Links and Stuff About US Contact Lunar
Welcome to Lunar Magazine
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar  RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The First Act: Light of Day
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:


there are always exceptions.


you can't trumpet the man's commitment to change, when all his "change" is just business as usual. i have no problem with politicians being just that, those are the rules of the game. however, when an agent of change continues s.o.p. its just laughable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


there are always exceptions.


you can't trumpet the man's commitment to change, when all his "change" is just business as usual. i have no problem with politicians being just that, those are the rules of the game. however, when an agent of change continues s.o.p. its just laughable.




no...what's laughable is your game of ignoring...your game of ignorance.



Obama's first interview as president went to an Arabic/Muslim outlet.
Obama is trying to shut down Gitmo.
Obama is trying to shtu down the secret prisons.
Obama wants to end torture.
Obama tells the rest of the world we will listen, not just dictate.



Yet...somehow, you seem to think that is the same way we have been doing things. You are ignoring the changes.
You take anything that you think can be linked as SOP and you pound to it death.

Seriously....when will we see this thread from you?

"Obama takes a shit.........SOP!"

I know it's coming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

transponder wrote:
The Secretary of the Treasury, or the guy who oversees the IRS, forgot how to pay his fucking taxes! That is downright ridiculous! (But then again, so is much of the U.S. tax system) LOL



I think that was why he was picked..........so he would be appealing to the republicans.



Embarassed Laughing















this guy approves:


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


there are always exceptions.


you can't trumpet the man's commitment to change, when all his "change" is just business as usual. i have no problem with politicians being just that, those are the rules of the game. however, when an agent of change continues s.o.p. its just laughable.




no...what's laughable is your game of ignoring...your game of ignorance.



Obama's first interview as president went to an Arabic/Muslim outlet.
Obama is trying to shut down Gitmo.
Obama is trying to shtu down the secret prisons.
Obama wants to end torture.
Obama tells the rest of the world we will listen, not just dictate.


the libs game as usual...deny, deny, then deflect. own the fact that this ethics biz is BS! don't change the subject. all of this pandering to the muslims serves what purpose? ask that question. torture? fukn rite, the job of the prez is to protect us by any means he sees fit. fuk the rest of the world, we shld dictate to them. the biggest dog in the yard, plays by his own rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


there are always exceptions.


you can't trumpet the man's commitment to change, when all his "change" is just business as usual. i have no problem with politicians being just that, those are the rules of the game. however, when an agent of change continues s.o.p. its just laughable.




no...what's laughable is your game of ignoring...your game of ignorance.



Obama's first interview as president went to an Arabic/Muslim outlet.
Obama is trying to shut down Gitmo.
Obama is trying to shtu down the secret prisons.
Obama wants to end torture.
Obama tells the rest of the world we will listen, not just dictate.


the libs game as usual...deny, deny, then deflect. own the fact that this ethics biz is BS! don't change the subject. all of this pandering to the muslims serves what purpose? ask that question. torture? fukn rite, the job of the prez is to protect us by any means he sees fit. fuk the rest of the world, we shld dictate to them. the biggest dog in the yard, plays by his own rules.


are those changes or not? yes or no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama holds GOP-only talks on stimulus package

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau


(01-2Cool 04:00 PST Washington - -- It's a rare sight in Washington to see the president walking the halls of the Congress, stopping to talk to reporters in the usual hallway haunts, and rarer still to see him meet with the opposition party to hear their ideas on the first big legislation of his presidency.



Still stranger was this: The leaders of the out-of-power party, thrashed in two consecutive elections and the subject of all this presidential courting, told their members to vote against the president before he even arrived to hear their grievances.

Hours before President Obama arrived Tuesday for GOP-only talks in the House and Senate on the $825 billion economic stimulus bill, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio and his deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, told a closed-door meeting of Republicans to vote against the bill because it has too much government and will not revive the economy.

To be sure, Republicans sounded less churlish when they came out of their meetings with Obama. They sang his praises for reaching out to them and instead blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and other Democratic leaders for writing the legislation without them.
Surprised by openness

Some seemed surprised at how friendly and open Obama was. Others noted the advantages he brought as a former Senate colleague.

"One of his great strengths is, he's very comfortable with himself, and therefore others are comfortable with him," said Senate Republican conference chair Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "I think he has a certain ease about him. He did as a senator, and I think he's made an easy transition to the presidency. After all, as he did remind us, he's only been there five days."

Even the most conservative Republicans praised Obama as being genuine and open before denouncing the stimulus as a waste of money and a pile of new debt.

Republicans want more tax cuts. Economists argue that the problem with tax cuts is that in recessions, they are mostly saved, not spent, and so have very little stimulative effect. Republicans acknowledged that and so argued to make them permanent - essentially the policy of the Bush administration.

Obama said that part of his effort is to change politics as usual in Washington and break through the traditional partisan bickering over ideology to focus on what might work.

He argued that economic indicators are so bad - including plans to lay off tens of thousands more people announced on Monday by major companies such as Home Depot and Caterpillar - that Congress should pull together quickly behind a stimulus plan that can help stop the bleeding.

"I try to remind people that even with modifications made in the House, we still have $275 billion of tax cuts" in the stimulus Obama said. He said he reminded Republicans that he started out with $300 billion in tax cuts "that got a lot of praise from the Republican side and some grousing from my side of the aisle. I think we're still working through the process, but I'm very grateful" for the opportunity to listen.

The House is set to vote on the bill today. The Senate will take longer, and then the two different versions must be reconciled - a point at which House Republicans plan to make their presence felt.
Bipartisan hopes

The White House is hoping for a bipartisan vote to set the tone for much tougher battles to come over a new banking-system rescue, health care reform, energy and a host of other issues.

Obama asked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, to remove from the bill $200 million for family-planning services to low-income people that had become a hot Republican talking point. Waxman complied.

"The president took some very tough questions, didn't dodge them, gave very direct and specific answers," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. Nonetheless, Bennett, echoing many other Republicans, said he and others "are not completely convinced that it will, in fact, produce a stimulus."

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who recently suggested that Guantanamo Bay prisoners should be sent to Alcatraz, complained that "bailing out profligate states like California that have not been able to control their budget does not seem to me to be the highest priority for federal spending."

Republicans also pointed out Congressional Budget Office estimates for the stimulus that show an additional nearly $350 billion in interest payments over 10 years, bringing the total cost of the stimulus to nearly $1.2 trillion. They said Obama may want to make investments, but congressional Democrats added items that Bond said were "just thrown in at the last minute" and won't stop job losses.
President confident

Obama said he is confident that things can be worked out.

"But the key right now is to make sure that we keep politics to a minimum," he said. "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have, and I respect that. In some cases, they may just not be as familiar with what's in the package as I would like. I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, said she ran into a GOP colleague who had just come out of the meeting with Obama.

"He said, 'He's just so impressive,' " Tauscher said. "I said, 'He's the real deal, isn't he?' But will he vote with us tomorrow? Probably not."

She blasted Boehner and Cantor for urging their members to vote against the package before even listening to what Obama had to say.

"Are you really going to listen to the people who lost the House for you?" Tauscher commented. "At some point, you have to vote your conscience."

Chronicle staff writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report. E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


there are always exceptions.


you can't trumpet the man's commitment to change, when all his "change" is just business as usual. i have no problem with politicians being just that, those are the rules of the game. however, when an agent of change continues s.o.p. its just laughable.




no...what's laughable is your game of ignoring...your game of ignorance.



Obama's first interview as president went to an Arabic/Muslim outlet.
Obama is trying to shut down Gitmo.
Obama is trying to shtu down the secret prisons.
Obama wants to end torture.
Obama tells the rest of the world we will listen, not just dictate.


the libs game as usual...deny, deny, then deflect. own the fact that this ethics biz is BS! don't change the subject. all of this pandering to the muslims serves what purpose? ask that question. torture? fukn rite, the job of the prez is to protect us by any means he sees fit. fuk the rest of the world, we shld dictate to them. the biggest dog in the yard, plays by his own rules.


are those changes or not? yes or no?


not positive change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


there are always exceptions.


you can't trumpet the man's commitment to change, when all his "change" is just business as usual. i have no problem with politicians being just that, those are the rules of the game. however, when an agent of change continues s.o.p. its just laughable.




no...what's laughable is your game of ignoring...your game of ignorance.



Obama's first interview as president went to an Arabic/Muslim outlet.
Obama is trying to shut down Gitmo.
Obama is trying to shtu down the secret prisons.
Obama wants to end torture.
Obama tells the rest of the world we will listen, not just dictate.


the libs game as usual...deny, deny, then deflect. own the fact that this ethics biz is BS! don't change the subject. all of this pandering to the muslims serves what purpose? ask that question. torture? fukn rite, the job of the prez is to protect us by any means he sees fit. fuk the rest of the world, we shld dictate to them. the biggest dog in the yard, plays by his own rules.


are those changes or not? yes or no?


not positive change.



now you are changing your argument?


how ironic that you do that after posting bullshit about denying and deflecting???

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:


(01-2Cool 04:00 PST Washington - -- It's a rare sight in Washington to see the president walking the halls of the Congress, stopping to talk to reporters in the usual hallway haunts, and rarer still to see him meet with the opposition party to hear their ideas on the first big legislation of his presidency.



change....yes or no?



positive change???? yes or no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


(01-2Cool 04:00 PST Washington - -- It's a rare sight in Washington to see the president walking the halls of the Congress, stopping to talk to reporters in the usual hallway haunts, and rarer still to see him meet with the opposition party to hear their ideas on the first big legislation of his presidency.


change....yes or no?

positive change???? yes or no?


Not sure if you can call it change yet. It is definitely sends a good signal. But the substance behind it will dictate whether there is real change or not.

For instance, I am really dissapointed with the "stimulus" bill. Not sure if it will stimulate much other than Democrats in Congress, and lobbyists on the hill.

We could have done so much more, with so much less waste.

Another example is the new TARP rules that restrict lobbying.

On the surface, it seems like a good bill. But when you dig deeper you find out tha the bill only applies to the Treasury and not to the regulators that decide who receives the TARP funds.

Obama is talking the talk, I hope he walks the walk too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:


not positive change


by saying not positive change, isn't that admitting that he has made changes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:


not positive change


by saying not positive change, isn't that admitting that he has made changes?



then you will stop with your "where is the change?" nonsense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jbrady



Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 1833
Location: DOWNTOWN/BEACH/MOUNTAINS

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

djy wrote:

We could have done so much more, with so much less waste.



Obama is talking the talk, I hope he walks the walk too.



He needs some different ideas then. That is why he's reaching to Republicans for their input. But, it seems he's being met with resistance without even hearing the president's proposals. He's trying to walk the walk but he wants others to walk with him.

I need to find some information on Reagan's Econ Stimulus Plan.
_________________
WARM ART, Salty Beats, ATL
www.soundcloud.com/justinbrady
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not posting this to bash. Just being objective to the executive order. Like ememigo said, it's disappointing that Obama probably won't be able to live up to his "dreams" of a lobbyist free administration, but maybe it was too much too soon. It's the thought that counts though right? Smile I'll take it over arrogance and self-righteousness.


Quote:
Obama finds room for lobbyists

Kenneth P. Vogel, Mike Allen Kenneth P. Vogel, Mike Allen – Wed Jan 28, 5:36 pm ET

President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists.

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.

“It would be more honest if they admitted they made a mistake and came up with a narrower rule,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Obviously, they can’t live with the rule, which is why they keep waving the magic wand and making exceptions. They’re saying one thing and doing another. It’s why the public is skeptical about politicians.”

But another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy.

“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,” McGehee said. “I don’t think we’re at that point yet.”

At the White House, spokesman Tommy Vietor insisted the president has been consistent.

“During the campaign, then-Sen. Obama put forth the toughest ethics and lobbying reform policy in history,” Vietor said, “and now he’s acting on it to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.


David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

transponder wrote:
I'm not posting this to bash. Just being objective to the executive order. Like ememigo said, it's disappointing that Obama probably won't be able to live up to his "dreams" of a lobbyist free administration, but maybe it was too much too soon. It's the thought that counts though right? Smile I'll take it over arrogance and self-righteousness.


probably going to have to wait until there is a larger selection pool of folks who were never involved with the lobby biz?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 
home  |  features  |  events  |  reviews  |  dj charts  |  forum  |  my lunar  |  links  |  about us  |  contact