American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Obama's speech from the Oval Office last night was roundly denounced by both Democrats and Republicans – well with the exception of Harry Reid but for a guy who couldn't win dog catcher in his home state what has he got to lose at this point.

Instead of talking about how he will fix the Gulf problem the first 18 minutes of his speech was a prelude to his new pitch for Cap & Tax. Even the Democrats acknowledged it was the wrong speech at the wrong time. Obama doesn't have a clue about leadership – just how to campaign and it's not getting him anywhere with the public as his popularity hits new lows and Bush is given better marks for handling a crisis than Obama. Wow!

Obama touted how he will force BP to fund an account which will be administered by a "third party" to pay for the spill damage. Even his own legal experts (now I'm not counting Gibbs or Holder here) admit there is no basis in law for him to force BP to do what he proposes. From a PR standpoint BP may setup a separate fund to cover payment of damages but how and who administers it will not be up to Obama nor will BP need his approval to do so.

During his speech Obama was touting his new group of advisers – the head of which expertise is in super conductors – which the last time I checked didn't have a whole lot to do with oil production. Seems every time he gets a recommendation from folks in the field (like the Petroleum Engineers who studied the problem for him) he disregards or changes it – FYI the petroleum engineers who authored the report have officially protested how their recommendations were changed to suit Obama's agenda and have officially distanced themselves from the now basterdized report whose conclusion now is to shut down production in the Gulf.

Obama was talking about how he was making sure "whose as to kick" with all his meeting, well I got some oil patch friends down here who would be happy to accommodate him, they would start with Tony over at BP and finish with his.

Just trying to be helpful.

My 2 cents.

Doppelganger

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]We will not be victorious unless we decide that victory is what we want and commit ourselves to that end via appropriate means.[/QUOTE]Now we are speaking! Problem is, how much financial, material and human resources will this war on terror will take, Is the US willing to pay the price? And if so for how long? I think Uncle Sam worst nightmare is not the Taliban but the budget and loss of popularity. A diplomatic or practical solution must be reached or american forces could find themselves in a quagmire like the one faced by the Spanish Empire in Flanders. Remember:

"There's three things needed to win a war: Money, money and more money."

-Napoleon

I doubt that victory was ever on the minds of the people who made the decision to start the war in Afghanistan (Bush and friends) Nor do I think it is the intention of the current administration (Obama and friends) Why? Because a prolonged, expensive war is very profitable for the "friends" mentioned above.

Even if victory were possible, it probably would require such an extreme that it would not be palpatable to anyone (economically, morally, etc. Yet, faced with this, our leaders don't just cut OUR losses and leave. No, they continue to funnel money into it with no clear end in sight.

Notice I said OUR leaders, not Obama nor Bush. I don't see that much difference between the two.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]I doubt that victory was ever on the minds of the people who made the decision to start the war in Afghanistan (Bush and friends) Nor do I think it is the intention of the current administration (Obama and friends) Why? Because a prolonged, expensive war is very profitable for the "friends" mentioned above.[/QUOTE]The "military industrial complex" at it again. Look, politicians favor their benefactors but it is a bit of a stretch (at least for me) to believe that presidents of the US are prosecuting multiple wars, solely for the benefit of arms manufactures and their ilk.

[quote=]Even if victory were possible, it probably would require such an extreme that it would not be palpatable to anyone (economically, morally, etc. [/QUOTE]Is palpatable a concept from Palpatine? It would require coming to grips with the fact that to get the result we want, we need to be willing to ruffle a few feathers. There are bad people out there. The best solution is to reduce the number of bad people.

[quote=]Notice I said OUR leaders, not Obama nor Bush. I don't see that much difference between the two.[/QUOTE]You know Obama is toast when he loses guys like Schmoj.

[quote=whiskas]how much financial, material and human resources will this war on terror will take, Is the US willing to pay the price?[/QUOTE]By pussyfooting around and trying to minimize collateral damage, we are necessitating a longer engagement. It doesn't take a lot of money when you get a couple of patriots that are willing to do what is necessary and a country that is willing to enable those folks to do what is necessary.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]The "military industrial complex" at it again. Look, politicians favor their benefactors but it is a bit of a stretch (at least for me) to believe that presidents of the US are prosecuting multiple wars, solely for the benefit of arms manufactures and their ilk.[/QUOTE]Explain why we are still there then? Are the US military leaders THAT incompetent?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Is palpatable a concept from Palpatine? It would require coming to grips with the fact that to get the result we want, we need to be willing to ruffle a few feathers. There are bad people out there. The best solution is to reduce the number of bad people. [/QUOTE]I'm not one of those that subscribes to the idea that the US is the World Police. Plus do you really reduce a situation like this to just good people and bad people. Seems a little simplistic, no?

[QUOTE=Wild Walley]You know Obama is toast when he loses guys like Schmoj.[/QUOTE]This is another one of your ASSumptions. I have never uttered one word of support for Obama. Just because someone disagrees with your Fox News talking points and Republican mantras doesn't mean they support Obama.

As I have said numerous times, as far as I am concerned Bush and Obama are the same thing.

[QUOTE="Wild Walleye"]By pussyfooting around and trying to minimize collateral damage, we are necessitating a longer engagement. It doesn't take a lot of money when you get a couple of patriots that are willing to do what is necessary and a country that is willing to enable those folks to do what is necessary.[/QUOTE]Not sure what you point here is. If that's all it takes, then why haven't they done that already?

[QUOTE=Schmoj]Explain why we are still there then? Are the US military leaders THAT incompetent?[/QUOTE]See prior post ". Leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion."

Add to this that our legislative branch has, for sometime now (think late '60s) been expanding its powers into war management, annexing powers historically (and constitutionally) imbued into the Executive Branch. Through these powers, the legislature has done a great deal to reduce the effectiveness of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, prolonging our engagements and endangering our soldiers. Why have they done this? Personal greed, for the power more so than for fungible gain.

[quote=]I'm not one of those that subscribes to the idea that the US is the World Police. Plus do you really reduce a situation like this to just good people and bad people. Seems a little simplistic, no?[/QUOTE]Why does the simplicity of the facts confuse you? I guess it is more interested when viewed through the prism of a conspiracy theory like the presidents are paying off their buddies by prosecuting and intentionally tanking two wars simultaneously.

[quote=]This is another one of your ASSumptions. I have never uttered one word of support for Obama. Just because someone disagrees with your Fox News talking points and Republican mantras doesn't mean they support Obama.[/QUOTE]If you find my 'talking points' on Fox, it will be because they got them here rather than the other way around. I don't watch tv news or much tv for that matter.

[quote=]As I have said numerous times, as far as I am concerned Bush and Obama are the same thing.[/QUOTE]That's like saying that a tranny and a masculine-looking chica are the same thing.

[quote=]Not sure what you point here is. If that's all it takes, then why haven't they done that already?[/QUOTE]See prior post ". Leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion."

The facts are that if we want to preserve our way of life, we have to be willing to stand up against threats, both foreign and domestic. We have to select leaders and legislators who combine integrity with true commitment to the Constitution and preserving our sovereignty and security. With that type of leadership, the defense of the American people and our way of life would be much less complicated.

It isn't too hard to figure out who are our greatest foreign threats are. They are armed hostiles seeking to kill friendlies. When you take up arms against the US, you should be dispatched. However, we complicate this process and handcuff the guys at the pointy end of the spear who are dealing with foreign threats. Other than a few drone attacks, we do not eliminate those known, foreign elements with the requisite prejudice. Either we take the fight to them or they will bring it to us. However, we can't beat the foreign threats unless the domestic ones can be kept at bay.

Domestically, we have a completely different game table and set of rules. Domestic threats dwarf those posed by violent, foreign extremists because they don't seek to destroy the US through massive collateral damage, rather they seek to destroy America from the inside out via systemic sabotage of our democratic and economic infrastructure with the ultimate goal of crippling our nation. Our greatest domestic threats have placed themselves above the law. Ironically, many of them make the bills that another of their ilk signs into laws. They are aided and abetted by a willingly complicit media.

The trail of destruction left by these threats is far too great to list here but a few 'highlights' are worth noting. There have been many significant, unauthorized exposure (leaks) of sensitive intelligence and homeland defense materials come out of members of congress and yet, when was the last time one of them was prosecuted for it? The cost of every aspect of your personal and professional life is artificially increasing via federal fiat. Businesses will not be able to function effectively due to overreaching regulation. The gulf oil spill is a perfect example of what I mean. Govt policies force oil companies to spend billions to go deep. One of them breaks and they are on the hook for more than $20B and the personal and environmental impact is enormous. If you let private enterprises invest $20B drilling onshore and near-shore, we'd go a long way towards reducing our dependence upon foreign oil (without spending any taxpayer money) with much less environmental risk. While everyone knows that high unemployment is killing our economy, the congress continues to pass legislation that increases the cost for companies to take on new employees while simultaneously extending benefits that act as incentives to keep those out of work from looking for work. Even worse is legislation that creates unknown, future liabilities which are difficult for companies to quantify and therefore force them to "stand still" lest they may unwittingly incur massive liabilities. An imperialist leader defies a plurality of the populace and forces trillions of dollars of unwanted government services on the people restricting their freedoms and pushing the country towards insolvency, threatening our currency, our economy and our national security.

All this without a whimper from the media.

These threats to our security and sovereignty are real. The battle ground is the public consciousness and the weapons are voting levers. For the first time in about 150 years, America is waking up to the threat. Let's hope the call to arms results in the selection of honest, intelligent patriotic leaders to replace as many of our domestic threats as possible, resigning them to the ash heap of history. This would be a ringing endorsement of American exceptionalism, a considerable step in correcting our national course and a fundamental improvement for our ability to prosecute a global offensive against the aforementioned foreign threats. After the chips fall, the media will try to tell us that it was a case of sleeping at the wheel as opposed to the insidious truth, something the public has already figured out.

If he hasn't figured it out by now WW, HE NEVER WILL! Love your forthwith post brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. I do love you disecting these irritants on this thread. Keep up the good work!

[QUOTE=Toymann]If he hasn't figured it out by now WW, HE NEVER WILL! Love your forthwith post brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. I do love you disecting these irritants on this thread. Keep up the good work![/QUOTE]Geez Toymann, do you have a man crush on WW?

WW, I didn't really read all of your post. I don't really care enough to spend the time to read it in depth or respond, but I will say from what I did read, I think we would agree over a few beers, while we disagree in this particular venue.

I will say this, tranny or masculine woman, either way we are being raped and robbed. Well, actually you. I haven't lived in the US going on 6 years.

Anyway, hope you are enjoying the World Cup and the hotties of Buenos Aires.

Obama's speech was good. He laid out what has happened, is happening and will happen, talked about MMS, and segued into an important reminder on the need for renewable energy. I was a little surprised on some of the poor reviews, but it appears much of that was expectations/hopes to hit a home run as in past speeches. But with the oil spewing and no near-term solution in sight, this is not an easy situation to hit a home run. Some of the criticism was trivial and pointless. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.

The 20 billion announcement was huge. I heard that number mentioned but thought it was high ball for negotiation purposes, but they got it. In an escrow account with independant oversight. Some Republicans said this was unconstitutional and claims should be addressed through the courts. Well we saw how quickly that process works with Exxon Valdez. What a joke! Obama did exactly the right thing in applying pressure and got an excellent result. Funds in the escrow account will get put to work far sooner than going through the courts. I was surprised BP even committed 100 million for unemployed oil workers (which I agree is not their responsibility). Obama made the case he was concerned about those workers and asked if BP could do something for them as a voluntary gesture. These steps from BP are in their own interest in terms of public relations value. Excellent outcome.

My favorite quote of the week, from Jimmy Kimmel:

"Rep. Joe Barton of Texas took it upon himself to apologize to BP CEO Tony Hayward for a political "shakedown." He later apologized for his apology and explained that he hadn't seen the news in two months, and didn't know that BP recently destroyed the ocean."

I am looking forward to seeing how well Costner's machines work.

[QUOTE=Esten]Obama's speech was good. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.[/QUOTE]Checking in with all the American people who have made 38+ loops in the last 18 months? America hates Obama. It is palpable. No one wants to hear him whine ("I can't suck it up with a straw") or preen ("so I can know whose ass to kick") His incompetence is extraordinary. Homer Simpson could do a better job.

[quote=]The 20 billion announcement was huge. I heard that number mentioned but thought it was high ball for negotiation purposes, but they got it. In an escrow account with independant oversight. Some Republicans said this was unconstitutional and claims should be addressed through the courts. Well we saw how quickly that process works with Exxon Valdez. What a joke! Obama did exactly the right thing in applying pressure and got an excellent result. Funds in the escrow account will get put to work far sooner than going through the courts. I was surprised BP even committed 100 million for unemployed oil workers (which I agree is not their responsibility)[/QUOTE]Just like GM and Chrysler. Extra-constitutional. If Obama wants a fund, write a government check and seek recourse against BP through the appropriate avenues. There was no way BP could say "no" to the $20B or the $100mm "voluntary" donation.

The reason why those oil workers aren't getting paid is that Obama, who knows absolutely nothing about drilling for oil and has ignored all of the advice his oil experts have given him, is playing to his agenda. Their idle status has nothing to do with BP or this spill, other than it gave Obama an excuse to attack our carbon fuel industry. Remember, he wants gas to be $7-8/ gallon so that alternatives will be more viable. By the way, the guy "focused like a laser on jobs" is sending those US oil rig jobs to Brazil. Even though Obama idled them, since his extortion plot is getting them paid, he will count them towards his impressive tally of jobs that he "saved or created." In fact, since they are getting paid by a new source but haven't actually left the old employer, he counts them twice as the positions were both "saved" and "created."

[quote=]Obama made the case he was concerned about those workers and asked if BP could do something for them as a voluntary gesture.[/QUOTE]Once again, nothing voluntary here. Obama has never made a case for anything other than voting for someone who is 'historic' (based only on the color of his skin which is an anathema to everything for which Dr. King stood) in spite of the fact that he had absolutely no experience. As Joe Biden stated (I paraphrase) he will be tested and we will be slow to respond but stick with us.

[quote=]These steps from BP are in their own interest in terms of public relations value. Excellent outcome. [/QUOTE]Public relations has nothing to do with it. You're a measly $100B company going up against the US Govt in no-rules ultimate fighting. You have no choice but to comply. Obama has already shown us what he can do with GM and Chrysler.

[quote=]I am looking forward to seeing how well Costner's machines work.[/QUOTE]Do you have any interest in how well Bobby Jindal's barges are working? The ones Obama's storm troopers halted? Or are you only interested in things dreamed up by denizens of the left?

Wild Walleye,

Where were you when Joe Barton needed you?

[QUOTE=Esten]Obama's speech was good. He laid out what has happened, is happening and will happen, talked about MMS, and segued into an important reminder on the need for renewable energy. I was a little surprised on some of the poor reviews, but it appears much of that was expectations / hopes to hit a home run as in past speeches. But with the oil spewing and no near-term solution in sight, this is not an easy situation to hit a home run. Some of the criticism was trivial and pointless. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.[/QUOTE]Esten,

68% of the country didn't even watch the President's first Oval Office address to the Nation. I think your boy is losing his mojo.

Anyway, what struck me most about the speach, and you'd think that I'd be used to this president's bald-face whoppers, was this:

"[I]After all, oil is a finite resource," he said. The United States consumed more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but had less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, "and that's part of the reason why oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Because we are [b]running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water[/b].[/i]"

Really? Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion.

We have abundant supplies of oil in this country, but they have all been put off limits by Democrats who are intent on forcing us to adhere to a flawed environmental premise.

We have plenty of oil! Potentially 85 billion barrels of oil offshore alone.

Thanks,

Jackson

What Barton had to say about a "shakedown" was dead on, but if you really wish to see what is wrong in Washington / political hacks (Demacratic and Republican) Barton tucks his tail between his legs and renigs as soon as he finds out he will lose his place on the commission if he does not recant! No spine, no convictions, nada - just go with the flow.

It was a shakedown, pure and simple. But the oil is still flowing and Obama is still blowing smoke and the American people are not buying it anymore. November is not that far off and I hope those elected will stand for something other than getting re-elected. If that happens Esten you boy Obama will become an instant lame duck, the purse strings will be cut to fund his "healthcare" package and I hope it will be a long two years for him as he completes his ONLY term in office.

[QUOTE=Jackson] Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion. We have abundant supplies of oil in this country.[/QUOTE]Jackson's knowledge of drilling chicas may be legendary, but is more likely as exaggerated as his knowledge of untapped US energy resources.

Jackson considers MMA a credible source of data maybe because he sees nothing wrong about the Republican-appointed staff, many of whom were given protected "civil service" status during the Bush years, used to actually snort blow and fuck (literally) with oil industry representatives. That is fact! I admit Obama should have closed the place down the day after he took office.

No matter, as this blog has been turned into a closed circle jerk for J-man and his fellow Luddites to attack libruls and that darky in the White House.

Esten's cool and calm attempt to bring a little light into the dark murk of WW and other scribblers is futile.

As Barney Frank - my hero - once said: "It's like debating a dining room table."

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Wild Walleye,

Where were you when Joe Barton needed you?[/QUOTE]At Newport trying to hone my skills.