PDA

View Full Version : The politics of fear



subroc
02-09-2009, 07:12 AM
The politics of fear

It is reasonably comical that some voted for Obama based on a belief that he was offering hope. They rejected what they called the politics of fear that was asserted to come from republicans and President George W. Bush.

It appears that Obama and democrat politicians have no hope at all. Their one political tactic is fear.

Democrats and liberals alike, you have wrought what you railed against!

Here is an Obama quote:
"If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," Obama said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/ramped-up-obama-rhetoric-could-backfire/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/ramped-up-obama-rhetoric-could-backfire/)

backpasture
02-09-2009, 05:30 PM
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/cheney-pupa2.jpg
"You call that Politics of Fear? HA! Amateur!"

subroc
02-09-2009, 09:17 PM
The lefts whole point was that they were above that. It doesn't appear so. It is a tactic they have always used.

Global warming: The seas will rise and life as we know it will end.

This downturn: Catastrophe.

It appears the left is really a bunch of one trick ponies - the politics of fear.

BTW, nice pic of the former VP!

Patrick Johndrow
02-09-2009, 09:29 PM
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/cheney-pupa2.jpg
"You call that Politics of Fear? HA! Amateur!"



Those guys are gone... put up or shut up...SHOW US SOME CHANGE!!!

backpasture
02-09-2009, 09:42 PM
Those guys are gone... put up or shut up...SHOW US SOME CHANGE!!!

You have been seeing it (closing Gitmo, actually consulting with the other party, passing a stimulus package, overturning some of the more ridiculous Bush executive orders, a press conference 2 weeks rather than 9 months into the presidency, etc, etc) and you have been b*tching and moaning because you don't like it.

It's only been 2 weeks. There is a LOT more to come. And, once Franken is seated that's one less 'centrist' Republican that the Senate hast to pick up to avoid a filibuster.

I have a feeling you won't be welcoming a lot of the 'change' that is coming.

Patrick Johndrow
02-09-2009, 09:57 PM
Sorry backpasture...if you are talking to me you have been ignored...best feature EVER on RTF :)

backpasture
02-09-2009, 10:03 PM
Sorry backpasture...if you are talking to me you have been ignored...

I'm heartbroken.

Julie R.
02-09-2009, 10:30 PM
actually consulting with the other party,

"I WON! I WON! I will trump you on that!" :barf:

KEEP the change thank you very much
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/antichrist.gif

Obomo's petulant little speech and canned questions from chosen reporters were really pathetic. He is a narcissist through and through and his tone rings with insincereity.

K G
02-09-2009, 10:35 PM
I have a feeling you won't be welcoming a lot of the 'change' that is coming.

Nor will you.........

kg

backpasture
02-09-2009, 10:43 PM
"I WON! I WON! I will trump you on that!" :barf:

KEEP the change thank you very much
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/antichrist.gif

Obomo's petulant little speech and canned questions from chosen reporters were really pathetic. He is a narcissist through and through and his tone rings with insincereity.

Julie, you've come through again with a very compelling argument.
- Obama is mean to Republicans
- Obama is a Muslim

Hard to argue with crazy like that.

subroc
02-10-2009, 05:05 AM
This was sent the other day.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/subroc1/Image1.jpg

Hew
02-10-2009, 06:30 AM
You have been seeing it (closing Gitmo, actually consulting with the other party, passing a stimulus package, overturning some of the more ridiculous Bush executive orders, a press conference 2 weeks rather than 9 months into the presidency, etc, etc) and you have been b*tching and moaning because you don't like it.

It's only been 2 weeks. There is a LOT more to come. And, once Franken is seated that's one less 'centrist' Republican that the Senate hast to pick up to avoid a filibuster.

I have a feeling you won't be welcoming a lot of the 'change' that is coming.
I'm confused. You tout the fact that he "actually consulted with the other party" as if that's admirable. But in the next paragraph you're downright giddy at the notion that Obama is one step closer to being able
to tell the GOP centrists to piss off. Is working with the Republicans a good or bad thing?

Btw, Gitmo isn't closed, a stimulus package isn't passed, and Bush's first press conference wasn't 9 months in; it was in February. But yes, you're right...thank goodness Obama intervened with that crazy Bush executive order and the American taxpayers are once again subsidizing abortions in various third world stench holes. Whew!

backpasture
02-10-2009, 07:00 AM
I'm confused. You tout the fact that he "actually consulted with the other party" as if that's admirable. But in the next paragraph you're downright giddy at the notion that Obama is one step closer to being able
to tell the GOP centrists to piss off. Is working with the Republicans a good or bad thing?


It is a good thing, and I hope it continues.


Btw, Gitmo isn't closed, a stimulus package isn't passed,

Give me a break. The executive order has signed. Gitmo is being closed down. And the stimulus cleared the Senate. There will be the handwringing from the left and the wishful thinking on the right that the Senate and House won't be able to reconcile, but that's a bunch of hooey from both sides. You and I both know the bill is going through.



and Bush's first press conference wasn't 9 months in; it was in February.

You are right about that one. It was his second term that he waited nine months.


But yes, you're right...thank goodness Obama intervened with that crazy Bush executive order and the American taxpayers are once again subsidizing abortions in various third world stench holes. Whew!

The order allows the US to provide family planning aid to organizations, but does NOT allow US money to provide funding for abortions. The moratorium previously did not allow the US to provide funds for contraception to any organization that also preformed abortions.

backpasture
02-10-2009, 07:02 AM
This was sent the other day.



http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/thecryinggame.jpg

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 07:48 AM
I'm confused. You tout the fact that he "actually consulted with the other party" as if that's admirable. But in the next paragraph you're downright giddy at the notion that Obama is one step closer to being able
to tell the GOP centrists to piss off. Is working with the Republicans a good or bad thing?

Btw, Gitmo isn't closed, a stimulus package isn't passed, and Bush's first press conference wasn't 9 months in; it was in February. But yes, you're right...thank goodness Obama intervened with that crazy Bush executive order and the American taxpayers are once again subsidizing abortions in various third world stench holes. Whew!



I really want the Dems to have complete control...I want the U.S. to see what do nothing morons CAN’T accomplish when given the chance.

Time to shut up and put up Dems

YardleyLabs
02-10-2009, 10:44 AM
I really want the Dems to have complete control...I want the U.S. to see what do nothing morons CAN’T accomplish when given the chance.

Time to shut up and put up Dems

You mean, sort of like Bush has in 2001?

K G
02-10-2009, 11:01 AM
So Jeff...is that the way it's gonna be? BHO is NOT to be held accountable if Bush 43 did the opposite (or the same, depending on what the Dems need to bitch about) at ANY time during his administration?

BHO said in his press "conference" (a staged address with planted questions...I loved it.....:rolleyes:) that our current financial situation might not turn around regardless of what happens during his administration. Now if that is not setting us up to accept failure under his watch, I don't know what is......he's been in office three weeks and he's already telling us that failure will be the fault of the situation that he inherited.

So that's what "change" is.....glad to know the current definition, 'cause that sure isn't what was being said when the campaign was going on.

And I loved the comment from the woman from Elkhart, IN, who wanted to know when all that stimulus money was going to be coming to her town....did he leave them an IOU? ;-)

kg

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 11:09 AM
You mean, sort of like Bush has in 2001?

Bush is gone...Your boy is on the stage now...lets do something whiners.

Bush didnt even run in 2008...Bush was a disappointment to the Right as well.

kjrice
02-10-2009, 11:28 AM
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r186/kjrice/BFH_Obama_creamofnuttin.gif

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 11:40 AM
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r186/kjrice/BFH_Obama_creamofnuttin.gif

I love that one

YardleyLabs
02-10-2009, 02:31 PM
So Jeff...is that the way it's gonna be? BHO is NOT to be held accountable if Bush 43 did the opposite (or the same, depending on what the Dems need to bitch about) at ANY time during his administration?

BHO said in his press "conference" (a staged address with planted questions...I loved it.....:rolleyes:) that our current financial situation might not turn around regardless of what happens during his administration. Now if that is not setting us up to accept failure under his watch, I don't know what is......he's been in office three weeks and he's already telling us that failure will be the fault of the situation that he inherited.

So that's what "change" is.....glad to know the current definition, 'cause that sure isn't what was being said when the campaign was going on.

And I loved the comment from the woman from Elkhart, IN, who wanted to know when all that stimulus money was going to be coming to her town....did he leave them an IOU? ;-)

kg

Was the press conference staged? I saw one conservative blog comment that said it was obviously staged because he had a carefully prepared speech in response to each question -- meaning, I assume, that it would have been better had he been unprepared? Another conservative site proclaimed that Fox News had been prevented from asking a question for the fifth time in a row at Obama press conferences. Presumably they know something about Major Garrett (The Fox News correspondent who asked a question about a biden comment) that the rest of us don't know.

With respect to the "inherited" financial collapse, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Is it that you believe it is not a problem or is it that you believe that the collapse was caused by the Obama administration?

I also liked the Elkhart woman's question about how funds woud get to them. I thought his answer was pretty straight and not necessarily exactly what she would have liked him to say.

The impression I get in reading these threads is that none of the complaints is real. If Obama said that 2 + 2 = 4, there would be a thread saying that Obama was once again trying to manipulate numbers to support a fantasy. If he didn't say it there would be a thread complaining that he was avoiding the numbers.

I can understand if someone does not believe any stimulus program is needed, even though I disagree. I can understand if someone wants the stimulus program to be based primarily or solely on tax cuts, although I disagree and believe the data do not support that approach. I can understand the belief that we should do nothing to grow the deficit further, but do not understand if the same person wants the tax cuts to be made permanent despite the fact that they would add trillions to the deficit. Amazingly, those are the same people who call California "La La Land."

There is little to discuss when issues are raised solely to make noise. There are a lot of real issues and they are pretty serious for most of us. I don't think that our current economic problems are going to be resolved in a manner that will please anyone from an ideological perspective.

Obviously, a big part of the equation is whether or not there actually is a major problem at all. Do we actually believe that banks will collapse without support? Do we believe that enough banks will survive collapse to allow our financial system to continue to operate? Do we believe that the snowball effects of rising unemployment, collapsing consumer credit, collapsing business credit, massive business losses, and more layoffs will continue until unemployment hits Depression era levels? Do we believe that, if such problems are actually in our future, that they are the inevitable product of some long term business cycle and we should simply starve our way back to prosperity?

Are any of these fair questions, or are they simply scare tactics to encourage the masses to vote their way into an atheistic, socialistic, communist dictatorship that will probably be run by homosexuals who will require all pregnancies to be terminated by abortion?

With the exception of the last, I think these are fair questions. I may have thoughts about them, but I do not have answers and I doubt that the administration does either. Unfortunately, our options are to do nothing, with unknown consequences, or do something that may or may not work. Neither is a good option.

Whatever happens, I suspect that most on this forum will complain in advance about whatever the administration does. Whatever happens, most on this forum will blame the administration if the economy gets worse and, if the economy gets better, most on this forum will say that it's proof of the strength of our system that it recovered despite whatever the administration did or, alternatively, that it recovered because of something done by GWB or the Republicans in Congress. Personally, I don't really care who gets the credit. I would like to see things get better than they are now. My suspicion is that things will get a lot worse first.

Bob Gutermuth
02-10-2009, 02:33 PM
How do you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving. POTUS is a lawyer, I rest my case.

YardleyLabs
02-10-2009, 02:40 PM
Bush is gone...Your boy is on the stage now...lets do something whiners.

Bush didnt even run in 2008...Bush was a disappointment to the Right as well.

About 70% of Republicans approved of Bush at the time of the elections in the fall. That's still pretty strong support.

Steve Amrein
02-10-2009, 03:09 PM
About 70% of Republicans approved of Bush at the time of the elections in the fall. That's still pretty strong support.

I find it quite hard to believe that he had that much support from the republicans. I generally belong to that voting block and IMHO GW was a huge disappointment fiscally.

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 03:12 PM
About 70% of Republicans approved of Bush at the time of the elections in the fall. That's still pretty strong support.

I am far right brother...I find myself negotiating with other Republicans...you and I have about as much in common as Christians and Muslims.

YardleyLabs
02-10-2009, 03:18 PM
I am far right brother...I find myself negotiating with other Republicans...you and I have about as much in common as Christians and Muslims.

I never would have guessed.:p And yet, we're both Americans and presumably we both come to this site primarily because we both love retrievers and the games they play.

DSO
02-10-2009, 03:28 PM
Get used to it folks, If the Dems have any success, they will take sole credit / If they fail, they will fall back on the old, "we're still trying to undo the last 8 years"... sad but all too true. Like an earlier post mentioned... it's your show now, do something positive... ya know, like all the sunshine you sold to your voters during the Obamarama election campaign.

Danny

sbakerz71
02-10-2009, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=backpasture;398208]- Obama is a Muslim

QUOTE]

He can't be.there is to much PORK in his stimulus package

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 07:05 PM
we're both Americans and presumably we both come to this site primarily because we both love retrievers and the games they play.




Well hells bells …we should be getting together drinking beer and swapping stories about women…we are practically brothers.

Julie R.
02-11-2009, 09:34 AM
Was the press conference staged? I saw one conservative blog comment that said it was obviously staged because he had a carefully prepared speech in response to each question -- meaning, I assume, that it would have been better had he been unprepared? Another conservative site proclaimed that Fox News had been prevented from asking a question for the fifth time in a row at Obama press conferences. Presumably they know something about Major Garrett (The Fox News correspondent who asked a question about a biden comment) that the rest of us don't know.



Yes the press conference was obviously staged. The reporters allowed to ask questions were selected beforehand and asked to provide the question(s) they wanted to ask in advance, so the staff could prepare answers for their leader. I suspect most of his press conferences will be more of the same. Would it be better if Obomo was unprepared? My opinion is, given how woefully unprepared this man is to hold any office, probably not; his 'off the cuff' remarks have done nothing to inspire confidence in him as he appears petulant and buffoonish when he's questioned off script.

As for certain media being ignored, White House press staff do try to avoid reporters they know will make their man look bad. That's their job. But at some point the President has to be able to answer questions with some degree of knowlege, even ones that aren't supplied in advance. This president has not shown even a basic grasp of the subject matter at hand (what's in the stimulus package).

YardleyLabs
02-11-2009, 10:09 AM
Yes the press conference was obviously staged. The reporters allowed to ask questions were selected beforehand and asked to provide the question(s) they wanted to ask in advance, so the staff could prepare answers for their leader. I suspect most of his press conferences will be more of the same. Would it be better if Obomo was unprepared? My opinion is, given how woefully unprepared this man is to hold any office, probably not; his 'off the cuff' remarks have done nothing to inspire confidence in him as he appears petulant and buffoonish when he's questioned off script.

As for certain media being ignored, White House press staff do try to avoid reporters they know will make their man look bad. That's their job. But at some point the President has to be able to answer questions with some degree of knowlege, even ones that aren't supplied in advance. This president has not shown even a basic grasp of the subject matter at hand (what's in the stimulus package).

Do you have a legitimate reference for asserting that the questions were provided in advance? Obama has pre-designated the reporters whose questions will be answered at each of his press conferences since the election and has notified those selected. I have not heard of any effort to obtain their questions in advance. I'm not sure why the pre-selection has been done. In each case, reporters from every major network and news services have been selected along with various representatives from on-line and print media. Every President has exercised selectivity in deciding which reporters to call on during conferences and I'm sure that Obama has done the same. However, that apparently did not include ignoring Fox News in this last conference.

I thought it looked very clumsy when he was obviously reading reporters' names from a list. However, I wondered if this was because he simply doesn't yet know/recognize most of the White House reporters. Asking questions to be submitted in advance for screening would clearly be a big deal and one I hope the reporters would refuse to do and would report loudly to the public. My impression was that most of the questions asked were obvious and I would have been stunned if he were not prepared to answer them completely.

Julie R.
02-12-2009, 11:12 AM
Well let's see Jeff, I worked in the press office of the Reagan White House and the U.S. State Dept., so I've been one of those staffers preparing rsponses or "Qs and As" as they used to be called. So, yes I have some knowlege of how these things work. In the case of Obomo I happen to have a friend whose daughter works in the press office and it's pretty common knowlege that the reporters called on also submitted their questions in advance. Yes Obomo's briefed by his staff on various subjects but they do not allow him to go on national TV 'off the cuff'. So yes, there's little doubt in this case, he did know all the questions before they were asked.

And as for this
Obama has pre-designated the reporters whose questions will be answered at each of his press conferences since the election and has notified those selected. I have not heard of any effort to obtain their questions in advance.
Exactly how do you think these reporters get selected? Because they're willing to supply their questions in advance and/or can be counted on to consistently agree with and promote the presidential agenda.

JDogger
02-12-2009, 11:27 AM
So Julie, you're saying every WH press conference since Reagan has been staged? Then why single out Obama for criticism?

JD


Well let's see Jeff, I worked in the press office of the Reagan White House and the U.S. State Dept., so I've been one of those staffers preparing rsponses or "Qs and As" as they used to be called. So, yes I have some knowlege of how these things work. In the case of Obomo I happen to have a friend whose daughter works in the press office and it's pretty common knowlege that the reporters called on also submitted their questions in advance. Yes Obomo's briefed by his staff on various subjects but they do not allow him to go on national TV 'off the cuff'. So yes, there's little doubt in this case, he did know all the questions before they were asked.

And as for this
Exactly how do you think these reporters get selected? Because they're willing to supply their questions in advance and/or can be counted on to consistently agree with and promote the presidential agenda.

txbadger
02-12-2009, 12:33 PM
Haven't read but a couple of posts so if "Gitmo's been closed.." error was corrected forgive me for reposting. It's open and we'll now use rendition to grill the bad guys, aka share the information with whomever will do our dirty work. The review window is 1 year and then Our leader will decide what to do with the bad guys living there.

As to the Pork package, people need to review history and see how well the last "deal" worked out for FDR.....

Eric Johnson
02-12-2009, 02:44 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges

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?"

-more-

backpasture
02-12-2009, 04:55 PM
So Julie, you're saying every WH press conference since Reagan has been staged? Then why single out Obama for criticism?

JD


Because apparently the Republican punditry needs something to be OUTRAGED about. They're not even shy about the hypocrisy of it all.

The claim Julie makes about the questions being submitted in advance is complete BS, though. Who here thinks Fox News (which was called on) would not be having a field day with this if they had been asked to submit their questions in advance?

Glenn Greenwald did a nice job responding to the WSJ article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/12/wsj/

Losthwy
02-12-2009, 11:12 PM
Well let's see Jeff, I worked in the press office of the Reagan White House and the U.S. State Dept\
....Obomo
.... Obomo's .


I'm impressed, did that job include basterarizing names? Was that a job skill listed on your resume? And should future Obama press office officials, much like yourself, refer to other ex-presidents as Ronald Ruin, George Tush, etc.?
Questions all in the interest of being "fair and balanced".

Andy Symons
02-13-2009, 12:21 AM
Can someone on the left please explain to me what the Democratic Congress was doing while Bush caused this so called "catasrophe". Last time I checked the Constitution, the powers of the Oval Office are somewhat limited.

No "basterarizing" here I don't think.

Definitional challenged regards,

K G
02-13-2009, 07:28 AM
No "basterarizing" here I don't think.



Now THAT was funny! :D

kg

JDogger
02-13-2009, 08:39 AM
No "basterarizing" here I don't think.

Definitional challenged regards,

Just a way of getting around the word censor. Like baskird. You do realize that, right?

JD

subroc
02-16-2009, 01:36 AM
An article on Obama and the poitics of fear.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html