[gOOber]

I wonder if Obama's presidency will mean the end of political humor as we have known it for the past 16 years?

[DruulEmpire]

There will always be Blagojeviches.

'Sides, Captain O is the Ultimate Straight Man.  The best fun to have with him is to imagine him trying to reason with the unreasonable.  SNL was onto something when they had Fred Armisen's Obama obliged to talk to McCain's tiny invisible leprechaun-like friend Joe the Plumber.

[Dearc]

Quote:
notty said:
4. Obama has taken an extremely disappointing stance in regard to coal power and nuclear power. He claims that coal plants and nuclear plants need to be part of the energy mix. That is lobbyist bullshit. With a little effort, we could meet all of our energy needs via alternative sources.

Stance or not, right or wrong, we NEED as much energy as we can get for the time being, and it'll take years to change the system.

I live in Minnesota, where the average temperature this past week was -20.  Ban coal and oil?  If you think Vikings & Packers fans are weird, you'll have a fucking riot on your hands faster than you can say "Yah knooow?"

Of course, this isn't the "Energy" thread.  

[notty]

Quote:
Dearc said:

Quote:
notty said:
4. Obama has taken an extremely disappointing stance in regard to coal power and nuclear power. He claims that coal plants and nuclear plants need to be part of the energy mix. That is lobbyist bullshit. With a little effort, we could meet all of our energy needs via alternative sources.

Stance or not, right or wrong, we NEED as much energy as we can get for the time being, and it'll take years to change the system.

I live in Minnesota, where the average temperature this past week was -20.  Ban coal and oil?  If you think Vikings & Packers fans are weird, you'll have a fucking riot on your hands faster than you can say "Yah knooow?"

Of course, this isn't the "Energy" thread.  

Actually, most of us don't NEED as much energy as we USE. We are lazy and wasteful. I'm not talking about banning coal today, or tomorrow, or next month. But if we wanted to...if Obama wanted to...we could do it in four years. It's one thing for Obama to say, "I declare a moratorium on coal power. Now, let's get to work replacing those existing plants." It's quite another to say, "Even though coal power is inefficient, hard on the environment, hazardous to human health, and the health of our ch1ldren in particular, we still need coal in the energy mix because my lobbyist buddies say so. How about this? We'll just slap a carbon sequestration bandaid on all the new coal plants we build. That should appease the millions of concerned citizens, not to mention all the moms and dads with asthmatic k1ds. Yay!"

[Dearc]

I DO agree that we need to be better stewards of the planet, and that Americans are a wasteful bunch.  Although Obama may have backpedaled on coal & oil, we must remember that China & India put out ALOT more pollution that the US does, so those lashing out on our mix of energy production should try protesting the other 2...but I have my doubts that'll work!

I honestly believe for the time being-next few years-Americans are doing the best they can.

But I'm obviously biased.  I'm sitting here in my gas-heated home, taking a break from a video game, flapping away in a forum.  At least I still recycle and consolidate my trips.

[Dearc]

Ok, perhaps the MOST ridiculous thing I've ever seen for a President...

http://www.accesshollywood.com/barack-obama-sneakers-kicks-you-can-believe-in_article_10104

Seriously, does anyone truly believe that this new legislation he's passing around to repeal the 22 Amendment should pass?  There's a reason why a president can only serve 2 consecutive terms.  Only one president has served more, that was FDR, and it was during WW2.

If he's serious, he's the ultimate sham.  

[3deroticer]

where did you hear he wants to repeal 22 amendment?

[notty]

So...Obama's inauguration is going to cost over 150 million dollars...when a large chunk of America is struggling just to afford the basic necessities. What a spectacular waste of money! This ranks up there with golden parachutes for greedy, incompetent executives.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
Dearc: There's a reason why a president can only serve 2 consecutive terms.  Only one president has served more, that was FDR, and it was during WW2.

Do you know the only reason why a president can't serve more than 2 consecutive terms? The precedent was set by George Washington, who at the end of his second term, was reported to have said, "Two terms is more than enough for any man." (He wasn't only saying that because it made for a good sound bite, but because he was sick of the bickering, backstabbing and general mayhem that was the politics of his day...ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same...)

The Congress (controlled by Republicans) rushed in the 22nd Amendment soon after FDR kicked the bucket, mainly out of spite. There's no other real reason. Don't pull the "it's to prevent entrenched interests never leaving" card on this one...after all, FDR's New Deal produced the meant-to-be-temporary Social Security program. Truly, "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." I remember when Reagan was riding roughshod over the landscape, I was thankful that the amendment was in place, just as I sort of regretted that it was there when Clinton was doing whatever it was he did after doing Monica Lewinsky but the thankful returned when Dubya came on the scene

Again, where did you hear that Obama's trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment?

[3deroticer]

Quote:
notty said:
So...Obama's inauguration is going to cost over 150 million dollars...when a large chunk of America is struggling just to afford the basic necessities. What a spectacular waste of money! This ranks up there with golden parachutes for greedy, incompetent executives.

well to be fair the inauguration is funded by contribution small as 5 dollars from the people. No one is hog tied to contribute. It's not hard to believe after 8 years that the people want to party!, plus they are getting great entertainment willing to play for the elected president.

[TheZookie007]

Yup, it's good value for money. I'd rather spend $150 mil on a blowout party -- NO MORE BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WOOHOO!!!! -- than the same amount on bailing out a company whose CEO earned $400 mil in one year or something.

[Dearc]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:

The Congress (controlled by Republicans) rushed in the 22nd Amendment soon after FDR kicked the bucket, mainly out of spite. There's no other real reason. Don't pull the "it's to prevent entrenched interests never leaving" card on this one...after all, FDR's New Deal produced the meant-to-be-temporary Social Security program. Truly, "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." I remember when Reagan was riding roughshod over the landscape, I was thankful that the amendment was in place, just as I sort of regretted that it was there when Clinton was doing whatever it was he did after doing Monica Lewinsky but the thankful returned when Dubya came on the scene

Again, where did you hear that Obama's trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86324

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/14/three-terms-for-barack-obama/

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/3550060212001

Oh, so in your view, the 22 Amendment was to limit the Democrats, and allow Republicans enough time to go apeshit?!  PUHLEEZE!  Tone down your Democratic rally speech.

The 22 Amendment was not only to limit the power of one man by time, but also connections.  Obama doesn't need anymore time than what's already given, and eight years is more than enough time for people to get together and get something done.  If anything's NOT getting done, it's not related to the presidency's time limit.  Connections is where it's at, Obama's got plenty of those.

I'm guessing you've never swore an oath to something greater than yourself, but I have.

Oath for swearing in of military personnel (enlisted).

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will  support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 "Oath of Office For President of the United States.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my  preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[notty]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
Yup, it's good value for money.

Good value would be televising the oath from the Oval Office, and using the left over $149,999,950.00 to help the poor and homeless of Washington, D.C.  

[DruulEmpire]

Dearc, a couple of points -- regardless of how you interpret and analyze, the fact remains that it was only after FDR died early in his fourth term that the 22nd Amendment passed.

Personally I'm for it myself.  My father always argued that FDR could have groomed someone like Robert Wagner (no, not that "Number Two" guy, but one of the more underappreciated politicians of the past century) to take over.

However, I can't help but notice that your own article mentions Eisenhower and Reagan, along with Clinton, being critical of the Amendment.  Just want to be sure here your outrage is equal opportunity.

Much more to the point -- it's something getting pushed by this one Jose Serrano guy.  Are you a betting man?  Because I'll bet you right now that this will go nowhere.  A whole lot of elected officials aren't going to lie back and say "Sure, steamroller right over me."

That's what gets me with this talk I hear from time to time, to the effect of "Oogah-boogah, there's a super secret Presidential order which no one can defy!"  No one?

It's not for nothing that CONgress is the opposite of PROgress.

I'll believe that Obama is about to serve a third term the day I can believe that Schwarzenegger can run for President -- and we've seen a LOT more of a push for that.  I'm betting against both.

And you know what gets me most about this particular brand of gratuitous alarmism?  IT KEEPS GETTING FORGOTTEN.  I remember the time someone complained in my face "Saddam Hussein is being defended!" as if to say "Oh no, surely this is the ultraliberal slippery slope by which we will hang ourselves by our own suicide pact!"  But Saddam vented, to no avail, and was tried, and was hung -- big fat whoop.  You're inspiring me to start a gallery of scares which will never come to anything -- because experience has shown me that the alarmists never chronicle their oh-so-immediately-precious alarms, it's a kind of "Here's TODAY'S claim to outrage" sort of thing.

On the whole, I think Notty comes closer to an actual point.  It would be good to see a lot of the money redistributed.

[midsize]

He hasn't even been sworn in to his 1st term, and we're supposed to be afraid that he's already plotting his 3rd?? It's going to be a reeeeally long 4 years for dittoheads.

Seriously, just get the fuck over it -- all of it.