Obama has done a few nice things on the margins. But on the big issues, he has failed EVERY SINGLE TIME.

He could have put a moratorium on home foreclosures. He didn't. He could have halted free trade. He didn't. He could have supported a public option, much less single payer health care. He didn't. He could have come back with an international treaty on climate change. He didn't. He could have backed the Employee Free Choice Act. He didn't. He could have increased prosecutions of companies hiding their profits on off shore tax shelters. He didn't. He could have gone after the economic advisors that created the mess we're in right now. Instead he gave them jobs in his administration.

His accomplishments reads like a list of "meh". It's like going out on a blind date expecting a hottie, and instead finding a horrid troll and saying, "fuck it, at least she has tits."

He has not invaded any country so far, he has not tortured any one and denied doing it.

END OF MESSAGE

-- Modified on 11/9/2010 3:30:59 AM

-- Modified on 11/9/2010 3:31:32 AM

-- Modified on 11/9/2010 3:32:03 AM

Can you put a moratorium on your useless rant about free trade?


Try it, no one will mind.

Ok, so now that I've read this list of "accomplishments" I am even more unimpressed.

Let me count the ways:

Told someone to launch a website. Holy shit. That was so tough (two sites no less)

Provided the Dept of Veteran Affairs with $1.4 billion. Someone want to fact check this? This falls under the purview of Congress. What do you base giving the credit to Obama on?

Signed the SCHIP - yeah, beautiful. He just moved us one step closer to cradle to grave nanny care. What part of this should impress me? The fact that a family earning $80K a year can get a free ride? Or the fact that a kid can get a free ride all the way to the ripe age of 26? Oh, lets not forget YOU aren't paying for SCHIP. The 10% of the population that are smokers are paying for it. So you get to break your arm patting yourself on the back, while somenoe else foots the bill. And you expect me to be pleased?

Reversed restrictions on Embryonic Stem Cells. Ok great. I agree with this. But on my list of priorities, stem cell research comes in somewhere around #50. Jobs, taxes, the economy, and our security all kind of come first.

Signed the Christopher Reeve Paralasys Act. Great, more fluff, more expenses. Yeah, the Americans with Disabilities Act just wasn't enough. Lets have more duplication and repetition in our laws and in our funding. First Prize goes to the first President who can duplicate the same fluffy goodness in at least 10 different pieces of legislation, each with its own horde of newly minted Federal employees, and bloated beurocracy.

Oh...here we go! He passed the stimulus package! The first president in history to piss away ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and get ZERO, ZILCH, in return. I see a ticker tape parade in Obama's future for this one. I love how this website finished with "which included $18 billion for scientific research and development". Umm, that $18 billion represents about 2% of the overall spending. Really? Was that the best they could do to highlight why the stimulus was such a neat idea? What about the other 98%?

Signed the Weapons Systems Requisitions Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending. Oh joy. More duplication. More federal employees doing work that is already being done by existing federal employees. If anyone wants to know why the Fed Gov't is so bloated, this is a good example of why. Mechanisms are already in place to do exactly waht this act was designed to. If the existing mechanisms need to be tweaked to be more effective, do it. That is alot cheaper and far more efficient than duplicating and re-duplicating existing programs. But hey! Lets add another layer of beaurocracy! No one will notice, and the fancy title of this Act will look good on Obama's resume when he runs for re-election!

Issued an Executive order to close Gitmo. Which still isn't closed 2 years later. Too funny.

Ended "enhanced interrogation techniques". In other words, hindered our ability to gather vital intelliegnce. Here comes another pat on the back for the O-Bomb.

I love this one "Increased minority access to capitol". That's all this panel says. How did he do it? Why did he do it? What benefit and what costs were involved. A little more detail would be greatly appreciated. I find general statements with no foundational basis to be rather difficult to leap for joy over.

I am shocked! Shocked I say that this website mentions the Health Care Reform bill! Are the creators of this website unaware perhaps, that Democrats just got their asses handed to them, and this piss poor excuse for a bill tops the list of reasons why?

Increased funding to National Parks and Forests by 10%. Whoopty fukin doo. How about just raise the various fees charged by Nat'l Parks and forests across the board by a measly 0.05%? The funding would shake out the same, while not adding to the deficit. DUH.

Expanded Hate Crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. Great. So one murder is somehow worse than another, and a person can be punished not just for their actions, but also for what was going on in their head when they comitted the act. I am sure the families of murder victims across the land are comforted, knowing that their loved one is somehow less important than some other murder victim.

Provided funding to boost private sector space programs. Yes, because it is so important for billionaires to be able to pay for a short trip to space at a cost of $1 million or so. Lets fund those programs with tax dollars.

"Created More Private Sector Jobs than During the Entire Bush Years" - this has got to be the biggest stinking pile of horseshit I've ever read. Its one thing to take some stupid dumbass, pointless, worthless "act" that Obama signed (read above), but this is just bullshit. Unemployment remains pinned at over 9% nationally, with real figures, including those who are no longer on the unemployment rolls, as well those who are under employed standing at nearly 20%. Claiming that ANY president created even ONE private sector job is a load of shit, but claiming that more jobs have been created since Obama took office than during the entire Bush administration is pure unadulterated horseshit.

Appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court. Well we sure as hell know she didn't get her appointment based on her qualifications. Lets not forget she can make better decisions than your average white guy. We know this because she said so. But lets give credit where credit is due also, Bush nominated an Hisapnic to the Fed Circuit, and he would have been in line to be nominated to the Supreme Court ahead of Alito. BUT, oh dear me, those rascally Dems filibustered his appointment out of fear that Bush might get the kudos for appointing the fist Hispanic to the Supreme Court. Apparently, it worked. So we should congratulate Obama on his party's ability to play politics with judicial appointees. Yay.

Signed New Start Treaty, a nuclear arms pact with Russia. Because we know the Russians can be trusted to hold up their end of the bargain. They always do. Just like they promised Carter they wouldn't invade Afghanistan, right? Oh wait! They did invade Afghanistan!

Reversed teh policy of barring media coverage of fallen soldiers returning to Dover AFB. Yes, because our fallen heroes need to be media spectacles. Its patriotic.

Well, that about wraps it up. Gee, I am so impressed with Obama now I think I'm gonna puke. Is it 2012 yet?

His administration has been very feedback oriented.

One day my office was told that our entire Department would be having a meeting of sorts with the Secretary. And that we should submit questions or comments about how to improve things and make things more efficient.

Let me tell you, the Secretary got an ear-full. And although they have been slow to impliment changes based on this, it is beginning to happen.

This stands is stark contrast with the previous administration, who was fucking things up so badly, that large sectors of the gov't was barely functioning.

...I don't know many in the military, but I know a few in Defense. This one particular firm makes products that has been rendered utterly outdated and useless thanks to modern computers, and it's been outdated since the early 90's. And despite this, this firm still kept it's Defense contract.

That was until Obama came along.

Are you claiming Obama vetoed the bill to do this?As opposed to immortal profits for scumbags trying to make a buck off of sick children? Wouldn't abortion be a more humane alternative?You won't find a more bloated beaurocracy Sin than in Defense and intelligence spending. The entire Department of Homeland Security is redundant. Between the Central Intelligence Agency, the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, the Army Military Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence, Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Coast Guard Intelligence, not to mention the FBI and DEA, you'd think we'd have enough intelligence agencies to prevent a major terrorist attack on New York City. Too bad it didn't work. Because it's such a waste of time to spend money on infrastructure when we have bridges falling down. Are there really still people in this country that thinks torturing people is a good idea? When you're opposed to the 8th amendment being applied, doesn't that make you an anti-American?You mean make it harder for your average American to enjoy their National Parks?So I guess you're opposed to different classes of felonies then? Someone who is murdered out of blind rage should be treated equally as someone who murdered out of premeditation?

... I believe the whole bunch of scoundrels in DC needs to be pushed into the sea.

I seriously disagree with about 90% of those great accomplishments and barely care about the other 10%.

He might not have invaded anyone but he has CONTINUED current occupations.

Furthermore, he has NOT gotten rid of "extraordinary rendition" -- the policy that allows for torture.

You said:  Are you claiming Obama vetoed the bill to do this?

Nope. That's not what I said at all. But show me where the funding was initiated by him please. All the President does is sign the bill. Who actually put the additional funding in the bill? If this was something Obama pushed for great, he gets the credit. But simply signing the bill doesn't cut it.

You said:  You won't find a more bloated beaurocracy Sin than in Defense and intelligence spending. The entire Department of Homeland Security is redundant.

I agree that Homeland Security is redundant and duplicates many of the functions of other agencies. I thought it was asinine - particularly the name - from the moment it was created. Do please remember I am for smaller gov't across the board. Crap like that drives me batshit bonkers. I also agree that among the various intelliegence and defense agencies there is an enormous amount of repetition, layered beaurocracy doing essentially the same tasks, and a massive overabundance of Federal employees to run it all. That is why I'd like to see EVERY department audited and cuts made to improve efficiency and eliminate redundancy. Yeah I know, fat chance of THAT ever happening. But in the meantime, did you even stop to listen to yourself? I point out that a new enacted peice of legislation simply adds yet another layer of beauracracy, adds more redundancy, more bloated gov't - and your response is "well yeah BUT". There is no "but". You are trying to justify the problem by adding TO the problem. That has all the logic of saying well lets just cut off the left leg, since the right leg is already cut off.

You said: Because it's such a waste of time to spend money on infrastructure when we have bridges falling down.

Were you not paying attention to news reports about how the majority of stimulus dollars were being spent?? Did you just go to sleep for an entire year, or did you employ the typical liberal tactic of simply ignoring anything that doesn't suit your world? Those bridges you mentioned, that are falling down? They are still falling down. Major insterstate overhauls to relieve some of America's most congested areas - are still on the planning books, and there are NO plans to begin them using stimulus dollars. If you do some research, you will find that there are a few long term major infrastructure renovations that are being paid for with stimulus money. But damned few. The overwhelming majority of stimulus funds went to so-called "shovel ready" projects, meaning quick and easy repairs delivered with a lick and a promise. But as for some of the major overhauls that are needed? Nope, very, very, VERY little of the stimulus money was used on those projects.

You said: You mean make it harder for your average American to enjoy their National Parks?

Oh for Christ's sake. Where do you think the money for those parks is coming from? The average American - sometime around the year 2050 that is. First off, money allocated for National Parks and Forests represents less than 1% of the total federal budget. So to be honest, a 10% increase in that budget amounts to very little in relation to the overall budget. But I learned long ago to watch the pennies and let the dollars take care of themselves. WHY add even another $1 million to the deficit, when a VERY small increase in fees could accomplish the same thing? A day pass at most National Parks will run you perhaps $10.00. Do you REALY think that Ma and Pa, while on vacation, are going to turn to the kids and say "Sorry kids, we won't be seeing Everglades Nat'l Park after all, cause it costs $10.50 now". I mean really? Sorry fella, your "make it harder for the average American" argument is just, well, stupid.

You said: So I guess you're opposed to different classes of felonies then? Someone who is murdered out of blind rage should be treated equally as someone who murdered out of premeditation?

Certainly not. We already have statutes in place for that. You know - Murder in the first degree, second degree. Then there is also manslaughter and its several variations. Just in case there isn't enough flexibility in our penal code already to suit the punishment to the crime, all of the above carry minimum and maximum penalties. Hate crimes seek to punish criminals not just for their acts, but their thoughts as well. Being a racist isn't, and should never be a crime. Hate crimes legislation has ALWAYS amounted to nothing more than a feel good pat on the ass to the various special interest groups the Democrats pander to. Simple as that.

Furthermore, hate crime legislation basically says that our judges can't be trusted to be fair and impartial. They can't be trusted to deliberate fairly on the case at hand, and determine an appropriate sentence within the guidelines for the particular crime someone has been convicted of. Since judges can't be trusted to impose a maximum sentence when warranted, the legislature who passed the hate crime legislation will do it for him or her. Just more duplication and unnecessary laws making something that was already a crime an even worse crime. At the end of the day you know what? The victim is still dead, the family is still grieving the loss of a loved one. And as one who has lost someone very close to me to violence, it makes me sick to think that what she suffered at the hands of her husband is somehow cheaper, less heinous, or less important than the same treatment experienced by someone else on account of sexual orientation, race, or anything else an "ism" can be applied to.

One last point on hate crime legislation. It is fundamentally unconstitutional because it will never, EVER, in our lifetimes be applied fairly. To date, I am not aware of a single case in which a black person has been charged with a hate crime after assaulting a white person. Perhaps it has happened. One would think the law of averages would dictate that someone, somewhere has been charged with a hate crime in relation to black on white violence. But if it has happened, I have yet to hear about it. Does that mean that black on white violence does not occur, or that there have not been instances where black on white violence that were racially motivated? YOu bet you ass it has happened, and will continue to happen. You can also count on those incidents never once facing an additional hate crimes charge.

All funding is initiated from Congress. Does this mean that no President is ever allowed to take credit for something that requires tax dollars? Not necessarily. New law amends old law. And I've noticed some very nice improvements. A few years back I drove through SC and I-95 was a damn near gravel road. Did that same drive 2 months ago and it was great. Seen other improvements in WV. I believe a high speed rail system is being built in Florida as well. Not bad since the whole state has 4 roads in it.

Now I'm not saying this is "all that", but remember damn near 40% of that stim was wasted in tax cuts.Because doing so is regressive.And punishing murderers for premeditation punishes him for the thoughts in their head as well. Something you just said you had no problem with. So does mandatory minimums in sentencing. I guess that means you're opposed to mandatory minimums.And judges don't have a history of letting "good ole boys" off the hook? I'm sorry for your loss Sin.There's a reason for that. Blacks don't have a history of subjugating whites. I've always questioned the redundacy of hate crimes legislation, but when a white person hangs a black person from a tree, the victim and his family aren't the only ones who suffer. Because of our history, such an act is indistinguable from an act of terrorism on a particular race. That is what hate crimes laws seek to punish.

But Sins, when you make posts like that ... it makes me wanna ... well ... you know. LOL

Because my own personal ambition is the dismantling of that monstrosity in Washington, I naturally maintain a great number of (believe it or not SYMPATHETIC) contacts within a variety of government departments; mainly law enforcement and military.

Well, one of those contacts tells me he has not done one lick of productive work in 3 months.

There have been a variety of reasons why the waste and inefficiency of government have kept him from doing anything useful. No computer access, hyper-slow VPNs, lack of authorizations, nobody knowing who to turn to for authorizations, endless training in stupid stuff, departmental re-alignments, etc etc ad nauseam.

Contacts in other divisions and departments report similarly.

Our government is mostly just a public dependency jobs program.

Democratic with a capital D.  They respond for you and don't give an opportunity to respond for yourself.

Perhaps the one benefit of the new format is the easy multi quote function. Makes a point for point debate so much easier. I still abhor the horrific color scheme that gives me headaches, so I just have to do the best I can with the old format.

You said: Not necessarily. New law amends old law.

LOL Very, VERY rarely does new law supplant and replace old law. Particualarly when we are talking about beaurocracy. How do you think the Fed Gov't became so bloated in the first place? Over time, you wind up five different employees, in five completely different departments doing exactly the same thing, because some new administration came with the same tired idea that four previous administrations came up, and rather than tweak the exising framework, they just slapped a fresh layer of paint over the old. Come on Willy, supposedly you are a federal employee. You can't tell me you don't see this every day.

You said: And I've noticed some very nice improvements. A few years back I drove through SC and I-95 was a damn near gravel road. Did that same drive 2 months ago and it was great. Seen other improvements in WV. I believe a high speed rail system is being built in Florida as well. Not bad since the whole state has 4 roads in it.

Do you realy think all those improvements were made in just a year? There is a stretch of I-70 they've been building on between Kansas City and Topeka for more than 3 years now. The stimulus can't take credit for the improvements you've seen in SC.

Rail system in Florida? I sure hope they didn't get offered the same deal we got here in KC. For more than 5 years, the City Council has tried to get a ballot initiative passed that would secure $100 million for construction of a light rail system here in KC. I admit, we could use it badly. Every morning I sip my coffee and watch the poor schmucks sitting on the Broadway Bridge. The line of cars snakes for miles into Gladstone. The problem is, the $100 million is just the start up cost. Every time the initiative has come up, no one can say for certain how much its going to cost, or even exactly where the rail system will be going. So three times its been proposed, and three times voted down by overwhleming majority. Enter the stimulus. Our city leaders put their hands out like every other city and state in the country, and secured $40 million in stimulus funding to break ground on the light rail system. They announced this as though it were a dream come true. The problem? The stimulus funds are a one shot deal. After that, the good folks of KC are saddled with the bill for a light rail system we keep saying no to, at a price tag with a big giant question mark on it. Yeah, that is exactly the kind of deal that sounds sweet to me. Fortunaately, after the massive firestorm of protests, the city council decided that discretion was the better part of valor and turned down the stimulus funds. If we ever do build a light rail system - and I think we should - we'll do it the right way, not half assed on a hope and a prayer.

You said: So does mandatory minimums in sentencing. I guess that means you're opposed to mandatory minimums.

I utterly abhor mandatory minimums, for two reasons. Mandatory minimums another way of saying that judges are too stupid, blind, or lenient to be trusted. But what is worse they are inherently racist. Crack cocaine users are overwhelmingly black, while cocaine users are overwhelmingly white. That is perhaps a broad generalization, the racial demographics of crack cocaine use have shifted over the past decade. But when many states were passing man min laws, the racial breakdown between crack users and cocaine users was stark. Even though the drugs do essentially the same thing phsyiologically, and have the same bad effects on your health, the penatlies for possession of crack cocaine are astronomically higher than they are for possession of cocaine.

You said: And judges don't have a history of letting "good ole boys" off the hook?

Sure they do. Are we supposed to base all of our laws on the misbehavior of a few? You can't think of a better way to remedy this? Last Tuesday, two judges failed to recieve a majority vote in favor of retaining them. Why? Both had widely publicized cases in which they handed down sentences that could only be characterized as ludicrously lenient. As I recall, one of them gave a suspended sentence to a guy who put his girlfriend into a coma for 2 weeks. A combination of the media, and voter recall works beautifully to remove judges who aren't doing their jobs. No legislators needed.

You said: There's a reason for that. Blacks don't have a history of subjugating whites. I've always questioned the redundacy of hate crimes legislation, but when a white person hangs a black person from a tree, the victim and his family aren't the only ones who suffer. Because of our history, such an act is indistinguable from an act of terrorism on a particular race. That is what hate crimes laws seek to punish.

I see. So you admit that hate crime legislation amounts to special rights, as opposed to protecting equal rights. Thank you for that intellectual honesty, even if it was unintended. Hate is hate. Racism is racism. It doesn't matter what color the racist is. This is 2010, not 1950. Black on white racism is real, and just because it doesn't have a centuries long history doesn't make it any less repugnant than white on black racism.

And punishing murderers for premeditation punishes him for the thoughts in their head as well. Something you just said you had no problem with.

Wrong. First degree versus second degree murder goes to intent, not to the attitude or beliefs of the person comitting the crime. Premeditation simply means the person fully intended to commit murder, where as second degree murder means the murder was committed without prior intent. Hate crime legislation seeks to pile on additional pentalties based not on intent or the lack thereof, but based purely on the perpetrators attitudes and beliefs.

To illustrate (apologies to GaGambler if he has bothered to read Willy and I's drivel this far). On this board, I've harped on Ga more than a few times for remarks I've labelled 'homophobic'. Hypothetically, if Ga were to kill someone - first degree or second degree doesn't matter - and the person happens to be homosexual, the remarks Ga has made here could potentially be used against him to build a basis to label his crime a hate crime. With a really good prosecutor, it wouldn't even matter if Ga knew his victim was gay or not. He wouldn't need to hurl epithets at his victim. Throw a few witnesses up on the stand who can testify that he has made off color jokes, has made anti-homosexual statements, parade some transcripts of writings in which he has made defamatory remarks against gays, and *boom* his crime was a hate crime.

Now come on Willy, lets have some honesty here. PUnishing a murder for killing someone is just. The circumstances surrounding the murder are appropriate considerations in determining sentencing, mitigating or aggrivating, either way. But hate crime legislation would hold the person responsible not just for what they did, they are also subject to longer jail sentences if they have any history or racist or bigotted remarks. Sorry, there is nothing fair, just, or appropriate about that.

Now that's food for thought.

BTW when have I made Homophobic remarks? just because I don't support "special rights" doens't make me in any way homophobic. plus I have come out on many ocassions in support of the rights of gays to marry. The fact that it is not an all consuming issue to me doens't make me homophobic.

Gays already have equal rights, just like Asians, Blacks, women and everyone else in this country. well ok they don't have the right to marry, and I support their right to do so. Equal rights means they should have the right to be every bit as miserable as the rest of us.

I can't believe you read the whole thread LOL

I couldn't quote you word for word on comments said, but there were times in the past I jumped on you over something said regarding gays. You know we've gone around about this issue before.

Neither here nor there, I was trying to illustrate for our friend here the wild inequality of hate crimes legislation which will never be applied equally and which turns prosecutors into the thought police. Sadly, he will never get it.

where I think we disagree is what constitutes "equal rights vs special rights".

I have always supported equal rights, hate crimes legislation constitutes "special rights" IMO and I am vehemently against special rights for anyone. On that it appears we are in complete agreement.

I agree. I still prefer the classic version, but now it's easy for me to just punch in some html to make point by point debates easier to follow. Some things continue to exist when they're no longer needed. I would say the Agriculture Dept. is probably an agency who's time is past. It was created when the majority of Americans were farmers. They no longer are.

But in my own office, in the last 4 years I've seen the size of the office quadruple. Of course, our workload has also quadrupled.Actually, I think that was one of those shovel-ready projects. I've also notice quite a few signs letting people know that this or that was built using stimulus money.I don't know the first thing about Kansas City, but I kinda doubt it that you guys need a rail system. It's not very economical unless you get into population densities like you see in Europe or Japan. We have them out here on the east coast, but we also have a metric shit ton of people here. Sounds like an idea I'd have. That's not what I said at all, so don't get ahead of yourself. Suppose an Arab muslim blew up a building, after making a public declaration of "jihad". Suppose one person was injured in that act. Should this man just stand trial for attempted murder, or should he stand trial for terrorism? If he does stand trial for this, then does white Americans now have "special rights"?

Now suppose a group of black males decides to hang a white male from a tree, with the word "cracker" written on his shirt. Would another white family 10 miles away from this crime see this as an act of intimidation upon them?

I'm not sure if we should or shouldn't have hate crimes laws. But there is a reason why we have them, and it's not because of "special rights". Is intent not based upon our attitudes and beliefs?You'd still have to prove not that you hold certain beliefs, but that your actions were based upon your beliefs. I think in the example above any defense attorney in the country could get that thrown out.