The Ugly American, Wallyeye
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416023]But if we're looking over the maps for a place to put boots on the ground, I (once again) vote for Libya. They have shit loads of oil.[/QUOTE]____________________________________________________________________________________________.
Once again, you have proved your self to be another neocon with a hand gun up your ass and cow dung between the ears. It's your type of hillbilly, gung-ho mentality that got the US in a needless war in Iraq that cost our economy trillions of dollars and needless loss of life.
Sure, it's easy to say let the U.S. put "boots and the ground" without thinking of the long-term consequences, the diplomatic implications, and the perverted morality of such a decision.
Just because Libya has oil reserves and their central government has been weakened, it's ok to send troops into a sovereign nation and start exploiting the oil reserves of another nation and people?
Dude, get back to your horse ranch in Montana or whatever backward state you're from. I would be embarrassed walking around Buenos Aires near you or any other city in the world hearing such nonsense.
Wrong again, as per usual
[QUOTE=Moveon;416040]Once again, you have proved your self to be another neocon with a hand gun up your ass and cow dung between the ears. It's your type of hillbilly, gung-ho mentality that got the US in a needless war in Iraq that cost our economy trillions of dollars and needless loss of life.[/quote]Just think, the trillions spent on Iraq put a lot more people to work than the trillions wasted by Obama.
[quote=]Sure, it's easy to say let the U.S. put "boots and the ground" without thinking of the long-term consequences, the diplomatic implications,[/quote]Of course, I thought that through. Libya only has 20% of the population of Iraq and the world's 9th largest, proven oil reserves. If we can steam roll Iraq in three weeks, we should be able to do the same to Libya in 4. 2 days. All we then do is cordon of the oil producing areas with a border fence (like the one we are not building on our southern border) and start pumping that black gold out as fast as we can.
[quote=]and the perverted morality of such a decision.[/quote]Now wait a minute, I didn't say anything about fucking their women.
[quote=]Just because Libya has oil reserves and their central government has been weakened, it's ok to send troops into a sovereign nation and start exploiting the oil reserves of another nation and people?[/quote]Those cock suckers have been asking for it since the first Barbary War!
[quote=]Dude, get back to your horse ranch in Montana or whatever backward state you're from.[/quote]Are you sure you don't work for NPR? You have many of the same ignorant attitudes and it's pretty easy to get one over on you.
[quote=]I would be embarrassed walking around Buenos Aires near you or any other city in the world hearing such nonsense.[/QUOTE]An embarrassment of riches your are unlikely to experience. If it ever came to pass, I would certainly wear my "I'm with stupid" t-shirt.
Wallyeye's quest for an overseas invasion of Libya (for OIL)
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416042]
Of course, I thought that through. Libya only has 20% of the population of Iraq and the world's 9th largest, proven oil reserves. If we can steam roll Iraq in three weeks, we should be able to do the same to Libya in 4. 2 days. All we then do is cordon of the oil producing areas with a border fence (like the one we are not building on our southern border) and start pumping that black gold out as fast as we can.
An embarrassment of riches your are unlikely to experience.
____________________________________________________________________________________________.
There's an old Roman saying, Wallyeye:
"He who gives himself airs of importance, exhibits the credentials of impotence."
Rent Unless You Have Lots Of Money
Sorry! You Have We Don't!
We do not have it.
But the only a person that can help me and some of us in Buenos Airiies is the only person, T. L. WOULD BE THE MAN.
No Gas problems for him and You And Me.
Especially us on a tight budget for him and Your "son on a tight buaget.
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 416055]At the risk of being called Sid I decide to post this entire article rather than a link because the site doesn't leave articles up very long.
Did anybody noticed that during this last flight to safety that traditional safe havens of the Swiss franc and the yen benefited, but the USA currency suffered. Is the USA Dollar in danger of collapsing? [/QUOTE]
Happy Home. Sid Found His.
Buenos Aires was his First Choice, but you had some issues.
DR is not that Bad, but has turned a little unsafe.
How many have you been there?
I Have Photos of the Country, If you would like to see them.
If not what is the Japanese word for goodbye?
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 416055]At the risk of being called Sid I decide to post this entire article rather than a link because the site doesn't leave articles up very long.
Did anybody noticed that during this last flight to safety that traditional safe havens of the Swiss franc and the yen benefited, but the US currency suffered. Is the US Dollar in danger of collapsing? [/QUOTE]
You thought I was being sarcastic?
Just to be clear, race is a non-factor in my day to day life, despite the fact that I have interracial interactions virtually every day. I don't think of people in terms of their race or creed nor I do not distinguish my friends by those categories. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on the politics of race.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416070]I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.[/quote]What is an example of affirmative action? A person from a 'protected' minority getting a job for which he / she is unqualified, due in part to his / her minority status.
[quote=]As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president.[/quote]Agreed, the timing was right. However, his being black was not coincidental with his election, it contributed significantly to his election. If he was Barry the white guy from Chicago, no one would know his name. I also doubt that too many white, dope-smoking, under performers get to transfer from Occidental to Columbia University. You might also wonder how many white, male, non-honors students get accepted to Harvard Law School? If his academic record supported anything other than the benefits of affirmative action, I think that they would be public.
[quote=]Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected.[/quote]You mean "double-dunked?" You might be right about that, I hadn't really considered it.
[quote=]As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace.[/quote]I never once heard anyone say that he wasn't white enough. However, it was clear from Sharpton and Jackson that he wasn't black enough, from their perspectives. I travel all over the US to places big and small and while I am sure there are plenty of folks with racial biases (there's at least one in the White House) , I don't think that there is a large portion of the US that would be in favor of more institutionalized racism (to be added to affirmative action, of course). Of all the people I know, I can't think of any that I would suspect would vote against a candidate solely on the basis of his skin color. There definitely aren't any that would admit it to me, if they felt that way.
[quote=]Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.[/quote]If there is such a contingent, I would expect that it is very small. That said, America is actually becoming less of a melting pot because many new comers never assimilate (I. E. They don't melt) , they are just foreigners living here.
[quote=]No offense.[/QUOTE]Why would I be offended?
Will The Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up?
After 26 months in office who is Barack Obama, we still don't really know. For those who believe he is a racial socialist bent on turning the US into a second European nanny state, such as myself, perhaps a second consideration is in order. Please consider the following:
Candidate Obama swore to close Gitmo and stop the 'illegal' military tribunals. President Obama made one of his first presidential orders that Gitmo be closed and the secession of trials by military tribunal. Now 26 months later there is no sign of Gitmo being closed and Obama has issued a second presidential order suspending his earlier order and permitting military tribunals to proceed.
Candidate Obama railed against the CIA program of predator attacks in Pakistan instituted by President Bush as illegal and a violation of international law, yet President Obama has not only embraced the tactic but has greatly increased the operational tempo of the program.
Candidate Obama railed against the war in Iraq as a 'bad' war and that Afghanistan was the 'good' war we should be fighting. President Obama remained on track with the Iraq draw down program established by President Bush for the 'bad' war and initially did little to combat our enemies in Afghanistan the 'good' war.
Candidate Obama railed against the Iraq war and refused to admit President Bush's surge turned the war around and led to a successful conclusion of the conflict. President Obama first personally handpicked 'his' general to run the 'good' war in Afghanistan but had to dismiss him later after the general complained about the political way President Obama was running the war. President Obama then turned to President Bush's general (Petraus) to conduct the war after sacking his own handpicked general.
President Obama even went so far to adopt President Bush's tactic of a 'surge' to reverse our losses in Afghanistan, the same tactic he refused to acknowledge as successful in Iraq yet he now employs in Afghanistan with the same results. Additonally he has backed off any hard deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan just as Bush refused any hard deadline in Iraq during most of the war.
Candidate Obama demanded universal healthcare and President Obama with a Democratic majority in both houses pushed it through. While this very unpopular law cost them the House in 2010 and probably will cost them the Senate and Presidency in 2012, the bill was not nearly as all encompassing as the healthcare law proposed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.
Candidate Obama acknowledged his lack of foreign policy experience and brought Biden on to remedy this short coming. Now in the light of the unrest sweeping the middle east and President Obama and his appointees inability to speak with one voice (Obama says one thing, Clinton another and Gates still another) , coupled with Obama's constant equivocation on what his 'policy' is making it difficult for anyone to know where he stands since he is constantly changing his stance. At least with Reagan and Bush everyone friend or foe knew where they stood – with Obama no one knows.
Candidate / President Obama has attempted to make every Democratic wet dream come true. So does this make Obama a wild eyed socialists or just another Big Government, Tax and Spend, Liberal Democrat who believes the answer to all ills is bigger government?
So long as his radical friends were helpful he used them but as soon as they became a problem and / or once he reached his goal (being elected) the threw them under the bus (Ayers and Wright are just two examples)
I have come to the conclusion there is no 'real' Barack Obama to stand up, only the sham who has for years promoted himself from one position to the next higher position. A gifted reader of a teleprompter, he promotes the liberal ideas of his party but has shown he has no real core beliefs of his own beyond self promotion. He has no problem using people to attain his goals then disgarding them, the same with "beliefs". IMHO he represents a hollow being full of sound and fury but of no substance.
Americans in Poll Show Little Confidence With Plurality Perceiving Decline
Only 1 American in 7 has faith a lasting economic recovery has taken hold and a plurality say they are personally worse off than they were two years ago.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/americans-in-poll-show-little-confidence-with-plurality-perceiving-decline.html[/url]
Obama-smartest man on earth
[QUOTE=Esten;416096]The fact is Obama is more intelligent and pragmatic than your average politician. He has correctly identified America's main problem -- accelerating plutocracy -- and is ready to take concrete steps to address it.[/quote]Everyone wants to think that there is something special about their guy. I concede that he is probably smart enough to get out of both Columbia (although who couldn't pass poli-sci?) and Harvard Law. We will probably never know if he was 'smart' enough to get into either on his merits, alone.
[quote=]After the epic disaster of conservative ideology from Bush's presidency, the Great Recession was ended within Obama's first year,[/quote]You can keep saying that until you are blue in the face, however, a significant plurality of the American public disagrees.
[quote=]followed by passage of historic healthcare and financial reform.[/quote]Neither of which does anything to address the root causes of the problems that they are supposed to fix. Both are beautiful, stinking albatross corpses. Expect the former to be slung around Obama's neck come 2012, while the latter will probably be ignored by both parties.
[quote=]The 111th Congress was one of the most productive and progressive in decades.[/quote]To the grave detriment of the American public and our national, financial well being. The 111th was productive only in terms of needless government expansion and spending.
From my previous post:
'It is also worth noting that one party controlled the congress during the bulk of the spending increases (2006-2010) , during which time federal spending has increased a whopping 55% (excluding the cost of the wars) growing from $2, 272B in 2005 to $3, 520B in 2010. '
[quote=]The great lengths to which Obama's opponents go to attempt to paint him as a failure, are a sign that the truth may be just the opposite.[/quote]Do mean like naming Iceland, 'Iceland' or are we talking naming Ugly Betty, 'Ugly Betty'? Me thinks the latter.
[quote=]One look at Doppel's piece below and you know this took some time and effort to put together. The obvious distortions in it are also a sign that crafting a credible smear against Obama is not straightforward.[/quote]Whatever.
[quote=]The recent move to the center was predictable.[/quote]Please provide actual evidence of such aforementioned move to the center. While he may have provided some minor lip service, he has done nothing of the sort nor do I expect him to. He is an ideologue not a pragmatist.
[quote=]He realizes his legislative achievements are enough for one term,[/quote]That is likely all that he will get, in terms of both presidential terms and legislative 'accomplishments'
[quote=]and the focus must be on preserving them with a 2012 win.[/quote]His defeat in 2012 will be due in large part to the public's desire for someone new to 'undo' the damage BHO has inflicted on the country. They certainly did in 2010.
[quote=]He is also setting the stage for an inevitable choice in 2012: balancing the budget through spending cuts alone, or a more reasoned approach of spending cuts and tax increases. [/quote]Right, that is why he submitted a budget with no cuts at all. Wow, what budget 'balancer' he turned out to be.
[quote=]Some liberals are not pleased about Obama's more centrist tone, but this is all about pragmatism and strategy.[/quote]Bull, it isn't even enough lip service to be called tone.
[quote=]I expect Obama to prevail in 2012, [/quote]Based upon your track record for being wrong almost all the time, I expect you to continue to be wrong on this subject.
[quote=]and my hope is he spends more time in his second term talking about how free market capitalism is only making the rich richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.[/QUOTE]That doesn't seem to be helping his first term or his prospects for a second term. I hope he keeps on doing what he is doing, failing. Clearly BHO hasn't been taking his tiger blood because he isn't winning.
Videos Explaining Public Sector Unions and Arguing with Obama Fans
For your viewing pleasure:
A good, somewhat humorous video explaining public sector unions: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/10/your_public_sector_unions_at_work.html[/url]
A funny video on Wisconsin unions: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWtx-dWEqE&feature=related[/url]
And, finally, a video demonstrating what it's like to argue with Esten and Moreon: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYNukv5rWCY&feature=related[/url]
The White house says SS is OK.
[QUOTE=Moveon; 416119]AMEN, Esten!
It's funny that none of the deviant and fear-filled neo-conservatives that regularly post in this forum mention that the US had a $150billion dollar surplus in Social Security in the year 2000. Right before George W. Bush took office. [/QUOTE]Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.
Charles Krauthammer is a Socialist
[QUOTE=Punter 127;416125]Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.[/QUOTE]Funny you mention that, I read Krauthammer's article on this today. I couldn't believe what he wrote on solving Social Security:
[i]"Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need."[/i]
He's proposing we take benefits away from wealthy people, and give them to poor people. Doesn't he understand that this is REDISTRIBUTION?
Unbelievable, the man is a SOCIALIST!
I'd say Krauthammer's Realistic
[QUOTE=Esten; 416127]Funny you mention that, I read Krauthammer's article on this today. I couldn't believe what he wrote on solving Social Security:
[i]"Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need."[/i]
He's proposing we take benefits away from wealthy people, and give them to poor people. Doesn't he understand that this is REDISTRIBUTION?
Unbelievable, the man is a SOCIALIST! [/QUOTE]That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO or should I call it spin?
[url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/565640/201103101838/Will-Voters-Buy-Hoax-That-Is-Social-Security-.htm[/url]
Social Security according to the Tea Party Delegation of AP
[QUOTE=Punter 127;416125]Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.[/QUOTE]HA. HA! Hehehehe-
According to previous comments by the esteemed Militia members of this forum, social security is currently bankrupt!
Or, was this the typical mis-information by these same "patriots?"
We should just be eternally thankful that George W. Bush's quest to privatize it went nowhere.
