Adam Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 What is so true? That a President doesn't uphold to every single promise they made in their platform? Really? That's Junior High Crap. Everyone realizes that, it isn't the point made by the first guy, who claimed that the masses have been duped by the praising of Obama. That he is a fad, a phenomenon used to divert from the reality. He is able to make outlandish claims such as a 3 million job surplus, yet fails entirely. Yet, in the end the sheep when asked will say, I think Obama is doing a great job. Really why? Even when he is asked that question he cites the previous presidency. It doesn't even make sense anymore. When was simple passing on blame good enough? When has that ever been the intention of a legitimate hero? This guy is not a leader. At all. Obama hasn't done a great job or a poor job. He's been President for a few months......we'll be able to gauge his spot in history more accurately about four years after George W Bush is judged- which takes about two decades after their term end, when emotion has subsided. The plebians use emotion too much, I'm above them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Obama hasn't done a great job or a poor job. He's been President for a few months......we'll be able to gauge his spot in history more accurately about four years after George W Bush is judged- which takes about two decades after their term end, when emotion has subsided. The plebians use emotion too much, I'm above them. Can we at least agree that the media's doing a sh------- job? I only ask because I'm really, really sick of hearing how Obama's the best president EVER because he cut $17B out of the federal budget...that increased to $3.5 trillion. Hey, media-type-people...when my wife buys a new Lexus and tells me "But I saved fifty bucks!", I don't congratulate her on her thriftiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Obama hasn't done a great job or a poor job. He's been President for a few months......we'll be able to gauge his spot in history more accurately about four years after George W Bush is judged- which takes about two decades after their term end, when emotion has subsided. The plebians use emotion too much, I'm above them. How does spending from the gov (3.4 trillion) push us out of a recession and create an up surge in the economy, have any history. Does it? Please site those examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 What is so true? That a President doesn't uphold to every single promise they made in their platform? Really? That's Junior High Crap. Everyone realizes that, it isn't the point made by the first guy, who claimed that the masses have been duped by the praising of Obama. That he is a fad, a phenomenon used to divert from the reality. He is able to make outlandish claims such as a 3 million job surplus, yet fails entirely. Yet, in the end the sheep when asked will say, I think Obama is doing a great job. Really why? Even when he is asked that question he cites the previous presidency. It doesn't even make sense anymore. When was simple passing on blame good enough? When has that ever been the intention of a legitimate hero? This guy is not a leader. At all. Please list ANY president that kept every single promise they made in their platform. It's JUST over 100 days !!!! Bush pledged - I am not into Nation Building - Broken Bush pledged - to increase funding for education (K-12) - Broken Bush pledged - to ensure college education is affordable and accessible to every American - Broken Bush pledged - to fix SS - Broken Bush pledged - to restore confidence in government - Broken You can call me a sheep. It's you that has the wool over your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Can we at least agree that the media's doing a sh------- job? Depends on who you ask. I'd be willing to bet Jeffrey Immelt thinks the media's doing a fantastic job. Exceptional, even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Please list ANY president that kept every single promise they made in their platform.It's JUST over 100 days !!!! Bush pledged - I am not into Nation Building - Broken Nothing happened to change his mind on that. He just broke a campaign promise. Bush pledged - to increase funding for education (K-12) - Broken Please define broken: Education, Training, Employment & Social Services: $ millions: 1992 - 42,751 1993 - 47,397 1994 - 43,295 1995 - 51,046 1996 - 48,336 1997 - 48,991 1998 - 50,532 1999 - 50,627 2000 - 53,789 2001 - 57,173 2002 - 70,581 2003 - 82,603 2004 - 87,990 2005 - 97,567 2006 - 118,560 2007 - 91,676 Bush pledged - to ensure education is affordable and accessible to every American - Broken Everything should be free. Bush pledged - to fix SS - Broken I take it you were in a coma in 2005 Bush pledged - to restore confidence in government - Broken Because he didn't make everything free. You can call me a sheep. I'd probably use a different term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Depends on who you ask. I'd be willing to bet Jeffrey Immelt thinks the media's doing a fantastic job. Exceptional, even. As far as I know, which is a little, but probably more than you on this, Immelt does virtually nothing with NBC and MSNBC and CNBC and Universal. He has no background in news or entertainment or movies whatsoever and doesn't claim to, and I dont think he tells them how to run their business. There are all kinds of people to complain about with NBC, but you should probably stop listening to O'Reilly. Blame Jeff Zucker maybe. He was the guy that was responsible for the famous meeting with the networks about Obama bashing. I'm not sticking up for him, he seems like a terrible CEO. I just don't think he has much of anything to do with the entertainment subsidaries of his massive conglomerate known as GE. Sure, he will hire and fire people to run them like he has to in his job title, but everything seems to point to him running GE and not micromanaging the TV and cable and film divisions at all. There is a funny story from Conan O'Brien about this... Two years ago, Jeff invited me to a small meeting to discuss the seismic shifts in network television. I remember the meeting for two reasons: 1) There were snacks. 2) At one point, someone asked Jeff a question about ad revenue and the movie business. What struck me was that Jeff simply said, "I don't know." No spin, no double-talk, no corporate-speak. I've met a lot of accomplished people, and I've always thought it's a sign of real intelligence when anyone with power and expertise admits he doesn't have all the answers. I'm sure he would say in public the media's doing a great job, and in private, he would be saying, "You guys are killing me, start making some money, we're going out of business!" If you want to know what his political leanings are, he is a Republican and always has been I think. I know he is on Obama's economic advisor panels but that has all kinds of people on it. If you think that because MSNBC ballwashes Obama because they are following Immelt's personal lead and politics, I think it probably has zero to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 As far as I know, which is a little, but probably more than you on this, Immelt does virtually nothing with NBC and MSNBC and CNBC and Universal. He has no background in news or entertainment or movies whatsoever and doesn't claim to, and I dont think he tells them how to run their business. There are all kinds of people to complain about with NBC, but you should probably stop listening to O'Reilly. Blame Jeff Zucker maybe. He was the guy that was responsible for the famous meeting with the networks about Obama bashing. I'm not sticking up for him, he seems like a terrible CEO. I just don't think he has much of anything to do with the entertainment subsidaries of his massive conglomerate known as GE. Sure, he will hire and fire people to run them like he has to in his job title, but everything seems to point to him running GE and not micromanaging the TV and cable and film divisions at all. There is a funny story from Conan O'Brien about this... I'm sure he would say in public the media's doing a great job, and in private, he would be saying, "You guys are killing me, start making some money, we're going out of business!" If you want to know what his political leanings are, he is a Republican and always has been I think. I know he is on Obama's economic advisor panels but that has all kinds of people on it. If you think that because MSNBC ballwashes Obama because they are following Immelt's personal lead and politics, I think it probably has zero to do with it. There is only ONE thing you need to know about this, and who thinks they know MORE than the other is irrelevant because THIS is all that matters: Jeffret Immelt, an economic advisor to Obama, is the CEO of GE, a company that stands to make gzillions from cap-and-trade, and whatever other energy policy he can "advise" the administration to support. His company owns NBC and MSNBC, both of which can be used to further public perception of the cap-and-trade deal, and any other energy deal. This is ALL you need to know, and nothing more. None of this is untrue, and you know it. If this were Cheney and Halliburton it would be all over the news and ACORN would be renting homeless people to picket outside someone's house with Olberman and Madcow reporting live from the scene. (That latter part IS debatable because we both know Olberman would never venture outside the bright lights and hairspray. ) Bottom line: It's a conflict of interest of ridiculous proportions and Immelt, regardless of what party he think he's from, should drop from his advisor position and cease all discussions with Dashchle. Neither you nor I needed O'Reilly to point that out because we're smarter than that, but I know how both sides love to discredit each other by pointing at talking heads, so I'll let it slide. Facts is facts, and Immelt's position is a conflict of interest. He should be out as advisor. P.S. With Republicans like Immelt and Specter, who needs Democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 There is only ONE thing you need to know about this, and who thinks they know MORE than the other is irrelevant because THIS is all that matters: Jeffret Immelt, an economic advisor to Obama, is the CEO of GE, a company that stands to make gzillions from cap-and-trade, and whatever other energy policy he can "advise" the administration to support. His company owns NBC and MSNBC, both of which can be used to further public perception of the cap-and-trade deal, and any other energy deal. This is ALL you need to know, and nothing more. None of this is untrue, and you know it. If this were Cheney and Halliburton it would be all over the news and ACORN would be renting homeless people to picket outside someone's house with Olberman and Madcow reporting live from the scene. (That latter part IS debatable because we both know Olberman would never venture outside the bright lights and hairspray. ) Bottom line: It's a conflict of interest of ridiculous proportions and Immelt, regardless of what party he think he's from, should drop from his advisor position and cease all discussions with Dashchle. Neither you nor I needed O'Reilly to point that out because we're smarter than that, but I know how both sides love to discredit each other by pointing at talking heads, so I'll let it slide. Facts is facts, and Immelt's position is a conflict of interest. He should be out as advisor. P.S. With Republicans like Immelt and Specter, who needs Democrats? If you apply that standard, then there should be zero private advisers to the government because there are conflicts for everyone. Just indicates the stupidity of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 There is only ONE thing you need to know about this, and who thinks they know MORE than the other is irrelevant because THIS is all that matters: Jeffret Immelt, an economic advisor to Obama, is the CEO of GE, a company that stands to make gzillions from cap-and-trade, and whatever other energy policy he can "advise" the administration to support. His company owns NBC and MSNBC, both of which can be used to further public perception of the cap-and-trade deal, and any other energy deal. This is ALL you need to know, and nothing more. None of this is untrue, and you know it. If this were Cheney and Halliburton it would be all over the news and ACORN would be renting homeless people to picket outside someone's house with Olberman and Madcow reporting live from the scene. (That latter part IS debatable because we both know Olberman would never venture outside the bright lights and hairspray. ) Bottom line: It's a conflict of interest of ridiculous proportions and Immelt, regardless of what party he think he's from, should drop from his advisor position and cease all discussions with Dashchle. Neither you nor I needed O'Reilly to point that out because we're smarter than that, but I know how both sides love to discredit each other by pointing at talking heads, so I'll let it slide. Facts is facts, and Immelt's position is a conflict of interest. He should be out as advisor. P.S. With Republicans like Immelt and Specter, who needs Democrats? Volker has been complaining that the adviser panel hasn't even met yet. It's not as though Immelt is a cabinet member. Should Eric Schmidt resign from the panel because Obama gets more hits than anyone in the media and Google is making a fortune off him with their stock at 400? Should the President of Oracle resign, or TIAA-CREF or Caterpiller? He could make a mint with all these infrastructure jobs. How about the guy who runs UBS. Besides, you seem to constantly imply, and more so lately, that Immelt is somewhat personally responsible for the content on NBC and MSNBC and the liberal media, and ball-washing of Obama, and what I was pointing out was that he has virtually nothing to say about what goes on the air, and he is a Republican, not one of those crazy liberals who are trying to take over and rule the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Nothing happened to change his mind on that. He just broke a campaign promise. Please define broken: The point is and I stand by it ALL POTUS's break campaign promises. Bush pledged - to ensure "college" education is affordable and accessible to every American - Broken He implied that college students would not suffer additional costs. YEAR AFTER YEAR less and less money was available for Grants and Scholarships. IF you could not get a Parent Plus loan YOU could not go to college!! That is why I said the promise was BROKEN If you think he fixed SS you are misguided. Actually, you are a Bush apologist you ARE misguided by default. You should thank your lucky stars he didn't invest the "youth groups SS in the stock market. Your SS would have been NEGATIVE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 The point is and I stand by it ALL POTUS's break campaign promises. Bush pledged - to ensure "college" education is affordable and accessible to every American - Broken He implied that college students would not suffer additional costs. YEAR AFTER YEAR less and less money was available for Grants and Scholarships. IF you could not get a Parent Plus loan YOU could not go to college!! That is why I said the promise was BROKEN If you think he fixed SS you are misguided. Actually, you are a Bush apologist you ARE misguided by default. You should thank your lucky stars he didn't invest the "youth groups SS in the stock market. Your SS would have been NEGATIVE" I appreciate the well-thought out response. Yes, sheep is definitely not the term for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts