>> ^blankfist:
&I'm sure Obama's laundry list of lies is just as long as any politician, and I know I've heard a few. Here's a guy who has a list of 100, which is probably a bit more nitpicky than necessary.
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list
-of-100-of-obamas.html


Heh, that's amusing. The list was 100 things the author didn't like, and very few were broken promises. Of the claimed broken promises, only the one about signing statements is both important and accurate (#9).

Many of the things on that list are petty or misrepresented, and towards the end, things I was very happy he managed to get done.

I think if they needed to get that petty about things just to get to 100, Obama's doing really, really well so far.

You don't see Libertarians in favor of this war. You do, however, see Democrats in favor of it. You don't see Libertarians in favor of drug laws, but you do you see Dems in favor of them. Libertarians despise inequality and are in favor of ensuring all men (and women) are equal regardless of sexual or religious orientation. Dems vote in favor of denying gays' rights to marriage.
Who now is closer to the Republicans? Certainly not the Libertarian. We're classic Liberals. We disagree with Democratic and Republican violence and tyranny. We embrace freedom for everyone. Any questions?

I don't know of any elected members of the Libertarian Party, either. I guess your point is that because the 315-316 Democrats in Congress sometimes have a handful of defectors, Democrats then should never get any more votes?

I'm all for primarying the Democrats who've broken ranks on crucial issues, but at the moment all of those come from other states or house districts. I'll probably donate to key campaigns in 2010, once it becomes more clear which seats are really in play.

In any case, my questions were "What are the issues people are most concerned about" and "What are the governmental policies you'd enact to solve them"?

If your answers to the first question are 1) "The War" 2) Drug laws, and 3) Gay rights, you're at least out of touch, because only one of those is even on the list -- "The War" -- but that's a distant 2nd or 3rd after economic concerns, and it usually is expressed in the plural, since there are two countries with active combat missions right now.

I'm also not seeing any solutions, and far from seeing a plan for how to enact those solutions without building a popular consensus first.

Yeah... question: Why do you hate America?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
I just have to giggle at seeing yet another person say "Obama is doing things he said he wouldn't do". Which things are those?


I'm sure Obama's laundry list of lies is just as long as any politician, and I know I've heard a few. Here's a guy who has a list of 100, which is probably a bit more nitpicky than necessary.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list-of-100-of-obamas.html



>> ^NetRunner:
Okay then, if libertarians differ from the Republican-style right wing with regard to ponce's critique, what are the issues that people are most concerned about, and what are the governmental policies you would enact to solve them?


You don't see Libertarians in favor of this war. You do, however, see Democrats in favor of it. You don't see Libertarians in favor of drug laws, but you do you see Dems in favor of them. Libertarians despise inequality and are in favor of ensuring all men (and women) are equal regardless of sexual or religious orientation. Dems vote in favor of denying gays' rights to marriage.

Who now is closer to the Republicans? Certainly not the Libertarian. We're classic Liberals. We disagree with Democratic and Republican violence and tyranny. We embrace freedom for everyone. Any questions?

>> ^NetRunner:
I just have to giggle at seeing yet another person say "Obama is doing things he said he wouldn't do". Which things are those?


I'm sure Obama's laundry list of lies is just as long as any politician, and I know I've heard a few. Here's a guy who has a list of 100, which is probably a bit more nitpicky than necessary.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list-of-100-of-obamas.html



>> ^NetRunner:
Okay then, if libertarians differ from the Republican-style right wing with regard to ponce's critique, what are the issues that people are most concerned about, and what are the governmental policies you would enact to solve them?


You don't see Libertarians in favor of this war. You do, however, see Democrats in favor of it. You don't see Libertarians in favor of drug laws, but you do you see Dems in favor of them. Libertarians despise inequality and are in favor of ensuring all men (and women) are equal regardless of sexual or religious orientation. Dems vote in favor of denying gays' rights to marriage.

Who now is closer to the Republicans? Certainly not the Libertarian. We're classic Liberals. We disagree with Democratic and Republican violence and tyranny. We embrace freedom for everyone. Any questions?

Your ideas are stupid.

What about the facts? When do liberals ever own up to anything or claim credit for the results of THEIR policies? Constantly whining about being backstabbed by 'the system'? You're the ones holding the knife!

The border is just as open as it ever was (especially when we were the 7th largest economy in the world), taxation has just been increased because of our debt, and the government spending? Well, just like your friend George W. Bush, just because Arnold wears the label "Republican" it doesn't make him fiscally responsible.

You're just repeating what I wrote (minus the part about who ran California all those years). And how long is the Bush Blame Game going to continue? I've said plenty of times Bush failed to make the right decisions. He spent like a half-liberal over 8 years and now Obama's almost caught up to him in 100 days. Fiscally, Bush set fire to the house, and now Obama's spread that fire to the whole neighborhood, with not a peep from the media.

you should shut the fuck up about border issues. Everybody knows it's thinly veiled racism.

It's "racist" to demand laws are obeyed and borders respected? Tell that to the Mexican soldiers guarding their southern border.

To the leftist everything outside the vision of a statist utopia is "racism". The President is Black as well as Red. Welcome to post-racial America!

We're all entitled to our opinions but not our own facts. The libs ran (and still run) California. If they had any balls, they'd own up to their failures. They won't, and should The One gift them more money, they'll keep doing the exact same things that caused them to fail in the first place.

^ 100+ days in office and already we have a "soft tyrant".

Where do people come up with this stuff?

obama is just past the 100 day mark,so ill reserve judgment on his performance.
but i have to say mr turley is spot on with his assesment,and brings up some very troubling points.however,there are a few that mr turley did not bring up that still bother me.
1.the recinding of executive powers garnered by cheney during the bush admin.
2.patriot act 1+2,victory act 1+2,MCA should be put out to pasture.
3.where is the reconfiguring the powers of the DHS and the TSA?those agencies wield entirely TOO much power.
other than those points i totally agree with mr turley.how can obama be an agent for change when he resorts to the very tactics that brought down the GOP,and helped get HIM elected?
onlookers would be right to call us "hypocrites".
sighs...every time i have a tiny hope of restoring america's integrity,they pull the carpet out.
then again..i am charlie brown.
this is just wrong and does little to promote confidence in those countries who view us with understandable skepticism.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I do take issue with the 500,000 jobs lost this month, an "improvement" over last month's job loss of 600,000.
8.9% unemployment rate?


And all of that is the result of your butthole buddy, George W. Bush, you filthy lying piece of shit.

You talk like the unemployment rate magically jumped to 8.9% in the last 100 days, shitstain.

You can't open your mouth without lying.

Get the fuck out of my country.

Back to Bush-bashing again? Certainly not over spending. Bush can be blamed for the first $350B bailout while Obama and Democrooks are responsible for $1,287B (the $787B second bailout, the second $350B chunk of the first bailout, and the $150B of "sweeteners" in the first bailout).

In 100 days the Magic Kenyan and his merry band of Tax Cheats have burned through the Monopoly money--no one knows where it's gone and no one's talking--and changed EXACTLY NOTHING.

Hell, anyone who studied FDR's folly for 10 minutes knows it's impossible for a country to spend its way out of debt. But why let the lessons of history get in the way? As Rahm the Ballerina says, "Don't waste a crisis."

Democrat corruption continues unabated, thanks in part to a worshipful mainstream media that are farther from real journalism than Pluto is from the sun.

The libertarian-bashing is perplexing, since they're not in power and never have been.

Is it to take minds off the thieving socialist utopia that has arrived and is a steaming pile of sh;t? I don't blame you.

>> ^GuyIncognito:

That's the thing that bothers here. Right after you rag on Fox News, you fucking upvote Jack Bauer. Or you sit your fat ass down and watch American Idol. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? You despise Fox News, but gladly fork your money (your eyes) over to the man who is responsible for this disgusting farce.


I haven't had cable television in over a decade. And like many others who are repulsed by the fear-mongering and media-manipulation practices of Fox News, I'm equally repulsed by 24, American Idol and the rest of that mindless, soul-crushing garbage that you think all of us just love to death.

So please chill on all this "ALL OF YOU" nonsense.

But I think your above comments are just a smoke-screen for your wanting to take a dig at Americans in general. But what you fail to understand is that while people like O'Reilly may get 1million viewers per night, that leaves around 299million people in this country who don't watch him.


None of this is nearly as popular as you or they themselves believe.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Fox News is why the rest of the world remains wary of America. This is your most watched News show?


Only 40% of households watch cable news regularly. There are more than three cable news channels. So, "most-watched" could really just mean that 14% of people watch it. I've also seen claims that CNN actually gets more viewers than Fox, but Fox's Nielsen ratings are just higher through some gaming of the system.

That said, the Big Three (MSNBC, CNN, Fox News) are all total tripe, so there's not really any good source.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I take it this was a live streaming link only?


Yep. No longer relevant. Time to *discard.

The Communist News Network sends a confrontational flunky to make news instead of report it.

How utterly expected.

Only two conclusions can be reached about Obamarx (whose done PLENTY of damage in less than 100 days):

* He has no idea what he's doing. An angry, bitter radical, he's rapidly pulling levers and twisting dials to demonstrate he's "taking action" in an attempt to duplicate FDR's "success" which prolonged the Depression and gave birth to the welfare state.

* He knows exactly what he's doing. The more likely choice. An angry, bitter radical, he's pulling levers and twisting dials to speed up America's collapse into a collectivist 3rd world sh;thole where everyone is a serf/government employee.

Either way, a fraud has been elected, and no liberal voter should be surprised when the big statist government they thought would steal for them steals from them.

The 100-Day Assault on America

by Larry Elder

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

Unlike burning in water...

>> ^JAPR:
Fox news can suck my fucking dick. I hope they all fucking burn in a fire.

Your video, 100 days of "Fair & Balanced", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.