slkshock7
 
  -1  
Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:08 pm
Here's our great president.......exercising his superior oratorical skills, with, of course, the help of that ever-present teleprompter...

To whom? Well...believe it or not...a classroom of 6th graders.... Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
Can't the guy do any talking without that crutch???

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9Bx0L3n3uAo/S1zXiHKAx3I/AAAAAAAAGyU/mu_nuQEXw58/s400/obamasixthgraders.jpg

What a freakin' moron....
okie
 
  -1  
Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:30 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Here's our great president.......exercising his superior oratorical skills, with, of course, the help of that ever-present teleprompter...

Where the master of "uhhhhhs" ever got the reputation of being a great orator, I don't know for sure, slkshock7, but a strong suspicion is the mainstream media said he did, and therefore all the suckers out there swallowed the koolaid. I never thought he was ever great, from the very first speech I heard, never. It may be another myth about him that will eventually be dispelled.
Advocate
 
  1  
Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:52 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Are all govt no bid contracts illegal?
If they are, then why is the current admin continuing the process?

http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/04/01/NMCI.aspx


How could there be bidding if there is no competitor?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:16 pm
@Advocate,
This is interesting...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/

Quote:
Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.



But here is the interesting part...

Quote:
The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News


So the admin cancelled the bidding process after they came to power?
Why?

And then the USAID has the gall to say something like this...

Quote:
Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too "busy" to comment on it. "I'll tell it to the people in Haiti," Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.


And the company that got the contract apparently KNEW they were getting it on a "no bid" basis...


Quote:
Contacted by Fox News, Checchi confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.

Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: "After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea."



So this admin, after raising hell about the no bid contracts under Bush, is apparently doing the same thing.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:26 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

Here's our great president.......exercising his superior oratorical skills, with, of course, the help of that ever-present teleprompter...

Where the master of "uhhhhhs" ever got the reputation of being a great orator, I don't know for sure, slkshock7, but a strong suspicion is the mainstream media said he did, and therefore all the suckers out there swallowed the koolaid. I never thought he was ever great, from the very first speech I heard, never. It may be another myth about him that will eventually be dispelled.


He got that reputation by being a great Orator. This presumption that you guys have that one cannot be considered a great public speaker if they use a teleprompter is idiotic.

I guarantee that, with or without a teleprompter, none of you mouth-breathers could come anywhere close to the man's skills in this area. Nowhere close.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Absolutely no comparison; like cheese and baking soda.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:47 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

Here's our great president.......exercising his superior oratorical skills, with, of course, the help of that ever-present teleprompter...

Where the master of "uhhhhhs" ever got the reputation of being a great orator, I don't know for sure, slkshock7, but a strong suspicion is the mainstream media said he did, and therefore all the suckers out there swallowed the koolaid. I never thought he was ever great, from the very first speech I heard, never. It may be another myth about him that will eventually be dispelled.
You never stop pushing the envelope on just how idiotic one person's perspective can be. Turn Rush off for a few minutes and see if you can tell for yourself where his reputation came from:
Irishk
 
  3  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:54 pm
@slkshock7,
He didn't use that setup to speak to the students. He was giving a news conference. I don't think he took any questions, though.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:30 pm
Obama is attempting to take away our freedoms. He is attempting to take away our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a solely Executive Government. He is attempting to take away our Capitalist Economy and replace it with a Redistributionist Economy.

Multiple examples of Obama advocating that which constitutes his attempting to take away our Constitutional Republic and replace it with an Executive Government, and to take away our Capitalist Economy and replace it with a Redistributionist Economy, have been posted here. Continuation of Stimulus, proposed 2nd Stimulus, extension of TARP, extension of Fannie and Freddie, advocating Cap & Trade, elimination of charter schools, and extension of federal healthcare, are a few examples.

The current status of these attempts by Obama is an acceleration of the decline of less than 3 million jobs in 2008, from total USA employment of more than 146 million in 2007, to a decline of more than 5 jobs million in 2009.

The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic and our Capitalist Economy is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is leading the unconstitutional transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:23 pm
@ican711nm,

CORRECTION
The current status of these attempts by Obama is an acceleration of the decline of less than 3 million jobs in 2008, from total USA employment of more than 146 million in 2007, to a decline of more than 5 MILLION JOBS in 2009.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:32 pm
@ican711nm,
You're so freq'n stupid, I wonder why I even bother to refute your stupid posts. The unemployment increase happened during GWBush's tenure, and it carried over into 2009, BECAUSE it's impossible to turn around a great recession on a dime.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Mon 25 Jan, 2010 08:22 pm
I read the other day about how wonderful things were going in Haiti with U.S. relief efforts and how determined Obama was to learn all of the terrible lessons of how bad Bush screwed up in regard to Katrina. Of course the political spin to blame Bush for everything about Katrina is very familiar to us all. And of course the fact is totally lost on the liberal media that if not for Bush, the loss of life due to Katrina would have been far higher than it was, because of the utter incompetence of the Democatic governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans.

And there is no doubt that if Bush was still president, the spin on how lousy our response has been in Haiti would have begun immediately after the quake. But at least Fox News is perhaps going to broadcast what is happening down there with Obama's incompetent operations:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583829,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r1:c0.000000:b0:z5

Italy's Disaster Chief Blasts 'Pathetic' U.S. Aid Work in Haiti.Guido Bertolaso, the head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, told Italian television on Sunday that the U.S. military "tends to confuse military intervention with emergency intervention," and that despite the presence of 13,000 U.S. troops there, "no one is giving orders."

He said there is a danger that aid will be lost by the "inefficient" operation.

Bertolaso threw darts at targets ranging from former President Bill Clinton to the United Nations, which he faulted for throwing aid packages at the island and hoping for the best.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583829,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r1:c0.000000:b0:z5
dyslexia
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 07:24 pm
@okie,
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 07:53 pm
Reagan in 1982 cut Carter's maximum income tax rate from 70% to 50% and then to 38.5% and then to 33%. Since then, the maximum tax rate has remained below 40%. Since 1982, total jobs grew from less than 100 million to more than 145 million in 2008. In 2009, jobs decreased to below 140 million. Even though since 1987 the maximum tax rate has remained below 40%, federal receipts have increased annually since 1987. Furthermore, GDP has increased annually up to and including 2008.
Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]

1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]

1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%

1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH 41 1989-1993]

1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%

1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]

2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%

2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

ANNUAL POPULATION AND JOB DATA
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
1980...................... 167,745,000.................99,302,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981...................... 170,130,000………….....100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000.................99,526,000
1983..................... 174,215,000...............100,834,000
1984..................... 176,383,000...............105,005,000
1985..................... 178,206,000………........107,150,000
1986..................... 180,587,000...............109,597,000
1987..................... 182,753,000...............112,440,000
1988..................... 184,613,000...............114,968,000
1989..................... 186,393,000...............117,342,000 [BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1990..................... 189,164,000...............118,793,000
1991..................... 190,925,000...............117,718,000
1992..................... 192,805,000…….….......118,492,000
1993..................... 194,838,000...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..................... 196,814,000...............123,060,000
1995..................... 198,584,000………….....124,900,000
1996..................... 200,591,000...............126,708,000
1997..................... 203,133,000………….....129,558,000
1998...................... 205,220,000...............131,463,000
1999..................... 207,753,000...............133,488,000
2000..................... 212,577,000...............136,891,000
2001..................... 215,092,000………………136,933,000 [BUSH 43 2001-2009]
2002...................... 217,570,000...............136,485,000
2003..................... 221,168,000...............137,730,006
2004..................... 223,357,000...............139,252,000
2005..................... 226,082,000………….....141,730,000
2006...................... 228,815,000……..........144,427,000
2007..................... 231,867,000...............146,047,000
2008..................... 233,788,000...............145,362,000
2009..................... 235,810,000...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009-?]

MONTHLY POPULATION AND JOB DATA

2008:
August........................ xxxxxxxxxxx………...145,273,000
September……………... xxxxxxxxxxx…………145,029,000
October....................... 234,612,000…….....144,650,007
November................... 234,828,000..........144,144,000
December.................... 235,035,000.........143,338,000



2009:

January...................... 234,739,000...........142,099,000
February.................... 234,913,000...........141,748,000
March........................ 235,086,000……......140,887,000
April.......................... 235,271,000............141,007,000
May........................... 235,452,000...........140,570,000
June........................... 235,655,000...........140,196,000
July............................ 235,870,000...........140,041,000
August....................... 236,087,000...........139,649,000
September................. 236,322,000..........138,864,000
October..................... 236,550,000...........138,275,000
November ................ 236, 775,000…….……138,381,000
December ................. 237,005,000….…...…137,792,000


Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BUDGET RECEIPTS OUTLAYS SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS 1789-2012 (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

YEAR " FEDERAL RECEIPTS " TERM %CHANGE

1976 " 379,292 --
1977 -- 355,559 CARTER
1978 -- 399,561
1979 -- 463,302
1980 -- 517,112 -- +36.3
1981 "- 599,272 REAGAN
1982 "- 617,786
1983 "- 600,562
1984 "- 666,486 -- +28.9
1985 "- 734,088
1986 "- 769,215
1987 "- 854,353
1988 "- 909,303 -- +36.4
1989 "- 991,190 BUSH 41
1990 "- 1,032,094
1991 "- 1,055,093
1992 "- 1,091,328 -- +20.2
1993 "- 1,154,471 CLINTON
1994 "- 1,258,721
1995 "- 1,351,932
1996 "- 1,453,177 -- +33.2
1997 "- 1,579,423
1998 "- 1,721,955
1999 "- 1,827,645
2000 "- 2,025,457 " +39.4
2001 "- 1.991,426 BUSH 43
2002 "- 1,853,395
2003 "- 1,782,532
2004 "- 1,880,279 -- -7.2
2005 "- 2,153,859
2006 "- 2,407,254 -- +28.0 (over 2 years)
2007 "- 2,540,096
2008 "- 2,662,474 -- +41.6 (over 4 years)


Quote:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=

Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
Today is: 2/9/2009 Last Revised on January 30, 2009 Next Release Date February 27, 2009

1976 " 1,825.3 ---------
1977 -- 2,030.9 CARTER
1978 -- 2,294.7
1979 -- 2,563.3
1980 -- 2,789.5 -- +52.8
1981 "- 3,128.4 REAGAN
1982 "- 3,255.0
1983 "- 3,536.7
1984 "- 3,933.2 -- +41.0
1985 "- 4,220.3
1986 "- 4,462.8
1987 "- 4,739.5
1988 "- 5,103.8 -- +29.8
1989 "- 5,484.4 BUSH 41
1990 "- 5,803.1
1991 "- 5,995.9
1992 "- 6,337.7 -- +24.2
1993 "- 6,657.4 CLINTON
1994 "- 7,072.2
1995 "- 7,397.7
1996 "- 7,816.9 -- +23.3
1997 "- 8,304.3
1998 "- 8,747.0
1999 "- 9,268.4
2000 "- 9,817.0 " +12.8
2001 "- 10,128.0 BUSH 43
2002 "- 10,469.6
2003 "- 10,960.8
2004 "- 11,685.9 -- +19.0
2005 "- 12,421.9
2006 "- 13,178.4 -- +12.8(over 2 years)
2007 "- 13,807.5
2008 "- 14,208.7 -- +21.6(over 4 years)

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:58 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The worst defects of our current system arise from the absence of market forces in the patient care giver relationship. The notion that we can solve this problem through government oversight and management is based on the rather dubious principle that the clumsy hand of government can somehow do a better job.

Well said and an excellent point. For politicians to believe this and to try to put the principles into practice, said politicians must first believe in capitalism, free markets, and market forces, which are the cornerstones or should be the cornerstones of our economy. Unfortunately, I do not think Obama or the Democratic Party believe in these principles, so until we can elect credible politicians that believe in the basic foundational principles of this country, which includes free markets and capitalism, then we are up a creek without a paddle. The best hope we have is to sweep as many Democrats out of office as is possible in coming elections, both houses of Congress, in the administration, and following that in the bureaucracies of this country.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:01 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You never stop pushing the envelope on just how idiotic one person's perspective can be. Turn Rush off for a few minutes and see if you can tell for yourself where his reputation came from:

Bill, you may wake up one day and realize you can stop drinking the mainstream media koolaid, and Obama koolaid, and try educating yourself a bit from the alternative media. It doesn't need to be Rush, it can be any one of the dozens out there, that have educated themselves and are trying to educate an ignorant population that swallows the crap put out there by the liberal media for the people the liberal media folks think are all as ignorant as they are.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:13 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
For politicians to believe this and to try to put the principles into practice, said politicians must first believe in capitalism, free markets, and market forces, which are the cornerstones or should be the cornerstones of our economy.


This country still operates under a capitalistic economy. Our government does not own the commercial enterprises of this country.

What and how you perceive the US is off by 180 degrees. You should go to North Korea where you might learn what a communistic/socialist economy is really like.

Even then, I doubt it will penetrate your ignorant brain.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
This country still operates under a capitalistic economy. Our government does not own the commercial enterprises of this country.

What and how you perceive the US is off by 180 degrees. You should go to North Korea where you might learn what a communistic/socialist economy is really like.

Even then, I doubt it will penetrate your ignorant brain.


OKie is not completely wrong. 9% of american jobs are directly with the government, and if you include education (primary and university) and contractors who support education and the military about 25% of American jobs are public sector funded.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 11:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hardly makes it a communist country. What's your point?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Tue 26 Jan, 2010 11:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
that a huge chunk of the american economy is neither free market or capitalist, so when OKIE complains that so and so does not believe that free market capitalism is the end all be all of the american economy he might be correct.

I dont think that we know enough about Obama to know what he believes, but I know that I dont believe in free market capitalism anymore.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1549
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 10:18:32