Frankly Mr President.. I'm exhausted of defending you

[KarlMarx]

An Obama supporter tells the President what a lot of us are thinking... good for her.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/20/cnbc_town_hall_questioner_to_obama_im_exhausted_of _defending_you.html

Hey Mr President... time to wake up and admit you're wrong

[actsnoblemartin]

anyone remember duck hunt? the nintendo video game, he is the duck :laugh:

[red states rule]

Obama still does not get it. Listen to his reply - full of his usual class warfare crap and stuttering

Of course he is oblivious to the additional cost to the women gor all his change

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ujwE-OYCjbw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ujwE-OYCjbw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[SassyLady]

When he doesn't have a teleprompter he can't say more than 4-5 words in a sentence without "uh....."! It's almost as if he has one of those microphones in his ear and someone is telling him what to say and he needs to process it before it comes out his mouth.

I can't watch him speak anymore ... when I want to know what he says I just look for the transcript .... can get through it a lot faster than listening to him.

[red states rule]

When he doesn't have a teleprompter he can't say more than 4-5 words in a sentence without "uh....."! It's almost as if he has one of those microphones in his ear and someone is telling him what to say and he needs to process it before it comes out his mouth.

I can't watch him speak anymore ... when I want to know what he says I just look for the transcript .... can get through it a lot faster than listening to him.

On top of that, he got a hard question at a MSNBC sponsored event. That was a shock to him, and like you said, with out his teleprompter he was like a deer caught in the headlights

[KarlMarx]

Obama still does not get it. Listen to his reply - full of his usual class warfare crap and stuttering

Of course he is oblivious to the additional cost to the women gor all his change

<object width="480" height="385">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ujwE-OYCjbw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>
Each one of the "achievements" is simply a protection for the consumer. Not a single one of them creates a job.

[krisy]

Just saw this on Fox. She ought to join the tea party. Kudos to her for having the guts to say it to his face. Wondering if he will make jokes about her like he did Joe the plumber?...I bet not

[KarlMarx]

Just saw this on Fox. She ought to join the tea party. Kudos to her for having the guts to say it to his face. Wondering if he will make jokes about her like he did Joe the plumber?...I bet not
What should we call her? Fran the Financial Planner? Vera the Veteran?

I read that the whole session was pretty much a disappointment-fest of (soon to be former) Obama supporters...

I don't think that Obama was expecting it

[krisy]

Geese,Fox just showed a clip of Joy Behar(shudder) claiming this woman was a plant. Live in denial much Joy?:laugh:

[fj1200]

An Obama supporter tells the President what a lot of us are thinking... good for her.

Well, it is awfully difficult defending, and by extension being, wrong for that long... or so I can imagine. ;)

[Trigg]

Geese,Fox just showed a clip of Joy Behar(shudder) claiming this woman was a plant. Live in denial much Joy?:laugh:

I don't watch the show, but I'd love to see that clip. I tried to find it, but it's alluding me.

[red states rule]

How long before the likes of Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow goes after this women for publicly humilating Pres Obama?

Over at CBS they are now reporting their excuses as news





At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "Angry Americans. A new report declares the recession officially over. But many of us are not feeling it. Even taking on the President himself." Later, he seemed to portray the President as a victim: "...a lot of Americans are still suffering its [the recession's] effects, and are taking it out on President Obama."

In a report that followed, correspondent Bill Plante noted how "numbers may be going in the right direction" but touted "frustrated" Obama supporters speaking out at a Monday CNBC town hall. In between clips of those voters, Plante sympathetically remarked: "On the defensive, the President responded by outlining some of his administration's accomplishments, but admitted that things aren't where they need to be." He concluded the report: "So the reality is that improving statistics aren't very convincing to voters who are worried about jobs, and that is the reality the President and his party face going into the November elections."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz10DCPqMIx

[namvet]

she bought the 08 model and now wants her money back. tuff shit. should have read the fine print

[Palin Rider]

What should we call her? Fran the Financial Planner? Vera the Veteran?

I read that the whole session was pretty much a disappointment-fest of (soon to be former) Obama supporters...

I don't think that Obama was expecting it

Does she feel any better about the Republicans?

Somehow, I doubt it.

[namvet]

Osama Responds To 'Exhausted' Woman

tQ0jKO83NL0

[Pagan]

Osama Responds To 'Exhausted' Woman

tQ0jKO83NL0

Kinda sucks when he's off script I would say, just like Palin ;)

[Palin Rider]

Kinda sucks when he's off script I would say, just like Palin ;)

He's no actor like Reagan, nor even a Slick Willie, but at least he had a coherent answer. Palin just tosses out random buzzwords.

[red states rule]

she bought the 08 model and now wants her money back. tuff shit. should have read the fine print

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/168160.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

Does she feel any better about the Republicans?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Well, they've both been screwing us over the past decade, so I wouldn't blame her for that.

[red states rule]

Well, they've both been screwing us over the past decade, so I wouldn't blame her for that.

People are pissed with both Republicans and Dems

That is why CONSERVATIVES have done well in the primary elections, and why the liberal media is obsessed with destroying them

[KarlMarx]

He's no actor like Reagan, nor even a Slick Willie, but at least he had a coherent answer. Palin just tosses out random buzzwords.
Don't confuse walking around in a circle with going forward. Both are motion, but only one gets you somewhere.

Democrats have one answer for everything... more government, more taxes, more regulation. That approach has clearly failed (to all except to the likes of you, perhaps)

The candidates that we are seeing now seem to be getting the message from the American people.... repeal Obamacare, extend the Bush tax cuts, repeal the Stimulus, and, most of all, reduce spending.

Cutting taxes and introducing a business friendly climate got us out of the Recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s... it will get us out of this one.

[red states rule]

Don't confuse walking around in a circle with going forward. Both are motion, but only one gets you somewhere.

Democrats have one answer for everything... more government, more taxes, more regulation. That approach has clearly failed (to all except to the likes of you, perhaps)

The candidates that we are seeing now seem to be getting the message from the American people.... repeal Obamacare, extend the Bush tax cuts, repeal the Stimulus, and, most of all, reduce spending.

Cutting taxes and introducing a business friendly climate got us out of the Recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s... it will get us out of this one.

History show when taxes are sut, the economy grows and revenue to the government increases

It worked for JFK, Reagan, and George W Bush

But Dems believe by punishing achievement and taking more of what someone earns is an incentive to work harder and take risk

Of course it never occurs to Dems that when you cut taxes you also cut spending thus keeping more money in the private sector

We all see the results of Obamanomics and the answer they give to improve the economy is higher taxes and more government spending

[Palin Rider]

Don't confuse walking around in a circle with going forward. Both are motion, but only one gets you somewhere.
...The candidates that we are seeing now seem to be getting the message from the American people.... repeal Obamacare, extend the Bush tax cuts, repeal the Stimulus, and, most of all, reduce spending.
Looks like you're confusing going forward with going backwards.


Democrats have one answer for everything... more government, more taxes, more regulation. That approach has clearly failed (to all except to the likes of you, perhaps)
Depends on what's being taxed and regulated.

If you think I'm willing to let the likes of you pull harebrained scams on a poorly regulated Wall Street, too bad. It's not happening again in my lifetime.

[KarlMarx]

Looks like you're confusing going forward with going backwards.


Depends on what's being taxed and regulated.

If you think I'm willing to let the likes of you pull harebrained scams on a poorly regulated Wall Street, too bad. It's not happening again in my lifetime.

Same old rhetoric, different day. It doesn't matter how obvious it is, some people just won't get it.

Sure, Wall Street had something to do with our present financial situation, but the government had even more to do with it.

The thing that you need to think about long and hard.... if regulation is the answer ....... who is going to regulate the regulator? The Congress was supposed to overseeing Fannie and Freddie and its chairman, Barney Frank was either sleeping with the very people he was supposed to be regulating or just sleeping.

No one is looking at what Congress is up to.... to them, it's business as usual...

[Palin Rider]

Sure, Wall Street had something to do with our present financial situation, but the government had even more to do with it.

The thing that you need to think about long and hard.... if regulation is the answer ....... who is going to regulate the regulator? The Congress was supposed to overseeing Fannie and Freddie and its chairman, Barney Frank was either sleeping with the very people he was supposed to be regulating or just sleeping.

Not an easy question, and I don't claim to have the perfect answer to it. However, it's not an excuse for unregulated markets.

You, I, and the rest of the American people all need to think about that question long and hard to arrive at an answer that most of us can live with. It's the only way.

[red states rule]

Same old rhetoric, different day. It doesn't matter how obvious it is, some people just won't get it.

Sure, Wall Street had something to do with our present financial situation, but the government had even more to do with it.

The thing that you need to think about long and hard.... if regulation is the answer ....... who is going to regulate the regulator? The Congress was supposed to overseeing Fannie and Freddie and its chairman, Barney Frank was either sleeping with the very people he was supposed to be regulating or just sleeping.

No one is looking at what Congress is up to.... to them, it's business as usual...

Here is all you need to know about why we are in the economic mess we are in now. Dems and their interference in the free market





September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990′s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites..

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990′s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University ‘s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/1999-ny-times-fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending/

[red states rule]

This is for BP and the other Obama supporters. I know this will make their day :laugh2:






The ratings are in for Barack Obama's televised town hall meeting on CNBC Monday, and they're pretty dismal.

In fact, far more people watched the Fox News Channel's "Happening Now" with Jon Scott and Jenna Lee airing at the same time than tuned in to see what the President had to say.

Potentially even more embarrassing, when you add in those that watched Obama in MSNBC's replay of the event later in the day, the total is still less than those that viewed Jon and Jenna at noon.

Chris Ariens of TVNewser reported the numbers Tuesday:

The hour drew 625,000 Total Viewers airing live at NoonET -- more than 450,000 viewers behind #1 FNC (1.08M) in the hour, but ahead of CNN (436K) and MSNBC (217K). The re-air on MSNBC at 3pmET drew 369,000 viewers.

Early in his presidency, media members used to gush over how Obama drew the attention of the American people. They even used it as an excuse to cover him so much and put him on the covers of magazines.

It appears less than two years into his first term, the bloom is off the rose.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/22/more-people-watched-fox-news-monday-obama-town-hall

[KarlMarx]

Not an easy question, and I don't claim to have the perfect answer to it. However, it's not an excuse for unregulated markets.

You, I, and the rest of the American people all need to think about that question long and hard to arrive at an answer that most of us can live with. It's the only way.
PR.... it's time to think long and hard about giving more power to the Federal Government.....

No one has proposed a total laissez faire form of capitalism... the markets are regulated.... that's what the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Congressional Financial Services Committee and a host of other government agencies are already in place for....

and even with this amount of government regulation, huge meltdowns still occur.... clearly those agencies are not doing their jobs.... giving the government more powers only guarantees one thing... more interference in our lives.... nothing more

[fj1200]

This is for BP and the other Obama supporters. I know this will make their day :laugh2:

He was on TV? :420:

[fj1200]

However, it's not an excuse for unregulated markets.

I'll take the "unregulated" markets, increase transparency, and keep the Fed's bubble-making abilities under control.

[Pagan]

I'll take the "unregulated" markets, increase transparency, and keep the Fed's bubble-making abilities under control.

Now you're going to the extreme, regulations when applied in moderation AND equally applied to all serve a purpose. Just like laws, they have to be enacted thoughtfully and equally applied to all across the board. Anarchism is great in theory, but like any other system like Socialism, Communism in "Theory" would be wonderful but you all miss the obvious which blows the pure application of one out.

Human Nature

[fj1200]

Now you're going to the extreme, regulations when applied in moderation AND equally applied to all serve a purpose. Just like laws, they have to be enacted thoughtfully and equally applied to all across the board. Anarchism is great in theory, but like any other system like Socialism, Communism in "Theory" would be wonderful but you all miss the obvious which blows the pure application of one out.

Human Nature

I said nothing of anarchy. And I don't necessarily disagree with regulation in moderation but as a friend of mine said... "When socialism fails call it capitalism and demand more socialism." The purpose they generally serve however is to institute someone's idea of fairness or control.

I did have one HUGE caveat in my list though and it's restraint on the Fed's bubble-making actions.

[Pagan]

I said nothing of anarchy. And I don't necessarily disagree with regulation in moderation but as a friend of mine said... "When socialism fails call it capitalism and demand more socialism." The purpose they generally serve however is to institute someone's idea of fairness or control.

I did have one HUGE caveat in my list though and it's restraint on the Fed's bubble-making actions.

Yes you did -


I'll take the "unregulated" markets, increase transparency, and keep the Fed's bubble-making abilities under control.

What do you think Anarchy is?

There must be rules, you know regulations?

[red states rule]

Just in time for Christmas

This is a great gift for the liberals in your life

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/168026.JPG

[SassyLady]

Hey Red,

No way ... I wouldn't give that to my liberal friends. They would expect me to play when I visit I wouldn't be able to keep my dinner down looking at that board during the game.

[fj1200]

What do you think Anarchy is?

There must be rules, you know regulations?

Free markets are anarchy? How sad for you.

Two sides engage in an agreement and create, you know... rules?

[Pagan]

Free markets are anarchy? How sad for you.

Two sides engage in an agreement and create, you know... rules?

Really?

You mean like the rules two Warlards would make :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

You mean like the rules two Warlards would make :rolleyes:

I repeat...


How sad for you.

[Pagan]

I repeat...

Well I feel sad for yourself, it's all about a balance and you obviously fall into the camp of the opposite.

[fj1200]

it's all about a balance...

Yes, the market provides balance. Government "balance" involves cost, both seen and unseen.

[Pagan]

Yes, the market provides balance. Government "balance" involves cost, both seen and unseen.

Really, like pure open markets would allow Monopoly's?

[fj1200]

Really, like pure open markets would allow Monopoly's?

:spin:

[Pagan]

:spin:

Really, you're the one advocating full blown free market without any rules other than what the market makes.

[fj1200]

Really, you're the one advocating full blown free market without any rules other than what the market makes.

And a monopoly has to do with that how?

It's also hard to argue with the brilliance of your "warlords" argument. :rolleyes:

[Pagan]

And a monopoly has to do with that how?

It's also hard to argue with the brilliance of your "warlords" argument. :rolleyes:

Really, you're the one proposing no rules other than what they make themselves. Please enlighten us all on how the "Market" can run itself without rules other than what corporations make themselves.

[fj1200]

Really, you're the one proposing no rules other than what they make themselves. Please enlighten us all on how the "Market" can run itself without rules other than what corporations make themselves.

Do you understand the contradiction you just made for yourself... twice?

You said it yourself there are rules, that they made the rules themselves is beside the point especially considering that I also called for an increase in transparency. In the context of the rule of law in the US and the UCC and a hopeful increase in transparency I have no problem with deregulation with the full knowledge that society will not break down into the lawlessness of Somalia that you apparently expect.

Given that we were blessed with Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron, etc., told we weren't going to have more meltodowns, given a false sense of security, etc., I'd have to say that an increase in regulation from the Feds is hardly the basis for confidence.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/1104/perspectives/p6.htm

[Pagan]

Do you understand the contradiction you just made for yourself... twice?

You said it yourself there are rules, that they made the rules themselves is beside the point especially considering that I also called for an increase in transparency. In the context of the rule of law in the US and the UCC and a hopeful increase in transparency I have no problem with deregulation with the full knowledge that society will not break down into the lawlessness of Somalia that you apparently expect.

Given that we were blessed with Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron, etc., told we weren't going to have more meltodowns, given a false sense of security, etc., I'd have to say that an increase in regulation from the Feds is hardly the basis for confidence.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/1104/perspectives/p6.htm

Really?

So you're proposing Anarchy then?

Sorry but as much of a good healthy streak of Anarchism in my veins I'm also not foolish to think that a pure Anarchist system.

As I've stated over and over again, it's all about balance.

[fj1200]

Really?

So you're proposing Anarchy then?

Here try this...

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets
http://rhlschool.com/reading.htm

[Pagan]

Here try this...

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets
http://rhlschool.com/reading.htm

Really?

Anarchism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy)

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

[fj1200]

Really?

Congratulations on your ability to look up a definition... now you just need to work on how to apply it to ideas expressed by others.

[Pagan]

Congratulations on your ability to look up a definition... now you just need to work on how to apply it to ideas expressed by others.

You mean like your inability to comprehend "balance"?

[fj1200]

You mean like your inability to comprehend "balance"?

I easily comprehend your opinion of "balance." As stated previously...


Yes, the market provides balance. Government "balance" involves cost, both seen and unseen.

[Pagan]

I easily comprehend your opinion of "balance." As stated previously...

Really?

So you advocate only the Market creating the rules to provide the balance?

Here, read this again -


Really?

Anarchism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy)

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

[fj1200]

Really?

So you advocate only the Market creating the rules to provide the balance?

Here, read this again -

I don't have to read it again, it's still doesn't apply. Go read all my posts in this thread again and find all the government involvement I acknowledge...


...


I'll wait.

[Pagan]

I don't have to read it again, it's still doesn't apply. Go read all my posts in this thread again and find all the government involvement I acknowledge...


...


I'll wait.

Really?


I'll take the "unregulated" markets, increase transparency, and keep the Fed's bubble-making abilities under control.

Oh and also the Left blames Ronnie for the "Evils" of deregulation where it fact it was Carter who really kicked them off with deregulating airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery.

[fj1200]

Really?

Yes, I see you failed in your assignment in only reading a quote that confirms your bias and ignoring the rest.


Oh and also the Left blames Ronnie for the "Evils" of deregulation where it fact it was Carter who really kicked them off with deregulating airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery.

Yes, they do and maybe Carter, et al, deserve some credit for the benefits brought by deregulation.

[Pagan]

Yes, I see you failed in your assignment in only reading a quote that confirms your bias and ignoring the rest.

Really, funny there is no such thing in this thread



Yes, they do and maybe Carter, et al, deserve some credit for the benefits brought by deregulation.

You mean his wonderful economy? :lol::lol::lol:

So you saying Carter shouldn't be blamed for the failed Economy during his administration and Ronnie didn't usher in policies that created a juggernaut of an economic recovery?

[fj1200]

Really, funny there is no such thing in this thread

Assignments or bias?


You mean his wonderful economy? :lol::lol::lol:

So you saying Carter shouldn't be blamed for the failed Economy during his administration and Ronnie didn't usher in policies that created a juggernaut of an economic recovery?

No, Carter and his policies were an absolute train wreck (who can forget his first Fed chief pic, good times, good times...) but deregulation was effective it just didn't have enough time to offset the rest of the nightmare (his energy policy??? amirite???). I don't recall his personal support for deregulation though, was he for it or did he just sign what came across his desk?

And love that Ronnie.

[DragonStryk72]

Yes you did -



What do you think Anarchy is?

There must be rules, you know regulations?

did you note the little quotation marks, which denote sarcasm?