 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama's first anniversary
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:51 AM I am in disagreement with most of Obama's foreign policy not because he is Obama...but because I would disagree with anyone who was pursuing such a foreign policy. As such, I am rather disappointed with what Mr Obama has done in his first year, because I had hoped (slender hopes) for better. I think most of the world outside the USA feels the same way. Heck, it's obvious that they feel that way. I have seen very little change in America's foreign policy since Obama's election...just looks like round 3 of George Bush so far to me...although Obama speaks, of course, in a far more erudite and reasonable-sounding manner than George Bush was capable of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM And today, Obama got his anniversary gift! A 11% unemployment rate! He's doing a GREAT job! Right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: pdq Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:01 PM In Nevada, the unemployment rate is 13% officially, although many more people are no longer looking so not counted. An analysis if the ObamaCare bill came out today. Nevada will be the worst hit of any state by added expenses. Approximately 95% of Medicaid cost will be shifted from the federal government to the state of Nevada. We will be bankrupt. "Dirty Harry" Reid is so despised at this point, I believe he will retire rather than face a humiliating loss this November. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:30 PM Hey Doug, you want to know why I think you are incapable of any sort of decent intellectual discourse??? Your post demonstrates exactly why. You are so bound to partisan horseshit, that you simply attack Obama, regardless of the facts. I will say this slow, try reading for comprehension, OK? During the whole of the Bush administration, all you could do was defend them while they took eight years to create a budget surplus and stuck us in a deficit hole that will take generations to fix. But when President Obama can't fix this in 13 months you post that tripe. Your partisanship is showing. While your boys spent eight years getting us involved with a war that there was not one shred of evidence to justify, you carp when this young president can't get us out in 13 months. While your boy, and I will admit he was abetted by the Presidency of Clinton, destroyed the financial regulatory safety net, you still take shots at Obama when he is trying to fix it. You are a hopeless, bitter old man whose intellectual capacity has been warped by Rush Limbaugh style manipulation. Some here see you as a nice but curmudgeonly old man. Do not count me in that group. In the words of a current movie, I see you. To those offended by the tone of this post, I apologize for making you uncomfortable. But I tire of this endless partisan horseshit, from the right and the left, which is paralyzing our country, hurting our citizens, and leading us down the path of Rome. If we cannot get back to the basic tenet of respect for one another's views, respect for the office of the President, and seeking consensus, I fear all is lost. We are rapidly becoming the world's largest third world country while Nero (people like DougR) fiddles their bitter little arses off. Mick (rant off) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM I rather like the fact that government moves slowly. It's frustrating when Our Guy is the one in charge and can't accomplish everything we wanted, but it also means that the Republicans can't get everything they want when they're in power. All in all, I think that Obama is doing a very good job. He hasn't worked the miracles that some people expected, but it's comforting to me to know that for once we have a rational, ethical, intelligent leader in the White House. In my lifetime, we have had very few rational, ethical, intelligent Presidents. That being said, the one thing I really hope for, is that we finally have universal health care. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM Wow, Mick, that's quite a tirade! You criticize ME for being partisan? Partisan?? Of course I'm partisan, I've never tried to conceal that. But you're are not, right? You and your fellow Bush haters are so fond of comparing President Bush's economic record with your guy (note I not say "boy" as you did in your post). The Wall Street Journal had a very interesting op-ed piece in yesterday's edition. Since it's the WSJ, you may not have read it. I quote: "From Jan. 2o, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush - to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well. By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and the Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in EIGHT YEARS (My emphasis). Mr. Obama's spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for DOUBLING (My emphasis)the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10. Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7% Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade. Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010." So the financial facts based on figures from the Office of Management and the Budget do not support Obama's supporters who claim that it was Bush who got him into the mess he now rules over, he did it to himself (and the American people). As to my well being, well I certainly am neither hopeless or bitter. Actually I'm a pretty positive person and I'm even confident that better days will be ahead of us just as soon as Mr. Obama has served his one term as president. You speak of "respect for the office of the president?" Are you referring to the kind of respect members of this forum who hated George Bush showed during his eight years in the presidency? I would include you in that group. Cool down, Mick, as is often the case you and I simply do not agree. Were there no "freedom of speech" guaranteed by our Constitution, one of us probably would be running now from the government secret police. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:21 PM DougR, I read most of your most recent post- couldn't stomach the rest of it. You gibe that it took President Obama only a year to put us the same amount in debt that it took Bush 8 years to do. My question: What in the world do you think Obama could do to right the stuff that the Bush administration created? And again, I ask: If the Republicans were in office right now what do you think they would be doing? They would have the same mess to clean up that Obama found. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:29 PM Paul is quite correct... Blair was our Obama, elected on a centre left ticket, to replace a rightwing conservative regime...with a huge majority and huge public support. It meant nothing, Blair was forced from office after a series of attacks on left wing ideals domestically; and a foreign policy that would have shamed any UK Conservative administration, including involving us in a disgraceful conflict in Iraq, for nothing more than perceived personal glory. The "liberal" left I'm sorry to say, function better when in opposition.....they simply do not have the conviction required to effect change. We on the left, do not really want change, we want to talk about change...unlike Doug and his friends, we dont believe in the ideas we espouse. Just look at them, they are confident, sure in their beliefs,they know Mr Obama is just the interval entertainment, the main show will be back on the road very soon....and they are dead right. We on the left think we can effect massive economic and social change without pain....or at least we have fooled ourselves into thinking that, but we haven't fooled many outwith the "chattering liberal classes" We dont like pain and the general public dont like pain, but if we are to effect meaningful change, we will get pain in shedloads, it will mean great personal sacrifice......for an ideology?...you must be kidding, nobody wants to sacrifice their comparitively high standard of living to subsidise the "great unwashed". Doug knows that and has the balls to say it...he knows us better than we know ourselves! The people who run this system know what we are, and they have always bet their limit that we stay as we are....chattering cowardly hypocrits, running around ensuring the civil rights of everyone while the gates of the real world clang shut all around us. Obama has served his purpose to the one party system, his gilding is already peeling, soon he will be gone and the next act will be the first woman president. Roll up! Roll up! The system is in trouble this time, but to change it we need more than pretty words or half hearted measures designed to rock the boat....but not too much! Obama talks about bank regulation...he pulls that out of the hat like a conjurers rabbit, but he and his advisers know very well that to service a system like this, sufficient growth must be achieved and sustained; to achieve the required growth the financial institutions must be given free rein....until it all collapses again and "Joe Soap" is forced to engineer another bail out. That is how a Capitalist economy works! You dont like it? Then don't listen, dont whine about human rights, dont worry about better healthcare,(you know everyone will scam it and rob it blind, like in the UK).......Just go get the fuckin guns! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:35 PM Easy for you to say. And where is your vaunted superiority over the US's fixation on guns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:43 PM "Of course I'm partisan, I've never tried to conceal that." **BLINDLY** partisan. I think I agree largely with what Mick & Ebbie have said. No need to type long explanations, as you just do that little side-step and ignore the part you can't answer and chant the usual slogans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:36 AM Bill D: YOU agree with Mick and Ebbie? What a surprise! Ebbie: Perhaps you should have read the whole of my message, then you could refute the figures included from the WSJ article. (If you could). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:22 AM Ebbie...Sometimes we have to fight fire with fire, THIS time I was speaking metaphorically. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:26 PM With the health bill in limbo and so much time wasted on it, the revolt in Massachusetts just might teach Obama that government is a cooperative enterprise between Congress and the White House, the former under the Constitution more important. Without the conservative input his programs are dead meat. The economy, making business strong enough to provide jobs, is the first priority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:10 PM Doug, I am not going to move the debate to you and hijack the thread, but I am going to point out the flaw that you and all hopeless partisans (right and left) share. Your response to pointed criticism of your VIEWS/OPINIONS was to try and shift the debate to personalities. Examples: Bush's economic record with your guy (note I not say "boy" as you did in your post). I will deal with the last one first. Again, take off your partisan blinders, read for comprehension as well as context. There is a 300 year old custom in this country of using the term "boy" as a perjorative when referring to people of color. It was used as a reference to the superiority of the one race over the other. "Boy" when used as a colloquialism between whites is more of a familiar term that is not meant as a perjorative to demonstrate superiority. In that context it simply means your guy. As to your smirky implication that I am a racist, I can simply think of no civil way to say this, so I will revert to my street lingo and say, "fuck you". As to your contention about the WSJ article, let me deal first with your contention and then with the article. Your contention that liberals like myself probably didn't read it is erroneous and typical of your wrong headed partisan approach. While I do consider myself a progressive, I make it a point to listen to right wing talk shows, tv shows, and read the WSJ and other papers of that point of view on a regular basis. You incorrectly imply that WSJ is a right wing paper. It is a business oriented paper. As a nearly 30 veteran of collective bargaining, I find it very important to know what ones bargaining adversaries,political opponents and flacks, are thinking. I have always felt that if I could not listen to their spins and see the flaws, then perhaps I needed to rethink my positions, and see if there isn't something correct in the oppositions viewpoint. As to the content of the article, it was factual but to break out of the partisan thinking trap that you are caught in, you must make a leap that I don't believe you possess the ability to do. You must quit looking for data that simply supports your biases and try to put the data presented into the context of the total picture. Then you would have understood that in the narrow definitions of "debt" and "deficits" what was presented was true. But when you throw off the intellectual shackles that bind you, you would have realized that the narrow definition is not a fair way to judge this president's term thus far. First off, the stimulus package that resulted in a great deal of the debt was part of the bailout that started during the Bush administration, was voted on prior to Obama taking office and had the initial payments made with very few conditions before he even took the oath of office. Second, Obama is trying to accomplish what virtually every administration for over 50 years has tried to accomplish, that being universal health care. Of course there will be more cost. Bush ignored the problem. It is easy to save money if you don't eat or go to the Doctor! Using the analogy of a sick person, you might be saving money but eventually you get sick and have to go and get fixed. The cost is usually much higher at that point, often bankrupting the family of the patient. And so it is with health care. First The figures the Journal are using are the subject of much debate as to their accuracy, and they make assertions that are the subject of disagreement by many prominent economists on both sides. Finally, the definition of cost is very narrow. It doesn't take into account the savings achieved by the larger pool of folks paying into the healthcare system, thus reducing the cost for those that already are paying. I am not saying that you would necessarily change your view of the President's plan and its effect on the economy, but at least you would be coming from a place of caring about what is best for all the citizens of our country, making your case, and seeking consensus with those coming from another point of view. You see, Doug, what made our system so successful up until the Reagan years, is that the sides didn't vilify one another, question their patriotism and call them disgusting. What made it work is that the sides understood that their job, in a pluralistic society, was to find consensus with one another for the common good. Sure the side with the majority got to have the plums in the pudding. That is democracy. But there was respect of one another. That is sauce that is missing from todays pasta. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:33 PM Sorry to butt in Mick...but you're wrong. "You see, Doug, what made our system so successful up until the Reagan years, is that the sides didn't vilify one another, question their patriotism and call them disgusting. What made it work is that the sides understood that their job, in a pluralistic society, was to find consensus with one another for the common good. Sure the side with the majority got to have the plums in the pudding. That is democracy. But there was respect of one another. That is sauce that is missing from todays pasta." What made our system work, was that we were "kings of the shitheap" we used our economic power to steal resources everywhere, we bullied and subverted democracy wherever we could, installing puppet govts and supporting dictators at will...how dare you...a member of the left, hold up the US /UK system as an example of democracy. Respect for one another! Our leaders had to be dragged screaming and kicking to treat blacks as equals....most of us remember that. What we see in front of us, is a system which has become unsustainable in an economic and an environmental sense, and the sad sight of a population being hoodwinked into thinking that it can be fixed, by weasel politicians, while they drain the last few drop of blood out of the carcase...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:35 PM You know, I bet if you took the "you are so partisan and ignorant and I am so able to see all sides and almighty superior" bits out, it might actually make a readable screed. Most of it actually makes sense and/or is true. But anybody who calls a black man "boy" in this country in this year is either pig ignorant or a racist. But you just proved you're not ignorant, you know it's a racist term. I'm having a hard time avoiding the other conclusion. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:45 PM Wow. I assume you are speaking to Big Mick. If so, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:49 PM I assume, Mousethief, that you are referring to Doug? Or are you referring to both of us? Ake, that is another debate. Stick to the one at hand. There is much to intertwine, but I am referring to the process of making law and political process and how it applies to Obama's first year. The political reference to the Reagan years simply was to point out the genesis of the current partisan chasm that I believe imperils our flawed but hopeful experiment in governing. Our sins around the world and in our own country are another discussion. Or are you trying to defuse the arguments by blurring the premise? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:51 PM I'm back. I just realized what was wrong with your post, Alex. I rarely refer to 'political correctness' and its pros and misunderstood cons, but this is a case of it gone wrong, imo. What you just said refers to quintessential political correctness. You ignored the context in which it occurred and jumped to a pc interpretation. And yet, you were wrong. When I refer to my 48 year old daughter as a 'good girl', I am not being demeaning to her. In context, I am expressing my approbation of her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:52 PM Ebbie, I am not sure who he is referring to. Given the second line, I think it is clear that I made the delineation. If Mousethief is referring to me, it is clear that s/he did not read DougR's post. It will be interesting to see the response. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:04 PM I take it what you mean Ebbie,is, Its alright to be anti-PC as long as you're a "liberal". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM You are being deliberately obtuse, ake. My approval of 'political correctness' stems from courtesy and accuracy. If you don't like me to call you 'Shorty', I will not call you Shorty. That's courteous. If you wish to be referred to as politically savvy and informed- well, I can be polite but it wouldn't be accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:26 PM Getting back to your question further up Ebbie. Whites voted about 50/50 McCain/ Obama Blacks about 10/90 McCain Obama On your second point, I would agree "Hillary has done a great job"....for Team Clinton. She has made herself very visible all over the world weighing her words carefully to ensure her popularity soars while Mr Obama's sinks like a stone.....why do you think Hillary fought so hard for State? she could have and would have loved to walk away and bide her time.....but they dont call her the "Hawk" for nothing, and now she's swooping in for the kill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:26 PM Thank you, ake. In your last post you exactly made my point about what is wrong with the state of politics and political discourse. You were purposefully obtuse for no other reason than to bolster your prejudices. It is a pleasure to have such a sterling example to refer to in future discussion. I owe you a pint. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:29 PM They call it irony, Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM The 'Hawk'? You may be correct- but I have not heard that. When I called you obtuse, one of the reasons is that you are trying to have it both ways. If Secretary of State Clinton were being inattentive to world problems or if she made statements about the administration or the President that could be understood as snide or undermining, you would be quick to point that out. And if she is alert, well informed and efficient you are quick to reveal your own prejudices. Need I tell you that I am glad that you are not an American? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:06 PM Hillary believes she should be President, that was evident in Unity(more irony)when she and Obama had their pretend lovefest. If you had loaned her your stiletto, she would have performed the dirty deed then and there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:57 PM You are so full of it! Of course she would like to be president- that, after all,is why she ran for it. For a politician there is nothing wrong in that. If Obama should fail to win the nod to run for a second term I don't doubt, other things being equal, that if she didn't like or particularly admire the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would run for the presidency. Again, for a politician there's nothing wrong in that. One thing the Clintons have shown repeatedly: they are pragmatists and they are team players. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:47 PM Yea ....Team Clinton! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:03 PM Mick: Thank you for your reply. First, let me make it quite clear (as the president says quite often)I do not think you are racist. I am not surprised that you read a great variety of newspapers, periodicals, etc. in keeping with your job. I question, however, that you read the op-ed that I referred to in my post. The reason:the article was written by Karl Rove, and no liberal would miss the opportunity to bash the author of the oped if he/she knew it was written by him. However, I will give you the benefit of a doubt. Perhaps you did read it and chose not to mention Mr. Rove. You suggest in your post that the figures I quoted (Mr. Rove's figures actually)are questionable. As I said in my post, they were supplied by the Office of Management and the Budget. The figures the Democrats have been using to sell their current health care plan and that they say will lower the cost of health care if passed into law is supported by the same office. Why are the figures Mr. Rove used questionable, but the figures used by the Democratic leadership supplied by the same government office are not? You state that the stimulus package was passed before Mr. Bush left office. According to information I found on the Internet, provided by the Heritage Foundation, the final bill passed on February 14, 2009. By that time, Mr. Bush was probably sitting on his front porch in Crawford, Texas eating watermelon. You make your case for Obama pushing healthcare and state that Mr. Bush ignored the problem. This is incorrect of course. President Bush tried to get the congress to support a bill providing health care savings accounts, I believe during his first term, but if not, during his second. The Democrats shot it down. You decry the lack of civility in Washington. I, too, wish there was greater "togetherness" in that city but the fault does not lie with just one party (Republicans), the Democrats are to blame too. Incidentally, I was incorrect in one of my posts when I said that unemployment in the U.S. increased to 11%. It's still 10% nationwide. I confused the figures with unemployment in a state that the president was due to visit to make another speech. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:07 PM Given Hillary's age and history, I think she is quite happy to go down in history as one of the most effective Secretary of States... Fcae it, we really haven't such in a long, long time... It also dovetails quite nicely with what Bill Clinton is doing... But, unlike Ake, I see her work as a big help for Obama... I think the two work well together... You don't really hear the Repubs slamin' her or Obama on foriegn policy... Ohter that extreme righties, of course... But they don't count... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM Exactly Bobert, Hillary is doing a "good job" As I said when he was first forced to invite Hillary the Hawk into his administration, "It wont be foreign policy that will bring him down...but the mire of domestic issues" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:30 PM ...forced to take her into his administration- ake, you have too much time on your hands and too little understanding of what idleness brings you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:53 PM So, why do you think he would invite a cuckoo into the nest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM Ake is right on one (and only one) respect. The right have the guns. The left need to use them. Mick is right in many respects. The agenda of the right is to keep what they have obtained from unrequited labour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:25 PM Casting no aspersions here, but if your wife were as intelligent as Hillary Clinton, akeneton, you would be a happy man. (Don't know about her happiness, though) :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:05 AM Where did I say Hillary was un-intelligent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Smedley Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:29 AM Viewed from the European side of the Atlantic, the U.S. is better off now because in electing Obama you proved you were still a country to be respected, not just be terrified of - you still have the Limbaughs and the Palins and all those other maniacs, but at least they're not the first or only thing we think of now when we think of America. I don't know enough about the details of policies to evaluate thoroughly, but in terms of the bigger picture, Obama's election remains and will remain an iconic moment in global history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 10 - 08:58 AM Yeah, it would be nice if when Obama became prsident that he had been given a magic wand that he could just wave and have 40 years, at least, of very bad foriegn policy just go "poof"... Yeah, sho nuff would have been nice... But he didn't get that wand and the reality on the ground is that it's gonna take some hard work and alot of time and resources to clean up after the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush mess... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 10 - 10:56 AM The reality, Bob my friend , is that it is now impossible to repair the system, even with a magic wand. Obama knows that, I suppose he's always known that....coming from his background, but he's a politician and he sure as hell doesn't want you and me to know. As far as Smedley's rhetoric is concerned, the euphoria of "our first black president" went quicker than snow off a dyke. What the fuck does it matter what colour he is if he's un-willing or unable to make any difference on the issues that really count? Just another fuckin' smoke screen! We don't need any more clever politicians, or even stupid politicians. We need somebody who actually believes in what they are saying, somebody with clear achievable objectives and who is prepared to tell the electorate that they're gonna have to suffer some to get there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Peter T. Date: 24 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM Can someone explain to an outsider (a druid in Gaul watching Rome implode) what -- if the Republicans or the Tea Party people or whoever -- take over, what they propose to do to solve the nation's ills? They seem to be against big government, but then how do they propose to stop the banks, get housing going again, deal with health care? Republicans are not known to be anti-bank, they have no interest in the poor or the working class, and they have no health care plan. As far as one can make out through the murk, the only things all these people can agree on are no gun control, no homosexual marriage, military spending, and tax cuts. How does any of this solve any of the economic and social difficulties? Can anyone enlighten me? It seems mysterious to me. A druid wants to know. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 12:06 PM I'm sure that DougR could tell you, Peter T. :) I have never been able to find anyone who would tell me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:26 PM Smedley:If you like Obama, I believe the majority of voters in the U.S. would gladly give him to you if you want him. Some members here, and you too, evidently believe he has done great things in foreign affairs. Would someone kindly enumerate them for us? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Smedley Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:27 PM I don't think he has done much in the way of 'geat things' yet, but from where I sit, the sheer fact that a non-white president could get elected in a country which in my lifetime was shooting & clubbing & setting dogs on & killing black people for asking for something like basic equality remains remarkable. If some of you think that's a romanticised view that overlooks the more pressing everyday urgencies of policy, you are probably right. But in the long view, his election is a landmark step in the civilising of the USA. The racist undertones (not all that 'under' either) of much of this tea-bag backlash bears out what I'm saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM Ah, Doug! Glad to see you are back. Would you be so kind as to answer Peter T's questions? Start with Question 1. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 03:44 PM Peter: for some insane reason the US lunatic right (like our own only more so) believe that cutting government spending is a magic bullet that will cure the economy: they believe in the "invisible hand". The fact that it caused the worst excesses of the depression in the USA and UK passes them by. They still believe in "trickle down" snake oil as sold by Ronnie Raygun and Thatcher the milk-snatcher. It's probably watching too many westerns that causes it (apart from the ones with Klaus Kinski in). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM Ebbie: To what questions do you refer? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:16 PM Here you go, DougR, lifted from Peter's post: 1) "... if the Republicans or the Tea Party people or whoever -- take over, what they propose to do to solve the nation's ills? 2) They seem to be against big government, but then how do they propose to * stop the banks, * get housing going again, * deal with health care? 3) Republicans are * not known to be anti-bank, they have * no interest in the poor * or the working class, and they have * no health care plan. (How would they resolve these inequities? Eb) 4) As far as one can make out through the murk, the only things all these people can agree on are * no gun control, * no homosexual marriage, * military spending, and * tax cuts. How does any of this solve any of the economic and social difficulties? "Can anyone enlighten me? It seems mysterious to me." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM Ebbie said: I just realized what was wrong with your post, Alex. I rarely refer to 'political correctness' and its pros and misunderstood cons, but this is a case of it gone wrong, imo. What you just said refers to quintessential political correctness. You ignored the context in which it occurred and jumped to a pc interpretation. And yet, you were wrong. When I refer to my 48 year old daughter as a 'good girl', I am not being demeaning to her. In context, I am expressing my approbation of her. Well if you say I have misjumped, I will take your word for it, albeit reluctantly. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:35 PM Doug...I don't find it necessary to like Obama in order to prefer him to John McCain...if given that choice! ;-) I disapprove of the bank bailout Obama AND Bush gave to the 5 largest banks in your country. I disapprove of the wars and foreign occupations set in motion by George Bush and continued by Obama. I disapprove of Obama's enlarging the military involvement in Afghanistan, and I think McCain or Bush would have done the very same thing in his place, in all probability, plus some other stupid things. I disapprove of the current health care plan that is being attempted, because it doesn't go nearly far enough toward providing public health care for all Americans, and I think it's a giveaway to the private health insurance industry. I disagree with most of what Obama has done...but am I surprised? No. ;-) I've seen this happen before, and it's not surprising at all. And I still prefer Obama to either Bush or McCain even THOUGH I'm displeased with him. You see, disapproving of Mr Obama's policies does not equate to supporting the moronic policies of his erstwhile opponents, the Republicans in Congress. They'd be even worse than him, if given the chance. Probably quite a bit worse. |
