Obama Press Conference Review

[sealybobo]

You're kinda screwed either way if you give your age so I'd advise not do it. If you're under say 23 the fact that your posts are mostly all insults and void of an intellectual argument of any type would make sense. If you're older than that well, it's just plain sad that you can't muster a reasonable argument.

I repeat Chris, READ THE FUCKING BILL. THEN tell us how desperatly we need this thing. Yes 500,000 jobs in a month is not good. But this backing of Obama just because he's doing something, ANYTHING when you obviously don't know what's even in it is pretty silly. Yes something needs to be done. It also needs to be done right. There are some good thins in it, but for something so urgent you would think they could prioritize a little better, get in it what needs to get in it and get out what doesn't.

I'm in the money, I'm in the money, I can't wait to make a lot of money!!!!

If you want to know what is in the bill, buy the book from me.

COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THE TAX PROVISIONS OF THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS TAX ACT OF 2009 goes for $69.95 a copy.

Remember I told you that I work with this tax stuff? Let the selling begin!!!!

Actually Angel Heart provided a link where I can read the bulk of it for free.

I have a complete analysis. You can't/won't read it all. My book makes it easy to read. Offers recommendations, illustrations, cautions and observations.

Professionals buy my book to make sense of it all. Do not pretend you are smarter than them.

 

[sealybobo]

That's right, it was primarily the democrats, and they blocked any attempt at oversite for two years.

GoP does suck, but your boys were behind this mess, so be sick of it all you want, it was your created problem, and your boys will now make it worse.

Live with it, we all have too.

Revisionist history. Just like that one Redumblican yesterday who suggested that the New Deal didn't work.

What revisionist history? The CRA under DEMOCRAT Carter and reduction of capital under DEMOCRAT Clinton that Fannie and Freddie were required to have on hand and denial by DEMOCRAT Barney Frank that this was unsound. The fact that the housing market collapsed as a direct result of bad debt that these policies encouraged. Explain to me SPECIFICALLY where the revisionist history is.

It is clearer and clearer by the minute you have one MO. Blame GOP even though you obviously are a no nothing when it come to the specifics of, well, anything.

Talking to you is like riding a merry go round. Freddy & Fanny had a teeny weeny bit to do with the housing crash.

Tiny. So while you are not 100% wrong, you also are not right.

And it all ties in together. Send jobs overseas, has something to do with it. Bundling up mortgages has more to do with the crash than Freddy/Fanny. Deregulations. Predatory lending. Approving mortgages that the industry knew would not be worth the $ in a year. Blablabla.

You are a very simple minded person. Easily fooled. Naive. Gullable. Dumb. Mush for brains. Wrong. Liar. Greedy. Ignorant. Foolish.

 

[Bern80]

Revisionist history. Just like that one Redumblican yesterday who suggested that the New Deal didn't work.

What revisionist history? The CRA under DEMOCRAT Carter and reduction of capital under DEMOCRAT Clinton that Fannie and Freddie were required to have on hand and denial by DEMOCRAT Barney Frank that this was unsound. The fact that the housing market collapsed as a direct result of bad debt that these policies encouraged. Explain to me SPECIFICALLY where the revisionist history is.

It is clearer and clearer by the minute you have one MO. Blame GOP even though you obviously are a no nothing when it come to the specifics of, well, anything.

Talking to you is like riding a merry go round. Freddy & Fanny had a teeny weeny bit to do with the housing crash.

Tiny. So while you are not 100% wrong, you also are not right.

And it all ties in together. Send jobs overseas, has something to do with it. Bundling up mortgages has more to do with the crash than Freddy/Fanny. Deregulations. Predatory lending. Approving mortgages that the industry knew would not be worth the $ in a year. Blablabla.

You are a very simple minded person. Easily fooled. Naive. Gullable. Dumb. Mush for brains. Wrong. Liar. Greedy. Ignorant. Foolish.

And you are like talking to a teenager.

The reasons you are giving are exactly what I am talking about. Your last one about approving bad mortgages is EXACTLY what the CRA under (again) DEMOCRAT Carter encouraged. Sending jobs overseas? That isn't what's causing unemployment to go up. We have a consumption based economy and peopel aren't consuming, pretty simple. Bundling mortgages and predatory lending? Be a responsible adult and learn how your mortgage works before you make the sinlge largest investment of your life.

 

[Bern80]

I'm in the money, I'm in the money, I can't wait to make a lot of money!!!!

If you want to know what is in the bill, buy the book from me.

COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THE TAX PROVISIONS OF THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS TAX ACT OF 2009 goes for $69.95 a copy.

Remember I told you that I work with this tax stuff? Let the selling begin!!!!

Actually Angel Heart provided a link where I can read the bulk of it for free.

I have a complete analysis. You can't/won't read it all. My book makes it easy to read. Offers recommendations, illustrations, cautions and observations.

Professionals buy my book to make sense of it all. Do not pretend you are smarter than them.

God help those professionals. When did I pretend I'm smarter than them. I read a bill a disagree with need with the need for much of the spending in it. Not exactly rocket science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges
WSJ
February 11, 2009

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

Barack Obama Prescreens Reporters at Press-Conference - WSJ.com

Imagine if Bush ever had pulled this trick.

 

[dilloduck]

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges
WSJ
February 11, 2009

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

Barack Obama Prescreens Reporters at Press-Conference - WSJ.com

Imagine if Bush ever had pulled this trick.

He probably did but weren't we promised a change ?

 

[Wolf]

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges
WSJ
February 11, 2009

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

Barack Obama Prescreens Reporters at Press-Conference - WSJ.com

Imagine if Bush ever had pulled this trick.

He probably did but weren't we promised a change ?

Well.... at least no shoes where thrown this time...

 

[Sinatra]

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges
WSJ
February 11, 2009

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

Barack Obama Prescreens Reporters at Press-Conference - WSJ.com

Imagine if Bush ever had pulled this trick.

It is troubling. And once again, we were shown that while Mr. Obama can read a speech quite well off his teleprompter, once he gets away from the script he appears far more uncertain - a rambler of sorts whose answers never quite lead to a satisfying conclusion.

 

[elvis]

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges
WSJ
February 11, 2009

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

Barack Obama Prescreens Reporters at Press-Conference - WSJ.com

Imagine if Bush ever had pulled this trick.

It is troubling. And once again, we were shown that while Mr. Obama can read a speech quite well off his teleprompter, once he gets away from the script he appears far more uncertain - a rambler of sorts whose answers never quite lead to a satisfying conclusion.

He's like a great actor. Have you ever seen actors like Pacino, DeNiro, or Gandolfini interviewed on Actors Studio? They don't seem comfortable at all.

 

[Red Dawn]

Some observations...

One, Obama remains uncomfortable - not quite shrill, but clearly out of his comfort zone regarding the mounting opposition to this stimulus package. His answers repeatedly rambled as he attempted to explain positions he is clearly unsure of himself.

Two, Obama's fall-back position is to blame Republicans, despite the fact the Democrats are going on their third year of controlling Congress. This worked well during the campaign when Bush was still President, but is now falling on increasingly deaf ears. There were a few times he slipped into outright whine mode.

Third, His repeated defense of the pork contained within this stimulus bill was Obama at his weakest. As he once said, if you put lipstick on a pig...

Lastly, the questions were soft - Obama clearly went of a list of pre-approved reporters, who meekly posed simple questions that still left Obama grasping for a cogent thought at times. For a press conference that was highly scripted, Obama failed to close the deal - far from it, and gave a performance that while pleasing to his loyal base of supporters, will foster increasing doubts among the population of Americans who favor neither party affiliation.

This President best step up his game...

You know, I think after eight years we all find it jarring and alarming when a president gives intelligent, nuanced, and detailed answers in articulate and grammatically outstanding English.

Yo! I ain't used to this shit!

 

[AllieBaba]

That's another thing I'm sick of.

No, both parties aren't to blame for this mess.

That's right, it was primarily the democrats, and they blocked any attempt at oversite for two years.

GoP does suck, but your boys were behind this mess, so be sick of it all you want, it was your created problem, and your boys will now make it worse.

Live with it, we all have too.

Revisionist history. Just like that one Redumblican yesterday who suggested that the New Deal didn't work.

There's absolutely no hard evidence that the New Deal was responsible for the end of the Depression. Everyone admits it was a program put into effect to have an accumulative effect over a long period of time. And there's no way to tell if it would have done any good because, hello, WWII commenced and all bets were off.

 

[Wolf]

Some observations...

One, Obama remains uncomfortable - not quite shrill, but clearly out of his comfort zone regarding the mounting opposition to this stimulus package. His answers repeatedly rambled as he attempted to explain positions he is clearly unsure of himself.

Two, Obama's fall-back position is to blame Republicans, despite the fact the Democrats are going on their third year of controlling Congress. This worked well during the campaign when Bush was still President, but is now falling on increasingly deaf ears. There were a few times he slipped into outright whine mode.

Third, His repeated defense of the pork contained within this stimulus bill was Obama at his weakest. As he once said, if you put lipstick on a pig...

Lastly, the questions were soft - Obama clearly went of a list of pre-approved reporters, who meekly posed simple questions that still left Obama grasping for a cogent thought at times. For a press conference that was highly scripted, Obama failed to close the deal - far from it, and gave a performance that while pleasing to his loyal base of supporters, will foster increasing doubts among the population of Americans who favor neither party affiliation.

This President best step up his game...

You know, I think after eight years we all find it jarring and alarming when a president gives intelligent, nuanced, and detailed answers in articulate and grammatically outstanding English.

Yo! I ain't used to this shit!

It doesnt matter how BO answers his questions... He has a D next to his name and they wont ever listen.. He could say I have got rid of the IRS, no American has to pay taxes, and they would complain bout something...

After 8 years of Dumbya the deciders new English and bushism answers the (R)etardicans are foolish enough to claim that the new pres can't communicate effectively..

Keep at it.. the pa(R)ty isnt going to get anymore members or votes with what ive seen here... or pretty much on any board...

 

[Xenophon]

Revisionist history.

Yes, your attempt at it isn't working.

Just like that one Redumblican yesterday who suggested that the New Deal didn't work.

That is not a sugestion, that is also a long acknowledged fact, even FDR's own Morganthau admitted the New Deal programs made things worse.

You need to break free of the pedantic habit of 'us/them' and see the real world, the GoP sucks massivily, but no worse them the Democrats, and the Democrats own this thing, their fingerprints are all over it.

 

[Sinatra]

Revisionist history.

Yes, your attempt at it isn't working.

Just like that one Redumblican yesterday who suggested that the New Deal didn't work.

That is not a sugestion, that is also a long acknowledged fact, even FDR's own Morganthau admitted the New Deal programs made things worse.

You need to break free of the pedantic habit of 'us/them' and see the real world, the GoP sucks massivily, but no worse them the Democrats, and the Democrats own this thing, their fingerprints are all over it.

Isn't it remarkable how little history liberals actually know?

Why is that?

 

[Xenophon]

Isn't it remarkable how little history liberals actually know?

Why is that?

Ideolgues never see anything besides us=good them=bad.

That is why the frighten people when they gain authority, from either the right (a Hitler) or the left (a Mao) and rightfully so.

 

[Sinatra]

Isn't it remarkable how little history liberals actually know?

Why is that?

Ideolgues never see anything besides us=good them=bad.

That is why the frighten people when they gain authority, from either the right (a Hitler) or the left (a Mao) and rightfully so.

And yet the currently frightened in this country appears to be a clear minority.

Do you forsee that changing anytime soon?

 

[Xenophon]

And yet the currently frightened in this country appears to be a clear minority.

Do you forsee that changing anytime soon?

It's already begun.

Obama can rally support using his personality and a friendly media, but that only lasts a short while, and it normally only juices up his true believers.

I believe a lot of people voted for him to reject the party of Bush, and they expect more then empty slogans and promises. In this information age, you need to deliver, and that bill is nothing but payback to supporters and long wanted pet projects.

Want to get the economy on track?

Lower the corporate tax rate (ours is SECOND highest in the world, and the true reason they outsource overseas) and stop spending more money then the gov takes in.

We may get some pretty highways from the bill, and no traffic will flow over them as the people who would use them are broke.

 

[Sinatra]

And yet the currently frightened in this country appears to be a clear minority.

Do you forsee that changing anytime soon?

It's already begun.

Obama can rally support using his personality and a friendly media, but that only lasts a short while, and it normally only juices up his true believers.

I believe a lot of people voted for him to reject the party of Bush, and they expect more then empty slogans and promises. In this information age, you need to deliver, and that bill is nothing but payback to supporters and long wanted pet projects.

Want to get the economy on track?

Lower the corporate tax rate (ours is SECOND highest in the world, and the true reason they outsource overseas) and stop spending more money then the gov takes in.

We may get some pretty highways from the bill, and no traffic will flow over them as the people who would use them are broke.

I have been preaching lowering of the corporate tax rate for years and so many just don't believe it - though they also are so stuck in the rut of wanting "the rich to pay their fair share"

Investment dollars would POUR into this country if we reduced to the corporate rate to 20% or even lower. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars that would create jobs, opportunities, industry...

But no, too many want to actually consider RAISING taxes.

Aaargh...

 

[Xenophon]

I have been preaching lowering of the corporate tax rate for years and so many just don't believe it - though they also are so stuck in the rut of wanting "the rich to pay their fair share"

Investment dollars would POUR into this country if we reduced to the corporate rate to 20% or even lower. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars that would create jobs, opportunities, industry...

But no, too many want to actually consider RAISING taxes.

Aaargh...

The 'rich' are already taxed on the money they make, taxing 'corporations' is a giant windfall profit tax that stunts business growth and job creation. 20 % is considered a fair rate for that, our tax is 35%, and they wonder why every IT person resides in India.

 

[Meister]

Some observations...

One, Obama remains uncomfortable - not quite shrill, but clearly out of his comfort zone regarding the mounting opposition to this stimulus package. His answers repeatedly rambled as he attempted to explain positions he is clearly unsure of himself.

Two, Obama's fall-back position is to blame Republicans, despite the fact the Democrats are going on their third year of controlling Congress. This worked well during the campaign when Bush was still President, but is now falling on increasingly deaf ears. There were a few times he slipped into outright whine mode.

Third, His repeated defense of the pork contained within this stimulus bill was Obama at his weakest. As he once said, if you put lipstick on a pig...

Lastly, the questions were soft - Obama clearly went of a list of pre-approved reporters, who meekly posed simple questions that still left Obama grasping for a cogent thought at times. For a press conference that was highly scripted, Obama failed to close the deal - far from it, and gave a performance that while pleasing to his loyal base of supporters, will foster increasing doubts among the population of Americans who favor neither party affiliation.

This President best step up his game...

You know, I think after eight years we all find it jarring and alarming when a president gives intelligent, nuanced, and detailed answers in articulate and grammatically outstanding English.

Yo! I ain't used to this shit!

It doesnt matter how BO answers his questions... He has a D next to his name and they wont ever listen.. He could say I have got rid of the IRS, no American has to pay taxes, and they would complain bout something...

After 8 years of Dumbya the deciders new English and bushism answers the (R)etardicans are foolish enough to claim that the new pres can't communicate effectively..

Keep at it.. the pa(R)ty isnt going to get anymore members or votes with what ive seen here... or pretty much on any board...

Wolf...again with all due respect, Bush did make this country safer after 9-11. I don't like bringing up the past, but the liberals really are forcing the issue with Bush. They can't get off the Bush hating. But, under Clinton we kept having strikes against our great nation along with our embassys in Africa, and lets not forget the USS Cole. Little was being done with the terrorists. After Bush was in office, and after 9-11, we didn't have a strike against our great Nation, nor were there any strikes on our embassys, and there weren't any strikes against our Military ships. This wasn't by accident under the Bush administration. I wasn't a big fan of Bush, he had plenty of short comings, but he did keep this country safer. I just know your going to deny this. Bush haters always do. Five years from now Bush haters will still be bringing his name up. I just don't understand why they can't let go.