JeSoul:

Well, I firmly deny it. If that means I don't have "brains", then so be it. There is some racism, but it limited to fringe minorities that do not constitute for a second the majority of Obama's antagonists.

Where those who 'hated' Bush (which is a large portion of blacks btw) also racist? Clinton? Bush snr? Presidents get blasted by the opposing parties - the phenomenon did not start with Obama and it will not end with him.

I think one of the greatest handicaps we blacks suffer from is our constant predilection to play the racism card where none exists. It makes it that much harder to take seriously and treat with the appropriate amount of justified anger when actual racism occurs.

I think you are over-simplifying the issue. Like all presidents, Obama will be criticised but the criticism of Obama reached such levels that even presidents who failed such as Bush jr did not receive such. When the tea party and town hall movements protesters moved on Washington, many of them were interviewed but a majority could not articulate why they were protesting against Obama. Even President Carter said what a lot of people were thinking; that racism was behind it all. And that is coming from a man known for his pacifist views.

You say Americans are not ignorant, yet Sarah Palin has such a huge following.

The one fault I think Obama has is in pushing through the Healthcare reforms. It is clear that the most vociferous commentators are against it. In all the brouhaha, those who will benefit from it have largely kept quiet. Whatever the arguments are for the Healthcare, if a majority are against it, then the benefits need to be articulated and communicated to the citizenry.

With regards to the economy, I believe that Obama has taken well meaning steps. He bailed out corporations whose bankruptcy would have led to high employment. He employed supply-side economics by implementing the Keynesian based Stimulus plan to stimulate the economy. He has also extended the Bush tax cuts even though he his personally against extending it for the top 2%. Obama went on an economic visit to Asia which yielded approximately $15 billion in trade deals and will create almost 60,000 jobs. Obama is trying is trying his best. For the rest of his tenure, he needs to over-look leftist/welfarist policies for many reasons. My opinion

'The White House on Saturday released the highlights of India-U.S. trade deals that exceed USD 14.9 billion in total value. The release said as part of the Obama Administration’s National Export Initiative, which aims to double the U.S exports in five years, the U.S President described India as a key market for the U.S.

The deals will largely benefit the big companies as well as the small and medium-sized enterprises in the U.S. Most of the U.S companies have finalised their deals with Indian Ministries and private companies, which in turn will support an estimated 53,670 U.S. jobs and result in USD 9.5 billion export business.'

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article874340.ece

With regards to the economy, I believe that Obama has taken well meaning steps. He bailed out corporations whose bankruptcy would have led to high employment. He employed supply-side economics by implementing the Keynesian based Stimulus plan to stimulate the economy.

The banks made profit by risking money and assets in investments that were prospected to yield astronomical gains. A lot of these Wall street investments translated to predatory lending tactics on Main street and many families were bitten bad for falling victim to their lending practices. For those families, their losses were attributed to bad judgement and failure to understand the risks involved, and none of them were ever compensated or bailed out.

A risk demands a sense of accountability. . . . . .choosing to step out into the dark night of a dangerous forest and taking ownership of the anticipated outcome, whatever it may turn out to be. . . .gain or loss.

For many years before their failures, these banks were notorious for engaging in accounting malpractices hidden under audit reviews. They will announce a profit margin before the end of their fiscal year to move money around for tax purposes but then turn around before the annual general meeting and amend the books to reduce payout on their profit sharing to shareholders.

. . . . . . by bailing them out Obama failed the country. He redistributed wealth to entities that ought to be left alone to fail. All that 'too big to fail" was a scare tactic. . . . left alone to die, I promise you they would invent their own rescue. In fact, I believe they had a contingency for that particular scenario.

On the Keynesian approach, you don't apply a viable theory to conditions that are practically counter-effective to the laws under which that theory is ideally suited to operate. The conditions on the ground were purely fraudulent practices - ethical questions - and not an out of balance economic dynamics. The dynamics were still in balance you just needed to root out the unethical violators.

If I may something else too, in America there are two elements above the President. . . one is overt and the other is covert. . . . and his success in office depends on how well he manages both.

The overt one is the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is the highest office of the sovereignty.

The covert one is the Central Bank. . . . it is the only entity in America with enough power to veto, in principle, the actions of the President. By bailing out the banks The President learnt the first lessons that his power is not absolute. . . .forget that he is referred as the most powerful person in the world.

I think he redeemed himself with the tax bill and the don't ask, don't tell repeal bills.

Now, he has to deal with immigration and I will definitely vote for him come next election.

He is doing well. . . I must admit.

The health care bill. . .the tax bill. . .now the gay rights' bill. . . way to go Obama.

Bravo!

Negro_Ntns:

The banks made profit by risking money and assets in investments that were prospected to yield astronomical gains. A lot of these Wall street investments translated to predatory lending tactics on Main street and many families were bitten bad for falling victim to their lending practices. For those families, their losses were attributed to bad judgement and failure to understand the risks involved, and none of them were ever compensated or bailed out.

A risk demands a sense of accountability. . . . . .choosing to step out into the dark night of a dangerous forest and taking ownership of the anticipated outcome, whatever it may turn out to be. . . .gain or loss.

For many years before their failures, these banks were notorious for engaging in accounting malpractices hidden under audit reviews. They will announce a profit margin before the end of their fiscal year to move money around for tax purposes but then turn around before the annual general meeting and amend the books to reduce payout on their profit sharing to shareholders.

. . . . . . by bailing them out Obama failed the country. He redistributed wealth to entities that ought to be left alone to fail. All that 'too big to fail" was a scare tactic. . . . left alone to die, I promise you they would invent their own rescue. In fact, I believe they had a contingency for that particular scenario.

On the Keynesian approach, you don't apply a viable theory to conditions that are practically counter-effective to the laws under which that theory is ideally suited to operate. The conditions on the ground were purely fraudulent practices - ethical questions - and not an out of balance economic dynamics. The dynamics were still in balance you just needed to root out the unethical violators.

If I may something else too, in America there are two elements above the President. . . one is overt and the other is covert. . . . and his success in office depends on how well he manages both.

The overt one is the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is the highest office of the sovereignty.

The covert one is the Central Bank. . . . it is the only entity in America with enough power to veto, in principle, the actions of the President. By bailing out the banks The President learnt the first lessons that his power is not absolute. . . .forget that he is referred as the most powerful person in the world.

I could not have said this better myself. Thank you very much for providing this information. A lot of people do not understand how the financial meltdown occurred. And it was, because of these various reason.

Negro_Ntns:

true, except that nothing in American society is free, end-to-end, from racial coloring.

  . . . and you could say this for practically every country that is not located in sub-saharan Africa.

Are you aware that even Wal-Mart is color coded in its distribution network? Here in the South we have two Wal-Marts. . . the Blue and the Green. The Green is mostly found in minority neighborhoods and the Blue in mixed income to high end communities.

What people express is a reflection of the policies that are end-products of government and corporations alike and these two players control the society and the economy.

I do agree with you though that where other reasons and explanations exist then race outght not be the main theme of discussion.

There will always be class distribution/discrimination Negro - and sometimes it is not entirely bad. Are the blue/green colors merely code for their location? or the type of products sold? the demographic of their customers? I think there's more to the story - though I am not denying that there is class and inevitably race discimination by companies/corporations - and mostly it is done for profit sake, and not really as a result of bad-belle 'racism'.

JeSoul, there is something very familiar with how you respond to views and I love it.

You should seek elective office. . . I will campaign for you. You are very good at "triangulating". I just love it!!

Ok, you win the debate.

Katsumoto:

I think you are over-simplifying the issue. Like all presidents, Obama will be criticised but the criticism of Obama reached such levels that even presidents who failed such as Bush jr did not receive such. When the tea party and town hall movements protesters moved on Washington, many of them were interviewed but a majority could not articulate why they were protesting against Obama. Even President Carter said what a lot of people were thinking; that racism was behind it all. And that is coming from a man known for his pacifist views.

Hmm . . . I hate to play the location card but do you live here in America? cos I think if you did you would know that you are dead wrong on this. I have never seen hatred like it was and still is exhibited towards George W. Go to the grocery store, movies, post office . . . its a running joke when something goes wrong to be attributed to Bush. I don't think Obama's criticism has fallen to the depths of Bush, not at all.

And the fact some of his haters may not be able to articulate the reason for their protest does not automatically mean they are racist. This is a cheap cop out Katsumoto and I think you know it 

You say Americans are not ignorant, yet Sarah Palin has such a huge following.

I'll let Negro deal with this one. On second thot lemme take a stab . . .  so your equation is this right - a good chunk of Americans like Sarah Palin = americans are ignorant.

common now dude.

You might as well say: A huge chunk of Americans and Brits like Lady Gaga/The Osbournes = americans/brits are ignorant.

I like Sarah Palin. Does that make me ignorant? I agree with a lot of what she says/does, and on the flipside I disagree with a lot of what she says and especially her methods and actions. I am one of her fans who hopes she does not run for president because I don't think she's qualified and can bring the country together like it needs to be. She's too divisive a figure and generally unwilling to deviate from anything conservative. But I still like Sarah Palin - am I still ignorant? Katsumoto, I beseech thee to please rethink thy position.

The one fault I think Obama has is in pushing through the Healthcare reforms. It is clear that the most vociferous commentators are against it. In all the brouhaha, those who will benefit from it have largely kept quiet. Whatever the arguments are for the Healthcare, if a majority are against it, then the benefits need to be articulated and communicated to the citizenry.

With regards to the economy, I believe that Obama has taken well meaning steps. He bailed out corporations whose bankruptcy would have led to high employment. He employed supply-side economics by implementing the Keynesian based Stimulus plan to stimulate the economy. He has also extended the Bush tax cuts even though he his personally against extending it for the top 2%. Obama went on an economic visit to Asia which yielded approximately $15 billion in trade deals and will create almost 60,000 jobs. Obama is trying is trying his best. For the rest of his tenure, he needs to over-look leftist/welfarist policies for many reasons. My opinion

'The White House on Saturday released the highlights of India-U.S. trade deals that exceed USD 14.9 billion in total value. The release said as part of the Obama Administration’s National Export Initiative, which aims to double the U.S exports in five years, the U.S President described India as a key market for the U.S.

The deals will largely benefit the big companies as well as the small and medium-sized enterprises in the U.S. Most of the U.S companies have finalised their deals with Indian Ministries and private companies, which in turn will support an estimated 53,670 U.S. jobs and result in USD 9.5 billion export business.'

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article874340.ece

Replied by Negro -

Negro_Ntns:

The banks made profit by risking money and assets in investments that were prospected to yield astronomical gains. A lot of these Wall street investments translated to predatory lending tactics on Main street and many families were bitten bad for falling victim to their lending practices. For those families, their losses were attributed to bad judgement and failure to understand the risks involved, and none of them were ever compensated or bailed out.

A risk demands a sense of accountability. . . . . .choosing to step out into the dark night of a dangerous forest and taking ownership of the anticipated outcome, whatever it may turn out to be. . . .gain or loss.

For many years before their failures, these banks were notorious for engaging in accounting malpractices hidden under audit reviews. They will announce a profit margin before the end of their fiscal year to move money around for tax purposes but then turn around before the annual general meeting and amend the books to reduce payout on their profit sharing to shareholders.

. . . . . . by bailing them out Obama failed the country. He redistributed wealth to entities that ought to be left alone to fail. All that 'too big to fail" was a scare tactic. . . . left alone to die, I promise you they would invent their own rescue. In fact, I believe they had a contingency for that particular scenario.

On the Keynesian approach, you don't apply a viable theory to conditions that are practically counter-effective to the laws under which that theory is ideally suited to operate. The conditions on the ground were purely fraudulent practices - ethical questions - and not an out of balance economic dynamics. The dynamics were still in balance you just needed to root out the unethical violators.

If I may something else too, in America there are two elements above the President. . . one is overt and the other is covert. . . . and his success in office depends on how well he manages both.

The overt one is the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is the highest office of the sovereignty.

The covert one is the Central Bank. . . . it is the only entity in America with enough power to veto, in principle, the actions of the President. By bailing out the banks The President learnt the first lessons that his power is not absolute. . . .forget that he is referred as the most powerful person in the world.

Negro has done a fantabulous job on replying as I might have. Let me add some.
In general I didn't agree with the bail-outs - but I can see and appreciate why Obama went that route. A lot of all this is theory. Nobody knows how things are going to turn out until the policies are actually implemented.

 And as for the rest of it - whether Obama has taken "well-meaning steps" is a matter of your ideaological dispensation. Most of America I daresay is center-right. We don't want a Liberal utopia where political correctness has paralzyed common sense - there's plenty of that in Europe and the small minority who want that can go there. I want to close with a very pointed quote from Negro's last post

On the Keynesian approach, you don't apply a viable theory to conditions that are practically counter-effective to the laws under which that theory is ideally suited to operate.

 You can take this line and practially apply it on many issues that have come across Obama's desk - and see the reason why many of his citizens are not happy with him.

Negro_Ntns:

JeSoul, there is something very familiar with how you respond to views and I love it.

You should seek elective office. . . I will campaign for you. You are very good at "triangulating". I just love it!!

Ok, you win the debate.

but I don't want to win now lol. And which one be triangulating? lol. Thanks Negro. You have your moments of brilliance like I said to you in the past and that last post of yours was loaded. Overall, very great discussion!

And oh, me run for office? I won't survive a day. I don't know how to be politically correct. I just can't do it. Its not one of my talents

Triangulate - You have the political aptitude of a "Clintonian". The ability to stay above the fray and maintain magnanimity.

Negro's response and remarks are dictated based on the amount and brand of liquor served last night.

With people like me behind you, trust me you will win an office, . . .

Negro_Ntns:

Triangulate - You have the political aptitude of a "Clintonian". The ability to stay above the fray and maintain magnanimity.

  all this praise for only me? walahi, I must share it with somebody . . . Montelik my fellow conserv, wanna get in on this? 

Negro's response and remarks are dictated based on the amount and brand of liquor served last night.

ROTFLOL . . .   in that case drink like a fish from Russia

With people like me behind you, trust me you will win an office, . . .

very noble sir. But ehn . . . for real I no go last. The amount of masks one has to put on and the massive amounts of behind-kissing one has to perform is just too much for me. Surely, you wouldn't encourage me to such a fate

Obama is upholding the INTERESTs of the Rich White Corporations et.al.

This is not change we can believe in.


We have been bamboozed.

Negro_Ntns:

The banks made profit by risking money and assets in investments that were prospected to yield astronomical gains. A lot of these Wall street investments translated to predatory lending tactics on Main street and many families were bitten bad for falling victim to their lending practices.  For those families, their losses were attributed to bad judgement and failure to understand the risks involved, and none of them were ever compensated or bailed out.

A risk demands a sense of accountability. . . . . .choosing to step out into the dark night of a dangerous forest and taking ownership of the anticipated outcome, whatever it may turn out to be. . . .gain or loss.  

For many years before their failures, these banks were notorious for engaging in accounting malpractices hidden under audit reviews.  They will announce a profit margin before the end of their fiscal year to move money around for tax purposes but then turn around before the annual general meeting and amend the books to reduce payout on their profit sharing to shareholders.

. . . . . . by bailing them out Obama failed the country.  He redistributed wealth to entities that ought to be left alone to fail.  All that 'too big to fail" was a scare tactic. . . . left alone to die, I promise you they would invent their own rescue.   In fact, I believe they had a contingency for that particular scenario.  

I am not going to defend the big banks because I do not support some of their sharp practices. I will only look at the actions of the POTUS and see if the American people on the whole gained from his actions. Most of these sharp practices started well before Obama's tenure. I am only going to look at the pros and cons of his actions.

Pros
1. Thousands of American jobs were saved which meant more in taxes for the government and less to pay in unemployment benefits.
2. The treasury made profits on all loans to the the banks - Citi, Goldman Sachs and to Detroit

I agree that banks or any other corporation should be allowed to fail if they are not profitable but the conditions must be taken into account. Obama was faced with an economic climate not seen since the great depression and allowing several of Americans biggest corporations to fail would have hurt the treasury and Obama more. A counter argument to this must analyse jobs, taxes, unemployment benefits, etc in an holistic manner.


'So far, that experiment is more than paying off. The government has taken profits of about $1.4 billion on its investment in Goldman Sachs, $1.3 billion on Morgan Stanley and $414 million on American Express. The five other banks that repaid the government — Northern Trust, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, U.S. Bancorp and BB&T — each brought in $100 million to $334 million in profit.

The figure does not include the roughly $35 million the government has earned from 14 smaller banks that have paid back their loans. The government bought shares in these and many other financial companies last fall, when sinking confidence among investors pushed down many bank stocks to just a few dollars a share. As the banks strengthened and became profitable, the government authorized them to pay back the preferred stock, which had been paying quarterly dividends since October.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html

Negro_Ntns:

On the Keynesian approach, you don't apply a viable theory to conditions that are practically counter-effective to the laws under which that theory is ideally suited to operate.  The conditions on the ground were purely fraudulent practices - ethical questions - and not an out of balance economic dynamics.  The dynamics were still in balance you just needed to root out the unethical violators.  

Theory will always be theory and it is almost impossible to re-create theoretical conditions in real life. There will always be differences. Keynesian theory does not take into unethical violations. Simply rooting out violators would not have solved the problems encountered in 2008. I agree that violators need to be dealt but it appears that Obama can not win; no matter what he does. After Obama started criticising the big banks and wall street, he was accused of being against business. By calling for more financial regulations, business leaders accused him of having an agenda against them. So what is Obama to do?

Besides, if the problems were restricted solely to the financial industry, there would have been no need for the stimulus. The stimulus was intended to spur growth and counteract the inefficient aggregate macroeconomics climate. The recession might have been caused by the big banks but its effects were felt far and wide. Governments all over the world needed to have stimuls programs to reverse the causes of the recession. I think a lot of people underestimate the positive effects of the stimulus. Obama's actions were correct; he did the following
1. Implemented the stimulus package to reverse the effects of the recession
2. Led calls for financial regulations which led to the Frank-Dodd Act and other regulations such as basel iii to eliminate such practices in the future

I have heard criticism of Obama but I am yet to hear credible alternative solutions.

JeSoul:

  all this praise for only me? walahi, I must share it with somebody . . . Montelik my fellow conserv, wanna get in on this? 

After listening to Akon's - No Labels, I had a biblical Saul to Paul conversion. I have since decided to side-step all this politics and ideology. No more labels people please

I am sorry, but I cannot respect Republicans in the U.S. Well let me be more specific. I cannot stand the social conservatives, Christian Right and Neo-Cons who have hijacked the Republican Party. What happened to the party of Lincoln? What happen to the Rockefeller Republicans who focused on fiscal conservatism. These are the type of Republicans that I miss and respect. That being said, the Democratic Party has given me a lot of disappointment as well. This "Big Tent Party," is annoying me. I wish it could morph into a Progressive Party. The type of progressivism that was practiced by Teddy Roosevelt. I am getting so upset with the Republican Party, I am starting to look at the Green Party.

. . . .massive amounts of behind-kissing one has to perform is just too much

JeSoul, ok, you should know by now Negro has a mischievious way of assembling visuals.

allright, this is for your ears only. . . . if the massive behind is yours, I'm a cool ass-kisser, anyday babe!

On another issue, trust me I missed that Sarah Palin ignorance remark. Katsumoto watch it!

I have since decided to side-step all this politics and ideology. No more labels people please

you. . . really? We shall see after TPM congressional members are sworn in next month. Until then, Happy New Year!

^lol. Bad boy Negro. No more visuals for u

Montelik, yessir. No mo labels. Truth is tho, generally speaking, most of us fall into general categories- and thats not necessarily a bad thing, if u know what i mean.

And speaking of labels, Ochi_agha, I can tell u one thing thats guaranteed, 99% of regular folks like we in here have some democrat n repub ideaology in us. I think the media has done an ingenious job of bastardizing general perception of both. I know this becos i have both Lib n conserv friends, and they are nothing like what is portrayed as popular opinion.

JeSoul:

Hmm . . . I hate to play the location card but do you live here in America? cos I think if you did you would know that you are dead wrong on this. I have never seen hatred like it was and still is exhibited towards George W. Go to the grocery store, movies, post office . . .[b] its a running joke [/b]when something goes wrong to be attributed to Bush. I don't think Obama's criticism has fallen to the depths of Bush, not at all.

And the fact some of his haters may not be able to articulate the reason for their protest does not automatically mean they are racist. This is a cheap cop out Katsumoto and I think you know it 

You used the Key word there for Bush - JOKE which is different from the downright hate directed at Obama from far right individuals. Even Negro NTN opened a thread in this section and stated that Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party because of the colour of the POTUS. Not being able to articulate a point like Clinton or Obama is one thing, not having a clue is another. If you are asked on camera why you travelled thousands of miles to DC to protest against Obama and all you can say is 'mmmm, well, well, well mmmmm; I am tempted to conclude that such protesters are protesting for obvious reasons.

JeSoul:


I'll let Negro deal with this one. On second thot lemme take a stab . . .  so your equation is this right - a good chunk of Americans like Sarah Palin = americans are ignorant.

common now dude.

You might as well say: A huge chunk of Americans and Brits like Lady Gaga/The Osbournes = americans/brits are ignorant.

I like Sarah Palin. Does that make me ignorant? I agree with a lot of what she says/does, and on the flipside I disagree with a lot of what she says and especially her methods and actions. I am one of her fans who hopes she does not run for president because I don't think she's qualified and can bring the country together like it needs to be. She's too divisive a figure and generally unwilling to deviate from anything conservative. But I still like Sarah Palin - am I still ignorant? Katsumoto, I beseech thee to please rethink thy position.

Negro_Ntns:

On another issue, trust me I missed that Sarah Palin ignorance remark. Katsumoto watch it!

That a few informed citizens like Palin does not remove from the fact that a majority of her followers are ignorant. We might have to agree to disagree on this. You analogy about Lady Gaga and the Osbournes does not apply here. They are entertainers and are bound to be either liked or disliked by both informed and ignorant people.

JeSoul:

I want to close with a very pointed quote from Negro's last post
 You can take this line and practially apply it on many issues that have come across Obama's desk - and see the reason why many of his citizens are not happy with him.

Are you suggesting that many Americans do not like Obama because he took action to reverse the bad economic climate? Can you or anyone opposed to the stimulus bill suggest alternative approaches to dealing with the recession?

Katsumoto,

Impressive analysis! I get this feeling that your review is a short-span specific to the Obama Administration. I'd like to hear you clarify that charge.

Also, I am challenging mis- conceptions exhibited in your response, that:

1. the economic problems are limited purely to conventional free-market practices (or malpractices, if you will).

2. the solutions implemented by the White House produced deliverables which more than offset the projected damages that would have resulted otherwise.

JeSoul:


And speaking of labels, Ochi_agha, I can tell u one thing thats guaranteed, 99% of regular folks like we in here have some democrat n repub ideaology in us. I think the media has done an ingenious job of bastardizing general perception of both. I know this becos i have both Lib n conserv friends, and they are nothing like what is portrayed as popular opinion.

What is Democratic ideology and what is Republican ideology? I cannot even tell the difference now. Democrats are suppose to represent a "Big Tent Party," so they shouldn't have any ideology. Am I correct? It took some soul searching, because I was raised in an area that was very affluent, but still conservative and that shaped some of my views. But after thinking about it, I do not subscribe to the conservative ideology, because I have a heart.

Negro_Ntns:

Katsumoto,

Impressive analysis!  I get this feeling that your review is a short-span specific to the Obama Administration.  I'd like to hear you clarify that charge. 

You are right and wrong. I focused on Obama's direct and brave response to problems that were created or ignored by previous administration regardless of political persuasion.

Negro_Ntns:

Katsumoto,

Also, I am challenging mis- conceptions exhibited in your response, that:

1. the economic problems are limited purely to conventional free-market practices (or malpractices, if you will).

That wasn't my intention. Surely, there are a multitude of causes, political, social, and economic that are responsible for the current crisis.

Negro_Ntns:

Also, I am challenging mis- conceptions exhibited in your response, that:

2. the solutions implemented by the White House produced deliverables which more than offset the projected damages that would have resulted otherwise.   

It is difficult to quantify what the cost of inaction or any other wrong actions might have been. But I am certain Obama's actions stemmed the downward spiral that the US economy was in, when he took office. Apart from AIG and possibly a couple of corporations, the treasury made profits on loans to US corporations. If we look at most economic boom bust cycles, recessions usually last an average of 3 years. When you think about the fact that Obama has been in office for less than two years then one can conclude that he did a great job.

The reason that unemployment is still at 9.8% has little to with Obama but more to do with Corporate America sitting on a ton of cash (approximately $2 trillion and the largest cash reserve in corporate America in recent memory) and not investing in projects that will create jobs. The irony is that corporate America is blaming the unstable political climate caused by polarising political ideology. GOP against government spending and Leftist calling for more regulations.

To buttress some of the points I made about Obama haters see below. I can't lift the whole article without being banned by the spambot but I have provided a link below. There are commentators who are being sponsored by right wing groups/persons to spread lies about Obama and some want to believe its not because of the skin colour of POTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JeSoul, a good number of US citizens protest against Obama because they are being fed lies and not because they are dissatisfied with his actions. Do you still believe that a majority of US citizens are well informed?

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

A new survey of USA voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.

    * 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
    * 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
    * 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
    * 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
    * 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
    * 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
    * 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
    * 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
    * 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

D conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers & it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. D results were apparent in D election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.

Dis is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. D fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, & D effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate dat has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have d evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it. (I changed some of the wording to get around the spam bot)

Katsumoto:

You used the Key word there for Bush - JOKE which is different from the downright hate directed at Obama from far right individuals. Even Negro NTN opened a thread in this section and stated that Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party because of the colour of the POTUS. Not being able to articulate a point like Clinton or Obama is one thing, not having a clue is another. If you are asked on camera why you travelled thousands of miles to DC to protest against Obama and all you can say is 'mmmm, well, well, well mmmmm; I am tempted to conclude that such protesters are protesting for obvious reasons.

'Obvious reasons' Katsumoto? Not by a long long stretch.

You saw an interview, maybe 2, heck lets make it 10 or 20, of protesters who couldn't articulate the cause of their anger - you concluded without any other evidence that they are racist, and you subsequently attributed their shortcomings (and your perceived opinion) to an entire group of people and dismissed them as racist? Three insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) democrats switched parties and that somehow is indicative that racism is rampant within the political powerhouses? Isn't this making kilimanjaro-sized mountains out of plastic mole-hills? Okay oh. I don talk my own finish. If this is what you believe, then nothing I say will change that.

That a few informed citizens like Palin does not remove from the fact that a majority of her followers are ignorant. We might have to agree to disagree on this. You analogy about Lady Gaga and the Osbournes does not apply here. They are entertainers and are bound to be either liked or disliked by both informed and ignorant people.

Ditto my last response to the above.

Are you suggesting that many Americans do not like Obama because he took action to reverse the bad economic climate? Can you or anyone opposed to the stimulus bill suggest alternative approaches to dealing with the recession?

I can't help but chastise you here - as this is the exact same criticism Obama's folks frequently employ - and it is flat out not true. People are not upset because he "took action" - they are upset because of the actions he took - and refusal to see this is very very suspect. He could've not bailed out those corps, not passed a stimulus we really couldn't afford - and whether or not it would've resulted in financial armageddon remains only for God to know. Nobody knows what would or would not have happened. And please also note bail-outs started with Bush - and american citizens were not happy with it then.

I liked a lot what you said here:

Katsumoto:
It is difficult to quantify what the cost of inaction or any other wrong actions might have been.

very very true. Which is why I mentioned to Negro that I understand and sympathize with Obama's decision to go ahead with the bail-out, stimulus etc.

Wow! This thread still dey? Lol.

@katsumotor

anyone who gets his news from fox news alone is already an Obama hater. so the fox news lies are more of telling people what they want to hear. Infact most Obama haters watch fox news. That's why thier ratings are so high. Whereas obama's admirers are split between CNN, MSNBC, BET, VH1, NBC, CBS, ABC, Movie channels etc. A lot of independents also watch cspan.

Ochiagha,

from your own post:

Ochi_Agha:

What is Democratic ideology and what is Republican ideology? I cannot even tell the difference now.

Ochi_Agha:
But after thinking about it, I do not subscribe to the conservative ideology, because I have a heart.

 
Think about the above for a second, perhaps you may see a disconnect.

The more I know and learn, the more I feel the constituents side of politics is mired in gross misunderstanding of what their perceived 'rivals' or 'enemies' really believe. For the most part - we all want a better America - what we disagree on is how to get there. And its too bad the party leadership has over time convinced the followers the other side is "evil" and "wrong". I am mostly conservative, and going by your stated belief - I apparently do not have a heart.

Katsumoto, I want to believe it was a slip of the fingers (or maybe Negro borrowed you a bottle of his stash ) when you posted that as "proof" of the "ignorance" of "americans" or is it "fox-news watchers". Surely a slip of the fingers.

First of all, your own link states that in their "poll" CNN and MSNBC 'viewers' did not fare much better - you conveniently left that part out. Is Fox corrupt? yes. Is practically every other media outlet in America equally if not more corrupt? a resounding yes. What you've only shown is there is a problem with information dissemination in the media - a problem most certainly and definitely not isolated to only fox.

But I don't want to lend any credibility to this "poll". I tried to look at the pdf (it wasn't loading) to see what n= to. How many people in the study? who was sampled? what was the demographic? when was it conducted? how was it ascertained who was really a "fox" or CNN watcher? being a university poll (unreliable by itself) quickly suggests it was probably done on a college campus. And it is popular knowledge a significant chunk of college campuses (esp those in the NorthEast) are left-leaning and therefore polls resulting from their people will be biased in that direction. And oh, btw, I originally said "Americans are not ignorant" this is different from being "well-informed" (as you said I said).

I can conduct my own NL poll right now and show you Obama's supporters like eating Eba and Egusi, and his non-supporters also like eating Eba and Egusi . . . afterall, I'll be sampling from the same group who happen to share the same "shortcomings".

Katsumoto, stop it oh! 

pres-elect:

Wow! This thread still dey? Lol.

@katsumotor

anyone who gets his news from fox news alone is already an Obama hater. so the fox news lies are more of telling people what they want to hear. Infact most Obama haters watch fox news. That's why thier ratings are so high. Whereas obama's admirers are split between CNN, MSNBC, BET, VH1, NBC, CBS, ABC, Movie channels etc. A lot of independents also watch cspan.

Were the Obama haters already hating Obama before watching FOX news or did they become haters after being mis-informed by FOX news? Also, you should compare FOX news with other news channels only. FOX watchers equally watch movies, VHI, MTV base and other entertainment channels.

One can conclude that Obama haters hated him before any news was disseminated. The inaccurate representation only served to fuel their hate and give credence to their opposition. Even if FOX news told the truth, they would have still hated.

JeSoul:

Katsumoto, I want to believe it was a slip of the fingers (or maybe Negro borrowed you a bottle of his stash ) when you posted that as "proof" of the "ignorance" of "americans" or is it "fox-news watchers". Surely a slip of the fingers.

First of all, your own link states that in their "poll" CNN and MSNBC 'viewers' did not fare much better - you conveniently left that part out. Is Fox corrupt? yes. Is practically every other media outlet in America equally if not more corrupt? a resounding yes. What you've only shown is there is a problem with information dissemination in the media - a problem most certainly and definitely not isolated to only fox.

But I don't want to lend any credibility to this "poll". I tried to look at the pdf (it wasn't loading) to see what n= to. How many people in the study? who was sampled? what was the demographic? when was it conducted? how was it ascertained who was really a "fox" or CNN watcher? being a university poll (unreliable by itself) quickly suggests it was probably done on a college campus. And it is popular knowledge a significant chunk of college campuses (esp those in the NorthEast) are left-leaning and therefore polls resulting from their people will be biased in that direction. And oh, btw, I originally said "Americans are not ignorant" this is different from being "well-informed" (as you said I said).

I can conduct my own NL poll right now and show you Obama's supporters like eating Eba and Egusi, and his non-supporters also like eating Eba and Egusi . . . afterall, I'll be sampling from the same group who happen to share the same "shortcomings".

Katsumoto, stop it oh! 

The study did not conclude that all Americans watch Fox news. The study concluded that FOX news is the news medium MOST guilty of disseminating false information thereby misleading a lot of people. The point I am trying to make which you have ignored is that mis-information of the citizenry has led to anti-Obama noise. Afterall, no one suggested that all Americans protested.

It is easy for anyone to criticise. I have supplied data which supports my position. You are yet to do that. So far, what we have from you is opinion and conjecture. Are you suggesting that left-leaning university students are being mislead by FOX news? Read the report again. It states that people who watch the different news media were sampled and it was found that those who watch FOX news were the most ignorant. So the sample size included all.



Also, I am yet to hear from you or any other Republican alternative solutions to the recession which officially ended in 2009 and the current stale growth in the US economy. It is time for republicans to start making credible suggestions instead of just criticising Obama. Republicans criticised
1. The stimulus bill
2. Bailout (started by Bush)
3. QE2

Yet they have not put forward any concrete ideas to solve the current economic impasse.

Just so you know, I lean to the right myself but I support the economic policies of Obama.

I hate it when people, including Jon Stewart and Jesoul, whom I love(not that kind of love o) make this false comparison btw msnbc and fox. Msnbc is political, they exaggerate facts to suit them whereas fox news tells outright lies over and over again.
How about the 200 or so ships to take Obama to India or the 200billion dollars or so that the India trip will cost. Jesoul I showed you a clip from YouTube where fox deliberately decieved their viewers that Obama said he will raise taxes for everybody. Or the clip from one of those stupid marches in DC where hannity used a different video to claim large turnout. He apologized after Jon Stewart called him out. Msnbc may exaggerate facts to suit them but I challenge you to show me one outright lie by Rachel maddow or Keith.

Now you will say a lot of things but one thing I know you won't do is present an outright lie by Rachel or Keith. Lol.

@ Katsumoto. With all due respect anyone can produce polls, reports or surveys showing whatever results they want to project. There are a litany of different manners to prepare reports, polls or surveys to produce conclusions you have already made. I am not saying this report is bogus (if not that I have decide to become a "no labels" soldier I would have analyzed their methods to ascertain its fairness). There were hundreds of politicians who just lost in November who were waving polls and surveys showing their position as being solid, only for them to have been retired when the results came in. These surveys came be framed. Rather than trying to use a poll to stereotype millions of viewers of any network (FOX, MSNBC or anyone else). Why not argue specific points instead.

Katsumoto:

The study did not conclude that all Americans watch Fox news. The study concluded that FOX news is the news medium MOST guilty of disseminating false information thereby misleading a lot of people. The point I am trying to make which you have ignored is that mis-information of the citizenry has led to anti-Obama noise. Afterall, no one suggested that all Americans protested.

 I don't believe that point has really been under debate. I conceded from the get-go that there is certainly a shady percentage of the populace who's beef is illegitimate - for whatever reason, be it racism or misinformation.

 The bone of contention has been - whether or not this constitutes a majority - to which I have said it doesn't.

It is easy for anyone to criticise. I have supplied data which supports my position. You are yet to do that. So far, what we have from you is opinion and conjecture.

 Whether you 'supplied data' Katsumoto is a matter of opinion. I don't consider floating websites with studies from colleges with pdf links that don't work - reliable.

Also, I am yet to hear from you or any other Republican alternative solutions to the recession which officially ended in 2009 and the current stale growth in the US economy. It is time for republicans to start making credible suggestions instead of just criticising Obama. Republicans criticised
1. The stimulus bill
2. Bailout (started by Bush)
3. QE2

Yet they have not put forward any concrete ideas to solve the current economic impasse.

Just so you know, I lean to the right myself but I support the economic policies of Obama.

I believe I already answered this in my last post?

You are trying to insinuate that there were absolutely no - zero - nada - zilch alternatives to the economic route Obama took, seriously? It would be better if you simply said you don't believe the republican or tea party or green party alternatives would've been better than Obama's approah. But to say no alternatives were suggested? seriously? Just a quick google search yields these highlights I remember from last yr -

Stimulus:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS317&q=alternatives+to+stimulus+bill&aq=1&oq=
GOP suggests alternatives to stimulus:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-02/politics/stimulus_1_gop-senators-tax-cuts-stimulus-plan?_s=PM:POLITICS

Bail-out: (which were both against Bush's and Obama's by the way)
http://www.google.com/search?q=alternatives+to+bail-out&source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS317&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Whether or not you diagree with them or find them viable is not the point - but that alternatives were infact suggested as you've denied. This is why I said the penchant for Obama's supporters to constantly alledge opponents never suggest anything is flat out wrong.

Anyways I don't want this to turn into who can post more links or data or whatever. That's not really the point. I was just trying to counter your assertion that Americans are by and large ignorant - a point I firmly and ferociously disagree with.

pres-elect:

I hate it when people, including Jon Stewart and Jesoul, whom I love(not that kind of love o) make this false comparison btw msnbc and fox. Msnbc is political, they exaggerate facts to suit them whereas fox news tells outright lies over and over again.
How about the 200 or so ships to take Obama to India or the 200billion dollars or so that the India trip will cost. Jesoul I showed you a clip from YouTube where fox deliberately decieved their viewers that Obama said he will raise taxes for everybody. Or the clip from one of those silly marches in DC where hannity used a different video to claim large turnout. He apologized after Jon Stewart called him out. Msnbc may exaggerate facts to suit them but I challenge you to show me one outright lie by Rachel maddow or Keith.

Now you will say a lot of things but one thing I know you won't do is present an outright lie by Rachel or Keith. Lol.

Prez we have been down this road before, so no need to resurrect and beat down dead horses.

montelik:

Rather than trying to use a poll to stereotype millions of viewers of any network (FOX, MSNBC or anyone else). Why not instead argue specific points instead.

Exactly. And we are all guilty of this. We watch 5 mins of something on youtube, a 10 second highlight on CNN, a soundbite on fox and we subsequently go on to characterize and stereotype an entire group of people by that.

I know what I see in the media is false because I know people who choose to label themselves as dems/reps/libs/conservs and for the most part - they are nothing like what the media tries to tell us they are.