Obama's next move

[thxleo]

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/11/12/obama-administration-intends-to-purge-republicans-from-the-civil-service/

[Skippy911sc]

That is just plain crazy!

Did you read everything including what the CHOC is and what they do.. oh and when they were enacted. Just because all hiring must run through he office does not a conspiracy make. Now go back to the basement and put your tin foil hat back on. You know what the Obama administrations plan for tin foil is???

Come on!
http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588


The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) carries out many important responsibilities for the President and the American people but none is more important than our statutory responsibility to ensure the best qualified candidates are selected for Federal jobs after fair and open competition. In light of the historical origins of the civil service system, OPM’s role as guardian of the merit system is especially important when a Federal agency selects a political appointee for a position in the civil service. While political appointees may not be excluded from consideration for Federal jobs because of their political affiliation, they must not be given preference or special advantages.

[darth los]

Even if that was true the Rove and Bush Administratin Never did anything like that right? :rolleyes:


Lesson here?: When it's your parties turn to govern do things in a way that wouldn't piss you off if the other side did it. Because , i know it's hard to believe, you're party is not always going to be in the majority.

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

The repubs will reach for anything to bash Obama while he cleans up the mess Bush left from 8 years of idiotic policies and half assed management.

[DubiousComforts]

The same partisan nonsense is happening in NJ now that a Republican won the governorship. N.J. Gov.-elect Chris Christie considers declaring financial state of emergency (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/nj_gov-elect_chris_christie_co.html)

Laying off thousands of state employees in a bad economy will do nothing to provide property tax relief in NJ, yet all my friends and relatives that hate paying tax on their fancy homes will ignore this story and keep spamming my e-mail box with right wing-spread falsehoods about the size of Nancy Pelosi's jet which I don't think will help to provide property tax relief, either.

Welcome to Crazy World.

[JDFP]

The repubs will reach for anything to bash Obama while he cleans up the mess Bush left from 8 years of idiotic policies and half assed management.

"Cleans up"? I'd love to see him attempt to clean up the piss-poor management that Bush led, instead he's going further into the opposite direction with even greater piss-poor management and direction than what Bush had. Then again, at least Bush had pride and didn't bow before Saudi kings and apologize to every other nation in the world for America being great. I'm not partisan on the issue, I hated Bush as a sad excuse for what great men like Dutch stood for, and I hate Obama because of his leftist socialist policies that aren't worth a communal pot to piss within either. They're both lousy excuses for presidents.

"Oh, but you should give Obama a chance." -- really? Why? I don't agree with his policies. I don't agree with his agenda. I think he stands for everything that will lead America away from what makes America great (private industry, economic greatness, etc.). I will give him a chance in hoping he makes the right decisions to dump his ridiculous agenda of harming private industry instead of helping it so we can get out of the crap state of affairs we are in now. If he can accomplish this, I'll be happy to say he's a better man than Bush Jr. and a finer president. After the dismal failure of his nearly first full year in office and unemployment being higher than 10%, I'd say he's still down at least one peg on Bush Jr. currently.

"When Obama wins, I won't have to pay for my gas anymore!", and weeping people with "tingling up their legs" (here's to you, Chris Matthews), and silly 18-20 year old kids screaming "YES WE CAN!" while few of them have ever voted in any election previously or could hardly name a single policy O. supports following him just because he's "Cool!" and the bigger reason because he's "Not Bush" -- let's see where these folks are in O's 2012 bid.

j.p.

[TheSeasonOfFire]

lol @ linking stuff from RedState

[DubiousComforts]

silly 18-20 year old kids screaming "YES WE CAN!" while few of them have ever voted in any election
The NJ Republican governor-elect just ran and won on the exact same slogan. Still think you can tell the difference between both parties?

[deadpunk]

The NJ Republican governor-elect just ran and won on the exact same slogan. Still think you can tell the difference between both parties?

For real?! Omg...thats hysterical! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Honestly, I can't believe people still choose to vote based off of party affiliation. Thats like saying; "Sure my car is a piece of crap. But, I've been buying pieces of crap faithfully from the same company for years. I believe in loyalty." Idiocy.

[blind2d]

Politics are idiotic. It's like... we hold these people up and think they're so great... just because of the publicity and position, not because we actually care or think about what they're trying to do... same problem with vapid celebrities and tabloids. Still, I can't help feeling a little safer when I look at Obama... but the same can be said for Romero... I dunno... - 2D
Aaaaaaaand you rarely do. - Murdoc

[Arcades057]

Fuck the sides, both parties are the problem. Neither side is doing 100%, or even 50% the right thing. Raising taxes, lowering incentives, HUGE new spending proposals; McCain would not have been better than Obama in this respect, as he would've done the same thing.

We're killing ourselves by voting strictly D or R in elections.

[Danny]

Fuck the sides, both parties are the problem. Neither side is doing 100%, or even 50% the right thing. Raising taxes, lowering incentives, HUGE new spending proposals; McCain would not have been better than Obama in this respect, as he would've done the same thing.

We're killing ourselves by voting strictly D or R in elections.

reminds me of a stephen king quote from years ago "i might vote for one party or another, but im not to be leabled as 'in there camp' i have some views that are liberal, others conservative, no person is strictly one of the other"

picking a badge and sticking with it is stupid, everyone changes, someone you backed even a year ago might suddenly decide to do something you dont like because there a different person to you. just because your in the same party you aint gonna agree on everything. It's why i dislike the notion of one political group vieing for all the power when it comes to politics, all voices need to be heard, all options weighed and opinions counted for to truly express a judgement on a problem across all spectrums of the social groups of your country.

[blind2d]

Amen!

[shootemindehead]

America has been dead politically for years.

The pretence that their is a real difference in the two (:lol: two) parties is laughable and the vitriol with which partisans of each "persuasion" attack each other is nothing short of despicable.

The US needs another revolution. It needs to gut its political system from the top down and do it all over again...right, this time.

The Republicans and the Democrats may claim to be two different sides. But, they are two sides of the same coin.

[strayrider]

America has been dead politically for years.

The pretence that their is a real difference in the two (:lol: two) parties is laughable and the vitriol with which partisans of each "persuasion" attack each other is nothing short of despicable.

The US needs another revolution. It needs to gut its political system from the top down and do it all over again...right, this time.

The Republicans and the Democrats may claim to be two different sides. But, they are two sides of the same coin.

Right. Let's "take our guns to town" and string a few of them up. We'd see a vast improvement in the quality of our "leaders" if we did this every couple of decades.

:D

-stray-

[mista_mo]

So, when is he going to cure poverty? Because like, I totally heard him say that at some point.....perhaps.

[Exatreides]

Originally Posted by JDFP http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?p=207381#post207381)
"silly 18-20 year old kids screaming "YES WE CAN!" while few of them have ever voted in any election"



Er...You do realize how stupid a statement that is? Since it was 18-20 year olds first election to vote on right?

You see the 26th Amendment of the constitution enables 18 year olds to vote.

Here's a simple wikipedia link, I suggest you read up about things before you make outlandish claims like you invented the question mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[acealive1]

Originally Posted by JDFP http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?p=207381#post207381)
"silly 18-20 year old kids screaming "YES WE CAN!" while few of them have ever voted in any election"



Er...You do realize how stupid a statement that is? Since it was 18-20 year olds first election to vote on right?

You see the 26th Amendment of the constitution enables 18 year olds to vote.

Here's a simple wikipedia link, I suggest you read up about things before you make outlandish claims like you invented the question mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution










amen to that

[deadpunk]

I suggest you read up about things before you make outlandish claims like you invented the question mark.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I believe the point JDFP was trying to drive home was that Obama clearly capitalized on the pop culture movement to acquire voters. No denying that. However, it's hardly like he is the first president to secure votes in this manner, from either side of the fence.

:shifty:

[Arcades057]

This election it was the Dems using the kids, minorities, the poor, the disenfranchised, and the elderly to get them elected; next election it might be the Republicrats using the kids and the elderly... The right can't use the minorities--96% of blacks voted for the "black guy" and Hispanics typically vote more D than R for some reason--nor can they use the poor or disenfranchised, as the right typically says "get a job and we'll make it easier for you to take home more money" while the left says "screw getting a job, we'll take care of you for sitting at home!" Can't argue against that sort of logic.

But I can see the republicrats taking the elderly from the left in this next election by terrifying them with tales of the loss of their insurance due to the health care bill, or the death panels that will come to their homes dressed like the Grim Reaper to steal their wallets and kill their poodles or whatever it is they do.

One of the things to consider in politics is the backswing, or Newton's law of motion: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We had Carter in the late 70s, who was by all accounts a far-left winger (for the times; his brand of leadership today would probably be seen as a left-wing Republican), yet due to Carter's screwing of the pooch that was the eceonomy, the Iran hostage fiasco, and his general, following Carter we had Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who was as right-wing as Carter was left (today his brand of leadership in the US would be seen as some sort of facist state, because not many collage-aged kids understand the meaning of facism, having no all-powerful regime that actually does evil things, like the Soviet Union.

From Reagan, we received Bush the 1st, also right-wing, but a bit less-so than Reagan. Bush the 1st was a right-winger that even the left could get along with. From him, we got Clinton--due not least of all to Perot running on the 3rd party ticket and taking 20-something-percent of the vote.

For the most part, Bill Clinton was NOT a left-winger. He had a variety of positions--ha ha--and most of them were centrist. Was he a limp-wrist on national defense? Sure he was. Did he improve/maintain the economy? Definitely. Being that he was moderate-left on the political scale, he left us with...

George Bush the 2nd: A left-wing Republican. Now, I hear some of you gasping, but the right--conservatives--do not, did not, and will not believe in enlarging government and increasing spending; yet our government is now larger and spends more due to Bush's policies.

See? From a far-left Carter we got a far-right Reagan; from a moderate-right Bush, we got a moderate-left Clinton. From a moderate-left Clinton, we got a moderate-yet-sometimes-far-right Bush; from that, we got Obama, a far-left--indisputably, I believe--democrat with socialist leanings.

So what do we get from there? Judging by the way things have gone, here's what I think. Obama and Co. need to pull of a "oh shit we found bin Laden" sort of coup prior to '10 to hold the majority, otherwise they'll lose seats galore. If they DO lose seats, expect the right to pull off a coup of their own, either like in '94 where their Contract with America won Clinton's next election for him, or by simply doing... nothing... which would make Obama look like a failure and a lame-duck, thereby assuring the election of whoever was running against him.

If Obama pulls off a win, we're screwed. The economy can't take any more spending, but it will not slow down with him in charge--nor would it have slowed if McCain had been elected, I know. A far-left-controlled government is the 2nd worse thing that could possibly happen to us right now, and that's what we have. High taxes; low to no incentives for new industry; businesses taxed into closing or opening up overseas; 2 wars that we can't afford being fought without any clear idea as to WTF is going on, while we try to pass a health care bill nigh-upon 1 trillion dollars which, guess what, we ALSO can't afford, which will, in turn, lead to more taxes on YOU and a debt approaching 13 trillion friggin dollars.

If the next election follows the curve, though, we'll wind up with the worst possible thing we could have right now, which is a far-right-controlled House and presidency. We do NOT need another war, nor can we afford one; we DO need lower taxes, the unions neutered and working WITH business, and this ridiculous health care bill defeated; but we don't need the current crop of republicans in charge, any more than we need the democrats.

/wall o'text

[JDFP]

Originally Posted by JDFP http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?p=207381#post207381)
"silly 18-20 year old kids screaming "YES WE CAN!" while few of them have ever voted in any election"



Er...You do realize how stupid a statement that is? Since it was 18-20 year olds first election to vote on right?

You see the 26th Amendment of the constitution enables 18 year olds to vote.

Here's a simple wikipedia link, I suggest you read up about things before you make outlandish claims like you invented the question mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution





As others have pointed out, not my point. Slow down on the melodramatic condescension above there, chief.

The point I was making was that we had a bunch of silly kids voting for someone without ever having participated in an election previously, all excited and ramped up for making a dramatic change in a country when they really had no idea whatever the hell they were really voting for to begin with at all. For the majority of them, it was about electing "Not Bush" to office.

It was a media-driven election, and the kids were 100% pawns in the process. Nothing more meant on that, dude.

Personally, I think the voting age should be bumped up to 21 for everyone (with exception to military) and that people should, at minimum, have some type of standard intelligence (some type of test to prove that the voter knows the policies of the politician) in order to vote. The problem with America isn't in being a republic, but a democracy -- allowing almost any idiot to vote without understanding what they are voting for but because it is "cool!" to vote for so and so. Before I'm flamed for believing there should be national-political intelligence tests for voting, I think it should be across the board for almost ALL Americans before voting.

j.p.

[Arcades057]

.

Personally, I think the voting age should be bumped up to 21 for everyone (with exception to military) and that people should, at minimum, have some type of standard intelligence (some type of test to prove that the voter knows the policies of the politician) in order to vote.
j.p.

Quoted for truth with the bolded part being the most important. I thinik it should be 21 or older regardless of military service, as service itself does not inherently assume upon the individual enough maturity or intelligence to guide the courrse of a nation.

ETA: The only ones to gain from a standarized test to gauge the intelligence/political awareness of the electorate IS the electorate. Had we a more informed population we would have more honest pool of politicians to vote for. As it stands, voters rarely delve into the truth behind their favorite politician's words, though they have no problem searching for lies and fault with the other side. Should we as a nation ever get beyond the squabling of right vs. left and look at BOTH parties/candidates with a truly discerning eye, we just might be able to improve things around here.

Voting drives like the Vote of Die campaign and Rock the Vote were never about getting more informed voters to the polls, they were ALWAYS about getting more ininformed 18-20-year-olds to the polls to vote for the candidate du-jour; that's why people stand outside the polling places with pamphlets to "make it easier, since this is your first time voting."

Now, does anyone want to tell the class, for extra credit, who the candidate's du-jour were in the last three elections?

[deadpunk]

Personally, I think the voting age should be bumped up to 21 for everyone (with exception to military) and that people should, at minimum, have some type of standard intelligence (some type of test to prove that the voter knows the policies of the politician) in order to vote. The problem with America isn't in being a republic, but a democracy -- allowing almost any idiot to vote without understanding what they are voting for but because it is "cool!" to vote for so and so. Before I'm flamed for believing there should be national-political intelligence tests for voting, I think it should be across the board for almost ALL Americans before voting.


I'm okay with moving voting to 21. "Okay kid, not old enough to drink? How about you slide into that booth and appoint the most powerful man in the world, instead?" Never reeeeeeally been a good idea.

However, depriving people from the right to vote based off their intelligence? Or even their level of political awareness? You're kind of redefining 'democracy' there. Not a huge fan of the idea, tbh. :rockbrow:

[TheSeasonOfFire]

Should we as a nation ever get beyond the squabling of right vs. left and look at BOTH parties/candidates with a truly discerning eye, we just might be able to improve things around here.

And saying things like "liberalism is a mental disorder" is helping the discourse?

[deadpunk]

And saying things like "liberalism is a mental disorder" is helping the discourse?

A person's sigature does not change the facts of what they've posted. Nor should it negate their point-of-view when they are giving it in a civil manner.

[clanglee]

However, depriving people from the right to vote based off their intelligence? Or even their level of political awareness? You're kind of redefining 'democracy' there. Not a huge fan of the idea, tbh. :rockbrow:

No you are right. . .but I would totally support intelligence test for the right to breed!!! If I ran the world, stupid people would be sterilized. Nuff Said, vote for me in 2012!!!!!

[deadpunk]

No you are right. . .but I would totally support intelligence test for the right to breed!!! If I ran the world, stupid people would be sterilized. Nuff Said, vote for me in 2012!!!!!

You get my vote :D

[blind2d]

Same here!
Oh, and to be really annoying and sum up the political situation as concisely and immaturely as possible: People in positions of power suck.
Ooh, alliteration!

[Arcades057]

And saying things like "liberalism is a mental disorder" is helping the discourse?

Huh, I forgot all about that. Rarely do I read my own posts...

[darth los]

Hispanics typically vote more D than R for some reason

Sonya Sotomayor. Nuff said.

Whether real or percieved the feeling is out there among minorities that the reps are just not on the "side" of brown people. Oh, and you can now add A-rabs to that list as well.

Just take a look at every tea party/anti healthcare rally/Sarah Palin book signing, and for the life of me I can't find a brown face in the crowd. Not that there's anything wrong with that but it does say alot.


:cool:

[Arcades057]

Sonya Sotomayor. Nuff said.

Whether real or percieved the feeling is out there among minorities that the reps are just not on the "side" of brown people. Oh, and you can now add A-rabs to that list as well.

Just take a look at every tea party/anti healthcare rally/Sarah Palin book signing, and for the life of me I can't find a brown face in the crowd. Not that there's anything wrong with that but it does say alot.


:cool:

They're there, you just have to look for them.

Here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgdWL8pjo6I)
Here's another (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obv54MpGDiM)
Yet another (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gTAdRT-5oo&feature=related)
Another (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Ksfrpyllw)

I see your Sotomayor and raise you a Thurgood Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall) (A group of Democratic Party Senators led by Mississippi's James Eastland held up his confirmation, so he served for the first several months under a recess appointment) and a Clarence Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) (Making reference to the failure of Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork, she said of Thomas, "We're going to 'bork' him."[42] The liberal campaign to defeat the Bork nomination served as a model for liberal interest groups opposing Thomas.)

Now compare that to the falling-all-over-themselves that the republicans did with Sotomayor so as not to appear racist

("I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."[14] Sotomayor had made similar remarks in other speeches between 1994 and 2003, including one she submitted as part of her confirmation questionnaire for the Court of Appeals in 1998, but they had attracted little attention.[164][165] The rhetoric quickly became inflamed, with radio commentator Rush Limbaugh and former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a "racist" (although the latter later backtracked from that claim),[166] while John Cornyn and other Republican senators denounced such attacks but said that Sotomayor's approach was troubling)

Eventually we have to realize it's not about R or D, white or black or brown, but about America. Once we do that, once people stop looking after their race or their own best interests, maybe things can begin to get better.

[ProfessorChaos]

well, the commander in chief is deciding to send an additional 30k troops to afghanistan, much to the dismay of many in his party.

the "troop surge" in iraq had significant positive effects upon country and helped combat the post-invasion insurgency. things are way better these days compared to when i was riding around all day grinding my teeth waiting for the next IED attack or ambush.

i feel that if managed correctly, additional troops and resources diverted to afghanistan (while drawing down numbers and resources in iraq) could help stop the momentum that seems to be going towards the taliban lately.

thoughts?

EDIT: was going to start a new thread for this, but just decided to throw it in this heap.