Jump to content

The Testing of a New President


ricco67

Recommended Posts

I've been seeing some very interesting developments over the past month or so;

China is flexing its muscles and harassing the Navy in the area, claiming that the U.S. Navy nearly colliding with an unarmed survey ship in international waters in the South China Sea. This has resulted in the Navy sending in additional ships in support.

Now, adding to to this, Cuba and Venezuela have offered their territories for Russian bombers, who have started doing "long range patrols" a year or so ago, to use their territories.

As it's being reported, the bombers would do nothing more than Land, refuel, and take off back to Russia.

Initially, I was kinda' blowing this stuff off, until I remembered that this is pretty much what they did when President Bush first took over in 2001.

For those of you that might have forgotten, there was a major incident in which a Chinese jet collided with a Naval EP-3, which resulted in an emergency landing on Hainan Island in Chinese Territory.

Here is a link if you need a refresher for your memory.

The point is, I wonder if this typical. I don't exactly recall the same thing happening to other Presidents (Clinton,GHBush, Reagan, etc), but it sure does seem like a nice little pattern to see how a new President will react.

Normally, I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda' person, but this is a bit creepy.

Let's keep it on topic, M'Kay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Chinese hold two trillion in bonds, a few vessel issues and jib jabbing, should be the least of our worries. It's would no surprise me to see a correlation in new administrations and boundary testing. Not that far fetched if you think about it. They just may be checking his oil. It's not like there isn't enough distractions around as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Chinese hold two trillion in bonds, a few vessel issues and jib jabbing, should be the least of our worries. It's would no surprise me to see a correlation in new administrations and boundary testing. Not that far fetched if you think about it. They just may be checking his oil. It's not like there isn't enough distractions around as it is.

its absolutely a test of his willingness to respond to actions with military force as in the past, or with just weak talk. I am pretty sure that he will respond with more appeasement talk. Im sorry our boat got in your way, let me send a battle fleet over there for appearances, but at the same time dismantle all the weapons we have. Our president has no backbone. He is canceling defense programs & military spending, denying necessary health care to veterans wounded in combat, and attempting to disarm the country.

Just watch - as we are tested over and over, and we respond with nothing but more weak talk and military cuts - it will only be a matter of time until someone finally decides that its time to take us on. China is expanding its military, as they grow - we are contracting ours and wasting all of our money on social programs of little or no value to the bulk of the taxpayers.

Its the beginning of the end. To steal from a crazy - a nation without defined borders, language, and culture is no nation at all. We are becoming a defenseless hodgepodge of cultures none of which are intent on protecting what this country was originally built for. Its a test and we are failing it miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, I wonder if this typical. I don't exactly recall the same thing happening to other Presidents (Clinton,GHBush, Reagan, etc), but it sure does seem like a nice little pattern to see how a new President will react.

Normally, I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda' person, but this is a bit creepy.

Actually, this did happen with Clinton. Saddam Hussein tested him by violating the terms of surrender. I seem to recall that there were incidents with the No Fly Zone. Bush was tested with the ousting of UN weapons inspectors.

It's not really that creepy. It's just good strategy. You want to know how an opponent is going to react so that you know how to push the envelope without incurring a response that goes beyond lip service from the State Department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we all know how much Dems around here rely on POLLS. So, this is probably one that they are turning a blind eye to. It is still fun reading though. To think, Obama is below George W. Bush levels in the same timeframe is just hilarious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Of course, the WSJ opinion page picks whatever poll fits their conservative viewpoint. I can do the same. On that note, I find it impressive that Obama is polling ahead of George W. Bush at this point in his presidency considering that we're in the worst economic slump since the depression.

Obama's Approval Equal To or Better Than Bush's, Clinton's

xrpwgramtuk2hrx66nttna.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116845/Obama-Ap...sh-Clinton.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been seeing some very interesting developments over the past month or so;

China is flexing its muscles and harassing the Navy in the area, claiming that the U.S. Navy nearly colliding with an unarmed survey ship in international waters in the South China Sea. This has resulted in the Navy sending in additional ships in support.

This sort of thing goes on all the time and has for years, regardless of who is the president. My father spent his career in the Navy and told me about all the cat and mouse games that went on from the 60's through the 80's between the US Navy and the Russians and Chinese. We would probe their defenses and reactions and they would probe ours. It's just standard military practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the WSJ opinion page picks whatever poll fits their conservative viewpoint. I can do the same. On that note, I find it impressive that Obama is polling ahead of George W. Bush at this point in his presidency considering that we're in the worst economic slump since the depression.

WSJ..........conservative ??? OK, perhaps you didn't read this part at the bottom of the page chief.

"Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company."

Pollster for King Bill himself, YEAH, real Conservative. :rolleyes:

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we all know how much Dems around here rely on POLLS. So, this is probably one that they are turning a blind eye to. It is still fun reading though. To think, Obama is below George W. Bush levels in the same timeframe is just hilarious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Yeah, you can definitely compare the two :rolleyes:. Bush's Presidency was a cakewalk until 9/11. Obama came in with one of our worst recessions. The best way to compare is Bush's last approval rating to Obama's, since they are around the same time frame.

Edited by Trae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSJ..........conservative ??? OK, perhaps you didn't read this part at the bottom of the page chief.

"Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company."

Pollster for King Bill himself, YEAH, real Conservative. :rolleyes:

Like I said, they picked the poll showing the worst numbers so they could argue that Obama's popularity is crashing. It's the same conservative drivel the WSJ op-ed page has long been known for. I didn't expect that would change when Fox News, I mean, NewsCorp, bought the WSJ.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903130007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, they picked the poll showing the worst numbers so they could argue that Obama's popularity is crashing. It's the same conservative drivel the WSJ op-ed page has long been known for. I didn't expect that would change when Fox News, I mean, NewsCorp, bought the WSJ.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903130007

Ahhh yes - media matters - a completely unbiased organization. Oh wait - the stated purpose of media matters is to combat conservative views in the media. In fact - media matters ACTUALLY thinks that the main stream media is CONSERVATIVE - which I find laughable.

At any rate - anything coming from media matters should be taken for exactly what it is - partisan hack reporting not worthy of anyones time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes - media matters - a completely unbiased organization. Oh wait - the stated purpose of media matters is to combat conservative views in the media. In fact - media matters ACTUALLY thinks that the main stream media is CONSERVATIVE - which I find laughable.

At any rate - anything coming from media matters should be taken for exactly what it is - partisan hack reporting not worthy of anyones time.

... and Fox News actually thinks they are fair and balanced.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and Fox News actually thinks they are fair and balanced.... :lol:

Unlike Media Matters - Fox though right leaning in its reporting - DOES report the news even the negatives for the right. Media Matters ONLY attacks media that it feels does not advance its progressive agenda. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Even with its right slant - fox is more fair and balanced (in my perceptions) than any of the other outlets. You wont get perfectly fair or balanced, but Fox is closer when just reporting the news as news than CNN, MSNBC,CBS, Etc. You just have to be able to separate the news from the entertainment programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Media Matters - Fox though right leaning in its reporting - DOES report the news even the negatives for the right. Media Matters ONLY attacks media that it feels does not advance its progressive agenda. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Even with its right slant - fox is more fair and balanced (in my perceptions) than any of the other outlets. You wont get perfectly fair or balanced, but Fox is closer when just reporting the news as news than CNN, MSNBC,CBS, Etc. You just have to be able to separate the news from the entertainment programs.

Really? Like this past week when Fox tried to say that the Obama Administration said that our economy was "fundamentally strong" and then tried to say that....well....just watch the clip:

http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2009/03/fox-...abrication.html

You're so right. Fox News is definitely fair and balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Like this past week when Fox tried to say that the Obama Administration said that our economy was "fundamentally strong" and then tried to say that....well....just watch the clip:

http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2009/03/fox-...abrication.html

You're so right. Fox News is definitely fair and balanced.

Didnt say it was fair and balanced - said it was MORE fair and balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Media Matters - Fox though right leaning in its reporting - DOES report the news even the negatives for the right. Media Matters ONLY attacks media that it feels does not advance its progressive agenda. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Even with its right slant - fox is more fair and balanced (in my perceptions) than any of the other outlets. You wont get perfectly fair or balanced, but Fox is closer when just reporting the news as news than CNN, MSNBC,CBS, Etc. You just have to be able to separate the news from the entertainment programs.

Yes, but at least Media Matters states up front that's what they are about... go to their website and it says that they correct misinformation from conservative U.S. media. They admit it! Fox News goes on and on about how they are "fair and balanced" when they are anything but... they lean way to the right. Watch Fox News and all you hear is whining and crying about how the media is so liberal and bias media is evil... if that's so true why do they have a conservative bias?... such hypocrisy. Oh... and another thing... someone please tell all of the crybabies on Fox who constantly whine about the "mainstream media" that THEY ARE PART OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!. Morons. <_<

The most "fair and balanced" news network is CNN, though they do lean a bit to the left. MSNBC leans far left... Fox News leans far right.

CNN is easily the most balanced out of the cable networks. MSNBC is to the left, Fox is to the right. It's simple.

Bingo... yes, it is very simple. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes - media matters - a completely unbiased organization. Oh wait - the stated purpose of media matters is to combat conservative views in the media. In fact - media matters ACTUALLY thinks that the main stream media is CONSERVATIVE - which I find laughable.

At any rate - anything coming from media matters should be taken for exactly what it is - partisan hack reporting not worthy of anyones time.

I would argue that most media outlets are more conservative than you realize when it comes to the news. Consider the complete failure of the MSM to challenge the Bush administration on grounds for invading Iraq. No major news organization made any real attempt to challenge the status quo. That's because corporate media is conservative; they're more interested in maintaining the status quo and distracting viewers with cheap commentary than bothering with expensive, risky, and time-consuming news reporting that could hurt their bottom line or embarrass their thousands of corporate advertisers. These mega corporations, like the Disney Corporation, General Electric, and NewsCorp, have more profitable business interests anyway. They have little desire to shake things up or really investigate serious issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people tend to think they're right, that anybody else on the political spectrum is wrong to varying degrees, and because they believe their opinions to be the only logical ones, they believe that most people would readily accept them if only they were exposed to that set of opinions; this is the foundation of centrism bias. Compounding this internal bias is that most individuals tend to socialize with like-minded individuals, influencing a mistaken perception of belonging to a majority.

Radicals of any sort will tend to believe that all media is biased against them. A card-carrying Communist, for instance, is pissed off that nuclear families are depicted at all on television. A hood-wearing KKK member is pissed off that all the major networks and that most local news have any staffers other than whites. In either case, it appears to them that they're coming from a place of reason, that there are a lot of people out there that think just like them, and that the media is profoundly biased against them. And the kicker...it is biased against them. It is only a business, and these groups are in actuality on the far fringes of the population. You can't accommodate them with any form of mass media, and the news networks that we do have are just competently practicing market segmentation.

This all leads to my point: media is a mirror of society. There was a time when racism was readily accepted. It was a centrist attitude, not only among the public but in its treatment among the media. The public changed, so the media changed. And now it is an extremist attitude. There is no one set of policies that actually is the definitive center; it is up to what is popular. ...and ultimately it comes down to who can be influenced to watch commercials.

Let's keep it on topic, M'Kay?

That was good advice, but you knew that it would inevitably degenerate to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, they picked the poll showing the worst numbers so they could argue that Obama's popularity is crashing. It's the same conservative drivel the WSJ op-ed page has long been known for. I didn't expect that would change when Fox News, I mean, NewsCorp, bought the WSJ.

'Cuda, the WSJ didn't write the story, a Clinton pollster did, an obvious Democrat. I know it is hard for you to hear the truth.

"Cuda, do you agree with Htown that MSNBC is far left and that Fox is COnservative like the WSJ, as you claim ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who wouldn't agree that MSNBC is far left and Fox is FAR right? CNN is in the middle, but leans to the left more.

MSNBC is much farther left than Fox is right - I cant stand CNN - I get physically sick watching CNN - CNN is as far left as Fox is right.

Though I would agree with Barnes there is no middle ground on this one - they are all leaning one way or the other and its all about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Cuda, the WSJ didn't write the story, a Clinton pollster did, an obvious Democrat. I know it is hard for you to hear the truth.

"Cuda, do you agree with Htown that MSNBC is far left and that Fox is COnservative like the WSJ, as you claim ?

TJones, it's obvious that Schoen and Rasmussen are not democrats. Why else would they only reference poll results that fit their argument while ignoring poll results that dispute their argument?

I see MSNBC and Fox News as primarily entertainment channels, devoted to dissecting the days news in partisan manners. MSNBC does have their liberal commentators (Olbermann and Maddow), their fence jumper (Chris Matthews, who became liberal recently as it became fashionable again), and their conservative (Scarborough). I'm not sure I would pin MSNBC as a liberal network, but they certainly have more liberal commentators than any other cable news network.

What's funny is that Fox News feels so threatened by the competition that their attack dogs (like Bill O'Reilly) feel the need to frequently vent on the air about how liberal MSNBC is, all the while claiming they themselves are 'fair and balanced'. Yet Fox News has no regular liberal commentators and is easily the most partisan network in the country.

So much BS. I honestly can't stand most cable news network programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess it will REALLY make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that NBC and WSJ run their polls together. That's pretty daring of WSJ, for such a strict conservative outlet, wouldn't you say ?

So, you are saying that somebody who used to work for the Clintons is capable of jumping ship. Perhaps that is the "hope" and "change" that Obama was speaking of. :rolleyes:

Keep turning that blind eye, It has to pay off at some point 'Cuda.

Schoen is as Democrat as they come my ill-informed friend.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Douglas_Schoen

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSNBC is much farther left than Fox is right - I cant stand CNN - I get physically sick watching CNN - CNN is as far left as Fox is right.

Pass me what you're smoking. There is no way MSNBC is farther left than Fox and CNN is still easily the most balance. You don't see CNN reporting lies like Fox does.

Edited by Trae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess it will REALLY make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that NBC and WSJ run their polls together. That's pretty daring of WSJ, for such a strict conservative outlet, wouldn't you say ?

So, you are saying that somebody who used to work for the Clintons is capable of jumping ship. Perhaps that is the "hope" and "change" that Obama was speaking of. :rolleyes:

Keep turning that blind eye, It has to pay off at some point 'Cuda.

Schoen is as Democrat as they come my ill-informed friend.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Douglas_Schoen

Hmm, I couldn't find the work "democrat" anywhere on that page.

You've completely missed my point about the Schoen and Rasmussen article. It seems a little too convenient that two "independent" pollsters use their own poll data to write negative partisan op-ed articles. Isn't that a conflict of interests? And isn't it especially questionable when other independent polls refute the entire basis your argument?

Edited by barracuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I couldn't find the work "democrat" anywhere on that page.

You've completely missed my point about the Schoen and Rasmussen article. It seems a little too convenient that two "independent" pollsters use their own poll data to write negative partisan op-ed articles. Isn't that a conflict of interests? And isn't it especially questionable when other independent polls refute the entire basis your argument?

So you would accept it if they had just lied about their poll data in order to further a left-wing agenda ? Sure, why not, most Dems. sell their souls everyday, just like Chris Dodd did to get a P.O.S. bill passed.

Let me ask you this. Seeing some of Schoen's resume there, have you come to the conclusion that he is in someway a Conservative, and just some kind of "mole" in the Demorat machine ? I highly doubt that anyone else here, looking at Schoen's background and who he's worked for, would think that he is anything OTHER than a Dem. If you think differently, then you are a bigger fool than I already thought you were, as I see you would let your vanity guide you over your common sense just to try and save face. You should try some humility, accept and admit it when you are wrong. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would accept it if they had just lied about their poll data in order to further a left-wing agenda ? Sure, why not, most Dems. sell their souls everyday, just like Chris Dodd did to get a P.O.S. bill passed.

Let me ask you this. Seeing some of Schoen's resume there, have you come to the conclusion that he is in someway a Conservative, and just some kind of "mole" in the Demorat machine ? I highly doubt that anyone else here, looking at Schoen's background and who he's worked for, would think that he is anything OTHER than a Dem. If you think differently, then you are a bigger fool than I already thought you were, as I see you would let your vanity guide you over your common sense just to try and save face. You should try some humility, accept and admit it when you are wrong. -_-

TJones, I see that when the Republican party is down on it's knees, you resort to denigrating those who disagree with you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I also feel that you're putting down an extraneous argument in that, because he worked for Clinton over a decade ago, Schoen can't possibly be anything but a flaming liberal democrat who admirably writes independent, non-partisan "op-ed" articles trashing President Obama.

Interestingly enough, his partner in this, Scott Rasmussen, is widely known as a conservative who's polling results consistently favors conservatives when compared to other national poll results. Rasmussen polling system, which use a less expensive automated computer system rather than a human who can clarify questions, words questions to increase the chance of answers that favor conservatives.

From John Marshall of Talking Points Memo:

The difference, obviously, is question-wording...

...On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general...the toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls.

...But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind."

So again, back to my original point that you've consistently disregarded, the most conservative poll results available were used to paint a picture of waning popularity for Obama, all based on approval ratings compared to the previous two presidents at this point in their first terms. Yet, all the other national mainstream polls show Obama has higher approval ratings than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton at this point in their presidency. So can you admit that Rasmussen and Schoen might be a bit unfair and incorrect in their argument when the other national polls paint the opposite picture?

And call Schoen what you want, but he's clearly working for those who favor the Republican party (or rather, despise President Obama). If he really is a Democrat, as you claim, he's part of a very small minority.

mrvxlfwezucr5rzc417luq.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the laughs 'Cuda. Seeing as how Rassmussen's polls are the most consistent and accurate, according to Fordham University, where it ranks No.1 and your Gallup poll comes in at No.17. SO, you gonna go to the number 1 doctor in the country to open your eyes, or the number 17 doctor ?

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/gr...%20election.pdf

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the laughs 'Cuda. Seeing as how Rassmussen's polls are the most consistent and accurate, according to Fordham University, where it ranks No.1 and your Gallup poll comes in at No.17. SO, you gonna go to the number 1 doctor in the country to open your eyes, or the number 17 doctor ?

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/gr...%20election.pdf

Lol, another poll ranking pollsters. What's even funnier is that same pollster (Pollster.com) lists Rasmussen among the least reliable pollsters. :D:D

The pollsters receiving the lowest scores are Zogby International, the American Research Group and Rasmussen Reports.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_poll...ating_the_i.php

Good try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, another poll ranking pollsters. What\'s even funnier is that same pollster (Pollster.com) lists Rasmussen among the least reliable pollsters. :D

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_poll...ating_the_i.php

Good try though.

Still doesn\'t hide the truth of which poll was more accurate to the actual numbers in a Presidential race, now does it.

I will still go with a University study over a Blogger's poll.

Apparently Gallup is so untrustworthy that it couldn't even make your little list. I don't see how this bolsters your point ? :huh: Was Gallup not around in 2007 when your poll was done ?

Keep pluggin' away and turning that eye. ;)

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TJones, are you related to Norm Coleman?

Still doesn\'t hide the truth of which poll was more accurate to the actual numbers in a Presidential race, now does it.

I will still go with a University study over a Blogger's poll.

Apparently Gallup is so untrustworthy that it couldn't even make your little list. I don't see how this bolsters your point ? Was Gallup not around in 2007 when your poll was done ?

Keep pluggin' away and turning that eye.

Okay then. Let's take the second pollster on your special Fordham list, the Pew Center. They're probably one of the most trusted, independent pollsters in the country. They recently pinned President Obama's approval ratings at 59%. Guess what? That's still higher than both Bush (58%) and Clinton (53%) at this point in their first terms. :D

How about another poll. Newsweek published an article just two weeks ago with the subtitle, "Amid all the gloom, Obama gets high marks in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, with the GOP in the doghouse." They polled his approval ratings at 58%, matching Bush and beating Clinton. :D

Admit it, the WSJ argument is flimsy and sensationalist, with a large amount of conservative spin. And I'll admit that this whole discussion is pretty silly, considering that most people already take WSJ op-eds and Rasmussen polls with a large grain of salt. Besides, the mid-term elections are still a long way off. The Republicans can act flustered and angry all they want about the problems their party and President had a big part in causing, and they don't have to offer any alternative solutions. But that doesn't bode well for their prospects in '10 and '12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus sevfiv or somebody, please start a thread for the best pollsters and let this one get back to something else. ALL Polls are rigged to reflect a certain agenda, by those doing the polling. That's what pollsters do. Jesus get a clue will you. Why not just hurl Yanni LP's at each other at 30 paces or something. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus sevfiv or somebody, please start a thread for the best pollsters and let this one get back to something else. ALL Polls are rigged to reflect a certain agenda, by those doing the polling. That's what pollsters do. Jesus get a clue will you. Why not just hurl Yanni LP's at each other at 30 paces or something. :lol:

Because you are the only one that actually OWNs any Yanni albums on this forum. Right there with all the Kenny G also, so how are 'Cuda and I supposed to do that, we don't want to mess up your collection. :P

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me steer us back on topic here. Obama now has to defend the actions of some of his cronies. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Chris Dodd. Now that Dodd has admitted that he wrote the language into the bailout for AIG bonuses, and Barney and Pelosi are trying to claim they had no knowledge, but seriously. They wrote the damn bill in Pelosi's office, and they want to claim innocence ? REALLY ? :huh: How can the Dems. scream bloody murder over this when they are the ones who facilitated it ?

Crunch, I have to give you an apology, I said your company was a turd, and while I still think that, I think that they DO deserve the bonuses that were written into their contracts and that they were already in place before they were given the bailout money. It is a cost of doing business for AIG, and the money should not have to be given back. I siad they shouldn't be giving bonuses, but I was wrong, so I apologize for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me steer us back on topic here. Obama now has to defend the actions of some of his cronies. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Chris Dodd. Now that Dodd has admitted that he wrote the language into the bailout for AIG bonuses, and Barney and Pelosi are trying to claim they had no knowledge, but seriously. They wrote the damn bill in Pelosi's office, and they want to claim innocence ? REALLY ? :huh: How can the Dems. scream bloody murder over this when they are the ones who facilitated it ?

Crunch, I have to give you an apology, I said your company was a turd, and while I still think that, I think that they DO deserve the bonuses that were written into their contracts and that they were already in place before they were given the bailout money. It is a cost of doing business for AIG, and the money should not have to be given back. I siad they shouldn't be giving bonuses, but I was wrong, so I apologize for that.

So you probably have issues with the automakers renegotiating UAW contracts also? Just seeing if you are consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you probably have issues with the automakers renegotiating UAW contracts also? Just seeing if you are consistent.

I don't think there should be a UAW at all. In fact, there should be NO UNIONS whatsoever. I am all for sweatshops ;) and equal pay for equal work.

Let me clarify the AIG "bonuses" also. No bonuses should be given to those subsidiaries performing poorly and losing money, but if your division is a proven profit-maker for the company, then by all means, you deserve a bonus. These "retention" bonuses were set in place to keep those who had their ships, shipshape, keep doing their job until the whole company got back on track. These people deserve the bonuses.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there should be a UAW at all. In fact, there should be NO UNIONS whatsoever. I am all for sweatshops and equal pay for equal work.

Regardless of what you think of the UAW, they do exist and they do have contracts. Any reason why the contractual agreements with AIG execs are any more valid than the UAW's?

By the way I think that the UAW should have re-negotiated to save what is left of their jobs, same goes for AIG. BY the way those retention bonuses didn't really "retain". I think about 17 AIG execs took the money and ran. They are no longer lending their indispensable expertise at AIG.

Edited by west20th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what you think of the UAW, they do exist and they do have contracts. Any reason why the contractual agreements with AIG execs are any more valid than the UAW's?

Can you tell me what parasitic organiation negotiated those contracts and is sucking off those AIG execs ? The AIG execs negotiated their own contracts using their own merits.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell me what parasitic organiation negotiated those contracts and is sucking off those AIG execs ? The AIG execs negotiated their own contracts using their own merits.

What difference does it make who negotiated the contracts? And speaking of parasitic. who has sucked more off of the govn't teet, the automakers or AIG?

Edited by west20th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference does it make who negotiated the contracts? And speaking of parasitic. who has sucked more off of the govn't teet, the automakers or AIG?

I don't know, I am not upset at either. I think they both should have claimed BK.

BTW, it makes a difference when YOU go in on your own behalf to get your own money, than having someone going in ALWAYS making demands for more money because THEY get a piece of it. Tell you what west, you hand me over 10% of your income, and I will happily go to bat for you when it comes time for your raise, or would you rather go in yourself, and get the raise based on your own merits ?

Oh, and for the record, I don't like Sports Agents either.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC has been split into its own topic. Please try to keep the parent Obama topic on topic.

Also, feel free to discuss AIG and such in the HAIFinance section. It could use a few more threads.

Actually, this thread only has a handful of posts that are on-topic. Everything else is about Obama's popularity, AIG, or media bias...and you forgot to transfer quite a few media bias posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Actually, this thread only has a handful of posts that are on-topic. Everything else is about Obama's popularity, AIG, or media bias...and you forgot to transfer quite a few media bias posts.

How is your post on topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is your post on topic?

It was pointing out that the attempt to clean up this thread was woefully inadequate. You should've done a better job so as to ensure that further discussion was on-topic. I suppose that pointing that out is, itself, going off topic. But the spirit of the post was to bring the thread back on topic. Therefore, I believe it to be well-justified, no less than your posts #48 or #50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...