American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten; 416241]As you may have noticed, my last two posts on Krauthammer were merely repeating conservative talking points about wealth redistribution. In fact two of our very own resident conservatives believe this amounts to Socialism (Stan) and theft (Jackson). Their silence on Krauthammer's Social Security proposals is deafening.

Those talking points are funny stuff indeed. Hard to take seriously. Socialism and theft? Too much! LOL[/quote]I'm of the same school of thought as Stan, and Jackson Social Security is a Socialistic piece of shit. However we appear to be stuck with it and we must find a way to keep it afloat, that's why I said Krauthammer is realistic, NOT because he or I think it's a good program.

[QUOTE=Esten]As far as left-wing comedians, I'd say they are doing well. Colbert and Stewart are quite popular.[/QUOTE]Who? :confused:

[QUOTE=Esten]In contrast to those right-wing comedians.... yeah I can't name any either. Unless you count Beck and Palin.[/QUOTE]There you go again. :rolleyes: ... How about Dennis Miller he seems pretty right leaning these days.

[QUOTE=Moveon;416240]Are you kidding me? Spare us, please, with your childish beliefs.[/QUOTE]You are completely devoid of intelligence or integrity.

Q: Why did the Egyptian opposition leaders snub Hillary?

A: Because Obama dithered and delayed through the crisis and in the end did nothing, other than his previous contributions to instability in the region.

Q: Why did the Libyan rebels reach of for the POTUS, rather the former POTUS George Bush?

A: Because Obama dithered and delayed through the crisis and in the end did nothing, other than his previous contributions to instability in the region.

Q: Why do you think Obama is saying that we feel for the Japanese and will help, even though they can afford to do it themselves?

A: Because Japan has looked to US for help and Obama doesn't want to give it. He just wants to pay lip service to the pain and suffering and hope that he can dither and delay through the crisis and in the end do nothing.

Your disdain for your own country has left you with a very distorted and inaccurate view of the world. I imagine that the fact that you are illiterate interferes with your ability to absorb information other than what is broadcast on MSNBC.

The Do-Nothing White House has sat on its hands for 31 days on the issue of Libya.

Gaddafi has warned the rebels that his forces are coming to Benghazi within hours and there would be no mercy. Considering that they can take care of mopping up what is left of the rebels from the ground, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get the UN to approve a "no-fly" zone.

It is startling that Obama's inability to form an opinion and make a decision not only cost him his Secretary of State but also earned himself a competitor for the Democrat nomination for 2012. He also provided his 'new' rival with more than adequate ammo to displace him on the ticket.

Who was it that predicted a Hillary run in 2012? Oh yeah, me!

Or so says the London Daily Express.

One thing they left out is that he is so weak that the women in his life run roughshod over him. We all know he's henpecked by Michelle but, what you may have missed is how Sarah Palin has shaped his policy toward Libya and how Hillary forced his hand in asking the UN for permission to bomb aspirin factories.

Palin articulated an approach to Libya last month, shortly after hostilities broke out. Obama sat on his hands for 31 days. Hillary effectively tendered her resignation based on Obama's dawdling. Obama adopted the Palin plan and had his minions take it to the UN.

I guess all those critics were right, Obama is so smart and wonderful it doesn't matter if he has any other qualifications for office.

Not to repeat myself but he is so brilliant that Hillary is running circles around him making him look foolish and reconfirming for the world that the 'man' has no balls. Our president is a Eunuch. Make no mistake, the Clintons haven't gotten over how Hillary got swept off the stage on the way to the Democrat nomination and despite what she may tell Wolf Blitzer, they want back in the WH and they want it bad. They are about as subtle and forgiving as the teamsters. However, I must say that Hillary's timing is exquisite for someone who is normally a little more ham-fisted. She now can say that she left in disgust (over any issue: in action, spending, deficits, even healthcare. Which is laughable) , take credit for the only evidence of testosterone in his admin ('war' footing on Libya) and completely distance herself from all of the garbage and baggage associated with Obama. As I pointed out back when Hillary accepted the spot at State, she's going to do it for two years or so to stay in the news, improve her foreign policy credentials and stay away from the legislative cesspool (ergo her coincidental trip to the other side of the world during the '10 midterms) and when the time is right she'll pop her chute (or jump on her broom) and exit the Obama administration. She will then let things percolate for a little while before acceding to the 'demands' of her 'adoring public' (read as daily coverage from Tina Brown and her ilk and artificial evidence of a fawning constituency) and 'reluctantly' enter the presidential race.

Solo uno!

Very objective and logical opinion. Thank you very much.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416251]Q: Why do you think Obama is saying that we feel for the Japanese and will help, even though they can afford to do it themselves?

A: Because Japan has looked to US for help and Obama doesn't want to give it. He just wants to pay lip service to the pain and suffering and hope that he can dither and delay through the crisis and in the end do nothing.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416266]The Do-Nothing White House has sat on its hands for 31 days on the issue of Libya.

Gaddafi has warned the rebels that his forces are coming to Benghazi within hours and there would be no mercy. Considering that they can take care of mopping up what is left of the rebels from the ground, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get the UN to approve a "no-fly" zone.

It is startling that Obama's inability to form an opinion and make a decision not only cost him his Secretary of State but also earned himself a competitor for the Democrat nomination for 2012. He also provided his 'new' rival with more than adequate ammo to displace him on the ticket.

Who was it that predicted a Hillary run in 2012? Oh yeah, me! [/QUOTE]Yeah, you are the greatest! Now, you have to get a bigger shirt.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416282]One thing they left out is that he is so weak that the women in his life run roughshod over him. [/QUOTE]Indeed, Obama is listening to Hillary Clinton instead of Robert Gates on whether to become involved in Libya. Walleye, I agree with you the majority or most of the time, but not on this. Maybe you can educate me, how is it in the USA's best interests to become involved in Libya? Why should our tax dollars be spent there? Why should we risk the lives of our pilots? I think I recall, maybe incorrectly, that you were concerned that a revolution in Egypt might result in a new, terrorist-friendly government. Do you believe Gadaffi would be up to more mischief than a new revolutionary Libyan government, and if so why?

[QUOTE=Doggboy;415861]Let's bomb them gal dang Libyans! Who's with me?! From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli![/QUOTE]Looks like Barack Hussein Obama II (aka Barry) and Hillary Rodham Clinton have come around to your way of thinking.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416301]Looks like Barack Hussein Obama II (aka Barry) and Hillary Rodham Clinton have come around to your way of thinking.[/QUOTE]I don't think either is motivated by the plight of the Libyan people. Neither has articulated whom it is that we aim to help. Neither has conveyed to the American public why this is in America's best interests. Therefore, I will make the leap that the lobbing of cruise missiles into the desert and onto an occasional aspirin factory is political theater.

I think that Hillary is looking at this as a way to become the democrat nominee in 2012 or possibly 2016. She and her minions are making sure that the press portrays her as the pivot point in the process and that it was she that drove BHO to act.

I think that Obama's interests in Libya, are limited to burnishing his image with independent voters and making himself look less wimpy. While the action offends the left, he is unlikely to lose them 'en masse' since they are stuck with him as their only choice (even if Clinton were to run for the nomination, it would be difficult to argue that she is to the left of BHO). The Obama gambit here is spend a couple hundred million (of the taxpayers' money) on cruise missiles and jdams, as undeclared campaign funds to buy a few moderate voters.

IMHO if he was going to do this why not a month ago when a forceful response would most likely have induced Daffy Quadiffy to flee when the "rebels" were at his door step and his military was still trying to decide which way to jump? No we wait a month for the situation to deteriorate and pull a 'Bill Clinton' with the cruise missile strike.

I have to agree with WW, this really looks like a political move. It's pretty bad when you have to wait for the French to lead you to military action.

I guess it's the difference between having a set and not. Michelle must be the one with the set in that family cause you know Nicholas has a to have a set with a hottie like Carla Bruni for a wife! Guess that explains Michelle's walk?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416313]IMHO if he was going to do this why not a month ago when a forceful response would most likely have induced Daffy Quadiffy to flee when the "rebels" were at his door step and his military was still trying to decide which way to jump? No we wait a month for the situation to deteriorate and pull a 'Bill Clinton' with the cruise missile strike.

I have to agree with WW, this really looks like a political move. It's pretty bad when you have to wait for the French to lead you to military action.

I guess it's the difference between having a set and not. Michelle must be the one with the set in that family cause you know Nicholas has a to have a set with a hottie like Carla Bruni for a wife! Guess that explains Michelle's walk? [/QUOTE]Is that it doesn't make you immune to making decisions based on pussies, in this case, both those that have them: Palin, Clinton (presumably H. R. Clinton has one, although I really don't want proof) , Samantha Power, Susan Rice and those that normally act like them: the French.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416313]IMHO if he was going to do this why not a month ago when a forceful response would most likely have induced Daffy Quadiffy to flee when the "rebels" were at his door step and his military was still trying to decide which way to jump? No we wait a month for the situation to deteriorate and pull a 'Bill Clinton' with the cruise missile strike.[/QUOTE]I agree.

Keep in mind that we don't have any idea who or what would rise to take power of Libya in the absence of Qaddafi. Chances are that whatever filled his spot in the vacuum that would likely follow his demise, it is unlikely that it will be pro-American.

Therefore, one must wonder why the monthly-long delay? Waiting until the 'rebels' (I. E. The opposition to Qaddafi. Whatever that comprises) have essentially lost, before entering the fray, is either ineptitude (if your goal is to assist the rebels) or sinister (if your goal really isn't to help the rebel but only make it appear that you are trying to help the rebels while actually perpetuating the existing rule). If I was a cynic, I'd say Obama is putting on a show for the 'world' get some street cred' for lighting up a few desert brothers, weaken Qaddafi (but don't finish him off) and let things continue under his regime. All in the name of electoral politics.

The thing is, sticking a toe in the water has never been a good method for involving oneself in overseas military conflicts. In the real world, things aren't so neat and clean. Obama thinks he can break a few things and cut and run. I think that the realities on the ground will not play out so well for Obama.

I think that this must be the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to launch 120+ cruise missiles on a sovereign nation.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416246]I'm of the same school of thought as Stan, and Jackson Social Security is a Socialistic piece of shit. However we appear to be stuck with it and we must find a way to keep it afloat, that's why I said Krauthammer is realistic, NOT because he or I think it's a good program.[/QUOTE]Whether SS is a good program or not is beside the point.

I was talking about wealth redistribution. In the context of SS, it could be reformed any number of ways. Not all approaches involve wealth redistribution.

You and Krauthammer seem to be in support of an approach that involves wealth redistribution. With the reason being that this approach (means testing) is sensible and realistic. I fully agree. This is not the only example where Republicans support wealth redistribution, I've posted polls before that show most Republicans favor progressive taxation.

Data like this demonstrates that not all conservatives are pure ideologues. Just some.

Punter you may be of the same school of thought as Stan and Jackson on SS, but not necessarily on wealth redistribution. They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances, you differ from them.

... means knowing when not to lead.

Obama has handled Libya just about right. 70% of Americans support the no fly zone, but few are interested in seeing the US be the world's policeman yet again. The delays appear to have expanded and consolidated the coalition under terms that European countries will lead the effort after establishing the NFZ. Sounds good to me.

Even Republicans are giving Obama some faint praise, while getting in their lame digs on how he should have acted sooner, or how he needs to explain things better. Which is odd since I've heard Obama's statements on the US role several times and it seems quite clear to me. Just more weak political posturing from the right.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416266]The Do-Nothing White House has sat on its hands for 31 days on the issue of Libya.

Gaddafi has warned the rebels that his forces are coming to Benghazi within hours and there would be no mercy. Considering that they can take care of mopping up what is left of the rebels from the ground, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get the UN to approve a "no-fly" zone. [/QUOTE]Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!! Obama didn't burst into Libya sooner and crush Gaddafi and show the world we're number one. Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

He took a more strategic approach with Libya, one you have evidently been unable to grasp.

I guess I'm to the left of Esten on Libya. I don't understand how it's in the best interests of the United States to become involved there. In terms of his support for terrorism, Gadaffi learned his lesson years ago. We have no idea whether a revolutionary government that takes his place would be better or worse for western interests. We don't even know for sure whether a new government would be better or worse for the people of Libya. I don't think the taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent there.