Obama snubs our greatest ally

[highfigh]

Agreed. I am so pissed at the republican party. They took a lot of things for granted. And deserve to be slapped around until they get their act together.

This goes for both parties, and mostly, WE were taken for granted, by them all.

 

[jinjuku]

I was not aware of the origins of the saying. Nor did I feel they were at all necessary or relevant.

I do find it odd that many Obama supporters revert to the race card when they are confronted with the reality of the situation.

I can assure you that my disdain for our current president has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin, but rather his lack of concern for the future of the country's citizens (increasing the national debt by another $800 billion with no plan to make it up but by taxing those with over $100K in income).

Perhaps if you would look through the media brainwash and open your eyes you may actually see what is going on???

I just see your point as myopic. Obama has already stated that there is going to be a balancing of the budget (as best as any human beings can do given circumstance).

Obama didn't create this mess... Kind of like parents walking into the house after being gone a weekend and it is totally trashed because the kids had a party. Only 1,000,000 time more so.

Give the guy a chance. The collective seems to have given Bush one. I keep forgetting Obama doesn't have a 9/11 to blame almost EVERYTHING on.

 

[jinjuku]

Wow, let some people Razz the new Prezz a lil and the race card gets thrown.
No One accused people of hating Bush cause he was a Texas Cracker. A couple of folks in this thread need to relax. Nobody accused him of any felonies here... everything has been all misdemeanors so far. Ill give him the benefit of the doubt on the gifts, but the whole "bailout thing" I'M going to have to call B.S. on. Too much Pork in the SOB. We as American citizens don't need our elected officials using dire economical times, to get laws passed that otherwise wouldn't.


Peace,
Tommy

GO Barry, Go Barry, Go Go Go Gooo Barry!!

Bush at least received benefit of the doubt... for what it is worth, if McCain would have been president I would have been just as vocal about giving the guy a chance.

 

[jinjuku]

For some, it is race- that can't be denied. What about the number of previous non-voters who came out to elect the first black President? Are you going to say that their decision wasn't based on race?

I don't know, there are so many unprecedented things happening currently that it could have been simply desperation. Once you have seen old white guys do nothing but put you in harms way, I am sure we would have elected an Extra Terrestrial.

 

[highfigh]

I just see your point as myopic. Obama has already stated that there is going to be a balancing of the budget (as best as any human beings can do given circumstance).

Obama didn't create this mess... Kind of like parents walking into the house after being gone a weekend and it is totally trashed because the kids had a party. Only 1,000,000 time more so.

Give the guy a chance. The collective seems to have given Bush one. I keep forgetting Obama doesn't have a 9/11 to blame almost EVERYTHING on.

You can't possibly expect him to balance the budget after spending this much after having the stock market lose that much value, so many companies closing and eliminating this many jobs, without a very small segment of the population being taxed out of existence (either they'll leave or lose their jobs). Less companies, less tax revenue. More unemployed, less tax revenue. Less market value, less tax revenue. He wants to make it up with inheritance tax, property tax deduction decrease and increasing the tax rate for people making more than $150K. He wants more government, has spent like a compulsive gambler and thinks that he'll balance the budget after increasing the deficit by about 35%.

Even the "experts" on the news are saying that saying "We inherited this mess" doesn't work anymore, and it's only 6 weeks after the inauguration.

 

[rnatalli]

Based on the blueprint I saw a couple weeks back, it appears Obama's strategy isn't to balance the budget in the sense that debits equal credits. That's virtually impossible in the next 4 years. He's aiming for a strong-dollar policy and to grow the GDP in the range of $500 billion per year which is what the yearly deficits have been and will continue to be with exception of the next couple of years. The trick here is to offset the increase in debt with matched growth.

 

[sploo]

It isn't hypocrisy at all. It's was a relationship.
Like all types of relationships (micro or macro), circumstances change.
Irony yes....hypocrisy, not so much.

My take on it being hypocritical is that they (Rumsfeld et al) make a lot of noise about taking such actions as being the righteous and good thing to do - if it's the right action, then why sell someone weaponry in the first place.

Now, I would at least respect them if they came out and said, "Yea, OK, so we screwed up Iran, largely lead them to the Islamic Revolution, which caused us problems. So, we sold kit to Iraq and encouraged them to attack Iran, as that was considered in our interests. Now, well, if you guys keep wanting to drive your SUVs, we're going to need more control of oil reserves, and hey, whatcha know... Iraq's got lots!"

...Either way, anyone who isn't rich has always and will continue to get screwed. The only thing that changes is who does the screwing.

Delicious cynicism. You're not from the UK are you?

I think the point was made without including the Welsh......along with rest of the "British Empire". Speaking of "force for good", that was a helluva tea party, yes?!

The British Empire was fantastic... just look at all those happy natives, gladly toiling away for our benefit. Now smile for the camera, and we won't shoot any more of you...

 

[lsiberian]

At least we finally elected someone that wasn't a rich white guy to the white house. Who cares what party he is in or what he does. The symbolism of it was enough to bring happiness and joy to all the folks that went through the 60s that are still around. They deserved to see one of their own as president. After all the stupid things we did it isn't our job to hold their feet to the fire. It's our job to give them opportunities for success. I remind you that there ancestors didn't come over willingly like many of our ancestors. We do owe them and their children. I don't care if you claim it was your parents who did it. The reality is the sins of the fathers will be paid for by the sons and that's what we must do.

Poverty is what makes criminals not race. This is why the poorest part of my family has so many criminals while the wealthier part has no criminals.

Which is why we must work hard to help the poor. Or they will commit crime and fill our prisons.

It's easy to calls someone corrupt and evil that you don't know personally, but most of the politicians I met don't do their sucky jobs for the money. They do it to make the place they live in better. Wrong or right I have found most people try to do their best. We all make mistakes. And if I were president I would be impeached for my use of the military. I could think of a few countries leaders that need a good ole fashioned.

 

[highfigh]

Based on the blueprint I saw a couple weeks back, it appears Obama's strategy isn't to balance the budget in the sense that debits equal credits. That's virtually impossible in the next 4 years. He's aiming for a strong-dollar policy and to grow the GDP in the range of $500 billion per year which is what the yearly deficits have been and will continue to be with exception of the next couple of years. The trick here is to offset the increase in debt with matched growth.

If that's not his strategy, then he has a different definition for balanced budget and that's not something we can allow. That's one of the major points that got him elected, along with people being so blinded by his charisma, the way he tilts his head when he speaks,...his little laugh. Seriously, there's a large number of people who didn't hear what he said but voted for him because "it was an historic election", "first time a black man had a chance to be President", "It's not about race", We live in the greatest nation in the history of the World. Now, vote for me and help me change it".

I'd like to see him pull this off, in light of the trillions he just spent. The only way the GDP will grow that much, that fast, is by stopping the flow of imported goods, mandating that we all "Buy American" and/or going to war.

 

[highfigh]

At least we finally elected someone that wasn't a rich white guy to the white house. Who cares what party he is in or what he does. The symbolism of it was enough to bring happiness and joy to all the folks that went through the 60s that are still around.

OK, so he's a rich black guy. Who bloated the programs he worked for in Chicago. Who hung out with bad people, regardless of whether he admits more than a slight acquaintance or not. Symbolism doesn't get the job done for the country as a whole, which is what we need.

By "Who cares what party he is in or what he does?", I hope you mean what he does as a career outside of politics, now what he does in office.

"They deserved to see one of their own as president."

But not electing him solely on race.

"After all the stupid things we did it isn't our job to hold their feet to the fire."

If you're responding to my post, it's Congress' feet that I was referring to.

"It's our job to give them opportunities for success."

Yes- allow the opportunity but not give people what they should be able to work for, regardless of race. Welfare ruined 4 generations of blacks, IMO. By giving them what they would have had to earn, the entitlement attitude was created and when abject poverty was the rule, hope for any kind of decent future was lost. When pro athletes are seen as role models, dealing/using drugs, gang life and being a rapper replaces family, society breaks down.

"I remind you that there ancestors didn't come over willingly like many of our ancestors. We do owe them and their children. I don't care if you claim it was your parents who did it. The reality is the sins of the fathers will be paid for by the sons and that's what we must do."

Who pays for their sins of their last four generations? Exactly, what do we owe them? Money? Power? Take away their motivation to work for what they have, instead of dealing drugs, killing each other, stealing from each other, pounding out generations of fatherless kids?

I was talking with a former neighbor in the parking lot of a grocery store and he said "I have a real problem with black people. The fall all over themselves trying to screw each other in every way possible and because of this, they don't trust each other. Then, this distrust extends to others, even if the others genuinely are trying to help them".

 

[highfigh]

Poverty is what makes criminals not race. This is why the poorest part of my family has so many criminals while the wealthier part has no criminals.

It's easy to calls someone corrupt and evil that you don't know personally, but most of the politicians I met don't do their sucky jobs for the money. They do it to make the place they live in better. Wrong or right I have found most people try to do their best. We all make mistakes. And if I were president I would be impeached for my use of the military. I could think of a few countries leaders that need a good ole fashioned.

Human nature is what makes criminals. Bernie Madoff can't be called poor, although it's likely that he comes from a poor family. Hoarding is a good indicator of this and he hoarded money. Also, not giving a rat's *** about other people creates criminals. Look at the statistics- more poor people go to church and consider themselves to be "religious" than middle income and wealthy people.

"Which is why we must work hard to help the poor. Or they will commit crime and fill our prisons."

That sounds like extortion more than a plea for acts of charity. I have seen many black "leaders" complaining that prison overcrowding is the problem. That's not the problem, it's a symptom- it means that more people are breaking laws that they know will put them in prison.

 

[highfigh]

My take on it being hypocritical is that they (Rumsfeld et al) make a lot of noise about taking such actions as being the righteous and good thing to do - if it's the right action, then why sell someone weaponry in the first place.

Now, I would at least respect them if they came out and said, "Yea, OK, so we screwed up Iran, largely lead them to the Islamic Revolution, which caused us problems. So, we sold kit to Iraq and encouraged them to attack Iran, as that was considered in our interests. Now, well, if you guys keep wanting to drive your SUVs, we're going to need more control of oil reserves, and hey, whatcha know... Iraq's got lots!"

Delicious cynicism. You're not from the UK are you?

The British Empire was fantastic... just look at all those happy natives, gladly toiling away for our benefit. Now smile for the camera, and we won't shoot any more of you...

Selling weapons and claiming innocence doesn't work, but you may be forgetting that the Iran/Iraq war was a proxy war between the US and Russia, too, and ends up looking like two video game players, to an extent. They aren't pulling the triggers and dropping the bombs, but they're directly responsible.

SUVs are a sore point with me. I see doctors, lawyers, housewives and all kinds of people who will NEVER drive them the way they were originally intended. OTOH, most current SUVs are SUV bodies on a car chassis, so they really wouldn't stand up to much, anyway. The argument that "I want my family to be safe when they drive" applies to being hit by another, smaller car but not to their own stopping distance, which they NEVER think about.

How did that part about cheap oil work out? You're generalizing, which is a large part of how perception is skewed. Like anyone else, no family, neighborhood, city, county, state or country is 100% bad. We don't ALL drive SUVs for daily commuting. Some of us need a truck for our job/business.

We're not ALL cowboys, you know.

 

[Tarub]

We're not ALL cowboys, you know.

 

[Tomorrow]

My take on it being hypocritical is that they (Rumsfeld et al) make a lot of noise about taking such actions as being the righteous and good thing to do - if it's the right action, then why sell someone weaponry in the first place.

Now, I would at least respect them if they came out and said, "Yea, OK, so we screwed up Iran, largely lead them to the Islamic Revolution, which caused us problems. So, we sold kit to Iraq and encouraged them to attack Iran, as that was considered in our interests. Now, well, if you guys keep wanting to drive your SUVs, we're going to need more control of oil reserves, and hey, whatcha know... Iraq's got lots!"

Delicious cynicism. You're not from the UK are you?

The British Empire was fantastic... just look at all those happy natives, gladly toiling away for our benefit. Now smile for the camera, and we won't shoot any more of you...

Who would have thought that such top-secret U.S. government policy knowledge would pour forth from a British monarchist and daily BBC watcher?

There's a saying I'm sure you know, sploo..."Those who live in glass houses........." You might want to get your own house in order before you start this bombastic, Europeanesque arrogant* critique about us American 'sheep'.

*EDIT: On second thought, never mind. I think it's more likely envy than arrogance.

 

[sploo]

Selling weapons and claiming innocence doesn't work

Absolutely.

but you may be forgetting that the Iran/Iraq war was a proxy war between the US and Russia, too, and ends up looking like two video game players, to an extent. They aren't pulling the triggers and dropping the bombs, but they're directly responsible.

Don't worry - I'm well aware of the background. As well as the issues surrounding Afghanistan, and Chile, and Venezuela and the Ukraine etc. etc. Governments all too often get involved, using other nations as pawns in their games.

SUVs are a sore point with me. I see doctors, lawyers, housewives and all kinds of people who will NEVER drive them the way they were originally intended. OTOH, most current SUVs are SUV bodies on a car chassis, so they really wouldn't stand up to much, anyway. The argument that "I want my family to be safe when they drive" applies to being hit by another, smaller car but not to their own stopping distance, which they NEVER think about.

How did that part about cheap oil work out? You're generalizing, which is a large part of how perception is skewed. Like anyone else, no family, neighborhood, city, county, state or country is 100% bad. We don't ALL drive SUVs for daily commuting. Some of us need a truck for our job/business.

We're not ALL cowboys, you know.

Good points about SUVs (we call them "Chelsea Tractors" here). I wasn't claiming that all yanks drove SUVs (but you all wear checked trousers and loud shirts, right? ).

Seriously, my point was about the use of 'crusading' language as a justification for action, rather than to honestly explain the real motives. There are many more reasons for the invasion of Iraq than the oil (leverage with the Saudis, scaring the Syrians and Iranians, nice juicy contracts for Cheney's mates, to name just a few).

 

[sploo]

Who would have thought that such top-secret U.S. government policy knowledge would pour forth from a British monarchist and daily BBC watcher?

There's a saying I'm sure you know, sploo..."Those who live in glass houses........." You might want to get your own house in order before you start this bombastic, Europeanesque arrogant* critique about us American 'sheep'.

*EDIT: On second thought, never mind. I think it's more likely envy than arrogance.

Errr. OK. I think your use of smileys means you're largely joking... but just in case...

Daily BBC watcher - check. I also try to catch news from various other sources, ranging from Fox to Al Jazeera. Reading news that doesn't match your own point of view isn't always pleasant, but I think it helps to get a wide spread of opinions.

Monarchist? Nope. Nothing against them, but I don't think they're hugely relevant any more.

The sad thing is that the real reasons behind government actions are often anything but top-secret, but the vast majority of the public of most countries choose to ignore 'the bad stuff' and don't question their leaders actions. In particular, it seems to be a very dangerous thing to do in the US, should you want to keep a job in journalism.

On glass houses etc., note that I've not made any claims about European (or any other region's) policies or "trustworthyness" being superior. However, this thread has largely been following US politics, hence the focus of the comments.

It's also worth noting that while many governments meddle in others affairs, the actions of the US government is always likely to generate the most discussion, simply because it has the power and willingness to affect more change (for good or bad) on other nations than just about any one else.

 

[Tomorrow]

Errr. OK. I think your use of smileys means you're largely joking... but just in case...

Daily BBC watcher - check. I also try to catch news from various other sources, ranging from Fox to Al Jazeera. Reading news that doesn't match your own point of view isn't always pleasant, but I think it helps to get a wide spread of opinions.

Monarchist? Nope. Nothing against them, but I don't think they're hugely relevant any more.

The sad thing is that the real reasons behind government actions are often anything but top-secret, but the vast majority of the public of most countries choose to ignore 'the bad stuff' and don't question their leaders actions. In particular, it seems to be a very dangerous thing to do in the US, should you want to keep a job in journalism.

On glass houses etc., note that I've not made any claims about European (or any other region's) policies or "trustworthyness" being superior. However, this thread has largely been following US politics, hence the focus of the comments.

It's also worth noting that while many governments meddle in others affairs, the actions of the US government is always likely to generate the most discussion, simply because it has the power and willingness to affect more change (for good or bad) on other nations than just about any one else.

You don't happen to be a judge on American Idol named Simon Cowell....are you?

My liberal use of smileys indicates jocularity and that I think you and I could have an enjoyable time of it debating...but not in this format.

Nonetheless, I have to say that most people who elaborate what is right or wrong about issues, particularly outside of their culture, are biased by what actually is presented to them. (In fact, I think you'll agree with that notion.) What you probably won't agree with is that you are coming across with a noted bias of your own and stating opinions as facts. That's a debate no-no.

 

[Rickster71]

I'm non-partisan. I hate them all.

What I don't understand is that while we know some of the people who denied that FNMA and FDMA were headed toward a crisis and claimed that not lending to low income people is racist, they aren't being held responsible, in any way. We have a duty to hold their feet to the fire when they do the wrong things, but all we do is ***** and argue about it in forums like this. Congress has done the wrong things for a long time and we just don't seem to know what to do about it. Change can be good but there are no guarantees that what is happening will be. Sweeping changes in a short time guarantees that a lot of details will go unnoticed and that's extremely dangerous- it's impossible to pay attention to everything.

Well said Highfigh.
The sad thing is, there are only a handful of people on this thread that even have a clue, as to what you're talking about.

 

[darien87]

I probably should have stayed out of this, but I didn't. So I will try to keep this short.

My point was that he was simply so "proud" of Obama. Will he still be proud of him if things go badly?

There is obviously a great divide here and no one yet knows for sure how it will turn out.

I have my theory, though I honestly hope I am wrong! If I am right, no one wins!

Of course I won't be proud of Obama if he screws things up! Why the hell would I be proud of someone who failed?!?! I am proud of Obama for overcoming racism and attaining the highest office in the country, just as I am proud of the American people for overcoming racism by voting for him.

Are you still proud of Bush?

And to answer your other post, you obviously have no idea what it's like to be a minority in America, so let me educate you. I am half black and half white, but I consider myself black. I honestly cannot give you a good reason for my determination, it's just the way I feel. I have dark skin and hair, so I sure don't look white. But I can sure tell you that, in MY experience, having a drop of black in you in America makes you black. I base that on the way I have been treated as an American citizen.

So because I consider myself black, I also consider Obama black.

 

[Rickster71]

My take on it being hypocritical is that they (Rumsfeld et al) make a lot of noise about taking such actions as being the righteous and good thing to do - if it's the right action, then why sell someone weaponry in the first place.

It's the same question that can be asked about any relationship gone awry.
"Why did you marry that person in the first place?"
"Why have kids, only to divorce years later?"
Are people hypocritical if circumstances in their marriages change?
That may be an over simplification. Though I'm sure it all seemed like a good idea at the time.
Me thinks that political relationships are even more tenuous than simple marriages. As I'm sure you know.

Now, I would at least respect them if they came out and said, "Yea, OK, so we screwed up Iran, largely lead them to the Islamic Revolution, which caused us problems. So, we sold kit to Iraq and encouraged them to attack Iran, as that was considered in our interests. Now, well, if you guys keep wanting to drive your SUVs, we're going to need more control of oil reserves, and hey, whatcha know... Iraq's got lots!"

Respect a politician?
I stopped doing that right about the time I graduated high school, and learned life wasn't fair.
Sounds like you're expecting too much from politicians, and the lemmings that vote for them. (with my apologies to the Lemmus and other Rodentia )