 |
Well, now that the first 100 days of You Know Who's Administration is just about upon us I would like to pose a question to everyone here.
I can think of at least several dozen things this person has done WRONG since January 21, 2009 but can anyone here name
Anything he's done right so far?
A minimum of 10 things that he's done right and I'll shut up and got sit down. I'm personally having a hard time coming up with even one thing.
Ooh Twinks you must really not like this person if you know it's been 100 days.
EDIT:: Momentary moment of stupidity.
Sarah
Well, Muddy, it's hard to miss this "milestone" date when the news keeps reminding us of this.
How about kissing the hand of the leader of the "land of oil"... no wait... wasn't Bush accused of doing the same thing, but a different part of the anatomy? Confused again... (sigh).
Nah, that was Clinton! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer
Don''t fret . I'm sure sometime during the love fest Wednesday ,the Press (especially CNN which plans a "campaign night like" special )will be sure to point out all his missteps as well as his great achievements .
Here is the 100 day retrospective worthy of reading :
100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES FOR BARACK OBAMA - New York Post
Tom - Thanks for the heads up on the CNN Special. It should be a 30 minute special with about 29 1/2 minutes of commercials.
Hello twink,Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
10 things, huh? Ok..
1) He ended torture
2) The prosecution of the torturers is going to happen.
3) He is restoring our good name in the world.
4) He's fixing the economy.
5) He's cutting taxes for the middle class.
6) He's ending the war in Iraq.
7) He's stepping up the "good war" in Afganistan.
8) He's restoring "diplomacy" as a tool.
9) He's UN-politisizing the Justice Department.
10) He extended un-employment benefits.
11) He's going to approve legislation that will help the American worker organize.
12) He's fixing the health care system.
13) He's fixing the education system.
14) He's restoring the American Dream.
I got more if you need 'em.
excon
Excon, I think you've just listed 10 things that he didn't do. Especially #8 and #3. He's happily trashed the US to the entire world making us the laughingstock.
And to #7, he wants to go into Afganistan due to the bumper crop of opium.
And best of all #14. So far I can't really see any restoring The American Dream. Want to help me see this a bit clearer as all I can see is more folks on unemployment, homeless, on food stamps, losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their cars. Or are you reading the funny papers? What new jobs has he "created"?? In Ohio there are more and more people in need of jobs and fewer and fewer jobs advertised.
And the part about having the workers organized... Some Unions want a fee up front for a job and you can wait literally months to get that job or you have to pay the Union the fee the moment you're hired. How are you supposed to live in the meantime? On "dirt sandwiches"?
I think the only thing he actually did that was right was to extend the unemployment benefits for more weeks.
No. Under Bush you were a laughing stock. Obama is widely popular throughout the world and a lot of respect lost under Bush is being restored.Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
No he didn't because it wasn't torture. What he did was put an end to valuable techniques for obtaining information from our enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Prosecutions for something that never happened is a good thing? For who?Quote:
2) The prosecution of the torturers is going to happen.
Sure, if you call laughing at us "restoring our good name". So far he's managed to insult the UK PM (twice), the UK Queen, and the Russian government, while at the same time kissing up to dictators like Chavez and the Castro boys.Quote:
3) He is restoring our good name in the world.
How? I'm curious how you think that increasing the national debt is going to solve a national debt crisis, and how increasing spending is going to close a budget deficit.Quote:
4) He's fixing the economy.
Really? When did that happen?Quote:
5) He's cutting taxes for the middle class.
No he isn't. The war is still going on. The only thing that he MIGHT be doing is to pull out our troops. The war will go on. And in fact, he isn't even going to do that much. He's leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq.Quote:
6) He's ending the war in Iraq.
I've seen that he PLANS on sending some more troops to Afghanistan. I haven't seen it happen yet. Nor have I seen anything that resembles a change in the ROE in Afghanistan necessary to "step up" prosecution of tha war. All he's doing is shifting soldiers from one place to another... and he hasn't even done that yet.Quote:
7) He's stepping up the "good war" in Afganistan.
Yeah... he's talking to Cuba, Iran, North Korea and China. Because diplomacy has worked so well with these countries in the past.Quote:
8) He's restoring "diplomacy" as a tool.
I thought we were talking about doing GOOD things.
You mean the same Justice Department that just released a bunch of memos about CIA interrogation techniques for purely partisan reasons?Quote:
9) He's UN-politisizing the Justice Department.
Well, you found ONE good thing.Quote:
10) He extended un-employment benefits.
No, he's going to approve legislation that is going to force the American workers and the businesses they work for to be unionized whether the worker or the employer wants it or not. And he's doing it to support the labor unions that can't get membership unless they can force people to unionize. Unions are some of the biggest donors to Obama's campaign coffers, so he's returning the favor... regardless of what the effect on workers, businesses or the economy as a whole ends up being.Quote:
11) He's going to approve legislation that will help the American worker organize.
You mean the same healthcare system that Church Schumer just yesterday called the best in the world (regarding travel to the USA in the wake of the swine flu outbreak)?Quote:
12) He's fixing the health care system.
How? By throwing more money into a broken system? He isn't fixing anything. He's just spending more on the same broken system.Quote:
13) He's fixing the education system.
More like the American nightmare. A nation so deep in debt that our grandchildren are going to be paying for it, so lacking in respect that the Third World $h!tballs of countries are laughing at our "naivete", so unprepared for a military emergency that the terrorist are licking their chops at the chance to get us again.Quote:
14) He's restoring the American Dream.
I hope YOU can sleep well.
Yep. You have a knack for being wrong more often than almost anyone I know. I'm sure you can do it over and over again. You've certainly proven that.Quote:
I got more if you need 'em.
Excon
Elliot
I'm just going to add to EX's list .
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act of 2009
As I said before your only defense for Bush was we haven't been attacked so by your own parties account Obama is doing a perfect job.
Yes, I'm sure that the Austrians respect his ability to speak Austrian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
I'm sure that PM Gordon Brown is enjoying those DVDs he can't play on his DVD player.
I'm sure 83-year-old Queen Elizabeth is enjoying her iPod.
I'm quite sure that Russian Foreign Minister Lavarov is enjoying his "overcharge" button.
Yes, we're getting that respect back real fast...
Elliot
Yes... a brilliant move. Let's make companies open to even more frivolous lawsuits, increase the costs of diong business and lower profitability... right in the middle of a recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I thought we were talking about things he has done right so far.
Pay the person fairly no law suit. Simple how that works.
Negotiate the salary BEFORE you take the job. If it isn't fair, don't take the job. See how simple that works?Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
ET while that may work for some jobs we both know that is not the case at all companies.
Say what?!Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
If you don't like the pay, don't take the job. If you take the job but don't like the pay, find another job. But if you take a job and don't like the pay, don't complain that someone else made you do it. You shouldn't blame the employer for getting the best deal he could find. He's in the business of making money, not paying salaries that are higher than he is able to negotiate.
It works that way in every capitalist society in the entire world at every company. Heck, it works that way in many non-capitalist societies around the world.
At what company does it NOT work that way?
Elliot
The act is so people don't get taken advantage of. You can't sit there and say to a woman everyone starts $10.00 per hour there is no negotiation. Then a man walks in for the same job same qualification but he starts at $12.00 simply because he has a pair. It is not about liking the salary it is about treating everyone as an equal but I wouldn't expect the right to understand that concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
How can you honestly say that you know that the pay you are offered/negotiate is comparable to the pay of persons in your same position?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Should men really be paid at a higher consideration then women for doing the same job?
Even if I agreed with the law I know I would not agree to the retroactive aspect of the law as written which removes statutes of limitations. All it does is make work for slip and fall lawyers .
I expect any victory would expand to class action actions against individual employers and industries.
Also you should worry about employers now being risk adverse of hiring women for fear of future litigation and law suits .It will also have a negative effect on the rewarding productive workers. Employers may fear that rewarding an employee for exceptional work will come under a cloud of litigation from a disgruntled employee who claims wage discrimination.
I work in employment litigation and it doesn't work like that.
So I guess then the real problem was that the female employee was the only unproductive worker and the male employees should have been earning 15% - 41% more than their female counterpart?
Spit and JustWantFair:
First of all, since when did "fair pay" mean that everyone had to earn the same thing as everyone else? Just because the other guy is earning $12 doesn't mean that I get to earn $12 too. It all depends on what I negotiate before I sign on to the job.
Am I getting paid what I BELIEVE IS FAIR COMPENSATION FOR ME? Can I live on the agreed upon salary? Those are the questions that I need to ask myself before I take a job. I can also do some research on the job market and find out if what is being offered is market rate. If I don't like it, I don't have to take the job.
But if I take the job and some other guy comes along and negotiates a better deal that I did, what does that have to do with me? That's between the other guy and the employer. It's got nothing to do with me. And if I don't like it, I can ask for more, and if I don't get it I can quit.
This idea that everyone has to get equal pay is a joke. Perhaps my work is better than yours. Perhaps I'm better at smiling at clients than you are. Perhaps I'm just a better negotiator. Or perhaps we are exactly the same, and I got lucky. So I'm making $ per hour more than you. Your boss agreed to pay you $10 per hour. You agreed to the job on that basis. You want more? Get another job, if you can find it.
You guys are operating under the impression that if I get more than you, it's because you are being "oppressed"... that the extra money that is coming to me is somehow coming out of your pocket. You are acting like a bunch of victims. This victim mentality among libs drives me nuts sometimes.;
If you are getting the amount that was agreed upon, why do you care what anyone else is making? Who cares what sex the other person is? Who cares what their race is? I made a deal with the boss, and that's between me and him. You made a deal with the boss and that's between you and him. And neither of us has an effect on the other's deal.
I have been working in Banking for 15 years. Some of the people that I trained with back in the day are now making significantly more than I am. None of them are Jewish, and I am. Am I being descriminated against because of my religion?
Maybe they were better at negotiating a deal than I am? Or they made better career moves than I did. Or perhaps they are just luckier than me.
That's life. It ain't descrimination. It's business. If the woman doesn't like it, she can find another job at a company that doesn't "descriminate" by offering her as low a salary as they can get away with... the same as they do with everyone else they offer jobs to.
Elliot
Perhaps she was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justwantfair
Perhaps she was incompetent.
Perhaps she was a troublemaker.
Perhaps she was untrained compared to her counterparts.
Or perhaps she was exactly as productive and as well trained as every single one of them... or even better than them... and she just made a bad deal for herself.
Why is that the employer's fault? Why is that DESCRIMINATION?
Not everyone is a victim. Sometimes life just happens.
Elliot
She worked for the company for 19 plus years, so you believe that she was unfairly compensated because she just made a bad deal for herself?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yes, if after 19 plus years every male is compensated 15-41% higher than I am then there is a fault with the employer for unfair treatment. If the reason is because I am a female then that is called DISCRIMINATION.
Not everyone is a victim, but they don't hand out verdicts for the plaintiff's that are not victims.
If you pay someone less because of their sex race or religion it is discrimination. That is the entire point of the act. So say this a women goes and negotiates the same way a man does the boss says sorry ms. jones the raise is the raise. The man goes in negotiates the same way and the boss says Mr. Smith you got it. That is discrimination. Do you get it yet BUB
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It is often times among middle management, the lowest salaried personnel are African-American or female, so are you telling me that everywhere African-Americans and women can not do the same jobs with the same skills as Caucasian White Males? These are statistics.
The reason that acts like this are in place is because it is discriminitory to evaluate an employee based on race and sex. These are actions of oppression and they do take place in America. Companies should be aware of these practices and not be participating in them. That doesn't mean that productive employees should not be compensated and rated accordingly.
What doesn't work like that ? An employer being risk adverse because of the possibility of future litigation ?Quote:
it doesn't work like that.
Does a dismissed as frivolous action mean that the plaintiff has to pay compensation for bringing on the suit... including court costs ?
Let me predict what will happen as a result of this act. Employers will not let wages rise to equal levels... they will take steps to shrink them to equal levels.
If businesses start paying workers the same amount even though their productivity differs because they fear that judges and juries will not be able to understand how productivity is determined, the law would impose significant costs on businesses .Employers will vet a prospective employee in advance to try to determine if that individual will likely be a "trouble maker " who would bring litigation in the future.
Losing the statute of limitations is a complete joke. Ledbetter waited until she retired to bring the lawsuit against Goodyear. If she truly was being discriminated against she should've filed sooner when particular events related to her complaint was still fresh in witnesses minds. Memories fade witnesses move on and key documents related to the complaint get destroyed over time.
Do you actually believe all that? Or are you just yankin' our chains?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Are you saying because she's old she wouldn't be able to comprehend such technology?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If not, it is common knowledge the Queen loves listening to music. In fact she alreaqdy has an iPod. Why wouldn't she be grateful for a thoughtful gift?
My mom taught me if I had nothing nice to say...
But let us say I was a LIBERAL :
1] $400,000 to planned parenthood abroad
2] opening up tax dollars to EMBRYONIC stem cell research despite the lack of positive human results.
3] hiring "do as I say, not as I do" folks like Geithner, Sebellious for cabinet positions
4] meeting with Hugo Chavez and accepting his book
5] calling Americans "arrogant"
6] bowing to the saudi king
7] closing Gitmo
8] scaring the crap out of New Yorkers
9] firing a CEO
10] RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH
:)
G&P
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Exactly how many 83-year-olds do you see walking around with ipods? There's a reason for it. There is a reason that younger people tend to be more technology savvy than older people of the same intelligence. As we age, our brains actually begin to harden, and we become less capable of the brain flexibility necessary to learn new technology. This has been shown in numerous neurological studies (I'll try to see if I can find a citation, but don't bet on it right now).
Even if they somehow understand computer technology and how to use a cell phone (which also happens to be a rarity among octogenarians), she can barely hear or see... she's 83 friggin years old. An iPod with a 2 inch screen and earbuds is not exactly a piece of technology she can get much use from.
I am quite sure she appreciates music. But she wouldn't know what the heck to do with an iPod, and wouldn't be able to use one effectively if she did.Quote:
If not, it is common knowledge the Queen loves listening to music. In fact she alreaqdy has an iPod. Why wouldn't she be grateful for a thoughtful gift?
Elliot
THEN QUIT AND FIND A NEW JOB THAT PAYS YOU WHAT YOU THINK YOU DESERVE!! I'm sure that someone with 19 years experience who doesn't have any problems in their past can find a better paying job if she is underpaid. Even if she is being underpaid because she's a woman (which is pretty hard to prove in any case, unless you can prove a pattern of it occurring within that company... and if she is the sole female employee you can't prove a pattern of descrimination in pay for women), so what? She has other employment options!! She can get another job!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Justwantfair
Oh, puhleese. Do you truly believe that?Quote:
Not everyone is a victim, but they don't hand out verdicts for the plaintiff's that are not victims.
Do I need to bring up the case of the lady who bought a coffee from McDonalds, held the coffee in her lap while driving, even though she had cup holders in the car (a point not often talked abut in that case), and spilled the coffee on herself and sued McD's and won $2.86 million ($160,000 in damages and $2.7 million in "punitive damages")?
Here are a few more cases of awards to non-victims:
A woman was playing golf and hit a shot which ricocheted off railroad tracks that run through the course. The ball hit her in the nose and she won $40,000 because the golf course had a "free lift" rule. (This allows golfers to toss balls which land near the rails to the other side.) The woman alleged that because the course allowed a free lift, they were, in effect, acknowledging the rails to be a hazard.
A man who had purchased a BMW took his new car to a detailing shop for a fancier look and discovered that the car had been partly repainted before it was sold, due to damage done by acid rain. The man was awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages, and $4 Million in punitive damages. The court upheld the verdict, but cut the punitive damages to $2 million.
A jury awarded $178,000 in damages to a woman who sued her former fiance' for breaking their seven-week engagement. The breakdown: $93,000 for pain & suffering; $60,000 for loss of income from her legal practice, and $25,000 for psychiatric counseling expenses.
A 27-year-old man from Michigan was involved in a rear-end collision. Four years later, he sued the owners of the truck that was responsible for the accident. Having suffered minor injuries, he stated that from then on, his sexual relationship with his wife deteriorated, as he was unable to maintain their sex life. He claimed that he had been so affected by the crash that his personality had been forever changed. In fact, he maintained that the accident turned him into a homosexual. He left his wife, moved in with his parents, began hanging out in gay bars, and became a fervent reader of gay literature. He won his case and was awarded $200,000, while his wife received $25,000.
THis one is from Canada: An Ontario woman who got drunk at an office party and crashed her car has successfully sued her employer for allowing her to drive -- even though her company offered a cab ride or accommodation if she gave up her keys. Linda Hunt, 52, won more than $300,000 in damages and interest from Sutton Group Realty Ltd. of Barrie, Ont. after arguing her boss should have stopped her from driving home in a snowstorm following a 1994 Christmas party." The judge assessed Hunt's damages from the resulting accident at C$1.2 million, but reduced that by three quarters to reflect her own fault in the matter. He "went on to declare it the duty of employers to monitor the alcohol consumption of employees at company functions."
In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.
Are you really prepared to argue that courts don't give awards to people who aren't victims? They do it all the time.
Hello again, El:
Your solution, of course, would be to limit the awards, even badly injured people get. I swear you own insurance company stock.
excon
No, excon. I have told you what my solution is. I think we should have a grand jury system for civil cases. That way, the frivolous cases get thrown out quickly and the meritorious ones move on to trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But I seem to be the only one with that concept.
Still, you are again going off topic. The question here isn't what to do about frivolous lawsuits. My point is a refutation of the statement that "people aren't awarded money by courts if they aren't victims".
You seem to be having trouble staying on topic, excon. Are you suffering from ADD?
(I don't have ADD... it's just that... oh, look, a bunny!! )
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I've noticed. Isn't it getting lonely?
excon
So far in his 1st 100 days he's at least managed to mesmerize the media. They apparently drank the Koolaid.Quote:
Watchdogs are heeling for Obama
By: Richard Benedetto
April 28, 2009 04:37 AM EST
Last week, I asked my journalism and political science students at American University to grade the news media covering the Obama administration for the first 100 days. The consensus fell between a C+ and a B-.
However, if I asked President Barack Obama's media strategists to grade the press corps covering their boss, I bet they would mark their cards with an A.
Why? With few exceptions, the mainstream news media have been dutifully pushing the Obama message, burnishing his carefully crafted image and offering few challenges when he makes questionable or misleading pronouncements, gestures or policy statements. In short, they seem mesmerized by the glamour of this new and different president. He is keeping them so busy with skillfully staged daily travel, speeches, meetings and photo ops that they hardly have time to ask tough questions or add context to their stories. Whatever Obama says, or doesn't say, is usually good enough for them.
No comment from the president on pirates taking hostage the captain of a U.S.-flagged ship? No problem.
Get a new dog? Three days of extensive coverage everywhere.
Obama strategists must be giving each other fist bumps as they chortle, “Boy, have we got them eating out of our hands.”
See also
The message they've been successfully pushing from Day One is that Obama is not bad old George W. Bush. Everything they have Obama do or say, from apologizing for American arrogance in Europe to releasing CIA memos outlining interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, carries a not-Bush subtext.
And the news media have been only too happy to press that message, even when facts suggest otherwise. The Bush brand is so damaged, and Obama is so cool, they see no need to set the record straight when it's necessary.
For example, when Obama spoke to the Turkish Parliament earlier this month, the big news story was his declaration that the United States “is not and never will be at war with Islam.”
The phrase was headlined everywhere as a major departure from the bellicose Bush, who, by implication, was at war with Islam.
But one fact was missing from most news stories. Bush said the same thing many times, including in September 2006, before the United Nations General Assembly — hardly an obscure forum.
“President Bush tried to quell anti-Americanism in the Middle East yesterday by assuring Muslims that he is not waging war against Islam,” The Associated Press reported at the time.
Bush's declaration might have fallen on deaf ears for many reasons. Nonetheless, Obama was only echoing his words. To say so is context in reporting. Lending the impression that Obama said it first is not. But it is precisely the impression the White House hoped to create. The news media obliged.
Another example: Last week, when Obama attended the Summit of the Americas, he again seemed to draw a contrast with Bush by suggesting that anti-American sentiment in Latin America stemmed from the U.S. (Bush) ignoring the region's humanitarian needs.
“If our only interaction with many of these countries is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence,” Obama said in a news conference.
The widely reported statement went unchallenged in the press. But the fact is that in fiscal 2008, the U.S. under Bush sent nearly $1 billion to Latin America for such nonmilitary needs as schools, health care, anti-poverty programs, refugee assistance and economic development.
A few news outlets, notably The New York Times on April 3, have sporadically noted some similarities between the policies of Obama and Bush, especially in foreign affairs. Yet the media honeymoon continues:
• Rock-star coverage by the TV networks of the president and first lady's tour of Europe.
• An April 12 puff piece on White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on the front page of The Washington Post, followed two days later by a similar profile of his deputy, Mona Sutphen.
• A touching April 19 New York Times article, fed to the paper by the White House, on how the president reads 10 letters a day from ordinary citizens who write him.
This is all well and good, as long as we do not forget our function as government watchdog. So far, we have.
B- is a bit generous. C+ is about right. It's time to start barking.
Richard Benedetto is a retired USA Today White House correspondent and columnist. He now teaches journalism and politics at American and Georgetown universities.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They did. People like Brian Ross of ABC, Mort Kondrake, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, David Gregory, and most of the MSM did.
They haven't changed since they lead the charge into Iraq. Their trumpeting is as wrong now as it was then. There are a few bloggers who didn't sip the koolaid, though. Neither did Keith Olbermann.
excon
If it's right it's right, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't base my ideas on what others say or think... not even Rush Limbaugh.
Contrary to your opinion of me, I do think for myself.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 AM. |