Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

President Obama

Right, but who knows what exactly will pass. The democratic party didn't get enough to earn a filibuster. So, it's not like anything he says goes. I am very interested in seeing who else he appoints around him in office.

Based on his previous voting record (just from videos I've seen and little tidbits here and there) he doesn't seem to be too much different from McCain. I've also read that McCain isn't as conservative as most other republicans. Which leads me to believe that Obama is closer to the center than most might think.

All presidents deserve some initial support, don't you think? ****, even Bush got the initial support.

Yeah, very good point about the filibuster.

As far as Obama's voting record, he's never voted against a tax increase and he has been called the most liberal senator in congress based upon is voting record. Based upon Obama's voting record, he could not be further from the center.

Yes, I feel presidents deserve respect. Hell, I'm a service member, so I will really have to watch what I say now that he's the president elect. That being said, I will not support legislation that goes against my sensibilities just because a new president endorses it.
 
that is fair rob. also, I was never a fan of the currently ending administration and never voted for them, but as for their role, you have to respect them IMO, as you would with anyone who attains that role
 
My apologies for these comments, Easy! Sound rather harsh! Not really my style to react like that. :cheers:

Its a piece of how american politics works, you've learned a bit more about it now :) Its a full contact sport, with no pads.

Its also a part of the problem with american politics as well, as it is by its very nature divisive - the affirmation of your choice is the direct denial of the other choice.

And I hope you didn't take any of it personally either, outside of politics I do appreciate your opinions :)
 
Yeah, very good point about the filibuster.

As far as Obama's voting record, he's never voted against a tax increase and he has been called the most liberal senator in congress based upon is voting record. Based upon Obama's voting record, he could not be further from the center.

Yes, I feel presidents deserve respect. Hell, I'm a service member, so I will really have to watch what I say now that he's the president elect. That being said, I will not support legislation that goes against my sensibilities just because a new president endorses it.

yeah, sorry about the new commander in chief rob :)

Truthfully I plan to give him till his cabinet is in place, and he starts his major initiatives, that first 100 days. Right now I am skeptical, as his platform was "what is the best thing to say in front of the people in front of me today" so far as i'm concerned. The talk of postpartisanship was great, the fact that it came in speeches that talked about the "final verdict on republican policies on the economy" leaves me to wonder which is real. We'll see as he appoints a cabinet though, there are a few republicans who are in the running for positions. If the positions aren't bipartisan but are at least made of the most qualified democrat, then there is a chance. If its loaded up cronyism and its more about how supportive of Obama you were, its going to be bad.
 
yeah, sorry about the new commander in chief rob :)

It is what it is. I'm going to have a harder time trying to deal with my Soldiers who badmouth their new commander in chief more than anything.

Truthfully I plan to give him till his cabinet is in place, and he starts his major initiatives, that first 100 days. Right now I am skeptical, as his platform was "what is the best thing to say in front of the people in front of me today" so far as i'm concerned. The talk of postpartisanship was great, the fact that it came in speeches that talked about the "final verdict on republican policies on the economy" leaves me to wonder which is real. We'll see as he appoints a cabinet though, there are a few republicans who are in the running for positions. If the positions aren't bipartisan but are at least made of the most qualified democrat, then there is a chance. If its loaded up cronyism and its more about how supportive of Obama you were, its going to be bad.

That final verdict crap pisses me off. Good points tho.
 
Dangerous? Ignorant? Extremist?


You clearly show you have no realistic grasp on politics in this nation. The Presidency is a highly revered institution in the US? Since when? Inserting cameroons into the vaginal crevice of an intern?

You simply are the epitome of a foreigner who is looking from the outside in with a very filtered, one sided viewpoint without any real understanding of real life situations that drive American politics. Its very apparent in several statements you have made here and in other threads.

First of all, thank you very much for the negative reps, in spite of my public apology to EasyEJL, and to you via private message, for the emotional tone of my earlier post. This is your forum. You not only have unlimited powers, but also the discretion to apply those as you wish.

I originally wanted to ignore this whole thing, and just move on, but I would like to make a closing set of comments before unsubscribing to this thread and concentrating on other forum sections where subjective comments and emotions matter much less.

1) It is very interesting that I am regarded as a foreigner in Germany due to the colour of my skin (yes, I am black!). In a forum such as this, because I live in Germany, it is also automatically assumed that I am a foreigner, a German! As it turns out, and that is a point I tried to make earlier, country of domicile is not necessarily identical to country of origin (or nationality). I have not always lived in Germany. Millions of Americans live outside of the USA, for different reasons, but that does not make them foreigners to fellow Americans.

2) Physically living in the USA has never been, and will never be, a necessary and sufficient condition for following or understanding American politics (or politics in America). Fortunately, even amongst those physically residing in the USA, there is not one single perspective to American politics. Perspectives will always differ, and that is one powerful expression of freedom of thought and speech!

3) I still maintain that the Presidency is a highly revered institution in the USA. In saying this, I draw a distinction between the Presidency as an abstract institution, and the individuals that personify that institution. These individuals have their strengths and weaknesses as human beings. These strengths and weakness can reflect on the perception of the Presidency, but does not diminish its overall institutional significance per se. At the most, every eight years, Americans have a choice to renew the foundations for their perception of the Presidency. That is my thesis.

Again, my apologies to anyone that my position in this thread offended. That was a tangential outcome, and was never the core purpose of my comments. There are never winners of losers in these types of discussions. Positions are tossed around and emotions spiral northwards. Yet, when the dust settles, people revert to their original standpoints. Given that background, I now take my leave, so as to truncate avoidable events!

Take care!

Unsubscribed.
 
I'm not sure how to react at this point. Whether or not the Fairness Doctrine gets passed will tell me a lot. However, they may not be able to get it through without the 60 senate seats. If it passes, I know I have an us vs them situation and I will never back him. If it doesn't passed, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
He's not Congress, Rob: conflate much?

I find all the hate for the Fairness Doctrine perplexing - are you only comfortable when liars can't be confronted and contradicted? Is THAT a "free country" to you? Is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater an inalienable right to you? In our form of representative self-government, is 'shout the loudest and silence the opposition' the best way to handle a national dialogue about governance, policy & direction?
 
He's not Congress, Rob: conflate much?

I find all the hate for the Fairness Doctrine perplexing - are you only comfortable when liars can't be confronted and contradicted? Is THAT a "free country" to you? Is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater an inalienable right to you? In our form of representative self-government, is 'shout the loudest and silence the opposition' the best way to handle a national dialogue about governance, policy & direction?

Because you force a media outlet to carry equal time for each side, what happens in markets where the one side has no interest? Where there aren't enough either liberal or conservative listeners (depending on the locale) to sell enough advertising during one segment of the show? In effect as well it limits free speech - you can't have a 24 hour a day conservative or liberal show under the fairness doctrine.
 
First of all, thank you very much for the negative reps, in spite of my public apology to EasyEJL, and to you via private message, for the emotional tone of my earlier post.


You're welcome.
 
He's not Congress, Rob: conflate much?

I find all the hate for the Fairness Doctrine perplexing - are you only comfortable when liars can't be confronted and contradicted? Is THAT a "free country" to you? Is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater an inalienable right to you? In our form of representative self-government, is 'shout the loudest and silence the opposition' the best way to handle a national dialogue about governance, policy & direction?

Well you made some assumptions here:

- I don't want to hear liberal talk radio. I will turn off the radio or change the channel when Rush/Sean/Mark is responded to by a liberal representative as approved by the FCC. The vast majority of the listeners will do the same.

- The fairness doctrine only applies to private talk radio stations. The only truly successful private talk radio stations on a nationwide level are conservative talk radio stations. They routinely stomp their liberal competitors in ratings. This isn't to say liberal talk hasn't been tried, its just failed. This bill is aimed at these conservative talk radio stations.

- The fairness doctrine does not apply to National Public Radio, a government sponsored bastion of liberal ideas. Why should private enterprise be forced to show "all viewpoints" but state sponsored radio should not?

- Conservative radio is not shouting fire in a crowded theater. That is idiotic and has no basis.

- The fairness doctrine does not apply to television and newspapers, other bastions of liberal ideas. These media outlets lean left....coincidence? What makes regulating ideas so essential on private radio stations, but unessential on other media outlets that reach larger audiences?

- Al Sharpton was not listed as a liberal. He was listed as "entertainment" so the doctrine will not apply to him. Selective enforcement like this by the FCC can unfairly target conservatives.

- The effect of the doctrine when it previously was in place, was to make a lot of sports, gardening, and medical shows, while discouraging political talk radio from being on the air. You never knew how the FCC would react, so you didn't mess with them.

Conclusion- The fairness doctrine is censorship of conservative talk radio. Pure and simple.
 
He's not congress, but congress won't pass any bill he'd veto.
Very true.





The only thing I like about obama is he's black. It a clear marker that we're making some progress.
But also with that, It will be obnoxious to be accused of being racist when I criticize him. I'm sure this will occur.


So I'm assuming when he makes a negative move no one will use the idiom: "He's showing his true colors" haha. (just jokin' around, no one freak out)
 
the fact that we still mention his skin color/ethnic heritage means we're not making much progress...

Seems to me (and this is probably offensive) that the only people on the national level who keep reiterating that he is black are blacks themselves. No one else cares. Hell, I don't give a **** that he's black. Color does not matter, not one bit.
 
Seems to me (and this is probably offensive) that the only people on the national level who keep reiterating that he is black are blacks themselves. No one else cares. Hell, I don't give a **** that he's black. Color does not matter, not one bit.
Agreed. It doesnt matter, but we're not blind. We can talk about it without it being a negative.
I have to smile when I think of how pissed all the hicks who hate him must be lol.


In regards to being politically correct. Does anyone else find it odd to call blacks, african americans? ....and that most demand it?
I dont demand to be called a NorthernEuropean American. White is just fine.
I dont know, it just seems like we're doing an awkward dance trying to please people when we come up with names like that. Its more of a history lesson than a title.
(sorry if this offends anyone, but if it did, you're being too sensitive imo)

My refering to his skin color is no judgement upon him EasyEJL. I really like him (at least his public presentation).
 
My refering to his skin color is no judgement upon him EasyEJL. I really like him (at least his public presentation).

I dont care about his skin color at all, I dislike him for the same sorts of reasons I dislike Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi :)
 
You still have to recognize that having a black president is a huge step forward of where we were as a nation, just a few decades ago. You can acknowledge this fact without it meaning that we're still referencing race in a derogatory manner. We have moved forward in a huge way. Also counting the fact that the democrats second choice was Clinton and McCain's running mate was a woman. Two women and a black man in one race to top spots in our country is a huge thing to witness.
 
I said drinking the kool-aid to someone and they thought it was a racist statement. :lol:
did you hear about the conservative group in northern california that thought it would be funny to put obamas face on a foodstamp type deal, surrounding his face with fried chicken, kool aid, and a few other "stereotypes". i thought it was horrible, but i also thought it was hilarious because her defense was, "i didnt mean anything racist by it"
 
did you hear about the conservative group in northern california that thought it would be funny to put obamas face on a foodstamp type deal, surrounding his face with fried chicken, kool aid, and a few other "stereotypes". i thought it was horrible, but i also thought it was hilarious because her defense was, "i didnt mean anything racist by it"

I hear Obama can play a mean game of basketball!

Really, I hear he's actually pretty good :).
 
You still have to recognize that having a black president is a huge step forward of where we were as a nation, just a few decades ago. You can acknowledge this fact without it meaning that we're still referencing race in a derogatory manner. We have moved forward in a huge way. Also counting the fact that the democrats second choice was Clinton and McCain's running mate was a woman. Two women and a black man in one race to top spots in our country is a huge thing to witness.

True, but we still have a long way to go. And I think we will get there

alot faster if all sides stop complaining and work together. I find that

minorities and women in some ways have advantages over white

males that aren't acknowledged very much. I myself am not racist. I

am half white and half brown. I hate very much hearing cracker this

and cracker that yet other words are not allowed. My mother is white.

People are way to over sensitive. They need to forget about the past

and think of the present and the future. Also a sense of humor would

be nice. If you want to acknowledge true oppression followed by huge

growth and strides look at the Jewish. I don't hear them complaining

so much. I mean if Obama fails and doesn't keep his promises you

aren't gonna see white people on tv talking sh*t and calling him the

opposite of cracker. I could honestly care less about his skin color.

Everyone needs to remember he is a fu*king politician and they all

make promises, promises, and more promises. I am so sick of the

race issue and people condemning racism, but allowing reverse

racism. It is Un-American and ignorant.
 
What is Un-American is that paragraph, dude. I agree with components of it, but it was fucking difficult to read.
 
Seems to me (and this is probably offensive) that the only people on the national level who keep reiterating that he is black are blacks themselves. No one else cares. Hell, I don't give a **** that he's black. Color does not matter, not one bit.

This is actually a big deal to all minorities (not that we are the minority when all of us are put together) because of the fact that he is black. For some whites, it is not a big deal. That's good and all. In fact, I am happy you feel that way because it shows that you see past his skin color.

However, for a lot of latino, hispanic, and blacks it is a big deal. Now it seems much more like a possibility rather than a dream. It's not such stretch to say that hey maybe even I could become president. Not that I'd want to, but still it's not a ridiculous thought anymore.

This is why a lot of people are hopeful about his presidency, because America as a whole seems to be moving forward in some aspects. And, whether you like him or not, you have to acknowledge how special it is to be part of the lifetime that saw the very first black president in the U.S. I imagine there will be a similar reaction when we do have our first female president.

It is a big deal, not to all. But, definitely to a lot of people.
 
I'm just not sure if I should call Obama the new pres of the United States, or the new CEO of our Corporatocracy. I think the latter is more appropriate/accurate.

If you think there will be a stark diff between Bush and Obama, think again. Obama will inherit Bush's war crimes and run with them.
 
I have to smile when I think of how pissed all the hicks who hate him must be lol.
Two of THE MOST AMAZING snapshots for me in the campaign:

- Klansmen in robes wearing Obama buttons & registering voters
- the guy who, when asked who he was voting for, said (without looking up from the TV) "we're voting for the nigger"

You want to know how much our nation has changed?
There it is!
 
Last edited:
He's not congress, but congress won't pass any bill he'd veto.
Ironically, that's exactly why the Fairness Doctrine was NOT made law (Bush-41 being the POTUS in question) - and it's been true of EVERY Congress that didn't have a veto-proof margin (most of them) - so what, exactly, is your point about Obama here?
 
I think just that when congress is controlled by the same party, the president is apprised of what the bills are being put forth and if anything is in it he finds objectionable the party tries to either convince him otherwise, or makes changes to suit his views all behind closed doors. when congress is controlled by different parties, they generally dont seem to try and do hidden negotiation
 
Ironically, that's exactly why the Fairness Doctrine was NOT made law (Bush-41 being the POTUS in question) - and it's been true of EVERY Congress that didn't have a veto-proof margin (most of them) - so what, exactly, is your point about Obama here?

Actually, the fairness doctrine was FCC policy, not law. It was in place from 1949-1987. All the FCC has to do is reinstitute the policy. The FCC commission are presidential appointees with congressional oversight, so both congress and the president could most likely pressure the FCC to put the doctrine back into place.
 
Actually, the fairness doctrine was FCC policy, not law. It was in place from 1949-1987. All the FCC has to do is reinstitute the policy. The FCC commission are presidential appointees with congressional oversight, so both congress and the president could most likely pressure the FCC to put the doctrine back into place.

Manipulation of the FCC similar to what took place during the last eight years, you mean.
 
hell it was teh manipulation of the fcc and "appropriate speech" during the current administration that brought many DJ's to satellite radio out of fear of financial ruin. Talk about fairness
 
Manipulation of the FCC similar to what took place during the last eight years, you mean.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I did a search for Bush, FCC, and manipulation and only came up with problems during the beginning of the Iraq war with former officers showing battlefield strategies during the initial invasion of Iraq. I don't think that is what you're referring to...

Even if Bush administration did manipulate the FCC, that shouldn't be used as a justification for reinstituting the fairness doctrine.
 
hell it was teh manipulation of the fcc and "appropriate speech" during the current administration that brought many DJ's to satellite radio out of fear of financial ruin. Talk about fairness

It was that and not the 1 billion dollar contract that brought Stern to Sirius?

I don't know....a billion dollars....?

That being said...I think we could do without the FCC.
 
hell it was teh manipulation of the fcc and "appropriate speech" during the current administration that brought many DJ's to satellite radio out of fear of financial ruin. Talk about fairness


Actually no...the seeds of that were planted in the 90's...ask Stern. The FCC fined and went after more DJ's in the 90's than ever...which followed the government going after artists during the 80's....Remember Tipper Gore and the PMRC?

Even then, it was never political...its was based on some sort of "morality and decency".
 
hell it was teh manipulation of the fcc and "appropriate speech" during the current administration that brought many DJ's to satellite radio out of fear of financial ruin. Talk about fairness

so you think its reasonable for a dj to say f u c k or have conversations with porn stars on a medium that has no parental controls possible? you can build an am or fm radio as part of a science project, and many kids do. this wasnt manipulating the fcc, this was making them enforce the rules they were created to enforce
 
I remember I bought the 2 Live Crew album right before the explicit lyrics law went into effect.

Mom was in for a bit of a shock when I put the record on...
 
I remember I bought the 2 Live Crew album right before the explicit lyrics law went into effect.

Mom was in for a bit of a shock when I put the record on...

Nice. I got the Cop Killer version of Ice-T's Body Count album right before it was banned.
 
Back
Top