 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama disappoints again
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:48 PM Barack Obama was elected through a huge push from left-of-center voters, who expected him to pursue policies they identified with. He keeps failing to do this. Not only did he escalate the war in Afghanistan (with the result that American deaths have doubled there compared to last year, not to mention civilian casualties), sign a half-assed health care "reform" bill (when most of his supporters wanted a public option, if not outright single-payer), and appear poised to pursue Sen. Dodd's banking "reform" bill (which does nothing to change Big Finance's risky and outright fraudulent practices). Now he's delivered a slap in the face of environmentalists and reversed decades of preservation policies by opening sensitive coastal areas to oil and gas drilling. I'm as progressive as most of the folks who had such high hopes when they got Obama elected, but I find myself in the strange company of the right in saying: President Obama and his policies must be opposed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:58 PM I think he "softening up" conservatives so they will be more receptive to his up 'n' coming huge energy tax increases, which may nearly double the cost of gasoline and add about $3000 to the cost of heating the average house in the U.S. each winter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:07 PM He's doing just fine so far, except that I wish he'd spent more time getting Democrats in Congress to move on health care, rather than trying for a futile "bipartisan" bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:09 PM I suspect it is part of a larger plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:19 PM pdq - where is your info coming from re tax increases? artbrooks - what do you mean he's doing just fine? It's Bush all over again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:50 PM No |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:02 PM >>>pdq - where is your info coming from re tax increases? That's what the oil industry lobby is saying Cap and Trade will do. I think they are exaggerating to scare you. If cap and trade works and oil consumption decreases they are likely to make less money. They are not saying that if consumption goes down, so will the cost of fuel. Funny thing about that, only sharing the information that is in their best interest. It is a little like lying isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:12 PM Way to have a conversation, artbrooks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:46 PM He's doing things quite differently than Bush would have imagined. It is unfortunate that Bush led the nation into a double-quagmire war situation. It is more tangled than eithe rof them probably thought it would get. I think Obama intends to get out but feels he has to meet certain minimal requirements of success there in order to leave it on the right path. This is an unfortunate burden; Colin Powell warned Bush about Iraq--you break it, you own it. The same is true of the Afghanistan and Pakistan war. Badly begun, they will not be simply ended and it is (in my opinion) ingenuous to either expect some magic fast and happy ending OPR to blame Obama for the situation in the first place. That said, I would of course prefer he find some successful path out of both -- but given the realpolitik of the situation it is jejune to blame him for the state of affairs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:47 PM Cap and trade makes strange bedfellows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 01 Apr 10 - 12:41 AM I think this new Drill Drill Drill stance is a head fake. He knows environmentalists will lobby Congress [remember the lobby proof Congress the promised?] into blocking any kind of drilling. It is a lead in to an energy bill that will cripple our commerce, drive jobs overseas and raise the price of everything we buy including necessities like food. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:28 AM I'm pretty sure he mentioned offshore drilling in his inauguration address. I KNOW he mentioned it in the state of the nation address. This is not a shocking new development. Attempts to make it so ring rather hollow and dishonest with me. Paying more attention to Afghanistan was one of his campaign planks, iirc. It's certainly nothing he's been schtum about. Obama is not left-wing. He's left of center but not that far from the center. Not nearly as progressive as some would like (myself included). I greeted his election with cautious hope. So far he's above 50%. Probably can't ask for much more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Lonesome EJ Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:58 AM Obama was never elected by a "huge push from left center" voters, and he has never been far left on any issue. He is a centrist, and he has stuck to it. I get a little tired of the far left crying because he deserted principles they ascribed to him based on their own imaginations. What were you going to do? Vote McCain/Palin? This guy has done little, right? He's only 1)passed the first comprehensive health care plan in US history 2)prevented the entire collapse of the bank system along with the collapse of the economy in general, through clever manipulation of banks and their corporate investors 3)Launched wide ranging and comprehensive dialogue on environmental issues while doing what is necessary in the short term to enable some sustainability in domestic petroleum. Give me a break...you're going to throw in with Palin, McConnell, and the Tea Party whackos because he's not liberal enough for you? Are you off your freaking meds, michael? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ron Davies Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:27 AM Perfect, LEJ. As you point out, the question is whether "left center" voters have enough sense to back Obama and others who support him--especially in the coming fall election. Based on some Mudcatters' postings, this is definitely an open question. There's definitely a contingent here who believe in burning down the village in order to save it. They were never enthusiastic about Obama--as is painfully obvious from their postings before the 2008 election--but now imagine Obama has an obligation to them. They are also in all likelihood the posters who for instance rejected totally Olympia Snowe's "trigger"--the only way in this session they could have gotten--through the back door--the public option they claim to desire so fervently. They are the ones--not just on Mudcat, obviously--who resulted in the unfavorable polls for the health reform plan, thus playing into the hands of Palin and the other reactionary opposition to the plan who were able to claim that Obama was going against the "wishes of the American people"---since these leftists rejected it for not going far enough But for them it always is much more fun--and protects their fragile self-esteem-- to be ideologically pure than to actually get something done. One of the fascinating aspects is the number of them who are also aggressive atheists--as opposed to the supposed atheists we also have who actually do think. For some people it seems their catechism is political. But they're just as ready to excommunicate you if you step off the path. And I speak as a strong environmentalist, for whom environmental stands are a large determinant of whether I support a candidate. But, like you, I'm also a realist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amergin Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM The guy has broken many of his campaign promises....some people may be sick because of the "left are crying" about his policies...but I am bloody sick of people giving him a pass on every bad thing he does. He is a coward out for power, pandering to the rich, to the right, and leaving his base in the dust. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ron Davies Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:47 AM "...his base..." QED |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ron Davies Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM And, as I recall, Amergin is even indeed a strong atheist. Fits perfectly. Thanks for supporting my theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently voluble...I was having keyboard problems last night. I suppose that "he is absolutely unlike Bush in any way whatsoever" would have been a better response to "It's Bush all over again than "no". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:23 AM He reminds me of Ronald Reagan. Somebody is pulling the strings, but they don't want the public to know who it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Apr 10 - 12:26 PM Stilly - "I suspect it is part of a larger plan." Sure. It's the same larger plan as always. Ever since John Kennedy, if not before. The corporates and the military-industrial complex run both political parties. Whichever political party gets in, it does exactly what the corporates and military-industrial complex want...but in its own particular superficial style...and little changes. It takes the public awhile to get heartily sick to death of the Republicans' outward political style (which is aggressive, warlike, mean, and ruthless)...it may take 4 years, it may take 8 years, it may even take 12 years...but eventually the general public loses faith in the bastards. That's fine by the corporates, because they own the Democratic Party lock stock and barrel too, so when it's clear that the public is ready and hungry for "change", a Democrat is brought forward who appears to fit the bill nicely, and the Republicans get kicked out of the White House. Everybody celebrates!!! ;-) Well, not everybody, but the majority do.... Then the new administration does its smoke and mirrors bit, acting according to the superficial Democratic style (say nice things about poor people, minorities, and the environment...act like you desire peace...), but the style doesn't mean much, because when it comes to actually policy, what do you get? Well, you get massive financial giveaways and favors to the rich corporates (bankers, health insurance industry, oil industry, military industries), you get expansion of the wars the last administration commenced upon meaning you get MORE WAR, you get more of the same old stuff packaged in a nice bunch of rhetoric which doesn't sound Republican at all... And you get fierce partisan fighting between the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress (and YES, they really mean it, because they hate each other's guts)...and that helps maintain the public illusion that there really is a genuine political choice at the polls, because it keeps them in the partisan frenzy they've always been in which gets them absolutely nowhere. Elect the Democrats and they will betray you once in power. Elect the Republicans and they will betray you once in power. And there is, for all practical purposes, no one else out there to elect!!! (due to the controlling influence of entrenched interests which control funding and the media) Now....given all that, who would I have voted for in 2008? Why, Obama and Biden, of course! ;-) I mean, hell, I wouldn't elect McCaine and Palin for anything. ;-) But it was set up that way from the getgo. The Republicans were supposed to lose the last election, because it was time for "change". Not real change, mind you. Just a superficial change of outer appearance. A new set of curtains on the White House. A new smiling face to rule Oz. But who sees the little man (men) behind the curtain? I will add to that that I like Obama, personally speaking. He's a smart and gifted man. But I think I have a fairly good idea where his orders really come from, and I don't think there's a darned thing he can do about it, unless he wants his political career wrecked or terminated rather earlier than he would hope for. As Rig said, "Somebody is pulling the strings, but they don't want the public to know who it is." It's somebody you don't get to vote for (or against) at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:33 PM Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, and just a few years later, Lyndon Johnsion showed us why we should have been worried. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex is just one of many. Bankers, insurance brokers, professional investors, commodity speculators, etc. ad nauseum are all part of the same complex and are even owned by the same companies since Clinton signed a law in 1998. Bring back Glass-Steagall! Right now, the country has been taken over by the government-media complex and we are seeing media-manipulation that passes for news and news that is presented to us by entertainers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:40 PM Yup. It's Orwell's 1984...but it's being done so much better than Orwell ever envisioned it. He had no idea how effective mass marketing can be when it's combined with the modern consumer economy/entertainment/media approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: gnu Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:46 PM Q... Cap and trade makes strange bedfellows. Sure does. Health care passes. The trade is offshore drilling. Offshore drilling creates $$$ for the rich and for the increased costs of health care. Now, I am NOT saying this IS. I am saying it might be. I'm just sayin, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: DougR Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:47 PM michaelr: Want to be famous and revered for generations to come? I'll tell you how. Simply invent a automobile that doesn't require gasoline to operate it with. Obama is merely making a stab at trying to move more toward the right of center. He's making a play to independent voters who were fooled by his rhetric during the campaign and thought they WERE voting for a center right candidate and have, since his election, awakened to the fact that Obama is indeed a left of center liberal. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:00 PM Automobiles that don't require gasoline are already on the roads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:02 PM By the way, Obama has always been to the right of center. He's never been anything else but to the right of center, albeit just a hair to the right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM Olberman was on last night complaining that it was "only" 63 billion of potential reserves. He had some environmentalist on saying that He was "throwing away 25 years of environmental tradition" or some such. I was against "Drill Baby Drill" but only because the Republicans were offering it at a sufficient, short term solution to the high price of gas. There are some things to consider. According to Olbermann half of 63 billion barrels would be 4.5 years of oil. I believe that would significantly cut the money we give to our enemies, help out balance of trade as we switch to renewable and provide some well-paying jobs along this coast, hopefully even here in the Port of Wilmington. The original ban was placed due to southeast governors, particularly Florida and Virginia, being opposed due to possible damage to the tourist industry. Environmentalists claimed it as a victory but the politics were actually commercial. I suspect that is why California's coast was not included. Extraction technology has become cleaner and less wasteful since then and thus the risk to the beaches is less. I agree with the move as a part of a comprehensive energy strategy. If the oil is there we are lucky that the ban was in place. Domestic oil is more valuable strategically because we are running out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:16 PM That really all depends on where you define the center. IMHO, the center is where the independents are, and I define independents as those who look at each issue separately and weigh its pros and cons before deciding. In some cases, they will fall to the right and others to the left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM michaelr I am sorry to hear that you are disappointed, but I am afraid it is your own doing. Mousethief is right. Obama did talk about drilling before the election, you had a chance to change your vote. It might be useful for you to start a thread listing other promises you expected and we can all discuss if those campaign promises are still in effect. I have to say that I am not disappointed at all, considering the financial collapse, things are looking pretty much as expected. The only thought that occurs to me as the cause of that is that I heard different promises from you. I am a little disappointed about Gitmo, but not with Obama. He tried. But I thought that was symbolic anyway. Frankly I am pleased to have a government that is not constantly saying that it is a good and useful thing to torture people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM I'm an independent, artbrooks. I would love to claim the center. But if I'm in the center, I can tell you, Obama ain't in here with me. And he's not to the "left" of me, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:28 PM Gnu, I don't think it is Health care at all. I love you man. But Canadians don't have much room to complain to anyone about offshore drilling or "Cap and Trade" here I lived in Newfoundland when Hibernia was opened and a lot of my friends helped build the Alberta Tar Sands projects in Fort McMurray. I knew a girl who lost her husband on the Ocean Ranger. The folks offshore here will benefit from her loss. Our Republican Senator Burr has released a statement saying that the drilling must be done responsibly. If he is that far left imagine how concerned our Democratic Senator and Governor are. I think it will be done as safely and cleanly as possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:21 PM It is not I who is disappointed - I had no great expectations for change to begin with; in fact I see things rather as Little Hawk has so eloquently laid them out above. My point was that so many on the left ARE disppointed that their darling candidate turns out to be just another career politician who appears to be beholden to Big Business rather than the common good. The same thing happened with Clinton, remember? Same shit, different year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: kendall Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM Doug, not only are there cars on the road that use no gasoline, there are cars that run on air! That's right, China has produced a car that will do 60 mph and go 200 miles on compressed air. I wouldn't want to head on a semi with it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to head on a semi with any car. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: DougR Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM I am well aware that there are cars on the road that do not use gasoline to operate. Even here in Arizona we have newspapers, TV, Radio, and don't even shoot Indians anymore. However, Is there one that you can drive 200 miles without having to refuel? Are there ample service "stations" to serve a million cars that do not operate on gasoline? Are we ready today to replace the gasoline powered cars with another type that will fully perform as gasoline powered ones do? The only problem with Obama's plan is it is not broad enough and it only allows for exploration. We need to start drilling NOW! Carol C: Obama is "center right?" Yes, and I'm a liberal. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM You're a reactionary, DougR. You're so far to the right, you make Ronald Reagan look like a liberal. You are way to the right of the center. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Rapparee Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:19 PM I think the correct title for this thread (and others) would be "Obama disappoints me again." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:35 PM I would say that Obama is just a tad to the right of center, and always has been. But he sounded left of center during the 2008 election, because that was what was needed at the time to get a lot of votes for the Democrats. The country had become very disillusioned with "right of center" politics during the Bush years, so it was time to tantalize them with a hint of left. If you studied his actual policies, however, he was as Carol says, just a little right of center, whereas McCaine and Palin were WAY right of center. Way right of center was not going to win in that election. No chance. My mother was a fervent Obama supporter (from outside the USA) during the election. She would get tears in her eyes listening to him. A lot of other Canadians felt the same way. Now she feels very disillusioned with him and says, "He's just like all the others." As for Canadians in general, Obama still remains pretty popular with our populace. I think, in fact, that he is the best-liked politician in Canada by far....even though he's not here! ;-) Or maybe partly because of that? People are astonished, however, that the US Congress would prefer to make a giant giveaway to the private health insurance industry by getting THEM millions more customers, instead of providing the entire American public with a universal public option such as exists in much of the rest of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:43 PM I've been a leftie since I knew what a leftie was... My mom, bless her commie heart, brought me up this way... Until Obam the only other Dem (or Repub) presidential candidate I have even voted *for* was Jimmy Carter... With that said, Obama isn't disappointing me... He understands the broken legislative branch and so he's takin' what he can get... Face it, the legislative branch is so boken that even Jesus would have to scale back... lol... Except it isn't all that funny... If it were a different time with a functional legislature, which BTW would increase partisanship and cooperation, yeah, I'd be disappointed... Hey, I voted for the guy because he is smart... That hasn't changed... He is still a refreshing alternative to the last 30 some years... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:37 PM 63 billion bbls of oil or whatever- it's all pie in the sky until it is proven by the drill. Exploration will be cautious because of the expense of drilling the offshore prospects. One disappointment recently is the drilling offshore from Argentina, in the Malvinas (Falklands) area. Very little encouragement from the first well. If the second also proves discouraging, exploration will go elsewhere. There were 'high hopes' for the area; they may never be realized. The Alaskan offshore is highly questionable, for which I am glad since the area is so important to wildlife and fishing. In other words, I don't expect a mad rush into the newly opened areas. With proven reserves for quite some time in other areas, why not continue to use them? Much cheaper in the long run. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:24 AM "People are astonished, however, that the US Congress would prefer to make a giant giveaway to the private health insurance industry by getting THEM millions more customers, instead of providing the entire American public with a universal public option such as exists in much of the rest of the world." Exactly, LH. Except it's not that astonishing when you consider that there are ten lobbyists in Washington for every member of Congress. And Bobert - I feel you, I do - it's wonderful to have an intelligent man in the White House. It's too bad he's continuing and even exacerbating so many of Bush's policies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:55 AM Rapaire: I think the correct title for this thread (and others) would be "Obama disappoints me again." Or, simply, "Waaaah!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:14 AM It's a mistake to compare President Obama to the progressive we wish we could have in the White House but never will. Compare him to the the opposition and he at least appears sane. The only reason Republicans think he is so far to the left is that they have moved so far to the right. Carol says Doug is so far to the left he makes Reagan look liberal. If that is true, that just makes him a mainstream Republican these days. Obama didn't win in 08 by just getting a great turnout from the base. That is never enough in a national election. You must get the independents and in 08 independents were soul-sick from the previous administration, scared to death of Palin and shocked at McCain's meltdown over the economy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM 1 day after Drill Drill Drill: "By model year 2016 vehicles must get an average of 35.5 miles per gallon. The requirements will add as much as $985 to a vehicle's initial cost, according to EPA estimates, but buyers will save about $4,000 on fuel over the life of the car, administration officials said." That could be a good thing but how have they calculated that $4000? Looks like they used $5 per gallon to calculate it. Higher MPG = Less Demand = lower gas prices. I am for cutting down on energy use and pollution. Still, the poor man will have to pay more for a car while the rich guy can afford it. He will be saving money on gas while the poor guy is stuck with an old car. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:30 AM Carol says Doug is so far to the left he makes Reagan look liberal. I expect you meant that I said he is so far to the right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:33 AM Sawzaw, you make a good argument for Cap and Dividend. With Cap and Dividend (as opposed to Cap and Trade), big polluters would still pay for their carbon emissions, but the money would go to the taxpayers in a similar way that people in Alaska get a dividend from the oil companies for the oil they take from Alaska. This money could be used by the taxpayers to pay for more fuel efficient means of transportation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Rapparee Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:43 AM The citizens of the US just have to get up off their dead asses, stop bitching, and start doing -- and I don't mean having "tea parties" and rallies, I mean actually doing the important things that need to be done. As for Congress, Bobert's right. The Legislative Branch is more broken than the Ten Commandments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:53 AM It's hopeless. I think it might be best to dismantle the entire legislative apparatus and start afresh with something new. Only trouble is, if that happened I'm afraid it would be the wrong people entirely who would be in charge of the process...and things would probably get even worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 10 - 11:12 AM Re: DougR's right/left orientation, ironically, when it comes to everyone else, he's a right-wing reactionary, but when it comes to the benefits he wants from the government himself, he's very much a socialist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:04 PM >>Higher MPG = Less Demand = lower gas prices. Still, the poor man will have to pay more for a car while the rich guy can afford it. He will be saving money on gas while the poor guy is stuck with an old car. << I think that the only fair way is to compare the cost without the measure to the cost with the measure. If only from what you just said I think it is reasonable to assume that the investment equation is Everyone spends on average 3000 more everyone saves 4000 But part of that savings is the price decrease from shrinking demand. On the other hand, the poor man can pretty much reach that 36 MPG today by driving a small, light, conventional car without any luxuries. Maybe that's why they set that standard where it is. Of course the rich man can do that now too, but he doesn't, except to show how hip he is. But when he does, he spends the extra 4 grand on a Prius and far exceeds the standard. The real challenge is where the small cars and large cars, on average, as a fleet, get 36 mpg. Proportionally it is going to take a lot more expense and technology to increase the mileage of the rich man's car as opposed to the poor man's car. So the rich man with spend a lot more and save a lot more fuel and the poor man will spend about the same save no fuel and save some money. That looks like a pretty fair deal to me. As a not rich man driving a 33 mpg car I say "BRING IT ON!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM ...from an article showing even the most hyped small cars really don't get the gas mileage claimed: "Indeed, Sandra is not alone in her assertions. Some independent test data suggests hybrid cars routinely get less than 60 percent of EPA estimates while navigating city streets. The Prius has averaged only 35 mpg in some city driving tests, inidcating that there may be nothing out of the ordinary with Sandra's Prius, suggesting instead that the EPA numbers and Toyota mileage claims based on them are in error." This is hardly news, and the poor "real world" performance of cars, as compared to EPA estimates, has been off by 20-40% from the begining. Imagine, an expensive Toyota Prius being the average gas mileage vehicle. Who are these people trying to impress with this decision? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM In my humble opinion a Prius is a toy and an expensive dead end. Its a car for Ed Begleys of the world. A rich man's "prove a point" car. I think that some are getting 40-50 mpg. I think many are not. You would have to be an odd driver indeed to maximize the mileage of a Prius. On the other hand if the majority of the commuters in the cities in which I do business, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raliegh, etc were using plug in hybrids or electric cars with a range as modest as 60 miles, a lot of gas and money could be saved. I have two 2000 Saturn SL1 sedans. I drive a lot. When I fill up I divide the number of miles by the number of gallons, I often exceed 33, sometimes, depending on how much highway and whether I drove closer to 60 or 70 MPH I approach 35.5 mpg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Rapparee Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:12 PM My 1999 Honda Civic gets 28 mpg in the city. But the average family can't afford city cars and highway cars. Unless the US does something about intercity transit (e.g., light rail, high speed rail) automobile fuel efficiency won't mean much. I think that higher fuel efficiency=lower demand=higher prices at the pump. Oil companies have to make money, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM We will survive if oil companies make a little less money and the companies making lithium ion batteries and regenerative brakes make a little more. The prices of gas can only stay as high as people are willing to pay. It cannot rise as demand goes down just to ensure oil company profits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 02 Apr 10 - 05:13 PM It can rise as demand goes down if supply also goes down. If, as the scaremongers say, we have hit "peak oil" we will eventually start to feel the squeeze. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 02 Apr 10 - 05:23 PM We bought a Honda Civic Hybrid in 2005. I think it was advertised to get 45 or 48 mpg. We consistently get 38 and when we drive more freeway miles about 40. That's a lot more than 60% of advertised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Janie Date: 02 Apr 10 - 05:33 PM Well said, LEJ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Joe_F Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:31 PM To get anything done, one must move to the center and disappoint the base. "...Roosevelt remarked to a correspondent that he felt the 'New Deal' was outmoded as a slogan and should be changed to 'something like "Win the war."' This suggestion was repudiated with indignation by Republicans and liberals alike.... 'Can the leopard change his spots?' asked the Republican National Chairman -- a little nervously, one suspects, for if spots _can_ be changed, Roosevelt is the leopard to do it. The editors of _The New Republic_, on the other hand, insisted, 'THE NEW DEAL MUST GO ON,'...." -- Dwight Macdonald (Feb. 1944) Likewise, Eisenhower horribly disappointed a lot of mean people by failing to roll back the New Deal. So it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM Actually, if we were to cut our demand for oil then "Basic Econ 101" tells us that the prices will also fall if supply remains stable... I'm all for the car companies being forced to increase fuel economy... Yeah, the Tea Party people don't like the feds tellin' anyone jack about jack but ya' know what, folks??? The reason that the US has slipped so badly in the last 30 years is because we have allowed the markets to police themselves... That has not been good for anyone but the super wealthy... Not our workers... Not our standings in the world... Not our collective quality of life... Not our infastrcture... Not our political system... Not much of anything other than the rich having a 30 run on the country's wealth... It's way past time for the grown ups to haul in the the croooks... And it's way past time for the federal government to act in the interetss of Joe Sixpack and not Sammy Silverspoon... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM George Soros is making record profits! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM "reason that the US has slipped so badly in the last 30 years" Actually that really is because "The Big Money" thought they could make more by NOT making physical things (but make them cheaper overseas), but by just owning 'the intellectual property' and screwing the whole world - worked for a while before China played the same game the US did in its early days - eg why Dickens travelled to the US was to make money from lectures cause the USA denied "Copyright" to anybody else in the world but US Publishers.... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:17 PM It is also a very good time for Mexico's Carlos Slim, the world's wealthiest man with 53 billion dollars. He is also a huge investor in the New York Times, the one print media mouthpiece that really has a effect on public opinion in the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,bankley Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:35 PM "The two party system is like some guy looking in the mirror admiring himself"... Kinky Freidman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:53 PM Yo, Rigs... Check it out... George Soros is one of thousands of folks who are 4rakin' in the big dough... Why is it that he becomes the "poster boy" of the rich and greedy??? Because he supports Democrats??? But whup??? How about the the other thousands of folks who are gamin' the system??? What, they chopped liver??? I mean, ya'll give tghis ol' boney hillbilly a break... George Soros and the Holy Grail ain't one of the same... Get over it!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Apr 10 - 09:23 PM George Soros bankrolled Move.On.Org and got Obama elected, now he's cashing in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: robomatic Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:39 PM I've been in favor of some oil development, particularly in the Alaska Native Wilderness Reserve (ANWR) due to the limited nature of the environmental impact, and LINKED TO STRONG CONSERVATION measures, such as a strong tax on gasoline at the pump. NOT disappointed in Obama. And as expected, the Conservatives/ Republicans are finding all sorts of fault with even this measure, although the smarter Alaskans have been pleasantly surprised, and said so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: DougR Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:23 AM Carol C: Surprise! We are in agreement on something! I'm definitely right of center. However no more right than RR. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:50 AM He bankrolled Obama's election, Rigs??? Pee in the cup, mah man... B! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:30 AM Maybe so, DougR. If Reagan had his way, you wouldn't be getting any Medicare at all, whereas you do tend to believe in socialism when you can get something out of it yourself. You just don't like it if it helps others but you can't get anything out of it. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet money that if Reagan needed a program like Medicare, he would have been all for it, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:37 AM "Pee in the cup, mah man..." He bankrolled Move.On.ogr -- no cup needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:39 AM MoveOn is a progressive organization. I'm sure that they would have rather had a progressive elected, but they (and we) got Mr. Obama. Mr. Soros exercised his right as a citizen to donate $2.5 million to MoveOn. He also gave $1000 to Mr. McCain. Are large political contributions only ok if they are to candidates on the right? He also gave 14 times as much ($35 million) for educational supplies to low-income children of New York than he gave to MoveOn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM Of course, there are more children in New York than there are Move.On supporters in the country. But he's consistant. He gives to people with juvenile mentalities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 03 Apr 10 - 12:59 PM Those interested in finding out the EPA mileage rating of current productuion cars can check... here example: 2010 Toyota Corolla 2.4L engine with automatic transmission... city: 22 mpg. highway: 30 mpg. combined: 25 mpg. Sorry, proud new Toyota owners, but this absolutely standard model is 40% short of new standards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:00 PM >>He gives to people with juvenile mentalities. What about the above quotation, are angling for a donation? At first I thought your words were vile Now I see they're just juvenile |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Greg F. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM I'd be willing to bet money that if Reagan needed a program like Medicare, he would have been all for it, too. Well he and Nancy-poo were virulently anti-stem cell research until The Gipper went REALLY brain-dead. Then all of a sudden Nancy-poo thought stem cell research was a WONDERFUL idea. Q.E.D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:04 PM "He gives to people with juvenile mentalities." I should let him know about Shane then, shouldn't I? Shane is always in need of money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:44 PM Good point! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:46 PM "...he and Nancy-poo were virulently anti-stem cell research until The Gipper went REALLY brain-dead." When was he not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:55 PM "part of a larger plan" Ah, yes, the perennial favorite: the amorphous dark overarching plan of exploitation by both parties in league together, but of course in the service of some other malevolent force: as I recall, world capitalism is always a top choice for this role. Though organized religion is also another prime candidate. Does fuzzy thinking have to always come with the folkie membership card? Or, at this Mudcat Cafe, I'd like to order one from the clear-thinking part of the menu. Is the Cafe completely out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM Ah, yes, the perennial favorite: Ron Davies waxes snide, superior, and sarcastic over other people's "fuzzy thinking" and their laughably dark and dreadful "conspiracy theories". He then asks some wonderful rhetorical questions, questions that clearly neither seek nor require an answer, but which should serve to put the woefully ignorant firmly in their place...questions like, "Does fuzzy thinking have to always come with the folkie membership card?" He smiles a grim and sardonic smile, sucks on his slice of fresh sour lime, and hits "submit"... And life goes merrily on at Mudcat Cafe. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:41 PM This is just part of the old failed bipartisanism which makes no sense, as it is in the interest of the Republican party to say no to everything -- there is an election coming up, and they have already determined their strategy which is complete anti-Obamaism. On what possible grounds would any of them vote for anything he wants? He could climb naked up a goldplated statue of Ronald Reagan and kiss it, and they still wouldn't vote for him. It is hard to believe someone so smart could be so stupid. A completely pointless giveaway. It will win him absolutely no votes on any climate or energy bill. He got nothing for all the health care giveaways, and will get nothing for this. The man is delusional. He still thinks, in spite of the evidence, that he is in some Chicago church basement talking to different interest groups. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:46 PM "he could climb naked up a goldplated statue of Ronald Reagan and kiss it, and they still wouldn't vote for him" Gah!!! What a creepy mental image, Peter! ;-) But I'm afraid you're probably right that the Republicans would oppose virtually anything Obama did. There's one thing I think the Republicans would support him on. Waging a war on Iran. It's definitely not worth trying it out, though, just to see if I'm right about that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM "President Obama and his policies must be opposed. " michaelr: You are a troll. Obama has his good points and his bad points. Anybody that thinks someone is all bad or all good does not have the ability to determine what is good and what is bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:27 PM LH, it's scattershot trolling. It's designed to snare pretty much anyone in the Mudcat because it's non-specific and all encompassing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:29 PM (My last post was in response to this one - 03 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM from LH.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: dick greenhaus Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:34 PM In this country, we have (for better or worse) a two-party system. If those who elected Obama are disappoited, they might consider the state we'd be in if McCain and what's-her-name had won. Overall, considering the governmental framework he must work in, I feel that Obama's doing pretty damn well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:40 PM Obama is facing the same problem as presidents before him- if Congress is divided, it is impossible to carry through on campaign promises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:41 PM Ron Davies, There are many many on this forum who think and post a lot more clearly than you. I'd put Bill D's thinking up against yours any day and as an artistic wood carver/autoharp player his "folkie membership card" is in perfect standing. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that you do not have a "folkie membership card" because you seem to be claiming that you do not suffer from the "folkie" malady. Generalizations of this sort are always ugly especially when they are combined with obvious hypocrisy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:46 PM A. The Republicans are supporting the escalation in Aghanistan. B. Obama is betting that if he keeps offering his hand to the Republicans and they keep batting it away, the public will see both him and the Republicans for what they are. C. I believe that Obama is a principled man and he thinks that the people who voted Republican at least deserve a chance to be represented on big issues. The Republican's choice NOT to represent them is their failing. It is not Obama's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Lox Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:49 PM Jack, Its a tough political line Obama has chosen, and the returns may not come, but you are right to admire him for taking it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:51 PM >>Anybody that thinks someone is all bad or all good does not have the ability to determine what is good and what is bad. I more or less agree with this. But I suspect that Michalr is saying that for political reasons, not because he thinks it. The equation is Obama defeat= Republican victory Disregarding the costs or the effect on the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM "You are a troll." Actually I am a (secretly female) Dwarf, but I've been recruited into the City Watch nonetheless. Trolls are much larger and have diamond teeth. Where did I ever say that Obama is all bad? That would be an ad hominem attack. What I did was list several of his policies that should be (and are) opposed by progressives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:28 PM Oh you are an internet troll all right or some kind of condescending partisan evangelist. A difference without a distinction I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:39 PM ""Ah, yes, the perennial favorite: Ron Davies waxes snide, superior, and sarcastic over other people's "fuzzy thinking" and their laughably dark and dreadful "conspiracy theories"."" AH YES LH! He does sound rather like you, doesn't he? But it's different when you are the victim, rather than the patronising, snide, superior, and sarcastic poster, isn't it mate? You might like to give that some thought, Eh? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:43 PM I was expecting just that very comment, Don! ;-) It was only a question of when and from whom. I know this place so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:51 PM Obama is a Republican in the old sense of the word. Not the new crazy GOP. Clinton was a Republican president too. Too many people were fooled into believing that Obama would be a "progressive" president in the mold of FDR. His magical speeches created a false expectation among those on the left. Afghanistan and Iraq are the greatest contributors to the national debt. You don't see the GOP crazies talking about that. The issues have been hi-jacked by CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS and all the so-called news media. If you look under the curtain you will see innocents being killed for no just reason in the Middle East and more weaponry being sent to Israel to suppress Gazans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:23 PM I'm afraid that Strings is correct... Obama is an old style Republican... I mean, times change and everythng has shifted somewhat to the right from where it once was... There are alot of reasons for this shift, the assasinations of the left's brightest and best being one of them... But it's more than that... It's 3 decades of corporatism without any restrictions or governance which has led to the take-over of mass media owned lock,stock and barrel by the corporatist pumping out propagnada 24/7 and thus what we have is not only a dumbed down society incapable of independent thought but one that has been bought off with what they percieve to be comforts... So it's kinda a "garbage in - garbage out" situation that we are living thru... The problem is that while the corportists have done very well Joe Sixpack has done very poorly over these three decades... He ain't making as much money as his counterparts in other developed countries... He doesn't have anywhere the same amount of vacation time... He's sicker and dieing younger... So, given the overall decay in America's working class and ability to think critically of complex issues it is a wonder that Obama is even in the White House...But since he is, I am hoping that he is there for the remainder of this term (given the wacko righties out there is no given) but also another term after that... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:28 AM The equation is Obama defeat= Republican victory Disregarding the costs or the effect on the country. I am constantly derided by the great thinkers here that trying to make equations out of facts or truth is dumb, I say it is logic. If A + B = C then C - B = A So jacks formula can also be expressed as Obama victory = Republican failure Disregarding the costs or the effect on the country. I am not rooting for Republicans or Obama. I simply want them to do the right thing and quit the squabbling, name calling and trying to buy success with money we don't have. People have to study both sides of each issue and make a decision rather than blindly following one gang or another. No one is right all the time and no one is wrong all the time but people take sides to the point that they will deny something they know is true just because it might weaken the position of their side. This is also known as tribalism. The media is taking us back to tribalism for their profit. Why can't people see it? Little Hawk sees it. He has some misconceptions about other things but at least he can see the political circus going on here. They elected representatives are only concerned with being elected or being re elected. I heard one Congressman say they have to start campaigning a year before the election. How can they get their work done. We are paying them while they campaign. I think Obama means well but because of the usual re election politics he is forced to do things. I think it's time to dump out all the incumbents and hit the reset button. It could not be any worse than it is now. I saw a chart of those 34 Dems that voted against the health care bill and damn near every one was from a district where McCain won the last election. Connection there? It ain't about what is best for the people any more, it is about what is best for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:13 AM ""I was expecting just that very comment, Don! ;-) It was only a question of when and from whom. I know this place so well."" Happy to be of service, friend. I just wonder why the erudite, common sense leavened with humour poster that I used to admire when I first came here, turned into an o'erweening, patronising and terminally cynical belittler of everybody else's viewpoint. Any thoughts on that? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 12:15 PM Pdq, Fuel efficient, conventional cars are in reach. One simply has to buy a smaller car with a less wasteful engine. This is the mileage chart from Edmunds from all 2010 Corrollas Base FWD 1.8L I4 Manual 30 mpg $15,450 Base FWD 1.8L I4 Auto 29 mpg $16,250 S FWD 1.8L I4 Manual 30 mpg $16,520 LE FWD 1.8L I4 Auto 29 mpg $16,850 S FWD 1.8L I4 Auto 29 mpg $17,350 XLE FWD 1.8L I4 Auto 29 mpg $17,750 XRS FWD 2.4L I4 Manual 25 mpg $18,960 XRS FWD 2.4L I4 Auto 25 mpg $20,150 2010 Toyota Yaris Drivetrain Engine Trans. Fuel Econ. MSRP 2010 Toyota Yaris Coupe (3 Dr Hatchback) Base FWD 1.5L I4 Manual 32 mpg $12,605 Base FWD 1.5L I4 Auto 31 mpg $13,405 2010 Toyota Yaris Sedan (5 Dr Hatchback) Base FWD 1.5L I4 Manual 32 mpg $12,905 Base FWD 1.5L I4 Auto 31 mpg $13,705 2010 Toyota Yaris Sedan Base FWD 1.5L I4 Manual 32 mpg $13,365 Base FWD 1.5L I4 Auto 31 mpg $14,165 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 12:18 PM 100!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 12:21 PM Thank you for your valuable input LH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 04 Apr 10 - 12:36 PM Not one of the cars on that list comes close to the new Obama's EPA decree of fleet average of 35 mpg. It would take an array of vehicles with mpg ratings from 25-45, evenly distributed, to get the fleet average of 35 mpg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM Well, Don, I don't know what the answer is to your question. There are plenty of things I'm not cynical about...but US politics isn't one of them. I think, like Sawzaw, that Obama probably means well, but that he is very much hobbled by the massive special interests and the usual partisan BS that has your government crippled in Washington. I think that Americans are misled by their old loyalties into simply cheering when their partisan "team" wins...but not understanding that both of those teams sold out long ago, and neither one of them any longer represents the public that elects them. What can you really do when you only have those 2 parties to vote for, and neither one of them really represents you? I don't know. The situation is quite similar in Canada, and I think it's also quite similar in the UK...only we have a more complex situation, more than 2 parties to vote for...but they've likewise sold out to special interests and don't really represent the public. You wouldn't believe how cynical people are in this country (Canada) about their politicians now. Well, maybe you would. ;-) Everyone has noticed by now that no matter who you elect...things get worse. Jobs get scarcer. Your income gets leaner. Social services decline. And we get involved in foreign wars that aren't in our interest. Does that sound familiar? It makes no sense, Don, to demonize someone like Sawzaw just because you have been offended by something he has said, and have decided therefore that he must ALWAYS be on the other side of everything from you, and therefore must ALWAYS be your political enemy. That's not thinking, it's just dealing in stereotypes. I disagree totally with some things Sawzaw has said in the past...from time to time...but I agree with other things he's said. If you read his post of 04 Apr 10 - 02:28 AM .....I agree with virtually everythign he says in it. People have to get past this thing of instantly mentally identifying "the enemy" in their mind on some preconceived partisan notion....making false assumptions about that supposed enemy, assumptions that he believes in EVERYTHING they don't believe in...because those assumptions are probably false...and actually listen to what he says without prior prejudice. I'm not interested in belonging to a cozy little political "gang" here who get together every day to hurl dirt at their favorite "enemies" just because it makes them feel good and satisfies some emotional need they have to vent and express hostility. And when I see that, I object to it...usually in a sort of satirical fashion. It's lazy thinking. I've seen only 2 politicians in your Congress who have the guts to serve the people honestly and tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening...each in his own way, according to his own honest beliefs. Those 2 are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Other than that, it's a wasteland of special interests and posturing. Now...Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul don't agree about everything. Their political philosophies are quite different in some respects. But at least they're honest. And I admire them both for that. I would not want Obama's job...I hope he manages well with it, as well as can be expected, considering the pressures he's under, and I wish him well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 12:44 PM >>>Not one of the cars on that list comes close to the new Obama's EPA decree of fleet average of 35 mpg. It would take an array of vehicles with mpg ratings from 25-45, evenly distributed, to get the fleet average of 35 mpg.<<< True enough and the poor man's car will get 25-35 mpg and won't cost much and the rich man's expensive, exotic, hybrids and electrics will get 25-45 mpg and will cost a lot more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM come to think of it, the electrics will get infinite mpg the way the epa estimates it today. added to today's fleets it wouldn't take many to bring the fleet average to 35.5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:26 PM It should work fairly well if there are fewer of the suburban behemoths on the road - I can hardly find my Suburu Forester (29 MPG) in a typical parking lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM Wow! We only got 22 in our Forrester. They must have improved a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM Sawz: Your discussion about tribalism is correct, and well observed, but it is not complete. The tribal aspect of politics is its most boring and inefficient aspect. In addition to that, though, there are real decisions and individuals who do well or ill, regardless of right their tribe is doing. There are some who deal with realpolitik, not the ass-kissers and cheerleaders. Obama has always gravitated to the center. The energy move may have been a political manuver to help get his cap and trade pociies more easily adopted, I don't know. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:58 PM Those who acknowledge "tribalism" as being at the root of the problem are on the right track, in my opinion. It's an issue that doesn't get enough coverage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:03 PM This summer a friend of mine replaced his 22 mpg (real world number) Suburu Forrester with a 32 mpg (again, in the real world) Mini Cooper. He feels like he should be nominated for sainthood, except, alas, he is a practicing Buddhist. He did get rid of a stick shift in favor of a 6-speed automatic which was a major motivating factor. Still, the new car cost $26K and still is 3 mpg south of the magic number decreed by the Obama EPA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM I also agree with Sawzaw's comments about "tribalism". It's a huge problem in both domestic and international politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:24 PM Pdq, What I am saying is not that hard to grasp Say a car company has fleet mileage of 22 mpg across its fleet now. They ad a plug in electric which gets 90 mpg They ad a full electric that gets say 140 mpg. Do the math That adds up to 35.8333 mpg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:26 PM >>I also agree with Sawzaw's comments about "tribalism". It's a huge problem in both domestic and international politics. I do not agree. I think that all of the large political problems on this planet boil down to greed and ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: artbrooks Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:28 PM My Forester gets (really) 29 MPG on the freeway, at 70 MPH, with the cruise control on. Lower in town, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:30 PM That is awesome Art. We never got better than 25 MPG highway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: pdq Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:35 PM "...What I am saying is not that hard to grasp..." ~ Jack Only if you have a prehensile mind (ask Chongo about it). Claiming that fully-electric cars should be included in the fuel economy standards of vehicles with internal combustion engines is just plain silly. Besides, half of all electricity produced in the U.S. comes from coal-powered generating plants and the Obama EPA has declared war on them too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:48 PM Of course the electrics are included. They are cars too. They do what cars do. They just do it without burning gas. Obama is talking about replacing coal plants with conservation and renewables. Even if that were not true, there is still the half of the electricity that does not come from coal. Half is obviously better than all. Even if that were not the case the price of driving would decrease as well as our dependence on foreign oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:39 PM Sure, Jack, greed and ignorance have a great deal to do with it. Ignorance produces tribalism... ;-) Anyway, let's not speak in absolute terms when discussing the world's political problems. It would be a mistake to hold up any one thing and say: "THIS is what's responsible for all the trouble!" It isn't just one thing. It isn't just two things. It isn't just three things. It's a large number of different things working together in combination that result in the difficulties we are all facing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: DougR Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:36 PM "Obama disappoints again..." Let me count the ways. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:43 PM Look...if I started a thread called "BS: Chongo disappoints again".... THEN you'd have something to talk about!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:53 PM Just one great big disappointment after the next! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:57 PM Yeah, but that's not the way he tells it... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:24 PM I don't agree that Canadian politics is like Little Hawk sketches. We have one significant difference from our neighbours to the south and that is that people without money can enter politics and do reasonably well at the federal and provincial levels. Not only that, but we have access to politicians that people down south would die for. With a few days notice I can get a fairly substantial meeting with both my federal and provincial representatives. For a variety of accidental (and probably temporary) reasons, we have pretty serious restrictions on campaign financing, which is the major source of the corruption in the United States. I despise the current Canadian government, but I don't believe it is beholden to special interests: alas, it is full of true (not very bright) believers. They actually believe this nonsense, and reflect the dopes who voted for them. The big generic problem is that special interests run the society, not that they run the government (e.g. fossil fuel companies, car companies, drug companies, etc., etc.). yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:30 PM Current disappointment with Obama's performance says less about Obama's capabilities than it does about the unrealistic expectations of those whose preferred politicians have spent the last year working very hard to ensure that he is prevented from doing anything at all. Bottom line?.....If you are setting up multiple road blocks, you have no right to complain about not getting your mail, or your milk delivery. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM Little Hawk:(yo-ho).."Look...if I started a thread called "BS: Chongo disappoints again".... Chongo never disappoints! At least he isn't hiding the fact he's a chimp! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:11 PM If it were only Islamic, "disappointment" would be Obama's middle name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:13 PM "Love means never having to say you're disappointed!" ;-) Peter and Don T. - I posted something agreeing with both of you (in your last posts here). I checked half an hour later and found that my post had vanished into thin air. That happens a lot around here, and boy, is it ever annoying! I can't be bothered dredging it all out of memory right now... (sigh)... But I will check and see if THIS one got through. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:30 PM Riginslinger says: 'If it were only Islamic, "disappointment" would be Obama's middle name.' I think the word you want is "Arabic". "Disappointment" is only all too Islamic these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM Is Hussein Arabic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:01 AM I think so. It's a very common name in the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:06 AM Here you go: "Husein, Hussein, Husain, Hussain, Husayin, Hussayin, Huseyin, Husseyin, Huseyn, Husseyn (Arabic: ÍÓیä Ḥussayn), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hassan, meaning "good" or "handsome" or "beautiful". It is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims, in honor of Husayn ibn Ali (626-680 AD), although the name is so common it is also given to persons of secular backgrounds. In some Persian sources the forms Ḥosayn, Hosayn, or Hossein is used [1]. The Turkish form is Hüseyin. On the Indian sub-continent, the form used is "Husein" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Apr 10 - 07:01 AM I think he ought to swap it for the Indian sub-continent version. It'd be easier to spell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Stringsinger Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM The most disappointing thing about Obama is that he continues Bush's policies. This will be his undoing. He is not FDR. Maybe we can look forward to his being more like that in his next term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Apr 10 - 01:06 PM My god! Do you think he'll get another term? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:21 PM That's hard to say. In fact, it's impossible to say with any certainty. Anything can happen between now and 2012. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:26 PM Perhaps Hillary will run, and Chongo can replace her as Secretary of Bananas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:37 PM ""Perhaps Hillary will run, and Chongo can replace her as Secretary of Bananas "" Naah! Chongo's overqualified for a political post, and Hillary is underqualified for...........most everything. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:40 PM If Obama doesn't run in 2012 for some reason, I expect Hillary will. They've played the game of "elect a Black man and you'll see REAL change" once now, and they can't play it again like that, but that leaves them open to play the game of "elect a woman and you'll see REAL change" next time. Following that...it'll be "elect a chimp and you'll see REAL change!" And that is when Chongo will make his move. And that is when the bananas will hit the fan! If it doesn't work out...hard as that is to imagine...there will still be the following possible gambits left: 1. Elect a Native American and you'll see REAL change! 2. Elect a gay Hispanic hairdresser who is also born again and you'll see REAL change! 3. Elect a physically handicapped pair of Asian Siamese Twins president and you'll see REAL change! 4. Elect a mentally challenged Texan who can't speak coherently and...oh, no, wait...that one's already been tried, hasn't it? 5. Okay...ummmm...I know! Elect a Unarian minister from El Cajon who is the product of a liason between a space alien and a hardworking social worker from San Diego, and.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:52 PM ""The most disappointing thing about Obama is that he continues Bush's policies. This will be his undoing."" If the Bush policy to which you refer is the Afghan conflict, you should be aware that four top Afghan leaders visited Britain last week, and were gobsmacked to find British Muslims owning businesses, driving cars, and worshipping in the many mosques which have been built. They had been told that British Muslims were confined in Ghettos and were forced to worship in secret. To say they were impressed would be a wild understatement. Their leader said very clearly, in an interview with the BBC, that the Afghan people (with the obvious exception of the Taliban) do not want the Coalition Troops withdrawn until a) They have established stability, and b) Afghan Police and Military are capable of maintaining that stability. Then, and only then, would the they wish to bid the the Troops farewell. Straight from the horses mouth. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:55 PM OOOOOOPPPPSSS! Typos everywhere, but you get the picture? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:59 PM One hears a great many things about it, Don. Certainly most people there would want stability. Most ordinary people in any country always want stability, so they can get on with normal life and not fear violence. I was never in favor of that war in the first place, though, so I see no reason to support Obama's committment to continue fighting it. Have you read any of Eric Margolis' extensive writings on the war in that region? Another Bush policy he has concurred with was the huge bank bailout. I didnt' favor that either. He has made noises about closing Guantanamo...but he hasn't closed it. As for the offshore drilling...I don't really know enough about the ramifications of that to have any strong opinion about it at this point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 10 - 03:47 PM You expect Obama to tell the truth about anything? "Some note, however, when the future President Barack Obama was asked in February 2007 if he would serve his full six-year term in the Senate (due to expire in 2010), he responded: "If you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things." When asked directly if he would run for the White House in 2008, he said flatly: "I will not." " He will continue to follow Bush's lead in a number of areas, since that is what is best for the pcountry- At least, that is what HE thinks. Since it was wrong for Bush, to say it is ok for Obama is to say that it is not the action, but the person that ddoes it that matters. THAT is what can be read into the present liberal acquiesence to the same orders that they objected to when done by Bush- that "Some ... are more equal than others." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:49 PM That is how the partisan mind works, BB. It uses a completely different set of mental/emotional filters according to whom it is reacting to. It judges things first by who is doing them and saying them...not nearly so much by what is being done and said. That happens on this forum a lot too, on a personal level as well as on a partisan level. That is, people carry personal grudges here...so they will jump on something said by one of their favorite "enemies" and immediately take offense at it by interpreting it in the worst way possible...but if one of their friends had said it, then they'd have interpreted it from a far more positive angle...probably even applauded. And the truth? Well, the truth may lie somewhere between the extremes of reaction and counter-reaction to the habitual trigger points that most people seem to rely upon most of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:32 PM beardedbruce: When asked directly if he would run for the White House in 2008, he said flatly: "I will not." How DARE he change his mind! I never do that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:17 PM Yeah, eh? The NERVE of the man, changing his mind! People like that should all be kicked out of the country. Any country. Why...they should be forcibly ejected from the planet, I say! It should be made ILLEGAL to change your mind! (tongue very much in cheek here) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM However, speaking of how wonderful the Afghans think the West is, and how desperate they want us to stay, it appears that Chiang Kai-Shek, sorry, Premier Diem, sorry, Mr. Karzai, seems to be enjoying the most recent role of pissing on the people giving their lives for his benefit. Long past time to leave him to it....... yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:45 PM I used to have a VW Rabbit hatchback diesel that never got less than 45 MPG and up to 54. And it had good power untill you get to a big mountain. It would be down to 45 MPH at the top and even the semis would be passing. But it would go like hell down the other side and make up for lost time. It would coast at 78 MPH. Middletown Mountain on I-70 just west of Frederick MD is the one I am talking about. Where did those go to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:17 AM In case anybody here thinks I am one of those tribal thinkers, Here are some of my thoughts. I was listening to some talk show guy, Chris Plante, in DC this morning. He was bitching about a new tax on shopping bags. The tax money was to be used to clean up the Anacostia river and streets. I don't see a damned thing wrong with that but he was compliaining money was to be used to clean up the Anacostia river and streets. To me that is an entirely different issue. Less trash and bags in the land fills, polluting the environment, less oil and trees being used to make bags are all environmental pluses. People can either reuse the bags or get the reusable ones and they will not have to pay the tax. Looks like win/win to me but he and the callers went on and on to say if bags are so bad, why not outlaw bags? It is another government intrusion. How about the taxes on cigarettes? That's another intrusion. If tobacco is bad, why not outlaw tobacco? I can imagine how loud the jerk would be wailing if shopping bags and tobacco were outlawed. Now that would be serious government intrusion to cry and suck snot about. I can see him suggesting that the taxes collected should go toward something else like education but that should not have any bearing on the tax itself, A stinking nickel per bag. How about the tax on soda bottles and cans? It is a win/win cause you can get the money back and it insures they will be recycled more often. There ought to be a tax on the bottled water too so the emptys get recycled. I had to turn they guy off and I considered calling him but it takes so long to get through, you have arrived where you are going. Like I say, you have to consider each issue separately regardless of the speaker or sponsor and not act like you are part of a tribe like Shia and Sunnis. I'm no expert on Islam but it seems they detest each other while there is not much difference from a broader perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:52 AM These are the same people who are against government doing anything to interfere with their godgiven rights, except that they have no trouble with government surveillance of everything they do in the name of freedom. It's just delusional, it's not worth trying to make any sense of it. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:26 AM ""I was never in favor of that war in the first place, though, so I see no reason to support Obama's committment to continue fighting it."" Nobody outside the Bush/Cheney/Blair/Brown coalition and their toadies was in favour LH. Nonetheless, it would be a huge mistake to abandon those of the Afghan leadership who are pro Western involvement. Pulling out now would de-stabilise that already troubled country, and would undoubtedly lead to the extinction of pro Western Afghans. Remember, that's what happenede in Iraq, and everybody is paying the price right now. In my estimation, Obama is one hundred percent right in wanting to finish the job, and although a military resolution is impossible per se, a negotiated settlement requires that we continue our efforts until it can happen. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:31 AM ""Like I say, you have to consider each issue separately regardless of the speaker or sponsor and not act like you are part of a tribe"" So how come all your positive posts are about Repubs, and all your negatives about Obama or Democrats? Do tell. I would really like to know if you actually believe any of what you say. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM Because Obama is part of a tribe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:04 PM I don't follow your example about Iraq, Don. When did we pull out of Iraq after an initial military occupation of the country and the setting up of a client regime there? I don't recall that ever happening. We are still very much in Iraq, and we have a client regime there, just as in Afghanistan. Look, when a mighty military empire invades and occupies a small nation, it always sets up a client regime which is superficially run by some local people (Quislings?). You can always find some local politicians who will work for you. And why wouldn't they? Someone is going to take the job after all, and the job always provides some significant personal advantages (along with definite risks). It provides a title, a secure job, a good salary, some personal power and privilege, opportunites for self-enrichment through corruption. Someone will definitely take it. Karzai is that someone. Those are the people you call our "friends". Are they really our friends or are they simply ambitious people who see an opportunity? I think they are probably the latter in most cases. Meanwhile there is the general population suffering the occupation and the resistance against it, and what do they want? What does the average family want in any occupied country? They want safety, food on the table, jobs, peace, and regular stuff like that. Those are their foremost concerns. You talk about finishing the job in Afghanistan. I suspect it is a job that will never be finished, because it is unfinishable. I suspect the same about Iraq. They are jobs which should never have been taken on in the first place, and they are not finishable, at least not in a way which will satisfy the American agenda. The American agenda is based on unreal mythology about "liberty", "freedom", "democracy", and other things like that which the USA does not accomplish when it goes into foreign lands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:18 PM "You can always find some local politicians who will work for you. " And of course, some of these people had lobbied the US for years to invade.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:35 PM The Taliban were considered to be USA and Pakistani allies for some time also...in the early years of their takeover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:07 PM As was Saddam. But that doesn't mean much -- wolves in sheeps' clothing are common enough to be proverbial. Sucks to find out the petty dictator you set up is really a Pinochet, but then again that's the price you pay for setting up petty dictators. Most of the US's nosing around in foreign countries where it doesn't belong is done for the benefit of huge corporations -- mining, agribusiness, oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:28 PM "Most of the US's nosing around in foreign countries where it doesn't belong is done for the benefit of huge corporations -- mining, agribusiness, oil." And most of it has ended in great profits to the US Military Industrial Complex - paid for by US Taxpayers - and many other countries like Australia, Canada, great Britain, and some parts of Europe have been dragged in too. Cheers to the Dutch on kicking out their stupid US brainwashed Govt. Pity the Troops are really needed for reconstruction there - but at least it demonstrates that some people can only be suckered so far... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:38 PM Does that mean as soon as we get rid of Obama we won't be suckered anymore? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:43 PM Riginslinger: Does that mean as soon as we get rid of Obama we won't be suckered anymore? Is Obama the last politician? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:43 PM "Does that mean as soon as we get rid of Obama we won't be suckered anymore? " Nope, the people suckering us that Obama is the problem, ARE the problem - how are you going to get rid of those without Genocide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:03 PM Anyone care to revisit the original premise of this thread, which was offshore oil drilling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:14 PM I'm sure if you had something interesting to say about it, people would respond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM ""I don't follow your example about Iraq, Don. When did we pull out of Iraq after an initial military occupation of the country and the setting up of a client regime there? I don't recall that ever happening. We are still very much in Iraq, and we have a client regime there, just as in Afghanistan."" Bad memory LH? I'll refresh it for you. In the first Gulf war, there were thousands of disaffected Iraqis, who were eager, and were actively encouraged by the USA and Britain, to rise up as an anti Saddam Hussein resistance. They were the people who would have provided the stability for a fairly swift withdrawal of our troops, had we finished the job. The UN wimped out, declared the war won, and ordered the troops out. Saddam slaughtered all those Iraqis, and carried on as before. In the second fracas, there were very few who welcomed the Coalition. Those who might have were alldead, and it was our fault. If the Coalition pulls the troops before the pro West Afghans are capable of governing, and maintaining order, then the same thing will happen again. Withdrawal has to be geared to run alongside of improving the capabilities of the Afghan military, and police. Obama is right not to order a premature withdrawal. We should not have been there in the first place, but now that we are, we have to keep faith with those who need our support. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:21 PM Yeah, off shore drilling is stupid... What, at best all we are going to get in 6 days worth of oil out of it... That means less than 1/3rd of 1%!!! That's squat!!! Better off just asking folks to take one less trip a month and come out better than the drilling... b~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:27 PM ""Those are the people you call our "friends". Are they really our friends or are they simply ambitious people who see an opportunity? I think they are probably the latter in most cases."" No LH, those aren't. The four who came to the UK, were not government politicians. Each was a religious leader of considerable stature, and their overiding response was anger at how they had been conned by Taliban propaganda, and gratitude for the treatment here of their brethren. Now they are going back to tell their countrymen how they've been lied to, and taken for fools. I think that might have a wider and more positive effect than any politician's visit. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM "In the first Gulf war, there were thousands of disaffected Iraqis, who were eager, and were actively encouraged by the USA and Britain, to rise up as an anti Saddam Hussein resistance." So we elected Barrack Hussein to show us the way... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:12 PM Don, I do remember well how the USA let down the Shiite Muslims in Iraq whom it had encouraged to rise up against Saddam, yes. But I think they were so encouraged simply as a temporary strategem, to give Saddam more grief and make it harder for him to fight his war at the time. So they were used and then abandoned. No new story there. An imperial power always uses disaffected sections of an enemy populace to fight the group who are in power there. It's standard military policy, and everyone's been doing it since the Romans and Greeks, if not long before. For instance, in Vietnam the USA (and the French before them) used Catholic Christian Vietnamese against the Buddhist majority. They also used ethnic Montagnard tribesmen against the Vietnamese majority. It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine. In what is now Mexico the Spanish once used a big confederacy of other Native tribes to fight the Aztecs...but the poor suckers who helped the Spanish destroy the Aztecs ended up enslaved and decimated by the Spaniards as soon as the Aztecs were gone. But I suspect that's not the point you wish to drive at, right? ;-) Well (shrug) the only thing that counts to me is that the USA should never have put its combat troops and its military bases anywhere in the Middle East in the first place, and I do not support an American occupation of either Iraq or Afghanistan upon any rationale. Thus you and I will continue to disagree on this subject, and much bandwidth will be consumed. ;-) (unless I get smart and do something else with my time instead...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:20 PM Besides, us Yanks are tired of paying for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM "So how come all your positive posts are about Repubs, and all your negatives about Obama or Democrats?" Not true. You can see it right in this thread but your subjectivity supersedes your objectivity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:35 PM Losing our defense, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:45 PM ""In the first Gulf war, there were thousands of disaffected Iraqis, who were eager, and were actively encouraged by the USA and Britain, to rise up as an anti Saddam Hussein resistance." So we elected Barrack Hussein to show us the way... " In 'Formal debating' practice. that is a 'non sequitir' argument - in other words gibbering NONSENSE! "the only thing that counts to me is that the USA should never have put its combat troops and its military bases anywhere in the Middle East in the first place" But a World Imperial Power just HAD to... the same as it HAD to get into Vietnam... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:38 AM Yes, well, there is a certain inevitability about all imperial policy, isn't there? An empire expands and maintains itself by devouring resources. When those resources get scarce, it has to expand further and the level of violence goes up. And up. And up. Where it all ends is hard to say, but I don't think it will be a nice thing to witness. With a bit of luck we will all die before that happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:48 AM The Church of Convenient Bible Interpretation is looking for more Today's Sermon: Just do what we say and nobody gets hurt. I do note however, that they seem to have sent some evangelists into the BS threads already.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 11:08 AM ""But I suspect that's not the point you wish to drive at, right? ;-)"" It's precisely the point, and I'm surprised that you haven't caught on. Whether or no the troops should be there is immaterial.....THEY ARE THERE! Accepting that fact, you have to decide what your exit strategy should be. If, in the first Gulf War, we had finished the job by arresting Hussein, we would have had a lot of friends willing to help bring back order and stability, and an exit strategy which would allow withdrawal in a very short time. We blew it, abandoned them to the tender mercies of a psychotic tyrant, and they were slaughtered. Now we have only what you call a client government, no friends, and it looks like being many years till the last US troops can leave, without anarchy following. In Afghanistan, we still have many allies, and we have two choices. We can keep faith with them, and stay until they no longer need support, or we can cut and run, leaving the country and those friends at the mercy of the Taliban. You blythely accept the slaughter of such allies as something natural, and state ""An imperial power always uses disaffected sections of an enemy populace to fight the group who are in power there. It's standard military policy, and everyone's been doing it since the Romans and Greeks, if not long before."". Does that make it right, in your opinion, to sacrifice allies? As far as I can see, that would only be strategically acceptable if you don't care what happens when you leave, or when you have no intention of leaving. Firstly we have not invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it part of our empire, so forget theRomans and Greeks. Not the same scenario. So, we plan to leave......Sometime! Again, two choices. 1.) We don't care what happens. We leave, they die, the Taliban are back in control. Why the Fuck were we there then? 2.) We care. We keep faith with our in country allies. It takes a little longer, but we leave a stable regime, capable of maintaining order. We have friends in that country, it is better living there than it was before we came. WE HAVE DONE SOME GOOD! Which of those alternatives would give you the better feeling about yourself, and your country? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 11:29 AM Legalize opiates in the west. Their economy collapses; a civil war breaks out; they kill each other off, and the UN declares it a wilderness area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM I think, Don, that our exit strategy should be the same as it was for the Russians. They presented the same set of justifications for being in Afghanistan, after all ("We were asked to come in by our friends there."), so why not? What exit strategy should the Germans have used in regards to Poland in 1944? They couldn't just abandon their position there, after all, could they, and leave people behind to the mercy of the Russians? It could lead to further very bad repercussions to do that... ;-) You know, it's easy to get into a war, but it's damned hard to get out of it if you cannot achieve a final and decisive victory. People have been discovering that ever since anyone can remember. I disagree with your statement: "we have not invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it part of our empire" Oh, yes we have. But empires don't look the way they used to, you see. They are not official now, in terms of setting up colonial regimes under the authority of king and country. That has become politically unacceptable. Empires are now achieved by extending corporate control over the marketing and allocation of key resources...and the control of strategically important areas through client governments that are officially independent...but quite definitely controlled by a combination of bribery, economic arrangements, trade arrangements, and the direct presence or imminent threat of the empire's military forces. The USA has built some very extensive military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think the USA has any intention of abandoning those bases? I don't. So they are garrisoning those countries, just like an empire does in its colonies. Furthermore, a very large part of the USA's military committment in those areas is by private contractors...mercenaries, in other words. Not a peep has been said about ever withdrawing any of them. They will stay as long as they are paid to, and the corporates who employ them will profit by it. Empires are not run by kings now, Don. They are run by the boardrooms of a consortium of banks and corporations. They do not require a flag or a uniform to exist. They require money to exist, and money is what they have. Money can buy all the firepower, lawyers, and crooked politicians necessary to maintain the empire. It isn't a poltical empire like the old ones were. It's a financial and mercantile empire that takes effect through the power of money and violence. I have no particular liking for the Taliban. I have no particular liking for the Northern Alliance. I have no particular liking for Karzai's people. I have no idea which one of them would end up in control of Afghanistan once the foreign troops left, but my guess is that they'd be fighting each other for years, just like they used to after the Russians left. This whole Afghan mess started when the Russians went in there. That's when the place go destabilized, so the original blame is on the Russians. They opened Pandora's box and ended a long period of stability in Afghanistan under the old king. It's been hell there ever since. The Americans and Pakistanis found and funded every Islamic fanatic they could find back in the 1980s to break the back of the Russian occupation (and its client Afghan government under Najibullah). Those Islamic jihadists were called the Mujahedin, and they eventually beat the Russians and drove them out...with much CIA and Pakistani assistance in supplying weapons and training. Then the different Mujahedin factions all starting fighting amongst each other. The most effective among them turned out to be the Taliban, who were also the most extremely fanatical in a religious sense. They took over most of the country, but never succeeded in defeating the Northern Alliance people in the northeastern areas. The Pakistanis regarded the Taliban as a key ally to keep the Russians out of the area, and were loathe to abandon them when the USA eventually decided that the Taliban, former allies, were now to be considered "enemies"...but the USA basically put a gun to Pakistan's head (by implied threat) and said, "You either abandon the Taliban or you are fucked." So the Pakistanis swallowed the bitter pill and gave in to American pressure. This has led to massive destabilization of Pakistan and Afghanistan both. It has been an immense tragedy. Don, you would very likely never even have had a Taliban...if the USA and Pakistan had not colluded to raise Islamic fundamentalist forces from all over the Middle East to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. America and Pakistan built the Frankenstein monster they are now fighting against...they did it to kill Russians. It's just a huge mess. Russia's to blame for it. The USA's to blame for it. They are both to blame for it, because they were both out there playing the game of empire. You're just looking at one single angle of it...which is that the Taliban are a bad outfit. I agree with that! They are a very bad outfit. But that's just one angle of a huge, giant mess that was created by Russia and the USA playing imperial games on other people's land. It started long before the Taliban even existed. They're a symptom of a much larger problem. You don't cure a disease by battling a symptom. The disease is Russian and American imperialism, which is really corporate imperialism to all intents and purposes. It's all being done for strategic resources and strategic positioning. It's not being done so that ordinary Afghans can send women to school or hold corrupt "democratic" elections in a facade of democracy. That's just window decorations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:28 PM ""That has become politically unacceptable. Empires are now achieved by extending corporate control over the marketing and allocation of key resources"" What Resources? It's a friggin' desert. And I'm sorry LH, but I am not in need of a history lesson. Believe it or not, I have a brain, I have eyes, I am capable of rational thought, and I am not in the least interested in how, why, or when this started. My concern is for what we do now for the people of a country which is totally different than it was when the Russians took over. The Russians faced total opposition, because they were, as usual, helping themselves. We have a number of enemies, a larger number of friends, and largest of all is the undecided segment. We have a good chance to win most, if not all of those hearts and minds. Obama is keeping faith and striving for an exit strategy which will not amount to a betrayal of trust. In that I judge him right. Your disease analogy is fallacious, in that the people we are supporting are not the symptom, nor are the Taliban. As I see it the Taliban are the Cancer, the people we are backing are the leucocytes, and they can deal with the disease only with the help of an antibiotic. Our troops are that antibiotic, and with that assistance, an immunity can be built up. With that, one small but potentially lethal tumour is removed. Without it, the patient dies. Sorry about the roundabout language, but you chose that analogy, and I'm afraid you must live with it. The proof of the pudding will be in the outcome. If the troops leave in the not too distant future, your theory about empire building is shot. What will a new stable Afghanistan have that we need? Sand? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:31 PM Very well said Sir! Corporate imperialism has replaced Military imperialism...much more dangerous and insidious and closely related to Global capitalism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:54 PM That's a good point, ake. There's no way to know who the share holders are, and they can become victims of hostile takeovers at any minute, without a shot being fired. The house of Rothschild could end up controlling the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM The original question (not on this thread, but there you go) in Afghanistan was about eliminating a staging ground for Al-Qaeda, that was the whole purpose. The need for a stable government was to prevent the Taliban from regaining power, and by extension, bringing back Al-Qaeda. But that now seems implausible as a domino theory. The allies are now talking to the Taliban, and Karzai is threatening to go over to them. The Taliban will always be there: it is a tribal society. It is very, very hard to see how the Allies can create a stable government in such a situation. Anyway, it probably doesn't matter any more. I'm someone who thinks that the Osama bin Laden days are over, it was one "lucky" demented moment -- it could have been blown earlier, if the Bush administration had been paying attention. He's a cave dweller now. Everyone has been warned about that particular toxic mix. If something new is going to happen, it isn't going to happen like before. When you look at what has happened since, it is obvious that there is no vast Al-Qaeda army (which even reasonably sane people could have been forgiven for thinking in the aftermath of 9/11). What there is is a bunch of semi-connected, disaffected Muslims -- none of whom are Afghans! -- most of whom are in the West, well-educated, and angry at America's policies concerning Israel and the Palestinians. The solving of the terrorist problem, as a million people have said, is in Jerusalem, not Kabul. There will always be nutcases, an army will not solve them. The problem is that America has a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. Using external armies to create stable internal governments hasn't worked out all that well recently. The Afghans should be left to work out their own fate. We will always be interlopers and do-gooders (I say this as someone who has helped fund a girl's school in Afghanistan -- among the few sensible things the Allies have grudgingly decided was a good thing). The whole thing breaks one's heart, but that's the terrible reality, not just in Afghanistan, but in many parts of the world. yours, Peter T. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:31 PM If we leave before the Kabul government is strong enough, and the military and police properly trained, what do you suppose will be the fate of that girls' school Peter, and the girls who attend it? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM In my last message, I was refering to Little Hawk's excellent post. Lest anyone gets the wrong idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM Yes, and you're both right. One only has to look at what is happening in Greece at this very moment to verify the whole thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:30 PM "What Resources? It's a friggin' desert. And I'm sorry LH, but I am not in need of a history lesson. Believe it or not, I have a brain, I have eyes, I am capable of rational thought, and I am not in the least interested in how, why, or when this started." Maybe not history, but you're certainly in need of a GEOLOGY lesson!! This also casts doubt on your other claims(above). :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:39 PM "The USA has built some very extensive military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think the USA has any intention of abandoning those bases? I don't." From Little Hawk's post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:08 PM OK smartarse, educate me. Tell me about the gold, or oil, or whatever those Afghans are sitting on which they don't seem to benefit from. They're poverty stricken, so where are they going wrong. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM Iraq.....Natural resources Afghanistan .....Strategic positioning. Now, put on this nice big pointy hat and go stand in the corner!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM "Afghanistan .....Strategic positioning." The British tried to play that game as well as "The Middle East"... funny how the USA wanted to push THEM out... "It's OK - as long as we have THEM, it justifies US..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:40 PM At the end of the day, it takes boatloads of weapons, munitions, and young men and women to advance anything in either place. The people who are profiting from that are the real enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:51 PM "The people who are profiting from that are the real enemy. " And I'm bemused by how, when the USA claims to not have the money to send more troops, the money can be found to send more higher paid US mercenaries... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 07 Apr 10 - 10:22 PM Afganistan??? Lots of poppi fields... But forget them... We have a number of last-century thinkin' go on here about how important Afganistan in this bigass geopolitical game... Ahhhhh, I don't get it??? We have a ever increasingly tribalized, world economy now... This ain't yer grandfather's planet... No, what we have is an enormouse military/industrialist complex in the US of A that is very much interested in keeping them federal dollars comin' their way... Thus, they create one boogie-man after another... I agree with Don that Obams is stuck playin' out a hnad he was given... But, I think he is doing it with a mindfull eye that both of Bush's wars weren't wars he would have gotten US bogged down into... I mean, he has (in spite of Republican resistence) worked toward restoring the US's reputation as a world leader (as opposed to a world bully)... He deserves credit for this... And let's keep in mind here the simple fact that what you see from Obama is exactly what he said you would see so if folks are disappointed then shame on them for creating in Obama something that Obama never promised... Yeah, the drilling is bone-headed but, hey, I understand why he has thrown the right a bone here... I mean, that's what the entire Repub '08 campaign was about with "Drill, Baby, drill" and so he took that one off the table early in the hopes of not allowing the Repubs to get lathered up over that... Smart politics but hardly a major misrepresentation of the man's core beliefs... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:38 AM Bobert:I mean, he has (in spite of Republican resistance) worked toward restoring the US's reputation as a world leader (as opposed to a world bully)... He deserves credit for this... " (On the 'news' today)..After he declared his new defense 'strategy' the president of Iran, now calls him an 'amateur'. I'm not sure that instills a lot of confidence in me that he is not being perceived overseas,(and by our enemies), as weak, and us vulnerable. Time will tell...for all those who are 'slow' to grasp. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 07:28 AM Well, GfS... I reaslly don't consider a tin-horn dictator who carries out of the wishes of a right wing thoecrats to be much of an authority on much of anything... The fact is that Achma-ding-a-ling, in making such statements, is evidence that Obama's work in restoring the US as a world "leader" is working... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Peter T. Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:12 AM I thought that it was obvious what I thought would happen to the girls. That was my point. The idea that we -- WE -- can make a stable government in Afghanistan and train the military and the police is a chimera. The powerful people there have to want this. I don't see any evidence that they do. The weak will suffer. We cannot protect everyone in the country unless we take over the country, and we aren't able to do so. We can't do the same in the Congo, Burma, Burundi, the Sudan, and the list goes on....The great question which is obscured by the details of this misguided operation is how the world deals with messed up countries -- even before one focusses on the ones that might be seedbeds for terrorism (and it should be noted that the main seedbed for terrorism in the world has been and is Saudi Arabia, which funds on a grand scale fundamentalist wahabi schools all over the world, and is a gallant ally of the United States, how stupid is that?). At the moment humanitarian needs and military invasions are mingled together in a hopelessly toxic way. This could be improved (not made perfect, but improved) if certain countries who will remain nameless began to think internationally again in a serious way. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:21 AM I totally agree, Peter... Neither of Bush's wars had any chance of a favorable outcome... I hate it that Obama is so politically boxed in on Afganistan... It's almost like Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam... It's heartwrenching because these senseless wars are not only draining our treasury but crippling our abilities to move forward for our own people's best interests... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 10 - 12:03 PM Bobert, I understand that you don't like Ahmadinejad.... ;-) That's fine with me. But....you refer to him as "a tin-horn dictator". Huh? On what basis? He is an elected politician, Bobert. They have multi-party elections in Iran at scheduled intervals. In simply glibly referring to him as a "dictator" when he does not fit that definition, you are unwittingly echoing propaganda for people who would very much like to have a war with Iran. Sort of like going on about Saddam's "WMDs" back in 2003. It sounds really scary, but it's not accurate in the sense of communicating anything with a factual basis. If the theocrats in Iran had appointed Ahmadinejad to his position for life, then he'd be a dictator, but he has to face elections and win them, and the last election there was hotly contested. He might well have lost it. If he had, you'd probably be calling the guy who replaced him "a tinhorn dictator". ;-) See what I mean? There were allegations of election fraud by the losers of that Iranian election. Uh-huh. Well, there are also allegations of election fraud in Afghanistan's last election....and there undoubtedly was some election fraud there. But we don't call Karzai "a tinhorn dictator", do we? We claim they have a democracy now, because they have multi-party elections...like in Iran. And there are often allegations of election fraud in the USA too...and I bet it happens. But we don't call the American president "a tinhorn dictator". Do you see how words are used to create sweeping impressions of good and evil about nations? Iranians are routinely demonized in the western press by the selective use of trigger words like "dictator", Bobert. That's propaganda. It is intended to get people onside for supporting another war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 10 - 12:34 PM I'd like to say that I am NOT disappointed over Obama's new agreement with the Russians to mutually scale down their number of nuclear warheads. Good job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:09 PM Okay, LH... He's a tin-horn incorporated puppet elected by bogus elections... Ya' like that better??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Greg F. Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:19 PM But we don't call Karzai "a tinhorn dictator", do we? We should! Or at least a "a tin-horn incorporated U.S. puppet elected by bogus elections". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: akenaton Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:19 PM Not Mr Obama? Shurly shome mistake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Greg F. Date: 08 Apr 10 - 06:39 PM Wrong election, Ake- the bogus one was Bush in 2000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 07:53 PM Oh yeah, America's tin-horn dictator... (No, Boberdz... He was America's "tin-horn-decider"...) Don't matter... The elction was indeed bogus... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:36 PM The election was fair and square. 5 to 4. Doesn't the Supreme Court always elect the president? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Apr 10 - 09:51 PM Only when it matters! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:12 PM "weren't wars he would have gotten US bogged down into" Bobert Rides Again. The world according to Bobert. Obama was never opposed to the war in Afghanistan, only the Iraq war. He has always been a supporter of the war in Afghanistan. Here it is in his own words on his own website, barackobama.com: And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda." Mar 27 2009: The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater numbers than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan - a future without opportunity or hope; a future without justice or peace. The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America , our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more. December 2, 2009: To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:51 PM Sawz??? You out there??? Earth to Sawz??? Man, you really don't see reality, do you??? I mean, any political scientist that is in touch with the real deal would tell ya' that Obama, or anyone else on the planet, would never hade been elected if he campaigned on shuttin' down both wars... Dennis Kucinick was as close to that posoition as one could be and look what happened to him??? Let's get real here... This ain't rocket surgery... Had McCain been elected we would have two very hot wars on our hands... Shoot, with Sarah "I can see Russia from my back deck" Palin, maybe another new 'n shiney Shock and Awe'r on our hands so make that a possible three... If you follow the money, I don't think that the folks who profit from endless war are too happy with Obama... Yeah, in the interim, some will be just fine and they'll put a big smile on their faces as they stand in front of their stockholders but Obama-world is a big threat to their jobs, and their share of the federal pie... Sad... Bruce Springsteen had a lesser CD come out at the end of his run with his recoding contract... The name of the CD is "Lucky Town"... ON that CD is a song entitled "The Big Muddy" which is a great pure folk singers song... One of Bruce's lines in, "Sooner or later, it all comes down to money..." From my perspective we have a president who really ain't into the money game... And we have alot of other folks, way too many in Congress, who are totally into the money game and couldn't give a rip about the working class... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 10 - 11:06 PM The 911 attacks were not a military attack by any sovereign nation on the USA, they were a criminal act by a small group of individuals, and they should have been responded to with a criminal investigation and police and intelligence work, not with an absurd and couterproductive invasion of Afghanistan. Be that as it may, however, Obama said what he had to say to get elected. The American public (in general) simply isn't mature enough to respond in any other way to the 911 attacks than to go roaring off across the world and invade some other nation...whichever one gets the blame stuck on them for something they didn't plan and didn't do. So Obama said what he had to say in 2008. If he also believes it, though, well then maybe he is as naive and ill-informed as the people who voted for both him and McCain. Nothing whatsoever "compelled" the USA to fight a war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack America. There are much less costly ways of destroying a scattered group like Al Quaeda than invading other countries with armies. Matter of fact, that's the least likely way of destroying Al Quaeda that I can think of. It gets them lots more recruits and ensures their continued popularity with many angry young Muslim men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Apr 10 - 12:48 AM But, hey! How about some typical USA election propaganda? The clear reasons why you shouldn't vote for THE OTHER PARTY's candidate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Apr 10 - 12:58 AM Little Hawk, Yo-ho... Loved it!!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 09 Apr 10 - 01:55 AM "The solving of the terrorist problem, as a million people have said, is in Jerusalem, not Kabul." Thank you, Peter T, for restating that basic fact, and explaining the situation so well. Mudcat at its finest. It beggars the imagination that even the thicker right-wingers could fail to understand it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Apr 10 - 02:10 AM Bobert, Somehow I missed your post to me. I was only 'reporting' What was said by the idiot President of Iran. I was not agreeing, nor disagreeing. Frankly, he's as deluded as they come! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 10 - 07:40 AM Actually, GfS, my post wasn't directed to you but to L.H. when he disagreed with my assessment of Akma-ding-a-ling being a "tin-horn dictator", which I later ammended to "tin-horn puppet elected by a bogus election"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Apr 10 - 07:49 AM "It beggars the imagination that even the thicker right-wingers could fail to understand it." The thicker right-wingers can't understand it because Jerusalem is a major component of their "end of day scenario." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:31 AM That's the story I can't believe that the Christain Right has been able to implant in their followers little minds... Let's see if I have it right... Jesus is going to "come again" and then take (kill, I assume) all the "believers" and leave the Earth to the "heathens"??? Okee-dokee-alrighty-then... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM ""But....you refer to him as "a tin-horn dictator". Huh? On what basis? He is an elected politician, Bobert. They have multi-party elections in Iran at scheduled intervals. In simply glibly referring to him as a "dictator" when he does not fit that definition,"" That is a seriously debatable comment LH. When the people of a country are so certain an election was rigged, that they take to the streets at risk of life and limb, and the army has to be mobilised to restrain them, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that you know better, and he was legitimately elected. If you are wrong, as seems to be the opinion of the Iranian Man-in-the-Street, then a Dictator is exactly what he is, and a particularly volatile and unpredictable Dictator too. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:46 AM ""But we don't call the American president "a tinhorn dictator"."" ARE YOU SURE? There were quite a number who felt that way about Bush. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:57 AM ""Jesus is going to "come again" and then take (kill, I assume) all the "believers" and leave the Earth to the "heathens"???"" HELL BOBERT! If that's the case, I'll move to the USA immediately. There'll be nobody else but us Catters...........HEAVEN ON EARTH! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 10 - 12:37 PM I think that's the story, Don... I bought some carpet a few years back from a woman who came to our home with samples and all that... Anyway, we got to talkin' and that's the story she was tryin' to tell me... You know, "The Rapture" thing... So I just kept askin' her questions and purdy soon she was so confused that she really wished that she hadn't brought it up at all but said she was gonna send me some literature to read up on it... BTW, I never got that literature, danged it... I was kinda lookin' forward to this glossy brochure with a piccure of Jesus killin' off his followers... Thought that it might make fir a nice frameable art object... I donno... I've said it many times that I consider myself to be a follower of Christ but, geeze loiuse, I ain't expectin' to find him at my doorstep with an AK-47!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 09 Apr 10 - 12:51 PM He doesn't kill them, silly, they float up into the clouds with him, then up up and away to Heaven. And the nogoodniks only get the planet for 1000 years (although estimates vary on this one) after which Jesus comes back and kicks ass. I don't believe this particular brand of dingo's kidneys but I have friends who do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Apr 10 - 01:12 PM Don, crooked elections happen all over the Third World. It's a veru common thing, and it happens in countries that are allies of the USA too. I'm not sure whether or not Ahmadinejad would have won that last election if the votes had all been counted fairly. I don't have any way of knowing if he would have, and neither does anyone else among us. I'm not a bit surprised that the losing candidate contested the results and his followers took to the streets. That would have happened even IF the election had been fair and Ahmadinejad had gotten over 50% of the votes. Consider elections in Pakistan. They always end in allegations of fraud perpetrated by the winners, huge demonstrations for and against the winners, riots, bloodshed, troops in the streets. And you know what? There always is election fraud there. ;-) Probably by both sides! The Iranian election was undoubtedly complicated by American money that was siphoned in through CIA agents, because the USA has quite a number of operatives working in Iran all the time to destabilize and bring down the government there. So the opposition was getting illegal assistance from outside the country. What would you think if that happened in an American election? What if the Chinese or someone were doing that on your ground? Would you like it? I don't think so. It is mere glib political propaganda to label Ahmadinejad as a "dictator". He's a temporary elected official, and he will eventually be replaced (while still alive) by another temporary elected official, just like the men who preceded him in the same office. He is not a dictator. Dictators rule for life, and they rule by absolute power. Ahmadinejad is far from having absolute power in that country. He's just the current poster boy that the American media has siezed upon so they can have a recognizable evil "face" for the American public to fear and obsess about. He's the USA's favorite propaganda tool, and if he was gone, he'd be sorely missed by the people who yearn for a war with Iran. They'd have to spend months or years building some other evil "face" up into the next media boogeyman, after all, if Ahmadinejad was gone. That would be inconvenient. He is perfect for American and Israeli propaganda purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM ""And the nogoodniks only get the planet for 1000 years (although estimates vary on this one) after which Jesus comes back and kicks ass."" WRAP IT UP MAN, I'LL TAKE IT! It's a damn sight better deal than my current contract, which only offers about another twenty. I'll take the thousand, and when it expires I'll happily bend over and take what's coming. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:15 PM What, LH... You related to Ahmedjinedad??? I mean, you've all but elevated him to Che Gavera status... Maybe we should take up a collection and buy him a gold plated M-16 fir his birthday with "Love from the Cat" inscribed on it??? I donno... Maybe a tie wold be more appropriate... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:41 PM Sawzaw to Bobert, come in Bobert. Nothing you said has anything to do with your totally incorrect claim that "weren't wars he would have gotten US bogged down into" He was always for the war in Afghanistan like he says on his website, I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. Are you saying he lied about it to get elected? Is he just another lying politician that says any thing to get elected. Here is where the Dems was criticizing him for being a Hawk on Pakistan: Sen Joseph Biden, who is also running for president, said Obama's proposal clearly shows his inexperience. It's not something you talk about, he said. The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan plans that threaten their sovereignty. Sen Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, used stronger words. Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power, he said. Jump back in your barrel Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:08 PM Literalist Sawz, Okay, it's kinda like when you go to Aunt June's for Thanksgiving and everyone raves about here sweet-potato pie because she makes a big deal about how she got the recipe from Great-granny... But no one really likes her sweet-potato pie and when they get together when Aunt June ain't around they all make jokes about havin' to pretend that they like the pie... In the South, it's called "grinnin' in yer face" where folks will act as if they is the best of friends (grinnin') when both know that if the rules were off that they'd be dukin' it out behind the barn... Unfotunately, that is the way politics are... Ya gotta pretend that Aunt June's sweet-potato pie is good and pretend that the guy yer grinnin' at and who is grinnin' back at you is the best of friends... That's life... That's also politics... Like I said, Obama couldn't have trashed both of Bush's wars and been elected so he picked the one that was the wronger of the two and went with the other so that he wouldn't give the Repub that big "soft on defense" opening... Can I prove that??? Nah... No one really can... I'm sure that Michelle knows what Obama really feels about Afganistan but, hey, like others who have come before him, he'll just have to ride this one out... But one thing is fir sure and that is that no other president has inherited two hot wars from the guy he followed... Not Reagan, not Lincoln, not Kennedy, not any of them... That alone isn't helping Obama in some quarters... I mean, regarless of whether or not he would have gotten US into one or both of these wars (which I think he wouldn't on both of them), he is stuck with them and as time goes on people will blame him for them... That's reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:38 PM I find it particularly Ironic that the war Obama said could not be won, The surge will not work There is no military solution in Iraq, is much closer to being ended than the war of necessity. Looks like the war in Afghanistan is falling apart and in need of a regime change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:30 AM You misunderstand me, Bobert. I have no particular liking...or disliking...for Ahmadinejad. As far as I'm concerned he's just another Third World politician who's been appointed as the latest propaganda poster boy by the US media, that's all. Prior to him you had Krushchev, Fidel Castro, Mao, Noriega, Kadaffi (you can spell that one several different ways), Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Daniel Ortega...on and on and on. The US government figures that its public is so stupid that they must be given symbolic "bad guys" like characters in a TV western to motivate them to support conflicts with other countries. So they always look for one. It helps a great deal if he has swarthy skin, facial hair, and a name that doesn't sound American!!! (Gasp!) If his name is unusual enough to American ears that the average American can't even pronounce it or spell it...so much the better. He MUST be evil, right? He must be the next "Hitler", a "clear and present danger" to the entire world, and he must be hunted down and "taken out", even if you have to kill a few million of his countrymen to do it. That's what I'm referring to. I'm not defending Ahmadinejad himself. I'm attacking another sad example of totally exaggerated and hysterical war propaganda that is being built around Ahmadinejad by the western media. I've seen it way too many times before. Same old tired, stupid routine we've seen ever since I can remember. Surely you recall when the world couldn't risk the continued existence of Muammar Quadaffi, don't you? Or Fidel? Or Mao? Two of them are still here, the world has survived just fine in spite of it, and you don't hear much about them now, because the empire is seeking objectives in other areas than Libya and Cuba at the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM Hey, Quadaffi is backon the officvail White House Christmas card list, LH... lol... And if Castro hangs on a couple more years, he may get on the list, too... But seriously, you are correct... It *is* the "same old tired, stupid routine we've seen ever since I can remember"... As fir Ahmedinejad... Given his recent proclamations, hey, he sounds like a "tin-horned _____________ " (whatever) to me... Yo, sawz... For the ump-teenth time, the aspect of "THE SURGE" (oh, how scarey) that worked was putting Sunnis on the American taxpayer's payroll... Not the Sarah Palin-ish simplistic view of more troops which had nothing to do with the Sunnis quitting shooting at US... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:10 AM Dear Bobert: So everything would have gone the same with no increase in troops? Yes or no? And what is so scary besides the fact that the surge worked and you are dancing like a bug in a hot frying pan trying to deny it? Matter of fact it worked so good that Obama is tring to claim it is one [one?] of his major successes. I don't see him claimin' that putting Sunnis on the payroll was one of his major successes. Or maybe you spin it one way and you spin it the other way. At least you are backing off of your "Hugo is da Man" attitude. That shows some logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:58 AM And talking of spin. ""Republicans reflected the public will with respect to health care. Every poll showed significant opposition to the health care legislation. By 2-1 the American people said stop it from passing. We tried to do that. But the Democrats were able to jam it through."" _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ""Although I am a Democrat, I personally believe it is better to do it the way Republicans do it. That way, a individual can research their favorite charities and foundations and give directly to them based on thier own beliefs."" _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Well folks, now we know how much credence to give to posts from Sawzaw, who is obviously a fully paid up member of the well known "Church of the Wholly Undecided". The only thing he is absolutely sure of is that he is either a Republican or a Democrat, depending on his mood, and the current state of his short term memory. I hope this will help him to come to terms with his political identity, should he ever find out what it is. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Apr 10 - 11:16 AM Whiziwig has difficulty determining good from bad, truth from propaganda. He is forced to be this way due to tribal thinking. Everything is judged on an all bad or all good basis depending on which tribe is involved. Therefore he must condemn anybody that disagrees with his tribe. Then he accuses the other tribe of doing the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Apr 10 - 11:45 AM IlLiteralist Bobert: You are unable to determine for sure if something is this way or that. You use fuzzy thinking to prove anything. It is like your rants on polls and stats. You can prove or disprove anything with polls and numbers so they are not conclusive and should not be depended on. Bobert can can prove or disprove anything with his fuzzy logic. He can use sweet tater pie to prove whether somebody said something or not. He can brag about his own illegal activities and condemn others for theirs using his fuzzy logic. The ego does that to a person. Their ego overpowers their logic and forces them to defend their incorrect statements to the death. Bobert, can you use your logic to prove that Obama bought a beater airplane for his campaign? Or will your ego force you to avoid answering the question by deeming it irrelevant somehow? Remember, you were presented with all of the evidence and statements from the airline before you made your irreversible, infallible, cast in stone, never to be questioned "Bobert fact". Are you going to run like pigs from a gun when asked a straight up question? Did Obama buy his own airplane or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:47 PM How could Obama buy his own airplane? He doesn't know anything about airplanes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Apr 10 - 01:29 PM You don't have to know anything about airplanes to buy one. ;-) You just have to have enough money. Then you hire a pilot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:11 PM Obama would look good in the back seat of an old WWI bi-plane, with a leather skull cap and goggles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:56 PM I suppose... ;-) One good thing about those planes...if the engine fails, you can easily land them on any available piece of flat ground. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Lox Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:01 PM "Obama would look good in the back seat of an old WWI bi-plane, with a leather skull cap and goggles" haha - awesome! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:04 PM Well, Sawz... Not one person in the world knows the answer to the question about the success of the surge... We do know that when we started paying Sunnis not to shoot at us that they quit shooting at us... Heck, like you suggest, maybe they quit shooting at us because we had sent in more troops but that kinda doesn't match up with the istory of the Iraq war too well in that troop level had fluctuated up and down before the surge... The problem I have with the surge is that most Americans are completely unaware of of components of it... They have been misled into thinking it was purely more troops yet that is not correct... It was an entire new concept that Gen Petrais came up with that had troops embedded in the neighborhoods they patrolled during the day but now stayed in those areas at night... And, yes, it was also about scmoozing the Sunnis and paying them not to fight with US... I don't ven think that Bish understood the component of the surge or he would have renamed it to something that better represwented the US's shift in strategy which had little to do with increased troop levels... That is reality, Sawz... You can play games with it all you want... I really don't care about your games... That's just something you do for you entertainment and not anything that intersts me... Yo, Rigs... I love the picture of Obama in the back of a bi-plane... Hey, I'd be more than willing to fly front seat if he can get me cleared to fly him without an "offical" pilot's license... Details... Yeah, I'd love to take him up.. Maybe he could get us cleared to fluy into restricted air space and we could do a little touring around DC.. That would be a gas... As for Obama's campaign plane... All I know is that it was used, had alot of hours on it and had some mechanical troubles during the campaign... That, in my book, qualifies as a "beater"... Kinda like the junk I used to fly... You know, beaters... The one I crashed on my 16th birthday was built in the 30's... Hey, it was an okay plane... Kinda... No instruments to speak of... Kinda like an old Volkswagen... Kinda like Obama's campaign plane compared to AirForceOne... BTW, folks, how many of ya'll know that there are two idential AirForceOnes and that when the president has to make a trip that both are prepared as if they are the one that is going to be used??? Purdy interesting, ain't it... They don't ven tell the crew which plane is going up... Yeah, I know... Sawz is gonna say, "Prove it"... I can't... But it is true... I know a crew member of AirForceOne... That's all I am going to say on this so don't bother buggin' me about it 'cause. like I said, that's all I'm going to say... Period... What else??? Well, nothing... Nice day in the mountins... Found my first "mergals" (morells) mushrooms this afternoon so life is good... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:47 AM "Not one person in the world knows the answer to the question about the success of the surge" So Obama is talking through his ass when he said it worked? "how many of ya'll know that there are two identical Air Force Ones" About every 5th grader on up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Apr 10 - 10:43 AM "You don't have to know anything about airplanes to buy one... You just have to have enough money. Then you hire a pilot." That works okay as long as your interests and the pilot's interests coincide, but when the don't... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:23 PM What Obama is doing, Sawzaw, is what all presidents do. He's trying to create the impression that everything is working out as planned...and that his approach is the right one to take. ;-) He's not the least bit unusual in that respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:01 AM Probably because he didn't know what the plan was in the first place. When something unusual happens the pupeteers step in and say, "Yeah, that's it, right on scheduel." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:03 PM ""Whiziwig has difficulty determining good from bad, truth from propaganda. He is forced to be this way due to tribal thinking. Everything is judged on an all bad or all good basis depending on which tribe is involved. Therefore he must condemn anybody that disagrees with his tribe. Then he accuses the other tribe of doing the same."" If you knew anything at all about me (which, I assure you, you do not), you would know that I never blindly accept the opinions or statements of others. So, having taken care of the specious "tribal" argument, I will point out that I disagree with your viewpoint because, over 69 years on this planet, I have heard the same views from much smarter sources, and they were equally wrong. I have been reading your posts for long enough to be able to form an opinion of my very own. They are either Republican propaganda crap, or thinly disguised Republican propaganda crap, masquerading as fair minded, or even Democrat. No amount of ego massaging from Little Hawk will change the fact that I have come to this conclusion entirely from my own observations. Somebody once asked me to stand as a candidate, and I refused, on the grounds that NO political party would put up with my insistence on making up my own mind. I would inevitably be saying NO when they wanted a YES, and vice versa. So don't presume to know how I make my choices pal. You don't have the smarts to work it out. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:36 PM Sawz: You're bouncing off the bumper again, pal. Bobert was commenting on Bush's Iraq surge, which was coincident with the Awakening, and a couple of other vectors. Your sarcasm about Obama was in the context of the Afghanistan/Pakistan surge. A different thing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM Quite aside from political partisan loyalties (which are usually a major impediment to achieving fairness and objectivity)...there are personal group loyalties and hostilities which will always arise within any club or regular gathering of human beings. Certain people get accustomed to banding together in groups against certain other people. Cliques form. Gangs form. Grudges build up. And that's when it starts to get nasty. The past history of disagreements between certain individuals serves as a firm foundation for further disagreements between those same people...almost regardless of what they said in their last post. What is seen in this case is more a playing out and rehashing of old, tired emotional baggage than a rational discussion of actual issues. It's one of the things that makes most clubs and associations of people a bit of a drag after awhile. But then again, what is one to do with one's restless mind if one can't turn on the computer every day and fight with distant people whom one may never meet about stuff that neither one can likely have any real effect upon? ;-) To be denied such an emotional outlet for latent hostility might lead to depression, frustration, and progressive dementia. It might cause you to kick the dog, murder your spouse, or rob the local bank. So perhaps it's a good thing! ;-) Have at it, gentlemen. (I bet Obama runs into this sort of shit all the time too...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:45 PM Yer right, LH... Seein' as you seem to agree with Sawz about lots of stuff maybe you could get him to see a competent thearapist about his obsession of playing fact-checker-from-Hell with just about everything I say... It's become an obsesssion with him not only here but at least at one other website where he has stalked me... Actually, I'm not sue if he stalked me from that one to yhere or vice-versa... I am, however, 99% sure that he was also "Old Guy" and "Dickey" from the style of the posts and certtain things he has confronted me about that were addressed to those two handles... As for a "cordial discussion" about "The Surge"... Wonder why the righties don't want to talk about it in any way that might show that they have been beating progressives over the head with "The Surge Bat" for a long time now but refuse to talk about what "The Surge" really was... Maybe they don't know??? I explained the components of it above... Amos threw in the "Awakening" aspect... Why can't we have that "cordial discussion" about what it reallly was??? Well, I'll tell you why... Because it flys in the face of what the right wants people to think... The have neatly revised history to their liking and don't want that neatness disturbed... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM ""What is seen in this case is more a playing out and rehashing of old, tired emotional baggage than a rational discussion of actual issues. It's one of the things that makes most clubs and associations of people a bit of a drag after awhile."" There you have it folks. Bow down and acknowledge the wise words of the all seeing, all knowing, Little Hawk. How would we ever be able to decide what we believe without his patronising, disrespectful input? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Apr 10 - 09:10 PM I don't care what you believe, Don. That's your business, not mine. Just stop insulting and bullying the people who don't happen to agree with you about some issue or another. I'm saying that your interpersonal behaviour toward others matters to me a hell of a lot more than your beliefs. I could say the same of anyone who lived beside me in a neighborhood or met me on the street. I don't care what their beliefs are. It's not my business, but I care how they treat other people. Beliefs are an inner matter, and I keep mine to myself most of the time. Behaviour is an outward matter, and it affects people directly. Beliefs are usually just a bunch of talk. Bla! Bla! Bla! Behaviour is the REAL thing. You want to know what you're dealing with with a person? Never mind about his stated "beliefs"...watch his behaviour. That will tell you what you're dealing with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:56 AM "Just stop insulting and bullying the people who don't happen to agree with you about some issue or another." He can't do that. Since he has no valid basis to defend his own opinions, nor to attack the opinions of others, he is forced to attack the people who disagree with him. Or at least that is what is to be derived from his past posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Lox Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:17 AM I think we can thank Don for contributing to these dicussions by giving his point of view. We can also thank Little Hawk for being nice to everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM ""He can't do that. Since he has no valid basis to defend his own opinions, nor to attack the opinions of others, he is forced to attack the people who disagree with him. Or at least that is what is to be derived from his past posts."" Whereas, of course, on the myriad occasions when you indulge, it's legitimate debate. ROFL Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Apr 10 - 06:06 AM Don T, How is your last comment addresing the FACT that you attack people rather than their ideas? Isn't it another example of exactly what I stated you are doing- attacking me rather than showing that you disagree with the facts I state? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Apr 10 - 05:53 PM ""How is your last comment addresing the FACT that you attack people rather than their ideas? Isn't it another example of exactly what I stated you are doing- attacking me rather than showing that you disagree with the facts I state?"" Since you do exactly the same in multiple threads, I don't feel I need to justify anything too you BB. If you can't take it, don't dish it out! I give back what I get. A smile gets a smile, and a snarl gets a snarl, and a genuine effort to discuss gets an appropriate response. Try the latter sometime, and I'll reply in kind. Not happened yet. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 14 Apr 10 - 06:16 PM Same problem I have with, Sawz, Don... But no... It's attack, attack, attack on his part... And the strange thing is that he doesn't attack on the substance of a thread but some other thing that he thinks he needs to attack me over which probably has alot of people wonderin', "What was that all about???" Well, my answer is, "I don't have a clue"... When the guy can't find any current thread to attack me over he'll dig up and old one???? But like you, Don... I'd love to ***discuss*** some of these issues... The problem is that folks will cut 'n paste their way outta having any discusssion... Or they will change the subjsct... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 14 Apr 10 - 06:39 PM Don T Please show me where I have attacked another person ( as opposed to their presented opinions) without first having been attacked by them when they disagreed with MY opinion? If I say you are wrong because of x and y, that is an attack ON YOUR FACTS. If you say I am saying "... either Republican propaganda crap, or thinly disguised Republican propaganda crap, " without any support for your statement YOU are stating an opinion, and not ( supported ) fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Apr 10 - 11:43 PM "By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — It won't be the last threat Bowles gets this year as he directs an 18-member, bipartisan commission through an ocean of red ink that has never been deeper or more foreboding. Under Obama's budget plan, the USA's debt in 2020 would be nearly the size of the entire economy then. Interest costs would be $900 billion, five times today's level." Sorta' stupid, huh? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:08 AM Maybe if everybody would just step back and look at the bigger picture... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:04 AM Mea culpa. There are obviously clear-thinking Mudcatters. Amos, Don T , and Bill D are three who immediately come to mind. But there are also an amazing number who subscribe to any number of absurd conspiracy theories--I am thinking especially of those who indeed seem to ascribe all the problems of the world to either world capitalism or organized religion. Those who can only grasp a Manichean view of politics and economics. Those who want desperately to believe that, for instance, the US government was responsible for the destruction of the twin towers---and therefore that if those who don't buy this can't answer every question put by him or her, it must be true. Etc. "The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you." As was perfectly put earlier in this thread: title should be "Obama disappoints me again". And if he does: "The fault, dear Brutus..." If the shoe fits.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Greg F. Date: 15 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM I am thinking especially of those who indeed seem to ascribe all the problems of the world to either world capitalism or organized religion. Glad to hear that you're thinking, Ron. Do keep at it. No-one (other than yourself- the all-knowing and all-seeing Simple Seeker) has ascribed "all" the problems to either. However, ther ARE responsible for quite a few. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:18 PM ""If you say I am saying "... either Republican propaganda crap, or thinly disguised Republican propaganda crap, " without any support for your statement YOU are stating an opinion, and not ( supported ) fact."" It is still an opinion based on the substance of your post, not your personality, and it is presented as my opinion, unless I specifically state that it is a FACT. I am, as are you, entitled to an opinion, unless of course free speech is limited to that speech with which you agree. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:28 PM Yes GUEST? And your point is? Don T,. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:40 PM sorry, that guest was me- no cookie here. Your post was, I believe, in reply to my ""Just stop insulting and bullying the people who don't happen to agree with you about some issue or another." He can't do that. Since he has no valid basis to defend his own opinions, nor to attack the opinions of others, he is forced to attack the people who disagree with him. Or at least that is what is to be derived from his past posts. " MY OPINION is that those here attacking other posters ( rather than the posts) have conceded that they have no rational support for their attacks, or their opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Apr 10 - 09:56 PM Well, Greg, how delightful to hear from you. Hope you're not too uncomfortable outside the gutter. And if you think Mudcatters are willing to accept that there are other causes for world problems than world capitalism and organized religion, why don't you start the ball rolling with a few suggestions other than those two? It is truly remarkable how seldom anything else gets cited as a source for problems--though of course Israel is another favorite target--perhaps falling under the "organized religion" rubric. As always, a bit of logic and common sense would be appreciated. If you can manage it. Thanks so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Apr 10 - 10:07 PM Wiwig is taking two quotations from other people taht I pasted and trying to attribute them to me: "Republicans reflected the public will with respect to health care. Every poll showed significant opposition to the health care legislation. By 2-1 the American people said stop it from passing. We tried to do that. But the Democrats were able to jam it through." "Although I am a Democrat, I personally believe it is better to do it the way Republicans do it. That way, a individual can research their favorite charities and foundations and give directly to them based on thier own beliefs." Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Apr 10 - 10:50 PM CC says: "big polluters would still pay for their carbon emissions, but the money would go to the taxpayers in a similar way that people in Alaska get a dividend from the oil companies for the oil they take from Alaska. This money could be used by the taxpayers to pay for more fuel efficient means of transportation." I am not trying to be argumentative here but anytime a tax or any kind of fee is imposed, a higher price shows up somewhere. In the case of energy. It shows up everywhere from food to electricity. The people in Alaska my benefit but the extra expense is passed on to the rest of America. There is always the unintended consequences. It takes 1 gallon of fuel to produce 1.35 gallons of corn ethanol. The use of corn causes the price of corn to rise for people all over the world. In Brazil they destroy the rain forest to make more land to grow soybeans for diesel fuel. Burning bio diesel still produces the same amount of CO2 but now there is less rain forest to convert the CO2 back into O2. And it raises the price of soybean products all over the world. I am all for more efficient use of energy, cleaner sources of energy and less pollution but I don't think taxing things is the answer. It always ends up hurting the little guy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/22/quarter-us-grain-biofuels-food |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:22 AM Don: "Yes GUEST?" Was that directed at me, or someone else? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:28 PM GfS, if it were directed at you, I would have said GfS. It was directed at the one who signed in simply as GUEST. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM Just for the record, I'm not all that disappointed with Obama... And, frankly, I am wondering why so many Repubs seem to be... Face it, he ain't no socialist or he wouldn't have a signed a health care reform bill that had no provisions for either single payer or a public option... Now would I have liked to see those in the bill??? Darned right, I would... But I, like Obama, have turned more into a pragmatist in that, hey, this is a start... I was slightly disappointed with his stance on oil drilling... I mean, if the Repubs were honextly negotiating anything at all then maybe... But they aren't... They are the AWOL Party so I say as long as they don't want to play then leave them out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:41 PM ""Wiwig is taking two quotations from other people taht I pasted and trying to attribute them to me:"" There is no indication of a cut and paste on that post, SoreJaw, so if it is attributed to you, it's because that's how you made it look. Perhaps you would like to prove your assertion by pointing to the "real" source of those two sentences. No? Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Apr 10 - 11:52 PM Republicans reflected the public will with respect to health care. Every poll showed significant opposition to the health care legislation. By 2-1 the American people said stop it from passing. We tried to do that. But the Democrats were able to jam it through. Although I am a Democrat, I personally believe it is better to do it the way Republicans do it. That way, a individual can research their favorite charities and foundations and give directly to them based on thier own beliefs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Apr 10 - 12:05 AM From: Bobert - PM Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:42 PM Hey, Sawz... Ain't you the guy who is supportin' the guy who doesn't even know how many houses he owns??? The plane??? Snazzin' up and gettin a 30 year old airplane safe to fly not only him but some 100 memebrs of the press corp si a different subject... I know a little about airplanes and they need alot or work from time to time... That's what Obama did... He bought a "beater", refurbrished it the best he could and over a hundred people been flyin' on that sumabich ever since... Oh, so that is a crime??? Heck, this "beater" was in such bad shape that it even almost crashed once??? But now Obama is the bad guy, Sawz??? Come on, man... Yer arguments are bcoming tiresome... B~ Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh North American Airlines Operates Campaign Aircraft for Barack Obama I never said I supported McCain The houses were held in a blind trust The "almost crash" was on the ground and due to human error |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Apr 10 - 03:31 AM Ok, Don....... May you strum, or pick merrily! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:24 AM Thank you. I stand corrected. Perhaps next time, if you use the customary method of presenting cut 'n paste material..............? That way we'll know you are quoting somebody else. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bobert Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:25 AM And, for the record, the ease and grace that Obama has demonstarted in dealing with foriegn leaders, evidenced by his recent summit on controlling existing nuclear stockpiles, is somethig that would have had Bush in way over Bush's head... Of course the Repubs don't like it... It really bugs them that the Dems have in Obama someone who is competent... Go figure??? Make one wonder if the Repubs just are hoping that everything goes wrong in the country so they can get back in power and make things go even wronger if that's what it takes to get back into the big $$$$... That's what this is about folks... All the Repubs want is to get back to the Gravy Train... They don't really give a flyin' fig about the country... They just want the power and the $$$$... Nothing else... No make that, "absolutely" nothin else!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 05 May 10 - 01:44 AM "Yo, sawz... For the ump-teenth time, the aspect of "THE SURGE" (oh, how scarey) that worked was putting Sunnis on the American taxpayer's payroll... Not the Sarah Palin-ish simplistic view of more troops which had nothing to do with the Sunnis quitting shooting at US..." So everything would have gone the same with no increase in troops? Yes or no? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 05 May 10 - 01:52 AM Come on, Sawz - it takes you 19 days to come up with that response? Weak, man, weak. Once again: This thread is about off-shore oil drilling. Does anyone have anything to say about that TODAY??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 10 - 02:00 AM michaelr: "Once again: This thread is about off-shore oil drilling. Does anyone have anything to say about that TODAY???" Let me see now,.......let me cut and paste something....: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again So, I guess THAT'S what the thread is about..One thing after another....stuff starts to add up...its ALL about NOW!! Remindingly Respectful, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 05 May 10 - 02:26 AM I think you're in the wrong thread, michaelr. Ask the concierge for directions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 10 - 02:42 AM T thought I was on you skip list! (couldn't resist, eh?) Nope, its the right thread! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 10 - 01:45 PM Obama biggest recipient of BP cash By ERIKA LOVLEY | 5/5/10 5:05 AM EDT While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years. BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy. During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0n4uFSA95 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 May 10 - 01:58 PM The main reason Obama disappoints so badly is...he's just not that funny! He's too intelligent and serious and cerebral to be very funny at all. Remember how funny George Bush was??? Remember how funny Bill Clinton was??? Obama simply can't compete with that. It's boring not having a president who can set people rolling in the aisles every time he screws up. Check out my thread "Remember how much fun this was?" for a reminder of how cool it can be to have a president who inspired hearty laughter instead of mere low level frustration... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bill D Date: 05 May 10 - 02:13 PM "He's too intelligent and serious and cerebral to be very funny at all." Tsk...such a problem! *I* happen to think he's pointedly funny when the situation warrants. There's not a whole lot of things to laugh at on his plate right now. (Oh..and by the way... Obama DID disappoint me a couple of weeks ago! He was responding to questions about some disaster, and he said....*gasp*..."It just wrecked havoc on the....". My faith is totally shattered! I may have to vote....ummmm...let me see, who DOES know better?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 05 May 10 - 02:37 PM Bill....you have to admit that he isn't anything as funny as G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton were! ;-) Obama needs to do some really totally wacky stuff to enliven his presidency and get people in a good mood again. I don't know what, but it should be something that's really off the wall...not harmful, mind you...just downright idiotic. Maybe I should have Chongo give him some advice on that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 05 May 10 - 03:25 PM Hey mousethief, it's my freakin' thread. I know where I am! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 05 May 10 - 03:45 PM I am more than happy to trade an entertaining psycho for a steady-on, articulate man with brains and the ability to use them. Life disappoints--this oil spill is no joke. But I think it is really silly to try and imply that Obama was in BP's pocket about it. Especially with no concrete evidence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 10 - 03:48 PM Amos, "But I think it is really silly to try and imply that Obama was in BP's pocket about it. Especially with no concrete evidence." "BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals." Bought and paid for, documented, and YOU think it is silly. Yet Bush should be impeached becaused YOU don't understand conditional statements (IF a THEN b.)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 05 May 10 - 03:52 PM Conflating campaign donations with political control post-election is a big assumption, for which you have no evidence. What has Obama done for BP that you think was a quid-pro-quo? Care to specify? Your underhanded generalizations are as tasty as tarballs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 10 - 05:03 PM Amos, "Conflating campaign donations with political control post-election is a big assumption, for which you have no evidence." You want me to go badck and get your anti-Bush comments that did exactly that???? Double standard, again. If the contributions made Bush a slave to his contributors, then Obama has the same chains. If it does not, you owe Bush and those of us who argued you to be wrong an apology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bill D Date: 05 May 10 - 05:26 PM Sorry, Bruce...but you gotta do more than compare cherry-picked numbers to compare influence. There is EVIDENCE that Bush did exactly what certain campaign contributors wanted... I don't see much that Obama has done to please them. and..""BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama," My calculator says that comes to an average $180,000 per year, for ALL contributions...and even IF Obama's campaign received the 'largest' chunk a couple of years ago, it doesn't sound like much money as these things go. Do you really think "bought & paid for" applies for a few thousand? Some companies just 'spread it around', attempting to get who they 'think' might suit them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 10 - 05:30 PM Amos: "Life disappoints--this oil spill is no joke. But I think it is really silly to try and imply that Obama was in BP's pocket about it. Especially with no concrete evidence." Neither was the NYC terrorist attempt, yet the left was all to ready to blame Tea Party people for it, before anything was known!....Double Standard??......or just reckless, mindless, trigger happy whiners?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 10 - 06:12 PM BillD, "I don't see much that Obama has done to please them." Oh? You seem to have your eyes shut. Look at his payoffs to the unions- re GM alone. As a stockholder, I get nothing. The Union got 20some percent. Stockholders represented a much larger amount of the investment in GM, but got the shaft. Union ( that paid heavily into Obama'a campaign) got a big payoff. Show me ANY example of a payoff of that magnitude in relation to the Bush administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 10 - 06:18 PM Let me see... Obama got $72,000 from BP - and clearly has not been influenced in any way. McCann got $36,000 from BP- and thus was in the pockets of the oil companies. NOW I understand what a Liberal means by fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Bill D Date: 05 May 10 - 06:19 PM "Payoffs"?? Sheesh... every action or decision is in SOMEONE'S favor. Why is something that didn't get YOU a check automatically a 'payoff'? The GM mess was not exactly what I'd call a response to political contributions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 05 May 10 - 06:42 PM The premise of this thread is that Obama announced plans to open coastal areas that have been protected for decades to oil and gas drilling. This would doubtless be in BP's interest, don't you think? He did so just a couple of weeks before the current Gulf disaster unfolded demonstrating exactly why that is a bad idea. Heck, even the Goobernator of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, just went public saying that the oil isn't worth the risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 05 May 10 - 08:12 PM GfS: I know of NO instance where anyone said or implied that the Times Square bomb was blamed on Tea Prty people by anyone. Yet in your perfervid imagining you attribute such an off-the-wall accusation yo some delusory generality you call "liberals"?? That's ridiculous, at best. Bruce: Specifically what policy or action of Obama's are you attributing to having been bought by BP if any? Recall that it was Republican pressure that kept[ off-shore drilling on the table as a campaign and post-campaign issue. A |
|
Subject: Old Time Record Lady music From: GUEST Date: 05 May 10 - 08:14 PM I am a little new at this. Hope you can help. Attempting to find music from the record lady. Do you have any idea who can help me? cgdepuy@aol.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Riginslinger Date: 05 May 10 - 10:02 PM "I know of NO instance where anyone said or implied that the Times Square bomb was blamed on Tea Prty people by anyone." But Mayor Bloomberg surmised that is was some right wing political type who disagreed with the healthcare bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ebbie Date: 05 May 10 - 10:07 PM "I am a little new at this. Hope you can help. Attempting to find music from the record lady. Do you have any idea who can help me? cgdepuy@aol.com" It's my understanding, Guest, that the Record Lady shut down because of various problems, legal and otherwise. 'The Honking Duck' may still be going though. I haven't used it for some time but it was there not too long ago. A good resource. Why don't you become a Mudcat member? It's easily done. Eb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 05 May 10 - 11:30 PM Will you people quit derailing my f@#$%^g thread!!?? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ebbie Date: 06 May 10 - 12:52 AM sshhh, Michaelr. I was hoping you wouldn't notice my directing her to memberhood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 12:58 AM michaelr: Heck, even the Goobernator of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, just went public saying that the oil isn't worth the risk. Hindsight is 20/20. Comparing what the Schwartz said after the spill to what Obama said before the spill is ridiculous. You can't possibly think it's a fair comparison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 06 May 10 - 01:20 AM If Arnold can figure it out after the fact, I expect Obama to be smart enough to know better before. It's not the first ever oil spill, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 01:24 AM Your partisanship has affected your ability to reason. The two just aren't comparable. We were told these rigs were safe, there were failsafe valves, etc. Just as we're told nuclear plants are safe. Both have comparable safety records. Now we know it's an illusion. And people are telling us to step up nuclear power production. I hope Obama is smart enough to see before the next Chernobyl that it's not as safe as its advocates claim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 10 - 11:55 AM "Your partisanship has affected your ability to reason." That's an almost universal problem, isn't it? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 11:57 AM I've never had any problem with it. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 10 - 12:04 PM Good, good... ;-) So, are you gonna vote for Chongo next time? I think I can safely promise that he will disappoint in much more dramatic, exciting, and entertaining ways than Mr Obama is capable of. 8 years of Chongo in the Oval Office could make people forget all about George Bush, in fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 12:08 PM What's in it for me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 12:13 PM Wait -- can Chongo prove he was born in the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 10 - 05:06 PM What's in it for you? You have to ASK???? Why, the glow of knowing you've done the right thing for your country, man! Chongo was not born in the USA. He makes no bones about that. He was born in Africa. He intends to challenge the unfair constitutional provision that bars people from being president who weren't born in America...and hopefully to get an amendment passed before the next election that will remove that impediment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Ebbie Date: 06 May 10 - 05:29 PM Ah. So he and Ahnold will be on the same ticket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 10 - 05:51 PM That is the one problem with Chongo's plan....a niggling little detail that has caused some concern in APP planning and strategy rooms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 06 May 10 - 06:09 PM I can see the TEa Party revving up on that one. Proposition 8 will have NOTHING on Proposition 666--An Act Forbidding Other Species from Entering Human Politics in the United States of America. Hoooboy, they'll have a field day with that one!! Wait 'til the Mormons hear about it!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 10 - 07:09 PM Chongo has already written off any idea of getting support from the Mormons. As for the Tea Party....well, not much hope of support there either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 10:42 PM Look, I only vote for the Democrats because I know they will continue funding NPR. If I'm going to vote for Chongo I need a good, selfish reason. Like for instance people who make billions of dollars a second voting for the Republicans. You know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 10 - 11:05 PM I understand. I'll have to check with Chongo and see what kind of platform the APP is working out for next time, and then I'll get back to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Sawzaw Date: 07 May 10 - 01:24 AM billions of dollars a second would be a good enough reason for me. Where do I apply? I would only need to work a tiny fraction of a second and then retire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 May 10 - 05:00 AM ""Chongo has already written off any idea of getting support from the Mormons. As for the Tea Party....well, not much hope of support there either."" There used to be a Daily event in London, which would be right up Chongo's street. It was known as the Chimps' Tea Party, and it took place at Regnt's Park Zoo. Learn the lesson of history Chongo. You are the natural leader of the Tea Party!.........Now Go and sort 'em out! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 07 May 10 - 10:51 AM "David Brooks: Gail, would you mind if I praised Barack Obama today? I thought not. I'm feeling grateful to the prez these days because we happen to be in the middle of a bunch of midsized crises. There's the oil spill in the Gulf (which is verging on a big crisis, I guess). There's the Times Square bomber. There are various floods in Tennessee and elsewhere. The European Union is falling apart over the Greek debt crisis, and so on and so on. It's good to have a president with equipoise. It seems to me that Obama is handling his role, which ranges from the marginal to the significant, in these events with calm professionalism. He's active yet not annoying. He's not taking credit for everything. He's not creating friction by making any missteps. He is calm, cool and collected. Gail Collins: Please, feel free to applaud the president as much as you like. But I'm sorry I can't return the favor when it comes to the Republicans. All we're hearing is carping or sullen silence. And there's John McCain, complaining again about giving the alleged Times Square bomber his Miranda rights. (Nothing worse than handling a prisoner in a way that will make it possible to take him to trial.) And while it's not exactly in the same category with Rush Limbaugh's claim that the administration wanted a big oil spill, I was kind of bemused by the House minority leader, John Boehner, who seems to be claiming that a monster spill demonstrates our need for more offshore drilling. David Brooks: Sometimes people fault Obama for being too cool. I can see their point 5 percent of the time, but 95 percent of the time, it's good to have a president with equipoise. Times like this — with stuff bubbling in all directions — are typical. This is why people elected him over McCain. Gail Collins: Well, this is why people elected him. When the economy collapsed they looked at him and McCain and decided in about three seconds which one they wanted running the show in a crisis. David Brooks: When the oil thing blew, he mobilized what he could, he delegated authority, especially to the Coast Guard, and he reminded the world that even amid disasters like this, we still need a variety of energy sources. Gail Collins: Certainly true, but I suspect we won't be hearing a whole lot of "drill, baby, drill" in the near future. David Brooks: It took a long time to get to the point when we stopped debating which energy source was best and started agreeing that we need a lot of different sources. The debate went from "x or y" to "x and y." We could have lost that near-consensus, but Obama kept his head, while still putting pressure on BP. Those are small acts of statesmanship, but valuable ones. I especially appreciate this because I have never been able to assign moral value to different energy sources. ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 07 May 10 - 12:13 PM Not again! Don't you have anything meaningful to do today, Amos? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 May 10 - 12:21 PM Today????????????????????????????????????????????????????? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 08 May 10 - 01:06 AM In the news today: BP's application for the Deepwater Horizon well was approved without an Environmental Impact Report. They were given an exemption intended for projects mith minimal impact such as building outhouses or hiking trails. It's inconceivable this could have happened without someone getting paid off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 08 May 10 - 01:16 AM But what does that have to do with Obama? Don't tell me they've done all the planning and work on this thing since January 2008? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 08 May 10 - 01:16 AM Um, I mean January 2009. Nothing like a brain fart to ruin a good piece of spleen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 08 May 10 - 11:08 AM I'm not blaming Obama. I was responding to an exchange between bb and Amos from May 5, before all that Chongo nonsense appeared in this thread. In fact, I don't know when the Gulf well was approved; it may have been when Bush was still in office. If anyone was paid off, it was likely someone in Mineral Management, which had some kind of sex/corruption scandal in recent years, IIRC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Amos Date: 08 May 10 - 11:50 AM Little Hawk That brief excerpt from a discussion between David Brooks and Gale whoosis from the New York Times is a lot more germane to this thread than all your bullshit about imaginary ne'er-do-well mini-cephalic simians. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: Little Hawk Date: 08 May 10 - 04:52 PM Heh! Feeling a bit titchy today, are we, Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 08 May 10 - 07:06 PM Either it was when Bush was still in office, or they approved it, built a rig in a mile of water, and drilled 35k feet in a single year. That's some feat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: michaelr Date: 08 May 10 - 08:10 PM Yeah, it would be interesting to find out more about MMS's approval process. However, the Deepwater Horizon was not a "rig" that was "built" in a mile of water. It was a ship that traveled there under its own power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama disappoints again From: mousethief Date: 08 May 10 - 09:32 PM I knew that. |
