“Stop It, All Of You”: President Obama Jokingly Chastises German Press for ‘Tensions Mit Merkel’ Stories

Obama to German Press…
Ok, you all, you don’t know the drill, I set the tone and you adjust your questions accordingly (refer to the U.S. press corps.) If you are nice we’ll bring our dog over next time and you can throw a tennis ball for him to chase…
Now, Angie may get booted soon and I don’t have a lot of time (you know, being the unchallenged leader of the free world) for ‘has beens’ if you know what I mean.. anyway.. even if the frau wins, I’m just going to do it my way anyway.. so, she’s sort of just window dressing from my world view.
Just get along and go along..

Cultural differences. You have some angry people on the American Left, like the Obamas and Sotomayer. They came of age during the Blaxploitation film era of the 1970s, and fictional films such as Diary of Miss Jane Pittman and the fictional polagerized work ROOTS. You have the black panthers and weather underground and their ilk infiltrating universities and school systems to spread their grievances. In Germany, they’ve seen the immature Kaiser Welhelm who got them into WWI, and Hilter. They have see what happens when you run the printing presses on your currency. The cultural differences are a huge gulf.

More manufactured outrage.
The Presiden’t response was good, and on point.
Some people will find anything to complain about.

Good work? Maybe someone needs to fax Obama the new jobless numbers, who cares he seem to be more interested in women getting to wear a hijab than finding work.
Yep he is doing an excellent job, so be happy

SJ, American Infidel & Colonel Rebel – you all are just ridiculous. We just had 8 years of a President who spent 33% of his time on VACATION while the world and the country went to crap. Now after 130+ days you expect the war to be over, the recession to be over, etc. Get off of your high horses and start doing something constructive for your communities and your country instead of spewing your nonsense.

RJ and American Infidel.. we are the most powerful nation on earth and because we DO have a global economy, the President of the U.S. is already kind of the president of the world. Look at the recession/depression Obama inherited, it has impacted the entire world. Look at the Israel/Palestinian crisis…it has impacted the world. So for you two be criticizing Obama for going overseas is an incredible indication that you and those of your political ilk just have no clue. Just keep flapping your gums and shaking your fists at the sky like a crazy person. Obama can multitask, unlike his predecessor, so calm down…we got this.

Hey Colonel Rebel, so Obama is angry and is taking that anger out on the world because he watched “Superfly” as a teenager? LOL. Now I have heard it all. That is the most hilarious explanation yet. “Roots” was only the most-watched TV miniseries in historyso it wasn’t just African Americans watching. And what the hell does Kaiser Wilhelm have to do with anything going on today? There’s no one in Germany who lived under his administration and very few who lived under Hitler’s. Like I said, keep flapping the gums and shaking your fist at the sky…and wondering what happened to the GOP. Excuse me if you will, I gotta go watch some “Shaft.”

The President spoke of verse 5:32 in the Koran completely out of context yesterday, and omitted part of it.
Why?
What authority does he have quoting the Koran anyway and intepreting its meaning?
What would we say about the former President quoting the Koran, or Tony Blair when he did it?

“Barry has more miles on AF1 in the 1st 137 days than Bush did in his 1st year.”
Of course. Why would anybody expect otherwise? Bush was from the party of ‘do nothing’ government.

I do something for my community swat68 …… I help keep ACORN out.
What have you done lately? Help the dead vote? Have you volunteered your neighbors lawnmower to have another neighbor mow a deadbeats’ yard? Is that the kind of Community you’re talkin about? Forced Labor?
Ha!! That’ll be the day!!

Anyone who beleives that President Obama should have solved this economic crisis in the mere 4 months that he’s been in office is not to be taken seriously. The 8 years of damage done by the Bush Adminstration will take years to fix.

Oh please am getting so sick of the daily Obama show,when is he going to stop being President of the World and do the job he was elected to do being POTUS?
Bush put less miles on plane because his first few months in presidencey he was
not putting out multiple fires of enconomics, domestic policy and foreign policy. Bush left a real mess. Our real president Cheeny is try to makes excuses for it. But the president who is left to address it is Barak Obama. God Bless him for that. May he keep him from harm from those people who want to hurt them may god break their legs so him know them by their limping.

I don’t know what’s better, the fact that we finally have a president who is intelligent, hardworking, and popular, or reading the reactions from the right-wing crazies who are so overwhelmed with impotent rage at losing the election that they’ve been relegated to ranting anonymous nonsense online.
The comments on this site are so shrill and ridiculous that I am tempted to believe that some of you have to be joking, if not, then I feel sorry for you folks who still believe Obama is a secret Muslim, shouldn’t be travelling on Air Force One, or was wrong to try to mend relations with Islam. If this is all you’ve got against him, then it’s gonna be a long 8 years for you.

“He conveniently forgot to mention the ‘making mischief’ clause in verse 5:32, which in verse 5:33 clearly refers to anyone that isn’t a Muslim qualifies for death in various ways.”
You conveniently forget the many passages in the HOLY BIBLE that tell us to “utterly destroy” our enemies before us – man, woman and child.
All major religions use this destruction theme- all of them are symbolic of us destroying the “man of flesh” that is within us. Only illiterate fanatics assume that the Bible and the Koran are ALWAYS speaking Literally….thus Christians and Muslims alike justify their war-mongering

“The 8 years of damage done by the Bush Adminstration will take years to fix.”
Actually if you look at the statistics, our economy was booming from September 2003 thru December 2007. And in spite of the hits to the economy (i.e., housing market downturn, skyrocketing energy prices and the subprime flexible mortgage crisis) GDP continued to grow through the first two quarters of 2008. In April 2008 the unemployment rate was 5.0%.
However last year being an election year, the campaign rhetoric by the Democrats–and especially then Sen. Obama–AND the lack of action, until it was too late, by the Democratically controlled Congress, in spite of warnings by the Bush Adminstration, DROVE the economy into the ground.
During the primaries, talk of rescinding the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, along with the rhetoric of wealth redistribution caused the wealthy to change their spending habits. Their cutting back spending exasperated the subprime flexible mortgage debacle as massive layoffs began. During the general election and following the election the economy spiraled down further as reality set in that the Democrats were going to win and then, in fact, did win the election, the spending by the wealthy practically grounded to a halt.
Just look at the unemployment numbers from May 2008 through May 2009 and you can see for yourself:
May 2008 — 5.5
June 2008 — 5.6
July 2008 — 5.8
August 2008 — 6.2
September 2008 — 6.2
October 2008 — 6.6
November — 6.8
December — 7.2
January — 7.6
February — 8.1
March 2008 — 8.5
April 2008 — 8.9
May 2008 — 9.4

Hey Chris you must be mistaken…you are confusing education with intelligence…there is a difference…Obama is well educated which trains him to speak well….it remains to be seen whether he is very intelligent…that relys on his policies and how successful they are…I’m not as confident as you are that he is anything more than an average intelligent person with a good education…if you can’t see the difference than you think that your education makes you intelligent…thats not correct

=== What right did Bush have to tell us that he had a mandate from God to invade Iraq? ===
I have frequently seen this statement and have never been able to find the quote from him. Do you know when and where he said it?

“I have frequently seen this statement and have never been able to find the quote from him. Do you know when and where he said it?”
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”
Mr Bush went on: “And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

Ryan C., I don’t know where you get your 2% figure!
In 2001 the tax brackets were between:
$0 – $27,050 15%
$27,050 – $65,550 27.5%
$65,550 – $136,750 30.5%
$136,750 – $297,350 35.5%
$297,350 – Above 39.1%
In 2008 the tax brackets were between:
$0 – $8,025 10%
$8,025 – $32,550 15%
$32,550 – $78,850 25%
$78,850 – $164,550 28%
$164,550 – $357,700 33%
$357,700 – Above 35%
An individual with an AGI of $1,000,000 in 2001 had a federal tax liability of $368,110.
An individual with an AGI of $1,000,000 in 2008 had a federal tax liability of $328,597.
That was a $39,513 difference in federal tax liability. Going back to the 2001 tax rate would be a 12.0% tax increase. And that would be just the federal income tax hike. Some state income tax rates are also going up.

“Going back to the 2001 tax rate would be a 12.0% tax increase.”
Except the only proposals for the raise in rates was on the two highest brackets.
Obama’s proposal changed the pramaeters of the top two tax brackets in additional to returning their rates to pre-2001.
You would be looking at a 4% increase in the highest bracket.
But you bring up an interesting point James, if you feel the rhetoric was responsible for people changing their spending habits, let me ask you a question then.
Which media was screaming about wealth redistribution and the supposedly coming punitive taxes for successful people?
James, are you blaming the right wing media for panicking the rich and causing the economic crisis?

@phillysmart:
Obama has shown again and again that he has an above average intellect. An education IS what makes you intelligent, and his knowledge of the issues and ability to succeed in the world of academia and politics has proven that. I don’t know why a disdain for education has become a popular opinion in this country, but it needs to stop. We have enough problems convincing young people of the value of an education as it is.
The idea that Obama has anything to prove when it comes to his intellect is ridiculous, and it makes me wonder: Would these same questions be asked of Obama if he wasn’t an African American? I see the same questions being asked about Judge Sotomayor as well, despite the fact that she has also shown through her acheivements to be extremely intelligent, and has better qualifications than any Supreme Court nominee in 100 years.

“According to you, the Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath (who could justifiably be termed an enemy) made a negative statement about George Bush, and you believe it 100%.”
Nope, Axey asked where the story came from. I provided the excerpt.
I did not comment on the veracity or a secondhand quote.

“…in spite of warnings by the Bush Adminstration…”
What warnings? The Bush administration, the McCain campaign and the RNC were all telling us that the economy was fine. Look at that big bubbly DOW they said.

“The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.”
Saudi Arabia observes this in Koranic law…
As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is mighty, wise.
So did Obama shake the hand and seek the wisdom of a torturer!?!? Obama supports torture in other nations?
What is defined as torture seems to move and flow along politics and security more than any thought out legal definition. But it’s all a lie of course, a right wing lie. You caught em Ryan.

“So did Obama shake the hand and seek the wisdom of a torturer!?!? Obama supports torture in other nations?”
Awwww right wing sadists are upset Obama told them they could not torture anymore.
And worse yet Obama told the world that Americans will no longer torture.
The president told the BBC before the trip that while there are “obviously” human rights issues in some Middle East countries, it is not the U.S.’s role to lecture.
“The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture,” he said, adding that America should focus on being a “role model.”
“We’re not going to get countries to embrace our values simply by lecturing or through military means,” Mr. Obama told National Public Radio before the trip. As for Mubarak, the president has called him a “stalwart ally.”

“Awwww right wing sadists are upset Obama told them they could not torture anymore.”
Wha..? Your dillusional sometimes.
Point being, you are so sure what torture is yet deny that when using your definition of torture, calling it torture, you overlook it in other countries? Claiming that there is a definative definition of torture, other nations obviously do not share that opinion so which definition is correct? The definition of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or the definition from Ryan C?

“”So Saudi Arabia tortures its people and we’re shaking their hands and seeking their wisdom?”
Maybe you would prefer them holding hands and having long standing business ties?
According to our laws and our traditions, we tortured people.
Gonzo and Woo tried to make it appear otherwise by changing the accepted definition of torture.
Why bother to do so if everything was on the up and up?

===Nope, Axey asked where the story came from. I provided the excerpt. ===
I expected more than a story. I expected facts. There weren’t any facts in your story. I doubt seriously if Bush would have said those words. Maybe something was lost in the translation like people claiming Bush heard God speaking, literally, when he said he prayed and God answered him.

“Maybe you would prefer them holding hands and having long standing business ties?”
Not going to get into the business stuff cause its all BS. But no, I personally do not have issue with Obama shaking hands with the Sauds, I support him on that. They are important allies in the region. My arguement is that no lefty on these forums, as per their past exclamations about the Sauds, should be. Did simply replacing a Republican with a Democrat mend all those Saud fences? Thats pretty hypocritical.

===But leave to a right winger to think we should adhere to a human rights standard that most Americans are appalled by because after all other countries do it. ===
Actually, the polls are trending in favor of right wingers on this issue. Seems more people prefer to be safe or something. I mean, otherwise, there are a lot of right wingers out there swinging the polling.

Actually, the polls are trending in favor of right wingers on this issue. Seems more people prefer to be safe or something”
Unfortunately too many people believe the fallacy of the ticking time bomb scenario when you couple that will Bush admin lies that this stuff saved lives, then you have a fooled public.
For instance, when near majorities thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 thanks to the Bush admin carefully conflating the two.

Stop it, all of you!

===For instance, when near majorities thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 thanks to the Bush admin carefully conflating the two.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 5, 2009 2:41:47 PM===
My goodness, your facts are really just stories, aren’t they? For instance, before Bush ever uttered a word, the majority of Americans thought Saddam was involved. I’m sure Bill Clinton has no idea why they would have that idea. And ABC and Leslie Stahl wouldn’t know either. Just as the majority of Americans thought Iraq was involved in the OKC bombing. And the first WTC bombing. All because of Bush 43. Amazing man, isn’t he?

“That is because Saddam had much more than just that.”
Yes he had non existent WMD’s that he was going to give to Al Queda through his non existent ties.

“My goodness, your facts are really just stories, aren’t they? For instance, before Bush ever uttered a word, the majority of Americans thought Saddam was involved.”
FoxNews viewers were 4 times as likely to believe that even after it was demonstrated that was not true.
I wonder why…
Could it be the right wing media is inherently dishonest?

Who better to know about “wild speculation,based on no facts” than barack hussein himself and his own teleprompted orations.

It is nice to see our President continuing to move forward with his political initiatives. Does it not make you proud to see a good Christian man at work trying to bring peace to the world. I am so proud I voted for him. It is times like these that make you proud to be an American

===Could it be the right wing media is inherently dishonest?
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 5, 2009 12:17:14 PM===
Or less forgetful. Google Leslie Stahl, 1998, Hussein bin Laden. You should enjoy the video.

“In December last year, President-Elect Obama said on Meet the Press”
His full quote
“Well, understand what my original tax plan was. It was a net tax cut. Ninety-five percent of working families would get tax relief. To help pay for that, people like you and me, Tom, who make more than a quarter million dollars a year, would play — pay slightly more. We’d essentially go back to the tax rates that existed back in the 1990s. My economic team right now is examining do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that when the Bush tax cuts expire they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans? And we don’t yet know what the best approach is going to be, but the overall thrust is going to be that 95% of working families are going to get a tax cut, and the wealthiest Americans, who disproportionately benefited not only from tax cuts from the Bush administration but also disproportionately benefited when it comes to corporate profits and where the gains and productivity were going, they are going to give up a little bit more.”
“He didn’t mention letting just the top two tax brackets expire.”
he makes very clear who he is considering raising taxes on just as he did throughout the campaign.
“Now as for wealth redistribution, candidate Obama–himself–said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
He said this in October.
Your original claim was that such rhetoric scared the rich and changed their spending habits exacerbating the subprime mess therefore causing the economic mess we currently find our selves in.
So how full of it are you James Danley?

“We’d essentially go back to the tax rates that existed back in the 1990s.”
Where does he say that only the top two tax brackets are raised? Yes, only those making $250,000 will have their taxes raised. But apparently you don’t understand how the progressive tax works. Based on the 2001 tax rates:
$0 – $27,050 15%
$27,050 – $65,550 27.5%
$65,550 – $136,750 30.5%
$136,750 – $297,350 35.5%
$297,350 – Above 39.1%
Even the wealthiest individuals would pay 15% of their first $27,049; 27.5% between the previous and $65,549; 30.5% between the previous and $136,749; 35.5% between the previous and $297,349; and THEN 39.1% anything $297,350 and above.

Where does he say that only the top two tax brackets are raised?”
His proposals are for 2010 budget which can be looked up in the Green book put out by the office of the tax policy that was released early in May 2009.
A summary
“Currently there are six tax brackets: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. Those tax brackets were implemented in 2001 and are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Obama proposes to continue using the 10% through 28% tax rates and to replace the top two rates with 36% and 39.6% rates.”
But I am curious James Danley how Obama comments on wealth redistribution in Oct 2008 somehow spooked the rich into changing their spending habits resulting in our economic collapse.
Or was that just another right wing lie?

“We were discussing why a majority of the public thought Saddam was behind 9/11 before Bush ever opened his mouth.”
Actually it was near majorities.
And the bulk of those people were apparently gullible FoxNews (oxymoron?) viewers who were 4 times as likely to believe that demonstrably false issue more than any other media.

Ryan C., it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that when you say your going to tax those making $250,000 or more and give a tax cut to the bottom 95%, that wealth is being redistributed. The wealthy easily understood this. What was shocking was when he actually made the October comment and blatantly acknowledged that he advocated wealth redistribution.

“it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that when you say your going to tax those making $250,000 or more and give a tax cut to the bottom 95%, that wealth is being redistributed.”
ROFLMAO!
This is hilarious, you claim the rhetoric scared the rich ignoring economic factors like the housing market.
And yet you refuse to say anything about the media that reported that rhetoric in the scariest frame possible!

Ryan C, I am still trying to figure out if the DNC pays you by the word or by the number of comment. I see you are back with a vengence, gleefully playing fast and loose with facts but demanding that anyone who has a different opinion provide exact quotes from sources of which you approve with copious footnotes. I’m rooting for James Danley and KR, personally. Besides the fact that they are correct more often than not, they do not resort to calling their sparring partners names or making blanket statements like “everyone in this group I do not agree with always lies.”

Ryan C. which is it? First you said it was the right-wing lie; then you said it was the media that reported that rhetoric in the scariest frame possible. I say it wasn’t fear mongering but telling the truth about candidate Obama’s agenda. The wealthy understood this and began changing their spending habits.

Sorry, I forgot to address the comment: “…you claim the rhetoric scared the rich.”
No, not “scared.” They were just being realistic. They understood that if Obama were elected that their federal income taxes would be raised. So they prepared for that increase by altering their spending habits.

Ryan C., wrote: “James Danley insisted that Obama seeks a return of all tax rates to pre 2001 Bus(h) tax cuts in the face of all evidence to the contrary.”
It is my understanding that everyone making $250,000 or more will pay the SAME federal income tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts. That would have to include the reverting of the lower tax brackets for those making $250,000 as well — if you take the literal meaning of “the same” tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts.

“It is my understanding that everyone making $250,000 or more will pay the SAME federal income tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts. That would have to include the reverting of the lower tax brackets for those making $250,000 as well if you take the literal meaning of “the same” tax rates as before the 2001 tax cuts.”
If you take the literal meaning?
Trying awfully hard to wriggle out of your outright lie there James.

If you look at my previous comments they have been very consistent. Go back to my comment posted at 9:45:15 AM, where I wrote: “That was a $39,513 difference in federal tax liability. Going back to the 2001 tax rate would be a 12.0% tax increase. And that would be just the federal income tax hike. Some state income tax rates are also going up.”
That is consistent with the literal meaning of “having their taxes raised to the pre-Bush tax cut rates.” If the lower rates are NOT raised for those making at least $250,000 then their tax liability will not match that of the pre-Bush tax cuts.

Since money is merely a repository of value and that value is only what we agree it to be at any given moment,the issue of taxation is only meaningful in terms of what one gets individually for the taxes paid. And that is intricately entwined with what we all get communally.
Shouldn’t those who benefit most for the social organization which we all finance pay the most for it both in absolute and relative terms?
Nitpicking over marginal rates is likewise not particularly useful in a discussion of any individual or common good derived from taxation. Afterall, what good does it do for one to have more money of less value? Perhaps we could ask a Zimbabwean.
Maybe all Angela Merkel, Ryan C. and James Danley need is a shoulder massage.

I don’t know who you guys are, but I read this stuff and wanted to jump in.
First, the tax code has always “redistributed wealth”. When the Government builds a road, it redistributes wealth to the contractors who build it. When they put NASA in Houston they redistribute wealth to people who live in Houston. Even with a flat rate for everyone, wealth is distributed by government spending, even spending the Republicans would agree with like military spending. Not everyone gets the equal benefit of taxes collected and government spending. Some states pay more in taxes than they get back. That’s redistributes wealth. The only question is wheterh the spending is good or bad. Republicans think Social Security is bad and is socialism. I don’t. Republicans think health care for all Americans is bad. I don’t.
Nothing Obama said caused the economic downturn. The recession started in Dec. 2007. No one thought Obama would win at that time. And he was not increasing taxes, he was just proposing not renewing the Bush tax cuts that were made during war and created 5 Trillion Dollars in debt. What moron cuts taxes in times of war? Oh yeah, I am going to spend a Trillion Dollars in Iraq but I am not going to have anyone pay for it. Those tax cuts are to expire in 2010. Not even the Republicans thought they should be permanent at the time they were enacted. Obama’s statements or policies didn’t make the auto industry fail, didn’t cause the Banks to beg for a bail out. The car execs and bankers came to Bush first and they wanted GOVERNMENT to save them. The private capital markets couldn’t. And the bankers and auto execs were REPUBLICANS, the titans of industry.
Have a nice day.

alanmarv528, the Senate Republicans had to enact a procedural move that prohibited a filibuster just to get the tax cuts passed. The Republicans made multiple attempts at getting both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts made permanent but they just didn’t have the votes in the Senate.
You are right, the powers that be did declared that the recession began in December 2007. Which is interesting because the traditional definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP retraction. Yet GDP actually grew in both the first and second quarters of 2008. Job losses began in January 2008, ending 52 consecutive months of job growth.

The real story is that Barry didn’t get Merkel to budge on the Gitmo detainees.
He bullies Americans but sweet talks foreigners. Neither has accomplished anything positive.

Puh…leaze, “(Obama) bullies Americans but sweet talks foreigners. Neither has accomplished anything positive.”
Who writes these talking points?