is he hiding or trying to steal the thunder??

[CUDA]

The tale of the Gibson guitar raid — the one focused on the legendary guitar maker’s alleged importation and use of illegal wood — has taken an odd turn. Now CEO Henry Juszkiewicz is claiming the Feds told him that some of his problems “would go away” if the company used Madagascar labor.

I find this accusation interesting in a Climate where Job growth is "Top Priority" for the Administration.

[flip]

I think your onto something Thorne, although I don't think Obama was dishonest, maybe just subtle:P . These are forward thinkers we are dealing with here, "we are the world" and "it takes a village" type crowd and they know populations are just like children, they are what you tell them they are.

[woodchip]

The last part goes to the heart of the matter. What Obama has been trying to get out(with nothing but static and nonsense from both the GOP and the Dems in Congress) is a two part concept.
1. Keep what jobs we can afloat for the moment.
2. Rebuild the foundations needed(education and infrastructure) to have job growth down the longterm road.

As it stands, there is exactly ZERO reason for any sane person to expect even the level of unemployment and underemployment we now have. There is muted domestic demand, business efficiency has been steadily growing, so fewer workers per unit are needed, the skill set of our workforce is mediocre and heading towards laughable. Lots of luck with putting lipstick on that pig, and anyone, here or elsewhere, who suggests that by merely forgoing regulataions or tinkering with taxes or(worst of all in this economy) slashing government is going to have any positive effect, is absolutely insane.

Nice try but insanity lies in your inept description. While infrastructure upkeep has and is being done, trying to refer back to the Minneapolis bridge collapse as indicative of the state of our highway situation is not in reality the case. About the only time I hear about road closers are either from accidents or road work. The high unemployment was triggered by all the sap banks that bought up worthless mortgage derivatives all because the new commie "Progressives" thought everyone should be able to own a home. We are now culminating what Ross Perot lovingly termed the "Big Sucking Sound" as manufacturing jobs fled over seas. Did you think ever more regulations and taxes were going to bring those business's back?

So thankfully Slick, unlike your mind filled with all those voices singing in discordant layers, Obama can see that regulations do hurt and has started the reversal process. Then of course you seem to want to follow the Greece model of retaining govt. workers. Unfortunately for your Don Quixote jousting attempts, trying to regulate in green jobs is not going to work either. Hopefully the next president will have a track record of creating jobs and not just a demonstrated ability to vote present.

[callmeslick]

Just an off-the-cuff comment on your post, callmeslick, but it seems like you're suggesting that Obama is trying to reinvent the worker for the economic situation we find ourselves in (and no one seems to be able to provide a solution for). Obviously "foregoing regulation" and "tinkering with taxes", and "slashing government" are all actions with a focus on changing the source of the problem rather than changing the party that is effected by the problem.

Based on that observation I would say that Obama really is running on change, even if he wasn't totally honest about what that change was, and the most sure way to change a system is to **** up the old one first. So his goals are either a cop-out (not really trying to fix the system itself) or a deliberate attempt to cause aspects of the system that don't jive with his vision for the country to fail, through neglect or sabotage.

actually, what Obama has been trying for from day one seems to be:
1. Short term infusion of stimulus by government to keep from losing more employment. This was somewhat bolloxed up by Congress, resulting in a smallish stimulus and a bunch of tax breaks and cuts.
Thus, it sort of worked(we could have easily reached 15% unemployment, especially if the car companies
went south altogether), but not dramatically.
2. Long term planning to achieve a few things: Infrastructure rebuild, more educated workforce and government stimulation of cutting edge(hence, very risky investment) technologies aimed toward future needs, such as post-petroleum energy, etc.
3. Reworking of trade deals in such a way as to benefit US industries/services.

Now, how any of this gets done in the current political climate eludes me, but, sometime it has to be done, or the US people are generally in for a bleak, bleak future, unless they have the resources to live off of investment income.

[callmeslick]

Nice try but insanity lies in your inept description. While infrastructure upkeep has and is being done, trying to refer back to the Minneapolis bridge collapse as indicative of the state of our highway situation is not in reality the case. About the only time I hear about road closers are either from accidents or road work.

um, infrastructure goes FAR beyond roads. In a world approaching the post-petroleum era, other modes of travel have to be devised and implemented. The US has aging water, sewer, electric and gas infrastructure. Our data infrastructure is inferior to most developed nations. It goes on, but I don't wish to focus on just one of the numerous stupid points in your post. Let's move along, shall we?

The high unemployment was triggered by all the sap banks that bought up worthless mortgage derivatives all because the new commie "Progressives" thought everyone should be able to own a home. We are now culminating what Ross Perot lovingly termed the "Big Sucking Sound" as manufacturing jobs fled over seas. Did you think ever more regulations and taxes were going to bring those business's back?

never mind that it was Reagan that pushed the overconsumption of the public, or that Bush pushed home ownership, or that Ross Perot was referring to unfair trade deals, huh? Never let reality get in the way of a really dumb political knee-jerk response.

Obama can see that regulations do hurt and has started the reversal process. Then of course you seem to want to follow the Greece model of retaining govt. workers. Unfortunately for your Don Quixote jousting attempts, trying to regulate in green jobs is not going to work either. Hopefully the next president will have a track record of creating jobs and not just a demonstrated ability to vote present.

what Obama can and does do, is think through every situation on it's merits, and be flexible and intelligent in his choices. That is something I've always liked about the guy. Oh, and who would you suggest that has a track record of creating jobs, and further, how does that translate into a whole nation creating jobs given the current national state I laid out for you, both very truthfully and in rather plain English. I note that you don't even address those core points I stated, but merely jump onto the ad hominem bandwagon.

[Spidey]

What would go a long way to solving the unemployment problem would be…

1. Going back to an old school apprentice system.
2. Meaningful retraining programs. (sponsored by government and business)
3. Getting rid of the idea that a higher education is something only the elite can provide. (college should not cost your life savings)
4. Reforming the basic education system.

I was watching the News Hour last night, this guy on there was making a lot of sense…we have plenty of jobs available…but the workforce is lagging badly…public education anybody.

This one business that was highlighted, needs plenty of new workers…but, the owner expects people to walk off the street with the skills to do the job. doh

Don't hold your breath waiting for our "leaders" to get a vision or two, they think in a government based box.

BTW stimulus programs WILL NOT WORK…this economy is in refraction*. (figure it out ) We are in this for the long slog.

*Biology

[Will Robinson]

Politicians are in the business of creating votes and harvesting donations for themselves and their party, everything they do is done with those two things as their primary concern. So they are inherently the wrong ones to turn to for help or leadership.

[snoopy]

Obama won a Nobel prize, too. All of the "hope" really seems to be getting us a long way. I wonder how the Nobel prize people feel about these days.

On the OP: I don't think he was hiding, because he knows that whatever he said would be recorded and scrutinized. I think he was trying to flex his muscle along with just being a busy guy who legitimately doesn't have that many time slots where he can fit it.

[woodchip]

Nice try but insanity lies in your inept description. While infrastructure upkeep has and is being done, trying to refer back to the Minneapolis bridge collapse as indicative of the state of our highway situation is not in reality the case. About the only time I hear about road closers are either from accidents or road work.

um, infrastructure goes FAR beyond roads. In a world approaching the post-petroleum era, other modes of travel have to be devised and implemented. The US has aging water, sewer, electric and gas infrastructure. Our data infrastructure is inferior to most developed nations. It goes on, but I don't wish to focus on just one of the numerous stupid points in your post. Let's move along, shall we?

Conveniently you forget data and telecommunications is handled by private companies like AT&T or Sprint. If the Feds tried to handle it all the cost would be 3x as high. Water, sewer and electrical is handled by state or local municipalities where bonds are voted on by the local citizens...not by a federal mandate. So kindly refrain from smoke and mirror posting, it makes you look like a carnival side show huckster.

[

The high unemployment was triggered by all the sap banks that bought up worthless mortgage derivatives all because the new commie "Progressives" thought everyone should be able to own a home. We are now culminating what Ross Perot lovingly termed the "Big Sucking Sound" as manufacturing jobs fled over seas. Did you think ever more regulations and taxes were going to bring those business's back?

never mind that it was Reagan that pushed the overconsumption of the public, or that Bush pushed home ownership, or that Ross Perot was referring to unfair trade deals, huh? Never let reality get in the way of a really dumb political knee-jerk response.

So like a good party operative you once again raise the spector of "It was Bushes Fault". Nice try except back in 2001 Bush warned congress about potential problems with Fanny and Freddy. In 2003 Bush upgraded Fanny and Freddy to a systemic risk that would spread beyond just the housing sector. And how did that sucking windpipe of a senator Barney Frank respond? Why that there was no problems and in fact Fanny and Freddy should be pushing more of these worthless loans. One has to think of the families after all. Wonder what Barney "The Lisp" Frank thinks today about all those families he caused to be out of work? Allen Greenspan also warned about putting the entire financial system at risk with the increased funding the Democratic congress allowed Fanny and Freddy. So instead of listening to the warnings (much like Obamacare) The Dems went ahead with letting Fanny and Freddy do their thing with the predictable outcome happening in 2008.
And no Ross Perot was referring to jobs leaving the country, the people promoting NAFTA were referring to unfair trade. Nice attempt at can flipping tho.

Obama can see that regulations do hurt and has started the reversal process. Then of course you seem to want to follow the Greece model of retaining govt. workers. Unfortunately for your Don Quixote jousting attempts, trying to regulate in green jobs is not going to work either. Hopefully the next president will have a track record of creating jobs and not just a demonstrated ability to vote present.

what Obama can and does do, is think through every situation on it's merits, and be flexible and intelligent in his choices. That is something I've always liked about the guy. Oh, and who would you suggest that has a track record of creating jobs, and further, how does that translate into a whole nation creating jobs given the current national state I laid out for you, both very truthfully and in rather plain English. I note that you don't even address those core points I stated, but merely jump onto the ad hominem bandwagon.

Obama is too busy playing b-ball, golfing, going on vacations and running for re-election to have any serious thought process seeping through his pretty little head. If he was able to cogently think things through he would of realized giving Boehner a two day notice just so he could do a burn on the GOP debate was probably not a good idea. Then Obama was so smart and so intelligent in his choices, he then thinks giving his speech during MNF prime time was a good idea. I bet Slick you still believe in the tooth fairy.

[CUDA]

what Obama can and does do, is think through every situation on it's merits,

so what your saying is (Back on topic) was that he KNEW what he was doing when he picked the date of his speech and release of that info to the press before Boehner had approved it. and that the statement that was release by the White house as being a "coincidence in timing" was a intentional lie,

and be flexible and intelligent in his choices.

Funny how opinions differ isn't it.

[callmeslick]

What would go a long way to solving the unemployment problem would be…

1. Going back to an old school apprentice system.
2. Meaningful retraining programs. (sponsored by government and business)
3. Getting rid of the idea that a higher education is something only the elite can provide. (college should not cost your life savings)
4. Reforming the basic education system.

I wouldn't disagree with a single one of the above. However, it would only address employment in the very long term, something the political class has problems coping with, and the general population no better tolerance of. Thus, I agree with the rest of your post generally, especially the part about a long slog.

[Krom]

Conveniently you forget data and telecommunications is handled by private companies like AT&T or Sprint. If the Feds tried to handle it all the cost would be 3x as high.

The telecommunications infrastructure was largely built by the government, AT&T is heavily subsidized by taxes paid into the Universal Service Fund. Also your position that government is bad in this case is missing the point, it isn't that government is bad, it is that monopolies (government included) are bad. Private mono/duopolies (like AT&T) are just as bad (and often worse) than government monopolies.

[Spidey]

So what you are saying is…we get to pay for the telecommunications infrastructure twice…once with our taxes, and then on our bills.

Nice.

[Krom]

So what you are saying is…we get to pay for the telecommunications infrastructure twice…once with our taxes, and then on our bills.

Nice.

And AT&T is trying to convince you to pay a third time, just Google "Netflix free ride".

[Will Robinson]

So what you are saying is…we get to pay for the telecommunications infrastructure twice…once with our taxes, and then on our bills.

Nice.

3 times actually.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton helped put some 'taxes' in the bills directly because they wouldn't pass congress with either party's support and had the phone companies call them fees...fees that transfer directly to the government.

So we get our individual share oftaxes in the bill, then the phone companies charges built into the price to cover their taxes and then the 'special' fees (don't-call-them-taxes) that the government mandates the companies tally and collect from us because our representation refused to approve them as additional taxation!
Isn't being the host for the elite Washington fraternity parasites just wonderful?

[Tunnelcat]

I HATE REPUBLICANS, I HATE REPUBLICANSTalk about a racist rant.I HATE REPUBLICANS, I HATE REPUBLICANS

Please enlighten on what racist comments Limbaugh said. because I believe your just making it up like you usually do when you scream racist. Just so you can continue to name call.

Calling to "put someone in their place" is a couched racist phrase. I do remember hearing it mouthed by whites all during the racial strife in the sixties. It was always used as a reference in how to deal with those lowly, sub-human black people. It's not overt, but the intention is sure as hell there when someone speaks it. If you want to forget history, so be it.

As for Boehner:

[Spidey]

To bad speeches can’t help the economy.

[Will Robinson]

... Calling to "put someone in their place" is a couched racist phrase. I do remember hearing it mouthed by whites all during the racial strife in the sixties. It was always used as a reference in how to deal with those lowly, sub-human black people. It's not overt, but the intention is sure as hell there when someone speaks it. If you want to forget history, so be it. ...

That is bullfeces.
It isn't always the intent to make a racial distinction when someone says to 'put someone in their place'.
You aren't the only one who heard it in the 60's. I was alive then as well and heard it plenty by all sorts of people using it for all sorts of things that had no racial component whatsoever.
My football coach used to tell us we would put the other team in it's place by beating the crap out of them. There was a even mix of whites and Mexicans on both teams.
My father told me I needed to put the school bully in his place by fighting back.
My mother once noted that my friends mother put him in his place when he mouthed off to her.
The list is long.

You have a habit of using the tactic of fabricating and projecting the motive of racism upon your political enemies. It is a sign of weakness on your part.
If someone tries to go against the rules or tradition and others refuse to let that person have their way and instead insist he follow the tradition then they have 'put that person in his place'...no matter what race the people in the example are. And if someone else describes the event by using that phrase they are not proven to be racist just because you heard someone use that phrase with racial undertones back in the day! You are willfully illogical when ever it serves your rhetoric.

[flip]

The whole system was designed so that the President and The Congress could oppose each other equally. They are not compelled to think of the President with any higher respect or authority as they do themselves. Except that at this point they seem to be saying the same thing as me and others have said. Do it this way or rip it apart. That's the way I feel sometimes but I also know that if there was even just one damn person who could make advantage out of any situation good or bad, I would have more confidence that it was fixable. Politics reminds me of Jersey Shore now.

[CUDA]

Calling to "put someone in their place" is a couched racist phrase.

OMG you cannot be serious

and don't lay that 60's BS on me either I grew up in the south during the 60's I was one of the first white students to go to an all black school. I've seen racism and know exactly what it looks like. this isn't in the same universe and you full well know it.
You're just making crap up. AGAIN. and playing the MSNBC game of calling anyone that disagrees with this president a racist. LAME

Free your mind and the rest will follow,
be color blind, don't be so shallow

[woodchip]

So TC, if "put someone in their place" has bad overtones what connotations does "Take those sonsabitches out" spoken by a thug labor leader have?

[CUDA]

none because it was spoken by a Liberal. Come on Wood don't you know the rules???? it's only hate speech if a conservative says it

[woodchip]

So I guess this is what Hoffa means:

"LONGVIEW, Wash. (AP) — Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.

Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said."

Whens the last time you heard tea party member doing this kind of demonstrating?

[flip]

True enough but you have to take one thing into account. With the right circumstances and high emotions, some jackass could just as easily have that crowd doing the same thing.
I'm really at a loss here at this point, because I've been seeing this coming for a long time, and now that everyone is here we seem a little bewildered . Myself anyways. It looks to me as "Job Creation" has been picked to be the main running point this election cycle, first thing that tells me is that absolutely nothing will change until the President is firmly seated again. Then I have to wonder, how in the hell do these guys actually create jobs? Serious question but none of that generic "they create atmosphere" bull★■◆●. I really can't think of one way this small group of politicians can put the masses back to work? Job creation in a capitalistic system is done by the constituency correct? This is the weakest sauce yet.

[Tunnelcat]

So TC, if "put someone in their place" has bad overtones what connotations does "Take those sonsabitches out" spoken by a thug labor leader have?

Kind of like what Bachmann said earlier. Maybe Hoffa got the idea from her.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/guess-wh ... -bachmann/

And, if you were lucky enough to listen to Fox's and ABC's selectively edited versions of the speech, it sounded far more inciting than it really was. They conveniently omitted the "Everybody here has got a vote" part of his speech. Funny how the meaning changes with the deletion of a few words. Sucker tea partiers.

That said, I'm not a big fan of the Hoffa clan and their reign over labor unions either. Vice, racketeering and murder tend to stay in the family. Hoffa needs to clean out his own house before he tells everyone else to "take those sonsabitches out".

CUDA and Will, deny it all you want, but the statement to "Put someone in their place" had and still has a racist tinge. It's not it's common usage, but the sentiment's there among white racists. Yell at me all you want, but apples are apples and racist comments are racist comments.

[Will Robinson]

...
CUDA and Will, deny it all you want, but the statement to "Put someone in their place" had and still has a racist tinge. It's not it's common usage, but the sentiment's there among white racists. Yell at me all you want, but apples are apples and racist comments are racist comments.

Deny what?!? You just said racism isn't the common use of the phrase...in defense of your earlier implying that it was!
You are impossible to have a discussion with because you are unrestricted by logic and any need to be consistent.
It's like you are on the tail end of a mushroom high...sort of here but still floating freely outside of reality.

[Tunnelcat]

That's how racism can be hidden or watered down, through obscure language or catch phrases. Limbaugh uses them all the time when referencing Obama.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc ... gh-quotes/

By the way, to "put someone in their place" is also a sexist phrase. It's been used derogatorily against women for a long time. I DO have a little experience with that one. It's only used for bullying and can have a contextual meaning depending on the person it's used against, plain and simple.

[Top Gun]

Then I have to wonder, how in the hell do these guys actually create jobs? Serious question but none of that generic "they create atmosphere" bull★■◆●. I really can't think of one way this small group of politicians can put the masses back to work? Job creation in a capitalistic system is done by the constituency correct? This is the weakest sauce yet.

They really don't, and they never really have to a large extent. But for better worse, the sitting president has always received praise/criticism for the status of the job market during his tenure.

[flip]

Yes, it's common knowledge even. I'll admit I'm not the most trusting, but all previous times it was kinda thrown in there "and create jobs", which really meant allowed it or got out of the way. No effort on the governments part except to take everyone's safety into account. To make this whole next election cycle about "Job Creation" seems like a game changer to me. Subtle albeit, but it's the hearts and minds that count anyways, not some "antiquated" document. Change the way people think things are done, then you can change the document. Yep, that's it I think.

[Sergeant Thorne]

...
CUDA and Will, deny it all you want, but the statement to "Put someone in their place" had and still has a racist tinge. It's not it's common usage, but the sentiment's there among white racists. Yell at me all you want, but apples are apples and racist comments are racist comments.

Deny what?!? You just said racism isn't the common use of the phrase...in defense of your earlier implying that it was!
You are impossible to have a discussion with because you are unrestricted by logic and any need to be consistent.
It's like you are on the tail end of a mushroom high...sort of here but still floating freely outside of reality.

Welcome to the wonderful world of arguing with women. You've just got to put them in their place!

[Heretic]

YOu know that TB posted a link to a how to put women in their place guide.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So I saw. I was stooping to mock sexism in feigned ignorance of certain aspects of the discussion. My first sentence was sincere, however, if exaggerated. It has been my experience.

[flip]

I've found that most women respond positively if you talk to them with respect and try treat them as an equal. Nothing you can do with the insecure ones has been my experience.

[CUDA]

And, if you were lucky enough to listen to Fox's and ABC's selectively edited versions of the speech, it sounded far more inciting than it really was. They conveniently omitted the "Everybody here has got a vote" part of his speech.

you must have watched a different FOX news than I did, because I heard those lines that you state were "edited out" besides I doubt you actually even watched FOX you probably got you information from MSNBC or the Daily Kos or the HP

Funny how the meaning changes with the deletion of a few words. Sucker tea partiers.

Ya Kind of like when Palin was talking about "targeting certain states" and used a Gun site to illustrate her point on a map? Sucker Democrats

[Tunnelcat]

You can't deny Fox and ABC edited out part of Hoffa's speech at first. So maybe they "corrected" their "mistake" later on, after the damage, was done. What Palin said was never edited out or altered anywhere that I've seen.

But I guess it's a sign of our country's polarized times.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/rep-jeff-l ... 23781.html

[CUDA]

You can't deny Fox and ABC edited out part of Hoffa's speech at first.

You didn't answer the question. Did you watch either Fox or ABC or are you just parroting what you've read????

[woodchip]

You can't deny Fox and ABC edited out part of Hoffa's speech at first. So maybe they "corrected" their "mistake" later on, after the damage, was done. What Palin said was never edited out or altered anywhere that I've seen.

But I guess it's a sign of our country's polarized times.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/rep-jeff-l ... 23781.html

I watched Fox the morning after and yes the lead in line was the SOB part but then the played the tape of what Hoffa said before and after the SOB part. So like Cuda said, try watching first and don't get fabricated stories from the haters.

[Tunnelcat]

You can't deny Fox and ABC edited out part of Hoffa's speech at first.

You didn't answer the question. Did you watch either Fox or ABC or are you just parroting what you've read????

Actually, ABC. Didn't realize the omission at first and I never heard a correction later either. Of course, I did find out when I watched Olbermann, my one leftie personality addictions. He did show both versions of the speech for comparison.

[CUDA]

You can't deny Fox and ABC edited out part of Hoffa's speech at first.

You didn't answer the question. Did you watch either Fox or ABC or are you just parroting what you've read????

Actually, ABC. Didn't realize the omission at first and I never heard a correction later either. Of course, I did find out when I watched Olbermann, my one leftie personality addictions. He did show both versions of the speech for comparison.

I notice you didn't say that you watched either the ABC or the FOX broadcasts so I'll take that as a NO. so it appears I was right. it appears that you made a judgement against someone based on the incomplete or the intentionally false information reported by Olbermann.

Funny how the meaning changes with the deletion of a few words."

Olbermann should have stuck with Sports,

[Krom]

Olbermann should have stuck with Sports,

Sports, politics; whats the difference?
They both have teams which people arbitrarily support for no good reason.
Which are largely composed of overpaid players who are disconnected from reality.
And the games have a high probability of being fixed.