Official Buyers Remorse Thread

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Actually, the award hasn't been awarded every year. There was a period back during 1940s during WWII when no prize was awarded--precisely during a time when there wasn't a lot of peace breaking out.

It's a curious decision. There is a political element to any Nobel Prize, particularly the Peace Price, so whatever significance the award has had should always be taken with a grain of salt. My hope is that the Nobel Prize Committee hasn't complicated things unnecessarily for Obama long-term by creating unrealistic expectations and causing a backlash among radical Islamists abroad and their counterparts the radical Fundagelicals and other bigots here at home.

In the short term, however, it is mildly amusing to listen to them squeal like stuck pigs.

I don't know if it makes you a bigot to think he hasn't done anything to earn this award anymore than assuming there can't be a valid case to support that position, except racism, isn't the same church, different pew.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I don't know if it makes you a bigot to think he hasn't done anything to earn this award anymore than assuming there can't be a valid case to support that position, except racism, isn't the same church, different pew.

I actually agreed that it's a curious decision. So I agree that bigots and non-bigots alike can share surprise at the decision. The difference will always be their motivations.

Also, bigotry, in the original etymology of the word, referred to opposition to a person or cause based on irrationally held religious beliefs. While much of the opposition to Obama is obviously based on race, a not insignificant amount of the opposition also has roots in irrationally held religious beliefs... and from different irrationally held perspectives.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Heh...a new age in award giving has obviously been brought on by Barry.

in reality obama didn't bring anything on, it's not as if he asked for the award.

if anything target the prize committee. but then you wouldn't have the same motivation if you couldn't blame obama would you?

[bernardos70]

Anxiously awaiting how this is gonna be spun negatively. By Tuesday I expect Stephen Colbert to have the skit ready, complete with Glenn Beck video clips, the whole shebang.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in reality obama didn't bring anything on, it's not as if he asked for the award.

if anything target the prize committee. but then you wouldn't have the same motivation if you couldn't blame obama would you?

No I'd target the silly committee no matter who got it. But it's emblematic of the Barry love that has been going on for years. Someone doing little, getting credit for a lot.

[DirkFTW]

Now that he's got the Peace Prize all wrapped up, Obama should go whole-hog on winning in Afghanistan.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Now that he's got the Peace Prize all wrapped up, Obama should go whole-hog on winning in Afghanistan.

Killing more folks always wins my vote for a Peace Prize!

[Flacolaco]

Well...I'm not sure what the accepted definition and social norm is for "folks" but in my own reckoning of the word, the Taliban don't qualify.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Well...I'm not sure what the accepted definition and social norm is for "folks" but in my own reckoning of the word, the Taliban don't qualify.

What about "peeps" - too familiar?

[GermanDunk]

Sharing th price would have been more cunning.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in reality obama didn't bring anything on, it's not as if he asked for the award.

if anything target the prize committee. but then you wouldn't have the same motivation if you couldn't blame obama would you?

I thought he handled it about as well as he could. He had to be a bit conflicted at the honor of the award right when he had to make decisions on minor things like stepping up the troop count in Afghanistan and the minor little dust ups in Iran and North Korea. I disagree with much of his policies so far, but he is sincere and you have to admire his accomplishments on a personal level. Hard to see this as anything but a good thing for the USA.

Wonder what Clinton's reaction was ? LOL.

[ribosoma]

Well, Nobel Was the Inventor of Dynamite, After All

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Well, Nobel Was the Inventor of Dynamite, After All

If the Afghans should be left alone, peace practitioners that they are, then this argument would perhaps have merit.

It is indeed possible to war in the name of peace.

[dude1394]

Heh..

“That’s pretty amazing, winning the Nobel Peace Prize,” Jay Leno said, first out of the box Friday night. “Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far ... winning the Nobel Peace Prize.”

[chumdawg]

Ha, that is so funny.

[dude1394]

Hah...

[chumdawg]

What an idiot. Do you even TRY to think things through?

God bless us, with these idiots out there casting votes.

[dude1394]

The nation no less.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebe...hiner_in_chief

Whiner-in-Chief

posted by John Nichols on 10/12/2009 @ 8:08pm


The Obama administration really needs to get over itself.
First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News because the network maintains a generally anti-Obama slant.
Then, an anonymous administration aide attacks bloggers for failing to maintain a sufficiently pro-Obama slant.
These are not disconnected developments.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What an idiot. Do you even TRY to think things through?

God bless us, with these idiots out there casting votes.

Strange to invoke god when you have such disdain for any who believe in him.

[dude1394]

Say it ain't so Clarence...First NPR (but then they got their mind right) then Clarence.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...4938426.column

Surely President Barack Obama and his advisers don't really think that their feud with Fox News will do anything but enhance the cable network's viewership. A deeper problem is what the flap reveals about Team Obama, which seems to be more comfortable with campaigning than governing.

I'm not happy about that. It does not fill me with glee to see Fox News star Sean Hannity joyfully replaying Obama's 2004 come-together speech about how we're "not red states or blues states" but "the United States of America" and asking where is Obama's promise now?

I don't agree with Hannity on much. He's only a tad more serious-minded as a news clown, in my grumpy view, than his colleague Glenn Beck. But, as much as my wife might run from the house when she hears me say it, Hannity's right on this one.

[Mavdog]

anyone is justified in responding strongly to people who distort facts, promulgate wrong statements, and act unprofessional.

the problem is the current administration was supposed to be above responding to these type of things. then again why shouldn't fox be called out for their lack of journalistic standards?

just shows that when you step down to deal with a group who is so full of it like fox, you're bound to get some on ya.

[dude1394]

You've lost that lovin' feeling,
Whoa, that lovin' feeling,
You've lost that lovin' feeling,
Now it's gone...gone...gone...wooooooh.

Chris Matthews appears to have lost that loving feeling for Barack Obama. On "The Chris Matthews Show" Sunday, the once smitten MSNBCer called some of Obama's recent mistakes "Carteresque":

In the Carter presidency, the optics were not exactly robust, and Ronald Reagan rode that to a big victory in 1980. Is the Obama White House sending some Carteresque signals these days?

These "signals" included bowing to the Emperor of Japan, getting nothing on his trip to China, and deciding to try terrorists in New York City.
Potentially as surprising as Matthews bringing these issues up was the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and David Ignatius agreeing with him (video embedded below the fold with transcript):

[dude1394]

Ruh Roh...Even the Islamic world is getting tired of hearing Barack Hussein Obama yapping. Hmm..I think I read that he was the most accomplished prez since Roosevelt? Go figure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...500152682.html

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.
He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.
He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year
....
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making..

[dude1394]

Eekks...even Mickee Moore is losing the true faith.

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

[ribosoma]

http://www.humpjones.com/

[92bDad]

Rumor has it...there's a Heisman Trophy with Obama's name on it...

After his performance in the NFL PLay 60 campaign...he showed up and wow, he deserves a Heisman!!!

[Underdog]

President George W. Obama and His Exit Ramp to Nowhere

link

Well, what a coincidence. Two days before Obama is set to give a speech at West Point, in which he is expected to announce at least 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report is released that blames an insufficient number of troops for Osama bin Laden’s escape from American forces in 2001. You could be forgiven for thinking that the chairman of the committee, Sen. John Kerry, is serving his commander in chief's interests.

The report implies that it was the lack of American soldiers under the Bush administration that was responsible for, in the report’s words, “laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.” That was Bush’s policy, and since we all know Bush was evil, the opposite policy must be good. The aggressiveness that we associate with Bush is actually, in Obama’s hands, the righteous corrective to Bush’s aggressiveness.

Once again, Obama is using Bush's counter-example as a lever to sway the public. Yet to an even greater extent than his predecessor, Obama is proving himself an expert manipulator of public opinion, capitalizing on the McChrystal and then the Eikenberry leaks to give the impression of anguished, many-sided deliberations over whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. The good cop/bad cop routine with Joe Biden, who dutifully argued against more troops, was breathtakingly cynical.

Like Bush, Obama wants to wage an escalating war without worrying about how to pay for it—though no doubt, on Tuesday, we will be subjected to the same ludicrous vows not to increase the deficit. And it is almost uncanny to hear, this time from the liberal Obama, the same bloodcurdling rhetoric about nation-building and creating democratic institutions, and so on, that led us into implacably undemocratic Iraq. Warlord-run Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq. It is more like Somalia. Remember Somalia?

You want to rub your eyes in disbelief. Six years since the distastrous invasion of Iraq, six years of media deconstructing, unmasking, eviscerating, ironizing the Bush regime’s justification of that foolish war, six years of the Daily Show—six years later, and the weasel-ish, evasive, dishonest patter remains the same.

The media still use the word “surge,” which brings to mind heartening images of a positive rise in electric power, when the truth is that what the administration calls a “surge” is just another name for “reinforcements,” which brings to mind less heartening images of a losing battle. Indeed, just as Obama’s people speak of providing “exit ramps” for our deepening entanglement in Afghanistan—as if it were all a rational question of simple engineering; of road-building—the media have totally bought into talking about the war as if it were all a rational question of simple electrical contracting, what with an “insurgency” here, and a “surge” there, and a “counterinsurgency” everywhere. But war is notoriously foggy. It is impervious to sudden illumination, let alone to the impressive timetables of armchair strategists who think they can control the future with a "plan."

Obama will lead us deeper into yet another pointless conflict, in yet another unremittingly hostile and unassimilable place, but we will be asked to give him time. For the political writer Jacob Weisberg, opining in Slate, one of Obama’s great accomplishments this past year has actually been that “Next week, after a much-disparaged period of review, he will announce a new strategy in Afghanistan.” Winston Churchill, move over. But then, Weisberg praises Obama for the following presidential triumphs: “preventing a depression, remaking America's global image, and winning universal health insurance.” Never mind that unemployment is the highest it’s been in decades, and going even higher, and that any Democratic president with a Democratic majority in Congress would have passed a similar stimulus package to Obama's, and probably a larger one. As for remaking America’s global image—who cares? Anyway, images are made with actions, not words.

And winning universal health insurance? Under the current legislation, health care will be available to a “small slice” more of Americans, as The New York Times recently put it. The rest of us will have to suffer through soaring premiums, as the insurance companies exploit the restructuring. The lucky—and desperate—few who enroll in a weakened public plan will have to endure cost-saving cuts in preventive care, as Obama’s “best practices” panels prescribe fewer screenings and the like.

But Obama is not Bush, we are told, and the people who hate him are dreadful, and the opposition is fierce, and, well, he’s the only game in town, etc, etc. And he’s on Our Side.

No, Obama is not Bush. More and more, he seems like a continuation of Bush by other means. If anything, he is even more convinced than his divinely guided predecessor that he holds the truth in his hands. Unlike Bush, however, Obama seems to withdraw into a passive funk when he cannot convince his fellow Americans that his truth is also theirs.

At the same time, he seems unsure of his bona fides as commander in chief. He seems to have chosen West Point as the backdrop for his speech in order to demonstrate his devotion to the military side of patriotism. That might speak to the military, but it won't be of much reassurance to us civilians. Bush was also insecure about his warrior's image.

Fasten your seatbelts, everybody. Starting tomorrow night, President George W. Obama and his generals will be building an exit ramp to nowhere. The war will eat up economic relief and recovery, health-care reform, and just about every other initiative Obama was elected to begin and bring to fruition—just as Johnson's attempt to build the Great Society and wage war in Vietnam at the same time eventually crushed the economy and gave us nearly 25 years of almost continuous Republican rule.

Same sh!t, different color...

[alexamenos]

I find the idea that Obama's escalation is a roadmap to an exit strategy pretty laughable. I mean...how long has it been since we increased troops in Iraq so we could get out of there quicker....3 years now???

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice and I'm an American voter.

[dude1394]

Heh...now it's well...just about everyone.

Public Policy Polling:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

[dude1394]

Tell me it ain't so Mo!?

Maureen Dowd is a woman scorned, it seems. Candidate Dreamy has become Captain Obvious. She hisses:

“We must do better,” Captain Obvious said Thursday at the White House, “in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while still facilitating air travel.” John Brennan, the deputy national security adviser, was equally illuminating. “The intelligence,” he informed us, “fell through the cracks.” He also offered this: “Al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.” That rings a bell. The president and his intelligence officials stressed that these were not the same mistakes made before 9/11. “Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence,” President Obama said, “this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.” Wow. That makes me feel that all those billions spent on upgrading the intelligence system were well spent.

[dude1394]

Ruh-roh...it's spreading..

HOPE: White House Economic Adviser: Jobs Picture is ‘Still Terrible.’ “Council of Economic Advisers chief Christina Romer said it’s devastating that some workers have been unemployed for two years and that job losses were continuing nearly a year after passage of the so-called stimulus bill.”

[dude1394]

Heh... Massachusetts. How rich...

[dude1394]

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.co...president.html


America's Mayors Grade The President



This week there has been a meeting in Washington D.C. of about 200 mayors from all around the country. The primary topic of concern was no surprise: Jobs.

While Barry O may want to give himself a B+ as a grade for his performance so far, the mayors on at least one issue give him an F. There was a general consensus that the highly touted stimulus package did just exactly what most average citizens knew it would do.

About 80 percent of stimulus money has gone directly to state governments, they say. Instead of being used to create new jobs, the bulk of the money has been used to save existing state government jobs -- teachers, law enforcement and others -- and for shoring up sagging state budgets.

Still, day after day the talking heads in this administration will trot out their tired talking points about how many jobs have been saved or created, and how we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel, yadda, yadda, yadda.

It now seems apparent that the actions taken by the liberals in Washington have hampered and probably delayed the economic recovery in this country and that light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train headed right for us.

A report issued by the mayors' group this week showed the bulk of the nation's unemployed are in cities. It also predicts that most cities won't see a return to pre-recession employment levels until at least 2013.

[dude1394]

This guys isn't happy, nor is anyone else with a 401K I imagine.

GEE, THANKS MR. OBAMA: Reader David Davila writes:

Wednesday-Friday, the Dow lost 552 points, or 5.2 percent.
Thanks Mr. President!
Your new tilting at windmills ploy,errr, bad mouthing Wall Street, just blew up my 401(k), not to mention my other investments. Again. Right after they were just about even with the pounding they took a year or so ago. What a stellar job this administration is doing. Riiiight…
About now, I’m thinking if I wanted something screwed up, I can trust the Chicago boys to come through.
If I want something done right, the high school kid down the street who is always looking for work around the neighborhood would be a far better choice.
He’s prompt, cleans up after himself, does whatever work we give him with a smile on his face and sincere gratefulness for what he gets paid.
In other words he’s NOT a f_ck up, and the money he gets is earned and gladly paid by me. I’d nominate him to take Obama’s job right about now, he definitely wouldn’t screw it up as badly as this lot of clowns has/is.
Sheesh….
DD

My sense is that a lot of people feel this way. You know, the proletarian vanguard.

[dude1394]

Bahama has definitely made an impact on hiring and income re-distribution.

CHANGE: Personal Income Drops Across the Country. “Personal income in 42 states fell in 2009, the Commerce Department said Thursday.” But it was up in Washington, DC!

[dude1394]

Well...everyone...

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.
In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

[dude1394]

Well...only americans...

OUCH: “It’s a sad day when the President of the United States uses taxpayer dollars to travel around the country ridiculing and provoking those taxpayers with whom he disagrees, but this is what we get when the ‘cool’ guy wins. How I long for the days of a ‘cowboy’ President I didn’t always agree with, but always respected.” The “provoking” part is a deliberate strategy, designed to inflame and produce things they can use to call the opposition extremist.

[dude1394]

AT&T Stockholders and employees (those that don't get fired...but then again Bahama will get your mortgage for you cheaper!!)..

AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.
The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

Of course the guvment will now begin to try and shake down these companies to make sure they understand they are not supposed to disagree with their masters and betters. The chicago way.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../03/025940.php

We wrote here about the consequences of Obamacare that are beginning to be felt, even before its provisions are implemented: Caterpillar said Obamacare will cost it an additional $100 million in the first year; Medtronic warned that the new tax on its products "could force it to lay off a thousand workers;" Verizon told its employees that it "will likely have to cut healthcare benefits to offset the new costs;" and AT&T announced that it will record a $1 billion non-cash expense in the first quarter and "will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company."
These announcements are the tip of the iceberg; hundreds like them will follow as Obamacare becomes a reality. Congressional Democrats, evidently stung by the bad publicity, are trying to strike back. A reader writes:

Good post on the true cost of ObamaCare. But it gets better: the Dems are now shaking down CEOs who don't get with the program. In the attached letter, Henry Waxman not only orders the CEOs of AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co, and Verizon to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee, but also to produce internal analyses and emails related to their statements. They don't expressly subpoena the CEOs, so we can hope that they tell the Dems to GFY, though somehow I doubt that will happen.
The Dems sent these letters to the Republicans on the committee after 6pm tonight with no advance notice or prior cooperation.

Here is the letter Waxman sent to the Chairman of AT&T; the others are similar. Click to enlarge:

[dude1394]

Heh... 327 members of congress and counting.

327 members of the U.S. House of Representatives -- three quarters of that body -- have signed a letter expressing concern about "the highly publicized tensions" in US-Israeli relations. The letter leaves unsaid that President Obama has contributed mightily to both the tensions and their publicity, but that fact is almost too obvious to require recitation. The letter was addressed to Secretary of State Clinton, another major contributor to the problems it cites.

[92bDad]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health...,7114709.photo

Given today political and societal climates...looking at a historic satirical cartoon could help to verify and clarify the agenda behind the current administration.