lostfan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:25 PM) Honestly it depends on how much change a President enacts in fiscal policy. If they make changes, they deserve more credit/blame. If it is business cycle related, it is different. Doing nothing while a bubble builds and bursts in my book qualifies as having earned blame for a recession. That would qualify both Bush and Clinton then, but Clinton's was pretty mild and I don't even know how he could've stopped it really. I was too young to know about Reagan and Bush 41 and what caused it. And Bush didn't really have the authority to stop the housing bubble either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 06:54 PM) Bush was inaugurated in Jan 1989, which means there was two full years at least before the recession started. By the most conservative definitions of the velocity of money through the US economy takes 12-18 months, with a minimum consideration of 6 months. So if someone has "shut their mouths" when you call that a Reagan recession, they should not, because it is long past the commonly accepted theories of how long it takes for fiscal policy to affect economy. The 2002 recession on the other hand started about 6 WEEKS after GW Bush took office, or WAY under what is considered normal for velocity of money to take affect on economy. But then again, if you would like everything after 6 weeks or so into office economically to be Barack Obama's fault once in office, that is fine. I have less problem with it as long as you are going to be consistent. The correct answer is that it was neither of their faults and that people tend to exaggerate the role of the president in the general state of the economy.

My company spends a lot of money, but it makes a lot of money because it has a sound business model and it isn't getting bailed out by the government.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 04:49 PM) I don't want to see a blame game at all. I just want to see some working towards solutions. That. He's been elected now so all that matters right now is whether he's doing his job well enough to get re-elected, after that it's about his legacy. Not blame, only performance. I heard conservative talk radio hosts blame Clinton for so many things after Bush had been in office for years until it was just obvious Bush made glaring mistakes of his own, I'm really not interested in doing all that again.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) Like I said before, things change once you've actually been asked. Well, it didn't say he actually took the job.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Rumor has it Obama called Lugar from the plane yesterday after his trip to the White House. Interesting, I thought Lugar already declined? He's fully qualified and probably the best for the job, though.

I'm just a political junkie that likes to talk to other smart people about politics. Who happens to love the Sox enough to sign up for a fan message board.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) Some of us took down all our anti-Bush stuff on a late summer morning in 2001. And at least gave him the benefit of the doubt until they saw what he was doing with it. Yeah, that was me. I was completely in his corner for about a year.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) I think he is saying even in Cuba, the jersey is no longer sold because Alexei defected, which obviously is not very well looked-upon by the powers that be... Yeah, once someone defects, they try to pretend that player never existed.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) There are alot of ways that Cuba and the US could benefit from an open relationship. Think of the tourist ops there, the goods exchanged, even sports. It'd probably quietly kill the Cuban government too, if we were really serious about doing it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) Lieberman will be a reliable vote on social issues for the Democrats, they probably figure there are better uses of their political resources as there will certainly be some battles on budgetary issues. Obama might consider that Lieberman could actually do some across the isle work to help him get his policies going; as a shrewd politician he may see some potential benefit from using restrain. Which is saying a lot, considering that Lieberman gave a big speech at the GOP convention and completely supported Obama’s opponent. Oh and Obama might not want to lose any possible Joementum, as heads22 would say. I wonder what he himself is thinking though... between Reid and Obama it sounds like they're patronizing him hardcore, almost like they're making sure he knows they're doing him a favor. But it probably wouldn't do them any good to burn bridges as long as Lieberman is useful to them.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:01 AM) YOU may not care, but vilifying lobbyists was a major theme of the Obama campaign. And now they welcome them in with open arms to help them shape the admin. You can't effectively govern without Washington insiders, that's an oxymoron. To take what Obama said literally and to the extreme is to expect him to be Jimmy Carter and surround himself with people that don't know s***.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:48 AM) Yup. It's always different. Sigh I don't care if ex-lobbyists work anywhere in the government and I never did, I care if lobbyists are running the government. All I care about is whether the people that get picked are qualified. And I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 08:57 AM) You know, the funny thing is, Bush and Obama ARE being bipartisan here. Its just some of the wingbat supporters, calling names and launching off on not-even-announced changes, that are sending out the flak. That. I'm also somewhat amazed at the amount of rope Lieberman is being given here. Neither Obama nor Reed is any hurry to "punish" him.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:42 PM) How about the head of the FCC? And in a breaking of a campaign promise to keep lobbyists out of his government, he wants to appoint one to head the FCC. One that has a fondness for the so-called Fairness Doctrine. DC insider Henry Rivera, a former Democratic FCC commissioner, and partner in the lobbyist law firm Wiley Rein, is being picked by Team Obama. While not currently registered as an active lobbyist, he has been engaged as such as recent as 2001. His law firm is also heavily involved in efforts to lobby on telecom issues. Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman, and is arguably one of the schmooziest lobbyist telecom legal firms in Washington. They employ several former FCC commissioners as well as a significant number of former FCC employees. Of course, Rivera and the other lawyers at the firm are not the only people at the FCC, or other governement agencies, to leave government for high-paying lobbyist jobs, but how is this 'change'? Looks like just another Washington insider, with an agenda. Dude. He hasn't even taken office yet.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 05:59 PM) Should playing for a contender be put into consideration the way MVP is? No, and I will never back down from this stance.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 04:38 PM) Do you think Obama will abolish the ridiculous Axis of Evil? Obama, in general, has a hell of an opportunity when it comes to diplomacy, I haven't seen this much of an outporing of pro-American sentiment across the globe since 9-11 and I keep reading over and over things like "now THIS is why America is such a great country!" Granted, some of them seem to be under the false impression that Obama's going to drop some of the strategic objectives that they didn't like just because he isn't Bush, they have to remember he is still the U.S. president. What's going to change there is the tone (so yeah, no more Axis of Evil type statements) and willingness to use diplomacy in general.

About what I expected. Alexei had a great year but Longoria deserved it, straight up.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) haha how bout it. the worst part is they were actually given money to make more fuel efficient cars years ago, during Clinton presidency. The basically didn't do anything that the money was supposed to be for, they insisted on SUV's and stuff. The Japanese companies thought the US automakers were getting an unfair advantage, but decided to double up efforts to make efficient automobiles. So basically, the US companies sucked, and the Japanese ones ended up destroying them in the market. Sometimes giving these companies money does nothing but encourage lazy, short sighted operations. US auto was pretty much defeated fair and square in the free market by the superior Japanese companies. That really sucks for the people who make cars here, but for that, we need to blame the leadership (I use that term loosely) of these companies before we blame the politicians. The fact is that if these companies had foresight, we'd still have those jobs here in the States.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:21 PM) Wow, I thought my sentence would have more response. Me and Balta ended up swallowing that up... it would've been gone no matter who got elected b/c they were both against it. Then again who knows, McCain was so unpredictable.

Oh I wasn't here for that but that's also something that can be directly attributed to Bush (executive order). I've always thought "that's why we have FISA..." nobody said you can't do it, just follow the damn laws FFS.

Yeah the automaker bailout... no thanks. I was willing to swallow this banking bailout pill even if it was bitter but there's no reason we should be subsidizing the failures of the U.S. auto industry. If they want to, they can pay off my car note which will free that up for me to put elsewhere in the economy. /high5

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) The DHS doesn't scare me except in that it's been an incredibly ineffective additional layer of bureaucracy that has made seemingly every organization under it function worse. That could be a result of the leadership of the agency, but i thought it was a terrible idea when it was created, and I still do. The NSA program...well, that's another matter. Bolded part... probably correct. The same thing was basically done to the DNI and IMO it's been working great BUT with one big caveat... the changes are only as effective as the people you put in those positions. It probably would've failed had Rumsfeld still been around, part of the reason I've been singing the praises of Gates on here lately. The most recent thing I can remember you posting about the NSA is just some people f***ing around when they know they shouldn't, and then later they go to the media seeking attention like "oooh I did such a bad thing." I don't work for them, but I can tell that it wasn't some broad, sweeping policy, it was just people not following the rules. When you come across information on Americans like that, incidentally (and you will, there's no avoiding it) you have a period of time to evaluate what it is and whether it fits your mission, if it does then you keep it, if not you trash it or else you get in trouble. They KNOW that but they chose to toe the line instead.

I don't know actually. I haven't lived here long enough and I've only recently been able to name both senators. He seems ok, I got REALLY tired of seeing his attack ads the last couple of weeks before the election.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) Which ones am I blowing out of proportion? Were we not flying around people on secret jets between CIA facilities so that no one would know where they are? Are we not holding people at Gitmo and refusing to release them even when their convictions have been overturned? Is the NSA program not designed to gather intelligence from reading the communications of American citizens? And how many times have we heard the phrase "Enhanced interrogation techniques?" That's a euphemism I really hope to never hear again. Basically, what the DHS is (and isn't), and especially what the mission of the NSA is specifically when it relates to Intelligence Oversight laws that have been in place since the early Reagan administration. All the other stuff is true and deserves to be bashed but those 2 specific things have been distorted by the lefty blogosphere to make it sound like something sinister is going on and we've become a police state.