American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Moveon; 416129]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. [/QUOTE]Clearly, moreon is unable to engage in reasoned debate due to a combined lack of reason and intelligence. In light of his shortcomings, he compensates by using inordinate amounts of intellectual dishonesty, which can catch one off guard, given the aforementioned dearth of intelligence.

Would you please identify for me what the SS 'trust fund' is, where it is deposited and what the assets and liabilities of the 'trust fund' are? Would you also mind telling us how the assets of the trust fund are invested and what the expected returns are on those investments?

Thanks. Looking forward to your response.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416174]Would you please identify for me what the SS 'trust fund' is, where it is deposited and what the assets and liabilities of the 'trust fund' are? Would you also mind telling us how the assets of the trust fund are invested and what the expected returns are on those investments?[/QUOTE]Who said anything about a trust fund?

Well, I knew after a while, the same neocons that had the brilliant idea of invading Iraq would need to find another reason to get into another war.

Yup, you guessed it. Paul Wolfowitz. Bush's favorite advisor cannot just say no, it seems.

According his newspaper article last week, he states: "It is both morally right and in America's strategic interest to enable the Libyans to fight. And in preventing Gadhafi and his sons from restoring their reign of terror (blah, blah, blah)."

Basically, what Republican Senator John McCain and many Tea Party idealists like Sarah Palin, etc.

But wait just one minute.

What about the budget deficit?

Is this not the TOP PRIORITY of this nation?

These are the same Republicans who say that the US is so broke and that we need to cut spending on domestic services that actually help our tax payers.

Heck, no problem finding the money for wars and military adventures.

No problem at all.

Moreon wants to stifle all points of view that don't align with those of our glorious leader. Problem is, our glorious leader is AWOL and has failed to lead on any substantive issue from the budget to Egypt, from Libya to Japan. Therefore, I guess every point of view is in violation of Moreon's thought police.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 416194]Well, I knew after a while, the same neocons that had the brilliant idea of invading Iraq would need to find another reason to get into another war.

Yup, you guessed it. Paul Wolfowitz. This scholar cannot just say, no it seems.

According his newspaper article last week, he states: "It is both morally right and in America's strategic interest to enable the Libyans to fight. And in preventing Gadhafi and his sons from restoring their reign of terror (blah, blah, blah)."[/quote]What position does Wolfowitz hold in this administration? Why shouldn't he be free to express his opinions?

[quote=]Basically, what Republican Senator John McCain and many Tea Party idealists like Sarah Palin, etc.[/quote]Please provide any evidence supporting your claim that either McCain or Palin has advocated invading Libya.

[quote=]But wait just one minute.

What about the budget deficit?

Is this not our nations TOP PRIORITY? [/quote]Not if you ask Obama. The most important thing for him is videotaping his NCAA picks so that they can be played on ESPN. He's far more interested in being a celebrity than he is in being a leader.

[quote=]These are the same Republicans who say that the US is so broke and that we need to cut spending on domestic services that actually help our tax payers.[/quote]Why do you use the plural? Neither McCain nor Palin were part of the Bush administration.

If Obama didn't blow $5T on Democrat give-aways, we wouldn't be in this problem, despite the expense of the wars.

[quote=]Heck, no problem finding the money for wars and military adventures.

No problem at all. [/QUOTE]Considering Obama has given away and wasted more money in two years than the country has spent on both wars, combined, should give you a certain amount of pause. However, I doubt your yap ever stops flapping long enough for any form of contemplation.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416196]Why shouldn't he be free to express his opinions? [/QUOTE]Sure. It's a free country, last time I checked. It's bizarre though, that after the Iraq fiasco, he wants more of it.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416196]Please provide any evidence supporting your claim that either McCain or Palin has advocated invading Libya. [/QUOTE]They are all for advocating helping the rebels with arms, munitions, no fly zone, etc. Look it up.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416196]Why do you use the plural? Neither McCain nor Palin were part of the Bush administration.[/QUOTE]They are all REPUBLICANS who wish to spend MORE of our tax dollars on wars and now, a civil war in Libya.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416196]If Obama didn't blow $5T on Democrat give-aways,[/QUOTE]Yes, I know Obama health care is a giveaway. It can only help the needy and middle-class. Something you cannot comprehend or accept, I'm afraid.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416196]However, I doubt your yap ever stops flapping long enough for any form of contemplation.[/QUOTE] I've got your "contemplation" swinging, sir.

For all those deficit-obsessed Republicans: Help me understand how you can spend more money on wars or indirect foreign military intervention- while at the same reducing the budget deficit???

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416128]I'd say Krauthammer's Realistic [/QUOTE][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]

[/QUOTE]Krauthammer's ideas on Social Security means testing may be realistic, but that is irrelevant.

It's wrong to take other people's money. Especially when we take it from people who [i]earned[/i] it, and give it to those who were too [i]lazy[/i] to save for their retirement. Taking from one to give to another is THEFT.

Furthermore, punishing the job creators is bad for the economy.

Get it?

They didn't teach leadership at Community Organizer College.

Egypt, Libya and Japan all look to the US for leadership in dealing with their plights. The entire US looks to Washington for some leadership on deficit reduction. In both cases, what do they get? Obama's picks for the NCAA. I thought he was against going to Vegas. Looks like his only solution to all of the world's problems is to provide us with his divine insight into who will win so that we can go lay down a bet on it.

I'll lay down a bet that if things don't improve demonstrably (I. E. Better than fake unemployment numbers) by April 1, 2012 the Handicapper in Chief is going to have plenty of free time to be on ESPN, play golf and do all those other things that are more important than the wants and needs of the American people and fidelity to the Constitution.

I don't know what you are talking about. The nations are not like perto rico.

[QUOTE]Egypt, Libya and Japan all look to the US for leadership in dealing with their plights.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten; 416208]Krauthammer's ideas on Social Security means testing may be realistic, but that is irrelevant.

It's wrong to take other people's money. Especially when we take it from people who [i]earned[/i] It, and give it to those who were too [i]lazy[/i] To save for their retirement. Taking from one to give to another is THEFT.

Furthermore, punishing the job creators is bad for the economy.

Get it? [/QUOTE]It's a shame there's no demand for left-wing comedians, (many unemployed now) besides it would be really hard to upstage the clown that's in the White House right now.

Get it?

Hopefully, most of you have read about the latest NPR debacle. Trying to take money from the Muslim Brotherhood while claiming that the Tea Party is scary and that they don't need the federal money they beg for each year. This, of course, was a follow-on to the ACORN revelations.

The latest one is much bigger. I should have seen this coming. [url]http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/mar/15/TDOPIN02-us-stunned-by-latest-undercover-sting-ar-905677/[/url]

What is abundantly clear is that Obama is wholly unqualified for the position of POTUS. He is derelict in the execution of virtually all of his duties and of the oath he allegedly swore upon entering office. Remember how he butchered the oath during the inauguration? Perhaps that wasn't a mistake.

Obama is a creation of the media and the Left, the American public had this phony POS foisted upon us as the second coming. Some of us saw through it from the start, unfortunately not enough saw through the charade. Those who criticized Obama for his inexperience, left-wing radical associations, extreme positions (when he wasn't busy voting 'present') and incoherence on important issues were called racists. Further, Obama received preferential treatment by the media because he is a minority and he is one of their own creations. He was never scrutinized by the main stream media. Not one member of the MSM asked him a single, difficult question nor did anyone in the MSM follow up on any major flaws pointed out by the public. This whitewashing (for lack of a better word) of the record continues to this day.

I could write a book on this but let me give you a few examples:

Obama's monetary and fiscal policies contributed in a significant way to the uprisings in the middle east. His intentional devaluation of the dollar assisted in creating a spike in food prices, which was the genesis of the first uprisings in Tunisia. As the contagion spread to Egypt, Obama, amidst an incoherent and inconsistent stream of messages coming from his administration (Biden, Clinton, Obama, etc) fanned the flames of revolution (not democracy, because it was never clear that the rioters had that objective in mind) and participated in handing the country over to military rule, which is no different than it was before, there is just a different boss.

Moving on to Libya, where due to this administrations dawdling (the most generous term I can come up with) we have already missed any opportunity to play a role in either deposing Qaddafi or enshrining him. We have done nothing to further or protect American interests in the area. To the contrary, by giving the anti-government rebels a glimmer of hope, Obama has led them to slaughter. The remaining rebel forces should be beaten back out of their last strongholds over the next several days and Qaddafi will further entrench himself as Colonel-King. The oil spigots will come back on line within 3-6 months and we'll be back to the status quo.

The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's handling of its own uprisings. In large part, this is due to the fact that we have to. Due to leftist policies in America, we are beholden to middle east oil, for our survival. If we allowed drilling on the Northern Slope of Alaska, off-shore California and the Gulf of Mexico (remove some of the current restrictions) and without tapping shale oil in the Rockies, we could increase US domestic oil production by 5-6 million barrels per day which would more than double the amount of oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela (currently around 748 million barrels per year or 28% of our total oil imports).

How about transparency? When Obama promised transparency, the gullible (Esten, Moreon and the rest of the sheep) took it as a certainty that the Chosen One would be as pure as the driven snow and would remove the veil covering past, evil administrations dubious behaviors.

What he really meant was transparency for your body as you pass through a full-body scanner, manned by the oh-so-helpful and well-trained TSA. As I told you some time ago, the scanners are not intended to detect a weapon hidden under your clothes. Nor are the invasive searches designed to uncover weapons concealed ON one's body. The latter (invasive searches) are intended to drive you into the machines. The objective of the former (full-body scanners) is to search for weapons concealed IN your body as well as items (weapons, contraband, cash, etc) that may also be concealed on your body. The TSA recently revealed that the machines emit 10X the radiation that they are 'supposed' to. While the TSA will shrug this off as 'bungling' it is nothing of the sort.

Now Mr. Transparency wants to enable truly warrant-less wiretapping on US citizens by adding streaming and downloading internet content to the list of dangerous crimes that currently qualify for wiretapping. All in an attempt to curry favor with leftists in Hollywood and in the music industry.

If a republican president presided over any of these catastrophes, the media would be screaming 24/7 about the abuse of power and shredding of the constitution and relentless in its efforts to drive the president from office. But since Obama is a creation of the media and the Left they don't say a word.

While many Americans were fooled into voting for Obama, I don't think most will be fooled a second time. Despite poll numbers, which are artificially skewed in his favor, we are witnessing one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. I would caution anyone looking at popularity polls to consider this, when asked if they like Obama, even his critics (excluding me of course) are weary of saying 'no' for fear of being branded a racist.

If the republicans are smart, and true to the people that put them in office this past fall, they will oppose everything for which Obama and the Left stands. The opportunity to gut the federal government is here now, it will be gone in a few short months, when we will be back in a presidential election cycle. A government shutdown only closes nonessential services. If they are nonessential, why should we be paying for them? Shut down the government, we'd all be better off.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416210]Egypt, Libya and Japan all look to the US for leadership in dealing with their plights.[/QUOTE]Are you kidding me? Spare us, please, with your childish beliefs.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416214]It's a shame there's no demand for left-wing comedians, (many unemployed now) besides it would be really hard to upstage the clown that's in the White House right now.[/QUOTE]As you may have noticed, my last two posts on Krauthammer were merely repeating conservative talking points about wealth redistribution. In fact two of our very own resident conservatives believe this amounts to Socialism (Stan) and theft (Jackson). Their silence on Krauthammer's Social Security proposals is deafening.

Those talking points are funny stuff indeed.... hard to take seriously. Socialism and theft? Too much ! LOL

As far as left-wing comedians, I'd say they are doing well. Colbert and Stewart are quite popular. In contrast to those right-wing comedians.... yeah I can't name any either. Unless you count Beck and Palin.

Speaking of Colbert, check out the video segment where he talks about Fox News coverage of the Wisconsin protests:

[url]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/376076/march-02-2011/wisconsin-prank-call-bill[/url]

You know Fox News had been trying to portray the union protestors as violent, to smear them and influence public perception against them (no surprise). Well in a Fox News piece where O'Reilly is asking another reporter about the Wisconsin protestors, they play video showing a protestor pushing somebody. Problem is, it's not video from Wisconsin, it's from another rally in another state. The truth is that the Wisconsin protestors were overwhelmingly peaceful, and Fox News had to resort to other file footage, but presented it in a story on the Wisconsin protests. Fox News has a history of using misleading video footage.

Colbert also mentioned that Wisconsin Republicans have sponsored a bill to ban prank calls. I thought it was one of Colbert's jokes, but nope, it's true. I guess it would be fair then to ban posing as someone you're not, to get 'undercover video'.

[QUOTE=Esten;416241]As you may have noticed, my last two posts on Krauthammer were merely repeating conservative talking points about wealth redistribution. In fact two of our very own resident conservatives believe this amounts to Socialism (Stan) and theft (Jackson). Their silence on Krauthammer's Social Security proposals is deafening.[/QUOTE]Esten, I'm not sure there's an argument to be had between you and the libertarians on this site about social security. Krauthammer wants to change who gets what from a massive shell game. That's what social security is and will remain unless politicians grow some gonads and fix it, instead of trying to appeal to the AARP crowd. I'd argue you need to do away with it entirely, and replace it with something like what Singapore or Chile has. A mandatory pension system. A defined contribution plan, not a defined benefit plan.

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Why did the Egyptian opposition leaders snub Hillary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or so says the London Daily Express.

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

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

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

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

Solo uno!

Very objective and logical opinion. Thank you very much.

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

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

[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... means knowing when not to lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Esten;416332]They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances.[/QUOTE]Supposedly the "average" American believes the wealthiest 20% should control 32% of the wealth of the country. I don't know how you get from where we are now to that point without socialism and theft. Besides the moral dimension, the average person ends up worse off under governments that are highly redistributionist, as I've pointed out here before. If redistributionists ever come to control the USA I'm leaving and not looking back.

Esten, One thing you've failed to consider when you highlight inequality and play down socialism in America is how big government has become. Government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels now account for 42% of GDP, up from 36% during Bush's administration and 32% during Reagan and Clinton. The government controls a huge part of the economy.

There are huge expenditures for social security, medicare, medicaid, education, food stamps, unemployment, etc. that make the country more equal in terms of consumption, although not necessarily in terms of income or wealth.

My question, how big a part of the economy should government be, if 42% isn't enough? Maybe 50%? 70%? And why isn't the trend towards bigger government (towards the government controlling more and more of the economy) a trend towards socialism?

[QUOTE=Esten; 416332]

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

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

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

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

Punter you may be of the same school of thought as Stan and Jackson on SS, but not necessarily on wealth redistribution. They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances, you differ from them. [/QUOTE]Make no mistake, I completely agree with Jackson and Stan, and I'm absolutely against wealth redistribution, if I had the power SS as we know it now would end [strike]tomorrow[/strike] today!

But I'm also realistic and I know we are stuck with SS and I believe we should work with the assets that are available. That is the only reason that I agree with the suggested changes, and for me it's a bitter pill to swallow. SS is a prime example of failed socialism.

You are using smoke, mirrors and spin to change the subject from SS to wealth redistribution, the subject at hand is (was) rather or not SS is broke, and why the Obama administration is in debt denial.

Have you read Krauthammer follow up article?

[url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566527/201103181807/Social-Security-A-Classic-Case-Of-Debt-Denial.htm[/url]

Americans, including registered voters, favor Obama's re-election in 2012 by a large percentage.

A new poll released today by the Pew Research Center shows 48 percent of the respondents want Obama re-elected, while 35 percent prefer a Republican and 16 percent are undecided.

Among registered voters. 47 percent favor Obama and 37 percent prefer a Republican.

Looks like not many of those misguided citizens stop by these pages and enjoy the wisdom of Jackson, WW, Stan and company and adopt the Obama is a cretin argument.

Nope! Looks like Esten rules!

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416355]You are using smoke, mirrors and spin to change the subject from SS to wealth redistribution, the subject at hand is (was) rather or not SS is broke, and why the Obama administration is in debt denial.[/QUOTE]Go back and look at my first post on Krauthammer, and then my followup post. The whole point of my posts on Krauthammer to begin with was to point out an example of a conservative supporting wealth redistribution.

You can go ahead and talk about SS all you want. But don't accuse me of changing the subject when I have been consistently discussing wealth redistribution from the beginning.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416359]Go back and look at my first post on Krauthammer, and then my followup post. The whole point of my posts on Krauthammer to begin with was to point out an example of a conservative supporting wealth redistribution.

You can go ahead and talk about SS all you want. But don't accuse me of changing the subject when I have been consistently discussing wealth redistribution from the beginning. [/QUOTE]No I'm not joking you talked more about wealth redistribution than you have about the problems with SS, which is what my post which you replied to was about. But we can move on because this conversation is of little value anyway.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416352]Besides the moral dimension, the average person ends up worse off under governments that are highly redistributionist, as I've pointed out here before. If redistributionists ever come to control the USA I'm leaving and not looking back.[/QUOTE]Of course there is a downside to excessive redistribution, just as there is a downside to insufficient redistribution.

Do you support the continuing trend of the wealthy elite extracting more and more of the wealth in this country? While the middle class and poor have very limited, or no, share in the increasing wealth?

We have a distribution problem. But we also have limited ability to address the root distribution problem. Therefore redistribution must be part of the solution.

[QUOTE]Esten, One thing you've failed to consider when you highlight inequality and play down socialism in America is how big government has become. Government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels now account for 42% of GDP, up from 36% during Bush's administration and 32% during Reagan and Clinton. The government controls a huge part of the economy.

There are huge expenditures for social security, medicare, medicaid, education, food stamps, unemployment, etc. That make the country more equal in terms of consumption, although not necessarily in terms of income or wealth.

My question, how big a part of the economy should government be, if 42% isn't enough? Maybe 50% 70% And why isn't the trend towards bigger government (towards the government controlling more and more of the economy) a trend towards socialism? [/QUOTE]Government grows in proportion to the failures of the private sector. Why should we not have a strong government to address those failures? I don't have a magic number for you. But I can tell you that in a country with as much wealth as the US has, I fully support a strong government to look out for the basic needs of those that the private sector leaves behind.

Back to his drivel supporting the redistribution of wealth and his wet dream of turning the USA into a socialist utopis. Good luck with that.

Not to pull you out of your leftist fantasies, but you blew right by one of the best posts which succinctly asked the essential question regarding Libya.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416351]I don't understand how it's in the best interests of the United States to become involved there. [/QUOTE]Thank you, Tiny. While I have poked fun by suggesting (in jest. Sort of) that we should take Libya over for its oil, I think that I have been consistent on saying that whatever it is that we do away from our own shores needs to be in America's best interests (end of story).

No one in this administration has even attempted to articulate how this farce is in our best interests. BHO, the great constitutional scholar went to the UN for permission to wage war forgetting both the Constitution and his own declaration a few short years ago where he emphatically stated the he believed that the US president does not have the authority to commit the military to action. His vice president said much the same in stating that if Bush goes into Iraq without congressional approval he will take it upon himself (Biden) to impeach Bush (Biden, after spending how many years in the congress was unaware that the House is the party responsible for impeachment).

[QUOTE=Esten;416333]... means knowing when not to lead.[/quote]Thus confirming my suspicion that both you and BHO, know not that for which America stands.

[quote=]Obama has handled Libya just about right. 70% of Americans support the no fly zone, but few are interested in seeing the US be the world's policeman yet again.[/quote]His deft handling of the situation surely is responsible for a 17% favorable rating for his handling of the military (which happens to be much higher than I would have expected) and only 50% support for the action in Libya (guess 20% of your folks thought the no fly zone was in Wisconsin).

[quote=]The delays appear to have expanded and consolidated the coalition under terms that European countries will lead the effort after establishing the NFZ.[/quote]If they spent so much time figuring it all out before going public, why haven't they figured it out yet? Why is our secretary of defense saying that we are "doing it on the fly?"

[quote=]Sounds good to me.[/quote]Deploying billions of dollars and thousands of our military forces to an undefined military action with no strategy, no objectives and no exit. What about all the civilian Libyan casualties? Sounds good to you?

Are you also in favor of BHO's kill teams in Afghanistan who have clearly committed atrocities far worse than Abu Ghraib?

[quote=]Even Republicans are giving Obama some faint praise, while getting in their lame digs on how he should have acted sooner, or how he needs to explain things better.[/quote]Like I said, I am not a republican. I have no praise for Obama, not for delaying in making a decision and not for the decision that he made. He has failed miserably.

[quote=]Which is odd since I've heard Obama's statements on the US role several times and it seems quite clear to me.[/quote]His statements do not reflect reality. More than 50% of all combat sorties have been flown by American crews. The only active carrier involved is US flagged. All command and control has come from American military leaders based in US facilities. If there is a transition, command and control will still originate from US facilities. A preponderance of assets and personnel involved are US. Further, almost all of the weapons technology deployed is US in origin. All of it I am sure opposed by the likes of Esten and Obama.

[quote=]Just more weak political posturing from the right.[/quote]So, a recitation of indisputable facts is posturing?

[quote=]Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!! Obama didn't burst into Libya sooner and crush Gaddafi and show the world we're number one. Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! [/quote]I think I have been pretty clear that before we help bounce Mubarak, Qaddafi and the like, we need to determine what is in AMERICA'S BEST INTERESTS! Turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood is not in America's best interests neither is assisting 'rebels' (two types in Libya those sympathetic to Al Qaeda and those sympathetic to Iran) in Libya.

[quote=]He took a more strategic approach with Libya, one you have evidently been unable to grasp.[/QUOTE]What I can't grasp is describing sitting on ones hands for 31 days as a strategic approach, UNLESS your strategy was to ensure an outcome where the 'rebels' are too weak to win and Qaddafi is left too weak to exact revenge on the populace.

The depths of your intellectual dishonesty have no bounds.

WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes. You are correct as more than 50% of the strike packages deployed over Libya are US with the English & French making up the rest. Nearly all the aerial refueling is being done by US tankers, not to mention 98% of the 120+ cruise missiles launched were US, nearly all the intelligence and command and control is coming from US assets. Not sure how we are going to 'not lead' when the bulk of the import assets are US.

To this day Obama, Hillary, and Gates are still giving conflicting signals. No wonder no one can comprehend Obama's strategy – he doesn't have one and neither do Gates or Clinton. We are back to Bill Clinton's idea of military intervention, lob a few cruise missiles and call it good, but Obama one upped Billy boy by taking a vacation to Rio to boot.

I don't think we had any business being there, but if we were going in why wait 30 days for the situation to deteriorate when this same show of force in the opening days of the revolt would have pushed Daffy out and marginalized his military since early on they were waiting to see how the revolt would shake out.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416369]WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes.[/quote]Good catch. I think that I read that they also have provided one C135 refueling plane to the effort as well. I had seen that the CDG was in Khor Fakkan back in January (they had been supporting our efforts in Afghanistan, sort of) , when I was in the UAE, although I didn't make as far as KF (no "C"). I doubt too many frogs got of the boat in KF, either. My bias against the French must have blinded me to the contribution of their only carrier, which is a pretty capable boat, considering its limited compliment of attack aircraft. I still blame the French, in part, for the loss of USAF captains Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci and Paul F. Lorence who were killed during Operation el Dorado Canyon. As you may recall, the French denied us fly-over rights which forced our USAF F-111 crews, out of the UK (I think they were stationed at Upper Heyford) , to go around Spain and enter the Med through the Straits of Gibraltar, significantly increasing flight time (adding 2, 600 miles, round trip) and stress on our crews which may or may not have played a roll in the downing of the captains' F-111 ostensibly by a Libyan SAM over the Gulf of Sidra. Interesting that one of our 'wayward' munitions nearly took out the French Embassy in Libya (which was probably rife with materials designed to help Qaddafi with his quest for weapons of mass destruction). Maybe the French can make up for screwing us back then. They could start with returning the remains of Capt. Lorence to his family.

[quote=]You are correct as more than 50% of the strike packages deployed over Libya are US with the English & French making up the rest. Nearly all the aerial refueling is being done by US tankers, not to mention 98% of the 120+ cruise missiles launched were US, nearly all the intelligence and command and control is coming from US assets. Not sure how we are going to 'not lead' when the bulk of the import assets are US.[/quote]I think we are on the same page. It's more 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! ' Good thing NATO is taking over since we aren't directly associated with them (other than paying most of the bills, providing most of the assets & personnel).

[quote=]To this day Obama, Hillary, and Gates are still giving conflicting signals.[/quote]To the US public, to Congress (if they are even speaking to congress) , to the world, to our allies, to the rebels and to Qaddafi.

[quote=]No wonder no one can comprehend Obama's strategy – he doesn't have one and neither do Gates or Clinton.[/quote]Dopple wins the prize! You are correct, sir! That way, no matter what the outcome, Obama will say that is what he set out for (apologies for ending the sentence with a preposition but I am being lazy, should have been stated as 'that, for which he set out').

[quote=]We are back to Bill Clinton's idea of military intervention, lob a few cruise missiles and call it good, but Obama one upped Billy boy by taking a vacation to Rio to boot.[/quote]Don't you think that you are being a little harsh on the Chosen One? After all, he cut his Spring Break '11 short by 2 full hours to get back to the White House and not communicate with the US public nor Congress, nor our allies, nor. Well, you know where I am going with this.

[quote=]I don't think we had any business being there,[/quote]Agreed. A surprise attack, dropping a bunch of bombs on Qaddafi would certainly have been appropriate considering the litany of Libyan led and sponsored attacks on US interests and those of our allies (and those of a bunch of pussies for whom we are always standing tall): Pan Am 103, Rome & Vienna airport attacks, the Gulf of Sidra Incident, La Belle nightclub bombing, Pan Am 73, everything Abu Nidal is responsible for, and the list goes on.

[quote=]but if we were going in why wait 30 days for the situation to deteriorate when this same show of force in the opening days of the revolt would have pushed Daffy out and marginalized his military since early on they were waiting to see how the revolt would shake out.[/QUOTE]He was busy voting present and doing his NCAA polls.