• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

If you voted for OBAMA

Would you change your vote if you could

  • yes

    Votes: 31 33.0%
  • no

    Votes: 63 67.0%

  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
It's funny how Obama piggybacked on Warren Buffett's Class A reputation during the campaign, but you haven't heard squat from Warren since the inauguration. I'm pretty sure that this Buffett silence (when Obama desperately needs support on matters relating to finance) is NOT due to Barack deciding that he no longer needs Mr. Buffett's support. I think he just lost, or is losing, it.

(Buffett did say some really mediocre things recently though)

I just watched yesterday's interview with Buffett on CNBC. He said, and I quote: "He is the right President...... He will be the right person to be the Commander in Chief during this economic crisis, but it is an economic crisis."
He did have some suggestions regarding clearing the air on what is to be done about the banks, but he still sounded to be squarely in Obama's corner.
 
The whole situation can only become - MORE INTERESTING! :cool:
 
I have been quiet thus far, and as some of you know, I was probably Obama's loudest antagonist on this forum.

For steveny, vancehu, zahntec and other Conservatists/Libertarians, we are not surprised that the Dow has dropped 50%, there is very little business and consumer optimism and socialism reeks at every corner. We know that Obama is nothing but hot air and a worthless politician that wants to rule rather than lead or serve. What I think most of us are sad about is, that this has happened in less than 100 days.

Very sad, but it was avoidable.

PS: Another friendly advertisment that Obama administration is working to implement the "Assault Weapons Ban" which is all but most likely a reality. Since we can't beat em, take advantage of it - get everything you can and sell your excess in some time.... at least that's what I am doing.

Thanks all :)
 
Last edited:
So a young jeezy video is the best way you know who to explain yourself, pitiful.:rolleyes:

The young jeezy video is just *ANOTHER* example of blacks who voted for the current president *simply* cause he was black.

If they voted for him because he was black, why do you care. you ain't kicken with any of them! DO YOU EVEN HAVE ANY MUSIC BY HIM? You are showing your true colors with each post.
Here is number one

I really don't care....i just am proving my point since you claimed that blacks voting for Obama *simply* cause he was black was preposterous.
Ya know what? There are also whites who voted for McCain simply cause he was white!! It goes both ways, and if you deny that fact, you are the *ignorant* one.

And yes, I do have plenty of music from Young Jeezy and Jay Z. I like Jeezy's beats, and I like Jigga's lyrics. However, after viewing that performance, I will never purchase a CD from either ever again.


This fool posted a young jeezy video and said he was a role model for the brothers:rolleyes:
THEN said, he was brown and so were his parents and that i was embarrassing them. The asked why blacks can't do better.
AND he has NO IDEA why i'm in his ass about his comments.:rolleyes:

Yup - Look at all of those people in the stadium screaming and yelling in agreement.
Yup - I did and you are. I can't tell you how sick to death I am of the people who perpetuate the victimized minority crap.

You wanna know why young blacks can't get ahead in this country? It's because individuals like yourself INGRAINE in their heads from very early on that the white man and the whole world is against them! You pretty much set them up to fail. You teach them to be a victim from the very moment they can speak and comprehend. It's disgraceful and irresponsible.

Get on my ass as much as you want....it won't do you any good. Anyone can make it in this country, no matter what color. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Since you won't go away. i'm gonna be nice one more time:smile:. I did not bring up race in this thread. All i did was reference a post by silverstone. You keep posting to me bringing up race. i have only posted points in relevant threads, I don't go around asking for for someone to listen to my black points. When i want to hear about how YOU feel i'll pm you.:rolleyes:
Get some business!:rolleyes:

I am sorry but you did bring race into it. You had made comments that black people voted for him because he was black, and to go ask your 10 closest black friends why they voted for Obama.

The point is, that alot of people who are ignorant to politics, the government, the economy, and foreign affairs voted for someone because he is black. That in itself is just wrong.

Obama is a media driven elected President, nothing more. He will do nothing to help this country. So far he has only hurt it. What GW Bush and the democratic congress did to hurt the economy in 2 years, BHO and the prodominant democratic controlled congress has done it in his first 50 days. Congrats for that achievement.

Since we are talking about BHO, lets see how many promises he has broken thus far since being elected:

1. Sunlight Before Signing:
He Said: “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

What He Did: Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site.

2. Lobbyist Revolving Door
What He Said: “No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

What He Did: Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense.

3. No Tax Hikes on the Poor
What He Said: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

What He Did: By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line.

What He Said Next: “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

What He Did Next: Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.

4. Pork Barrel Earmark Reform
What He Said: “The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.”

What He Did: The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise.

5. Big Government
What He Said: “Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t."
What He Did: Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government.


Would you like for me to list more? I can on and on about broken promises or lies to the American people that BHO has committed in his first 50 days in office. If a conservative or republican would have this many lies in his first 50 days someone would be looking to impeach him. But, since the media elected this joke of a President, they leave him alone.

So, why dont you go get some business? Whatever the hell that means anyway. And please by all means dont be nice to me. I could care less if you are mean. If you want me to go away, then come on over to Nashville. But you can keep putting in those little :rolleyes: in your posts if you makes you feel more like a man.

Get some facts first, then come at me.....son.
 
The young jeezy video is just *ANOTHER* example of blacks who voted for the current president *simply* cause he was black.



I really don't care....i just am proving my point since you claimed that blacks voting for Obama *simply* cause he was black was preposterous.
Ya know what? There are also whites who voted for McCain simply cause he was white!! It goes both ways, and if you deny that fact, you are the *ignorant* one.

And yes, I do have plenty of music from Young Jeezy and Jay Z. I like Jeezy's beats, and I like Jigga's lyrics. However, after viewing that performance, I will never purchase a CD from either ever again.




Yup - Look at all of those people in the stadium screaming and yelling in agreement.
Yup - I did and you are. I can't tell you how sick to death I am of the people who perpetuate the victimized minority crap.

You wanna know why young blacks can't get ahead in this country? It's because individuals like yourself INGRAINE in their heads from very early on that the white man and the whole world is against them! You pretty much set them up to fail. You teach them to be a victim from the very moment they can speak and comprehend. It's disgraceful and irresponsible.

Get on my ass as much as you want....it won't do you any good. Anyone can make it in this country, no matter what color. :smile:


Im gonna stop after this. Silverstone05, all this started when you and steveny were not understanding why a black person would vote and be happy for Barack Obama. So anyone he thinks i am playing the race card and all that go to this thread
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113713&page=2

You will see i am only trying to shed light on why (some)blacks voted for him.
I never made the statement, "blacks voted for him because he was black was preposterous." Thats what you and steveny said in the link above.
I was trying to understand why you two, thought i was to stupid for black folks to vote for the black guy.

I feel and many other blacks feel he is a very good example for many blacks, young and old. He has accomplished a great deal. Some say he's not qualified, well in the past nobody ever asked black people how they felt about shit. If they did comment it didn't matter. so why be upset about how they voted? You did know McCain wasn't getting that vote right?

Now we have a black president as some blacks are happy to see a black man accomplish such a feat. But then you and steveny started saying," why would you blacks vote for him because he's black." I was seriously like, WTF? Hell we really have somebody to vote for now, or better, relate to. He's not Flava Flav! We ain't voting for Flava FLav to be president if he was running. Barack is a respected and educated man and has earned the right to represent the american people. We proud of tiger woods as much as we are of Barack. We have always wanted to be associated with Barack Obama types, not some of the uneducated people you see commenting in the media like some people posted, " OH LAWD, i ain't gotta pay my mortgage no-mo, OBAMA done saveded us!!!" I know people like to use those kinda post and youtube video's to describe blacks and how they view things, mostly NON_BLACKS.

Again if you are confused or think i'm embarrasing your mom and dad, re-read the entire thread.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113713&page=2

I'm not starting a race fight with you, but im not gonna let you post info about black thinking and culture without you knowing anything about it. Other than having a few "jigga" cd's:smile: Well hell you are not buying those anymore:rolleyes:

So in closing, you are not black, you have never walked in a black mans shoes. Stop trying to rationalize and explain how we feel and what we think, based on the shoes you wear. Stop claiming I'm embarassing and your parents, we are as related as a yugo and an nsx-r. I don't need reparations, some white people to die or any of that foul crap you, nathan and other that have never met, me believe. Most of us don't care about that shit. All we and anybody wants is to be treated fairly and not stereotyped with some fool that is a drug dealer, gangbanger or anybody else you don't like, don't understand or fear.

I worked for everything i have and was blessed that my FATHER AND MOTHER put good values in me. All they INGRAINED in my head is to treat people they way your want to be treated, regardless of were they came from or where they are going and RESPECT other individuals and their culture especially, if you know nothing about it. I have various friends on prime of all backgrounds and they know me and kick it with me as much as possible. i am proud to be an nsx owner and love the many people and relationships i have gotten from prime. I try to learn and share post with prime members who are interested in the same. A good debate for me is about learning and agreeing to disagree:smile:.
I definetly don't use nsxprime to vent my frustrations about something i don't like, fear or dont understand. I post to get info and give info to a community that i had grown to love. Hell prime is like the swap meet, you can get anything here!!

i really have no hard feelings against you, i might not like some stuff you say, but i don't wish any ill circumstances on you.:biggrin:
 
Im gonna stop after this. Silverstone05, all this started when you and steveny were not understanding why a black person would vote and be happy for Barack Obama. So anyone he thinks i am playing the race card and all that go to this thread
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113713&page=2

You will see i am only trying to shed light on why (some)blacks voted for him.
I never made the statement, "blacks voted for him because he was black was preposterous." Thats what you and steveny said in the link above.
I was trying to understand why you two, thought i was to stupid for black folks to vote for the black guy.

I feel and many other blacks feel he is a very good example for many blacks, young and old. He has accomplished a great deal. Some say he's not qualified, well in the past nobody ever asked black people how they felt about shit. If they did comment it didn't matter. so why be upset about how they voted? You did know McCain wasn't getting that vote right?

Now we have a black president as some blacks are happy to see a black man accomplish such a feat. But then you and steveny started saying," why would you blacks vote for him because he's black." I was seriously like, WTF? Hell we really have somebody to vote for now, or better, relate to. He's not Flava Flav! We ain't voting for Flava FLav to be president if he was running. Barack is a respected and educated man and has earned the right to represent the american people. We proud of tiger woods as much as we are of Barack. We have always wanted to be associated with Barack Obama types, not some of the uneducated people you see commenting in the media like some people posted, " OH LAWD, i ain't gotta pay my mortgage no-mo, OBAMA done saveded us!!!" I know people like to use those kinda post and youtube video's to describe blacks and how they view things, mostly NON_BLACKS.

Again if you are confused or think i'm embarrasing your mom and dad, re-read the entire thread.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113713&page=2

I'm not starting a race fight with you, but im not gonna let you post info about black thinking and culture without you knowing anything about it. Other than having a few "jigga" cd's:smile: Well hell you are not buying those anymore:rolleyes:

So in closing, you are not black, you have never walked in a black mans shoes. Stop trying to rationalize and explain how we feel and what we think, based on the shoes you wear. Stop claiming I'm embarassing and your parents, we are as related as a yugo and an nsx-r. I don't need reparations, some white people to die or any of that foul crap you, nathan and other that have never met, me believe. Most of us don't care about that shit. All we and anybody wants is to be treated fairly and not stereotyped with some fool that is a drug dealer, gangbanger or anybody else you don't like, don't understand or fear.

I worked for everything i have and was blessed that my FATHER AND MOTHER put good values in me. All they INGRAINED in my head is to treat people they way your want to be treated, regardless of were they came from or where they are going and RESPECT other individuals and their culture especially, if you know nothing about it. I have various friends on prime of all backgrounds and they know me and kick it with me as much as possible. i am proud to be an nsx owner and love the many people and relationships i have gotten from prime. I try to learn and share post with prime members who are interested in the same. A good debate for me is about learning and agreeing to disagree:smile:.
I definetly don't use nsxprime to vent my frustrations about something i don't like, fear or dont understand. I post to get info and give info to a community that i had grown to love. Hell prime is like the swap meet, you can get anything here!!

i really have no hard feelings against you, i might not like some stuff you say, but i don't wish any ill circumstances on you.:biggrin:


That was a very well thought out and lucid post. However, I think you might be mistaking me for someone who thinks that you are some poor, old, swamp running, black guy. Believe me I dont think that. So, lets just get that clear. Of course, I cant speak for the other two people. But I am sure they dont think you are some sort of sould brotha looking for a hand out.

My point was about those such individuals that ARE looking for just that. They let emotions get the better of them. Rather they should have been researching the candidates history and track record first. Then make their decision based upon what they learned; not just because he is HALF black.

There is no reason not to reply. If people take the shit they read on prime to heart, then they have some problems. So, feel free to come back to me with another post. I dont mind. :biggrin:
 
I did read the entire thread jack leg. And like other threads you have posted in, you always seem to bring up race before others do. I am guessing you are black.

That's what your "ignore list" is for :smile:
Unless someone Quotes him I never have to read anything he posts. I have a few people that make my head hurt reading what was posted :wink:
 
nathan, STOP with the Quotes :tongue:

So can somebody tell me why black people think the President is black :confused:


"He can't say, 'I'm a white guy named Barack Hussein Obama,' nobody's going to buy that," says cultural critic Michaela Angela Davis. "We're not ready for that."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/09/btsc.obama.race/

Just to mess with your HEAD :biggrin:
 
nathan, STOP with the Quotes :tongue:

So can somebody tell me why black people think the President is black :confused:


"He can't say, 'I'm a white guy named Barack Hussein Obama,' nobody's going to buy that," says cultural critic Michaela Angela Davis. "We're not ready for that."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/09/btsc.obama.race/

Just to mess with your HEAD :biggrin:


HAHA. Ok Jeff. Just for your I will stop with the quotes. That way you dont have to read what you dont want to. :tongue:

Funny stuff.
 
Very sad. Taking the guns from responsible citizens will not prevent this however. It will only exacerbate it b/c a criminal will always have access to guns yet fewer people wil be able to defend themselves..

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

It is not sad, it is quite tragic. Out of curiosity can you define "responsible citizens"?
 
Thats been going around lately.:biggrin:


You dont even seem to be taking this seriously. I give facts backed by documentaion and in some causes video to support my statements and views and you retort with empty retoric and smiley faces. I did enough research on the canidates to make an educated decision on who i wanted to vote for. You apparently voted for someone based squarely on race and savy teleprompter reading.
Therefore ive lost interest in debating you. If youd like to provide some type of intelligent response to some of the points ive brought up then id be happy to discuss, otherwise youre a waste of my time.
 
It is not sad, it is quite tragic. Out of curiosity can you define "responsible citizens"?

Those that don't commit crimes with the power they have been allowed to possess.

In places like MN where we have to take a class and pass a test (shooting and written) to carry a firearm, the rate of crime among "licensed" carrying folks is about 0.001%. Thats right, there has not been really any (firearm related) issues with folks like myself. And there are currently 58,898 of us in the state.

Thats a "responsible citizen".
 
Last edited:
You dont even seem to be taking this seriously. I give facts backed by documentaion and in some causes video to support my statements and views and you retort with empty retoric and smiley faces. I did enough research on the canidates to make an educated decision on who i wanted to vote for. You apparently voted for someone based squarely on race and savy teleprompter reading.
Therefore ive lost interest in debating you. If youd like to provide some type of intelligent response to some of the points ive brought up then id be happy to discuss, otherwise youre a waste of my time.

I have been explaining my thoughts and views for two days, and you say i'm not taking anything seriously. I answered all your post.
I have been trying to answer your post intelligently. I dont disagree with that you posted a fact or two but there were other post that made some yours look unfactual. For all the documentation you posted if seen documentation as neg, i've seen documentation that rebukes that or clarifies it. I will continue to observe and research what happens in the coming months. But i do realize i have to take care of my own business first and be prepared for what ever.

There were 2 people to vote for in last election, John McCain and Barack Obama. I voted for who i thought would do the best for the american people, IMO it was Barack Obama. You seem to believe i voted for him for all the wrong reasons, your entitled to that. I'm not sure what you did or who you voted for but thats your choice. You posted what you felt and so did I. Im sorry you felt all the dialogue was a waste of time. i actually learned a few things (as always with prime) aside from all the name callin and blind assumptions. Since we are stuck with obama for the next 4 years i guess i better get ready for the sky to fall. best wishes.
 
You can call her obnoxious, you can make fun of her, but she nailed it on this one!!!

Are 'Hope' and 'Change' Still Tax-Deductible?
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 11, 2009


Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters.


While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

Seriously, even with a company car, full medical benefits and six weeks' paid vacation thrown in, how do people live on that?

Meanwhile, the average salary for a lawyer with 20 years or more experience in the U.S. is a little more than $100,000. If Michelle Obama doesn't lay off all this "giving back" stuff pretty soon, she's going to find herself in Warren Buffett's tax bracket.

During the campaign, Joe Biden was also praised by the Democrats for being the poorest U.S. senator -- as if that were a major accomplishment.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, touted Biden as "a good example of a working-class kid," adding that, to this day, Biden was "one of the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate." Only a Democrat would list "never really made anything of myself" on his resume.

On the Huffington Post, operated by a woman who acquired her wealth by marrying a rich gay guy connected to Big Oil, liberal blogger Steven Clemons gloated that, unlike John McCain, Biden wouldn't "forget the number of houses he owns," adding that, in 2006, Biden was ranked the poorest U.S. senator.

And at his high school reunion Biden was voted "most likely to try to bum a ride off of somebody." Vote Biden!

According to tax returns for Biden and his public schoolteacher wife, in 2006, their total income was $248,459; in 2007, it was $319,853 -- putting the couple in the top 1 percent of all earners in the U.S.

This, my friends, is the face of poverty in America. At least in the Democratic Party. It's located just below that row of hair plugs. The Bidens are yet another heart-rending example of America's "hidden poor" -- desperately needy families hidden behind annual incomes of a quarter million dollars or more paid by the taxpayer. My fellow Americans, we can do better.

The national median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007. Working for the government pays well.

If liberals are going to show how in touch they are with normal Americans by demanding a Marxist revolution against the rich every time they control the government, how about taking a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the little guy?

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
 
Obama Sinks the Markets
Brent Bozell III
Friday, March 13, 2009


On March 3, President Obama said something remarkably stupid, wrong and politically tone-deaf. Our Obama-loving media either ignored it -- or actually quoted it without comment. He claimed, "The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day to day, and if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."


The Dow has now fallen more than 50 percent from its peak. Last month, it saw its biggest one-month drop since 1933. Grandpa's retirement savings just half vanished over the last few months, and the president is telling him it's just a meaningless blip. This is not a poll -- this is all about the American people's economic future, or their present. The stock market is in its greatest free fall since the Great Depression, and the president shrugs his shoulders.

How is it that no one on ABC, CBS or NBC found it bizarre to compare the Dow Jones index to a mere tracking poll? The answer is that they do, of course -- if it were uttered by a Republican. Stop and just think about how they'd have reacted if those words were spoken by Dubya.

The media loved to mock George W. Bush for sounding too optimistic about the economy. They scoured John McCain for claiming the fundamentals were strong. They forced Phil Gramm off McCain's campaign for saying we were a nation of whiners about the economy. But now, President Obama can tell America "don't worry your pretty head about the Dow Jones average," and no one in the media blinks.

ABC and CBS helpfully skipped the obnoxious "tracking poll" part of the Obama quote and picked him up seconds later: "What I'm looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but the long-term ability for the United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing."

It gets worse. He also said "Profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal." That's just wrong. Stock experts call it a "price to earnings ratio." If a stockbroker told you to get into the market and mangled the market terms, would you be confident in his advice?

As Jim Geraghty concluded on National Review Online: "If Bush had said the above, it would be ipso facto evidence of his idiocy." But in this case, the networks ran it without correction. Are TV news stars that stupid about basic stock terms? Or did they merely play dumb?

Chuck Todd of NBC and John Ydstie of National Public Radio passively replayed both potentially damaging quotes without any pause for a critique. Todd exclaimed, "It's a rare day when a president hands out stock tips. But that's exactly what President Obama seemed to do today." He ran the mangled P/E ratio comment, and then served up the stupid tracking-poll quote: "At the same time, the president tried to distance his plans for reviving the economy from the market's movements."

CBS ran the "profit and earnings ratios" quote on "CBS Evening News" and "The Early Show" in the morning. Katie Couric started her newscast with the pom-poms: "Tonight, President Obama says he's absolutely confident the economy will turn around and warns against worrying about the daily ups and downs of the stock market." Chip Reid's evening story at least ran a clip of GOP Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite telling Obama what a lot of people are thinking: "It seems every time that a statement is issued by you, the stock market plummets."

Think about it. Obama's inauguration speech? The market dropped. Obama's first State of the Union-style speech to Congress? The market dropped. Obama's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tried to explain their under-baked bank rescue plan in February? The market dropped almost 400 points. Even Obama's most fervent fans -- like Chris Matthews -- have put on the tube a chart showing the stock market's precipitous decline since Obama's victory. That is a sober political and economic reality for Team Obama, and no happy talk is going to fix it.

That's not to say the media cheerleaders won't try. The day after Obama's tracking-poll gaffe, ABC's Diane Sawyer began "Good Morning America" by proclaiming: "This morning, the confidence coach takes charge. The president himself challenges a weary nation to buy stocks as the first stimulus shovels plow the ground."

Are these news reports, or White House press releases?



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 
Obama Due for a Nasty Bear Market in the Polls
Sabrina L. Schaeffer
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Editors' note: this piece is co-authored by Adam Schaeffer.

In recent weeks we’ve seen a substantial shift in the way the nation’s elite speaks about the Obama administration. An administration once hailed for the most competent and seamless transition in presidential history now suffers from widespread charges of incompetence and lack of focus -- even from ardent supporters.


The flow of elite communication has started to shift against President Obama, and soon we can expect to see a significant erosion of support among the public – a shift on which Republicans and conservatives ought to capitalize.

Longtime deep-pocketed Democratic donor and MSNBC investment advisor Jim Cramer kicked off the trend by denouncing President Obama’s handling of the economy, calling it a “radical agenda” and the “greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president.” On a separate occasion, Cramer requested a refund on the many large donations he made to Obama and the Democrats.

Earlier this week Warren Buffet criticized the administration’s handling of the economy and its lack of focus in favor of partisan political projects. We should be waging war on the economic meltdown, Buffett insisted, and Obama needs to keep his eye on that alone right now.

“If on December 8th when -- maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war,” explained Buffett, “he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects,’ and you didn't have Congresspeople putting on 8,000 earmarks onto the declaration of war in 1941 .”

Similarly, in a Washington Post oped, Intel microchip innovator and Obama supporter Andrew S. Grove confesses to “growing worry and frustration” and concern “over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued [solutions to the economic crisis].”

Thomas Friedman, the quintessential hopeful moderate, writes that “it feels as if [President Obama] is deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis, while pressing ahead on other popular initiatives” and urges him to focus on the economic crisis.

At the liberal The New Republic, William Galston concludes about the Obama administration, “Their failure thus far to restore financial confidence raises two equally depressing possibilities: Either they do not know what to do, or they do not believe they can muster the political support to do what they know needs to be done."

Stuart Taylor writes in the center-left National Journal that, “having praised President Obama's job performance in two recent columns, it is with regret that I now worry that he may be deepening what looks more and more like a depression and may engineer so much spending, debt, and government control of the economy as to leave most Americans permanently less prosperous and less free.”

And this trend among the chattering classes has not gone unnoticed. The Politico reports that even many Democratic politicians are getting nervous, starting “to worry that voters don’t and won’t understand the link between economic revival and Obama’s huge agenda.”

More than a few of the broad center-left are jumping ship. It’s almost as if they’ve been given talking points since they echo all the same complaints: the Obama administration is unfocused, prone to missteps, and is more interested in pushing an aggressive liberal social agenda than it is in stabilizing our economy.

That’s a deadly narrative for the President. And Republicans would do well to focus on amplifying these center-left critics and criticisms at every turn, increasing the clarity, breadth, and intensity of the narrative.

Elite opinion matters; it is the lifeblood of mass public opinion. And it is of particular importance when the composition of elite communication begins to change directions.

Public opinion moves in response to the relative intensity and consistency of messages flowing from elite sources. When elites are polarized – generally along a liberal-conservative axis – the public divides according to political awareness and values. But when elites unite on mainstream issues – such as they are currently beginning to do in denouncing President Obama’s handling of the economy – the public’s response becomes relatively non-ideological and cohesive.

It’s a simple matter, really. Polls are a lagging indicator of political success or failure. And as Howard Fineman of Newsweek notes, “in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his [Obama’s] measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.”

President Obama for the moment enjoys high approval ratings hovering just above 60 percent. But reading the reports on elite communications, it looks like Obama is in for a serious Bear market in the polls.

Obama can stop the inevitable now only by a true turnaround in performance, not another speech or assertion that they will soon have a plan to revive the economy, or rein in spending eventually, or turn to fiscal responsibility. It’s too late for words to sooth the markets and our economy. And it seems unlikely that this administration will quickly and substantively change its approach to governance.

The market has suffered a 15 percent decline since Obama took office. His approval numbers will likely soon do the same.

Adam Schaeffer, Ph.D., is an advising partner of Evolving Strategies.
 
Obama Due for a Nasty Bear Market in the Polls
Sabrina L. Schaeffer
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Editors' note: this piece is co-authored by Adam Schaeffer.

In recent weeks we’ve seen a substantial shift in the way the nation’s elite speaks about the Obama administration. An administration once hailed for the most competent and seamless transition in presidential history now suffers from widespread charges of incompetence and lack of focus -- even from ardent supporters.


The flow of elite communication has started to shift against President Obama, and soon we can expect to see a significant erosion of support among the public – a shift on which Republicans and conservatives ought to capitalize.

Longtime deep-pocketed Democratic donor and MSNBC investment advisor Jim Cramer kicked off the trend by denouncing President Obama’s handling of the economy, calling it a “radical agenda” and the “greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president.” On a separate occasion, Cramer requested a refund on the many large donations he made to Obama and the Democrats.

Earlier this week Warren Buffet criticized the administration’s handling of the economy and its lack of focus in favor of partisan political projects. We should be waging war on the economic meltdown, Buffett insisted, and Obama needs to keep his eye on that alone right now.

“If on December 8th when -- maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war,” explained Buffett, “he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects,’ and you didn't have Congresspeople putting on 8,000 earmarks onto the declaration of war in 1941 .”

Similarly, in a Washington Post oped, Intel microchip innovator and Obama supporter Andrew S. Grove confesses to “growing worry and frustration” and concern “over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued [solutions to the economic crisis].”

Thomas Friedman, the quintessential hopeful moderate, writes that “it feels as if [President Obama] is deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis, while pressing ahead on other popular initiatives” and urges him to focus on the economic crisis.

At the liberal The New Republic, William Galston concludes about the Obama administration, “Their failure thus far to restore financial confidence raises two equally depressing possibilities: Either they do not know what to do, or they do not believe they can muster the political support to do what they know needs to be done."

Stuart Taylor writes in the center-left National Journal that, “having praised President Obama's job performance in two recent columns, it is with regret that I now worry that he may be deepening what looks more and more like a depression and may engineer so much spending, debt, and government control of the economy as to leave most Americans permanently less prosperous and less free.”

And this trend among the chattering classes has not gone unnoticed. The Politico reports that even many Democratic politicians are getting nervous, starting “to worry that voters don’t and won’t understand the link between economic revival and Obama’s huge agenda.”

More than a few of the broad center-left are jumping ship. It’s almost as if they’ve been given talking points since they echo all the same complaints: the Obama administration is unfocused, prone to missteps, and is more interested in pushing an aggressive liberal social agenda than it is in stabilizing our economy.

That’s a deadly narrative for the President. And Republicans would do well to focus on amplifying these center-left critics and criticisms at every turn, increasing the clarity, breadth, and intensity of the narrative.

Elite opinion matters; it is the lifeblood of mass public opinion. And it is of particular importance when the composition of elite communication begins to change directions.

Public opinion moves in response to the relative intensity and consistency of messages flowing from elite sources. When elites are polarized – generally along a liberal-conservative axis – the public divides according to political awareness and values. But when elites unite on mainstream issues – such as they are currently beginning to do in denouncing President Obama’s handling of the economy – the public’s response becomes relatively non-ideological and cohesive.

It’s a simple matter, really. Polls are a lagging indicator of political success or failure. And as Howard Fineman of Newsweek notes, “in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his [Obama’s] measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.”

President Obama for the moment enjoys high approval ratings hovering just above 60 percent. But reading the reports on elite communications, it looks like Obama is in for a serious Bear market in the polls.

Obama can stop the inevitable now only by a true turnaround in performance, not another speech or assertion that they will soon have a plan to revive the economy, or rein in spending eventually, or turn to fiscal responsibility. It’s too late for words to sooth the markets and our economy. And it seems unlikely that this administration will quickly and substantively change its approach to governance.

The market has suffered a 15 percent decline since Obama took office. His approval numbers will likely soon do the same.

Adam Schaeffer, Ph.D., is an advising partner of Evolving Strategies.
yep, it's the end of the world :rolleyes:

using cramer as a credible source is like using wikipedia as a source. but since they included cramer:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Television/story?id=7075368&page=1

""How the hell did we end up here, Mr. Cramer?," Stewart asked before calling out Cramer and CNBC on not accurately predicting the financial meltdown. He aired clips of Cramer talking about the markets in 2006 that directly contradict the advice he gives on "Mad Money."

"It feels like we are capitalizing your adventure," Stewart said about Cramer's stock market "shenanigans." "It's a game that you know, that you know is going on, but you go on television as a financial network and you pretend it isn't happening."

"I understand you want to make finance entertaining. But it's not a f****** game," Stewart went on. "You knew what the banks were doing. ... and for now to pretend that this was a crazy once in a lifetime tsunami is disingenuous at best."

Cramer couldn't contend. He claimed he was trying, he and the reporters at CNBC "try really hard to report the news" and admitted he "should do a better job at it." "
 
CNBC and Jim Cramer should have asked tougher questions -- if they had, my 401k, hedge funds, mutual funds, and stock accounts would all be much higher today. :rolleyes:

Just so you know: those Wall St. fat cats that Jon Stewart maligns -- they lost about the same amount as everyone else. The average equities hedge fund was down about 30% in 2008. Pensions and retirement funds -- about the same.

Too bad it makes for better populist TV incorrectly state that Wall St. & CNBC fleeced the nation.

One day, we'll (once again) wake up to the fact that we, as consumers, are responsible for our own actions. Until then, lets find someone else to blame. Jim Cramer looks like a nice big target, eh?
 
There were 2 people to vote for in last election, John McCain and Barack Obama. .



WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!! you could have wrote in anyone you wanted to....or voted for a third party candidate like I did.

Stop being part of the machine. :smile:
 
using cramer as a credible source is like using wikipedia as a source. but since they included cramer:

This just in...

Cramer's opinion from now on deemed irrelevant by liberals due to potential issues with speaking the truth.

Obama's opinion still credible and valued with liberals even though he continues to lie his ass off.
 
This just in...

Cramer's opinion from now on deemed irrelevant by liberals due to potential issues with speaking the truth.

Obama's opinion still credible and valued with liberals even though he continues to lie his ass off.
but of course.

isn't this the way society works today?

(speaking only for myself, because i support a politician / cause, doesn't mean i support everything they do or say.)
 
Back
Top