Obama

[ASLGAL]

All of presidents are just human that tried their best, they are not something like superhero, messiah, or anything.

If you really believe this statement then you would not be so disparaging toward President Bush.



The Hitler thread reminds me of dear Obama.
How posters described the way common folk were "brainwashed" by fancy speeches to believe in one person and his ideals and adopt them as the only truth.

 

[Jiro]

tsk tsk tsk......

Obama White House breaks another promise to reject Bush secrecy

Well, at least it's bipartisan.

The still sort-of-new Barack Obama Democratic administration has again adopted another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama administration officials have rejected a watchdog group's request for a list of healthcare industry executives who've been meeting secretly in the White House with Obama staffers to discuss healthcare changes being drafted there and in Congress.

According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is suspicious of the influence of health industry lobbyists and company officers, it received a letter from the Secret Service citing an Obama Justice Department directive and denying access to visitor logs under the "presidential communications privilege."

Sound familiar?

Remember the holy hullabaloo in the early Bush years when Vice President Dick Cheney met in the White House compound with energy industry officials and refused to release a list of those executives and the frequency of their visits? That controversy was propelled by critical Democrats and was before Obama's brief Senate tenure.

But wait! Here are a few promises straight off the Obama Organizing for America website early this morning:
The Problem
Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Oh, and this:

Release Presidential Records: Obama and Biden will nullify the Bush attempts to . . .

. . . make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

And this:

Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

These statements are on the same Web page as a highlighted Obama campaign quote: "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

The citizen ethics group has threatened to file a lawsuit against Obama as early as today despite an administration claim that it was reviewing policies.

But it's an inconsistency that someone might ask the president about at his Cleveland town hall meeting Thursday and/or during his prime-time news conference this evening (5 p.m. Pacific, 8 p.m. Eastern). As usual, we'll be watching and have the full transcript here ASAP.

In recent weeks The Ticket has also been regularly chronicling Vice President Joe Biden's numerous "private meetings" in the White House and his Delaware home with unidentified people on unnamed subjects.

And we wondered aloud how such secret get-togethers differed from Cheney's secret meetings. No answer.

But then the other day, as we duly noted here, Biden's White House schedule suddenly stopped listing "private meetings." Instead, it began calling them "meetings that are closed press." A distinction without any practical difference in terms of contradicting candidate Obama's promised governing transparency.

-- Andrew Malcolm

 

[kokonut]

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere



Down..down...down....just like the economy. Only thing that's going up are gas prices, taxes, and seeing the number of dictator pals (over those who want freedom) grow in his black book.

Prezy Obama's approval rating falls below 50% for the first time. The slide downward continues. Gee, the first graph was on July 8, 2009. The second one today. That's 16 days his approval rating still continue to slide downward.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

 

[deafskeptic]

Prezy Obama's approval rating falls below 50% for the first time. The slide downward continues. Gee, the first graph was on July 8, 2009. The second one today. That's 16 days his approval rating still continue to slide downward.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

May I remind you that Ronald Reagan's lowest approval ratings was at 29% at one time? Polls only reflect the current mood. Reagan's approval ratings stayed under 50% the next two years according to CNN. Yet Reagan is considered to be one of our better leaders.

I also fail to see why you would think Obama is considered the "Messiah" by members of his party. People simply seemed to think he was the best one for for a difficult and often thankless job. I do not see anyone putting their total faith in him.

 

[saywhatkid]

May I remind you that Ronald Reagan's lowest approval ratings was at 29% at one time? Polls only reflect the current mood. Reagan's approval ratings stayed under 50% the next two years according to CNN. Yet Reagan is considered to be one of our better leaders.

I also fail to see why you would think Obama is considered the "Messiah" by members of his party. People simply seemed to think he was the best one for for a difficult and often thankless job. I do not see anyone putting their total faith in him.

It doesn't matter what you tell him, or what you show him. He is programmed to hate liberals. You cannot undo that. His mission here and elsewhere it to beat the drums of Conservatism. Like a mosquito, he is best left ignored. His signature is rather ironic when you consider all he does is complain about Obama. There are many other topics here that are much more refreshing to read.

 

[kokonut]

It doesn't matter what you tell him, or what you show him. He is programmed to hate liberals. You cannot undo that. His mission here and elsewhere it to beat the drums of Conservatism. Like a mosquito, he is best left ignored. His signature is rather ironic when you consider all he does is complain about Obama. There are many other topics here that are much more refreshing to read.

No, not the people I hate. Just that I don't subscribe to their ideology and agenda. I'd rather think for myself and use good common sense than to blindly follow a leader purporting to be the "messianic leader."

Obama is doing a good job self-destructing himself taking along the United States with him on the way down on this so sorry business we're seeing.

 

[deafskeptic]

It doesn't matter what you tell him, or what you show him. He is programmed to hate liberals. You cannot undo that. His mission here and elsewhere it to beat the drums of Conservatism. Like a mosquito, he is best left ignored. His signature is rather ironic when you consider all he does is complain about Obama. There are many other topics here that are much more refreshing to read.

I have to say you're right on this one. He'll complain about anyone who's a liberal.

 

[deafskeptic]

No, not the people I hate. Just that I don't subscribe to their ideology and agenda. I'd rather think for myself and use good common sense than to blindly follow a leader purporting to be the "messianic leader."

Obama is doing a good job self-destructing himself taking along the United States with him on the way down on this so sorry business we're seeing.

I have yet to see anything from you that isn't typical of a conservative. So much for being an "independant" thinker.

I've never been one to blindly follow others; I'm fairly anti-authoritian in my politics. I notice that conservatives don't like it when others disagree with them and they seem to lack critical thinking on many things.

You certainly failed to demonstrate that critical thinking with Flip in another thread. Flip is quite clearly knowledgable on the subject. When discussing subjects like climate change, you'd be a lot more creditable on the subject if you quoted stuff from peer reviewed (by scientists) journals on that subject instead of conservative think tanks who are not very creditable on the science stuff.

Btw, I should note that in one of the links that Flip provided in that thread mentioned that about 26% of the scientists trusted Gore on the subject as opposed to 3% trusting sources from the media. That's still quite low and it implicates that the best information on the subject would come from the peer reviewed journals and publications rather than politicians of either parties.

I realize that by saying all this I will not convince you but hopefully I have made others think when they read this.

 

[Hwy99]

If you really believe this statement then you would not be so disparaging toward President Bush.

I have my own agreement to disagreement, even to some of Obama.

The Hitler thread reminds me of dear Obama.
How posters described the way common folk were "brainwashed" by fancy speeches to believe in one person and his ideals and adopt them as the only truth.

Right... :roll:

 

[netrox]

I have to say you're right on this one. He'll complain about anyone who's a liberal.

He has been doing that for years. He has absolutely NO independent thinking... none.

 

[netrox]

I have my own agreement to disagreement, even to some of Obama.

Right... :roll:

Same here... and right wing loonies always want to capitalize on those disagreements trying to manipulate the public into believeing that the president is unfit or should be voted out.

 

[Jiro]

Same here... and right wing loonies always want to capitalize on those disagreements trying to manipulate the public into believeing that the president is unfit or should be voted out.

lol the President cannot get voted out.

 

[netrox]

lol the President cannot get voted out.

I mean voted against.

 

[Hwy99]

Same here... and right wing loonies always want to capitalize on those disagreements trying to manipulate the public into believeing that the president is unfit or should be voted out.

*nods* That's what I thought so too..

 

[Jiro]

I mean voted against.

voted against what? you mean in blocking his bills?

 

[shel90]

It doesn't matter what you tell him, or what you show him. He is programmed to hate liberals. You cannot undo that. His mission here and elsewhere it to beat the drums of Conservatism. Like a mosquito, he is best left ignored. His signature is rather ironic when you consider all he does is complain about Obama. There are many other topics here that are much more refreshing to read.

I am a liberal!

 

[shel90]

May I remind you that Ronald Reagan's lowest approval ratings was at 29% at one time? Polls only reflect the current mood. Reagan's approval ratings stayed under 50% the next two years according to CNN. Yet Reagan is considered to be one of our better leaders.

I also fail to see why you would think Obama is considered the "Messiah" by members of his party. People simply seemed to think he was the best one for for a difficult and often thankless job. I do not see anyone putting their total faith in him.

 

[deafskeptic]

I have my own agreement to disagreement, even to some of Obama.



Right... :roll:

I don't agree on everything that Obama has done either.

 

[kokonut]

I have yet to see anything from you that isn't typical of a conservative. So much for being an "independant" thinker.

I've never been one to blindly follow others; I'm fairly anti-authoritian in my politics. I notice that conservatives don't like it when others disagree with them and they seem to lack critical thinking on many things.

You certainly failed to demonstrate that critical thinking with Flip in another thread. Flip is quite clearly knowledgable on the subject. When discussing subjects like climate change, you'd be a lot more creditable on the subject if you quoted stuff from peer reviewed (by scientists) journals on that subject instead of conservative think tanks who are not very creditable on the science stuff.

Btw, I should note that in one of the links that Flip provided in that thread mentioned that about 26% of the scientists trusted Gore on the subject as opposed to 3% trusting sources from the media. That's still quite low and it implicates that the best information on the subject would come from the peer reviewed journals and publications rather than politicians of either parties.

I realize that by saying all this I will not convince you but hopefully I have made others think when they read this.

Peer reviewed? You too? Before you go on another spiel there are many professional NASA scientists who do not believe that global warming was man made. With many years behind them as professional scientists who have submitted papers for peer review know what they are talking about.
Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Secondly, we have not warmed up over the last several years even though CO2 concentration is currently around 380 ppm. In fact, we've been cooling slightly over the last several years.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c_b.jpg
Even Roy Spencer (PhD, climatologist, author, former NASA scientist) confirms that we have not warmed up over the last 10 years and that CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming. Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

You might want to outline how I "failed" at critical thinking. Creating a climate of fear does not fall into the category of critical thinking. Nor is it called "independent thinking," either. Sorry. Common sense go hand in hand with critical thinking and that science is to be looked at and discussed rather than used as a club to bully others into submission in the effort to get them accept global warming (as caused by man). I have asked repeatedly to provide links to studies, that is peer reviewed studies, that PROVE increasing CO2 concentration causes global warming and that it is the sole or major climate driver. Be careful how you respond on this one, too. No one stepped up to the plate to answer my question on that. Secondly, what are your credentials in the field of Earth science? I have been in that field for over 16 years with 13 years (and ongoing) of that professionally. Ad hominem attacks, belittlements and sarcasms are not the definition of "critical thinking." Those responses are designed to marginalize and bully others as way to get them to "submit" rather than to debate tactfully. Use of ad hominem attacks is a sign and a red flag of insecurity on the subject matter.

As for peer reviewed papers that have been accepted for journals where they pretty much debunks the global warming idea (i.e man caused), here they are, a whole list of them. Just follow the links in there that links to peer reviewed papers accepted by a variety of institutions like the Journal of Geophysical Research. What I have discussed previously on the issue of global warming has not diverged from what those peer reviewed papers have said.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Critical thinking? Exactly what were you thinking anyway?

 

[deafskeptic]

Peer reviewed? You too? Before you go on another spiel there are many professional NASA scientists who do not believe that global warming was man made. With many years behind them as professional scientists who have submitted papers for peer review know what they are talking about.
Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Secondly, we have not warmed up over the last several years even though CO2 concentration is currently around 380 ppm. In fact, we've been cooling slightly over the last several years.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c_b.jpg
Even Roy Spencer (PhD, climatologist, author, former NASA scientist) confirms that we have not warmed up over the last 10 years and that CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming. Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

You might want to outline how I "failed" at critical thinking. Creating a climate of fear does not fall into the category of critical thinking. Nor is it called "independent thinking," either. Sorry. Common sense go hand in hand with critical thinking and that science is to be looked at and discussed rather than used as a club to bully others into submission in the effort to get them accept global warming (as caused by man). I have asked repeatedly to provide links to studies, that is peer reviewed studies, that PROVE increasing CO2 concentration causes global warming and that it is the sole or major climate driver. Be careful how you respond on this one, too. No one stepped up to the plate to answer my question on that. Secondly, what are your credentials in the field of Earth science? I have been in that field for over 16 years with 13 years (and ongoing) of that professionally. Ad hominem attacks, belittlements and sarcasms are not the definition of "critical thinking." Those responses are designed to marginalize and bully others as way to get them to "submit" rather than to debate tactfully. Use of ad hominem attacks is a sign and a red flag of insecurity on the subject matter.

As for peer reviewed papers that have been accepted for journals where they pretty much debunks the global warming idea (i.e man caused), here they are, a whole list of them. Just follow the links in there that links to peer reviewed papers accepted by a variety of institutions like the Journal of Geophysical Research. What I have discussed previously on the issue of global warming has not diverged from what those peer reviewed papers have said.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Critical thinking? Exactly what were you thinking anyway?

As Flip no doubt would explain to you, the reason why journals regarding science and medical stuff (among other stuff) have to be peer reviewed is because these fields require a considerable amount of training and knowledge. Also, it requires a consider amount of integrity for these sources to be trustworthy. A peer review will spot holes in a paper and give feed back on the subject. If someone is cheating on the expermint, a peer review can spot that. If one wants to be a good scientist, one has to factor for personal bias and not let their personal political views affect the results if they are to be taken seriously by their peers.

If these journals were to let in everyone whose views are clearly not knowledgeable, they'd lose credibility. Here's a quote from Dr. Evan Harris:

“We are bombarded daily with scientific (and pseudoscientific) claims from newspapers, internet, radio and television programmes. Though MPs consider themselves experienced sifters for the truth, it is often extremely difficult to know what to believe. Sense About Science’s guide to peer review will help MPs and their researchers in this regard because peer review, and an understanding of its role, is essential to distinguish good science from flawed science and mere conjecture.” BTW, it's not just science journals which needs to be peer reviewed.

Oh they will allow a different view from the majority of their professions but it has to be a sound argument to be accepted by a peer reviewed journal. I'd much rather get my information from trustworthy sources than from someone with an axe to grind.