Obama makes Oval Office call to reporters

[zimmer]

Obama makes Oval Office call to reporters - Curl - Presidential Election Commentary - Washington Times

"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," he told reporters, who had interviewed the president aboard Air Force One on Friday.

Opening the unusual presidential call to reporters by saying that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter," he said it wasn't he who started the federal government's intervention into the nation's financial system.

What was that bull**** about Bush being in a bubble?

Did he not realize how his senate voting record stacked up?
What he is doing?

This will be fun... now that the question is out there amongst a few in the press... a little late I'd say... they could have pounded the socialist a lot more about this instead of trying to scalp Ferraro and Joe the Plumber.

And his reply to some of this reveals precisely why Republicans were right to reject The Looter in Chief's Porkulus... and any further socialist interventions by The Chameleon and his lackeys.

 

[obvious Child]

Again, calling Obama a Socialist when you cannot for your life define it doesn't produce any meaningful discussion.

And Obama is correct in that he was not the one who started the current federal intervention into the nation's financial market. For those of us with something other then gold fish memory, the TARP was passed under Bush, not under Obama and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush, not Obama.

And given how the Iraq invasion planning went on, Bush did live in a bubble.

And cut the hyperpartisanism out. Or a great many people may start to ignore you. And that includes those on the right.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Obama makes Oval Office call to reporters - Curl - Presidential Election Commentary - Washington Times



What was that bull**** about Bush being in a bubble?

Did he not realize how his senate voting record stacked up?
What he is doing?

This will be fun... now that the question is out there amongst a few in the press... a little late I'd say... they could have pounded the socialist a lot more about this instead of trying to scalp Ferraro and Joe the Plumber.

And his reply to some of this reveals precisely why Republicans were right to reject The Looter in Chief's Porkulus... and any further socialist interventions by The Chameleon and his lackeys.

-
I gotta agree that Obama has done nothing but sit in a bubble in his *****8***** years as our President!
-
And any one that would try and scalp 'Joe the Plumber' should be tried for having a criminal mind!!!

 

[Orion]

I find it ironic that people would rather the U.S. slip into a depression than accept government help, all because of paranoia over "socialism" (which can't even be defined, it seems). Obama is right, it didn't start with him and it won't end with him. Are we so easily forgetting that the first bailout came from Bush? The issue is bipartisan. The reason why Republicans are upset right now is because it's not their pet projects that are being inserted into the stimulus packages.

 

[Renae]

I find it ironic that people would rather the U.S. slip into a depression than accept government help, all because of paranoia over "socialism" (which can't even be defined, it seems). Obama is right, it didn't start with him and it won't end with him. Are we so easily forgetting that the first bailout came from Bush? The issue is bipartisan. The reason why Republicans are upset right now is because it's not their pet projects that are being inserted into the stimulus packages.

Government cannot create wealth. Government help in the form of handing money out and dictating how business should run will not help. Taxing the hell out of people (look up the impending economy killing cap and trade Obama has planned) cannot help.

Ronald Reagan won in a landslide because people realized he was right, the scariest words in the english language are:
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Again, calling Obama a Socialist when you cannot for your life define it doesn't produce any meaningful discussion.

Trolling and baiting to avoid the discussion.

And Obama is correct in that he was not the one who started the current federal intervention into the nation's financial market. For those of us with something other then gold fish memory, the TARP was passed under Bush, not under Obama and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush, not Obama.

And given how the Iraq invasion planning went on, Bush did live in a bubble.

So is this an excuse for Obama to create his little venezuela in America?

And cut the hyperpartisanism out. Or a great many people may start to ignore you. And that includes those on the right.

personal attacks.




It is posts like this that turn discussions to ****.

 

[rhinefire]

Socialism: def; "More and more and more government"
Stupid President: def; "Telling the American people it's OK to get back in the stock market for 'long term' goals". Now let's breakthat down; first, No president ever tells Americans to invest or not to invest. Second, define "long terms goals" asshole. Third, Obanana talks like he is the chosen one but let's not forget on 52% of voters, not the population voted this egomaniac in. Time will tell you Obanana you don't TELL me what to do with my money.
A capitalist society never was founded on the government being the bank. It's that simple.

 

[Goobieman]

I find it ironic that people would rather the U.S. slip into a depression than accept government help, all because of paranoia...

There are times when the sure is worse than the illness.
There's absolutly NO sound argument to support the assertion that we should ignore legitimate concerns over The Obama's plan.

The issue is bipartisan.

If you really think so, then you need to argue that the Dems need to present a plan that the GOP can support, as expressed by the number of 'yes' votes in Congress.

 

[StandUpChuck]

The man doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Truth Detector]

And Obama is correct in that he was not the one who started the current federal intervention into the nation's financial market. For those of us with something other then gold fish memory, the TARP was passed under Bush, not under Obama and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush, not Obama.

Fascinating; so Obama didn't VOTE for the TARP program while a Senator and promote TARP as the ONLY solution?

And given how the Iraq invasion planning went on, Bush did live in a bubble.

Speaking of living in bubbles, how long did the invasion fight last in Iraq; a few weeks? That was incredible planning.

I suppose you think military planning can incorporate every possible enemy tactic and plan for potential insurgencies and terrorist attacks?

Perhaps you should read some history of past wars and see how perfect that planning was as well so that you can get rid of this patently absurd notion about how to fight a well managed war. It is obvious you fell for the "hyper partisan" rhetoric espoused by the Democrats and media.

And cut the hyperpartisanism out. Or a great many people may start to ignore you. And that includes those on the right.

Every debate you raise the "hyper partisan" boogey man. Perhaps you should stop abusing it lest people start to ignore you?

Carry on.

 

[Truth Detector]

I find it ironic that people would rather the U.S. slip into a depression than accept government help, all because of paranoia over "socialism" (which can't even be defined, it seems).

I find it ironic to watch people fear monger that we are headed into a depression in order to promote the criminally negligent spending we are seeing from the Democrats to promote their Socialist agenda.

Tell me something, what part of the previous $700 billion bailout money worked to get credit markets moving again? What part of the previous $150 billion helped AIG get back on its feet again? What part of the previous $50 billion got the auto industry moving again?

The notion that Obama's spending agenda focused on furnishing Government offices and making them green again is going to get the economy back on track while attacking the CEOs and companies who employ a vast amount of our citizens and taxing capital and those who produce is beyond absurd; it is suicidal.

Obama is right, it didn't start with him and it won't end with him.

Obama hasn't been "right" yet; unless of course you willingly suspend disbelief, reality and wallow in denial.

Are we so easily forgetting that the first bailout came from Bush? The issue is bipartisan.

That makes it somehow right? That Bush, the worst President to ever walk the earth to quote a few, signed it into law?

Fascinating irony here folks.

The reason why Republicans are upset right now is because it's not their pet projects that are being inserted into the stimulus packages.

You would be wrong; the reasons Republicans are against the bill, and not upset as you want to demagogue, is because they happen to be the opposition party now and are truly concerned about a $1.7 trillion dollar deficit and the willful disregard Obama and Democrats have shown to reign in their spending spree.

Everyone needs to ask themselves what happened to the fiscal responsibility promised by the Democrats when they campaigned in 2006?

Here's the bottom line for you, fear mongering about a "perceived" depression is just that; fear mongering. Claiming we are headed for one does NOTHING to instill confidence in the markets, NOTHING to instill confidence in the consumer and does everything to make the situation worse.

Partisan hackery on the part of Democrats to promote an agenda they know would not get public support if they debated the programs honestly is dangerous for the economy and our future and supporting it without an honest debate is profoundly stupid.

Thank you Republicans for coming home and learning the lesson Americans claimed they wanted you to learn when they voted you out of power. Perhaps by 2010 when these Obama programs have been once more proved to be the same old tired Liberal politics of the past and have not created any new jobs and have instead created HUGE tax burdens for the American people, Americans will get a clue and vote them out of office.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- fear mongering about a "perceived" depression is just that; fear mongering. Claiming we are headed for one does NOTHING to instill confidence in the markets, NOTHING to instill confidence in the consumer and does everything to make the situation worse --

Out of curiosity, what other word would you use to describe the situation the world has been in since the credit crunch started then?

Boom? Bust? Growth? Recession? Depression? or other?

I'm not trying to catch you out or trip you up - I'm genuinely curious and would like to know your answer.

 

[Truth Detector]

Out of curiosity, what other word would you use to describe the situation the world has been in since the credit crunch started then?

Boom? Bust? Growth? Recession? Depression? or other?

I'm not trying to catch you out or trip you up - I'm genuinely curious and would like to know your answer.

It is pretty obvious that we are dealing with a recession. The rest of the world was being hit by it before we started feeling the effects in the US.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Thanks TD, I think "recession" is what I would call it too even though I'm no economist. From the "outside the US" POV, we seem to have caught a cold after the US sniffled - meaning we followed the lead after the US economy and credit markets took a dive.

 

[obvious Child]

Trolling and baiting to avoid the discussion.

Without definitions, language based discussion has no value. And reasonable people do not tolerate unilateral redefining of words to suit one's argument.

So is this an excuse for Obama to create his little venezuela in America?

Trolling and baiting to avoid the discussion

All I did was point out that Zimmer is wrong in his assertion. If you have anything relevant to the discussion rather then trying to get back at me for historical arguments, make it.

personal attacks.

Merely an observation. You wonder why many people ignore TD and Aquapub? It ain't hard to figure out.

It is posts like this that turn discussions to ****.

Indeed. I was merely pointing out facts. You choose to attack me and troll rather then discuss something relevant.

 

[obvious Child]

Fascinating; so Obama didn't VOTE for the TARP program while a Senator and promote TARP as the ONLY solution?

Not relevant to Zimmer's point. He's blaming him for something that occurred under the previous administration.

Speaking of living in bubbles, how long did the invasion fight last in Iraq; a few weeks? That was incredible planning.

Precisely. Because Bush handed off Iraq to people who actually knew what was going on. Bush administration involvement in actual strategy after 2005 pretty much could be summed up in one sentence: Got the hell out of planning.

I suppose you think military planning can incorporate every possible enemy tactic and plan for potential insurgencies and terrorist attacks?

Nope. But given the pre invasion planning and the whole WMD fiasco, anyone who thinks...you know what. I know better then to talk to you. If you want to discuss without the hyperpartisanism, I'll be chatting with Jallman and Zyphlin.

 

[Truth Detector]

Thanks TD, I think "recession" is what I would call it too even though I'm no economist. From the "outside the US" POV, we seem to have caught a cold after the US sniffled - meaning we followed the lead after the US economy and credit markets took a dive.

I think many European markets caught pneumonia when the derivatives they were being sold as being safe as the US mortgages that backed them imploded.

I believe that Europe and Asia have been going through tough times prior to this event. The implosion of the derivative market caused them to move from sniffles to pneumonia and now globally we are all dealing with it.

But the prescription for this pneumonia we are being told is castor oil, lots and lots of castor oil. What we really needed was bed rest, and time to get over it.

The credit markets will adjust as will mortgages. If confidence continues to erode due to the rhetoric we are seeing from the politicians to further their agenda, then yes, perhaps we will descend even further into the abyss.

The 1980's were just as bad, if not worse than what we are currently experiencing. But you didn't see politicians suggesting we spend $1.7 trillion dollars they don’t have bailing everybody and their brothers out or propping up the mortgage business.

The peak unemployment in the Carter years was about 10.5% with high inflation, oil shortages and interest rates on mortgages that reached double digits. I lived through that and my first mortgage was a variable that started at 8% and had a cap of 16.5%. Yet no one talked about depression or how we needed Government to bail us all out. At least, I don’t remember that conversation.

Now suddenly we are being led to believe that the ONLY way out is through vast Government expansion and intrusion into every aspect of our economy and having carbon credits shoved down our throats, union card checks shoved down our throats and deficit spending that boggles the imagination in its size.

Isn’t it obvious that this is this administrations attempt to fear monger to advance a Liberal Socialist agenda?

 

[sazerac]

Didn't Obama support the bailout plan? He's was voting senator, was he not? Why play blameless?

 

[American]

Again, calling Obama a Socialist when you cannot for your life define it doesn't produce any meaningful discussion.

And Obama is correct in that he was not the one who started the current federal intervention into the nation's financial market. For those of us with something other then gold fish memory, the TARP was passed under Bush, not under Obama and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush, not Obama.

And given how the Iraq invasion planning went on, Bush did live in a bubble.

And cut the hyperpartisanism out. Or a great many people may start to ignore you. And that includes those on the right.

Do I have to remind you as well of this childish diversion of defining socialism. I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founders did not intend for the government to do what it is doing. Would you like to show me where they did? Have at it. It's common knowledge, do you require proof of common knowledge as well? Is that the way we're going to debate around here now? That every word must be defined and proven?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Didn't Obama support the bailout plan? He's was voting senator, was he not? Why play blameless?

Very good point, he did vote for it. he flew out to iirc...

 

[WillRockwell]

Do I have to remind you as well of this childish diversion of defining socialism. I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founders did not intend for the government to do what it is doing. Would you like to show me where they did? Have at it. It's common knowledge, do you require proof of common knowledge as well? Is that the way we're going to debate around here now? That every word must be defined and proven?

The definition of socialism is certainly relevant, especially since Republicans have decided to misuse the term. The Founders not only supported government intervention, they started it, by placing the government in charge of social services including the Post Office, road system and public libraries. The administration is not trying to practice Communism, just trying to fix the incredible mess left over by conservative Republicans. Why don't you try to help, instead of trying to manufacture bogie men?

 

[Goobieman]

The definition of socialism is certainly relevant, especially since Republicans have decided to misuse the term. The Founders not only supported government intervention, they started it, by placing the government in charge of social services including the Post Office, road system and public libraries. The administration is not trying to practice Communism, just trying to fix the incredible mess left over by conservative Republicans. Why don't you try to help, instead of trying to manufacture bogie men?

Speaking of manufacturing.... there's nothing BUT that in your post.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The definition of socialism is certainly relevant, especially since Republicans have decided to misuse the term. The Founders not only supported government intervention, they started it, by placing the government in charge of social services including the Post Office, road system and public libraries. The administration is not trying to practice Communism, just trying to fix the incredible mess left over by conservative Republicans. Why don't you try to help, instead of trying to manufacture bogie men?

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


/end nonsense.

 

[Frank Talk]

Do I have to remind you as well of this childish diversion of defining socialism. I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founders did not intend for the government to do what it is doing. Would you like to show me where they did? Have at it. It's common knowledge, do you require proof of common knowledge as well? Is that the way we're going to debate around here now? That every word must be defined and proven?

Hamilton was pretty big on the government intervening in the economy.

 

[obvious Child]

Do I have to remind you as well of this childish diversion of defining socialism.

Diversion? People here define Socialism as anything they don't like. That has absolutely no meaning. Zimmer has called Obama a Marxist without understanding Marxism either. An utter failure to understand key words is the path to rendering language worthless.

I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founders did not intend for the government to do what it is doing. Would you like to show me where they did? Have at it.

The founders also didn't support abolition. Nor did they support interracial marriages or a whole host of things we take for granted today. Your argument is purely that of tradition.

That every word must be defined and proven?

If those words are being used in a way that has no meaning yes. When people are unilaterally redefining words to mean whatever they want, whenever they want for what ever reason they want, what's the use in the written word?