News What are Barack Obama's Books About?

[WhoWee]

http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=7968

Ultimately the Sec of Transportation will decide where the money goes, so I don't think this qualifies as pork as it may not serve Reid's constituency. Also, an LA to Vegas run may be be a logical beginning for a national HS rail system.

Ok, I get it...this isn't Harry's train...it's "Barry's" train...LOL!

 

[OmCheeto]

There may not be time. Apparently the latest numbers indicate that the economy is still in free-fall.

Well, at least we're not alone:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/15/japanese-economy-in-free-fall/"
Tokyo's GDP faces steepest drop since '74
David M. Dickson (Contact)
Sunday, February 15, 2009

Wednesday, 26 September, 2001, 13:37 GMT 14:37 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1564612.stm"

Oh wait. That's us. Only it was 8 years ago.

Weeeee! We're doing it again.

Let's see who else is on the roller coaster.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/business/23markets-414378.php"
By Matthew Saltmarsh
Published: January 23, 2009

Gads. This will take forever looking at each country.

Lets try by region.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25053226-36418,00.html"
Nicholas Winning | February 14, 2009

Hmmm... How about Asia?
Japan's tanking.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22661&prog=zch"
Albert Keidel
January 22, 2009

On January 22, China released a draft of economic statistics on its economy for the year 2008. At the same time it released GDP growth data for individual quarters that showed it falling to 6.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, down from 9.0 percent in the previous quarter and 13 percent for all of 2007.

Question: Is China’s economy in free fall?

hmmm... Their economy is still growing but someone is asking if their economy is in freefall?
Ah hahahaha!

Bah! Who can trust what comes out of China.
Stinkin' lyin' media controlling commie reds...
I bet you by this time next year they'll be beggin' for winter wheat.

...

Anyways. I don't know what this has to do with Obama.

But maybe this is why he will now do anything to keep the world from tanking.

Even if it means breaking a few promises.

Godspeed Barack. Godspeed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Senators Graham [R] and King [R] were on ABC's This Week yesterday complaining that there's not enough money for infrastructure.
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek

 

[WhoWee]

Anyways. I don't know what this has to do with Obama.

But maybe this is why he will now do anything to keep the world from tanking.

Even if it means breaking a few promises.

Godspeed Barack. Godspeed.

How many is a few broken promises...one a year, a month, a week, a day?

Are we changing the rules for him...different standard in difficult times?

He needs to be MORE accountable...that was his platform.

I don't want to hear that Mr. Geithner doesn't have any details after the President (the day before) said he'll explain in full and give all the details of the new plan.

This is no time to shoot from the hip and see what sticks...especially after Biden said there's a 30% chance (something they're planning) won't work.

This stimulus plan had to be voted on before anyone even read it NO TIME TO WASTE...fear tactics and broken promises are not confidence builders...and that's what we need right now more than anything...CONFIDENCE in our leaders and trust in what the say.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=7968

Ultimately the Sec of Transportation will decide where the money goes, so I don't think this qualifies as pork as it may not serve Reid's constituency. Also, an LA to Vegas run may be be a logical beginning for a national HS rail system. Vegas has been one of the fastest growing areas of the country.

Any project dedicated to infrastructure might be considered someone's pork, but we do need infrastructure. And we are way behind many European and some Asian countries in terms of rail transportation.

I think HS rail is great based on its cool factor if not its economics. Last I looked it is not very cost effective compared to alternatives for various reasons, for one thing US geography is dwarfs the EU and Japan. On the other hand the government has already subsidized the roads that compete with HS, nor is there a cost attached to additional car pollution. (Another reason for a gas tax). Perhaps a loss-leader kick start of HS rail will bring costs down.

Regards special interests, the rail has to go somewhere, somebody's state has to benefit. Also I don't know how the term earmarks apply to this spendulous bill. AFAIK earmarks are traditionally attached by individual Members after bills are written and pass committees; this bill didn't go through any committees. So either the entire thing is a giant earmark or none of it is.

My main criticism for Harry's rail is: it won't stimulate anything in this recession, it will take way too long! There's no way a maglev train is shovel ready. Again: this should have been ripped out per Rivlin, debated and properly have been put in an energy or transit bill. Its a LIE to put it this bill and say it will employ the unemployed.

 

[Skyhunter]

Geithner outlined the strategies.

The tactics will evolve.

And if the members of Congress did not take the time to read the bill during the last three months while it was being written and debated... well then is that not more a reflection on them than it is the President?

 

[OmCheeto]

How many is a few broken promises...one a year, a month, a week, a day?

Are we changing the rules for him...different standard in difficult times?

He needs to be MORE accountable...that was his platform.

I don't want to hear that Mr. Geithner doesn't have any details after the President (the day before) said he'll explain in full and give all the details of the new plan.

This is no time to shoot from the hip and see what sticks...especially after Biden said there's a 30% chance (something they're planning) won't work.

This stimulus plan had to be voted on before anyone even read it NO TIME TO WASTE...fear tactics and broken promises are not confidence builders...and that's what we need right now more than anything...CONFIDENCE in our leaders and trust in what the say.

Nixon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZmjMa2hLXpc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZmjMa2hLXpc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Reagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eHXq8TRejow&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eHXq8TRejow&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

George H.W. Bush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E5DZBFbMdjI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E5DZBFbMdjI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiIP_KDQmXs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiIP_KDQmXs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

W
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Slmr024JYaA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Slmr024JYaA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And just to be fair and balanced:

Barack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EY5CQnOn75c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EY5CQnOn75c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If I have said it once, I have said it 4 times; "Politicians will do and say what they have to, to get elected"

Barack, in spite of what Rush and his peers have stated, is not the messiah.

If McCain had been elected, I'd be cheering him on right now, in spite of what he may have said during his campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

My apologies to everyone, if any of these are fabricated.
And my apologies for leaving out President Carter. I could not find any clips from before or during his presidency which indicated he was a typical president.

 

[WhoWee]

In spite of being our most intekkigent President, Carter was probably too honest...he gave us too many details...he looked weak (especially during hostage crisis)...remember the flip charts? Aside from 3 mile...we didn't listen to Carter...nobody wanted to hear about drive 55 and lower the thermostat, etc.

Reagan came in and said don't worry about it...I'll take care of this...everything is fine...then he spent the Soviets into collapse.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.military.com/veterans-report/president-reviewing-coffin-photos-ban?ESRC=vr.nl

Week of February 16, 2009
President Obama said Monday he is considering whether to overturn a Pentagon policy that bans the media from taking pictures of the flag-draped coffins of U.S. troops returning from the battlefield. A leading military families group says the policy, enforced without exception during the administration of former President George W. Bush, should let survivors of the dead decide whether photographers can record their return. To learn more, http://www.military.com/news/article/president-reviewing-coffin-photos-ban.html" on Military.com.

I believe in the early part of the primary's I stated that I was glad that a chronological peer might be going into office.

I wonder if Barack sat in front of a TV, as a 10 year old, watched the body count like I did, and think to himself; "Man, that's stupid".

 

[WhoWee]

I believe in the early part of the primary's I stated that I was glad that a chronological peer might be going into office.

I wonder if Barack sat in front of a TV, as a 10 year old, watched the body count like I did, and think to himself; "Man, that's stupid".

It's a slippery slope...flag draped coffins are one issue...body bags another...we need to respect the dead and their families.

He needs to be clear.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's a slippery slope...flag draped coffins are one issue...body bags another...we need to respect the dead and their families.

He needs to be clear.

Yes. I thought about this a bit more and decided it would just open up a pandora's box of paparazzi and media buttheads trying to get a good clear shot of tears and asking stupid questions like, "how do you feel?", etc, etc.

But getting back to understanding Barack, I ran across a brief article about him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/13/ST2007121301893.html"

By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 14, 2007; Page A12

This undated photo released by Obama for America shows Barack Obama and his father, also named Barack Obama. Obama's father left the family to study at Harvard when Barack was just two, returning only once. Obama wrote poignantly about this visit in his memoir, remembering the basketball his father gave him, the African records they danced to, the Dave Brubeck concert they attended. Obama, then 10, never saw his father again.

 

[WhoWee]

Can anyone explain this yet?

 

[Scuzzle]

I've thought about that, and after listening to all of the talking heads and radio personalities, I've decided that he isn't calling for a literal civilian military. It's likely that his idea of a "civilian security force" is an organization, or group of organizations, who are given the task of communicating the Democrat values and principles (or, more importantly, his values and principles) to America. He'll count on millions of volunteers to wage a constant, yet passive, advertising campaign for his agenda. Think "Obama's Witnesses".

 

[WhoWee]

I've thought about that, and after listening to all of the talking heads and radio personalities, I've decided that he isn't calling for a literal civilian military. It's likely that his idea of a "civilian security force" is an organization, or group of organizations, who are given the task of communicating the Democrat values and principles (or, more importantly, his values and principles) to America. He'll count on millions of volunteers to wage a constant, yet passive, advertising campaign for his agenda. Think "Obama's Witnesses".

Like ACORN?

 

[WhoWee]

I've thought about that, and after listening to all of the talking heads and radio personalities, I've decided that he isn't calling for a literal civilian military. It's likely that his idea of a "civilian security force" is an organization, or group of organizations, who are given the task of communicating the Democrat values and principles (or, more importantly, his values and principles) to America. He'll count on millions of volunteers to wage a constant, yet passive, advertising campaign for his agenda. Think "Obama's Witnesses".

Those are not his words:

 

[Art]

Here is a link to his whole speech on 'service'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw&NR=1

He is talking about people volunteering for non-profit charities with greater financial support from the gov't. He gives an example of a Harlem group *Harlem Children's Zone" who help and mentor children from deprived backgrounds.

His stated goal is to have more people involved in their communities to improve their environment. For example by having students help weatherise homes it not only helps the less well off but also helps with America's security as it reduces dependence on foreign oil. By having community groups tackle the reasons behind gang violence it also helps with security both directly though less violence and indirectly through freeing up police resources.

Tellingly, some people here seem to have automatically equated service and security with some form of military service and military goals which is not the sense in which he was using the term and highlights perhaps why this speech needed to be made. There are many more ways to serve one's country than donning a uniform and carrying a gun. Any notion he was calling for a 'civilian military' or a Democratic fifth column is not only utter nonsense but is the complete opposite of the message he was communicatimg as is plainly obvious when one listens to the whole speech, though given the selective nature of the section of his speech quoted one can see why it could be open to misinterpretation to the gullible which was no doubt the intention of whoever posted it on YouTube.

 

[BoomBoom]

Can anyone explain this yet?

It is amusing how they can take a little clip and completely disregard the context of what he was actually talking about and clip the words just so it sounds like he is discussing something else...specifically to distort the message.

In another clip (of the same speech) that included just a few words before your clip started, the true message is clear. Those words were: "by 2011, to renew our diplomacy.". He is obviously talking of diplomatic efforts.

Simply ridiculous...


EDIT: I just noticed Art posted the whole speech as I was typing. (listening now) Thanks, for that...hopefully it will clear up things for the conspiracy theory nuts.

 

[BoomBoom]

Indeed after listening to the speech, preceding the clip being mis-characterized he says: "we will double the size of our peace corps by 2011, to renew our diplomacy." ...ooooh scary!

Look for yourselves, it starts at about 16:35 in the speech that Art linked above.