American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]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. [/QUOTE]While I have no problem joining you for mongering at Black, I can't take you up on this wager. Why? Because the government has already let it be known that a company "too big to fail" will be artificially propped up with taxpayer money.

I don't think it's the case with GE, WFC, or JPM, but it is beyond dispute that GS, C, and BAC would have been in receivership without infusion of over $200 billion of tax money.

Of course, WFC and JPM just got $100 billion in subsidies to buy WM and WB, respectively.

I do not agree that presidents can have no effect on the economy. Usually the effect is in the aggregate, but of late the effects are becoming much more direct, picking "winners" and "losers." Of course, in the long term the whole stinking mess will come crashing down, as efforts to cancel the law of supply and demand are about as successful as seeking to cancel the law of gravity.

There will be a price to be paid by tripling and quadrupling the national debt in a short period of time, from an already-unacceptably high level, as we will see. My challenge is to foresee how the transformation of the USA into a large version of Argentina can be exploited for profit.

However, before those great plans for "change" come to fruition, it's more likely that history will toss up another Reagan to sweep away our present Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. Three more years of Carter II, and then the reformation.

I was watching the Daily Show and they had Elizabeth Warren on. She was speaking about how after the 1st Great Depression (joke) the nation implimented regulation that avoided the typical boom-bust cycle of the preceding 150 years of U. S. history, from the late 1930's to late 1980's.

FDIC, SEC regulations, and Glass-Steagal (separating commercial banking from investment banking)

And that since Reagan this regulation has been eroded.

Without getting into partisinship (impossible dream I know) can you edumacated mongers edumacate me on the subject a bit?

The notion of "too big to fail" while commonly used in the pejorative by the main stream media (regardless of political slant) is largely misunderstood as to its roll in market psychology and in some cases its necessity for economic stability.

Unfortunately, the morons in the previous administration (please note that I am dumping on a Republican Admin) did not understand it and destroyed (yes destroyed) TBTF as part of the bedrock of market psychology. If they had chosen to continue the notion / perception of TBTF, it would have helped last summer / fall and would have lessened the impact of the financial crisis across the economy. The event to which I refer is of course letting Lehman Bros fail. It shattered TBTF and immediately destroyed any confidence in any and all counter parties to financial transactions. In the wake of Lehman's September bankruptcy, the entire economy shut down for weeks, in large part due to the nonavailability of commercial paper and other short-term debt instruments that are the oil to the economic engine. This acerbated the already bad economic situation and accelerated layoffs across the nation in all sectors of the economy (the effects of taking three weeks of GDP and throwing it out the window)

You were correct on the NEW and 'improved' selective TBTF, if you combine these two notions:

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Because the government has already let it be known that a company "too big to fail" will be artificially propped up with taxpayer money[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Hunt99]I do not agree that presidents can have no effect on the economy. Usually the effect is in the aggregate, but of late the effects are becoming much more direct, picking "winners" and "losers."[/QUOTE]Now the precedent has been set that TBTF is entirely at the whim or agenda of the president. Whether Obama, Bush, Reagan, Washington or anyone in between, that is a very bad thing.

For TBTF to support finding a bottom in a financial crisis, its existence must be absolute in the mind of the market participants, even though it maybe in part mythology.

Loads of pictures of Chavez and Obama making goo-goo eyes at each other.

My left-leaning friends are all so happy - isn't it a wonderful change from the animosity of the past 8 years?

And I have to agree. Like President O, I'd much rather have an amicable relationship with Chavez's Venezuala. Problem is, I can't as easily ignore the human rights abuses, the nationalization of industry and that inconvenient 'president-for-life' thing he's trying to do.

I find it sickening to see the President of the United States dealing with an anti-democratic thug like Chavez. Obviously our new President values smiles and handshakes over freedom. This isn't an isolated case and it will not end well.

Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principles.

[QUOTE=Paul VJK]Loads of pictures of Chavez and Obama making goo-goo eyes at each other.

My left-leaning friends are all so happy - isn't it a wonderful change from the animosity of the past 8 years?

And I have to agree. Like President O, I'd much rather have an amicable relationship with Chavez's Venezuala. Problem is, I can't as easily ignore the human rights abuses, the nationalization of industry and that inconvenient 'president-for-life' thing he's trying to do.

I find it sickening to see the President of the United States dealing with an anti-democratic thug like Chavez. Obviously our new President values smiles and handshakes over freedom. This isn't an isolated case and it will not end well.

Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principles.[/QUOTE]Who needs principles when we have polls to worry about.

I just want the Fuckers to like us again.

I voted for Obama because I thought he was Irish. Then I noticed it wasn't O'Bama. I quit drinking after that.

This type of diplomacy and interactions rankles some. They like the hard ass approach. Cut 'em off. Ignore 'em. Give 'em the finger. But in today's world, charming a questionable leader to the point that they say "I want to be your friend" and smiling like a big ol' kid can give you leverage that can be exploited for your benefit. Not theirs. "Kill 'em with kindness" does work a sizable amount of time. We have everything to gain and nothing to loose. The World is changing.

[QUOTE=Damman]This type of diplomacy and interactions rankles some. They like the hard ass approach. Cut 'em off. Ignore 'em. Give 'em the finger. But in today's world, charming a questionable leader to the point that they say "I want to be your friend" and smiling like a big ol' kid can give you leverage that can be exploited for your benefit. Not theirs. "Kill 'em with kindness" does work a sizable amount of time. We have everything to gain and nothing to loose. The World is changing.[/QUOTE]Yes, and I ’m sure it gives the rest of south America a warm fuzzy feeling, knowing the President of the United States is budding up with this idiot!

The Obama Chavez lovefest is just another example of how we've gone back to the Carter years. Want to get the respect and attention of the United States? Be a thug, a bully, a tyrant. (Given Obamalove to varying degrees: Russia, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela.) Want the back of Obama's hand, and to be treated like shit? Be a friend of the USA. (Just the opposite treatment, to varying degrees: Israel, Germany, Colombia, Poland.)

It will get worse before it gets better. It is patterned in the DNA in this man to kowtow to those who do not deserve respect, and to contemptuously treat those who ought to be regarded as friends.

[QUOTE=Damman]This type of diplomacy and interactions rankles some. They like the hard ass approach. Cut 'em off. Ignore 'em. Give 'em the finger. But in today's world, charming a questionable leader to the point that they say "I want to be your friend" and smiling like a big ol' kid can give you leverage that can be exploited for your benefit. Not theirs. "Kill 'em with kindness" does work a sizable amount of time. We have everything to gain and nothing to loose. The World is changing.[/QUOTE]I understand the argument, but I don't believe it works. As it's been said (I believe by DeGaulle) Countries don't have friends, they have interests. Although, our new President seems to believe otherwise.

Much of this (in my view, mistaken) attitude is the basis of our President's belief in disarmament. And the history of disarmament attempts can be used to prove the uselessness of this attitude.

The Wall Street Journal had a very good editorial about the history of disarmament: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923509427103247.html#mod=djemEditorialPage[/url]

It's not about a 'hard-ass' approach vs. A charm offensive. It's about reality. And history. I'm very afraid that the President and his advisors believe they can ignore reality and get away with it. And that never works. As I said, Chavez is an anti-democratic thug. No matter what the United States does, I don't believe Chavez will ever be interested in stepping down. Based on his record, he'll continue to consolidate his power - by punishing dissenting views and nationalizing industries.

So we can smile and be friends with him - or recognize that we shouldn't be friends and push for real reforms in that country.

Same thing appies to Iran, North Korea and a bunch of other places around the world.

11 - 1 to the Braves.

It appears that the CIC's "daring and decisive" actions weren't exactly that. The following is from a maritime blog populated by current and ex-military personnel.

The following is a synopsis of what really took place. In the vernacular, BHO means Barrack Obama or President Pantywaist as posted below.

The truth behind Maersk Alabama?

Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:09:51 PM by mrmargaritaville.

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU / NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger.

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he'd had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U. S. Navy warship.

Kind of like a waterborne version of Bubba Clinton's Somali prosecution.

Spend: $10,000,000,000,000.00

Minus

Budget Cut: $100,000,000.00

Equals: Deficit Reduction (otherwise known as "[b][i]CHANGE![/b][/i]")

"Want to get the respect and attention of the United States? Be a thug, a bully, a tyrant. "

Hunt, you don't know my posts, but I'm a political independent, neither with nor against this administration. But, your statement here (I probably didn't get the litlte blue quote box around it properly, sorry) you sure you got a good historical footing on this? I'd like to hear your best arguements for this. I know some on the other side, like Vietnam and Iraq, for starters. Also, the current sentiment in Latin America, being a long-time-in-coming response to a lot of "thugishness" over the years down south of the border that I really don't see as having served us very well over the years.

Examples you want? Here they are:

Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro (x2), Kim Jong-Il, King Abdullah.

Do I have to stack up the dead bodies and political prisoners to convince you of these fellows' status?

[QUOTE=Sidney]Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million.

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.[/QUOTE]Sidney, sorry man, and ya knows I love ya, but I think correct facts are critical when talking about politics. There is a lot of false information out there that people bandy back and forth, and this email is one of them.

I got to looking at the numbers and I didn't remember that McCain had carried as much as was claimed in the email and went hunting for what the deal was:

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_deal_with_prof_joseph_olsons.html[/url]

Mongers,

Let's get one thing straight: Hugo Chavez is a demagogue and a complete buffoon who is engaging in policies that will lead to zero-development and ruin in Venezuela. He has made a living on the foreign policy stage pandering to the poorest Latin American countries that the USA has exploited and plundered over and over again. If the past governments of the USA really gave a shit about democracy and development in Latin America they would have done something other than support corrupt governments that gave away their countries resources, and guys like Chavez would never get elected.

When the neo-cons complain about Obama conducting cordial exchanges with heads of non-democratic states it makes me laugh. The neo-cons must be the last of a kind that actually believes the USA stands as a beacon of democracy in the world and has moral authority to tell other nations what to do. The majority of the citizens of the USA do not even believe this any longer; they know that the foreign policy of the USA has only been about money and "who gets what" for the past 100 years or more. The USA has never cared about democracy in any foreign state; the USA cares about which government of a foreign state is friendly and convenient to the economic interests of the USA and nothing more.

What Obama understands, and what the neo-cons never will, is that at this point, with zero credibility as a benevolent force in the region or anywhere else remaining, the USA needs to use soft power, diplomacy, and cooperation in order to better its relations with the other states of the Western Hemisphere and the world. The USA has failed to project its system upon many powerful and influencial states of the world and instead must now find ways to have a cooperative relationship with states and regimes that are philosophically, ideologically, and systematically different than the USA.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=El Queso]Sidney, sorry man, and ya knows I love ya, but I think correct facts are critical when talking about politics. There is a lot of false information out there that people bandy back and forth, and this email is one of them.

I got to looking at the numbers and I didn't remember that McCain had carried as much as was claimed in the email and went hunting for what the deal was:

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_deal_with_prof_joseph_olsons.html[/url][/QUOTE]You can't confuse him with the facts. Obama sucks and that's all that matters. Same with Quak Hunter, if the ROE's were "shoot when the hostages life was in "clear, extreme danger" then when he was in the water and the Cubbies were shooting at him his life would have been in "clear, extreme danger."

Monday morning quarterbacks.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

Let's get one thing straight: Hugo Chavez is a demagogue and a complete buffoon who is engaging in policies that will lead to zero-development and ruin in Venezuela. He has made a living on the foreign policy stage pandering to the poorest Latin American countries that the USA has exploited and plundered over and over again. If the past governments of the USA really gave a shit about democracy and development in Latin America they would have done something other than support corrupt governments that gave away their countries resources, and guys like Chavez would never get elected.

When the neo-cons complain about Obama conducting cordial exchanges with heads of non-democratic states it makes me laugh. The neo-cons must be the last of a kind that actually believes the USA stands as a beacon of democracy in the world and has moral authority to tell other nations what to do. The majority of the citizens of the USA do not even believe this any longer; they know that the foreign policy of the USA has only been about money and "who gets what" for the past 100 years or more. The USA has never cared about democracy in any foreign state; the USA cares about which government of a foreign state is friendly and convenient to the economic interests of the USA and nothing more.

What Obama understands, and what the neo-cons never will, is that at this point, with zero credibility as a benevolent force in the region or anywhere else remaining, the USA needs to use soft power, diplomacy, and cooperation in order to better its relations with the other states of the Western Hemisphere and the world. The USA has failed to project its system upon many powerful and influencial states of the world and instead must now find ways to have a cooperative relationship with states and regimes that are philosophically, ideologically, and systematically different than the USA.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Well said Rock Harders.

Exon

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Examples you want? Here they are:

Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro (x2) Kim Jong-Il, King Abdullah.

Do I have to stack up the dead bodies and political prisoners to convince you of these fellows' status?[/QUOTE]I mis-read your comment (too much whisky late at night, I guess. I thought you were talking about how to get the respect and attention FOR the United States, not OF the United States. My bad.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

Let's get one thing straight: Hugo Chavez is a demagogue and a complete buffoon who is engaging in policies that will lead to zero-development and ruin in Venezuela. He has made a living on the foreign policy stage pandering to the poorest Latin American countries that the USA has exploited and plundered over and over again.

The USA has never cared about democracy in any foreign state; the USA cares about which government of a foreign state is friendly and convenient to the economic interests of the USA and nothing more.[/QUOTE]100% agreement on these statement. The forces of the universe are now out of line.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]You can't confuse him with the facts. Obama sucks and that's all that matters. Same with Quak Hunter, if the ROE's were "shoot when the hostages life was in "clear, extreme danger" then when he was in the water and the Cubbies were shooting at him his life would have been in "clear, extreme danger."

Monday morning quarterbacks.[/QUOTE]Daddy, What facts of my post on the Pirates and the actions of the Navy SEALS were confusing? And since the epicenter of all Liberal rage is Based on Ronald Reagan, let me share a quote from Sir Ronnie the Great, "Facts are stubborn things". The facts of Obama's actions are there for all to see and for each person's interpretation. The left sure wanted to vilify GWB when he acted like a warrior. I just want those fuckers to like us again!

Boy that Monday Morning Quarterbacking does suck; I hate it now just like I did over the last eight years. And please look through my posts to find out where I have defended GWB in anything other than the prosecution of the War on Terrorism; the bullshit going back and forth with this "Neo-Con" this and "Neo-Con" that is just eight years of pent up liberal rage. I still want to know what Neo-Con means? I know it means Neo-Conservative but I am stumped on the application. Somehow I don't believe it is flattering.

I would like the O defenders to take a stand right now on this board and tell me the merits of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank and Obama and tell me where they feel our country will be in four years, not in the one or two years that we are in this fucking love fest. At the end of his first and only term we will re-visit those posts and I will issue a huge fucking mea culpa if the forecasts are anywhere near accurate. And I will tell you this fact, I am rooting for my country not against it.

And please, do NOT bring the Cubbies into this. Derek Lee and Alfonso Soriano would not shoot them from long range. They would have held their breath and swam up on them and cut their throats while Lou Pinella was directing ops.

Go Cubs, beat Pirates!

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]Daddy, What facts of my post on the Pirates and the actions of the Navy SEALS were confusing? And since the epicenter of all Liberal rage is Based on Ronald Reagan, let me share a quote, "Facts are stubborn things". The facts of Obama's actions are there for all to see and for each person's interpretation. The left sure wanted to vilify GWB when he acted like a warrior. I just want those fuckers to like us again!

Boy that Monday Morning Quarterbacking does suck; I hate it now just like I did over the last eight years. And please look through my posts to find out where I have defended GWB in anything other than the prosecution of the War on Terrorism; the bullshit going back and forth with this "Neo-Con" this and "Neo-Con" that is just eight years of pent up liberal rage. I still want to know what Neo-Con means? I know it means Neo-Conservative but I am stumped on the application. Somehow I don't believe it is flattering.

I would like the O defenders to take a stand right now on this board and tell me the merits of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank and Obama and tell me where they feel our country will be in four years, not in the one or two years that we are in this fucking love fest. At the end of his first and only term we will re-visit those posts and I will issue a huge fucking mea culpa if the forecasts are anywhere near accurate. And I will tell you this fact, I am rooting for my country not against it.

And please, do NOT bring the Cubbies into this. Derek Lee and Alfonso Soriano would not shoot them from long range. They would have held their breath and swam up on them and cut their throats while Lou Pinella was directing ops.

Go Cubs, beat Pirates![/QUOTE]Rock you should respond to paragraphs 2 and 3, you write about this better than I do.

Appologies to the Cubbies.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]....They know that the foreign policy of the USA has only been about money and "who gets what" for the past 100 years or more. The USA has never cared about democracy in any foreign state; the USA cares about which government of a foreign state is friendly and convenient to the economic interests of the USA and nothing more.[/QUOTE]In this perspective we are identical to every other government in the world.

So why is it that the neo-libs expect us to apologize for acting in our own self interests?

And given that [u]EVERY[/u] country makes their decisions based on their own self-interests (and not on who they [i]like[/i]), then what difference does it make if they like us?

The answer: It makes [u]NO[/u] difference if they like us or not, because they make decisions regarding their country based on their own self-interests.

Thanks,

Jackson

"would like the O defenders to take a stand right now on this board and tell me the merits of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank"

Quakhunter, with all due respect, change your nicotine patch.

Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank. Obama inherited these people. You will get no argument from me about these scalawags. Can we really include them in a conversation about Obama?

For Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank and please include Dodd, those scalawags allowed this financial and diplomatic nightmare to happen and now take a hypocritical position, my view. I honestly believe the powers to be (Democrats) believed they could walk all over Obama. His own party was attempting undermined him with their own agendas in the beginning. Gratefully, Obama did / will not let that happen.

We are four months into this Obama thing and it seems Obama is responsible for about everything that has transpired over the past twenty years. Without a doubt, the deficits and debt scares the living hell out of me, but they at least have a plan. It cannot fix itself. The insanity of twenty years of spending and crazy behavior cannot be undone in a week or two.

Wish this thread had not taken on such a personal note, but it seems it has. You know what they say about politics and religion.

Well said Jackson. Every country acts in its own self interest (I believe it is called foreign policy) those who do not perish. Does anyone really give a damn if N. Korea, Iran, ect "like" us. I doubt it. The last time we had a president who wanted to do the "right thing" we got in deep shit, I believe his name was Jimmy Carter. He should have stuck to peanut farming because he was a total loss as a president. If you remember we got old Jimmy after the Nixon / Ford thing and everyone wanted to feel "good" again by electing a good Christian. Same thing with the Carmel One promising everyone everything. Well we may need a Christian for a leader but in this world he better be an Old Testiment kind of guy.

My 2 cents.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Rock you should respond to paragraphs 2 and 3, you write about this better than I do.

Appologies to the Cubbies.[/QUOTE]Thanks Daddy. But surprisingly I really don't care what happens to the capitalist oppressors of the proletariat. They can drown in pools of their own blood.

But the Cubs represent goodness, virtue and happiness for millions. They're fucking losers, but lovable.

[QUOTE=Damman]"would like the O defenders to take a stand right now on this board and tell me the merits of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank"

Quakhunter, with all due respect, change your nicotine patch.

Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank. Obama inherited these people. You will get no argument from me about these scalawags. Can we really include them in a conversation about Obama?[/QUOTE]Bullshit. Where does O'Bama differ on policy from these people? Who got him elected? Who are the ones acting like spoiled kids after Mommy and Daddy get divorced and the trust fund is released? The answer is yes, we can include them in a conversation about O'Bama. The same way the people who linked Bush with Cheney, Rove, DeLay, Limbaugh, Hannity with every breath. The only thing he inherited is the Nine Justices of the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE=Damman]We are four months into this Obama thing and it seems Obama is responsible for about everything that has transpired over the past twenty years. Without a doubt, the deficits and debt scares the living hell out of me, but they at least have a plan. It cannot fix itself. The insanity of twenty years of spending and crazy behavior cannot be undone in a week or two.[/QUOTE]No he is just responsible for the last hundred days. That includes a budget deficit forecasted to be a possible 80%+ of GDP (by the OMB's own forecast) from the current level of app. 39% GDP. (I may be off on that number) This is after campaigning against deficits and for the future of our children.

DM, there is no Nicotine patch; Bubba Clinton saved me from "Big Tobacco" and I don't smoke. Though I am down with the daily hummer in the office from fat girls like Bill, but I always make sure I clean up the evidence.

Personally, I think that he can not say that he is not responsible for what went on before he came into office as he was a sitting senator. He is just finding that he is now sitting in an office where he has to do more than vote "present".

People are finding that he is nothing more than an empty suit that will say whatever he thinks the people want to hear. And the people that voted for him will believe him because "Barry means well." But the reality is that being someone is more than the words that you speak.

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]

No he is just responsible for the last hundred days. That includes a budget deficit forecasted to be a possible 80%+ of GDP (by the OMB's own forecast) from the current level of app. 39% GDP. (I may be off on that number) This is after campaigning against deficits and for the future of our children. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Well said Jackson. Every country acts in its own self interest (I believe it is called foreign policy) those who do not perish. Does anyone really give a damn if N. Korea, Iran, ect "like" us. I doubt it. The last time we had a president who wanted to do the "right thing" we got in deep shit, I believe his name was Jimmy Carter. He should have stuck to peanut farming because he was a total loss as a president. If you remember we got old Jimmy after the Nixon / Ford thing and everyone wanted to feel "good" again by electing a good Christian. Same thing with the Carmel One promising everyone everything. Well we may need a Christian for a leader but in this world he better be an Old Testiment kind of guy.

My 2 cents.[/QUOTE]Just to clarify, does that mean that even when we are "wrong", we are still "right".

Well since the last 100 plus days or so it's become more of a challenge to day trade. DNDN was a good bump. Although a risky gamble. Hey, more Federal funding for stem cell research. Can't be all bad. In to some AIG as the Fed has a 18% interest and I can't see them giving away that much to let it all go now? Down to the last 150 billion of TARP money.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The neo-cons must be the last of a kind that actually believes the USA stands as a beacon of democracy in the world and has moral authority to tell other nations what to do. The majority of the citizens of the USA do not even believe this any longer; they know that the foreign policy of the USA has only been about money and "who gets what" for the past 100 years or more. The USA has never cared about democracy in any foreign state; the USA cares about which government of a foreign state is friendly and convenient to the economic interests of the USA and nothing more.

What Obama understands, and what the neo-cons never will, is that at this point, with zero credibility as a benevolent force in the region or anywhere else remaining, the USA needs to use soft power, diplomacy, and cooperation in order to better its relations with the other states of the Western Hemisphere and the world. The USA has failed to project its system upon many powerful and influencial states of the world and instead must now find ways to have a cooperative relationship with states and regimes that are philosophically, ideologically, and systematically different than the USA.

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Respectfully disagree.

First off, I don't think it's just misguided neo-cons who believe the US should work towards human rights in abusive societies. Our dear President just signed (I believe) the Cuban bill entitled: "Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba" - which by the way, will do nothing to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. Of course he may just choose the titles to fool those stupid neo-cons.

Secondly, while I agree with the other posters that countries have 'interests', I think one guiding interest of the US should be to promote freedom and human rights in other countries. Call me idealistic or stupid if you will, but I believe that those values lead to long term global peace and stability - which should be the goal.

Perhaps soft power is the way to do this - but I'd be curious to see an example of where soft power actually worked in changing a foreign country's policies.

[QUOTE=Paul VJK]Our dear President just signed (I believe) the Cuban bill entitled: "Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba" - which by the way, will do nothing to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. Of course he may just choose the titles to fool those stupid neo-cons.[/QUOTE]President Quakhunter just signed his own "Promoting free travel to Cuba for Mongers to stimulate hookers" bill. Which WILL stimulate hookers and, most importantly, El Presidente Quakhunter.

Viva la Prostitucion!

Black Shirt and Paul VJK:

No it does not mean when we are "wrong" we are still "right" since that is a matter of your perspective and value set (something "countries" don't have) it means we do what is in the best interest of the United States. If that permits us to push the ideals of "democracy" and "human rights" from OUR PROSPECTIVE that is fine, but remember is from OUR PROSPECTIVE which is a prospective not shared by others in the world. The United States has to survive as a country to do this so that brings us back to self interest to survive and not perish as a country.

News Flash, former Cuban president Fidel Castro has just published a condemnation of the Carmel One's MISUNDERSTANDING of President Raoul Castro's statements regarding Cuban officials being ready to sit and talk about "everything", Raoul meant he will talk about our problems since Cuba does not have any. Fidel also stated they were not going to reduce the 10% fee they charge for funds transfers from the United States to Cuba as it is fair since the US is the repressor of Cuba due to the current embargo. As far as releasing political prisoners, they don't have any political prisoners only criminals and they will remain in jail where they belong.

Well so much for "feel good" diplomacy

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Black Shirt and Paul VJK:

News Flash, former Cuban president Fidel Castro has just published a condemnation of the Carmel One's MISUNDERSTANDING of President Raoul Castro's statements regarding Cuban officials being ready to sit and talk about "everything", Raoul meant he will talk about our problems since Cuba does not have any. Fidel also stated they were not going to reduce the 10% fee they charge for funds transfers from the United States to Cuba as it is fair since the US is the repressor of Cuba due to the current embargo. As far as releasing political prisoners, they don't have any political prisoners only criminals and they will remain in jail where they belong.

Well so much for "feel good" diplomacy[/QUOTE]As the saying goes: "Old dog doesn't learn new tricks". And as Exon would say: "The C. sucker".

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]President Quakhunter just signed his own "Promoting free travel to Cuba for Mongers to stimulate hookers" bill. Which WILL stimulate hookers and, most importantly, El Presidente Quakhunter.

Viva la Prostitucion![/QUOTE]The next time we are in BsAs at the same time your first beer is on me. Few people on this forum are able to argue ideas without making them personal and respecting the right of the person you disagree with to believe as they do. In addition I respect how you discuss differing political views while keeping them in perspective and remember there are many things in life MUCH more important.

Viva la Prostitucion!

[QUOTE=Whiskas]As the saying goes: "Old dog doesn't learn new tricks". And as Exon would say: "The C. Sucker".[/QUOTE]If you're going to quote him it has to be accurate.

It's "cok suker" "muther fuker" or "cok suking muther fuker"