USA & World Economics

[B][size=+1]Harry Reid's Senate Blockade[/size]
A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body. [/B]

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439711]These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]May 13, 2014 7:03 p. m. ET

The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.

The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. [highlight] This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them. [/highlight]

[url]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852 [/url][/QUOTE]
Hey BigBossMan, who do you call to cut a deal with Democrats?

[QUOTE][B]GOP rep. : House passed a dozen VA reform bills that are DOA in Senate[/b]
May 23, 2014
While the president pounds his fist and proclaims hes madder than hell over the Veterans Affairs scandal and then just asks for more time to review and investigate, House Republicans are getting pretty tired of the do-nothing Senate and a president who claims to only learn about problems in his administration on cable news.

Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House and she told (Larry O'Connor) Wednesday on WMAL radio in Washington, D. C., that the House has passed a dozen bills for reform of the VA and they are collecting dust on (Sen.) Harry Reids desk:

OCONNOR: Are your colleagues in the House doing something about this decades-old problem so we can get something done for the vets?

REP WALORSKI: In the past 18 months, since Ive been a member of Congress, weve passed, on the House floor, at least 12 reform VA bills. Mandating the VA to fix different things, mandating the VA to report different things, mandating them to fix their website, [highlight]bipartisan bills that went to the Senate, and they are DOA on the Senate side[/highlight]

The Indiana freshman went on to say, We can pass bills all day long here on the House side, but if the Senate doesn't get in gear and be held responsible and be held accountable for these veterans, its not going to work. These things have been dead on arrival. Harry Reid has not moved one of these bills.

[highlight]So when you hear the president and the Democrats in Congress lament the do nothing Congress and proclaim their year of action in which President Obama will act if Congress fails to act, take note that Harry Reid has not brought any of the House VA reform bills to the Senate floor for consideration while veterans are dying as they wait for care. [/highlight][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/23/gop-rep-house-passed-a-dozen-va-reform-bills-that-are-doa-in-senate-120812[/url]

Twelve VA reform bills that Reid is blocking, really BigBossMan, really?

John Boehner may be a left leaning RINO but he still gets bills passed.

Thanks for the research Punter, as I pointed out and BBM just ignored, Obama is not reaching out to anyone. He is happy with his phone, executive fiat and Harry plugging up the Senate.

In a recent interview Obama said he would no longer wish to be president without the Senate under Democratic control. A very telling statement considering your post wouldn't you say Punter?

That said, Obama seems to be doing his best to lose the Senate as well with the bungled prisoner swap of the Taliban Dream Team and his new War on Coal. Can any of our liberal/progressive friends name a single Democrat running in 2014 that these two blunders have helped in their re-election bids?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439731]Thanks for the research Punter, as I pointed out and BBM just ignored, Obama is not reaching out to anyone. He is happy with his phone, executive fiat and Harry plugging up the Senate.

In a recent interview Obama said he would no longer wish to be president without the Senate under Democratic control. A very telling statement considering your post wouldn't you say Punter?

That said, Obama seems to be doing his best to lose the Senate as well with the bungled prisoner swap of the Taliban Dream Team and his new War on Coal. Can any of our liberal/progressive friends name a single Democrat running in 2014 that these two blunders have helped in their re-election bids?[/QUOTE]It's unbelievable that a sitting President would make such a remark. I was unaware of Obamas remark until now, but coupled with the links in my previous post it's very revealing indeed. Without Harry Reid running blocker Obama would have to use that Infamous pen of his for vetoes, hence exposing his true agendas and lessening his ability to point blame at others.

I know Obama promised to shutdown Guantanamo but I didn't know he was going to do it by letting all the prisoners go free. I wish he would use some of those great negotiating skills with Mexico, you know maybe trade 5 or 10 undocumented Democrats for one imprisoned U.S. Marine. They could even let them keep the guns the guy had, oh but wait they may not want those because they still have all the missing "Fast and Furious" guns.

I don't really mean to belittle the prisoner exchange because it's a very serious matter, and I keep waiting for them to give us some serious justification for such an exchange. Apparently they received absolutely no assurances of any kind that these people would not return to their terrorist activities.

This exchange has done extreme damage to the credibility of the United States Government. But can you imagine the blowback to this administration and the Democrat party [STRIKE]if these[/STRIKE] when these same terrorist are found responsible for more deaths in the future? What the hell was they thinking?

I was watching the State Department news briefing by the blond we have seen over and over on the Benghazi tragedy and was astounded to hear her say the troops who served with the POW / deserter were not in a position to judge if he went AWOL or to judge his actions before, during or after, even though they were there serving with him. When pressed by a non-Fox reporter about that statement, she clearly stated she was in a better position to judge those actions than his fellow soldiers!

Benghazi 2. 0.

Of course, if Bergdahl had never been freed, Republicans would have accused Obama of turning his back on an American POW. We can also be sure that if there is a future terrorist attack on the US, Republicans will immediately claim or suggest the freed Taliban members were involved. And if there is no such evidence, they will keep suggesting it and saying "we don't have all the facts".

It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.

In other news, Gallup today reported that the US Job Creation Index hit a new high.
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/170831/job-creation-index-hits-new-high.aspx[/URL]

[QUOTE]Allen West, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who saw action in Iraq, first addressed the circumstances surrounding Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

He couldnt recall a single instance where enemy combatants captured and held an American POW for any significant length of time; they were typically shot in the back of the head, or ritually beheaded and gutted.

So why did they keep Bowe Bergdahl for five years? West asked.[snipe][/QUOTE]Maybe Esten could answer that question for us.

On West blog he also said.

[QUOTE]
Why would the United States acquiesce to the demands of a non-state, non-uniform terrorist organization the Taliban? The Taliban is our enemy and it is not a nation-state with whom we should enter into negotiations. There are some 141 detainees at GITMO. The five released were senior Taliban officials, basically members of Mullah Omars inner circle. If we wanted to release detainees in exchange for Bergdahl, there were many others to choose from. Why these?

The rate of recidivism for GITMO released detainees has gone from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 and why would we think a one-year travel ban out of Qatar will be respected, or even make a difference with todays modern communications technology? [highlight]Even Obama has now stated they may just return to terrorist activity.[/highlight]

Obamas breaking of the law in this case presents serious national security concerns for all Americans. This is aiding and abetting the enemy, which goes along with the collusion of this administration with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations and supplying weapons and arms to Islamists.

Obama just released the leadership of a terrorist organization, and what did we get in return? A deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments which it seems that Susan Rice, our esteemed National Security Advisor, didnt even realize his heinous actions or maybe as usual she just lied about it again. Bergdahl served the United States with honor and distinction? Lets not send Susan Rice out ever again.

To hear Obama state that no American should be left behind has he forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi? How about leaving behind American veterans to die? [snip][/QUOTE]"Serious national security concerns for all Americans" and I'd say especially those of us that travel internationally. West ask hard questions and spoke strong words that are hard to argue with, unless of course you put politics above the safety of the American people.

[QUOTE=Esten;439754]Of course, if Bergdahl had never been freed, Republicans would have accused Obama of turning his back on an American POW. We can also be sure that if there is a future terrorist attack on the US, Republicans will immediately claim or suggest the freed Taliban members were involved. And if there is no such evidence, they will keep suggesting it and saying "we don't have all the facts".

It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.

In other news, Gallup today reported that the US Job Creation Index hit a new high.
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/170831/job-creation-index-hits-new-high.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]Esten, only you could come up with such unbelievable crapola! Obama's own party was against releasing the GTMO prisoners in exchange for Bergdahl. Even today his own party rails against Obama for violating the law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before the release as well as the prisoner swap itself.

I am to assume you are like the State Department Blond who asserts she knows better than the troops who served with Bergdahl? According to reports Special Ops refused to launch a mission and endanger personnel for a deserter. Other revelations from those who served with Bergdahl are even more damming. The general consensus at Bagram according to a captain in the brigade signal unit there was disbelief. Among the troops there with multiple tours the Taliban don't take prisoners and keep them alive (see my earlier post).

Everything Obama has told the American people about this has been a lie from imminent harm to Bergdahl to the prisoners were under supervision in Qatar.

Even for you Esten, this is a new low.

[QUOTE=Esten;439754]It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.[/QUOTE]"It's abundantly clear that Democrats have an unbalanced and emotional bias in favor of big government and President Obama, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility" makes more sense to me.

[QUOTE=Punter127;439756]On West blog he also said.[/QUOTE]Please, Allen West is a vitriolic buffoon who was voted out of office after one term. He has a long history of extreme, outlandish statements to get media attention, almost as bad as Michele Malkin. Quoting him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'd be more inclined to believe a Fox News panelist like Charles Krauthammer. Who very interestingly actually supports Obama's decision on the freed POW.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439758]"It's abundantly clear that Democrats have an unbalanced and emotional bias in favor of big government and President Obama, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility" makes more sense to me.[/QUOTE]Very original, but in recent years facts have supported Democrats much more than they have Republicans. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the birther nonsense, the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Republicans is emotional manipulation, which works well on the LIV.

Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;439760]Please, Allen West is a vitriolic buffoon who was voted out of office after one term. He has a long history of extreme, outlandish statements to get media attention, almost as bad as Michele Malkin. Quoting him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'd be more inclined to believe a Fox News panelist like Charles Krauthammer. Who very interestingly actually supports Obama's decision on the freed POW.[/QUOTE]When Esten starts talking about Fox News and quoting Charles Krauthammer without saying anything derogatory you know he's desperate and in panic mold. It's very revealing that he attacked Lieutenant Colonel West, but did not address his message, and he failed to mention that Krauthammer also said "court-martial him to the fullest extent for desertion".

[B]"Obama Advisers Repeatedly Told President Not to Deal"[/B]

"President Barack Obama was repeatedly advised by several of the nation's top military and intelligence officials not to engage in the prisoner swap to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, which freed five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo prison, according to reports."

[QUOTE] When the White House first began considering an exchange in 2011 and 2012, James Clapper, then director of National Intelligence, flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, according to The Daily Beast. [snip]

Leon Panetta, former defense secretary and CIA director, also confirmed Wednesday that he was opposed to a possible Bergdahl prisoner swap during his tenure and questioned the deal Obama reached last week.

Panetta recalled that at the time discussions of a Bergdahl prisoner swap took place, "I said, 'Wait, I have an obligation under the law. If I send prisoners from Guantanamo, they have to guarantee they don't go back to the battlefield.' I had serious concerns."

He added he "just assumed it was never going to happen."

Clapper had a similar rationale, according to the Beast, and said the risk was too high that the Taliban leaders would return to the battlefield.
Intelligence and defense officials told the Beast that the deal that was arranged was hastily done, and in a manner that suggested it was designed to squelch dissent and impose the will of the White House.

[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-prisoners/2014/06/05/id/575362/ [/URL] [/QUOTE]Maybe those guys are " vitriolic buffoons" as well, who knows?

"The Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (no pun intended), that Tea Party favorite, Dianne Feinstein of California, was down right angry."

[QUOTE=DianneFeinstein]I think that they expected everybody just to fall in line, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of those who received a personal apology from a senior White House aide.

Feinstein said the White House failed to anticipate that bypassing Congress would provoke anger on both sides of the aisle. The discovery that the five Afghans were top-ranking Taliban commanders has fueled concerns that the trade may endanger U.S. security.

This is an issue that certainly those of us on the Intelligence Committee care a great deal about, Feinstein said. Because we believe that there is potential danger from certain of these five people.[/QUOTE]She must have joined "The Party of No", next thing you know she'll want a gun permit.

Here's what Rusty Bradley had to say, maybe you'd like to spit in his face as well.

[QUOTE]Little Doubt Bergdahl Is a Deserter.

The former commander of U.S. Special Forces in Southern Afghanistan believes there is zero doubt just-freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was under his command, is guilty of being a deserter. [snip]

Bradley said he "absolutely'' expects the five freed terrorists to once again fight American forces.

"American coalition forces members will be killed when these guys return back to the battlefield,'' he said.

[highlight]"[And] this affects every civilian who travels to a foreign country, especially where there are terrorist organizations operating. They now have open game [/highlight]

"In my opinion, the president and the administration does not understand the challenges that this decision has left us with, and it's going to far exceed this presidency and our generations because now the precedence has been set. There's no turning back on it It literally, it leaves me shaking my head.'' [snip]

[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Special-Forces-Bergdahl-Afghanistan/2014/06/05/id/575432/[/URL]
[/QUOTE]The evidence seems to be pouring in on Bergdahl and I tend to believe the guys that were on the ground with him. But I'm ok with letting the military deal with him as long as they're allowed to handle it.

What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.

When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.

Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.

Some people on the left and many on the right are upset. It happens with every single issue now. Especially anything Obama does but in the end, he is the president and Commander in Chief. So if some people are against a course of action, Obama still has the authority to do as he pleases. Every other president has done the same. They are not obligated to follow anyone's advise and there were people who did advise him to make the deal as well as those who were against it. Some people advised Bush against going into Iraq but he did it anyway. Becase he was not bounded by their advise.

The right needs to stop with yelling impeach him every time Obama takes action they don't like. Conservatives Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes and Lindsey Graham, all long time Obama bashers have all said that the president had the authority do make the deal and did not break the law. Krauthammer went even further by saying that these deals/negotiations are always once sided regardless of who is the President. Primarily because the US is a civilized country dealing with barbaric thugs. Former Bush adviser John Bellinger said Obama made the right decision and that Bush would have done the same thing as Obama and GOP Congressman Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) has now come out and criticize his own party for their response to this deal saying there is precedent for what Obama did.

[URL]http://ezkool.com/2014/06/former-bush-official-on-fox-obama-did-the-right-thing-to-free-sgt-bergdahl[/URL]

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAUI_xBtxfY[/URL]

The State department/Pentagon spokesperson most certainly will know if a soldier is a deserter because they have access to the soldier's Official Military Personnel File. The soldiers on the ground do not. There may or may not be extenuating circumstances but we will never know until the military leadership tells us what his legal status is. To change soldier's duty status from AWOL to "deserter" or DFR is a legal classification and can be made only by a unit commander. That classification could then be challenged in a military court and ultimately decided by a military judge. Innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes but in this case some are willing to dismiss that to make their point.

Some are saying Bergdahl is only a lowly Sergeant who was traded for five top terrorist so it was a terrible deal. The question I have for them is if Bergdahl was their son or father, or family member, would it be ok to leave him behind because he is only a Sergeant or would you give your blessings on a deal to bring him home? We all know the answer to that question.

Politics is now only a game and this issue is about politics. Look at how many talking points are being slung around. Conservatives voters will continue to hate Obama and bash him at very turn while liberals adore him and wish he could stay on longer. No one wins this game but this issue is done, bring on the next one so we can hear more talking points while very little of anything gets done.

[QUOTE=Esten;439761]Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/[/URL][/QUOTE]Voters like whoever promises them the most free money, period.

If the Dems were somehow prohibited from creating and operating government programs that give away free money, they'd never win another election.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the Republicans will never be able to "out promise" the Democrats.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Punter127;439767]What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.

When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.

Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.[/QUOTE]As usual, you are on auto-pilot when it comes to Obama.

The home grown killing rampages around the country have me far more worried.

[QUOTE=Esten;439761]Very original, but in recent years facts have supported Democrats much more than they have Republicans. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the birther nonsense, the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Republicans is emotional manipulation, which works well on the LIV.

Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/[/URL][/QUOTE][I]In recent years facts have supported Republicans much more than they have Democrats. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the IRS scandal, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Democrats is flat out lying, which works well on the LIV.

Male voters like Republicans better than Democrats for virtually every type of masturbatory fantasy. [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=728_1333754391&comments=1[/url] [/I]

OK, it's not original, but you're pretty good with sentence structure. Why reinvent the wheel.

Damn, I love that photo of Ann Coulter, with her Colt M1911 semi-automatic pistol sighted right on some poor bastard Democrat. (jk)

[QUOTE=Punter127;439767]What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.

When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.

Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.[/QUOTE]The Taliban are not terrorists, they're just religious nuts who want to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan. They're cut from the same cloth as the Christian nuts in the USA. Sure, they let Osama set up a training camp in Afghanistan but they weren't really all that good buddies. It was the United States that refused to negotiate with Mullah omar when he offered to expel Osama.

It's an American issue alright. Americans started the war, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what strategic interest that's supposed to serve.

The Taliban ain't doing nothin that anybody else wouldn't do when somebody invades their country. They're not terrorists, they're just fighting to have their country back.

Meanwhile, the real terrorists, Al Queda, seem more concerned with blowing up other Muslims. At any rate, the chaos that the USA has unleashed in Iraq, Libya, you name it just gives them all sorts of opportunities to exploit. Ah well, at least we all know now that some Arabs are Sunnis and some Shiites.

By the way, Saddam Hussein had no great love for Al Queda either. Should have just left him in power. Like George Bush senior did after the Gulf War.

Seems nobody remembers Vietnam. Nobody learned a lesson from that? A lot of blood shed on all sides and money right down the toilet, a war that destablized the whole region (remember Pol Pot? And for what?

Freedom and Democracy, I forgot.

[QUOTE=Rockin Bob;439781]The Taliban are not terrorists, they're just religious nuts who want to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan. They're cut from the same cloth as the Christian nuts in the USA. Sure, they let Osama set up a training camp in Afghanistan but they weren't really all that good buddies. It was the United States that refused to negotiate with Mullah omar when he offered to expel Osama....The Taliban ain't doing nothin that anybody else wouldn't do when somebody invades their country. They're not terrorists, they're just fighting to have their country back.[/QUOTE]

Bob, The Taliban were a project of the Pakistani intelligence service / army and Saudi money that got out of control. They were supported only by part of the Pashtun population. They fought with and persecuted other ethnic groups, and even other Pashtuns. Characterizing them as freedom fighters fighting off foreigners invading their country doesn't make sense. Comparing them to American Christian fundamentalists is crazy. The Taliban systematically massacred and starved people. They sold women into sex slavery, and beat, suppressed and stoned them.

However, while I usually believe Punter's analysis is spot on, my position on USA involvement in Afghanistan is probably closer to yours than his. We should have done like Bush Senior did in Iraq. Force them to turn over Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, decimate Al Qaeda's bases, and then leave. Instead, Bush Jr. And Obama stayed on and tried to nation build. This has resulted in loss of life, goodwill, and lots of the taxpayers' hard earned money.

What I don't understand is why Democrats with similar views to mine continue to defend Obama on his policies in Afghanistan. Why have we been there for 12 years now? MANY more Americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama's watch than Bush's. Democrats seem to mindlessly support their man, no matter what his positions. While Obama is not as corrupt as Edwin Edwards, the prominent Louisiana Democrat governor who was re-elected even though everyone knew he was crooked, there's an analogy. As long as you buy off people with free money, they're going to vote for you unless you're caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Your abilities, common sense and position on the issues won't matter, as your supporters will brainwash themselves to believe you're always right.

[QUOTE=Punter127;439767]When Esten starts talking about Fox News and quoting Charles Krauthammer without saying anything derogatory you know he's desperate and in panic mold. It's very revealing that he attacked Lieutenant Colonel West, but did not address his message, and he failed to mention that Krauthammer also said "court-martial him to the fullest extent for desertion". [/QUOTE]Panic mold, that sounds scary. Guiliani said Dems were panicking too, and it was just as laughable with him as with you.

There are obviously many elements to this story, but Obama usually has pretty good judgement (not perfect), and he knows far more about this situation than the right wing armchair quarterbackers, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As you may have noticed, I haven't been strongly supporting or condemning the action taken. I agree the military should get the facts and deal with Bergdahl accordingly.

The latest information indicates Bergdahl may have been killed if there was any leak of the deal. Obama probably trusted Feinstein, but he would have had to inform Chambliss as well (or there would have been another controversy), and Obama probably didn't trust the Republican to keep it mum. That's my take.

[QUOTE]What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.

When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.

Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.[/QUOTE]An American issue, riiighhht, that's why you're posting far-right negative articles from Allen West and Newsmax. BTW, Newsmax is not a reliable news source.

There are probably hundreds if not thousands of wannabe terrorists out there, I doubt five more really changes the equation. BTW, another reason I'll trust Obama is there is probably a backstory here, an assessment that some limited agreement with the Taliban, even giving them some limited "win" in the swap, is going to diffuse some tension and create a better environment for peace talks in Afghanistan.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439778]As usual, you are on auto-pilot when it comes to Obama.

The home grown killing rampages around the country have me far more worried.[/QUOTE]Americans are FAR more likely to get killed by an American with a gun, than by the Taliban 5.

Stay safe Punter.

[QUOTE=Esten;439792]Americans are FAR more likely to get killed by an American with a gun, than by the Taliban 5.

Stay safe Punter.[/QUOTE]Perhaps your statement is true if you're talking about the average Joe and you're limiting it to these five, but did you forget that American servicemen are also Americans?

The problem is the message sent out by this swap is far reaching and encourages terrorist groups world wide. Lets not forget terrorist killed nearly 3000 people in one fell swoop on 9-11. What American with a gun compares with that?

Do you or "ol Rev" really want to open the gun debate again? I suspect not and I'm fairly sure the other readers don't want it either, but if you insist I'm available.

BTW as I've told you before I will not be dictated to on what news outlets I watch or read, and that also applies to who I quote. Not that I have to justify anything to you, but I quoted Col. West because of his military experience and I only post his statements that I agreed with or seemed logical. Just for the record I do NOT support any attempt to impeach Obama, at least not at this time.

Oh rest assured, I know very well how to take care of myself, but deals like this swap make it harder and harder to stay safe. Anybody that thinks Americans traveling abroad are not more of a target now is kidding himself or in some cases just blowing smoke. IMHO.

Note to "ol Rev"; I'm not on auto anything, I view Obama just like I view Col. West which is on a issue by issue bases, if I agree with them I say so, if I don't agree I say that as well. You should give it a try it gives one a real sense of freedom and is much better than being an ass sniffing, boot licking lap dog. (that's just an expression...)

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439789]Bob, The Taliban were a project of the Pakistani intelligence service / army and Saudi money that got out of control. They were supported only by part of the Pashtun population. They fought with and persecuted other ethnic groups, and even other Pashtuns. Characterizing them as freedom fighters fighting off foreigners invading their country doesn't make sense. Comparing them to American Christian fundamentalists is crazy. The Taliban systematically massacred and starved people. They sold women into sex slavery, and beat, suppressed and stoned them.[/QUOTE]Wow talk about being spot on, I totally agree. I'm also sure Bobs' remarks about the Taliban and Christians was offensive to both groups. Perhaps he should consider some sensitivity training. You know the goal of sensitivity training is to make people more aware of their own prejudices and more sensitive to others. Maybe ElAlamoPalermo and "ol Rev" could tag along as well, I think we can all agree they need it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439789]However, while I usually believe Punter's analysis is spot on, my position on USA involvement in Afghanistan is probably closer to yours than his. We should have done like Bush Senior did in Iraq. Force them to turn over Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, decimate Al Qaeda's bases, and then leave. Instead, Bush Jr. And Obama stayed on and tried to nation build. This has resulted in loss of life, goodwill, and lots of the taxpayers' hard earned money. and for Bob to play down the Al Qaeda[/QUOTE]Thanks Tiny, but I think we're on the same page here. I believe exactly as you do, and the time for us to leave Afghanistan has long since come and gone.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439789]What I don't understand is why Democrats with similar views to mine continue to defend Obama on his policies in Afghanistan. Why have we been there for 12 years now? MANY more Americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama's watch than Bush's. Democrats seem to mindlessly support their man, no matter what his positions. While Obama is not as corrupt as Edwin Edwards, the prominent Louisiana Democrat governor who was re-elected even though everyone knew he was crooked, there's an analogy. As long as you buy off people with free money, they're going to vote for you unless you're caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Your abilities, common sense and position on the issues won't matter, as your supporters will brainwash themselves to believe you're always right.[/QUOTE]Hear Hear! Well said.

[QUOTE=Punter127;439797] You should give it a try it gives one a real sense of freedom and is much better than being an ass sniffing, boot licking lap dog. (that's just an expression...)[/QUOTE]You have this great gift of such expressive comebacks. Such a great Texan tradition. That is why I enjoy you so much.

[b]LOL[/b]
[QUOTE=RevBS;439799]You have this great gift of such expressive comebacks. Such a great Texan tradition. That is why I enjoy you so much.[/QUOTE]Thanks, it's almost wizard like, isn't it? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439789]Bob, The Taliban were a project of the Pakistani intelligence service / army and Saudi money that got out of control. They were supported only by part of the Pashtun population. They fought with and persecuted other ethnic groups, and even other Pashtuns. Characterizing them as freedom fighters fighting off foreigners invading their country doesn't make sense. Comparing them to American Christian fundamentalists is crazy. The Taliban systematically massacred and starved people. They sold women into sex slavery, and beat, suppressed and stoned them.
[/QUOTE]Not good people the Taliban! The airport attack yesterday is just one more example of their tactics.

My real point is that there is all sorts of turmoil in the Middle East and for the United States to get involved in any of it is just plain stupid and counterproductive. Let the Arabs do their thing. Leave them alone and they will work out a solution. Which seems to be being ruled by a ruthless dictator who keeps a lid on everything. I don't know, I don't care, it's their problem.

It's Chinatown, Jake. Do as little as possible because whatever you do just makes things worse.

Afghanistan. How'd that work out for the Soviet Union? And now here the USA is in decade two of this war. Is there some sort of mission to accomplish? I mean, Hitler needed three weeks to do in Poland, and had a good chunk of Europe under control in a year or two. We have the most powerful military in the world. Can somebody define a clear objective, accomplish it, and leave?

As for my comparison of the Taliban with the Christians, today I read that a recent Gallup poll showed 42% of Americans believe "God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago. " At least as far as idiocy goes, we're right up there with the Taliban.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/world/europe/despite-high-unemployment-portugal-looks-far-afield-for-workers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=s[/URL]

So the Thais, amongst others, are happy to pick up. the slack. Not unlike the migrant farm workers in America. But the pay with overtime is somewhat misleading, grossing around $1,440 a month. Right now, a good maid in Bangkok runs around $1,000-1,200 and even more if they have some nursing skills/speaks English, etc plus free food & lodgings.

[QUOTE=RevBS;440180][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/world/europe/despite-high-unemployment-portugal-looks-far-afield-for-workers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=s[/URL]

So the Thais, amongst others, are happy to pick up. the slack. Not unlike the migrant farm workers in America. But the pay with overtime is somewhat misleading, grossing around $1,440 a month. Right now, a good maid in Bangkok runs around $1,000-1,200 and even more if they have some nursing skills/speaks English, etc plus free food & lodgings.[/QUOTE]A good maid makes around 12,000 baht, equivalent to about 400 dollars. So yeah, big difference, that $1,440 that they earn in Portugal.

For years, I was kind of hesitant about proclaiming my love of doing nothing to others. Even as a early riser, 3 or 4 am, it seems that the hours could fly by before it is 10 or 11 am. Not exactly nothing, I listen to music or read, do some correspondence, pay some bills, even doze here and there, all in bed. Accompany by coffee and a variety of breakfast stuff. Well, I do have tennis most mornings, so I saddled the horse around 7. 30 and play till 10 and then shoot the breeze and lunch after that. And then more of the same in the afternoon because of my aching muscles, with a massage session here and there. So was happy to receive this validation from Forbes on my proclivity.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2014/07/01/the-importance-of-doing-nothing/2/[/URL]

Yes, I know what they are suggesting is not quite the same thing. But I do know that the American frazzled lifestyle is not only unhealthy, it is a killer especially of relationships & family life. The USA did not evolve into the greatest economy in the world with lazy / dreamy people, but today, the endless need of buying and consuming in terms of self-indulgence and status will only end in a trail of self destruction.

Disclaimer: It does not mean that I'm more happy or successful than you are.

[URL]http://dianefrancis.com/new-york-post-chinese-real-estate-invasion/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.nick-folkes.com/2014/04/16/is-the-asian-invasion-real/[/URL]

As China undergoes new political & economic reforms, the miracle Chinese wealth class are rethinking their investment & relocation strategies. Ah so, perhaps now I can eat at the neighborhood noodle & dumpling shop instead of the hamburger joint?

[QUOTE=RevBS;440317]...the endless need of buying and consuming in terms of self-indulgence and status will only end in a trail of self destruction.[/QUOTE]This sounds like something right out of the Communist Manifesto.

However, it is in fact bullshit.

The reality is that humans like to surround themselves with physical things that add to their comfort and otherwise enrich their lives, including houses in which to live comfortably, cars to propel them about the surface of the planet, clothing to protect them from the elements, food to provide nutrition, electronics to communicate with the other humans and to deliver entertainment, etc., etc., etc., the accumulation of which will NOT "[I]end in a trail of self destruction[/I]".

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson;440486]This sounds like something right out of the Communist Manifesto.

However, it is in fact bullshit.

The reality is that humans like to surround themselves with physical things that add to their comfort and otherwise enrich their lives, including houses in which to live comfortably, cars to propel them about the surface of the planet, clothing to protect them from the elements, food to provide nutrition, electronics to communicate with the other humans and to deliver entertainment, etc., etc., etc., the accumulation of which will NOT "[I]end in a trail of self destruction[/I]".

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE][URL]http://business.financialpost.com/2013/07/16/why-money-issues-still-ruin-marriages/[/URL]

Everybody wants to live well, everybody wants to provide for their family the best they can. It is call aspiration. This is not what I am at issue with.

But we are seeing the inability to save, the instant gratification promoted by financial & business practices, the irrationality of impulse and status buying, the stress of keeping up socially & financially, and the packed garages that forced the cars out on the driveway. That is what I mean about the frenzy & frazzled American lifestyle today. For the most part, control by mass media. I know of many people & families with good incomes who are saddled with debt. For no other real reason, except they have just drifted along with everybody else and buying into convenience and comfort in their everyday existence. Waste in America is quite revolting.

And for the first time, living better than their parents is wishful thinking for millions of young Americans.

[URL]http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/06/12/every-generation-better-than-one-before-gen-x-could-buck-trend/[/URL]

That's all for now, comrade!

[URL]http://www.mercer.com/newsroom/cost-of-living-survey.html[/URL]

#86 Buenos Aires.

#88 Bangkok.

If you discount #1 Luanda, Angola and #2 N'Djamena, Chad for obvious reasons (out of the major business cities loop), it is Hong Kong for #1. Followed by Singapore, Zurich, Geneva, Tokyo, Bern, Moscow, Shanghai, Beijing, London. This is a study aim at expatriates whose needs are quite different from the local population. So take that into consideration.

They must be using INDEC's data because Buenos Aires should be much higher on that list!

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/07/27/is-the-fed-fueling-a-giant-stock-market-bubble/13172261/[/URL]

The Dow keeps climbing. It has been very nice for me. But sometimes, you kind of wonder what is really going on. Since the beginning of the year, I've been thinking of retreating to the sidelines, wait for the eventual downturn, then climb aboard again. But then, I'm not really a hit & run guy. Anybody else in the same boat?

[QUOTE=RevBS;440626][URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/07/27/is-the-fed-fueling-a-giant-stock-market-bubble/13172261/[/URL]

The Dow keeps climbing. It has been very nice for me. But sometimes, you kind of wonder what is really going on. Since the beginning of the year, I've been thinking of retreating to the sidelines, wait for the eventual downturn, then climb aboard again. But then, I'm not really a hit & run guy. Anybody else in the same boat?[/QUOTE]My philosophy for over a year is that the market would be propped up through the mid term elections in November. If the stock market tanks any time soon, Democrats have no chance to hold the Senate and take over the House. So until election time, no real correction will take place. After that, no clue.

Yeah, that's right, It's from the NY Times. Throw it in the trash. We don't want to know.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0[/URL]

Reverend, Respectfully, the people likely to be throwing that in the trash are on the left. The root causes of the problem are technology and globalization. The people at S&P rightly point out that education is the solution. Politicians on the left, at the local, state and federal levels, must start standing up to the teacher's unions and improve the quality of schools. Easy-to-get, government-subsidized loans for liberal arts educations, which have enabled universities to raise tuition to ridiculous levels, should be eliminated. Students should be encouraged to learn skills that they can actually use and to undertake marketable trades and professions. There is a correlation between childhood poverty and success later in life. Republicans and Democrats should give more consideration to helping poor children, instead of subsidizing seniors who are already wealthier than everyone else.

I'm not sure whether it's S&P or the NYT reporter that contends our problem is too much savings / investment and not enough consumption. But I suspect both you and I would agree that's a load of crap. The USA has a big problem in that there's not enough savings. We're depending on China and other countries to pay for investment in our country. We consume more than we produce. Savings is a huge problem for the middle class. Someday people are going to retire, intending to rely on social security, and discover nothing's there.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;440743]Reverend, Respectfully, the people likely to be throwing that in the trash are on the left. The root causes of the problem are technology and globalization. The people at S&P rightly point out that education is the solution. Politicians on the left, at the local, state and federal levels, must start standing up to the teacher's unions and improve the quality of schools. Easy-to-get, government-subsidized loans for liberal arts educations, which have enabled universities to raise tuition to ridiculous levels, should be eliminated. Students should be encouraged to learn skills that they can actually use and to undertake marketable trades and professions. There is a correlation between childhood poverty and success later in life. Republicans and Democrats should give more consideration to helping poor children, instead of subsidizing seniors who are already wealthier than everyone else.

I'm not sure whether it's S&P or the NYT reporter that contends our problem is too much savings / investment and not enough consumption. But I suspect both you and I would agree that's a load of crap. The USA has a big problem in that there's not enough savings. We're depending on China and other countries to pay for investment in our country. We consume more than we produce. Savings is a huge problem for the middle class. Someday people are going to retire, intending to rely on social security, and discover nothing's there.[/QUOTE]You made some good points, we are not in total disagreement.

Big Banks & Big Multi-Nationals are the Empire Seekers of today. They are not beholden to any government. In third world countries, they are the government.

Obama has NOT been able to escape the patronage of the American election system. But in ObamaCare and Frank-Dodds, he has shown he is willing to rectify some imbalances, yet he has been vilified for them. Why? You don't think the educational loans have not been corrupted and exploited by the loan sharks. And now we are hearing of the sub-prime loans in the auto buying industry. Corruption like poverty is never ending. As I said before, it has been made legal in the US. And some of you seem to like it.

The US was dominant because of its middle class. The decline of the middle class is a part of the evolution of the world economy. There are many ways in which the government can stymie that decline, but we cannot do it because we are dysfunctional. Blanket opposition to Obama is the story here. Going to be 8 years of babbling and shouting. So silly!

As stated before, look in the mirror, and what do you see?

Rev, the government and Frank Dodd are two of the reasons the middle class is shrinking. Get the government out of the student loan and education business. If you have to give loans make them only to the HARD SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, ect. The types of degrees which are applicable to doing something and everyone doesn't need to go college what about the trade schools, we need people who can build and repair what the sciences and engineering folks come up with.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;440753]Rev, the government and Frank Dodd are two of the reasons the middle class is shrinking. Get the government out of the student loan and education business. If you have to give loans make them only to the HARD SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, ect. The types of degrees which are applicable to doing something and everyone doesn't need to go college what about the trade schools, we need people who can build and repair what the sciences and engineering folks come up with.[/QUOTE]From A Chinaman's Chance by Eric Liu.

"American culture now has an excess of individualism, short term thinking, and prioritizing rights over duties".

Would you rather be on American Idol, or go study engineering at Purdue? Ah, a million dollar question. In the 70's, when I was playing basketball in LA, we play with some Chinese gang members. At least 50% were going to Cal State LA, about a 10 minute drive from Chinatown. Of course, some were hard-core.

[QUOTE=RevBS;440739]Yeah, that's right, It's from the NY Times. Throw it in the trash. We don't want to know.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0[/URL][/QUOTE]Let me see: throw it in the trash because it's the NYTimes.

The article itself is about a report from economists at Standard and Poor's, hardly a left leaning institution.

Standard and Poor's is a pretty well established mainstream economic research firm. I for one would like to read what they say.

Good idea to throw it in the trash, Rev, you might learn something that would challenge a belief or something.