Obama General Discussion... (Part 2) - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-24-2009, 07:07 PM   #346
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
When did I use the race card? I'll ask you, then- do you think my dislike of Obama has anything to do with the color of his skin?
I actually think your dislike of Obama has more to do with his choice of baseball teams than anything else.

__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 10:51 PM   #347
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:21 PM
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. Anyone who suggest as much is silly.

Quote:
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Obama "wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya" and "wants to be the black FDR."
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 11:03 PM   #348
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Today Rush claimed that 50% of the country just want to be freeloaders and not work...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 11:05 PM   #349
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Today Rush claimed that 50% of the country just want to be freeloaders and not work...
Funny, I'd wager a bet that the unemployment rate among his listeners is significantly higher than say, among the liberal elites that he loathes....
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 10:56 AM   #350
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Funny, I'd wager a bet that the unemployment rate among his listeners is significantly higher than say, among the liberal elites that he loathes....


all those liberal elites got educations and jobs through affirmative action, though. this is important to remember.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 11:31 AM   #351
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:21 PM
If that cell phone story is true, well I think that's going too far and smacks of some arrogance. I understand that they want privacy for their kids and that people should respect that-but when they're with their parents and in a public place..and you have already put them in the media previously (even though of course they said they regretted it). How much privacy do they have the right to demand and how far can they go to do that? The Clintons asked that Chelsea be left alone and she was-they did a great job raising her too in my opinion. I don't remember her being photographed when they went out in public in MV-maybe she didn't go, I don't remember.

Obama allows access to kids when he’ll benefit
By Margery Eagan | Tuesday, August 25, 2009 | Home - BostonHerald.com | Columnists


How much public privacy do presidential families deserve? Not as much as Barack Obama wants.

Earlier this month, according to the New York Post, Secret Service agents demanded that customers temporarily hand over cell phones in D.C.’s “Good Stuff Eatery,” where Michelle, Malia and Sasha were eating cheeseburgers, onion rings and fries. Why? To prevent diners from snapping cell phone pictures of the first daughters.

Now on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama has issued strong media directives about photographing the girls when he’s not with them. No word on whether regular Joes and Janes will again have to hand over cell phones - or digital cameras - should the Obama children turn up beside theirs on the Flying Horse Carousel.

First, nobody should be confiscating anyone’s cell phone or camera. Second, there’s no evidence that paparazzi and/or TV and newspaper photographers stalk the Obama children. If so, there’d have been a zillion pictures of them since the inauguration. In fact, we’ve seen very few. And most of those they posed for.

Third, were some lucky lens(wo)man to get word of an unescorted Obama girls visit, say, to Martha’s Vineyard’s Giordano’s pizza, the picture would be taken, discreetly, with a long lens from a long distance. There wouldn’t be 50 cameras 2 feet away, flashbulbs pop, pop, popping. And no one’s even thinking - a la Tom Brady [stats] and Gisele - of stashing photogs in bushes to spy on the children inside their vacation home.

Obama just can’t have it both ways. He exposed his kids when it suited him. Recall last summer’s campaign interview with “Access Hollywood.” The Obama girls answered Maria Menounos’ very pleasant questions, such as, how much fun would it be to live in the White House? America was charmed.

Then Obama went on “Good Morning America,” claiming to regret the whole thing, “It’s something that we’ll be avoiding in the future.”

Maybe he did regret it. Maybe not. Maybe he’d have preferred a more rarefied venue. In any case, a big reason why many terrific candidates - for mayor, governor, never mind president - do not run is to protect their own and their family’s privacy.

Obviously, Obama wanted the White House more than privacy. And since the press has behaved itself regarding his kids, it’s annoying to hear him on his high horse now.

I understand. Malia and Sasha are only 11 and 8. I know. They didn’t ask to be the first kids. But their father made that decision for them. And their mother agreed.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 12:22 PM   #352
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:21 PM
leave them alone -- i'd confiscate phones too in a public settling like that.

it's not just about protecting their privacy, but the children of a sitting president are huge security issues, this isn't about catching them at an inopportune moment and getting a juicy photo. it's about their safety and security, something which Tom and Gisele really don't have to worry about.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 12:39 PM   #353
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:21 PM
I don't understand how cell phone cameras would be a security issue-unless people started calling all of their friends and family members and the restaurant was swarmed-from that point of view I can see it. I just wonder if this has been done by the secret service for all Presidents when cell phones and cell phone cameras existed and if it was their directive or the family's.

Some celebrities are so big that it could be a security issue for them-they could just feel that it is, especially for kids and kidnapping concerns (as paranoid as that might sound it is possible). I would never bother anyone when they were with their kids or take pictures of them in that type of intimate setting,it would feel way too invasive to me and just wrong-especially when kids are involved. Always when their kids are involved, that just makes it off limits.

I do understand that they want to have some normalcy for their kids, I understand that completely.

That estate they're renting in MV is huge and has its' own private beach and pool. He went golfing yesterday and people were peeping. The kids and Michelle have not been seen or photographed.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 12:54 PM   #354
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Cindy Sheehan is going to Martha's Vineyard. At least she's being consistent and non-partisan

War protest follows Obama
By Jake Berry
jberry@capecodonline.com
August 25, 2009

CHILMARK — On his first official vacation since taking office, President Barack Obama has tried to leave his work at home. So some demonstrators are bringing the issues to him.

Noted war protester Cindy Sheehan is scheduled to arrive today on Martha's Vineyard to hold a series of peace vigils and other events to confront the president about the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sheehan, who has toured the country in protest since her son, Casey, was killed fighting in Iraq in 2004, will host a gathering starting tomorrow near Blue Heron Farm, where the Obamas are spending the week.

She could not be reached yesterday for comment.

"The body bags aren't taking a vacation," Sheehan, a California native, wrote in a released statement. "As the U.S.-led violence surges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so are the needless deaths on every side."

Sheehan will host peace vigils tomorrow and Saturday at Ocean Park in Oak Bluffs, with a news conference and media interviews in between. She will also lead a series of boat trips throughout the end of the week, hosting members of the public and the media in discussions of the wars on a ship, named the SS Camp Casey, after her son.

The boat trips, scheduled to run Thursday through Sunday afternoons out of the ferry port in Vineyard Haven, will last about one hour each, according to Bruce Marshall, a Sheehan spokesman.

The exact schedule has yet to be determined, Marshall said.

"We're not in a ditch in Texas," he said, referring to Sheehan's past protests at former President George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

"We're here. We understand people are on vacation. " We want a permanent vacation from war."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 01:58 PM   #355
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:21 PM
with cell phones, you could literally track their movements. it's not like they show up somewhere and you take a picture -- their movements can be tracked as they go from place to place to place and along the way. celebrities might feel concerned for their own security, but their security is not a matter of national importance the way a kidnapped child of a president might be.

it might be overkill, but the Clintons didn't have this level of scrutiny in the 1990s because cameras in phones weren't available then.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 02:06 PM   #356
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:21 PM
I know about cell phones and the Clintons I was wondering about the Bush daughters-obviously they were much older but I'm sure their parents were concerned about their privacy and security. Of course they did things that called attention to themselves too, but plenty of teens and 20-somethings do the same things.

If the Obamas take the girls out in public in MV (like walking down one of the busy streets in Edgartown or wherever) they have to expect that some people will take photos. So I guess they just won't take them out if that's a concern. You certainly can't confiscate cell phones on a public street, can you? That's the question, how far do you take it? So you take the girls to a non Camp David place and you either sequester them or you don't. Which is more normal for them? Obviously the secret service is there to protect them.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 02:48 PM   #357
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Obama must have the same order for Joe Biden, it's like he fell off the face of the earth.
__________________
HyperU2 is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 02:55 PM   #358
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
leave them alone -- i'd confiscate phones too in a public settling like that.

it's not just about protecting their privacy, but the children of a sitting president are huge security issues, this isn't about catching them at an inopportune moment and getting a juicy photo. it's about their safety and security, something which Tom and Gisele really don't have to worry about.
You're against the Patriot Act and all the bullshit paranoia that restricts our freedoms though, right?
__________________
HyperU2 is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 03:18 PM   #359
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
with cell phones, you could literally track their movements. it's not like they show up somewhere and you take a picture -- their movements can be tracked as they go from place to place to place and along the way. celebrities might feel concerned for their own security, but their security is not a matter of national importance the way a kidnapped child of a president might be.

it might be overkill, but the Clintons didn't have this level of scrutiny in the 1990s because cameras in phones weren't available then.
I don't see what difference a photo would make, the cell phone user could just as easily walk out of the establishment and phone 10 friends and tell them that they just saw the president's family at X location.

Cell phone cameras are a fact of life now. To me, it really does seem like going too far when phones are confiscated from the public just because the Obamas arrive at a public place.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 04:18 PM   #360
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Another bigoted view?


Quote:
AUGUST 25, 2009, 9:32 A.M. ET

Obama's Summer of Discontent

The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long.

By FOUAD AJAMI
So we are to have a French health-care system without a French tradition of political protest. It is odd that American liberalism, in a veritable state of insurrection during the Bush presidency, now seeks political quiescence. These "townhallers" who have come forth to challenge ObamaCare have been labeled "evil-mongers" (Harry Reid), "un-American" (Nancy Pelosi), agitators and rowdies and worse.

A political class, and a media elite, that glamorized the protest against the Iraq war, that branded the Bush presidency as a reign of usurpation, now wishes to be done with the tumult of political debate. President Barack Obama himself, the community organizer par excellence, is full of lament that the "loudest voices" are running away with the national debate. Liberalism in righteous opposition, liberalism in power: The rules have changed.

It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.

So our new president wanted a fundamental overhaul of the health-care system—17% of our GDP—without a serious debate, and without "loud voices." It is akin to government by emergency decrees. How dare those townhallers (the voters) heckle Arlen Specter! Americans eager to rein in this runaway populism were now guilty of lèse-majesté by talking back to the political class.

We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country's institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.

The leader would be different things to different people. The Obama coalition was the coming together of disparate groups: the white professional liberals seeking absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man, the opponents of the Iraq war who grew more strident as the project in Iraq was taking root, the African-American community that had been invested in the Clintons and then came around out of an understandable pride in one of its own.

View Full Image

Getty Images
The last segment of the electorate to flock to the Obama banners were the blue-collar workers who delivered him Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. He was not their man. They fully knew that he didn't share their culture. They were, by his portrait, clinging to their guns and religion, but the promise of economic help, and of protectionism, carried the day with them.

The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama was tall and thin and from Illinois, and the historic campaign was launched out of Springfield. The oath of office was taken on the Lincoln Bible. Like FDR, he had a huge economic challenge, and he better get it done, repair and streamline the economy in his "first hundred days." Like JFK, he was young and stylish, with a young family.

All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership. In reality, he was who he was, a Chicago politician who had done well by his opposition to the Iraq war. He had run a skillful campaign, and had met a Clinton machine that had run out of tricks and a McCain campaign that never understood the nature of the contest of 2008.

He was no FDR, and besides the history of the depression—the real history—bears little resemblance to the received narrative of the nation instantly rescued, in the course of 100 days or 200 days, by an interventionist state. The economic distress had been so deep and relentless that FDR began his second term, in 1937, with the economy still in the grip of recession.

Nor was JFK about style. He had known military service and combat, and familial loss; he had run in 1960 as a hawk committed to the nation's victory in the Cold War. He and his rival, Richard Nixon, shared a fundamental outlook on American power and its burdens.

Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can't rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can't be his. Mr. Obama isn't Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.

In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton's wasn't. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare. Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.

The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.

In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.

Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.

Mr. Ajami teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind Archive 992 07-28-2008 06:16 PM
What was Obama thinking? Very difficult relationships to explain...... Dreadsox Free Your Mind Archive 82 03-06-2008 08:22 PM
The Cult of Obama MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 257 03-06-2008 09:38 AM
Issues 08: Health Care maycocksean Free Your Mind Archive 16 02-10-2008 06:58 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com