Politician or not, and I agree with you that Obama is just that and not a totally new kind of political animal, there are some tangible changes occurring. After eight years of pretty strongly right-wing politics, some squealing from the left is not surprising, or unjustified. The car should run for a good long while, it may not race around corners and do back flips, but I don’t think anyone is expecting a communist revolution here 
[/quote]
It’s certainly a refreshed model with all-new styling for 2009. I just hope Chris and Mother Theresa’s young hearts aren’t too crushed when they realise that the wonky steering has brought the car back more or less where it was before, and the batteries have run out (I give it six years).
emediawire.com/releases/Cass … 868134.htm
[quote]Obama ‘Regulatory Czar’ has Secret Animal-Rights Agenda, Says Consumer Group
Cass Sunstein supports outlawing hunting, phasing out meat eating, giving animals the right to file lawsuits; expert available for comment
Washington, D.C. (Vocus/PRWeb) January 15, 2009 – The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.
In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely “eliminating current practices such as … meat eating.” He also proposed: “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book “Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions” that “animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
The Center for Consumer Freedom’s Director of Research, David Martosko, is available to discuss Cass Sunstein’s likely impact on typical elements of American life that involve the use of animals. Sunstein’s work could spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted.
Mr. Martosko said: “Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America’s top regulator. Americans don’t realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law. This doesn’t look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners.”
For an interview with Mr. Martosko about how Cass Sunstein’s appointment will serve the radical animal rights movement’s agenda in the White House, or for more information, contact Sarah Kapenstein at 202-463-7112.
[/quote]
It’ll been funny when Uncle Barack molests them.
Erm…
Moving on now, about those new measures. Fresh talents are needed, definitely. And updated minas and shekels, too.
Clinton succeeded throughout his presidency, with the occasional messup; Bush failed throughout his, doing perhaps one good thing per term. Politicians are not the same. History bears this out.
Obama, like Clinton, is not perfect. I expect him to mess up now and then. But Obama will do (and already has done) good things, unlike Bush, whose good deeds can be counted on one hand of a person missing who’s missing some fingers.
I mean metaphorically of course.
[quote=“Chris”]Politicians are not the same. History bears this out.[/quote]It’s funny, because I seriously thought you and MT must have been so caught up in the excitement that you were ignoring history. The way I see it, history shows that most politicians are indeed much the same in the long run. But for whatever reason, it seems that you genuinely don’t see things that way.
Anyway, I’ll stop trolling now. This is a forum for people who take politics seriously and no doubt my posts will be temped in short order.
I’m sure you’re right. No doubt Margaret Thatcher, Peter the Great, David Ben-Gurion, Mao Zedong, and Thomas Jefferson were all “indeed much the same.” I’m sure they had only mildly different ideas of how society should be run. I’m sure their policies had only a marginally different effect on their subjects’ lives. I’m sure that they were basically the same because, after all, they were just politicians.
President Obama Does First Formal TV Interview as President with Al-Arabiya
His first phone call is to Mahmud Abbas.
His first interview is with a Saudi news channel.
Al-Arabiyyah is a Saudi-owned news service (based in Dubai).
Refusing to do a US News, his knee-pad buddies, interview. But he finds time for al-Arabiyyah.
I’m so happy!.. :roflmao:
[quote=“KingZog”]All US Presidencies start with high minded talk about transparency and ethics, and most of them end with the Presidents Legal minions pleading "Executive Privilege " or “National Security” to a Special Prosecutors until term limits kick in and get them out of office.
What are the odds that Obama will end up like Bush II or Clinton?[/quote]
Bush II did not start his presidency with such talk. He did not serve his presidency with such talk. He did not end his presidency with such talk.
It might be more correct to say that “All Democrat US Presidencies…” Unfortunately talking about openness and ethics opens you up to double damage when you slip and fall.
I thought this was an interesting column:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … inionsbox1
I know we’re not allowed to compliment the former administration, but addressing AIDs in Africa is something that quietly got going during the past few years, and it would have seemed like one of the few areas where there could be real value in continuity. I wonder what plans Obama has in that area.
[quote=“redandy”]I thought this was an interesting column:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … inionsbox1
I know we’re not allowed to compliment the former administration, but addressing AIDs in Africa is something that quietly got going during the past few years, and it would have seemed like one of the few areas where there could be real value in continuity. I wonder what plans Obama has in that area.[/quote]
Hopefully dropping the idiotic Fundy requirement that a large chunk of anti-AIDS funding go to abstinence-only programs.
[quote]The requirement that a large fraction of President Bush’s global AIDS plan go to promote abstinence and fidelity is causing confusion in many countries and in a few is eroding other prevention efforts, including ones to reduce mother-to-child transmission of the virus.
Those are among the chief conclusions of an 87-page report by the Government Accountability Office that examined the most controversial aspect of the giant AIDS plan, budgeted at $15 billion over five years.
The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator requires that 20 percent of all AIDS spending go for prevention. Half the prevention budget must be spent to stop sexual transmission of HIV. Two-thirds of that spending, in turn, must be used promoting abstinence and fidelity.
“Most of the 20 PEPFAR teams . . . reported that fulfilling [that requirement] presents challenges to their ability to respond to the local epidemiology and cultural and social norms,” the GAO authors wrote. About half a dozen teams said the spending requirement “can undermine the integrated nature of HIV/AIDS prevention programs.”
Of the 15 “focus countries” – 12 African countries, plus Haiti, Guyana and Vietnam – nine reduced the amount of money for programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV in their 2006 budgets to meet the spending target for abstinence promotion.
In one, mother-to-child funding was cut from $1.4 million to $1 million, and in another it was reduced by $300,000, said GAO’s David Gootnick, who oversaw the report.
In perhaps the largest adjustment, one country cut from $8 million to $4 million its spending on prevention services for couples in which one person has HIV infection and the other does not – an extremely high-risk group – as well as on sexually active youths and sex workers.[/quote]
As well, Rick Warren has been working with the Bush Administration
to torpedo Uganda’s fantastically successful ABC program by insisting,in the face of all scientific evidence, that they dump the “C” part (condoms), leading to an increase in the infection rate.
Obama signs bill extending kids’ health insurance
Obama signs the CHIP bill that Bush repeatedly vetoed. Obama actually cares about children’s health! 
:bravo: :America:
Yeah, so much that he smokes in the house. 
[quote=“Chris”]Obama signs bill extending kids’ health insurance
Obama signs the CHIP bill that Bush repeatedly vetoed. Obama actually cares about children’s health! :bravo: :America:[/quote]
I think everybody cares about children’s health, even Bush. But the difference is caring enough for the children of people who are not your political supporters to pay for their health insurance. Not everybody agrees with that. They might joke that kids can get insurance for themselves, or that parents who don’t get insurance for their kids are to blame. But in terms of health, insurance can pay for a lot of prevention, which in the long run saves money. I’m in favor of saving money and helping the children of other people.
Insurance companies profit enormously by charging people more money than they pay for health services. Many legislators receive financial support from these companies, and concoct fascinating rhetoric defending a blind eye to uninsured children. It’s no wonder that they don’t care enough to protect every American with a minimum level of insurance.
The economic stimulus package in its current form has too much spending. What does spending on STD prevention, national endowment for the arts, and internet broadband have anything to do with stimulating the economy?
The Senate should eliminate these unnecessary spending projects.
Lower payroll taxes for those earning less than $120,000 a year; and allocate funds for unemployment benefits, food stamps, infrastructure improvement projects, and the retrofitting of buildings.
Obama should say no to the Republicans’ desire for permanent tax cuts considering the huge deficit. I would support raising the gas tax.
[quote=“reztrop”]
Obama should say no to the Republicans’ desire for permanent tax cuts considering the huge deficit. I would support raising the gas tax.[/quote]
That just cracks me right up. Sure let’s ask everyone to pitch in a bit more so that we can keep spending TRILLIONS on military.
marboulette
Eventually taxes will have to be raised in the future to eliminate the huge national debt. Pitching in now lessens the burden placed on future generations.
I oppose raising any income taxes. But raising the gas tax by just a few cents to provide the revenue for targeted income tax cuts is not an unreasonable idea. With the recession, gas prices will continue to stay in the affordable range even with a slight increase in the gas tax. It will also provide an incentive for conservation.
I much prefer these kind of carbon taxes, because the revenue from carbon taxes can be used to reduce payroll taxes, as well as finance smart technologies like carbon sequestration for the coal industry.
He already has. You late.
allafrica.com/stories/200902040562.html
Three days into his new job Obama overturned what he described as an “unwarranted” eight-year ban on US funding for family-planning groups which carry out or facilitate abortions overseas.
[color=#0000BF]I can’t stand the US president being so popular! At least I’m big ebough to admit it. I can still say that. [/color]