Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Jan 2009, 7:36 pm

sartresue wrote:
Personal Magnetism topic

Barack Obama has that certain something called charisma. You either have it or you do not.

It is the icing on the cake, the spice in the cooking. It is the secret ingredient that just wows the masses. It is an NT thing, and NTs love it. Like moths to the flame, so there may be a caution here.



Charisma is a mixed bag. A certain Austrian corporal in the Imperial German Army (WWI) had a great deal of what you described. The outcome was dreadful.

ruveyn



Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,919
Location: Post Falls, ID

21 Jan 2009, 7:48 pm

I disagree with him on many issues, but I still hope for the best for him.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Jan 2009, 7:50 pm

Bataar wrote:
I disagree with him on many issues, but I still hope for the best for him.


It is in our interest that he does not screw up badly. This is the case regardless of our political convictions. This man has his thumb on the nuclear trigger and he commands the most powerful army in the world. I can only hope he does not make any fatal blunders.

ruveyn



psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

21 Jan 2009, 10:04 pm

I thought i may as well cross-post this as its more relevant to this thread and elaborates on some my earlier points.

Obama has cultivated an image for peace, but has called for a 'civilian national security force' - that sounds decidedly 'iffy' to me, peacewise

Obama wrote:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... d=%2069784

There seems to be an expectation that this administration will renew the economy, especially in light of recent failures in the banking sector. However, looking atthe type of people Obamas appointing as his economic team should send alarm bells ringing - this does not look like change that was promised;

Quote:
Robert Rubin - helped Enron cook its books, got caught cooking his own and committed numerous accouting fouls while at Ford. Guess who's in D.C., hat in hand, looking for a piece of that TARP bailout?

Anne Mulcahy -While CEO at Xerox, got popped accounting fraud.

Richard Parsons - Also got popped for accounting fraud. Both Mulcahy and Parsons were directors at Fannie Mae when they were caught breaking accounting rules

So was another member of Obama's new economic board, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. He's now a member of the executive committee at JPMorgan Chase & Co., which, like Citigroup, is among the nine large banks that just got $125 billion of Treasury's bailout budget.

Obama's economic crew might as well be called the Bailout Bunch. Another slot went to former White House economic adviser Laura Tyson. She's been a director for about a decade at Morgan Stanley, which in 2004 got slapped for accounting violations by the SEC and a month ago got $10 billion from Treasury.

Then you've got Emmanuel - consummate corporate insider. Of all the people Obama could have chosen as his chief of staff, couldn't he have found someone who wasn't once on the board of Freddie Mac? Disgusting.

Many of these guys should be getting subpoenas as material witnesses right about now, not places in Obama's inner circle. But who better to patch this economy in tatters than the very people responsible for tearing it to shreds? Who better to solve the myriad problems caused by white collar criminalality than white collar criminals, most of whom held executive positions at the very companies that sent the economy reeling with "liberal" accounting and experimental derivatives.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... UQ6w&refer

Obamas transition team includes Michael Warner, someone knee-deep in biotech aka genetically modified food. There is significant alarm about the safety of GMOs. This is a big subject i wont go into for now, but there are concerns that GM is cross-pollinating (despite assurance from vested interests) thereby removing choice for the health concious consumer.

Quote:
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 47188.html

Obama & Warner are now saying that they are in favour of labelling. I remain sceptical! Obama has recently appointed Vilsack as agriculture secretary - another knee-deep in GMO. from the organic consumers association;

Quote:
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _15573.cfm



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

22 Jan 2009, 10:22 am

psych wrote:
I thought i may as well cross-post this as its more relevant to this thread and elaborates on some my earlier points.

Obama has cultivated an image for peace, but has called for a 'civilian national security force' - that sounds decidedly 'iffy' to me, peacewise
Obama wrote:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... d=%2069784


There seems to be an expectation that this administration will renew the economy, especially in light of recent failures in the banking sector. However, looking atthe type of people Obamas appointing as his economic team should send alarm bells ringing - this does not look like change that was promised;

Quote:
Robert Rubin - helped Enron cook its books, got caught cooking his own and committed numerous accouting fouls while at Ford. Guess who's in D.C., hat in hand, looking for a piece of that TARP bailout?

Anne Mulcahy -While CEO at Xerox, got popped accounting fraud.

Richard Parsons - Also got popped for accounting fraud. Both Mulcahy and Parsons were directors at Fannie Mae when they were caught breaking accounting rules

So was another member of Obama's new economic board, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. He's now a member of the executive committee at JPMorgan Chase & Co., which, like Citigroup, is among the nine large banks that just got $125 billion of Treasury's bailout budget.

Obama's economic crew might as well be called the Bailout Bunch. Another slot went to former White House economic adviser Laura Tyson. She's been a director for about a decade at Morgan Stanley, which in 2004 got slapped for accounting violations by the SEC and a month ago got $10 billion from Treasury.

Then you've got Emmanuel - consummate corporate insider. Of all the people Obama could have chosen as his chief of staff, couldn't he have found someone who wasn't once on the board of Freddie Mac? Disgusting.

Many of these guys should be getting subpoenas as material witnesses right about now, not places in Obama's inner circle. But who better to patch this economy in tatters than the very people responsible for tearing it to shreds? Who better to solve the myriad problems caused by white collar criminalality than white collar criminals, most of whom held executive positions at the very companies that sent the economy reeling with "liberal" accounting and experimental derivatives.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... UQ6w&refer

Obamas transition team includes Michael Warner, someone knee-deep in biotech aka genetically modified food. There is significant alarm about the safety of GMOs. This is a big subject i wont go into for now, but there are concerns that GM is cross-pollinating (despite assurance from vested interests) thereby removing choice for the health concious consumer.

Quote:
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 47188.html

Obama & Warner are now saying that they are in favour of labelling. I remain sceptical! Obama has recently appointed Vilsack as agriculture secretary - another knee-deep in GMO. from the organic consumers association;

Quote:
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _15573.cfm


Thorns in the side topic

Very interesting, Psych. I will take a different spin here. Perhaps The President is keeping his enemies closer, in the tradition of his mentor, Abraham Lincoln.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


DeLoreanDude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,562
Location: FL

22 Jan 2009, 10:53 am

Image

:D



gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

22 Jan 2009, 11:07 am

Obama seems to be living up to his promises already. He's closing Guantanamo Bay, and is moving to make the government more transparent.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Jan 2009, 11:10 am

Check this out: http://obamaclock.org/

Looks like the Repubs are getting a head start on being bitter about the Obama administration. The clock is wrong, though: it fails to take into account the fact that Obama will almost certainly be a two-term President.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jan 2009, 12:33 pm

Orwell wrote:
Check this out: http://obamaclock.org/

Looks like the Repubs are getting a head start on being bitter about the Obama administration. The clock is wrong, though: it fails to take into account the fact that Obama will almost certainly be a two-term President.


The only certainties are Death and Taxes. If Fearless Leader does not do a major screw up in the next four years it is very likely that he will be re-elected if he runs. However four years is a long time. Let us see what will happen.

ruveyn



JoJerome
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 261
Location: Lake Powell/Page AZ

22 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm

"It's a brand new, bright Obama day!! !
What a time to be black, a girl or gay!! !"


http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf50 ... hida-jones



Jkid
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 487
Location: College Park,MD

22 Jan 2009, 2:32 pm

I never got into to the Obamamaia that almost everyone has. In my opinion he's not a real progressive. Even when you look in his previous campaigns for public office he supported universal single payer health care and ending the war in Iraq. But he begun campaigning for President he became a centralist as usual.

As much as I'm glad that we have a first African-American president, I knew that we will not get a revolutionary African-American president. On;y way to find out if he is a progressive democrat and not just another neo-conservative is to wait and see.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

22 Jan 2009, 2:55 pm

psych wrote:
The US version of Tony Blair. Be very afraid!

Todays presidents dont make decisions IMO, they sign bits of paper & make speeches. Other people write the speeches & 'advise' them which bits of paper to sign.



Yes, but: the president chooses his own advisors; these advisors often disagree with each other; in the end, the leader makes the decision. No executive can know every detail, but he can set the tone on how problems are to be approached. Some presidents understand nuance and make considered decisions, while others act impulsively in ways that may not be appropriate.

Jkid wrote:
I never got into to the Obamamaia that almost everyone has. In my opinion he's not a real progressive.


I agree that his opponents that tried to paint him as wildly liberal/radical were way off the mark. He is a centrist with some progressive ideals. The fact that the US is returning to a centrist/pragmatic approach is a relief to me.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

22 Jan 2009, 3:08 pm

psych wrote:
I thought i may as well cross-post this as its more relevant to this thread and elaborates on some my earlier points.

Obama has cultivated an image for peace, but has called for a 'civilian national security force' - that sounds decidedly 'iffy' to me, peacewise
Obama wrote:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... d=%2069784


For this topic, worldnetdaily is not a good source - they have a clear bias and are tabloid sensationalism. If you read all the speeches that Obama gave and the position papers on that, it is clear that Obama thinks it is not enough to put troops into Afghanistan or some other area ... America should construct peaceful relations by also sending soil conservation experts, health experts, engineers, computer teachers, mechanics, and provide other development assistance. It is really a version of the Peace Corps, but the right wing chose to interpret it as some paramilitary organization that would have police powers.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/i ... ional.html



DeLoreanDude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,562
Location: FL

22 Jan 2009, 3:34 pm

Image



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

22 Jan 2009, 6:27 pm

Orwell wrote:
biospark wrote:
Good Bad or you just dont care, i'd like to know what you guys think, personally i think its great that we have an african american president but tell me what you think

Why is it such a big f***ing deal that we have a black guy as President? To make that the defining aspect of Obama's political identity is immature and racist. Why not emphasize the fact that he was a Harvard-educated lawyer and a professor in constitutional law? Those, to me at least, are more impressive than any ethnic or racial identity.


It’s quite morbidly fascinating watching people trying to out-liberal each other.
A lot of people these days sincerely believe they have some moral obligation to “move beyond race” (whatever that might mean). And now we have a great opportunity to demonstrate that we’ve done so: by proclaiming out loud how little the blackness of America’s first black President means to us. But how? How can you draw attention to Barack Obama’s blackness and at the same time assert how little it means to you? Best to wait until someone else mentions the black thing, and then hit them with cries of “racist!”. Gosh, how good that must feel.

Poor biospark probably thought he was being right-on.

Myself, although I am bored by the hype, I believe the US electing a black president is quite significant only in so far as it symbolizes something that has been going on in the US for decades: the dispossession of America’s white majority. Most blacks will probably welcome it, and that would be quite natural and healthy. If I were a white American I’d probably rather be governed by an ethnocentric black than an anti-white traitor like Bush, Clinton or Juan McCain.

But it probably wouldn’t make much difference either way what with the real power in the US being with the media, big business, the Israel lobby etc. On this point I agree with psych and Berk, although they probably would not agree with my racial views.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

22 Jan 2009, 9:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Check this out: http://obamaclock.org/

Looks like the Repubs are getting a head start on being bitter about the Obama administration. The clock is wrong, though: it fails to take into account the fact that Obama will almost certainly be a two-term President.


The only certainties are Death and Taxes. If Fearless Leader does not do a major screw up in the next four years it is very likely that he will be re-elected if he runs. However four years is a long time. Let us see what will happen.

ruveyn

For a second I was almost sure you said
ruveyn wrote:
The only certainties are death and Texas.

In which case, God help us all.


_________________
* here for the nachos.