American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Sidney, Great post. The idea that wind and solar are going to supply a significant percentage of our energy needs in the forseeable future is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. And now it looks like Salazar etal are going to shut down oil shale R & D. This is our best opportunity to end our dependence on foreign oil. The positive effects on our economy and security would be enormous. The U. S. is the Middle East of oil shale. We'd be selling more to the rest of the world than we're buying. We wouldn't be dependent on countries like China to invest in our government bonds and countries like Iraq to sell us their oil.

Last I heard, Shell thought they could make oil shale economic at a price around $35 per barrel. They're doing this using an in situ process that protects groundwater resources. Unlike surface mining of oil shale, the effects of extraction on the environment are minimal. But it's looking like Salazar and environmental groups may shut them down.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Jax you and I will never, ever see eye to eye on these issues but I do respect for the most part our conversations, while lively, have been respectful. So in that spirit, I ask this question. Does that make Bush and Dick "deficits don't matter" Chaney " "don't tax and still spend" liberals?

Biggest deficits still by far Bush and Raygun, though that will most likely change when Obama's budget gets passed.

His deficit would be halved if he wasn't inheriting the Messopotamia. I maintain that if we as a nation go into debt to invest in anything, I prefer infrastructure to the folly in Iraq. Blackwater, KBR, and Haliburton have had enough corporate welfare.[/QUOTE]The federal public debt was 34% of GDP when Bush took office in 2001 and 44% of GDP when he left office in 2009. With Obama's budget, the Congressional Budget Office (controlled by Democrats) forecasts the federal public debt will be 82% of GDP in 2019.

Yeah, Bush, Cheney and the Republican Congress were spendthrifts. But when it comes to spending lots and lots of money, Obama & Co. are going to make them look like hacks.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]The federal public debt was 34% of GDP when Bush took office in 2001 and 44% of GDP when he left office in 2009. With Obama's budget, the Congressional Budget Office (controlled by Democrats) forecasts the federal public debt will be 82% of GDP in 2019.

Yeah, Bush, Cheney and the Republican Congress were spendthrifts. But when it comes to spending lots and lots of money, Obama & Co. Are going to make them look like hacks.[/QUOTE]It is looking that way, though I maintain it the money seems to be going in a different direction. If it ends up fucking us, I'll be the first to admit it was wrong.

I still think the Repubs that are pretending the spending habits of the last 8 years didn't happen are funny though, though I'm glad to see the Conservatives seem to be reclaiming their party.

I for one like the balance between the two, liberal balanced by, even opposed by, conservatives.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I for one like the balance between the two, liberal balanced by, even opposed by, conservatives.[/QUOTE]Well that is the foundation of any decent democracy, balance through strong opposition. A government can't stay strong for long without internal opposition.

I don't understand why that fucking violence mongering Obama felt the need to kill a few enterprising colored pirates who were exercising their god given right to make a few bucks? Fucking anti capitalist, stupid, caramel colored jerk! Can't he find a country to invade instead of picking on some behind a very black eight ball small businessmen? And, can't he and his family pick a regular dog for crying out loud? Something more american! Like a german shepherd or a weimaraner or an english bulldog? Or even a burmese mountain dog?

I mean, am I all alone here with my concerns about the really black buccaneers and their trumped up black deeds? Huh?

[QUOTE=Sidney]He is making a big and a minimum 5 year commitment there. Expect a big build-up. And don't be surprised if we start something serious in Somalia! CHANGE![/QUOTE]Two aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Adan and goodnight pirates. F / A18s respond to distress calls, goodbuy Zodiacs. The Hawkeyes keep tab of what ship the Zodes came from and goodby mother ships. No missles, cannon fire would obliterate all those targets.

I would bet we could get it paid for by the shipping companies. They wouldn't have to skirt the gulf and their insurance rates would go down, it would probably be cost effective.

No need to land, we could also solve the basic Somali problem this way. That of illegal fishing and dumping, which was what contributed to the piracy in the first place. Somebody dumps waste we sink um, other nations fishing boats inside of 12 miles we confiscate the boats and give them to the Somalis.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Two aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Adan and goodnight pirates. F / A18s respond to distress calls, goodbuy Zodiacs. The Hawkeyes keep tab of what ship the Zodes came from and goodby mother ships. No missles, cannon fire would obliterate all those targets.

I would bet we could get it paid for by the shipping companies. They wouldn't have to skirt the gulf and their insurance rates would go down, it would probably be cost effective.

No need to land, we could also solve the basic Somali problem this way. That of illegal fishing and dumping, which was what contributed to the piracy in the first place. Somebody dumps waste we sink um, other nations fishing boats inside of 12 miles we confiscate the boats and give them to the Somalis.[/QUOTE]Oh but wait “we can ’t afford to be the policeman of the world ”!

What happened to negotiating peaceful endings to these situations?

Why didn ’t we try sanctions before violence?

Why must these things end with the loss of life?

Did we get UN approval before we took action and used force?

I thought everybody in the world would love America, if we elected Obama.

If Obama can't deal with a few pirates without using deadly force; how will he possibly deal with the likes of North Korea and Iran? (Without using force)

Where ’s our change?

My compliments to the United States Navy Seals; JOB WELL DONE!

Mongers,

Actually, what took place should be viewed as a police action rather than a military strike, as the Somali pirates were non-state actors who in reality are nothing more than well-equipped common criminals. Somalia is a failed state with no effective central government and thus no law enforcement apparatus, as such the only way to deal with the lawlessness emanating from this situation is exactly the way it was handled. Pirates caught in the act should always be shot on sight if possible. If this situation of unabated piracy continues in the area, the navies of the affected countries should bomb the ports that outfit and harbor the said pirates. High seas piracy is ridiculous and there should be zero tolerance for it.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Oh but wait "we can 't afford to be the policeman of the world "!

What happened to negotiating peaceful endings to these situations?

Why didn 't we try sanctions before violence?

Why must these things end with the loss of life?

Did we get UN approval before we took action and used force?

I thought everybody in the world would love America, if we elected Obama.

If Obama can't deal with a few pirates without using deadly force; how will he possibly deal with the likes of North Korea and Iran? (Without using force)

Where 's our change?

My compliments to the United States Navy Seals; JOB WELL DONE![/QUOTE]Because I thought (before the act, not like some johnny come lately) that Iraq was going to be, and continues to be one of the worst policy decisions this country has ever engaged in does not make me some wussy panty waisted dove. The purpose of the military is first to deter then to inflict damage and of course finally not to let any gays in. That is the reason Louis XIV had "The final argument of Kings" stamped into his cannon barrels.

Rock is right, it was a police action, however he was an American and ultimatly the safety and security of Americans is the primary duty of the President. My proposal simply allows us to clean up international waters and get somebody to pay for it. You need no consensus to act in international waters. Impose sanctions on who, the Government of the Gulf of Adan?

Change, how about this for change, doing the right thing in the right way. The only people condeming us for acting are the pirates.

That's the problem with you hillbillys, too much inbreeding and not enough schooling!

Sorry bubba couldn't help that whole hillbilly thang.

I do however echo your praise of the seals, 3 in the x-ring from a pitching deck, not bad atal.

Would you have called it a "police action " and condoned it if Bush was still president? All at once you guys are fucking "War Hawks ", not likely. If Bush would have been in office you would have found some way to blame him for the whole ordeal to begin with, hell you probably will anyway.

Daddy I ’m not surprised by your personal attacks, that ’s what leftwing nuts do when they can ’t support there arguments with facts. It ’s a cheap tactic that ’s been over used, I would even call it pusillanimous, and I think most people see through it. So why don ’t you give it a rest?

IMHO the action taken with the pirates was too little and almost too late, we ’re very lucky no Americans were killed.

The military should not have to wait for the presidents ’ permission to use force to rescue Americans being held hostage, it should be an action of opportunity, especially in international waters.

I also think the pirates "mother ship " should have been hunted down and sunk, as it is they are left with the ability to repeat their dastardly deeds. The guys on that life boat did not act alone! Is this what you call [i]"doing the right thing in the right way "? [/i] To me it ’s like shooting the messenger.

Could one of you highly educated all-knowing leftwing doves turned "War Hawk " please explain to me why the pirates never hit an American ship before Obama took office? They sure seem to have hit just about everybody else, including the Russians.

BTW what should we do with the pirate that was captured?

I suppose you new found "War Hawks " want to hang him from the nearest yardarm and let him rot, as a deterrent to others.

Mongers,

A police action is a police action no matter who the political leader is who orders the action. The point is that there is no local or national police force in existence to handle the criminal activity that goes on off the coast of Somalia; as such the only way to police the high seas is with the Navy. There was no violation of sovereignty, no invasion, no tearing down of a functioning state apparatus, no destroying of basic public works such as clean water and reliable electricity. It was an apprehension / termination of criminals, nothing more, nothing less.

The reason this was the first US-flagged and crewed vessel taken by these pirates is twofold; first, there are very few US-flagged and crewed vessels, especially in this part of world. Most ships are flagged in places such as Liberia, Panama, or Bahamas as a flag of convenience because it is cheaper and less regulated; their crews are almost always made up of filipinos or other such cheap labor. The second part is that since many of the pirate attacks yielded ransoms in the tens of millions of dollars, this is becoming a lucrative business in poverty-stricken Somalia which is attracting new job applicants on a daily basis.

As for why the mother ship was not sunk, that would have been an illegal aggressive action under international law. There would have to be proof that a particular ship was responsible and directly involved with the smaller boat that actually initiated the attempted hijacking and kidnapping. It's not so easy to tell which boat is just fishing and which is loaded with RPG's, ak-47's and boarding equipment. If the situation escalates, however, measures should be taken such as leveling the primary ports that harbor the pirates and subjecting all boats off the coast of Somalia to inspection by international navys.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Hey Hard, should we have read them their rights? This is not a law enforcement matter, but a military one. Last time I checked the FBI was limited to the US, so how do they end up out to sea off Somolia? Democrats always want to view terror groups as a law enforcement issue and not the military threat it truly is.

If you want police action to rid the waters of pirates off the coast of Somalia it should be UN led forces, not the American Navy! (Isn ’t that the way you always wanted it in the past?)

If the UN will not act then American ships should be kept out of those waters, or at least told to enter at their own risk.

It's my understanding (from news reports) that we knew which ship was the “mother ship ” and that it even tried to approach the life boat and was turn away by the U. S. Navy.

Oh and BTW the guns I saw the pirates with were a hell of a lot bigger than AK 47’s, but I ’ll bet they bought them at a gun shop in Texas. Better pass some more U. S. Gun laws.

[QUOTE=Sidney]It becomes so clear that he is a hypocritical liar. The USA is doomed to failure under the guidance of this idiot! Quickly, he is exceeding Bush, as the worst President in the history of the USA! HELP US![/QUOTE]Sidney,

With all due respect, I think your statement is a bit too strong and certainly premature.

I didn't vote for Obama because I believe that he lacked the experience necessary to do the job well. However, that being said, now that he's got the job, I certainly don't want him to be "the worst President in the history of the USA".

Thanks,

Jackson

Hey Punter,

I resent that remark about the pirates getting their guns from a gun shop in Texas, we got way bigger and better iron than that down here!

First please accept my appologies if you truely were offended by the hillbilly lacking education comment. I assumed given the nature of our friendship and from past conversations you would understand that I was ribbing you as you are more highly educated than I am. This is honest, I consider you a friend in reality, and am very sorry if I offended you.

On to the rest, I was in favor of the Afghan invasion. Osama bin Balogny and Al Q was in Afghanistan at he invitation of the legal government of that country and they were operating with the expressed approval of that same government and had launched several operations that had directly harmed America. I disagreed with the Iraqi invasion before we ever crossed the Berm because those same reasons did not exsist. As a matter of fact I was in support of the first dust up there because it was clear that after Kuwait Saddam would go for the Kingdom and that would have placed far too many of the worlds proven oil reserves in one mans hands madman or not.

Patroling the Gulf of Adan, seriously as a matter of course no, my idea was to do it on a for hire basis. It's kind of crazy but if we could turn a profit and stop the piracy there then I'm all for it.

The man in question was an American. Personally I'm all about the military protecting Americans. If the Brits were holding an American in their embassy in Washington I would be just fine with the Marines going over that wall, though Delta would probably do it. Yes that would be an act of war but you can't let people fuck with your citizens like that. Now of course had the same man been legally detained by the non-exsistant government of Somalia for smuggeling narcotics than he is on his own. But taken during an act of piracy on the high seas? Either one of us would have been happy to pull that trigger but the Seals did it better.

Can I still call you a hillbilly as long as I don't call you an uneducated one?

Jax thank you for your remarks regarding your wait and see attitude regarding Obama.

Mongers,

I applaud Jackson for his moment of rationality. As for my buddies Sidney, Punter and the others, they need to accept the fact that the election is over, Barack Obama won a free and fair election, is now the sitting President of the United States, and has broken away from the failed policies of past. Please accept the fact that a young black guy with a Harvard mouth and thought process is the President of the United States. He will be conducting policy according to rational thought processes and diplomatic norms and not according to how he can make the most money for his friends. Realism and neo-conservativism are dead. Get over it.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Hey Punter I resent that remark about the pirates getting their guns from a gun shop in Texas, we got way bigger and better iron than that down here![/QUOTE]I apologize, I know what you say is true, but I figured since you ’re getting blame for the guns in Mexico, well we might as well put this on you guys as well …lol.

I also didn ’t mean to belittle the AK 47 it ’s not to bad a gun considering how inexpensive they are, I actually own a couple of them.

BTW I will be a Texas resident myself very soon, although I don ’t plan to be there very much.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]First please accept my appologies if you truely were offended by the hillbilly lacking education comment. I assumed given the nature of our friendship and from past conversations you would understand that I was ribbing you as you are more highly educated than I am. This is honest, I consider you a friend in reality, and am very sorry if I offended you.

On to the rest, I was in favor of the Afghan invasion. Osama bin Balogny and Al Q was in Afghanistan at he invitation of the legal government of that country and they were operating with the expressed approval of that same government and had launched several operations that had directly harmed America. I disagreed with the Iraqi invasion before we ever crossed the Berm because those same reasons did not exsist. As a matter of fact I was in support of the first dust up there because it was clear that after Kuwait Saddam would go for the Kingdom and that would have placed far too many of the worlds proven oil reserves in one mans hands madman or not.

Patroling the Gulf of Adan, seriously as a matter of course no, my idea was to do it on a for hire basis. It's kind of crazy but if we could turn a profit and stop the piracy there then I'm all for it.

The man in question was an American. Personally I'm all about the military protecting Americans. If the Brits were holding an American in their embassy in Washington I would be just fine with the Marines going over that wall, though Delta would probably do it. Yes that would be an act of war but you can't let people fuck with your citizens like that. Now of course had the same man been legally detained by the non-exsistant government of Somalia for smuggeling narcotics than he is on his own. But taken during an act of piracy on the high seas? Either one of us would have been happy to pull that trigger but the Seals did it better.

Can I still call you a hillbilly as long as I don't call you an uneducated one?

Jax thank you for your remarks regarding your wait and see attitude regarding Obama.[/QUOTE] Daddy I ’m not offended I just think your material is old and boring. It has not affected our friendship as far as I ’m concerned.

I actually kind of agree with you, but I was trying (1st post) in a sarcastic way to point out how I think the left would have reacted if Bush would have taken this same action.

This has nothing to do with Iraqi and Afghanistan. It ’s a totally different situation.

If it is as RH would have us believe and only a very few U. S. Ships in the area then why waste money putting our Navy there? Surely you don ’t want us defending ships from other countries, do you?

I say either have the UN handle this or get our ships the fuck out of there!

[quote]The U. S. Is considering new options to fight piracy, including adding Navy gunships along the Somali coast and launching a campaign to disable pirate "mother ships," according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made yet.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy[/url][/quote] RH, Looks like they may go after them “mother ships ” after all, you better let them know it a violation of international law.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]need to accept the fact that the election is over, Barack Obama won a free and fair election, is now the sitting President of the United States[/QUOTE]No one here is debating that issue.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]and has broken away from the failed policies of past.[/QUOTE]Which failed policies? Those of FDR that exacerbated the great depression?

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Please accept the fact that a young black guy with a Harvard mouth and thought process is the President of the United States. He will be conducting policy according to rational thought processes and diplomatic norms and not according to how he can make the most money for his friends.[/QUOTE]You seem to be the only one fixated on his race (typical liberal racism-on display 24/7 but is doesn't count because liberals give themselves a pass) Lay off the cool-aid and pull your head out of your ass. How is Obama either a 'man of the people' or not putting his self interests first?

"arranged in the days just before he took office to secure a $500,000 advance for a children's book project [he must have spent all the time he was 'present' in the Senate, developing his children's writing skills] a disclosure report shows. The terms of the book deal were disclosed in a Senate financial disclosure report filed Tuesday. Analysts say there don't appear to be any rules that would bar such transactions after a president takes office, but it's unclear whether an incoming or sitting president has ever signed a book deal upon entering the White House."

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Realism and neo-conservativism are dead. Get over it.[/QUOTE] "Rock is dead!" Take a look at the best seller lists around the US. Why would you want to see the US destroyed? Why not just enjoy cheap Argie pussy and let the US go its own way?

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Suerte[/QUOTE]F-off.

[QUOTE=Punter 127]If it is as RH would have us believe and only a very few U. S. Ships in the area then why waste money putting our Navy there? Surely you don 't want us defending ships from other countries, do you?

I say either have the UN handle this or get our ships the fuck out of there!

RH, Looks like they may go after them "mother ships " after all, you better let them know it a violation of international law.[/QUOTE]Aircraft carriers brother, a FA 18 can be on scene from 400 miles away in something like 20 minutes, plenty of time to foil a highjacking, then have the hawkeyes do a search in memory of where the radar trace from the Zode came from and back track that to the mothership and take care of it as well.

In that initial 20 minute period call the company that owns the ship and see if they are willing to pay for the protection. It won't be popular on the world stage of course but I think it would work.

What do you mean my material is old?

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Aircraft carriers brother, a FA 18 can be on scene from 400 miles away in something like 20 minutes, plenty of time to foil a highjacking, then have the hawkeyes do a search in memory of where the radar trace from the Zode came from and back track that to the mothership and take care of it as well.

In that initial 20 minute period call the company that owns the ship and see if they are willing to pay for the protection. It won't be popular on the world stage of course but I think it would work.

What do you mean my material is old?[/QUOTE]Daddy you know I'm all for knocking bad guys down, but why do we need to be in this area in the first place, what national interest or security is involved here?

This is not Have Gun Will Travel, or Six Gun for Hire.

To the best of my knowledge the U. S. Military is not for hire, so why put the in harms way?

Can you say Black Hawk Down?

Even if we had good reasons for being in the fight, you guys would just get shit in your neck and want to pull out before the job was done.

Let the UN deal with this, we are not the worlds police force.

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Daddy you know I'm all for knocking bad guys down, but why do we need to be in this area in the first place, what national interest or security is involved here?

This is not Have Gun Will Travel, or Six Gun for Hire.

To the best of my knowledge the U. S. Military is not for hire, so why put the in harms way?

Can you say Black Hawk Down?

Even if we had good reasons for being in the fight, you guys would just get shit in your neck and want to pull out before the job was done.

Let the UN deal with this, we are not the worlds police force.[/QUOTE]The idea of getting paid to get rid of these guys appeals to me. Nobody ever said, myself included, that I was playing with a full deck.

Why would you want to take a 90 minute plane ride from Chicago to New York City when you can take a train ride for 12 hours? Only right-wing neo-con goons who want to destroy the planet would dream of turning their back on Amtrak. All this country needs to make things better is to plow another $1 Trillion into a 19th century transportation technology.

This is the "[i][b]CHANGE![/b][/i]" you voted for, so bend over, drop your pants, hand your wallet to that guy standing behind you, and grab your ankles.

Obviously this Brit didn't get the memo that all of the world is supposed to love Obama. Good read.

[quote]Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block.

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.

Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets - suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner's nerves, what you will.

On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot - but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous. "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.(/quote)

[quote]“French forces have seized a pirate 'mother ship', capturing 11 brigands some 900 km (560 miles) off the east coast of Mombasa.

The French had been monitoring the pirates overnight after one of their surveillance helicopters spotted the vessel and intercepted it on Wednesday morning.

The 'mother ship' is mostly a foreign ship seized by pirates used for transporting speedboats far out into the sea and re-supplying them for their attacks.

The operation interrupted the pirates' attack on a Liberian-registered cargo ship, said the French Defense Ministry. [/quote] Looks like the French failed to read Rocks post about “illegal aggressive action under international law".

I never thought I ’d see the day the French of all countries, would be showing more balls than USA.

Meanwhile however: [QUOTE]In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced new diplomatic efforts to freeze pirates’ assets, The Associated Press reported. She said the Obama administration would work with shippers and insurers to improve their defenses against pirates. [/QUOTE]Now that should bring those pesky pirates to their knees! You go Girl!

[b]QuakHunter,[/b]

“President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block, with a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air”… How true it is, the only thing I’ve read lately I agreed with more was when Wild Walleye told my old buddy Rock Harder to “F-off”

[b]Rock Harder,[/b]

After all your years of Bush bashing, did you really think everyone was going to join hands and sing Kumbaya around the camp fire when Obama took office?

Mongers-

The neo-cons on this board can keep on blowing bitter hot air if they choose, or they can observe a number of my predictions of Obama's successes coming true before their very eyes. First, we have the case of Cuba, which no one can deny is on the very cusp of opening up to unrestricted US citizen travel and unrestricted commerce is not too far down the road. The US has given the go ahead to the OAS to re-admit Cuba to its ranks of membership. Within 90 days, I predict the travel ban will be history and high level talks leading to a full restoration of diplomatic relations will occur. Next we have Iran, which has gone from hailing the US as the "great satan" to acknowledging that Obama is someone they can work with and agreeing to sit down with Obama and sort out the various issues. I predict within 180 days the Obama will hold high level talks with Iran and diplomatic relations will be restored. Even the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon has declared that Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with.

How about the US economy? Within the past week or so Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, General Electric, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all announced much better than expected quarterly earnings and all made a large profit (pre-repayment of bailout money) Many of the big firms that received bailout money have already begun paying it back. It appears there has been a bottoming out and that very, very slow growth and recovery can begin.

The neo-cons mock the notion of "change", but Obama is making enormous changes in the things he has the direct power to control; foreign policy, civil rights, etc. The economy was fucked up long before Obama was elected and it is going to take time to clean up the mess that the scummy neo-cons and their military / industrialist buddies left the United States citizenry. Look forward to 93 more months of this.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Go Obama. So refreshing to be away from that John Wayne wanna-be.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

The neo-cons on this board can keep on blowing bitter hot air if they choose, or they can observe a number of my predictions of Obama's successes coming true before their very eyes. First, we have the case of Cuba, which no one can deny is on the very cusp of opening up to unrestricted US citizen travel and unrestricted commerce is not too far down the road. The US has given the go ahead to the OAS to re-admit Cuba to its ranks of membership. Within 90 days, I predict the travel ban will be history and high level talks leading to a full restoration of diplomatic relations will occur. Next we have Iran, which has gone from hailing the US as the "great satan" to acknowledging that Obama is someone they can work with and agreeing to sit down with Obama and sort out the various issues. I predict within 180 days the Obama will hold high level talks with Iran and diplomatic relations will be restored. Even the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon has declared that Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with.

How about the US economy? Within the past week or so Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, General Electric, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all announced much better than expected quarterly earnings and all made a large profit (pre-repayment of bailout money) Many of the big firms that received bailout money have already begun paying it back. It appears there has been a bottoming out and that very, very slow growth and recovery can begin.

The neo-cons mock the notion of "change", but Obama is making enormous changes in the things he has the direct power to control; foreign policy, civil rights, etc. The economy was fucked up long before Obama was elected and it is going to take time to clean up the mess that the scummy neo-cons and their military / industrialist buddies left the United States citizenry. Look forward to 93 more months of this.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

The neo-cons on this board can keep on blowing bitter hot air if they choose, or they can observe a number of my predictions of Obama's successes coming true before their very eyes. First, we have the case of Cuba, which no one can deny is on the very cusp of opening up to unrestricted US citizen travel and unrestricted commerce is not too far down the road. The US has given the go ahead to the OAS to re-admit Cuba to its ranks of membership. Within 90 days, I predict the travel ban will be history and high level talks leading to a full restoration of diplomatic relations will occur. Next we have Iran, which has gone from hailing the US as the "great satan" to acknowledging that Obama is someone they can work with and agreeing to sit down with Obama and sort out the various issues. I predict within 180 days the Obama will hold high level talks with Iran and diplomatic relations will be restored. Even the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon has declared that Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with.

How about the US economy? Within the past week or so Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, General Electric, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all announced much better than expected quarterly earnings and all made a large profit (pre-repayment of bailout money) Many of the big firms that received bailout money have already begun paying it back. It appears there has been a bottoming out and that very, very slow growth and recovery can begin.

The neo-cons mock the notion of "change", but Obama is making enormous changes in the things he has the direct power to control; foreign policy, civil rights, etc. The economy was fucked up long before Obama was elected and it is going to take time to clean up the mess that the scummy neo-cons and their military / industrialist buddies left the United States citizenry. Look forward to 93 more months of this.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE] [B]What a load of Tommyrot![/b]

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Within the past week or so Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, General Electric, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all announced much better than expected quarterly earnings and all made a large profit (pre-repayment of bailout money) Many of the big firms that received bailout money have already begun paying it back. It appears there has been a bottoming out and that very, very slow growth and recovery can begin. [/QUOTE]If you think Obama had anything to do with the corporate earnings of those companies, you are really much more stupid than you appear at first glance. Moreover, he wasn't even in office for much of the quarter that these companies are reporting earnings for.

But if you want to give him credit where none is due, I look forward to your agreement that he will deserve blame when bad things happen as well. Or will that still be Bush's fault?

And finally, you ought to remember that Enron reported positive earnings just before it filed for bankruptcy. But a gullible type who will credit anything to a newly-installed chief executive will doubtless also think that just because a bunch of numbers are reported in a 10-Q, they must be correct.

Hunt,

The point of mentioning that these blue-chips are reporting earnings is to demonstrate that Obama's policies are not "ruining" the economy as many of the neo-cons on this board like the argue. Most Presidents have little actual influence on the economy except for their instillation of confidence, hope and self assurance in the direction the nation and economy are headed. In terms of your seeming comparison of Enron to the companies I mentioned, I'll bet you a full night of drinks and pussy at Black that NONE of the companies I mentioned will go bankrupt as a result of the upheaval of the past year or so. All of the companies I mentioned had an extremely profitable business model before they started involving themselves in garbage securities, which foolish executives turned to as a way of feeding larger bonuses to themselves through short term unsustainable earnings numbers. They have reverted to their standard business practices and will be profitable indefinitely.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Hunt99]If you think Obama had anything to do with the corporate earnings of those companies, you are really much more stupid than you appear at first glance. Moreover, he wasn't even in office for much of the quarter that these companies are reporting earnings for.

But if you want to give him credit where none is due, I look forward to your agreement that he will deserve blame when bad things happen as well. Or will that still be Bush's fault?

And finally, you ought to remember that Enron reported positive earnings just before it filed for bankruptcy. But a gullible type who will credit anything to a newly-installed chief executive will doubtless also think that just because a bunch of numbers are reported in a 10-Q, they must be correct.[/QUOTE]Well said. The profits of these companies last quarter were all made on their trading desks (gambling) and not through conventional means (writing loans) In fact, many of the aforementioned companies where publically stating (mid -March) to short and buy puts against them which resulted in said companies orchestrating the biggest short squeeze ever recorded in the financial sectors. A complete fleecing of the sheeple.

These companies are almost all insolvent justifying why the Fed is advocating the termination of mark-to-market and their non-dislosure of level three assets.

This is the beginning of the end of a 20+year credit binge, credit that the US (or most other countries for that matter) cannot and will not ever pay back in today's dollar (inevitable devaluation).

With this in mind, do people really believe that the world has resolved it's debt issues in just six short months?

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The neo-cons on this board can keep on blowing bitter hot air if they choose, or they can observe a number of my predictions of Obama's successes coming true before their very eyes. [/QUOTE]I still don't know what a "Neo-Con" is. I know it means Neo-Conservative, but the negative connotation troubles my giving, caring, chica loving nature.

Please refer to me as "Neo-Mong" or Neo-Monger.

Thank you.

P. S. - Regarding Rocktradamus' predictions. I predict it will rain. Someday. Then followed by a period of sun. Some other day.

With Obama at the helm the Pirates will not prevail!

It is my belief that the end game will be:

1) Cubs.

2) Cardinals.

3) Milwaukee.

4) Astros.

5) Pirates.

And I believe the Somali Pirates will proclaim, as the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon declared that, "Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with".

I just want these Fuckers to like us again.

Cubs win, Cubs win! Holy Cow, Cubs win!

It is an angry-left-wing label developed to aid liberals responding to intelligent conservatives with more than gaping mouths and looking like a guppy.

The read-between-the-lines includes a heavy dose of antisemitism (aimed at Jews that don't vote democrat -- I. E. Those self-hating types that while they send their kids to live on a kibbutz for a few months, don't have the balls to stand up for Israel) I don't understand why they had to add the antisemitic angle, but it's there.

Me? While I am a son of David, mine is a three-person God.

Please, call me anything you like, if your calling me names, I am sure that I am on the right path.

I predict that what has been happening in the American consciousness will ultimately be reflected in real term limits (I. E. at the polls--I believe that those are the term limits intended by the framers)

America is waking up from a nasty bender, shaking out the cob webs and trying to remember all the details from a raucous, feel-good stretch of gilding the lily and believing it isn't what I do but how I feel and empathize that is important. Rethinking how things went so wrong when doing it felt soooo good.

I am sure RH thinks I am a racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe. The truth? What's it matter? He doesn't care to know the truth, he knows what he knows and that is the truth no matter how in accurate it is.

If liberals actually practiced anything that they preach, it would be a different story.

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]With Obama at the helm the Pirates will not prevail!

It is my belief that the end game will be:

1) Cubs.

2) Cardinals.

3) Milwaukee.

4) Astros.

5) Pirates.

And I believe the Somali Pirates will proclaim, as the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon declared that, "Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with".

I just want these Fuckers to like us again.

Cubs win, Cubs win! Holy Cow, Cubs win![/QUOTE]