Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the chief?

Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 9:44 AM

What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the chief? 


That's the title of Willie Brown's article in this morning's SF Chronicle.  Written in the incredibly-accurately-named "Willie's World" column, the former SF Mayor expresses astonishment that Obama could have public approval ratings similar to the "two lowest rated Presidents of our time, George W. Bush and Richard Nixon" (actually, the two Presidents with the lowest average ratings since Roosevelt were Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman, then Ford, then Obama.  But Bush and Nixon follow Obama).

But Willie lets us know that Obama is a man of great integrity and intellectually gifted.  He tells us the unemployment rate is so low that no one ever mentions it on early a.m. talk shows (oops. Looks like BHO's unemployment rate dwarfs that of all the Presidents -- only Gerald Ford's was within 100 basis points).  According to Willie, Obama gets a 10 for honesty and integrity, the rest of Washington gets a 3.  And we've got Universal Health Care (not really, and I'm paying a crapload more for it).
"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV

Last edited 07/06/2014 1:23 PM by Mick1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 10:16 AM

Re: What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the 


Since we are once more at risk for having planes blown out of the sky, and cities destroyed, and the financial community is as arrogant as ever - the rich get richer, and the poor have children, as one of the bastardized song lyrics go - I can understand the public's attitude.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 12:10 PM

A 10? 



He gave him a 10 for honesty and integrity? You have got to be f**king kidding. But wait, it's in print.

Willie is either senile or he has his head in the sand...or both! One of the most bizarre statements I have heard in a long, long time.

I give him a 2. The only reason I rate him that high is because he is breathing and taking nourishment.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Last edited 07/06/2014 12:17 PM by brix24

Reply | Quote

Posted: 07/06/2014 12:17 PM

Re: What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the 




Have another drink Willie, it's on the white house.  Drunk basstard.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 12:49 PM

Re: What's with WOULD YOU EXPECT A BLACK DEMOCRAT TO ACTUALLY 


BE CRITICAL OF THE POTUS? WILLIE JUST PLAYS TO HIS KOOLAID DRINKING BASE. ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, WILLIE JUST PLAYS FOR WILLIE. AT THE CALAMARI CLUB LUNCHEON, ACCORDING TO MY SOURCES, HE BOASTED OF REDUCING THE AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION IN SF FROM 14% DOWN TO 8%... WILLIE'S CRAZY, ABOUT WILLIE.
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy

Last edited 07/06/2014 8:48 PM by johnnyo53

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 2:41 PM

Re: What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the 


you forgot to mention that the NSA has already read your next book.  But let's not digress.  I agree with you on these points.  I would add that President Obama has given up on defending our borders against economic chaos and riots.  


Genuine Realist wrote: Since we are once more at risk for having planes blown out of the sky, and cities destroyed, and the financial community is as arrogant as ever - the rich get richer, and the poor have children, as one of the bastardized song lyrics go - I can understand the public's attitude.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 3:05 PM

Re: What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the 


You jest, but if the NSA had read my next book - moving from metadata to content - someone would be going to jail.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 6:54 PM

Re: What's with the American public giving a 'fail' to the 


Willie would rather sleep with white girls than work.
"Honkhonkhonkhonkhonk."

Harpo Marx
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 9:45 PM

No way they're going to jail 


Because you assume they police themselves and they are not like Snowden who had a character/moral flaw?  

You do know they are reading the full text of any digital transmission of citizens.  Right?    That's the whole point of the recent revelevations.  They're reading full private transmissions of non-suspects without authority in the name of national security.  

On the other hand, it shouldn't bother you.  It's not like your digital works and communications to your editors or reviewers are the same private property as if you wrote them on paper in the privacy of your home property or home.  


Genuine Realist wrote: You jest, but if the NSA had read my next book - moving from metadata to content - someone would be going to jail.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/06/2014 10:30 PM

Re: No way they're going to jail 



Pasadena2000 wrote: 

You do know they are reading the full text of any digital transmission of citizens.  Right?    That's the whole point of the recent revelevations.  They're reading full private transmissions of non-suspects without authority in the name of national security.  


I know no such thing. I'm next to certain they are not . . . BECAUSE there are whistle blowers aplenty, and we are talking major criminality, for which neither the White House nor Congress could give them any cover. Snowden, I will remind you again, can't produce so much as a syllable of an improperly read email, though he took thousands and thousands of documents.

Would you take the chance if you were an NSA employee? I sure would not. The NSA employee base is not made up of space aliens, but people like you and me, trying to make their way in life. If anything, they're a bit more straight laced because security clearance eliminates scofflaws. So who exactly among these do you think is disposed to commit such crimes? 

And, as always, P2000 . . .  what is the motive for this huge risk of prosecution? Thieves, hackers, and the like all have something to gain. You think anyone does evil for the sheer fun of doing evil? What does the individual who risks so much gain here?

This is usually where the dialog ends. But I am curious about another thing.

Why aren 't you convinced that the phone company is tapping your conversations? Or that your local police are systematically entering your house and searching when you're not there? The post man steaming open your mail? Because if the thesis is that persons who can commit crimes with apparent impunity (even with no motive) will do so, why is your paranoia so selective?

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Last edited 07/06/2014 10:48 PM by Genuine Realist

Reply | Quote

Posted: 07/06/2014 11:18 PM

Re: No way they're going to jail 



Genuine Realist wrote:

Why aren 't you convinced that the phone company is tapping your conversations? Or that your local police are systematically entering your house and searching when you're not there? The post man steaming open your mail? Because if the thesis is that persons who can commit crimes with apparent impunity (even with no motive) will do so, why is your paranoia so selective?

GR.....

I'm on your side on this one....  always have been.   But I think these rhetorical questions serve little purpose.    We all know the answers.    Because the NSA has the authority that phone company, the local police,  the postman and others don't.    The NSA has far more power and authority and is operating in far more darkness.

The reason I'm not the least bit worried about the NSA reading my stuff and your stuff the stuff of most anyone posting here (except the crazy guy with all the photos of 9/11)  is that there simply aren't enough eyeballs to be reading everything the NSA is scooping up.

It's my understanding that the NSA uses some type of computer software that scans for key words, phrases, names, dates, locations,  etc...   use those things and they're likely to check it out.   And I'm fine with that.     You don't use those items and you're clean and good to go.   They're not wasting their time checking out my e-mail because my e-mail doesn't contain anything for them to check.

And if it turns out they are checking me out (and others here)  then these guys are the dumbest MF-ers alive and we deserve whatever fate awaits us......................   and if writing that gets me flagged,  then so be it.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/07/2014 9:20 AM

Re: No way they're going to jail 


RMOTKING,

My police analogy is indeed farfetched, but I don't think the phone company and post office suggestions are. Neither of course would be performing these illegal acts for security purposes, but for other motives, mostly commercial advanrage. The only reason why you dismiss the suggestion out of hand is that it's technology that's comfortable and familiar.

I agree (and have written) that the NSA made a huge mistake in treating these operations with a Cold War security protocol. They should have been widely and effectively publicized. They are simply not that sinister, and the Bad Guys don't gain that much by knowing they exist. (Of course I am talking high concept - you don't disclose the actual algorithms). Love him or hate him, J. Edgar Hoover trumpeted the FBI's advances in criminal science rather than guarding them, with the result of huge public approval and acceptance. If he'd kept the existence of a fingerbprint database a top secret, and it had been found out, there would have been huge paranoia. The NSA has fallen into that trap. (BTW, if Hoover had died or retired in 1960, he'd still be regarded as a national hero. All of the damnation has to do with his activitiy in the 60's in which he continued to associate civil rights movements with Soviet Communist influence. Historically, that was accurate, but it changed dramatically in the early 60's and he was too out of touch to realize that).

As it is, ISP providers and social media companies are doing far more 'invasive' stuff than a government agency could dream. Google Now knows my every move. (I could cut them off, but it interests me). I actually think the Supreme Court will rethink the traditional 'reasonable expectations' definition sometime in the near future. I doubt phone or email metadata will suddenly become protected, and credit reports have to be open for credit to exist. But GPS data seems to me quite sensitive, and likely to be subject to a warrant requirement.

Scans of email content? My head hurts. Google announced when Gmail was introduced 10 years ago that it would do keyword scanning for commercial purposes, which was quite controversial at the time. But it seems to have become accepted. My hunch is that all ISP providers do routine content scan for viral threats and the like, to keep their servers safe. And yet the public does expect in the main that email content will be private, and it largely is. How that fits in with security algorithms I frankly don't know. My instinct is that a warrant to scan beyond metadata will be required. 

However it sorts out, I expect the NSA, FBI, and others to abide by the law. This is my big disagreement with P2000. Those guys are not loosey-goosey - they are almost bureaucratically rigid. And systematic lawbreaking would leave them vulnerable to any loose cannon who walks out the door with proof. If Snowden had actual documentation of systematic, sanctioned breaches of FISA and ECPA, these guys would be headed for jail, and Obama would be facing impeachment proceedings. I am quite serious about that.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/07/2014 9:27 AM

further, to GR's point 


recent news article had Facebook trolling subscriber postings and based upon their profile, feeding input to them in skewed fashion as part of their conduct of a psychological profiling experiment usinjg their customers as human guinea pigs... this currently being conditioned by Facebook's Skinner-box afficionados...

these cyber-companies do far more data mining than NSA ever contemplated... and anyone who subscribes and uses their service signs up to voluntarily allow such trolling/use...

Facebook playing mind-games  and manipulating its subscribers all part of the game, and far more invasive than NSA... whick at least looks for trigger words to launch a search... these Facebopok/Google/Yahoo guys(gals) monitor everything

besides, if you've got nothing to hide, why the fuss?

Last edited 07/07/2014 5:28 PM by FrankO

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/07/2014 6:04 PM

Context 


Mick1 wrote:

oops. Looks like BHO's unemployment rate dwarfs that of all the Presidents -- only Gerald Ford's was within 100 basis points
To give those numbers some context, remember that Obama inherited a higher unemployment rate than any president on that list. When he took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8% and was rising rapidly due to the worst recession in 70 years. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.0% in October 2009. Since then, the unemployment rate has gone down to 6.1%.

Another way to look at unemployment under each president is to consider whether unemployment went up or down over the president's full time in office. The net changes in the unemployment rate under each president are as follows (negative numbers indicate that the unemployment rate went down):

Clinton            - 3.1 percentage points
Johnson          - 2.3
Reagan           - 2.1
Obama           - 1.7 (to date)
Kennedy         - 0.9
Carter               0.0
Bush 41         + 1.9
Ford               + 2.0
Nixon             + 2.1 
Bush 43         + 3.6
Eisenhower    + 3.7

Link to data

In the article linked by Mick, Willie Brown said the stock market has almost doubled during the Obama presidency. Actually, the market has more than doubled.

Of course, the power of any president to control these things is limited, so we need to be careful about assigning blame or credit.





Last edited 07/07/2014 6:49 PM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/07/2014 6:14 PM

Re: Context 



terry2 wrote:
 
To give those numbers some context, remember that Obama inherited a higher unemployment rate than any president on that list.

And, thus, it should be far easier for him to reduce the unemployment rate - no?

If the rate was 4% when he came into office, it would be difficult to reduce the rate by much, obviously.

Moreover, to look at the unemployment rate is bogus.  Rather, you should look at the percentage of the population that is employed.  On that measure, Obama is an epic fail.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/07/2014 7:15 PM

Re: Context 


More employment data from Obama's presidency --

- Private sector employment has gone up by 6 million jobs.

- Government employment has declined by about 650,000 jobs.



Last edited 07/07/2014 7:17 PM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/07/2014 8:02 PM

Re: Context 


Another data point from the Obama presidency -- corporate profits are up to the highest level in history, by a considerable margin.

Last edited 07/07/2014 8:04 PM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/08/2014 7:22 AM

Question #1 


Also of note, Obama has reduced federal contractor expenditures for four years in a row, the longest stretch since Reagan. Contractor outlays were reduced by 13% from 2012 to 2013. Of course, that's down from the stimulus levels, though.



terry2 wrote: More employment data from Obaa's presidency --


- Government employment has declined by about 650,000 jobs.
"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV

Last edited 07/08/2014 7:24 AM by Mick1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/08/2014 7:33 AM

Gerald is correct 


Here is the labor force participation rate since 1/05.  It has been declining since 1/09 more or less constantly.  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


Gerald McGowin wrote:
terry2 wrote:
 
To give those numbers some context, remember that Obama inherited a higher unemployment rate than any president on that list.

And, thus, it should be far easier for him to reduce the unemployment rate - no?

If the rate was 4% when he came into office, it would be difficult to reduce the rate by much, obviously.

Moreover, to look at the unemployment rate is bogus.  Rather, you should look at the percentage of the population that is employed.  On that measure, Obama is an epic fail.
"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 07/08/2014 7:38 AM

Context as to how corporations are making profits 


Great, Corporate profits are up.  Know what's down?  Know how they make those profits?


terry2 wrote: Another data point from the Obama presidency -- corporate profits are up to the highest level in history, by a considerable margin.

"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >