|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
3,615
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(24241 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 1:22 PM
|
I was looking through a book earlier today in the library, aka my bathroom, and came across a few things that kinda made me question why Liberals are still trying to look to the past to compare politics and what Obama is doing. Now, granted, these are not political quotes or comparisons, but more of a time and technology comparison. These are NOT quotes by the President during that time, only a common view, or some of the more "intelligent" or experts view.
1825-President John Quincy Adams
- in an article of the Quarterly Review- "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
1839-President Martin Van Buren
- quote by Dr. Alfred Velpeau- "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it today. Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. To this compulsory combination we shall have to adjust ourselves." 7 years after this, anesthesia was introduced.
1889-President Grover Cleveland
- the Literary Digest- "The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
1897-President Grover Cleveland
-Popular Science Magazine- "The energy necessary to propel a ship would be many times greater than that required to drive a train of cars at the same speed; hence as a means of rapid transit, flying could not begin to compete with the railroad."
1926-President Calvin Coolidge
-Lee De Forest, the father of the radio- "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming."
1938-President Franklin D. Roosevelt
-Fortune Magazine- "At, present, few scientists foresee any serious or practical use for atomic energy. They regard the atom-splitting experiments as useful steps in the attempt to describe the atom more accurately, not as the key to the unlocking of any new power."
You apparently missed that those quotes are CONSERVATIVE responses to LIBERAL ideas. Good job. Although economically Cleveland had a point. We are just unwilling to invest in a national infrastructure (socialism) so use more individualistic and less efficient means.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/07/2009 10:26 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,030
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(24240 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 1:13 PM
Rate this post:
|
There is no comparison btn mistakenly underestimating technological advances and the course of human events.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Posts:
3,173
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
(24239 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 12:54 PM
|
> If I have learned anything from being on here, it is
> how Liberals will search from today all the way back
> to the dawn of man, to find someone or some way to
> justify or make and excuse for what Obama is doing
> today.
>
======================================
After reading these 13 paragraphs, there's one sentence with which I will agree: We must not remain in the past. It is now the 21st Century, and the problems of today call for 21st Century thinking and actions. Those who advocate doing nothing in an age where actions are needed are naught but clock stoppers.
Actions of the past are merely blueprints of how future problems can be solved.
|
|
|
Posts:
251
Registered:
10/15/09
|
|
(24238 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 12:25 PM
|
If I have learned anything from being on here, it is how Liberals will search from today all the way back to the dawn of man, to find someone or some way to justify or make and excuse for what Obama is doing today.
I was looking through a book earlier today in the library, aka my bathroom, and came across a few things that kinda made me question why Liberals are still trying to look to the past to compare politics and what Obama is doing. Now, granted, these are not political quotes or comparisons, but more of a time and technology comparison. These are NOT quotes by the President during that time, only a common view, or some of the more "intelligent" or experts view.
1825-President John Quincy Adams
- in an article of the Quarterly Review- "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
1839-President Martin Van Buren
- quote by Dr. Alfred Velpeau- "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it today. Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. To this compulsory combination we shall have to adjust ourselves." 7 years after this, anesthesia was introduced.
1889-President Grover Cleveland
- the Literary Digest- "The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
1897-President Grover Cleveland
-Popular Science Magazine- "The energy necessary to propel a ship would be many times greater than that required to drive a train of cars at the same speed; hence as a means of rapid transit, flying could not begin to compete with the railroad."
1926-President Calvin Coolidge
-Lee De Forest, the father of the radio- "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming."
1938-President Franklin D. Roosevelt
-Fortune Magazine- "At, present, few scientists foresee any serious or practical use for atomic energy. They regard the atom-splitting experiments as useful steps in the attempt to describe the atom more accurately, not as the key to the unlocking of any new power."
So, in a 100 years or a little more, we have advanced medical treatments, televisions on our phones and 10 in every house with satellites that send thousands of different programs at any given second around the world, powering entire nations with nuclear power plants and atomic energy, who the fuck even uses stage coaches any longer, we no longer use bicycles as a common use of traveling but as recreation, we have rockets that orbit the Earth and travel through space, now we fly things across country instead of by ship or the railway, and we have nuclear subs that travel the world.
It seems that looking to the past, and holding onto what the past, and even comparing the past to what is happening today, is laughable. Looking to the past for answers on what not to do in order to repeat the past is one thing. Making excuses because it happened before under someone else's watch, and justifying a mans actions today by using another mans actions in the past, is just flat out laughable.
The world changes, we move forward by learning from the past, not staring into it. Technology has moved SO MUCH just in my lifetime. Lets just take one simple example, who here remembers Pong? Two players only and it had those ugly and HUGE dial controllers. That first damn video game that came out with 2 little rectangle lines on either side of the screen and the little tiny square box that bounced bach and forth, faster and faster until it just left the screen. WOW, that was amazing, played it for hours, and thought life couldn't get any better than that.
Jump just 30 years, and now we can play amazing almost movie like games with people around the other side of the world in real time while talking to them over the headphones. We can play virtual reality games, and now they are designing a suit that you buy to control the people on screen. Pump your foot to pump the gas on the car in the game, turn your hands in the air just like you would a steering wheel and the car turns, you jump and the person on screen jumps, you punch the character punches.
Looking to the past, while it is good to reflect, learn, and just think of the good old days, it really isn't a good tool to justify or excuse what a man does today. Over the past year, or even few years is understandable. Searching back to FDR to justify and excuse what Obama is doing today, is just a distraction technique and avoiding discussing the decisions that need to be made today.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,767
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24237 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 5:54 AM
|
> > >
> > > No but he bailed out Chrysler which pretty
> much
> > > started the habit.
> > >
> > > And Free marketeering doesn't work in the
> stock
> > > market. That's why they had > http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/s
> ubjects/g/glass_steagall_act_1933/index.html?inline=ny
> t-classifier" target="_blank">Glass-Steagall
> > > before people who obviously don't know what
> the
> > > hell they are doing got rid of it.
> >
> > I believe it was Jimmy Carter admin that bailed
> out
> > Chrysler. Here's "Time" magazine article:
> >
> >
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,94735
> 6,00.html
> >
> > Ronnie Ray-gun was against it.
>
JimEarl:
> I could have sworn that I remembered him as
> criticized for it during his administration but I
> guess I'm wrong.
The Chrysler bail-out did come during the Carter years. The fact that Reagan talked against it is unremarkable since he seemed to oppose everything that Carter did or said.
Carter talked about energy conservation and Reagan was against it.
Carter wanted to reduce pollution and Reagan turned back the clock.
Carter got tough with the Iranians and Reagan was against it.
Carter put economic sanctions on the USSR for invading Afghanistan and Reagan was against it.
Carter got the ball rolling on an Israeli/Arab peace settlement and Reagan threw it out and we are reaping fruits of that blunder right now.
It was during the Reagan years that the unfortunate Conservative tendency to demonize liberals was popularized.
Ronald Reagan's presidency was the worst thing to happen to America in the 20th century.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,383
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
|
Posts:
7,743
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(24235 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 1:29 AM
|
> >
> > No but he bailed out Chrysler which pretty much
> > started the habit.
> >
> > And Free marketeering doesn't work in the stock
> > market. That's why they had Glass-Steagall
> > before people who obviously don't know what the
> > hell they are doing got rid of it.
>
> I believe it was Jimmy Carter admin that bailed out
> Chrysler. Here's "Time" magazine article:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html
>
> Ronnie Ray-gun was against it.
I could have sworn that I remembered him as
criticized for it during his administration but I
guess I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,173
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
(24234 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 12:50 AM
|
> House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticized
> conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, on Friday,
> for drawing comparisons between President Obama and
> Adolph Hitler. And, in a sequence that seems rare in
> modern Republican politics, the Virginia Republican
> seems eager to publicize his rebuke.
>
> Cantor's office sent over a write-up of the
> congressman's interview with Bloomberg News, in which
> he praised Limbaugh as a voice of the conservative
> movement but condemned his use of Nazi imagery and
> analogies to chastise the president.
>
> "Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion
> about politics?" Cantor said. "No, I don't, because
> obviously that is something that conjures up images
> that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/cantor-pushes
> -back-agains_n_349030.html&cp
>
> Did Eric Cantor come to the defense of the president
> or was he more concerned about the mention of Hitler?
======================================
Seems like he has more fear in his heart of Limbaugh than of Hitler. Otherwise he would not have praised Limbaugh as a voice of the conservative movement.
Of course Hitler's dead, and is unable to stand before a microphone to spew his hatred of minorities, gays and immigrants. I mean, Limbaugh would never do that... right?
--
Edited by Dashiel at 11/06/2009 9:52 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
944
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(24233 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 12:40 AM
|
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticized conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, on Friday, for drawing comparisons between President Obama and Adolph Hitler. And, in a sequence that seems rare in modern Republican politics, the Virginia Republican seems eager to publicize his rebuke.
Cantor's office sent over a write-up of the congressman's interview with Bloomberg News, in which he praised Limbaugh as a voice of the conservative movement but condemned his use of Nazi imagery and analogies to chastise the president.
"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" Cantor said. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/cantor-pushes-back-agains_n_349030.html&cp
Did Eric Cantor come to the defense of the president or was he more concerned about the mention of Hitler?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,173
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
(24232 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 7, 2009 12:32 AM
|
> > > They've got oil (& probably natural gas) &
> sand.
> > They
> > > make carpets. That's about it.
> >
> > Wow. Talk about not knowing a culture. Again
> though,
> > it is about returning the wealth to the people
> of
> > Iraq and not giving it all to Obama. I mean
> Saddam.
> > Sorry, I get those two confused.
>
> I tend to get Obama and Osama confused.
>
> infoseek (R)
======================================
The Top Ten Ways to Tell the Difference Between Your President and the Leader of Al Qaeda
10. One's middle name is Steve, the other's middle name is Bin.
9. One's won the Nobel Peace Prize for America, the other wants pieces of America for a prize.
8. One's familiar with the name "Quentin Durango", the other always remarks "What the f**k?"
7. One knows the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the other makes up his own Constitution. (oops, my bad. That's George Bush)
6. One's the most popular POTUS in the world, the other's the most popular ANUS in the world (oops, my bad again. That's Dick Cheney).
5. One's the guy that's trying to make Government employees earn their dough, the other's the guy who wants the average american citizen to do that job by... oh, crap! That's John Boehner.
4. One's a previous Community Organizer, the other's a current organizer for bombing out communities.
3. One's the guy that's gonna get Americans health care, the other doesn't care for Americans' health in any way shape or form.
2. One lives in the White House, the other lives in an Afghanistan cave.
1. One's the guy who kicked John McCain's butt, the other's the guy who kicked George Bush's butt.
There that should end the confusion.
And so it goes, this thing of ours.
--
Edited by Dashiel at 11/06/2009 10:04 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,173
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
(24231 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 6, 2009 11:31 PM
|
> Boehner pulls a boner:
>
> John Boehner was at the recent rally & said he had a
> copy there of the U.S. Constitution & supposedly
> began reading:
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
> these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness."
>
> Uh, psst, John pssst, John, that's the Declaration of
> Independence.
>
> John, you're a fucking Congressman, the House
> minority leader, who has sworn to protect the
> Constitution. Someone is trusting you to know what
> you're doing?!?!?
>
======================================
Boehner must have sensed Michelle Bachmann's cock behind him and it made him nervous.![]:)](http://boards.hbo.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif)
(thanks Ari Gold for the inspiration)
|
|
|
Posts:
4,975
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24230 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 6, 2009 8:31 PM
|
Don17000,
And a lot of S & L money went to the mob. I'm not talking about the bailout but who got "sweetheart" loans & defaulted causing the need for bailout. Not to mention what Neil Bush hauled off from Silverado. A different kind of crime family. And let's don't forget Keating.
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/06/2009 5:32 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,021
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24229 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 6, 2009 8:16 PM
Rate this post:
|
> > Since the unemployment number is being tossed
> around
> > as another sign Obama has failed, I thought I'd
> add a
> > little perspective. Over two years into
> Reagan's
> > first term unemployment went up 3 percent, to
> over
> > 10%, and a peak of 10.8.
> >
> > > http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?se
>
> > ries_id=LNS14000000" target="_blank">Bureau of Labor Stats
> official
> > stats. Or for you teabagger, just continue
> to
> > pull your stats out of your ass.
>
> Our unemployment TODAY, was 10.2%, and still
> climbing. But you are missing the point, I dont
> believe Reagan whipped the nation into a panic over
> the first few weeks in office saying how it was a
> crisis and we were all about to die if we didnt pass
> a multi-TRILLION dollar porkulus bill to pay off all
> the people that got him elected and creating no jobs.
>
That's only because the numbers were smaller back then. When Reagan took office, the national debt was under 1 trillion. After 8 years of Reaganomics, or "voodoo economics" as his opponent and soon to be VP called it, the debt had about tripled.
Now let's see... when Obama took office, the debt was already nearly $12 trillion, so for him to be doing comparable damage, the debt would have to be up by about 50%, to at least $18 trillion by now. Instead, it's only up by about 15%.
So, he's doing much better than Reagan.
Somehow, I think if that was his legacy.. "I wasn't nearly as bad as Reagan!" I think he'd be ashamed of it.
>
> You are also talking about over a 2 year period, when
> it has raised how much since he took office when it
> was supposed never go above 8% if we passed the
> emergency spending package? That is already more than
> 2%. Obama is just a fast learner on how to fuck
> things up as fast as possible.
It had reached 8% by the month after he took office. The bill was just passed by then, it takes time for the effects to be felt. Employment is a lagging indicator.
In Reagan's time, unemployment rose above the 8% level in Nov 1981, and didn't fall below that until Feb 1984. It was mid-83 before it fell below 10%.
And under Reagan's guidance, we basically lost the entire S&L division of the banking industry.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,021
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24228 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 6, 2009 7:57 PM
|
> > Since the unemployment number is being tossed
> around
> > as another sign Obama has failed, I thought I'd
> add a
> > little perspective. Over two years into
> Reagan's
> > first term unemployment went up 3 percent, to
> over
> > 10%, and a peak of 10.8.
> >
> > [url
> >
>
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000]
I fixed the link.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,767
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24227 of 24946)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 6, 2009 7:53 PM
|
Yellowbird:
> Wow. Talk about not knowing a culture. Again though,
> it is about returning the wealth to the people of
> Iraq and not giving it all to Obama. I mean Saddam.
> Sorry, I get those two confused.
Psst... the guy who was out to steal Iraq's oil was named "Bush."
And, obviously they are still at it.
|
|
|
|
|
