President Barack Obama (official thread)

[jlb1705]

A word to your mother.

[OSUsushichic]

Obama to get spy-proof smartphone...

There are also concerns that mobile devices such as BlackBerries, which contain built in GPS technology, could be hacked into, revealing the president's location within a few feet.

But according to reports Thursday, Obama could now be in line to receive a spy-proof alternative to his favorite toy.

Writing on his blog for the Atlantic magazine, Marc Ambinder reports that the National Security Agency has approved a $3,350 smartphone -- inevitably dubbed the "BarackBerry" -- for Obama's use.

Obama 'to get spy-proof smartphone' - CNN.com

[shetuck]

Pray Obama fails



:hypocrite:

: puke:

:mile-long-mustache:

Pray Obama fails
Posted: January 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

Many American Christians believe, as an article of faith, that we are to pray for the success of our leaders.

It has become a sort of conventional wisdom among soft-minded believers. The biblical proof-text for this misguided way of thinking is Romans 13:1-4:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

What could be more clear-cut? At face value, it would seem the Bible is telling us government is a God-ordained good and that we are not to resist its terrors.

Many a coward has been bolstered in his conviction against challenging tyranny by not reading too deeply into the Scriptures. Yet, nowhere does the Bible ever suggest evil rulers are to be obeyed. When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand.

That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.

It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign.

I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straightforward Commandments.

So you will not see me joining in the ritual of affirming Obama and his mission in public or private prayer this week ? or any other week.

Instead, I uphold the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:14: "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." And I take warning from Isaiah 9:16: "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."

And please don't tell me about "rendering unto Caesar."

cont'd...

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by generaladm

TB, I was near the end of a very lengthy reply to this where I broke down every part of the article, when my computer crashed for the second time today (especially worrisome, because I bought it at Circuit City), and I lost it all. You should be glad you don't have to read it, but I still have to ask you, why post something like that? It's completely devoid of substance. I won't go thru all the details, but there are a couple of points which expose the author's incompetence. First of all, the title and the entire theme of the piece center around oxymorons, yet every time he tries to point out an example of one in Obama's speech or the Sanger article, it doesn't even fit the definition of an oxymoron. He also defines pragmatism as "not a value, but rather the triumph of expediency over values", which is not even close. The whole article is substandard, even in the realm of amateur bloggers. I only bring it up because your own posts are normally well reasoned and insightful. I would much rather read your personal thoughts on the subject, rather than a poorly written character assassination piece. I just don't see how that article adds anything to the conversation. Rather, I think it is only capable of denegrating the tone of responses to the type of blind partisanship that the author chooses to relish in. I'm curious to know if that article is in consort with your personal views, or if you simply posted it because it dealt with the subject at hand. I would be very interested in your response.

Before you criticize let's see what happens with Cali and all the other states that need bail outs. We have a president who got elected based on his ability to relate to mainstreet and distance himself from the wall streeters. Well, it's clear that nationalization is off the table to protect the shareholders of those firms, and Obama's promise to implement universal health care would be dead in the water if he is unable to protect California's health care system. We'll see soon enough whether he is who he said he was during the campaign.

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

Before you criticize let's see what happens with Cali and all the other states that need bail outs. We have a president who got elected based on his ability to relate to mainstreet and distance himself from the wall streeters. Well, it's clear that nationalization is off the table to protect the shareholders of those firms, and Obama's promise to implement universal health care would be dead in the water if he is unable to protect California's health care system. We'll see soon enough whether he is who he said he was during the campaign.

I'm not criticizing you, or anyone's right to be skeptical of Obama, I'm critical of that particular author's writing ability. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The points you bring up are very valid, but Spengler did not even touch on those in his piece. His sole purpose was to discredit the historical significance of the inauguration, and claim that everything said during the ceremony was insubstantial. From a journalistic standpoint, he based all his criticism on faulty reasoning, misquotation, and cheap shots. That was my issue, that the article in question is not up to the standard of your usual posts, and to that of the board in general. If you'd like me to attempt another breakdown of the article, I'll do so (assuming my computer holds up).

[buckeyefool]

The new website for Obama's White House is already drawing attention from privacy activists and tech bloggers. While the initial focus has been on site's policies relating to search engine robots, a far more interesting tidbid has so far escaped the public eye: the White House has quietly exempted YouTube from strict rules regulating to the use of cookies on federal agency websites.

The new White House website privacy policy promises that the site will not use long-term tracking cookies, complying with a decade old rule prohibiting such user tracking by federal agencies. However, the privacy policy then reveals that Obama's legal team has exempted YouTube from this rule -- YouTube videos are embedded at various places around the White House website.

While the White House might not be tracking visitors, the Google owned video sharing site is free to use persistent cookies to track the browsing behavior of millions of visitors to Obama's home in cyberspace.

No other company has been singled out and rewarded with such a waiver.
White House exempts YouTube from federal privacy rules | Surveillance State - CNET News

[Gatorubet]

Chief Justice John Roberts and President Barrack Obama prepare to give a "High Five" to each other as they laughed about intentionally messing up the Oath of Office yesterday at Obama's swearing in ceremony. "You should have seen Michelle's face." laughed Roberts. "[censored], Cheney looked like he was going to wheel that chair back into the Oval Office and start running things again when he heard you muff it.....that is some funny [censored] Johnny!!", the First Prankster retorted.

[Moose]

I found this rather interesting.

Moose

Big inauguration is inappropriate

Letters
Updated: 01/20/2009 09:31:23 AM EST




Tuesday, January 20
At a cost of $160 million, the Obama inauguration is by far the most expensive inauguration in this country's history. By comparison the last inauguration for President Bush was $47 million. President Clinton's last inauguration was $33 million. Why President-elect Obama has chosen to spend nearly four times more than the last inauguration is puzzling to me and in this time of financial crisis this extravagance is bordering on the obscene.
Although corporations are forbidden to donate directly to the inauguration some of the donations to the inaugural balls are interesting. The presidents of both CitiBank and Bank of America are on that list. Both received nice bailouts from hard-working taxpayers. I would have had much more respect for President Obama if he had scaled back this party like FDR did in the depression. Seeing a bunch of wealthy donors going to balls drinking champagne while millions of Americans are suffering with lost jobs or cut wages sends the exact wrong message. WALLY TERRILL
Otis

Link: Big inauguration is inappropriate - Berkshire Eagle Online

[BUCKYLE]

John Roberts: You had one [censored]ing job to do on inauguration day. One [censored]ing job that you had four damn years to practice for. I mean honestly...ONE [censored]ING JOB. What a dick.

[fourteenandoh]

Originally Posted by BUCKYLE

John Roberts: You had one [censored]ing job to do on inauguration day. One [censored]ing job that you had four damn years to practice for. I mean honestly...ONE [censored]ING JOB. What a dick.

what do you expect? he can't be fired. if you had a guaranteed job for the rest of your life, would you give a damn? (i'm kidding btw)

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by Moose

I found this rather interesting.

Moose

I guess you missed the part where the '05 inauguration actually cost over $157 mil. The $47 mil figure only refers to the amount raised thru private donations, about equal to Obama's. It does not take into account the cost of added security and amenities, which is the bulk of the final price tag. There's much more about it here:

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/1384643-post1.html

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Having been born in 1973, the "where where you when... " moments of my American experience have been decisively negative (Regan shot, Challenger explosion, OJ verdict, 9/11). I sincerely hope the inuagartion of our first African-American president ushers in a new era of shared joys that outshine the sorrows.

At least you missed the Bay of Pigs, and the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and MLK. I was six years old, walking back to school from lunch when I heard JFK was shot, and was 11 years old riding in the car with my dad and mom at night when the car radio brought the somber news, "The Reverend Martin Luther King is dead". I remember both very vividly...

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by generaladm

I'm not criticizing you, or anyone's right to be skeptical of Obama, I'm critical of that particular author's writing ability. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The points you bring up are very valid, but Spengler did not even touch on those in his piece. His sole purpose was to discredit the historical significance of the inauguration, and claim that everything said during the ceremony was insubstantial. From a journalistic standpoint, he based all his criticism on faulty reasoning, misquotation, and cheap shots. That was my issue, that the article in question is not up to the standard of your usual posts, and to that of the board in general. If you'd like me to attempt another breakdown of the article, I'll do so (assuming my computer holds up).

No need. I'll cut down on the amount of Spengler that I post.

[fourteenandoh]

since this isn't the recruiting forum...

Dear Obama,

Please shut up with the China rhetoric!


Geithner Warning on Yuan May Renew U.S.-China Tension (Update1)

By Mark Drajem and Rebecca Christie

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Timothy Geithner?s warning that President Barack Obama believes China is ?manipulating? its currency may trigger renewed tensions between two of the world?s three biggest economies.

Geithner, Obama?s nominee for Treasury secretary, also told senators the administration will press China to ?adopt a more aggressive stimulus package? to boost its domestic economy. The remarks on manipulation were a shift from President George W. Bush?s team, which stopped short of using the term in criticizing China?s exchange-rate management.

?The signal this sends is not good? for ties between the two nations, said Charles Freeman, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former top trade negotiator for China at the U.S. Trade Representative?s office. ?It opens a Pandora?s box. We need the Chinese to hold onto their Treasury and agency debt.?

Geithner?s comments triggered a drop in Treasuries on concern that demand from China, the largest foreign investor in U.S. government debt, may wane.

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

since this isn't the recruiting forum...

Dear Obama,

Please shut up with the China rhetoric!


Geithner Warning on Yuan May Renew U.S.-China Tension (Update1)

By Mark Drajem and Rebecca Christie

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Timothy Geithner?s warning that President Barack Obama believes China is ?manipulating? its currency may trigger renewed tensions between two of the world?s three biggest economies.

Geithner, Obama?s nominee for Treasury secretary, also told senators the administration will press China to ?adopt a more aggressive stimulus package? to boost its domestic economy. The remarks on manipulation were a shift from President George W. Bush?s team, which stopped short of using the term in criticizing China?s exchange-rate management.

?The signal this sends is not good? for ties between the two nations, said Charles Freeman, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former top trade negotiator for China at the U.S. Trade Representative?s office. ?It opens a Pandora?s box. We need the Chinese to hold onto their Treasury and agency debt.?

Geithner?s comments triggered a drop in Treasuries on concern that demand from China, the largest foreign investor in U.S. government debt, may wane.

Close our door to world trade. Monetize the portion of debt issuance not met by private savings. Pity to the poor b[censroed] who thought history has ended with the triumph of neo-liberalism. Get ready for a wild ride folks.