Jay Bookman

By Paul

January 22, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this

Thank you, President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts.

For saving us from four years of listening to “He’s not really our president ‘cause he never took the real oath.”

But then I’d never get to ask “You’d rather have Biden, instead?”

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this

Just moments after declaring “an era of new openness in America”, Obama goes behind closed doors to redo his oath. My what classic liberal double talk.

Of course our state run media doesn’t see that, like parents of a retarded 15 yr old, they will gleefully crow about anything/everything that Obama does resembling a normal president. Like tying his shoes or buttoning his shirt. In their eyes, he can do no wrong, agenda comes before American.

By getalife

January 22, 2009 10:53 AM | Link to this

OMG.

Where is the bible?

Just to drive the wingnuts crazy.

Bwa.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this

Which part of “repeat after me” did Obama not understand??

By gadem

January 22, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

FairytaleQueen, that was the problem. Obama repeated after Roberts…Roberts messed up not Obama. Not everyone blindly follows others like you and your neocon ilk…good day mi lady.

By sd

January 22, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this

You would have to be certifiably insane for the oath thing to bother you.

Although I have always found it odd that people swear and give their oath upon a book that contains the words:

” 33”Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

By Paul

January 22, 2009 11:13 AM | Link to this

Great. You link to an article that says, in effect, adherents to style, correctness and a more difficult and proper path are really adherents to “shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style,” implying the Obamas of the world will lead us forward to an era where everyone can do, say or write whatever sounds good.

He than tells us “that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing.” Maybe that’s why he inserts, as do many, an unnecessary “that” (or maybe he gets paid by the word). How he considers such ‘corrections’ logical is a mystery. Possibly his greater hope is by writing in or speaking in such a style, people will think he really does have “rhythm.”

Hopefully, Pres Obama will surprise Pinker, also.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 11:13 AM | Link to this

I pity the poor fools that spent thousands to stand in the freezing cold Tuesday witnessing Obama’s first debacle, err.., historical moment.

At this rate, we’ll probably all be standing in line in the freezing cold by 2013. In the soup line that is..

By AmVet

January 22, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

Probably done in an effort to spare Roberts further embarrassment.

Apparently Roberts is a straight A kinda student of the law and has never botched a public appearance before. He deserves no blame for this other than perhaps his hubris for truying to do it strictly from memory.

The Reich-wing nuts though who still blather on that it was Obama’s fault are pathetically reality challenged. As if that wasn’t obvious.

Apparently Headrush Limberger said he wants Obama to fail.

Imagine that?! The darling and head oracle of the lunatic fringe wanting more Republican debacles instead of a semblance of ethical governance and fiscal responsibility.

And unfortunately I was exposed to about five minutes of Kneel Boar-tz yesterday.

Zooks.

What a sad old fool he has become.

But he is the same old dipwad with the same old dead message that resonates in the dodo wing of fake conservatism..

By Paul

January 22, 2009 11:26 AM | Link to this

AmVet

Do not these people understand if Pres Obama ‘fails’ it will have a terrible impact on their followers?

If he ‘fails’ to enact policies that will lead to a reversal of job losses.

If he ‘fails’ to make progress in stabilizing the credit markets.

If he ‘fails’ to find an effective way to prosecute terrorists.

If he ‘fails’ to extricate us from Iraq and Afghanistan.

If he ‘fails’ to make government more transparent and accountable.

If he ‘fails’ to move beyond the old political rhetoric.

Then again, I suppose the ‘old political rhetoric’ is still good for talk show hosts and others who make their living by such means.

By Davo

January 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Link to this

I was surprised that Obama (or Roberts) thought it neccesary to re-administer his oath of office. The only reason I can imagine either doing this is to assuage the childish banter from the far right. Ignoring them would have been the proper action, but then again, meeting your opponants half-way seems to be strategy of the moment.

Not at all like W…how refreshing.

By ByteMe

January 22, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Davo,

The legal reasoning was that the president’s oath is written in the constitution, so the legal eagles felt it was better to take a few moments out of everyone’s busy day to take the oath the way the constitution says to take it.

And, yeah, Obama was being kind by saying it was a mutual goof-up on both their parts, but if you watched the oath carefully and understood the specific wording in the constitution, you’ll see that Roberts flubbed it badly by trying to do it from memory.

Are the “birthers” still around? This is their kind of wingnut conspiracy.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

Off topic.

Caroline Kenedy has dropped out of consideration as NY’s next senator.

Who can the gov appoint, now? Let’s see:

Qualifications for Get Yourself Appointed as a Democratic Senator

I’m sure Democrats won’t let us down.

By getalife

January 22, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

Well, fixed noise starting running it so they had to fix it. Roberts took it well.

President Obama is doing what he promised in his campaign. He will serve two terms so Jay is right.

Roberts will get it right next time.

By Davo

January 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Link to this

“Who can the gov appoint, now?”

George W. Bush

jk

By Copyleft

January 22, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this

Man, RealityKing is really desperate for something to criticize, isn’t he? He’s got nothing to work with, but he just HAS to run his ignorant mouth about something.

And lack of facts has never stood in the way of conservatives being absolutely sure of something.

By Bosch

January 22, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this

ByteMe,

Isn’t it nice to have a President who actually cares about the Constitution?

I heard alot of reporters whining about this this morning, how Obama said there’d be no transparency…blah, blah — anyway, I don’t think this is what Obama meant by that. The press got their feelings hurt it seems.

Anyway, when Obama starts holding secret energy meetings, then I’ll worry, until this - whine away press.

By Greg Mendel

January 22, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

This re-do was ridiculous. Considering that Obama officially became the president (and bound by the constitutional oath of presidential office) at noon on inauguration day (before Roberts said a word), the re-do could only be intended to placate the mouthpieces of the Elephant Cult.

Obama has gone to great lengths to include members of a party that has become polluted and marginalized by its extremists. But, the train is leaving the station. The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” era of accountability is over. In “Post-43” America, the Constitution trumps bumper stickers. That’s a welcome change for real conservatives.

By ByteMe

January 22, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

Paul: It’s nice to have a president who not only knows but taught Constitutional law. And seems actually committed to it.

David Axelrod has said that he thought Obama was too “normal” to be President. That says a lot about our country, no? Wonder if he’s still getting in his morning game of hoops.

By GOP is gone

January 22, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this

Reality King,

I believe the “Retard” would be Roberts for messing it up in the first place.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this

ByteMe

Many of the lawyers involved in this whole military tribunals thing are not military, but are Justice Department lawyers. Seems many of them are concerned where someone with a background solely in Constitutional law will take them - or the subjects of their attention. Seems a problem is, once people hit US soil Constitutional rights apply. So many would say, heck, just release them all right now.

If Pres Obama (Harvard Law, published author, millionaire) is what Axelrod considers ‘too normal…”

But if he’s looking at personal characteristics, I’d say his demonstrated humility in the face of fame, faith in the midst of those who belittle faith, determination in the face of great odds, optimism in the midst of despair - well, I still wouldn’t call any of that ‘normal,’ either.

By Greg Mendel

January 22, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this

Paul:

Dunno who will be appointed senator from New York, but I’ll bet Rod Blagojevich is hustling a time-share scheme.

(I figure your set of qualifications are pretty accurate. Does Bloomberg want to be a senator?)

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

January 22, 2009 12:20 PM | Link to this

To borrow from our sainted Sarah, you “betcha” a guy who thinks that there are 57 states would have problems with a simple oath. I am surprised that Roberts got rettled by POTUS’ false start. So for now the score card reads:

Handling the presidential oath - Bush 1, Obama 0

Then we move on to POTUS’s handling of the box in which his campaign promise to close Gitmo has placed him in light of the danergous characters therein held. His order to close, maybe, sorta, possibly in one year in the future is no more than a callow canard that kicks the can down the road for a year so that POTUS can defer the closing of Gitmo further when no one much cares. So that leads to the second scoring:

Ability to lead and make decisions - Bush 1, Obama 0.

Hence a presidency-to-date score of Bush 2, Obama 0.

I would wager that 2013, the nation will open its arms to bring Gov Palin to the White House and return POTUS to the outhouse, Chicago. Then a true social icon and transformative leader, Gov. Palin, will shatter President Reagan’s viewership record.

By GOP is gone

January 22, 2009 12:25 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Now you left this so wide open I could not pass it up.

Qualifications for Get Yourself Appointed as a Republican President:

Gotta be rich. Really, really really rich.

Gotta be able to raise tons of money for the Republican Party.

Gotta be born lucky into a family that has lots and lots of politicians, past and present.

Gotta be able to recite qualifications with a straight face.

Gotta be able (again, with a straight face) tell people how you really understand their situation and will work for them, even though your family shields most of its assets from taxes and you’ve never worked a regular job in your life.

Unfortunately, you Republicans did let us and the entire world down for the last 8 years.

By professional skeptic

January 22, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail.

HEY RUSH, WHY DON’T YOU SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY??

HEY RUSH, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??

By Paul

January 22, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Colonel Tigh’s dead wife as the Fifth Cylon? She who he killed for collaborating with the Cylons? And now he’s a Cylon? Irony!

Or a longshot - Admiral Cain? Killed by a Cylon? Who she had an affair with?

By GreenJeans

January 22, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this

On topic: Very smart to nip this in the bud. Now.

Howdy Paul @ 11:26:

“Then again, I suppose the ‘old political rhetoric’ is still good for talk show hosts and others who make their living by such means.”

A mouthfull there, you said.

Theater posing as reality. Gotta keep those ratings (and fake frenzy) up! Tiresome…from either side.

Off topic, still to Paul…my New Years Resolution for Fall ‘09: Check out your BSG. A Sci-Fi head down the hall, currently in raptures, won’t shut up. But I’m afraid turning her on to you and Bosch would open a portal with too-far reaching consequences. No…best to just sit tight for now.

Peace.

By Swami Dave

January 22, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this

Paul / AmVet:

I will make no attempt to to defend or explain statements of others that I did not hear. However, as a conservative, -I- would hope and pray that President Obama administration has successful results for our nation because -that- would be in the best interests of its citizens.

However, many of the practices and principles that his administration and Congressional Democrats are attempting to implement have not, do not, and (unless repeating failed principles / policies from history produces different results) will not advance America, its citizenry, and its economy. As such, the reasonable behavior that one should expect from those of us who hold these principles is to oppose those things with which we disagree and propose better solutions instead.

For me at least, that is not “wishing failure”, but seeking to sharpen, hone, and improve the actions that they will take. It is not “wishing failure” to highlight the actions that are historically-proven to be so. That is an attempted contribution to their success.

-Swami Dave

By Greg Mendel

January 22, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this

(Oops! I meant to type “set of qualifications IS” in my previous post.)

“Handling the presidential oath - Bush 1, Obama 0” — Wyld Byll:

I don’t agree, Byll.

Presidential oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I don’t think George Bush preserved, protected or defended the Constitution — although maybe he did so to the best of his ability.

Regarding Palin, I would wager that, by 2013 (if not this summer), “Sarah Palin” will be the answer to a tough trivia question.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this

Having spent much time in Europe, I too hope that Obama fails at socializing America..

By dw

January 22, 2009 12:43 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Near as I recall, during the Bush administration I had “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I don’t recall dying, or being sold into slavery, or being told by Bush or any adminstration folks that I couldn’t do this or that, couldn’t live here or there. Did you die, or where you sold into slavery, told you must work for this or that, did the Bushies come to your house and stop you from your activities. NO!!!!!!

The Constitution does not protect foreign lands and people. It doesn’t say it, nor should it. So any war argument is invalid. Women could still kill their unborn children on demand if they chose to do so since 1973 and could during the Bush years. So no argument for you there. That will get straightened out on “judgment day”. Homosexuals and heterosexuals could still do what they wanted in the privacy of their homes. Bushies didn’t come in an stop that. They defined marriage, but that was the norm before Bush also.

All this added up, means Bush did not defile the Constitution as many liberals love to spew. If you can still say Bush was against the Constitution then so has every President before him and Obama is doing it today.

By fed up

January 22, 2009 12:43 PM | Link to this

I think it was a good thing that he again took the oath only to keep the far right from screaming he’s not the president, etc. Although as one post said at noon he was our President regardless.

I saw a clip where Biden( as he was going to swear in the staff ) tried to make a jab at Justice Roberts….Obama was not amused. Biden is a joke, he simply cannot keep his mouth shut. I think he’s trying to be funny and he’s not. I’m almost sure Obama is second guessing that choice.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

GOP is gone

So you’re saying there’s really no difference between Republican leadership and Democratic leadership?

:-)

I’m kinda hoping Pres Obama will change all that.

Then again, Gov Palin isn’t rich enough to qualify. And she’s worked regular jobs.

Awwwwww, why’d ya havta go there?

Hi GreenJeans

Boy, it’s been a while, hasn’t it?

“A Sci-Fi head down the hall, currently in raptures, won’t shut up.”

So, you know me and Bosch?

BTW - “Theatre posing as reality” - I suppose we could include Congressional leadership in that, too.

Swami Dave

[[As such, the reasonable behavior that one should expect from those of us who hold these principles is to oppose those things with which we disagree and propose better solutions instead.]]

Well said. I don’t think anyone would object to that. Well, okay… some would.

Even if I have a different idea, I’m interested to see how some of these proposals turn out. They may just work!

BTW - Congressional Budget Office - that group that works for Congress that Democrats regularly cited to challenge Pres Bush’s economic pronouncements, just released a study poking holes in the Democratic stimulus plan. Seems much of it won’t make its way into the economy for oh, about ten years or so. Even one-to-two years out the numbers are distinctly in the minority.

So the Chairman of the Appropriations committee, Rep Obey, dismissed the CBO report ‘cause he didn’t believe it.

Hey, I thought Pres Obama said we were going to restore science? Did that include examining empirical evidence and coming to rational conclusions? Aha, Obey has “faith” the CBO is wrong and has put his trust into “the evidence of things hoped for and not seen.”

This change stuff is becoming quite confusing.

By @@

January 22, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

Ta-i ke-mo sah-bee.

HOW!

Did Pinker use the word “niggling” in his piece?

Shame on him! Leftists here have accused conservatives (Buy Danish) of racism when she applied it in its proper usage.

I pinkie swear! They did…..

By Expected

January 22, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

The first of many “do-overs” to come; or better yet, to add to the multiple “free passes” taken to date…

Seriously, for all of our sakes I wish him and his programs and policies well. What continues to irk me to no end is the process, i.e., my taking the time to cast an informed vote was nullified by some moron(s) who does not have a clue about anything in life or government but saw an “american idol” moment !!!!! The voting process needs to corrected to a weighted one !!!!

By Greg Mendel

January 22, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this

RealityKing:

Seriously, what is your basis for believing Obama has any plans or desire to “socialize” America? And, can you provide a few examples of destructive European socialism? And, how much time have you spent in Europe?

By @@

January 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this

Ooooo! Since Paul mentioned Governor Palin, I’d like to leave an example of empathy and grace. — something rarely seen from the left.

By Earl

January 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this

…and the far left never said Bush was not the real President after Gore? It’s a wonder some of you all don’t choke on the double standards you’re spoonfed. I am far right and I have no problem with them doingit over. Heck, let’s do the whole election over! We need a mulligan!

By @@

January 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Alright, so I don’t have the chance to read every post, but the only person I saw raise concern over the flubbed oath was a leftist who believed it to be a conspiracy perpetuated by the Republicans to rob Obama of his presidency.

It was really quite comical to read.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this

@@

Wonder if Axelrod would characterize Palin (her life and story) as ‘normal’? How he would answer would be a real test of honest assessment vs. pandering -

By mm

January 22, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this

I’m glad Kennedy dropped out of the running for the NY senate seat. It gives the wingnuts one less thing to whine about.

RealityKing,

When are you going to join reality?

Don’t you see a picture above showing Obama and Roberts? Does that look like closed doors to you?

The news showed a portion of it on tape last night.

Geez man, you need to change your blog name to SciFiKing.

Wyld Byll,

Are you seriously still bleating on about Palin? Have you noticed she hasn’t been in the news for a few blissful days? I guess the media has finally gotten tired of her making a fool of herself.

By fed up

January 22, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this

Sorry mm Palin hasn’t made a fool of herself but you just did with your 1:11 post.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this

@@

You sound as if you could use come cheering up. (Actually, you don’t, but I needed some way to justify this next part).

Soooo, here’s a link that’ll make you laugh. It’d make anyone laugh. Except conservatives who think it’s not right to mention the word ‘colon’ in public. And liberals who are abhorred anyone would make fun of a medical procedure and those who might have cancer.

Link: Dave Berry’s Colonoscopy

By GreenJeans

January 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Link to this

SwamiD (as you are known in the Rap world) @ 12:31:

“As such, the reasonable behavior that one should expect from those of us who hold these principles is to oppose those things with which we disagree and propose better solutions instead.”

So admirable in a rancid political climate. Thank you.

In my memory, too, as the political pendulum swings, better solutions have been woefully lacking. Rather, “solutions” have been resurrected from the past only to sputter again. Enough.

I’m ready for forward-thinking solutions and vision so radical as to shock the status-quo, shock our lethargy, and shock us back into believing that American ingenuity can take us anywhere. That’s why President Obama’s words on Tuesday made me sit up and listen. Could this “cusper” really get it?

I say name the need/goal, then pit industry against industry, design team against design team to compete for a few million (or more) in rewards. Energy independence in 10 years? What a no-brainer. Follow the money trail back to the naysayers on that one.

Woops, I’m rambling. But you get my drift. Thanks for listening.

By Vick

January 22, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this

How funny… The CONSERVATIVE screws up (big surprise) and all the right wing freaks are blaming the DEMOCRAT. Sounds like the last 8 years summed up in one simple Presidential oath.

By Class of '98

January 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Link to this

“Wanting Obama to fail”

I only want Obama to fail if he tries to institue socialist programs, massive government and weaken the military.

I’m not going to support him blindly. I will only want him to succeed if I agree with his endeavor.

Why is that so hard to understand?

By Vick

January 22, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this

How funny… The CONSERVATIVE screws up (big surprise) and all the right wing freaks are blaming the DEMOCRAT. Sounds like the last 8 years summed up in one simple Presidential oath.

By Vick

January 22, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this

How funny… The CONSERVATIVE screws up (big surprise) and all the right wing freaks are blaming the DEMOCRAT. Sounds like the last 8 years summed up in one simple Presidential oath.

By Midori

January 22, 2009 1:27 PM | Link to this

Vick,

it appears you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

By BeeJay

January 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Link to this

Obama will not be re-elected in 4 years. One thing I am grateful for.

By getalife

January 22, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this

Bingo Vick.

The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises

Off to a great start.

Well, trolls will be trolls and will not grow up.

By GreenJeans

January 22, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this

It took three swings, Vick honey, but nail it you did.

Hey there Midori, you are my secret laugh-mistress.

Cheers.

By Greg Mendel

January 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this

“If you can still say Bush was against the Constitution then so has every President before him and Obama is doing it today.” — dw

This is good overview of criticism of Bush’s attitude towards the Constitution.

(I hope the formatting worked, If not, copy and paste the URL.)

There has been no court case, that I know, addressing Bush’s “signing statements” — nor formal challenge by congress — but the act of signing legislation into law, and then declaring you don’t have to obey it, is a direct repudiation of the American system of government by the nation’s chief enforcer of the law.

A president is also bound by treaties and formal agreements, such as the Geneva Convention and the ABM Treaty. Both agreements were ratified by Congress, and both intentionally violated by George Bush.

No president, before or after Bush, has defied our founding document to such an extent.

By williebkind

January 22, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

OK Obama is President. Now let us discuss something really important.

I have a question? Why do previous elected officials and those who vote for them believe their children should also have the job.

Are we a KINGDOM where titles are inherited? Do offspring by design of birthrights should be awarded political appointments?

Is not Joe Biden holding a political position for his son? The Kennedy dyasty? Cuomo? Are the children of former politicians the only qualified people or are they the favorites of the media?

Jay should be asking these questions and informing the public. But then IT may not fit the liberal agenda.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this

Greg Mendel

I found it difficult to get past the first couple pages of that Boston Globe article.

[[Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, ]]

The author goes on about violating hundreds of laws, then includes within that count military rules and regulations?

Military rules and regulations are laws? So a soldier in need of a haircut is violating the law? A soldier wearing BDUs needing mending is breaking a law?

The military falls under the President, I do believe. Matter of fact, I think that’s why Pres Obama is referred to as the “Commander in Chief.” And the military makes its own rules and regulations (some can implement or be driven by statute, however. If that’s the ‘out’ the author was looking for, it’s a poor one).

The author lost credibility right out of the box.

BTW - when did Pres Bush violate the Geneva Convention? Intentionally or not?

By Class of '98

January 22, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this

Greg Mendel-

You have no idea what you are talking about. “No president, before or after Bush, has defied our founding document to such an extent.”

Go to the library, check out a book about Abe Lincoln during the Civil War and educate yourself.

He suspended habeus corpus. He censored and even jailed journalists that wrote bad things about him and the Union’s strategies in the war. He basically acted as a dictator for 4 years, and I love him for it.

And by the way, you say “after Bush”. That’s very intelligent. Obama got sworn in 48 hours ago.

By @@

January 22, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this

O-:MG Paul!!!!!!

I can’t take the emotional roller-coaster ride. The other day you posted a story about the butler in the WH that made me cry. Now I’m laughing so hard, I’m crying.

The colonoscopy link was HILARIOUS! I’m well aware of your affinity for ABBA. You’re Bisquitlips, aren’t you?

Normal?

Better question! While in Chicago, Axelrod pulled away from “HotRod” in the 2006 campaign.

Would Obama view HotRod Blago as “normal”? He sho ‘nuff did when he supported him in 2006 although his (HotRod’s) ethics were already under investigation.

Thanks for the laugh, Paul.

Since the doctor’s name in YOUR link was Andy, the uber-do-doobers’ll now have you and Andy…..well…..need I say more? They’ll be lookin’ to hear all the sordid details. They’re odd that way.

Right now I’m enthralled with the stuff Stratfor is putting out. Did you see the article “Geopolitical Diary — Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan”? Fascinating!

I’ll wait for your answer to whether or not you read the article before I offer any further thoughts. Could be much later ‘cause I’m on my way to the track then the market.

By Paul

January 22, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this

@@

Glad you got a laugh from it. Bisquitlips? I don’t track - haven’t used Bisquick in years. I got the story in an email - then Googled it to find a site I could link to. Have to admit, when I forwarded the email I deleted 12 - just struck me as not necessary.

I have not read the article. I too may be out for a while - just finished a project and may take a break by seeing Benjamin Button. But I do enjoy your Stratfor commentaries.

Hmmmm. I wonder if they have any insight on who the Fifth Cylon might be? And if it poses a threat?

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this

Born in Germany(US military base), and then back again in the 90’s. Been to 15 different countries and can speak 9 languages.., although not fluently, especially English. I represent the 12% of Americans that have a Math or Science degree, actually both in my case, among other things. Which is why I enjoy knocking down Jay’s progressively fact less arguments so much. Y tu?

As for Obama not turn America into a welfare state, well.., receiving a federal tax return after paying no federal tax is clearly welfare. And today 30% of American’s get such a dole check. But Obama has stated publically that he intents to increase that number to 50%. Which will officially making America a welfare state, just like those failing in Europe.

Where healthcare is free…, well to that 50+% anyways. Of course it doesn’t cover near what our insurance plans do. No new drugs or surgical techniues, those are considered experimental. You know, the technical advances in medicine over the last 10 years! Thanks to Bush, even African’s are getting better AIDS treatment that Europeans. You see, in a NHS things like that have to be signed off on by politicians, yes, politicians. Whose eyes are on currently their overloaded socialized system, not your best interests. In fact, my Australian mother-in-law just waited 2 years for a simple bladder tack, in the national healthcare system heralded as the best in world no less. Where apparently, peeing on ones self every day is not considered a priority health condition.

no thanks Obama!!

By Hillbilly Deluxe

January 22, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this

If there’s ever been a non-story, this is it.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

And oh yeah, the inability to protect ones family is also an example of destructive European socialism..

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this

Not to mention the inability to protect ones own country…

By getalife

January 22, 2009 2:10 PM | Link to this

Watching Rep. Poe R-Texas calling for preemptive war with Mexico.

Losing the war on drugs badly so lets invade Mexico.

“And that is just the way it is.” Poe ends every speech.

I say legalize weed.

And that is just the way it should be.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this

Need more examples??

By Copyleft

January 22, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this

WillieB: You’re right. So let’s have no more nonsense talk about Jeb Bush running for president, hmm?

By AmVet

January 22, 2009 2:19 PM | Link to this

Swami & 98,

I believe that was the context he said it in.

But knowing the man’s history and what he advocates, reasonable people read between the lines. He (or at least his public persona) loathes all things Democratic, Independent, Moderate, Progressive, Green or non-Republican.

Do either of you remember when they “deregulated” natural gas here in Georgia?

The great improvements of supply and demand and the “free markets” that were lauded, simply did not happen. Competition went up, but prices did NOT go down. And in some cases they too actually went up too. With no benefits in service, etc..

A total farce from what I recall.

Just an observation on the fallacy of those who posit that government regulation/involvement ruins everything.

And it is an irrefutable fact that the lack of regulators and corresponding lack of enforcement, at numerous levels, contributed mightily to this attempted corporate destruction of capitalism, that we, our children and their children will pay for.

Socialism? Socialism? Socialism?

This new favorite buzz word is almost always meaningless in the sophomoric/black and white context it is generally used in.

This nation has always had “socialism” in its mix.

And according to Mssrs. Bush/McCain/Obama/Bernanke ad nauseum, it is the apparent savior of capitalism in light of the above.

So, due to the long, long, longstanding lack of ethics and responsibility by many of these captains of industry, what choice do Americans have?

As long as the “free markets” continue to demonstrate such amazing hubris, disregard for ethics and demonstrable untrustworthiness, the bungling bureaucrats will get involved.

If they simply cleaned up their acts, MUCH of the fed/state/local involvement would go away…

By jasper

January 22, 2009 2:19 PM | Link to this

I’ll take architects for $2000 Alex.

Answer: His picture hangs over the fireplace in the Map room of the Whitehouse.

Who is “Benjamin Latrobe”, considered the first archtect of the US.

By deegee

January 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this

See below, Free market capitalist, trickle down economics in practice, and/or why rich people need tax cuts. BTW, Thain was fired today.

“When John Thain became Merrill Lynch’s CEO in early 2008, he hired Michael S. Smith Design to revamp his office suite, spending approximately $1.22 million according to documents.

The following is a list of the items in his suite:

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

Jeb/Palin will easily defeat Obama in 2013 because of the impending Obama depression.

That is what you call a recession that last more than a year you know.., or at least that’s what we use to call 4 straight quarters of negative growth. But I quite sure the progressively new definition of the word “depression” is being rewritten by our state run media as we speak. Watch for it’s introduction this summer..

By AmVet

January 22, 2009 2:45 PM | Link to this

deegee, why are there so many Thains and so few Buffetts?

Though rhetorical, it goes to the heart of the hubris issue I mentioned at 219…

By deegee

January 22, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this

Amem, AmVet. John Thain seems to characterize your post at 2:19. It appears that he may have added insult to injury during the BoA merger negotiations by purposely misleading BoA with respect to Merrill’s financial health. BoA, which wasn’t doing that bad, is now finding out how bad a deal they made when they acquired Merrill.

By AlG

January 22, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this

Wow, one day in and Jay’s already got BHO reelected. Why not just make him President for Life and save the worries about future oath of office flubs?

By mm

January 22, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

Obama is sticking by all of his pledges so far. One day at a time.

Hey wingnuts, do you want salt and pepper on that crow?

By Break Like the Wind

January 22, 2009 3:19 PM | Link to this

I lived in Europe for 8 years. Germany and the Netherlands. I lived in villages, amongst the people, not on-base, with American military. Let me tell you, unabashedly and without reservation: socialism works in Europe. The greatest socialist nations, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, are consistently touted as having the happiest citizenry in the world. I will not countenance the historical revision espoused by RealityKing.

Would European-style socialism work in the USA? Absolutely not. We have too many lazy and undisciplined people amongst our population. They would devour the system within the first two years.

By Eleanor Rigby

January 22, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this

That was a very interesting article, thanks. Over 1,000 years later and we’re still trying to emulate the ancient Romans. It just goes to show what a huge impact Rome had on European, and subsequently American, culture.

On another note, “Et tu Microsoft?”

By Eleanor Rigby

January 22, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jasper, I was wondering who that was.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this

Socialism in Europe is still dependent on American’s generous foriegn aid.., nuff said.

By JAY BOOKMAN

January 22, 2009 3:54 PM | Link to this

Reality, we give little or no foreign aid to Europe.

Your statement is more accurately rephrased as “Socialism in Europe is still dependent on America’s generous DEFENSE policy.” We spend so much on our military that our allies have to spend very little, allowing them to spend it on other things. For example, we propose to spend many tens of billions (I forget the actual number) building a missile defense in Europe to protect Europeans, when they are just as affluent as we are these days.

Surely someone with your training in math and science grasps that, right?

By making

January 22, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this

People the election is over and the democrats won. We all should put being an American first and stand behind our President, NO matter which party he’s assoicated. I’m a republican, but will always be a proud American first and formost. Some of you need to grow up and get a life. God bless American and President Obama!

By Break Like the Wind

January 22, 2009 3:58 PM | Link to this

European socialism “dependent” on America’s generous foreign aid?

Are you out of your friggin’ mind?

By AmVet

January 22, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

The United States of America spends virtually the same amount of money on our military as the rest of the world combined on theirs.

Unconscionable…

By Break Like the Wind

January 22, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this

First, RealityKing tells us that European socialism is a failure because (a) gun control (b) lack of military might (c) repeat lack of military might.

He then tries to explain himself by inventing the notion of GENEROUS U.S. foreign aid to European countries as the basis for European success.

Non sequiturs and lies. No wonder the right has been freefalling since 2005.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

It’s still called foriegn aid Jay, and don’t think it’s all military.

I had a great link that showed it by country. Searching..

By JAY BOOKMAN

January 22, 2009 4:29 PM | Link to this

No Reality, it’s not.

We don’t give extensive military aid to Europe either; we merely spend so much on our own military that they don’t have to bother.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this

D’oh! Can’t find that link again.

And hey…, it’s 4:30!! Sorry Jay, but this is the time that people with my training in math and science go home. Your progressively re-defintion of my explantion of America’s foriegn aid keeping those socialist European states free will just have to do for now.

By JAY BOOKMAN

January 22, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this

Sorry King. No redefinition.

Foreign aid = money the U.S. government gives other governments. That’s simple and straightforward. I know you’re a numbers guy, but that’s the definition and it always has been.

By Pogo

January 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this

“Practice for 2013” Jay? You’re right if you mean Obama is saying “do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God”. Boy there are some bottom feeders spewing here today we haven’t seen for a while. “Psycho spillers, here to stay”, so to speak.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this

“Foreign Aid.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

The international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population. Aid can be economic, military, or emergency humanitarian.

Types and purposes Foreign aid can involve a transfer of financial resources or commodities (e.g., food or military equipment) or technical advice and training. The resources can take the form of grants or concessional credits (e.g., export credits). The most common type of foreign aid is official development assistance (ODA), which is assistance given to promote development and to combat poverty. The primary source of ODA—which for some countries represents only a small portion of their assistance—is bilateral grants from one country to another, though some of the aid is in the form of loans, and sometimes the aid is channeled through international organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have provided significant amounts of aid to countries and to NGOs involved in assistance activities.

By RealityKing

January 22, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this

And lets not forget all those TARP funds going directly to the international banks.

Oh boy.., 1/2 hour over. Guess I’ll be leaving early tomorrow!!

Chow

By BurgerKing

January 22, 2009 5:22 PM | Link to this

Well, it’s 4:30 and I just counted my drawer. Time to go and let the night shift math and scientist take over.

By mister.earl

January 22, 2009 6:36 PM | Link to this

It’s Good To Be Smart

President Barack Hussein Obama

New PDA, new computers for The White House and a staff of intelligent and highly motivated young people

What A Concept

The Audacity of Hate

Limbaugh ($40 M) and Hannity are nothing more than grossly overpaid entertainers who pander to the undereducated and ignorant, just to sell the products of media networks

By Eleanor Rigby

January 22, 2009 6:53 PM | Link to this

Speaking of military “aid” to Europe, my brother was stationed at an Air Force base in Heyford, England in 1980. The locals were not too appreciative of our “aid” and made their opinion known by lobbing beer bottles at our boys. Ah yes, the English, so dignified and sophisticated. Personally, I think the English were just jealous because the Americans were stealing all their girlfriends. All this may be a moot point, as the English don’t consider themselves part of Europe anyway. I just wanted to share that with your. Thank you.

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

January 22, 2009 7:12 PM | Link to this

Which part of “repeat after me” did Obama not understand?

Stupid, that’s the problem. He did repeat after the Republinazi hack!

By RealityKing

January 23, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

Well look at that, generous American foriegn aid…, Obama style.

By Yankee

January 23, 2009 10:04 PM | Link to this

It just goes to show that Barack was right when he voted against this IDIOT Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. Roberts could not even get the OATH right. God help us on the decisions this MORON makes in future cases before the Court. I never thought I would be saying this but where is Rhenquist when you need him