), ALBANY AND CSEA CANNOT SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES!

TO; Capital Tonight State of Politics: I am a CSEA , Temporary and Seasonal employee, working at Clermont State Historic Site.

Note: ALBANY— The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) and the New York State Public Employees Federation (PEF) have come to an agreement with Gov. David Paterson to achieve long term savings, avoid massive state layoffs and maintain essential services without reopening union contracts.

The site manager of less than two years of on-the-job training at Clermont State Historic Site, who took a week’s vacation after 6 months on the job, is DENYING permanent employees from using their personal and vacation time to work other employment--which they have used for what they wanted for several prior years--because of "operational reasons."
This permanent employee is planning to retire in a year. Is this site manager giving him a hard time, encouraging him to retire with the $20,000 offer?

As a result, my hours are cut to 20 hours because as the "slave" on call, I am NOT called to fill in when the permanent employee takes time off. Everyone has fewer hours and less money. I have a $12 an hour job from which union dues are deducted automatically, whether I want to be a union member or not, and everything else.

QUESTION: Can the new site manager who others belive is being coached, prevent permanent employees from using their benefits, for whatever reason that they want to use their time, to make her site budget look smaller? and a bigger BONUS FOR HER THIS SEPTEMBER AT Saratoga?

New York State literally has thousands of permanent jobs that are purposedly unfilled. The legislatures have a base salary of $179,000, PLUS FEES OR INCOME FOR CHAIRING COMMITTEES, TRAVEL, FOOD AND LODGING AND DAILY STIPENDS.

I want the same expenses covered in addition to my hourly rate.


TO; Capital Tonight State of Politics: I am a CSEA , Temporary and Seasonal employee, working at Clermont State Historic Site.

Note: ALBANY— The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) and the New York State Public Employees Federation (PEF) have come to an agreement with Gov. David Paterson to achieve long term savings, avoid massive state layoffs and maintain essential services without reopening union contracts.

The site manager of less than two years of on the job training, who took a week’s vacation after 6 months on the job, is denying permanent employees from using their personal and vacation time to work other employment--which they have used for what they wanted for several prior years--because of "operational reasons."
This permanent employee is planning to retire in a year. Is this site manager giving him a hard time, encouraging him to retire with the $20,000?

As a result, my hours are cut to 20 hours because as the "slave" on call, I am NOT called to fill in when the permanent employee takes time off. Everyone has fewer hours and less money. I have a $12 an hour job from which union dues are deducted automatically, whether I want to be a union member or not.

Can the new site manager who others belive is being coached, prevent permanent employees from using their benefits, for whatever reason that they want to use their time, to make her site budget look smaller?

New York State literally has thousands of permanent jobs that are purposedly unfilled.

LOL!

"Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion"

So let me re elaborate Robert, in your "opinion", what are the facts. LMAO

p.S.

RNN: "WE EARNED IT." CSEA PRESIDENT, MR. DANIEL DONOHUE'S TELEVISION COMMERCIAL ON YOUR PROGRAM--BUT WE CAN NOT GET IT!

OR, RATHER, "i can not get it!

TELL DONOHUE TO GET OFF HIS FAT ASS!


(1/2 hour--30 minutes--on the computer in the public library)

Netroots Nation 2010 Live!
Vote out all corporate Democrats and their friends the corporate Republicans in Congress. / http://tinyurl.com/6s2dd4 /
http://www.netrootsnation.org/

Good presidents do what's right and good, despite the complaints. Consider Truman integrating the military. Rights are rights. They are not negotiable, they do not get voted on. That means that though 88% of officers and enlisted men in 1948 wanted segregation in the military, Truman could integrate it without being a dictator "out of touch" with the people. The US constitution says that blacks have the rights of whites, like it or not. You may not want blacks next door, or in the next bunk, but that's just too bad. Rights are rights. Deal with it. Truman's military could not brag that it defended America's constitution and laws and values while at the same time violating all these by insisting on segration. Truman used what could seem like dictatorial fiat to "make" us walk the walk, but which has to be within the purview of the government.

It is here that government shows one of its reasons for being. It uses its authority at times -even its national guard, if necessary- to insist that we behave like grownups even if we don't feel like it. When we are wise and good the government enables our impulses. When we are brats it sends us to our rooms. We can't have the power of government to accomplish great things without that same power telling us to shape up when we need to be told. If you don't ever want to be told that racism and the like is unacceptable, go found your own sovereign fiefdom somewhere, and learn how to make tools from sticks and rocks, and where the best roots and grubs can be found.

Fred:You said you wanted facts and that is what you were presented with.

"Comment from: fred [Visitor]
Just the facts Robert. No opinion needed. "

Another of your brotheren,who can't handle "facts".

Kirsten Powers pushes back on Hannity's "bogus" claims about New Black Panthers case.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007220074

Fred:FYI.

"The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."

To: Mike G

You say facts versus opinion. Then you state ONE what you call a fact (leaving out so many details about the financial meltdown) about Bush. You then go on to state what you call opinions about President Obama. Could someone as intelligent as you only come up with one fact and no opinions about Bush or are you just as most on this blog is "biased to your own opinion and not to facts?"

As found on U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORTS, you can google for the actual report as well which gives much more detail. I think that Presidential Historians may be smarter than all of us in this category, no? Also, this whole question began because of the poll about Obama, Bush, and Clinton - no one seemed to have a problem with that poll - true?
Ability to compromise is seen as a positive - some see that as a negative because it does not favor the arrogance of say...hmmmm can you think of a recent arrogant president?


Survey Ranks Obama 15th Best President, Bush Among Worst
Former President George W. Bush is in the bottom 5
By Mallie Jane Kim

Posted: July 2, 2010
Print
Share ThisPresident Obama ranks 15th out of 44 in a poll of the best and worst presidents while former President George W. Bush earns a place in the bottom five, according to the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars released Thursday. [See a slide show of the 10 Worst Presidents.]


Obama secured a top ten place in two skill set categories, communication ability (7th) and ability to compromise (10th), and in two personality trait categories, imagination (6th) and intelligence (8th). Background, described as family, education, and experience, proved his lowest score at 32nd.

This is the 5th time the institute has conducted the survey of U.S. presidents, which is done a year after a new president takes office. The inaugural survey in 1982 ranked then-President Ronald Reagan at 16th. "Obviously, there's not great validity to it since they've only been in office for one year," says the survey's co-director and statistician Douglas Lonnstrom. "But it's a benchmark for us to see how they move." [Take our poll: Who is the worst president?]

President tend to rank around 20th while they are in office, and Obama is no exception. His actions over the next few years will decide if he stays roughly the same like Reagan—who moved from 16th to 20th, 22nd, 16th again, and finally to 18th this year—or like Bush, who fell a dramatic 16 slots in the first poll after he left office, from 23rd to 39th.

Bush made the top twenty in only two categories, luck (18th) and willingness to take risks (19th), and he sits in the bottom five in 12 of the 20 categories, notably 42nd in intelligence, foreign policy accomplishments, and communication ability. Lonnstrom points out the unpopular former president has time on his side, explaining it takes four or five decades to know a president's true worth. "Right now there's a lot of emotion about Bush," he says. "Time passes and people become more objective, and so we'll see."

Franklin D. Roosevelt has held his title as top president since 1982 with the same four following to round out the consistent top five: Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson.

Joining Bush in the bottom five this year are Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson, who is at the very bottom for the second year in a row.

The survey, which ranks presidents using 20 different factors, shows Jefferson was the most intelligent president, Richard Nixon was the worst at integrity and avoiding crucial mistakes, Lincoln had the best overall ability, and Washington was the best leader.

Here's the full list*:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt

2. Theodore Roosevelt

3. Abraham Lincoln

4. George Washington

5. Thomas Jefferson

6. James Madison

7. James Monroe

8. Woodrow Wilson

9. Harry Truman

10. Dwight D. Eisenhower

11. John F. Kennedy

12. James K. Polk

13. William Clinton

14. Andrew Jackson

15. Barack Obama

16. Lyndon B. Johnson

17. John Adams

18. Ronald Reagan

19. John Quincy Adams

20. Grover Cleveland

21. William McKinley

22. George H. W. Bush

23. Martin Van Buren

24. William Howard Taft

25. Chester Arthur

26. Ulysses S. Grant

27. James Garfield

28. Gerald Ford

29. Calvin Coolidge

30. Richard Nixon

31. Rutherford B. Hayes

32. James Carter

33. Zachary Taylor

34. Benjamin Harrison

35. William Henry Harrison

36. Herbert Hoover

37. John Tyler

38. Millard Fillmore

39. George W. Bush

40. Franklin Pierce

41. Warren G. Harding

42. James Buchanan

43. Andrew Johnson

*There are only 43 ranking slots since Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president; he left the White House only to return four years later for his second term

Robert:
I never watch faux news. As a matter of fact, I dont think there is much difference between the criminal/immoral Republican and Democratic parties.

As a matter of FACT, the democratic controlled congress (as of 2007) have done nothing but soft sell republican policies.

When Nancy and Harry took over congress-which writes laws and passes budgets, un-employment was 4.6% and the deficit was a mere 163 billion. They are also responsible for all the repug anti- regulation agenda passed since '07. In 3.5 years what have they got us?

TARP? As some of the posters here know, some of the banks were crying chicken, as can be seen by the huge bonus's paid out in the ensuing months. What happened to the rest of the TARP money slush fund?

The STIMULUS BILL? Or should I say PORKULUS! It was so 'urgent' that 25% of it went directly to pork and favorite senators and congressmen. What good has it done so far? It's funded a few road projects. LESS THAN 4% OF THE TOTAL HAS BEEN SPENT SO FAR! Some stimulus.

FINANCIAL REGULATION BILL? Go ask Sen. Chris Dodd.

HEALTHCARE BILL? Who knows? Nancy and Harry needed to pass it so they could find out what was in it. The only gaurantee is, now you have govt and a private health insurer between you and your doctor. Funny though, that the bill was written on the main provisions of the Bob Dole bill and the Mitt Romney bill, only to be watered down as a give away to corporate insurance conglomerates like AIG.

Obama speaks volumes when he reverses himself on:
-Guantamano
-rendition
-electronic eavesdropping
-assinations of American citizens abroad
-Afganistan-turned it into a major war
-Iraq withdrawl
-you can keep your own doctor/lol
-the list goes on.......

Jeez, you lefties outta know- if you can't trust Cbama, on EVEN BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, then who can you trust?

How soon before renditions start occuring where you live?

And to the guy who thinks all these bills will be straightened out later on.....good luck on that.

"Comment from: Janine "

Touche!

Fred:

"Jeez, you lefties outta know"
You say you don't watch fox news,but what makes you think that your assertion of the word "leftie"applys to me?

I like "facts", some people call it "truth".

Robert:FYI

The latest Quinnipiac University poll surveyed more than 2,000 random voters, not "academic historians' or political scientists'.

THE FACTS ARE, President Obama gets hugely unfavorable ratings from a random sampling of American voters.

Just the facts.

Robert:
I appologize for disparaging you as a lefty.

Accepted,And,thats a wrap.

As per the "Survey Ranks Obama 15th Best President, Bush Among Worst"

"Obviously, there's not great validity to it since they've only been in office for one year," says the survey's co-director and statistician Douglas Lonnstrom. "But it's a benchmark for us to see how they move."

and

"Lonnstrom points out the unpopular former president (Bush) has time on his side, explaining it takes four or five decades to know a president's true worth. "Right now there's a lot of emotion about Bush," he says. "Time passes and people become more objective, and so we'll see."

Is Lonnstrom implying that the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars is not objective and there may be emtional factors contribiting to the survey results?

In conclusion: The Obama survey is not 'overly valid', and only acts as a benchmark for future performance and to get a true historical worth of a president, one must wait 40 to 50 years.

"I think that Presidential Historians may be smarter than all of us in this category, no?"


Presidential historians didn't elect Obama so who cares what they have to say, especially being a biased product of the left who thought it would be great to have the first black president in history and can't admit they made a mistake with Obama. Presidential historians won't be the ones who vote him our either....it will be many of the same people who were completely misdirected the first go around. Obama is the worst president this country ever had because of the lasting destruction he is launching for generations to come. End of story!

Comment from: Bill F. [Visitor]
"I think that Presidential Historians may be smarter than all of us in this category, no?"


Presidential historians didn't elect Obama so who cares what they have to say, especially being a biased product of the left who thought it would be great to have the first black president in history and can't admit they made a mistake with Obama. Presidential historians won't be the ones who vote him out either....it will be the American electorate, many of the same people who were completely misdirected the first go around. Obama is the worst president this country ever had because of the lasting destruction he is launching for generations to come. End of story!

It looks like I missed some good spirited debate but Fred did an excellent job in rebuttal.

Janine, I agree I did not say much about Bush I certainly could have said more. I guess I am more concerned about our current situation and future direction then griping about the past. Plus, nobody was defending Bush.

In response to some of Mike Q's statements:
MQ-"I have no reason not to think that the '08 downturn would have been a full-blown depression by now without the bailouts and stimulus bills started by Bush and carried through by Obama."

Here are two reasons that we went to far in trying to avoid a depression:

"Fred- TARP? As some of the posters here know, some of the banks were crying chicken, as can be seen by the huge bonus's paid out in the ensuing months. What happened to the rest of the TARP money slush fund?"

"Fred- The STIMULUS BILL? Or should I say PORKULUS! It was so 'urgent' that 25% of it went directly to pork and favorite senators and congressmen. What good has it done so far? It's funded a few road projects. LESS THAN 4% OF THE TOTAL HAS BEEN SPENT SO FAR! Some stimulus."

MQ- "Good presidents do what's right and good, despite the complaints."

Who determines what is right and good? The government or the people?
In a Democracy it is the people and the majority that determine this. If something is right or good it will be reflected by a fair amount of unity and not the great division we are seeing. I suppose with that philosophy, nobody should complain about the IRAQ war, simply because Bush thought it was right and good but weren't we divided on that?

MQ- "It is here that government shows one of its reasons for being. It uses its authority at times -even its national guard, if necessary- to insist that we behave like grownups even if we don't feel like it."

They don't have the right Mike Q. They are not our parents, they serve us. They have an obligation to defend the rights of all Americans even with force if necessary but that is not the same as making us behave a certain way, according to their dictates.

Mike G:

Question:
Who got us into this PRESENT situation and who is trying to get us out?

Factual Answer:

We had a financial meltdown during the Bush administration "THAT WAS CAUSED SOLELY BY THE ECONOMICS POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND ENERGY EXTORTIONS OF THE BUSH/CHENEY & GRAMM CARTELS. Bush used TARP monies to try to get the banks to loan money again, PERIOD. LOAN MONEY? THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT TO LEND. IT WAS ALL USED TO BUY FOREIGN FUTURES, OR SQUANDERED AWAY IN THE PONZI SCHEMES THAT GRAMM/PAULSON ENABLED AND EXORBATED FROM 2004-2007.

Opinion:
Obama is trying to get us out of this situation. Really? How is that a fact? I know he and his Administration SAY they should be thanked for getting us out of trouble but have they made things better with all their spending. Did they bring down unemployment? ALL TRUE. YET AT LEAST SOME OR MUCH OF THE FAULT HAS TO BE SET AT THE DOORS OF THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATS WHO HELD TRUE TO THEIR TIES WITH THE BILDERBERGS AND TRI-LATERALS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. Did bailing out the car company's and financial institutions save the economy.
TOTALLY NECESSARY- YOU BETCHA', JUST IMAGINE THE AUTO INDUSTRY TURNED SOLELY INTO THE WAR MACHINE THE WAY THAT THE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS WERE STEERING US TOWARDS. THEY ALL HAD US CONDEMNING THE US AUTO INDUSTRY- AND WERE SELLING IT DOWN THE TUBES TO THE JAPANESE, MEXICANS AND KOREANS. IF NOT FOR THE "TEMPORARY" BAILOUT UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD HAVE SWEPT UPWARDS OF 15% WITH THE MASSIVE NUMBERS OF ALL OF THE OTHER INDUSTRYS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARYS THAT WOULD HAVE FALLEN INTO RECEIVERSHIP UNABLE TO RECALL INVENTORY OR MEET PAYROLL.
THE WORST THING POSSIBLE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ALLOW EITHER THE GOLDMANS OR THE CARLYLES TO BROKER THESE HOSTILE TAKEOVERS TOTALLY BACKED BY THEIR FOREIGN SWFS. THAT TYPE OF "SELLOUT" IF ALLOWED WOULD HAVE CRIPPLED THIS NATION PERMANENTLY. YOU DO REMEMBER THE PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS BY BUSH TO SELLOFF OUR PORTS, SSI, AND UNOCAL DON'T YOU? WHAT DO YOU THINK OUR NATIONAL SECURITY WOULD BE WORTH IF THOSE "BUSHISMS" WERE ALLOWED TO TRANSPIRE?

Is this a fact?

Obama passed Obamacare. OBAMA- SOLD OUT! Is it a fact this is a great thing or a victory for the American people? NO! Who SAYS it is? IT DOES ACCOMPLISH ONE THING FOR "SOME" PEOPLE. IT PREVENTS THE FURTHERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS FROM BEING TREATED LIKE LEPERS IN THIS COUNTRY. IT ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL COSTS.
*IT DOES NOT REIGN IN EXTORTIONS BY PHARMECEUTICALS
*IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A PUBLIC OPTION.


Is it a fact he is giving us freedom? Freedom from big business? Who SAYS he is? ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT! BUT, THERE IS NOTHING WRITTEN IN STONE THAT SAYS THAT THIS PROBLEM CANNOT BE REVISITED BY THE NEXT CONGRESS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" VOTE IN THE COMING ELECTION, *THE PEOPLE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON THIS ONE SINGLE ISSUE IN ORDER TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE CROOKS WHO ARE JAMMING NORTH AMERICAN UNION, AND NEW WORLD ORDER INSIDER CONTRACTS, POLICIES, AND ALLIES- LIKE BUSH'S GOOD FRIENDS KHADAFY, PUTIN AND THE REST OF THOSE DICTATORSHIPS DOWN OUR THROATS.

Is it a fact Obama has no responsibility with the BP spill? Could he have responded quicker and used more resources? Who SAYS he did all he could? THAT WAS ANSWERED QUITE ELOQUENTLY BY

The 2010 Presidential survey who says he is ranked 15th. Is it a fact he is that good? Did the people rank him? Who said he deserved a B+ rating? TELL ME WHEN DID RATINGS EVER PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE? ANY SUPPORTING OR DEROGGATORY ANSWER TO THIS- IS A WASTE OF TIME.

Obama refused to cut part of our multi- trillion dollar budget in exchange for extended unemployment benefits but instead just adds to the deficits AS HE SAYS, "we must cut the deficit for our children’s sake." LET'S SEE... REPUBLICANS WANT TO KEEP THEIR TAXBREAK AND MAKE THEM "PERMANENT". THAT COST ADDS $3.4TRILLION TO YOUR DEFICIT OVER 10YRS.
THEY WANT A PERMANENT UNENDING $800B PER YEAR DOD DRAIN ON THIS ECONOMY FOR COSMETIC MAKEOVERS THAT MASK THE UTTER FUTILITY OF PUTTING LIPSTICK ON THE PIG WARS AND ABYSSMAL WAR STRATEGYS THEY "UNILATERALLY" SUPPORTED WITHOUT QUESTION DURING THEIR REIGN OF TERRORS. THEY ALSO WANT TO TOSS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS INTO THE ABYSS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES FURTHER, WHILE EMPLOYING ILLEGALS AND SUB LIVING STANDARD JOBS IN THEIR STEAD.
"WE THE PEOPLE" WHO ARE FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, AND COUNTRYMEN MUST WEIGH THE IMBALANCES OF THIS TYPE OF DELIBERATE HYPOCRISY.
NOW COMPARE A PALTRY $34B TO HOLD OFF IMPENDING DOOM FOR A "FEW MILLION AAMERICANS" AND THESE SAME REPUBLICANS GET ALL BENT OUT OF SHAPE. GO FIGURE?
*Do they know what it is to insure "national security" for "our people", ... or is it all about stylizing a soundbyte?

MIKE G: DON'T YOU SEE THE PATTERN? IT IS OBAMA HIMSELF, HIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE MEDIA ON THE LEFT TELLING YOU WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO HEAR BUT IF YOU EXAMINE ALL THE FACTS, YOU WILL SEE IT DOES NOT MATCH THE TRUE PICTURE.
John: Of course and nobody is buying the rhetoric that flies in the face of today's realitys.
Banks aren't lending to Americans, and they won't- until they are forced to do so.
A jobless recovery is not only impossible it is detrimental to our total overall security.
America without a manufacturing revival will keep tens of millions of workers "permanently" on the dole of what is our shrinking work force. *Holds us hostage to China, India, and Mexican scab labor forces. And eats away at our own wages and bargaining power with the "too big to fails".
Especially when you consider that Not everyone is cut out to do office work.

****Still, I haven't seen any money coming from either sector be it private or government going into "independent" research. Once you begin to answer the question "why" this is so, in these troubling times- then you will begin to acknowledge just how rigged the system has become.
THE CORPORATION IS THE GOVERNMENT- MANNED BY BOUGHT AND SOLD PUPPETS BEHOLDING TO . THE BANKERS CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT- WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE SPENT. BOTH DEFINE THEMSELVES AS PRIVATE IN PAYING THEMSELVES PROFITS. BOTH CLAIM NATIONAL SECURITY AS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WARS WITH OTHER PEOPLES, TO EXTRACT ALL OF THEIR RESOURCES, SOME HAVE EVEN DICTATED FAVORABLE FOREIGN POLICY WITH TERROR STATES[See: BP, Halliburton, Enron] ... BUT WHOSE PURPOSES DO "THEY SERVE"?
When are they and their shadow benefactors to be held accountable for their benind the scene manipulations that engineered all of these present conditions?
All one needs to do is back track the agendas laid out at past G8-G20 Summits to know where it is all headed.
More and more private business consolidations, more and more foreign representatives insinuating their warped opinion as to what America can and cannot do inside our own borders. American businesses hamstrung by foreign investors because our own bankers don't give a damn about us and have already sold us and our rights and freedoms out for a New World Order completely owned and regulated by "select" INSIDER ELITES.

No. The only ones left for us to blame is ourselves- for not banding together and holding strong against any and all invasionery forces that attempt to ravage our familys, our security, our right to contribute positively to society, and finally to pursue happiness in friendship and partnership with all of Gods creations.
Our failure to perform due diligence, is the cause of our demise.

Why does anyone have to be aligned with a particular name branded party?
What's wrong with INDEPENDENCE.

fred: "As a matter of FACT, the democratic controlled congress (as of 2007) have done nothing but soft sell republican policies."

-----------------
You are absolutely correct. This government is almost totally comprised by multinational or "too big to fail" gold diggers doing the bidding of the top ranking Bilderberg/trilat upper echelons.
WELCOME TO NWO!!!
-How did you like our weasel Congress being dressed down by YOUR UNOFFICIAL MEXICAN AMBASSADOR.
-What do you think about your ex-Predident Bush and his failures to place UNOCAL, OUR PORTS & SSI in the hands of sleazeballs. [Foreign and domestic]
-WHY ARE "TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS" ABLE TO CONFISCATE AND RESELL THE HOMES OF FAMILIES WHEN THEY HAD TO BE BAILED OUT THEMSELVES.
-WHY IS AMERICA PAYING INTEREST ON "OUR PRIVATE INDUSTRY DEBT" TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE[a private banking consortium] WHEN WE HAVE A US TREASURY[non profit] THAT WOULD ELIMINATE AND CUT BY MORE THAN HALF THE TOTALS THAT THE FEDS SHADOW BANKERS PROFIT FROM BY TWICE.
ONCE BY INCREASING THE DEBT. SECOND BY PROTRACTING THE DEBT OVER TIME IN ORDER TO DOUBLE UP ON THE INTEREST PERCENTAGES WHICH AS WE ALL KNOW THAT OVER THE COURSE OF A DECADE DOUBLES AND TRIPLES THE DEBT THAT IS CURRENT.
*Don't let bankers dictate to you what the terms of your loans to them will be if left in their hands. Take charge of the situation. ELIMINATE- THE FED AND ITS STRANGLEHOLD ON OUR ECONOMY.

Here's the double edged sword that faces the MULTI-NATIONAL TOO BIG TO FAILS AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
The sooner the American economy is revived, the lower the chances of these parasites become to accrue these assets from we the US CITIZEN for their "private" coffers.
An independent and secure USA is totally detrimental to NWO and its structured dependencys.

No there is no trusting this government either party or many of its minions. For now, the best we can do is minimize the takeovers, wage controls via illegals, etc. and "binding legislations" by government for the sole benefit of the "too big to fails", because both entities are the controls that are eating us alive.

Mike G: In response to your post on another board that I had been biased in my assessment of the Bush "residency" I took a long hard look and went through his entire administration to try to find one shining example of what he had done "to make our country better" or more secure since he entered office- and proceeded to turn this nation, its people, our economy, and our government into a frothing, dysfunctional, 3rd world prototype. Hmmmmmmmmmm! .... .... ... .. .. . . . . .. ..... ..... . . . . . .. .

OK! THAT'S IT. FINISHED.

YOUR TURN...

Mike G: In response to your post on another board that I had been biased in my assessment of the Bush "residency" I took a long hard look and went through his entire administration to try to find one shining example of what he had done "to make our country better" or more secure since he entered office- and proceeded to turn this nation, its people, our economy, and our government into a frothing, dysfunctional, 3rd world prototype. Hmmmmmmmmmm! .... ....NCLB ...??? ..(dud) .. . . . . .. ..... OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS ~~~(HIDEAWAYS for traitors and snakes) ..... . . . ... ... ~~~~~~~ . .. ... #@!* ... #@#! ......................

OK! THAT'S IT. FINISHED.

YOUR TURN...

THIS GEORGE BUSH resume
* Ran for congress and lost.
* Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
* Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. For two years in a row, Houston had the most days of high ground-level ozone
* Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court and voter fraud committed by brother Jeb and Katherine Harris in Florida.
* Attacked and took over two countries.
* Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
* Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2.7 million Americans lost their job.
* Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
* Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
* Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
* Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* Most secretive and un-accountable presidency of any in US history.
* Members of cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
* First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
* First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

* My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* In the 18 months following the 911 attacks, successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
* Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
* Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Records and References:
* AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war. I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
* All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
There's a lot more information than this. However, this comment box only permits 4000 characters. The rest of this information can be found on the website: Topplebush.com

US debt clock runs out of digits
9 October 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/49bkur
The US government's debts have ballooned so badly the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits to record the spiralling figure.
The digital counter marks the national debt level, but when that passed the $10 trillion point last month, the sign could not display the full amount.
The board was erected to highlight the $2.7 trillion level of debt in 1989.
The clock's owners say two more zeros will be added, allowing the clock to record a quadrillion dollars of debt.
Douglas Durst, son of the late Seymour Durst - the clock's inventor - hopes to replace the Manhattan clock with its lengthier replacement early next year.
For the time being, the Times Square counter's electronic dollar sign has been replaced with the extra digit required.
For its part, the digital dollar symbol has been supplanted by a cheaper version - perhaps a sign of the times for the American economy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7660409.stm

"They don't have the right Mike Q. They are not our parents, they serve us. They have an obligation to defend the rights of all Americans even with force if necessary but that is not the same as making us behave a certain way, according to their dictates."

No, the majority does not determine what is right. In the Truman military example, it was the constitution that determined what was right. Why did, let's say, Marshall Dillon hold off the town majority lynch mob from his prisoner, if only what the mob wants matters? This is how it has always been, and needs to be, because a country run by mob rule would be a backward mess, pretty much anarchy, as one mob would fight with another mob, and another, until finally everyone would hold only his own wishes to be of any importance. You may bridle at any kind of governmental authority, but with none who would bow to the wishes of anyone else? Of course, we would want the government to be exerting its power in pursuit of justice and rightness. And we should only give it a hard time if it goes against these things.

Mike Q:

""It is here that government shows one of its reasons for being. It uses its authority at times -even its national guard, if necessary- to insist that we behave like grownups even if we don't feel like it. When we are wise and good the government enables our impulses. When we are brats it sends us to our rooms. We can't have the power of government to accomplish great things without that same power telling us to shape up when we need to be told.""

-And vice-a-versa. 'fred'

- This story from the “World Socialist Web Site”-

Army deploys combat unit in US for possible civil unrest

By Bill Van Auken
25 September 2008

For the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with emergencies, including potential civil unrest.

Beginning on October 1, the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division will be placed under the command of US Army North, the Army’s component of the Pentagon’s Northern Command (NorthCom), which was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the stated mission of defending the US “homeland” and aiding federal, state and local authorities.

The unit—known as the “Raiders”—is among the Army’s most “blooded.” It has spent nearly three out of the last five years deployed in Iraq, leading the assault on Baghdad in 2003 and carrying out house-to-house combat in the suppression of resistance in the city of Ramadi. It was the first brigade combat team to be sent to Iraq three times.

While active-duty units previously have been used in temporary assignments, such as the combat-equipped troops deployed in New Orleans, which was effectively placed under martial law in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this marks the first time that an Army combat unit has been given a dedicated assignment in which US soil constitutes its “battle zone.”

The Pentagon’s official pronouncements have stressed the role of specialized units in a potential response to terrorist attack within the US. Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, attended a training exercise last week for about 250 members of the unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The focus of the exercise, according to the Army’s public affairs office, was how troops “might fly search and rescue missions, extract casualties and decontaminate people following a catastrophic nuclear attack in the nation’s heartland.”

“We are at war with a global extremist network that is not going away,” Casey told the soldiers. “I hope we don’t have to use it, but we need the capability.”

However, the mission assigned to the nearly 4,000 troops of the First Brigade Combat Team does not consist merely of rescuing victims of terrorist attacks. An article that appeared earlier this month in the Army Times (“Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1”), a publication that is widely read within the military, paints a different and far more ominous picture.

“They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” the paper reports. It quotes the unit’s commander, Col. Robert Cloutier, as saying that the 1st BCT’s soldiers are being trained in the use of “the first ever nonlethal package the Army has fielded.” The weapons, the paper reported, are “designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.” The equipment includes beanbag bullets, shields and batons and equipment for erecting roadblocks.
It appears that as part of the training for deployment within the US, the soldiers have been ordered to test some of this non-lethal equipment on each other.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” Cloutier told the Army Times. He described the effects of the electroshock weapon as “your worst muscle cramp ever—times 10 throughout your whole body.”

The colonel’s remark suggests that, in preparation for their “homefront” duties, rank-and-file troops are also being routinely Tasered. The brutalizing effect and intent of such a macabre training exercise is to inure troops against sympathy for the pain and suffering they may be called upon to inflict on the civilian population using these same “non-lethal” weapons.
According to military officials quoted by the Army Times, the deployment of regular Army troops in the US begun with the First Brigade Combat Team is to become permanent, with different units rotated into the assignment on an annual basis.

Story continues:

In an online interview with reporters earlier this month, NorthCom officers were asked about the implications of the new deployment for the Posse Comitatus Act, the 230-year-old legal statute that bars the use of US military forces for law enforcement purposes within the US itself.

Col. Lou Volger, NorthCom’s chief of future operations, tried to downplay any enforcement role, but added, “We will integrate with law enforcement to understand the situation and make sure we’re aware of any threats.”

Volger acknowledged the obvious, that the Brigade Combat Team is a military force, while attempting to dismiss the likelihood that it would play any military role. It “has forces for security,” he said, “but that’s really—they call them security forces, but that’s really just to establish our own footprint and make sure that we can operate and run our own bases.”

Lt. Col. James Shores, another NorthCom officer, chimed in, “Let’s say even if there was a scenario that developed into a branch of a civil disturbance—even at that point it would take a presidential directive to even get it close to anything that you’re suggesting.”

Whatever is required to trigger such an intervention, clearly Col. Cloutier and his troops are preparing for it with their hands-on training in the use of “non-lethal” means of repression.
The extreme sensitivity of the military brass on this issue notwithstanding, the reality is that the intervention of the military in domestic affairs has grown sharply over the last period under conditions in which its involvement in two colonial-style wars abroad has given it a far more prominent role in American political life.

The Bush administration has worked to tear down any barriers to the use of the military in domestic repression. Thus, in the 2007 Pentagon spending bill it inserted a measure to amend the Posse Comitatus Act to clear the way for the domestic deployment of the military in the event of natural disaster, terrorist attack or “other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”
The provision granted the president sweeping new powers to impose martial law by declaring a “public emergency” for virtually any reason, allowing him to deploy troops anywhere in the US and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of state governors in order to “suppress public disorder.”

VERY IMPORTANT>>>The provision was subsequently repealed by Congress as part of the 2008 military appropriations legislation, but the intent remains. Given the sweeping powers claimed by the White House in the name of the “commander in chief” in a global war on terror—powers to suspend habeas corpus, carry out wholesale domestic spying and conduct torture—there is no reason to believe it would respect legal restrictions against the use of military force at home.

It is noteworthy that the deployment of US combat troops “as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters”—in the words of the Army Times—coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Justified as a response to terrorist threats, the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America’s borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.

Under conditions of deepening economic crisis, the unprecedented social chasm separating the country’s working people from the obscenely wealthy financial elite becomes unsustainable within the existing political framework.

Reports: US Still 'Dangerously Vulnerable'
Study: Bush Administration Missed Numerous Opportunities
September 9, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5ttvmd
WASHINGTON -- As the somber, seven-year anniversary approaches, a new study suggests that the United States remains "dangerously vulnerable" to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks, despite new initiatives prompted by 9/11. And a House Democrats' report says the George W. Bush administration has missed one opportunity after another to improve the nation's security.
The recent political rupture between Russia and the U.S. only makes matters worse, said Lee Hamilton, the former Indiana Democratic congressman who helped lead the 9/11 Commission and now chairs the independent group's latest study
Efforts to reduce access to nuclear technology and bomb-making materials have slowed, thousands of U.S. chemical plants remain unprotected, and the U.S. government continues to oppose strengthening an international treaty to prevent bioterrorism, according to the report produced by the bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America.
The group includes leaders of the disbanded 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan panel that investigated government missteps before the 2001 terror attacks on the United States.
"The threat of a new, major terrorist attack on the United States is still very real," concludes the report to be released Wednesday, the same day a congressional commission will hold a hearing in New York on nuclear and biological terrorism threats.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26618858/

“John: Of course and nobody is buying the rhetoric that flies in the face of today's realitys.”

Apparently there are many on this post alone, that are buying the rhetoric.

John- "REPUBLICANS WANT TO KEEP THEIR TAXBREAK AND MAKE THEM "PERMANENT". THAT COST ADDS $3.4TRILLION TO YOUR DEFICIT OVER 10YRS."

If no tax break includes raising the capital gains and a 55% inheritance tax then in many ways raising that hurts all of us with a retirement plan or those wanting to leave something to their families. A 55% inheritance tax is extortion on money that was already taxed. The great myth is that by spending the government is giving us something. Actually they are just giving us a loan that us or our children will need to pay back with interest.

John- "Did bailing out the car company's and financial institutions save the economy.TOTALLY NECESSARY- YOU BETCHA', JUST IMAGINE THE AUTO INDUSTRY TURNED SOLELY INTO THE WAR MACHINE THE WAY THAT THE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS WERE STEERING US TOWARDS. THEY ALL HAD US CONDEMNING THE US AUTO INDUSTRY-"

I think two points still need to be made. I think most of us were not condemning the US auto industry but condemning those that mismanaged their company’s to the point we decided to bail them out. Part of the reason Ford is doing so good is people support the fact they did not take government money and they were responsible. Even still, the question remains was it necessary to bailout GM and Chrysler in order to save the US auto industry? When a bird is mature enough and it is time to push it out of the nest it will either choose to fly or otherwise die. If it fly’s then it will do so on it’s own and live a healthy life but if it chooses to remain protected in it’s nest then it will be a burden on it’s mother dragging her down as well. A company needs to be responsible. If they go out of business then other more responsible company’s will fill the void. Who’s to say that would not be a responsible New American auto company?

John- "I took a long hard look and went through his entire administration to try to find one shining example of what he had done "to make our country better"

John, I thought Bush's initial response to the 9/11 attacks were his best moments and what this country needed at the time.
After that the negatives strongly out weighed the positives, in my opinion.

The two biggest car companies in America, meaning they employ the most workers and sells the most cars, are Toyota and Honda.

GM and Chysler have made no significant investment in the United States in over 40 years. They are famous for completely un bolting their American manufacturing plants, shipping them to Mexico and Canada. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs gone forever.

Private investors fled from the mismanaged companies. So tell me again why they deserve a bailout? Why would Obama buy 70% of their debt?

John:
-WHY ARE "TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS" ABLE TO CONFISCATE AND RESELL THE HOMES OF FAMILIES WHEN THEY HAD TO BE BAILED OUT THEMSELVES?-

fred-EXACTLY!!!

What happened to the vast majority of small, medium, and large, mom and pop farms? The farms didnt disapear. The owners were forced into bancruptcy.

What happened to small chain and independant gas stations?

What about he mall stores that have taken over our downtowns.

Its said, one can go to any super market, walk down any aisle, and find that approx (on average) seven mega corporations produced all the items in that aisle.

Why did the American car companies REFUSE to adapt to market trends?

Why do the American car companies produce and sell cars -outside of the United States- that avg 48-55 mpg? Why not in this country?

Why have versions of the 'Chevy Volt' been sold outside of the US for years now?

Why does the most basic Tesla car cost $109,000? (If you can get one.) No competition is why. Why is that?

Mike Q- “You may bridle at any kind of governmental authority, but with none who would bow to the wishes of anyone else? Of course, we would want the government to be exerting its power in pursuit of justice and rightness. And we should only give it a hard time if it goes against these things“

The emblem on the police car reads ‘Protect and Serve.” As servants they have the authority to enforce the law against the people whom they serve. It is because “we” the majority tell them to, in order to protect all of us. They don’t have the right to run our lives, or to use unnecessary force, or to demand we donate to them, or to discriminate for what they think is our best interest, or to not obey the law themselves.

We are all under the rule of law. The government is not above the law. They don’t rule over us or dictate to us the policies they think are in our best interest even though we firmly disagree. They work for us and use their power so we could live safely and pursue happiness. Anything else is an abuse of power or an Authoritarian Regime, even if seemingly in our best interest they don’t have the right to dictate to us against the will of the majority. That is not BY the people and FOR the people and it is not American.

Here is what Jefferson and Franklin had to say

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

"Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

"Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:322

"Reflection,... with information, is all which our countrymen need, to bring themselves and their affairs to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to James Lewis, Jr., 1798. ME 10:37

“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." The ultimate powers in a society, therefore, rest in the people themselves, and they should exercise those powers, either directly or through representatives, in every way they are competent and that is practicable.”

president obama nice guy but a spineless
liberal spending money borrowed from china on his socialistic agenda that spells doom for all of us and would love to give all the illegals a free pass to citizenship to get their votes. where are the real honest leaders. lol.