Wanna work fot the new Administration?

[C-Hopkins]

http://change.gov/

They're hiring!

[Dmitri]

Not surprising... But yes, we need more government, don't we?

New Chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, "was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry"

Which is also not surprising...

Oh well, corruption's always been around and it ain't going away. I just hope the new administration doesn't take this country as far as some fear it might.

[C-Hopkins]

Not surprising... But yes, we need more government, don't we?

New Chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, "was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry"

Which is also not surprising...

Oh well, corruption's always been around and it ain't going away. I just hope the new administration doesn't take this country as far as some fear it might.

Hey if it ain't broke, don't fix it right?


Oh,wait...

[Michael]

Take a look at what kind of person Obama just appointed as his Chief of Staff:

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remeber it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.

''Dead!'' he screamed.

The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ''Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!''

The Brothers Emanuel

[Steve James]

LOL. It's like Goldilocks. "This one's too hot. This one's too cold. This one's jussst right."
C'mon, if he'd picked somebody that people weren't scared of, you'd have called him weak and a puppet. Anyway, has Emmanuel ever been charged with using his steak-knife to make a point ... other than on a steak, of course? Does this mean that Obama is a Nazi or a Stalinist?

I'm curious. Did you guys rate the creds of Bush's team? Did you really look into who Bush's CoS was?

[Dmitri]

I'm curious. Did you guys rate the creds of Bush's team? Did you really look into who Bush's CoS was?

Are you freakin' serious man?! Bush has managed to assemble the most disgusting and terrifying collection of assholes that probably ever comprised any other president's office. That is NOT easy to beat, getting together the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, etc., etc., etc.

One shouldn't compare oneself to the worst of the lot, but to the best -- unless of course the comparison is only to pat oneself on the back and feel better.

[TaoJoannes]

Is there a job open in the proofreading department?

[Steve James]

I'm curious. Did you guys rate the creds of Bush's team? Did you really look into who Bush's CoS was?

Are you freakin' serious man?! Bush has managed to assemble the most disgusting and terrifying collection of assholes that probably ever comprised any other president's office. That is NOT easy to beat, getting together the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, etc., etc., etc.

One shouldn't compare oneself to the worst of the lot, but to the best -- unless of course the comparison is only to pat oneself on the back and feel better.

My point was that Obama has appointed one person, thus far, and he's being super-scrutinized (as a way to condemn Obama). My question was whether "ya'll" had investigated any other President-elect's staff members? I know that "you", Dmitri, did not --because you said you were previously apathetic. "I" didn't like (vote for) Bush 1 or 2, but I knew way more about his VPs than his staff members. Okay, I think these criticisms are premature and exaggerated. They are only meant to confirm previously formed ideas about the candidate. I can't say that it's unfair, because it's just partisan politics (the other "part" doesn't have to be the Republicans, btw). But, I can say that it seems like typical Rovian tactics.

I think, however, that the tactic has the opposite effect. It only makes his supporters circle the wagons. So, in a sense, I think it's a good thing. It's probably one reasons he won the election. No kidding. I guess the only negative thing is that it makes the stomach churn, and I think there'll be plenty of time for that in the future.

[Dmitri]

Well, FWIW, these weren't "criticisms", nor are they exaggerated. I stated two simple facts, one that we're gonna have an even bigger government, and two that the new Chief of staff is at the top of the elite contributions recipients' list. I picked the "negative facts" (if there is such a thing) because of the "they're hiring" topic, and these issues are among the top on my list of things I don't like about this guy.

Sorry about your stomach.

[Steve James]

It's exaggerated to complain about them before they happen. Re: "bigger government", like I said, it'd be crazy to elect someone who'd want to destroy the system he was elected to. And, every time an administration changes, there are new people hired. Hiring in government doesn't mean that gov't is growing. People are being replaced.

among the top on my list of things I don't like about this guy

That was my point. Your emotions about the guy seem to influence everything that you say. Yet, you just got through saying that you were going back to being apathetic. I'm just saying that I start not to take what you're arguing seriously. I'm not sure if it has that effect on anyone else, but your bias makes your opinions unreliable. I'm not saying that you should care. I'm just pointing it out.

[Michael]

I'm just saying that I start not to take what you're arguing seriously. I'm not sure if it has that effect on anyone else, but your bias makes your opinions unreliable. I'm not saying that you should care. I'm just pointing it out.

Give me a break, Steve. This is still a discussion, but if you think it's your place to declare someone has no credibility, you need a lot more than that. You are woefully ignorant of current events that are even in the mainstream news. Biden, Chertoff, Powell, Merkel, and many others have already invalidated all of Obama's campaign promises before he's inaugurated by predicting, to the day (plus or minus one day) a catastrophic event will take place that will require Obama to make unpopular policies, and the Chief of Staff has a proven track record that anyone can point to and use to predict what he will do in the future. Obama has announced plans to increase the existing size of government, not just replace people, as if Dmitri somehow doesn't know the difference. Again, give me a break.

[Steve James]

Give me a break, Steve. This is still a discussion, but if you think it's your place to declare someone has no credibility, you need a lot more than that. You are woefully ignorant of current events that are even in the mainstream news.

Gee, Michael, I didn't say Dmitri has no credibility. (Dmitri, I don't believe that you're lying or trying to be dishonest. Forgive me if I start to speak about you in the third person). I pointed out that his obvious bias --that he has several times said is his gut feeling-- affected the way I took his argument. That just means that it seemed like he was grinding an axe. I also made it very clear that I didn't know if anyone else had the same perception of bias or reaction to it. My assumption was that he'd understand that I wasn't trying to attack him personally, and that hopefully he'd see that I wasn't saying it because I had an axe to grind.

Actually, it's the same with the conspiracy theories, if you really want to know. The more they're raised by the same people, the less I tend to listen. So, it's like this, if you --MIchael-- say that something is a conspiracy, I am actually less likely to pay attention than if, say, Walter or almost anyone else would point out the same things. I just picked Walter because he doesn't usually come up with conspiracy theories. I don't mean this to be a slight on you, only on your tactics of argumentation. It's up to you whether you want to believe that you have that effect. Imho, if you (or anyone) wants others to listen, you have to at least seem to believe that the other person might be right or has a point --even if he is woefully ignorant.

[Michael]

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5781

Rahm Emanuel is also an enthusiastic supporter of the United States Public Service Academy Act, a lobbying group founded in 2006 in order to promote the foundation of an American public service academy modeled on the military academies - a youth corps whose students would be trained in “civilian internship in the armed forces”.

This rings the alarm bells when we recall Obama’s pledge to create a “civilian national security force” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military.

A creepy You Tube video of a brown-shirt style Obama youth brigade chanting and marching military style emerged last month, raising fears about where the messianic cult-like status of Obama’s image could eventually lead.

[Michael]

Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s Civilian Security Force

In [Emanuel's] book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, published in 2006, Emanuel sketches out his ideas on how to “fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism.” In addition to fortifying “the military’s ‘thin green line’ around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops,” Emanuel suggests “we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain’s MI5.”

“A new domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties,” notes John Walsh in response to Emanuel’s suggestion. “MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.” It should be noted that MI5 also specialized in the infiltration of British unions and was responsible for directing many of the IRA’s atrocities.

Rahm Emanuel’s ideas on defeating the alleged specter of “domestic counterterrorism” dovetail with frightening precision with Obama’s declaration that once elected he will create a Civilian Security Force “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. “People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops, not counting the National Guard. “Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?” muses Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. “If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?”

[Michael]

I pointed out that his obvious bias --that he has several times said is his gut feeling-- affected the way I took his argument. That just means that it seemed like he was grinding an axe.

Dmitri has a bias and I draw conclusions, but you are above all those human frailties, eh? I suppose we don't know your bias because you are too discrete to tell us whom you support.