The Obama Administration thread

[Smoking Guns]

I read today Obama is leaving taxing the middle class as an option to fund the health care plan.  He didn't say he was going to, but he said it will remain an option.  Something he said during the campaign he wouldn't have to do.  Please advise my friends.

SG

[freedom78]

How 'bout that activist court decision today!  The SC took the idea of suspect classifications and created an entirely new rule about how employers should deal with people on race based grounds.  They created an entirely new precedent...the very definition of activism!  And, yet, I've not heard a single conservative denounce it?!?!  Whaaaaa?

I read today Obama is leaving taxing the middle class as an option to fund the health care plan.  He didn't say he was going to, but he said it will remain an option.  Something he said during the campaign he wouldn't have to do.  Please advise my friends.

SG

It's a bad idea, though how bad depends on the size of the tax.  If it's low, like say 1%, then I'd bite and say that that's the cost of everyone contributing to a solution.  If it's considered a part of normal income, such that your (again, making these numbers up) $5000 employer contribution is taxed at 20% (e.g. $1000)...well, that's a bad idea.  It really just depends on the size of the tax.  In general I'm against it, but I could live with it at a very low level (if necessary to get this done).

[Smoking Guns]

Tell me about the decision Freedom, I just caught a second of it.  Were the men not deserving?  The media painted it as the men were victims, not the other way around.

[freedom78]

Tell me about the decision Freedom, I just caught a second of it.  Were the men not deserving?  The media painted it as the men were victims, not the other way around.

Actually, I tend to support the decision.  The whole thing really strikes me as stupid.  A written test to determine if you can be promoted in firefighting?  That's like having a backhoe driving test to make middle management.  Makes no sense. 

Anyway, the city had this dumb test but, like most tests, it was standardized and, since "white" is the standard...well, that's the problem with these tests to begin with (other than their complete lack of applicability to firefighting, so far as I can see).  Anyway, the city had this dumb test but didn't want to get sued, so they didn't promote white people and instead promoted black people.  As I said...dumb begets dumb, here.  They have a small problem and, instead of doing away with the test and choosing new criteria (perhaps fire fighting and leadership skills?  call me crazy!), they have people take the test and then don't follow the results.  So, in general, I support this decision.  If you have a rule, you can't simply change it after the fact.  The rule itself is problematic, and should be done away with, but you can't punish people for playing by the rules and doing well. 

The activist tenor of it is that the Court has created a new rule, that your reason for using affirmative action can't simply be to avoid litigation, as it apparently was in the case of this town.  Affirmative action generally is the idea that racial/sex diversity is, in and of itself, a compelling characteristic (I tend to think this argument makes much more sense in education than in business/work, but that's another story).  In this case, racial diversity wasn't sought because the city felt that it was important to have diverse leadership, but to avoid a lawsuit.  A dumb reason, to my mind, but there you have it.  Anyway, this new rule essentially creates a new precedent, which will now be applied in all such affirmative action related cases, until such time as the court overturns this precedent or the policy itself is no longer active. 

A second feature of this case is that nominee Sotomayor was the Circuit (Appeals) Court Judge who handled the case.  You'll notice that Rush, et al are pointing out how racist she was for ruling against the white firefighters, but that's nonsense.  She did what appeals court judges do...apply precedent, as created by the Supreme Court.  The funny thing is that SHE took the approach of applying precedent, the Court's conservative majority took the approach of being activists, and many conservatives are being hypocritical in supporting judicial activism (which they decry as an evil of liberalism...which it is not...see DC v. Heller for another very recent case of conservative judicial activism).  So, even though I generally agree with the decision, I find it irresistible to point out this hypocrisy.  Both sides are "activist"...sometimes good, sometimes bad.

[Smoking Guns]

Tell me about the decision Freedom, I just caught a second of it.  Were the men not deserving?  The media painted it as the men were victims, not the other way around.

Actually, I tend to support the decision.  The whole thing really strikes me as stupid.  A written test to determine if you can be promoted in firefighting?  That's like having a backhoe driving test to make middle management.  Makes no sense. 

Anyway, the city had this dumb test but, like most tests, it was standardized and, since "white" is the standard...well, that's the problem with these tests to begin with (other than their complete lack of applicability to firefighting, so far as I can see).  Anyway, the city had this dumb test but didn't want to get sued, so they didn't promote white people and instead promoted black people.  As I said...dumb begets dumb, here.  They have a small problem and, instead of doing away with the test and choosing new criteria (perhaps fire fighting and leadership skills?  call me crazy!), they have people take the test and then don't follow the results.  So, in general, I support this decision.  If you have a rule, you can't simply change it after the fact.  The rule itself is problematic, and should be done away with, but you can't punish people for playing by the rules and doing well. 

The activist tenor of it is that the Court has created a new rule, that your reason for using affirmative action can't simply be to avoid litigation, as it apparently was in the case of this town.  Affirmative action generally is the idea that racial/sex diversity is, in and of itself, a compelling characteristic (I tend to think this argument makes much more sense in education than in business/work, but that's another story).  In this case, racial diversity wasn't sought because the city felt that it was important to have diverse leadership, but to avoid a lawsuit.  A dumb reason, to my mind, but there you have it.  Anyway, this new rule essentially creates a new precedent, which will now be applied in all such affirmative action related cases, until such time as the court overturns this precedent or the policy itself is no longer active. 

A second feature of this case is that nominee Sotomayor was the Circuit (Appeals) Court Judge who handled the case.  You'll notice that Rush, et al are pointing out how racist she was for ruling against the white firefighters, but that's nonsense.  She did what appeals court judges do...apply precedent, as created by the Supreme Court.  The funny thing is that SHE took the approach of applying precedent, the Court's conservative majority took the approach of being activists, and many conservatives are being hypocritical in supporting judicial activism (which they decry as an evil of liberalism...which it is not...see DC v. Heller for another very recent case of conservative judicial activism).  So, even though I generally agree with the decision, I find it irresistible to point out this hypocrisy.  Both sides are "activist"...sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I gotcha, and I agree.  Courts don't make laws, they inforce them.  But it does sound like they got this one right, even if activists. 

[freedom78]

Tell me about the decision Freedom, I just caught a second of it.  Were the men not deserving?  The media painted it as the men were victims, not the other way around.

Actually, I tend to support the decision.  The whole thing really strikes me as stupid.  A written test to determine if you can be promoted in firefighting?  That's like having a backhoe driving test to make middle management.  Makes no sense. 

Anyway, the city had this dumb test but, like most tests, it was standardized and, since "white" is the standard...well, that's the problem with these tests to begin with (other than their complete lack of applicability to firefighting, so far as I can see).  Anyway, the city had this dumb test but didn't want to get sued, so they didn't promote white people and instead promoted black people.  As I said...dumb begets dumb, here.  They have a small problem and, instead of doing away with the test and choosing new criteria (perhaps fire fighting and leadership skills?  call me crazy!), they have people take the test and then don't follow the results.  So, in general, I support this decision.  If you have a rule, you can't simply change it after the fact.  The rule itself is problematic, and should be done away with, but you can't punish people for playing by the rules and doing well. 

The activist tenor of it is that the Court has created a new rule, that your reason for using affirmative action can't simply be to avoid litigation, as it apparently was in the case of this town.  Affirmative action generally is the idea that racial/sex diversity is, in and of itself, a compelling characteristic (I tend to think this argument makes much more sense in education than in business/work, but that's another story).  In this case, racial diversity wasn't sought because the city felt that it was important to have diverse leadership, but to avoid a lawsuit.  A dumb reason, to my mind, but there you have it.  Anyway, this new rule essentially creates a new precedent, which will now be applied in all such affirmative action related cases, until such time as the court overturns this precedent or the policy itself is no longer active. 

A second feature of this case is that nominee Sotomayor was the Circuit (Appeals) Court Judge who handled the case.  You'll notice that Rush, et al are pointing out how racist she was for ruling against the white firefighters, but that's nonsense.  She did what appeals court judges do...apply precedent, as created by the Supreme Court.  The funny thing is that SHE took the approach of applying precedent, the Court's conservative majority took the approach of being activists, and many conservatives are being hypocritical in supporting judicial activism (which they decry as an evil of liberalism...which it is not...see DC v. Heller for another very recent case of conservative judicial activism).  So, even though I generally agree with the decision, I find it irresistible to point out this hypocrisy.  Both sides are "activist"...sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I gotcha, and I agree.  Courts don't make laws, they inforce them.  But it does sound like they got this one right, even if activists. 

I agree with the vote...not necessarily the new "rule". 

I think Ginsburg made a good point in her dissent when she pointed out that such tests have long been used as a way to discriminate without having an outright discriminatory policy, which is true. 

[sandman]

"if you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not go up.  Not one dime."

[Jdog0830]

 

WSJ: Global warming skeptics grow in number


Excerpts:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Another: MIT team baffled as to why their scientific study shows global warming to be part of the earth's natural cycle, and not man-made

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Yes the new religon and god is Al Gore.

[Jdog0830]

"if you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not go up.  Not one dime."

Dam right!!!!!!!!!!

[D]

Did u see Obama checkin out the hot chick's ass?

[Axl4Prez2004]

Did u see Obama checkin out the hot chick's ass?

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14430477&ch=4226716&src=news
Unfortunately, the video shows Obama's not checking it out...but Sarkozy?   

[Drew]

Anyone else catch one of the daughters "representing" America this week in Rome? WTF?

She's got the Paris Hilton trashy slut look down pat! And who is the thug walking with her? That's 'change' for you!

[freedom78]

^She's wearing a Tshirt and shorts...OUTRAGEOUS!

[Drew]

^She's wearing a Tshirt and shorts...OUTRAGEOUS!

Short shorts to be exact! As I said, she has the Paris Hilton trashy slut look down pat and she's hanging out with strange thugs.

As they say....."representin" 

[Annie]

The shirt does have a peace sign, and it was probably very hot in Rome. She looks like a petite Tyra Banks. She does look older in that picture but not trashy. she's not wearing daisy dukes.

[Bill 213]

Did u see Obama checkin out the hot chick's ass?

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14430477&ch=4226716&src=news
Unfortunately, the video shows Obama's not checking it out...but Sarkozy?   

Haha absolutely Obama is okay....he used the peripheral vision nicely.........Sarkozy, not so much...he was digging the booty.

[Drew]

The shirt does have a peace sign, and it was probably very hot in Rome. She looks like a petite Tyra Banks. She does look older in that picture but not trashy. she's not wearing daisy dukes.

She looks like a skank to me. As if she's just been to her audition to be in a rap video. Definitely someone who's not representing the U.S. appropriately. Looks like she's already hanging out with the rapper though.

[freedom78]

The shirt does have a peace sign, and it was probably very hot in Rome. She looks like a petite Tyra Banks. She does look older in that picture but not trashy. she's not wearing daisy dukes.

She looks like a skank to me. As if she's just been to her audition to be in a rap video. Definitely someone who's not representing the U.S. appropriately. Looks like she's already hanging out with the rapper though.

I can only imagine what women must wear where you're from if you think that that looks skanky, not to mention the fact that she's something like 12 years old and your interpretation of her outfit jumped right to sexuality, which is far more disturbing than the outfit itself.  You want wrong, look to those little girls made up for those creepy beauty pageants, because that's downright freaky. 

FYI, and for future reference, this is what girls from rap videos look like (a fairly conservative example):



She's dressed nothing like the often degrading portrayals of women you see in music videos. 

Do you really hate the Obamas so much that you have to turn your attacks to calling his kids sluts? 

[Drew]

Do you really hate the Obamas so much that you have to turn your attacks to calling his kids sluts? 

You obviously can't read correctly. No where did I say she was a slut. I said she has the slutty look down pat. That's a lot different than calling her a slut.

I thought that President's children were fair game here? You must have not been around for the past eight years. If the girls are going to parade around like Hollywood stars than they better have the stomach to take criticism.

If I disagree with anything these people do, I will make it known. I haven't even got around to how the family is always on vacation and find that they have to go every where to be seen when their father is on business.

I thought this was a time of "sacrifice" and how everyone needs to tighten their belt. I wonder what their fucking carbon foot print has been for the past five months. Not to mention the mother who wears $500 pair of shoes and was carrying a $6000 purse while on vacation in Rome.

I guess all the talk about "sacrifice" is for everyone else but NOT for themselves. The diarrhea coming out of this guy, his wife, and the Administration's mouth is intolerable.

[freedom78]

Do you really hate the Obamas so much that you have to turn your attacks to calling his kids sluts? 

You obviously can't read correctly. No where did I say she was a slut. I said she has the slutty look down pat. That's a lot different than calling her a slut.

Nice defense there, Johnny Cochrane.  I'll keep that in mind.  Put "looks" in front of something and you're not being an insulting asshole...must come in handy.   

I thought that President's children were fair game here? You must have not been around for the past eight years. If the girls are going to parade around like Hollywood stars than they better have the stomach to take criticism.

This girl is 11 or 12.  Bush's daughters were adults, one of whom got into trouble with the law.  Big difference (much bigger than your difference between "looks slutty" and "slutty"). 

If I disagree with anything these people do, I will make it known. I haven't even got around to how the family is always on vacation and find that they have to go every where to be seen when their father is on business.

So, Air Force One flies somewhere and you're concerned about what?  The extra weight of two 100 pound kids?  Perhaps she took her shorts instead of the burqa you'd have her wear, to cut down on the extra weight! 

I thought this was a time of "sacrifice" and how everyone needs to tighten their belt. I wonder what their fucking carbon foot print has been for the past five months. Not to mention the mother who wears $500 pair of shoes and was carrying a $6000 purse while on vacation in Rome.

Who cares?  And where did you get all this?  You post a picture, call her slutty, and now are critiquing something completely unrelated. 

I guess all the talk about "sacrifice" is for everyone else but NOT for themselves. The diarrhea coming out of this guy, his wife, and the Administration's mouth is intolerable.

The President makes $400,000/year...I'm surprised you aren't happy he's letting it trickle down.