Obama worship - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 2

Obama worship

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768794

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Fastone View Post
    No, see the real problem is you're a hater but that's ok because you have that right. You still haven't gotten over the fact that your candidate didn't have the goods and was further sabotaged by the man who was sitting in the White house.

    :bruce3:
    do you have yours on order yet?
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far

  2. Professional Member
    jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2186

    Reputation

    If you listen to Pres Obama's exceptance speech then play it backwards it has secret messages His secret plan is exposed.
  3. New Member
    GotTest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    331

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bigrobbierob View Post
    I also see your point on his Obots. ...
    Obots...I love that.
    Part of my vocab now.
    •   
       

  4. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    The worship is a bit ostentatiously fervent at times, I agree. This being said, I would hope even the most stringent NeoCons [cue: Easy] could embrace the benefits of certain achievements, even if they are exclusively symbolic, of this current election and subsequent administration. From a foreigner's perspective, I can confidently assert that the symbolism of Obama's intended negotiation tactics, the termination of Guantanamo Bay, this so-called "hope-based administration" [quite cliche by now] and so forth do impart to the U.S., some sorrily-needed goodwill.

    Bush was unfairly blamed for the combination of failed monetarist supply-side economics in the fiscal/global investment sector combining with Clinton's equally as disastrous easy-credit fiasco; funnily enough, if the economy recovers expediently, Obama will be heralded. The amusing part is that, for all their efforts, true history will regard each of them as entirely insignificant in the course of their respective epoch's economy!
  5. purebred
    Guest
    purebred's Avatar

    people are too fanatical. i don't think "enthusiasm" and "energy" describes what that kid has...lol
  6. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    The worship is a bit ostentatiously fervent at times, I agree. This being said, I would hope even the most stringent NeoCons [cue: Easy] could embrace the benefits of certain achievements, even if they are exclusively symbolic, of this current election and subsequent administration. From a foreigner's perspective, I can confidently assert that the symbolism of Obama's intended negotiation tactics, the termination of Guantanamo Bay, this so-called "hope-based administration" [quite cliche by now] and so forth do impart to the U.S., some sorrily-needed goodwill.

    Bush was unfairly blamed for the combination of failed monetarist supply-side economics in the fiscal/global investment sector combining with Clinton's equally as disastrous easy-credit fiasco; funnily enough, if the economy recovers expediently, Obama will be heralded. The amusing part is that, for all their efforts, true history will regard each of them as entirely insignificant in the course of their respective epoch's economy!
    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."


    Obama's Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel



    They just did. 800 billion dollars worth.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  7. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    A 40-Year Wish List
    You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.



    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

    So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
    [Review & Outlook] AP

    We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

    In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.


    Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."
    [Review & Outlook]

    Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

    Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

    Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
    In Today's Opinion Journal



    As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

    Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

    The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

    This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  8. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

    Obama's Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel

    They just did. 800 billion dollars worth.
    No disagreement here. Cataclysmic crises, such as the one we are experiencing now, almost universally present opportunities for restructuring of the global economy via necessitated termination of non-profitable industries, and the insertion of new catalyst industries [see: WWII, as you know]. This being said, I still feel that certain symbolic achievements may be taken from this infant-administration, in regards to regaining the US's moral conscience. The first step in regard to restoring yourselves to that nation, is abandoning the sense of cowboy-nostalgia that so characterized the Bush administration - i.e., the tactic of referring to an America which cannot exist today, or may have never existed!
  9. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No disagreement here. Cataclysmic crises, such as the one we are experiencing now, almost universally present opportunities for restructuring of the global economy via necessitated termination of non-profitable industries, and the insertion of new catalyst industries [see: WWII, as you know]. This being said, I still feel that certain symbolic achievements may be taken from this infant-administration, in regards to regaining the US's moral conscience. The first step in regard to restoring yourselves to that nation, is abandoning the sense of cowboy-nostalgia that so characterized the Bush administration - i.e., the tactic of referring to an America which cannot exist today, or may have never existed!
    The problem with this symbolism is that is has almost no basis in fact. Did Obama close Gitmo? Yes. Did he extend the the treatment policies of those prisoners enable by Bush? Yes. What he basically stated is that I am restoring the moral high ground by closing this building, "while I continue the treatment policies of said prisoners..just in a different location". A smoke screen...nothing more. A dog and pony show for the media.

    Foreign policy? He'll talk to Iran. Well that's great but we've doing that for the last 2 years. We just don't announce it.

    GO after Bin Laden from inside Pakistan? Great..but we've doing tat since 2001. Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, confirmed this Friday by mistakenly revealing classified information that we've been inside Pakistan and launching strikes for years....a revelation that will most likely create extreme unrest in Pakistan and their new leadership. Great job Senator.


    The problem with such symbolism is that it can have the same negative effects as some renewed sense of heightened nationalism can. We just went through that....how did that work out?

    The only difference is Obama can sell it much better than Bush.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  10. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768794

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    symbolic achievements are great when there are no other achievements left.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  11. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese

    Talk about a pet project. A tiny mouse with the longtime backing of a political giant may soon reap the benefits of the economic-stimulus package.

    Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area.












    "Change we can believe in"

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  12. Advanced Member
    ryaroberts's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    610
    Rep Power
    389

    Reputation

    im glad the African American community is so thrilled obama is the first half white president =)
  13. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    The problem with this symbolism is that is has almost no basis in fact. Did Obama close Gitmo? Yes. Did he extend the the treatment policies of those prisoners enable by Bush? Yes. What he basically stated is that I am restoring the moral high ground by closing this building, "while I continue the treatment policies of said prisoners..just in a different location". A smoke screen...nothing more. A dog and pony show for the media.
    True in part. The Obama administration has posited the intent to suspend the Bush-wanted indefinite imprisonment measures, as well as the military-commission judiciary style which is/was viewed as undemocratic. In regard to their resettlement, the symbolism of the act has already payed dividends: European countries in a long diplomatic standoff due to Bush's cowboy-policy-programmes have since recanted their hardline position and begun negotiations to resettle some of these prisoners. Also, as you know, the CIA's prison-system has been suspended indefinitely, and, at this point, CIA operatives are no longer capable of interrogating prisoners via rendition, or at all. While, as you also know, this may amount to little in the way of practical results - American intelligence agencies have a way of doing what they please - the symbolism [my original position] is powerful in regards to international diplomacy.

    Foreign policy? He'll talk to Iran. Well that's great but we've doing that for the last 2 years. We just don't announce it.
    I was speaking about working towards a less partisan domestic state [re: negotiation].

    GO after Bin Laden from inside Pakistan? Great..but we've doing tat since 2001. Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, confirmed this Friday by mistakenly revealing classified information that we've been inside Pakistan and launching strikes for years....a revelation that will most likely create extreme unrest in Pakistan and their new leadership. Great job Senator.
    As I understand it, this perceived "gaffe" was an answer in a line of questioning to this article: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...02500_pf.html] and not perceived autonomous drone missile-strikes within Pakistan as a whole. While this is doubtful, the original line of questioning does seem to corroborate with her claim.

    At any rate, Predator air-strikes within Pakistan are of no real revelatory status to anybody whom watches/reads the news - I recall the unrest in Pakistan's populace due to continued Predator air-strikes on the Afghani-Pakistani border [FATA region] some time ago. Feinstein's 'revelation' really only confirmed the level of complicity within the Pakistani government; in my opinion, the dissension will come much more from the Pakistani people than government, but, again, this is equally as detrimental. Also - and an honest question - where did you see her make specific mention to 2001? I merely saw the confirmation of Predators launching from Islamabad, but not an explicit confirmation they have been since the invasion.

    However, with all this being said, she is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and not necessarily apart of Obama's administration and/or plan going forward. While I understand Obama does plan to tentatively continue Pakistani air strikes, his plan to withdraw from Iraq is indicative of an ability to admit mistakes - a problem of arrogance which will continue to characterize the Bush administration throughout history.

    The problem with such symbolism is that it can have the same negative effects as some renewed sense of heightened nationalism can. We just went through that....how did that work out?
    It can but, of course, you cannot definitively say as such at this point; transiently and acutely, at least, the foreign policy implications seem to be indicative of the converse. The fact is, aside from Africa, the international-relations of your country have suffered impingement under George Bush [no need to quote specific successes here, I know them; I am speaking in generalities]. As I said, the symbolism - if only that, just symbolism - of closing Guantanamo, withdrawing from Iraq, suspending military tribunals and so forth may pose to be a very beneficial thing. The apparent truth, though, is this: cowboy diplomacy has severely hindered the US's ability to make substantial progress in foreign affairs in many instances; in my opinion, most should welcome a divergence away from this tactic. If, as you say, only symbolically.
  14. Advanced Member
    raginfcktard's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    978
    Rep Power
    566

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by GotTest View Post
    That's exactly my point Jay.
    I actually think Obama seems like a pretty decent guy with a sense of humor.
    His "disciples" are quite annoying and disturbing though.
    like Fastone?
  15. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    True in part. The Obama administration has posited the intent to suspend the Bush-wanted indefinite imprisonment measures, as well as the military-commission judiciary style which is/was viewed as undemocratic. In regard to their resettlement, the symbolism of the act has already payed dividends: European countries in a long diplomatic standoff due to Bush's cowboy-policy-programmes have since recanted their hardline position and begun negotiations to resettle some of these prisoners. Also, as you know, the CIA's prison-system has been suspended indefinitely, and, at this point, CIA operatives are no longer capable of interrogating prisoners via rendition, or at all. While, as you also know, this may amount to little in the way of practical results - American intelligence agencies have a way of doing what they please - the symbolism [my original position] is powerful in regards to international diplomacy.

    I don't' understand where you are getting this notion that Europeans had some long standoff with the Bush administration. In fact, it was mainly one country...France (pre Sarkozy). Other than some public statements to appease the locals, Europeans were extremely cooperative and vice versa with the Bush administration.

    Every intelligence agency has a way of doing what they please and nothing Obama has done is going to change that. Its pure politics.

    I was speaking about working towards a less partisan domestic state [re: negotiation].
    He isn't the problem nor was it Bush's either. It was Congress in both instances as the current stimulus has proven once again. If anyone expects Obama to change that, they are extremely naive.





    As I understand it, this perceived "gaffe" was an answer in a line of questioning to this article: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...02500_pf.html] and not perceived autonomous drone missile-strikes within Pakistan as a whole. While this is doubtful, the original line of questioning does seem to corroborate with her claim.
    I could care less about the accuracy but the timing and manner in which Feinstein confirms CIA policy is reckless. Validating the Washington Post (which is tough to do) about CIA policy is generally not looked upon as wise nor does the CIA appreciate it.

    Feinstein's 'revelation' really only confirmed the level of complicity within the Pakistani government;
    Which you don't do publicly. His own Secretary of State confirmed that.




    However, with all this being said, she is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and not necessarily apart of Obama's administration and/or plan going forward.
    Oh they tried that one...she voiced her disapproval during the Clinton nomination about not being informed.

    While I understand Obama does plan to tentatively continue Pakistani air strikes, his plan to withdraw from Iraq is indicative of an ability to admit mistakes - a problem of arrogance which will continue to characterize the Bush administration throughout history.
    Bush has admitted mistakes quit often, something the press doesn't seem to cover or "remember" when making comparisons. In fact he did it twice in his State of the Union speeches..which is rare for any President.

    The media wanted to paint a picture of Bush and they did a good job at it for 8 years. Job well done. History will probably paint a different one.


    It can but, of course, you cannot definitively say as such at this point;
    When it enables an $800 billion dollar plan to go through within 2 weeks, his "symbolism" is working its magic...at the expense of many already.


    If you want historical references in terms of international relations, then Kennedy vs. Krushchev.

    The fact is, aside from Africa, the international-relations of your country have suffered impingement under George Bush [no need to quote specific successes here, I know them; I am speaking in generalities].
    And I think this is overstated as it suggests we had this massive cooperation with such countries. The fact is, we never have even after UN approved operations. Why should we...many of our interests and position in the world is in direct conflict to their interests. The EU, Russia and China looking after the US? Since when?

    The apparent truth, though, is this: cowboy diplomacy has severely hindered the US's ability to make substantial progress in foreign affairs in many instances; in my opinion, most should welcome a divergence away from this tactic. If, as you say, only symbolically.
    This cowboy diplomacy is basically the same policies we've been following since Reagan. Why would it change? Its basically a revolving door of the same people. This idea that Bush made some drastic shift in foreign policy is overstated because of the preemption in Iraq, something the American public and Congress both approved by I believe 84%. The only thing different is Reagan, Clinton and probably Obama didn't make it sound so "cowboy".
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  16. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    And to further confirm many of my points, Obama is having more of a problem with his own party than Republicans. As Bush did pre 9/11, as did Clinton, Reagen, Kennedy, etc....Obama has moved towards the center which is why you tend to hear Republicans state they don't have much of a problem with him, but his party in Congress.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  17. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    I don't' understand where you are getting this notion that Europeans had some long standoff with the Bush administration. In fact, it was mainly one country...France (pre Sarkozy). Other than some public statements to appease the locals, Europeans were extremely cooperative and vice versa with the Bush administration.
    Yes, France and...Belgium, Russia, Germany, Belarus, essentially the entire EU; the Briton-US relations in Post-Blair Britain even look bleaker than normal. The cooperation you have spoken of has really only manifested itself within the last [~] calendar year due to shared strategic interests [see: an Industrializing China and India]. The Bush Administration was predisposed to unilateral negotiations, and this created a fair amount of global dissent - and not just dissent from politicians choosing to please the populous. I am a bit interested as to how you felt there is not resentment for your country in Europe?

    Every intelligence agency has a way of doing what they please and nothing Obama has done is going to change that. Its pure politics.
    Exactly. As I said: while the CIA may continue business as usual - illegally detaining suspects and transporting them where they may - their formal inability is publicly symbolic. Again, this is the point I have been operating from.

    I could care less about the accuracy but the timing and manner in which Feinstein confirms CIA policy is reckless. Validating the Washington Post (which is tough to do) about CIA policy is generally not looked upon as wise nor does the CIA appreciate it.
    Appreciable or not, her comments still bear little on Obama; again, not entirely sure why that Red Herring was raised. As I said, ostensibly, Obama plans to continue missile strikes in Pakistan for the time being.

    Bush has admitted mistakes quit often, something the press doesn't seem to cover or "remember" when making comparisons. In fact he did it twice in his State of the Union speeches..which is rare for any President.
    Humility is relative Bobo, a realization you are aware of despite your commentary here; a concession or two in an administration plagued by disasters [domestic as many as foreign] does not a humble President make. In one of the cases you are speaking about, George W., admitted that his strategic-philosophies underpinning the Iraqi confrontation were flawed, but, only to gain public support to increase troops in that same conflict. Even these minor concessions, though, came with significant limitations that displayed his marked inability to admit mistakes. To say that he repeated this trend of admittance - as limited and attenuated as it may have been - is stretching the truth, no doubt.

    The media wanted to paint a picture of Bush and they did a good job at it for 8 years. Job well done. History will probably paint a different one.
    Most unlikely that it will be significantly different, but it will be kinder, no doubt. History is almost universally more kind to Presidents than the present, but the fundamental failures of this administration will ring true no matter what perspective they are viewed from. Time has a way of healing wounds, and the American people are notoriously forgetful.

    When it enables an $800 billion dollar plan to go through within 2 weeks, his "symbolism" is working its magic...at the expense of many already.
    Again, speaking about consequences which have not emerged definitively, is highly presumptive at best. Let us reserve judgment until these events have actually occurred.

    If you want historical references in terms of international relations, then Kennedy vs. Krushchev.
    While I appreciate your efforts, I am well-versed in the Cuban missile crisis. You did not elaborate, but I assume you are using this as an example of cold US-World relations. I am unsure if referencing the height of the Cold War best serves your point, particularly because following that point - particularly in the Reagan Administration - US-world [particularly European] relations were quite warm.

    And I think this is overstated as it suggests we had this massive cooperation with such countries. The fact is, we never have even after UN approved operations. Why should we...many of our interests and position in the world is in direct conflict to their interests. The EU, Russia and China looking after the US? Since when?
    but prior to this....

    I don't' understand where you are getting this notion that Europeans had some long standoff with the Bush administration. In fact, it was mainly one country...France (pre Sarkozy). Other than some public statements to appease the locals, Europeans were extremely cooperative and vice versa with the Bush administration.
    I am sure this was merely an error of haste, so I will allow you to correct before responding in full. Briefly, though, it is true that US-World relations [particularly the EU] have historically experienced cold and hot streaks. This being said, they were particularly cold during the Bush Administration. This was no mystery.

    This cowboy diplomacy is basically the same policies we've been following since Reagan. Why would it change? Its basically a revolving door of the same people. This idea that Bush made some drastic shift in foreign policy is overstated because of the preemption in Iraq, something the American public and Congress both approved by I believe 84%. The only thing different is Reagan, Clinton and probably Obama didn't make it sound so "cowboy".
    And, as you mentioned, the delivery may be a key difference. Again, despite the fact it is irrational, symbolism can often play a key role in international diplomacy. Bush's sheer arrogance was off-putting to many world leaders [based on their comments] and such cold inter-personal relations can often stall inter-state relations [see: tariffs and trade-stalls between Canada and U.S., in certain industries]. Also, the fact that an emotional majority who was [and still is] extremely misinformed supported an initiative does absolutely nothing to absolve the Bush Administration of their responsibility; the point of responsible office is to do the right thing, not the popular thing.

    Again, though, there are many specific instances of Bush's failed hard-line stance where a more diplomatic approach could have been taken - claiming the [admitted truth] that U.S., Foreign Policy has not altered since Carter is not a huge illumination. The failures are in the specifics, though.
  18. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    I must admit, arguing with a NeoCon about the atrophy of US-World relations under the Bush Administration is a bit like arguing that we actually landed on the moon with a conspiracy theorist: despite mounting evidence, first-hand accounts, the sheer presentability of the case and common-sense, "it ain't gon' happen!". This is to mean no offense, but rather, to say we are arguing from fundamentally different viewpoints that are not going to be reconciled.
  19. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2334

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    The problem with this symbolism is that is has almost no basis in fact. Did Obama close Gitmo? Yes. Did he extend the the treatment policies of those prisoners enable by Bush? Yes. What he basically stated is that I am restoring the moral high ground by closing this building, "while I continue the treatment policies of said prisoners..just in a different location". A smoke screen...nothing more. A dog and pony show for the media.

    Foreign policy? He'll talk to Iran. Well that's great but we've doing that for the last 2 years. We just don't announce it.

    GO after Bin Laden from inside Pakistan? Great..but we've doing tat since 2001. Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, confirmed this Friday by mistakenly revealing classified information that we've been inside Pakistan and launching strikes for years....a revelation that will most likely create extreme unrest in Pakistan and their new leadership. Great job Senator.


    The problem with such symbolism is that it can have the same negative effects as some renewed sense of heightened nationalism can. We just went through that....how did that work out?

    The only difference is Obama can sell it much better than Bush.
    Yup Yup and Yup, i would rep you but im sure ite better to just say, "great post".
  20. New Member
    aries70's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    95

    Reputation

    The man inherited the biggest deficit in history and he hit the ground trying to make good on his promises. The irony of the matter is that we were patient with everything the previous President did for 8 years. This man has not been off a full month and is already making changes. Some changes not so popular but he is working and listening like he said he would. Obama is not a saviour but he is the breath of fresh air that "WE" as a country needed.
  21. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2334

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by aries70 View Post
    The man inherited the biggest deficit in history and he hit the ground trying to make good on his promises. The irony of the matter is that we were patient with everything the previous President did for 8 years. This man has not been off a full month and is already making changes. Some changes not so popular but he is working and listening like he said he would. Obama is not a saviour but he is the breath of fresh air that "WE" as a country needed.

    He's spending money like there's a money machine.... wait there is.

    Be prepared for the worst economic disaster you will see in your lifetime, inflation city with huge unemployment. It'll be 1990's russia but warmer, lol.

    Crime will escalate big time and the savior obama will be protected while citizens protest or fork over rights out of fear.

    The news stations will cover it like it was terrorists or extremists wreaking mayhem and the people will be treated as criminals. Unless you see it with your own eyes you will cast judgement on your fellow people who will be destitute and looking for answers.

    Then people will say Obama did the best he could, it wasnt his fault... and without him it would have been worse..

    But i have been known to wear a foil hat once in a while..
  22. Advanced Member
    bigrobbierob's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    748
    Rep Power
    7807

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by aries70 View Post
    The man inherited the biggest deficit in history and he hit the ground trying to make good on his promises. The irony of the matter is that we were patient with everything the previous President did for 8 years. This man has not been off a full month and is already making changes. Some changes not so popular but he is working and listening like he said he would. Obama is not a saviour but he is the breath of fresh air that "WE" as a country needed.




  23. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768794

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by aries70 View Post
    The man inherited the biggest deficit in history and he hit the ground trying to make good on his promises.
    I didn't recall a campaign promise of making the defecit even bigger, even faster, by larger margins and percentages than ever thought of, but ok. And before you say we haven't seen a fiscal situation this bad since the great depression, get a grip on reality. It was worse in the early 80s, it was worse in the mid 70s. just the media is hyping it more.

    Quote Originally Posted by aries70 View Post
    Some changes not so popular but he is working and listening like he said he would. Obama is not a saviour but he is the breath of fresh air that "WE" as a country needed.
    Right, his "not bowing to special interest groups" but being run by them? and not listening to lobbyists even though Biden's son is one? And a new higher ethics administration with 100% support behind tax dodgers for the cabinet? please, its just business as usual in washington
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  24. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Yes, France and...Belgium, Russia, Germany, Belarus, essentially the entire EU; the Briton-US relations in Post-Blair Britain even look bleaker than normal. The cooperation you have spoken of has really only manifested itself within the last [~] calendar year due to shared strategic interests [see: an Industrializing China and India]. The Bush Administration was predisposed to unilateral negotiations, and this created a fair amount of global dissent - and not just dissent from politicians choosing to please the populous. I am a bit interested as to how you felt there is not resentment for your country in Europe?
    Resentment for the US has been generated long before Bush was in office. You're lumping together relations that have been deteriorating ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. There wasn't a common enemy to unite Europe and the US anymore. Like many who want to blame Bush for this current crisis, you seem to push blame on to Bush for a state of tension that existed for some time. Foreign policy with Europe is based almost solely on one thing....economics. With the creation and strengthening of the EU, Europe has become much more bold in their criticisms. This has little to do with Bush and more to do with the EU's ambition to compete and be equal with the US in terms of economics. France, Germany and Russia weren't objecting to the US war with Iraq for humanitarian reasons, it was to protect their oil contracts. Its as it people want to forget the problems Clinton had dealing with Chirac and Schroder for 5 years.


    You blame Bush for a seed that was planted in 93.

    Appreciable or not, her comments still bear little on Obama; again, not entirely sure why that Red Herring was raised. As I said, ostensibly, Obama plans to continue missile strikes in Pakistan for the time being.
    Just using the same criteria that past critics use against the Bush administration. The President controls and is responsilbe for all. As you can see, its pretty weak.


    Humility is relative Bobo, a realization you are aware of despite your commentary here; a concession or two in an administration plagued by disasters [domestic as many as foreign] does not a humble President make.
    Never said he was humble, but this stone cold, arrogant, unyielding, uncompassionate picture people want to portray him as is just not accurate.

    In one of the cases you are speaking about, George W., admitted that his strategic-philosophies underpinning the Iraqi confrontation were flawed, but, only to gain public support to increase troops in that same conflict.

    Now Mullet, if you think Bush admitting mistakes was just to gain public support while Obama admissions are from the heart and in no way used to gain public support, then this "symbolism" has worked some magic on you.


    Even these minor concessions, though, came with significant limitations that displayed his marked inability to admit mistakes. To say that he repeated this trend of admittance - as limited and attenuated as it may have been - is stretching the truth, no doubt.
    You just described almost every President in the last 100 years. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

    The same arrogance could be said about Obama who refused to admit the surge was successful. Why? It would upset his base. To this date, he never has.

    Ego maniacs tend to act in this way. We should know.


    Most unlikely that it will be significantly different, but it will be kinder, no doubt. History is almost universally more kind to Presidents than the present, but the fundamental failures of this administration will ring true no matter what perspective they are viewed from. Time has a way of healing wounds, and the American people are notoriously forgetful.
    Failure is judged in degrees. Lincoln has massive failure in his administration yet is viewed as the greatest. The American public are forgetful but its more an issue of the ends justifying the means.


    Again, speaking about consequences which have not emerged definitively, is highly presumptive at best. Let us reserve judgment until these events have actually occurred.
    They have emerged. It was passed. The debt is on the books, so to speak. The money has to come form somewhere either in the form of increased taxes, more loans, or more currency in the system. Either one is negative IMO.

    To pass such a bill in a short amount of time with almost zero debate is a true example of how popularity can produce "sh!t".

    He didn't visit areas that were hit the most economically out of the goodness of his heart. Well maybe a little As I said earlier, I happen to like many things about Obama. Its his party in Congress that's the problem...as he found out.

    While I appreciate your efforts, I am well-versed in the Cuban missile crisis. You did not elaborate, but I assume you are using this as an example of cold US-World relations. I am unsure if referencing the height of the Cold War best serves your point, particularly because following that point - particularly in the Reagan Administration - US-world [particularly European] relations were quite warm.
    Actually no, I was referring to the events in Vienna that precluded and were a major reason the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred.



    but prior to this....
    You're talking pre Soviet collapse.



    am sure this was merely an error of haste, so I will allow you to correct before responding in full. Briefly, though, it is true that US-World relations [particularly the EU] have historically experienced cold and hot streaks. This being said, they were particularly cold during the Bush Administration. This was no mystery.
    No Mullet, it was not in error. It was one of fact especially France and the US during the Clinton-Chirac years. In fact, ever since the EU was formed relations have deteriorated and with good reason. The formation was mainly to counter US economic dominance. The EU has become bolder and bolder with them becoming a rising economic power. To put blame on one President for the changing attitude of another body is simply inaccurate.



    And, as you mentioned, the delivery may be a key difference. Again, despite the fact it is irrational, symbolism can often play a key role in international diplomacy.
    On the surface and to the public, maybe....but it hardly did with Kennedy. In fact, it hurt him. Only when he acted more like a "cowboy" was he praised.


    You know, giving ultimatums.

    Bush's sheer arrogance was off-putting to many world leaders [based on their comments] and such cold inter-personal relations can often stall inter-state relations [see: tariffs and trade-stalls between Canada and U.S., in certain industries].
    Yeah, but its Canada. Who cares about them?



    I would be more worried about the smooth talking politician who silently stabs you in the back (Democrats and their Unions constituents position on NAFTA).



    Also, the fact that an emotional majority who was [and still is] extremely misinformed supported an initiative does absolutely nothing to absolve the Bush Administration of their responsibility; the point of responsible office is to do the right thing, not the popular thing.
    Exactly. And the same applies, maybe even moreso with Obama.... apply the same criteria to both.

    Again, though, there are many specific instances of Bush's failed hard-line stance where a more diplomatic approach could have been taken - claiming the [admitted truth] that U.S., Foreign Policy has not altered since Carter is not a huge illumination. The failures are in the specifics, though.
    And the specifics include the changing status of the EU, Russian and China in the last 15 years. You will the see ones that got much bolder and practiced "cowboy" diplomacy include those who once were insignificant, but now are considered economic superpowers.

    It seems with you, as in many others, the blame is one sided while ignoring the complete 180 degree turn in attitude those mentioned above have taken.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  25. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I must admit, arguing with a NeoCon about the atrophy of US-World relations under the Bush Administration is a bit like arguing that we actually landed on the moon with a conspiracy theorist: despite mounting evidence, first-hand accounts, the sheer presentability of the case and common-sense, "it ain't gon' happen!". This is to mean no offense, but rather, to say we are arguing from fundamentally different viewpoints that are not going to be reconciled.
    Although I appreciate the attempt to lump me into the "NeoCon" group, it is highly innaccurate.

    It seems you are letting those who suffer form BDS influence your critical thought

    Examining the massive differences and changes in attitude of one vs the slight changes of another will give you a better understanding of what I am saying. I will let you figure out the former and latter of the above statement
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  26. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768794

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    to add the cherry on top of Cosmo's ice cream sundae there, if the US were to operate for the pleasure of those outside of the US, then it would be even further to our detriment. We have the highest average standard of living, we have the most natural resources, and we have the most freedoms. To have a piece of our policies be to placate the other countries on the globe in the end means heading towards a global homeostasis on these items, and that means the US has more to loose
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  27. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74317

    Reputation Reputation

    Have you guys noticed that the United States is the only country where an INCREASE can be considered a DECREASE? What I mean is let's say we're under Republican rule, our GDP rose 7% one year, and the next year, again under a Republican, it only rose 3%, Dems would be screaming economic murder.

    Our GDP rose about 2% last year, and Obama tells us we're in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (GDP fell 9% in 1930, and 2% in '82 ).
  28. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    Resentment for the US has been generated long before Bush was in office. You're lumping together relations that have been deteriorating ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. There wasn't a common enemy to unite Europe and the US anymore. Like many who want to blame Bush for this current crisis, you seem to push blame on to Bush for a state of tension that existed for some time. Foreign policy with Europe is based almost solely on one thing....economics.
    In fact, Bobo, I am not. I also found it interesting you make the subtle suggestion that I am in the lack-of-economic-hindsight group; previously in our discussion, I make specific mention as to how Bush had nothing to do with this current economic collapse. At any rate, I digress: while it is true US-European relations were particularly strong during the Reagan-years due to an imposing U.S.S.R., they remained fruitful [see: not secular progress, but not detrimental] through the Clinton years. They deteriorated considerably under G.W.B., and this is not a so-called "Left Media portrait".

    Also, you seem to be avoiding what has been the center of EU policy issues for quite some time now: a defiant China and Russia, and a rapidly industrializing Indo-Asia. The fact is European-U.S., relations have strengthened in the last year particularly because common strategic interests have manifested themselves [see also: Iran]. You are conveniently looking past these interests - interests which bore stalwart and unproductive negotiations under this past administration - because it is not conducive to your point here. Simply, despite the sometimes "willy-nilly" relationship the US and Europe has had, that relationship was even more unfruitful under this administration.

    Just using the same criteria that past critics use against the Bush administration. The President controls and is responsilbe for all. As you can see, its pretty weak.
    I can; such is why I acknowledged the complete lack of control President's have, and why I have referred to the 'Bush Administration' consistently throughout. Failures necessitate a group effort, but, we must remember, that group is chosen by an individual.

    Never said he was humble, but this stone cold, arrogant, unyielding, uncompassionate picture people want to portray him as is just not accurate
    .

    Again, though, you are setting my argument up as a Straw-Man as your perception of my argument is much easier defeated than my argument itself. Stone-cold and not compassionate were never adjectives I used. I merely said he is arrogant, as he has displayed that trait time and time again. His work in Africa alone characterizes him as an effective humanitarian, but that is neither here nor there.

    Now Mullet, if you think Bush admitting mistakes was just to gain public support while Obama admissions are from the heart and in no way used to gain public support, then this "symbolism" has worked some magic on you.
    This is exactly my point though, Bobo: the power is in the symbolism. Every word spoken from a President is to gain public support, and that support is based on symbolic action that allow him and/or her [potentially] to perpetuate their real platform unabated. The symbolism of the Bush Administration's arrogance was its hallmark, and a hallmark that was both a domestic and international inhibitor. You should know this by now.

    You just described almost every President in the last 100 years. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

    The same arrogance could be said about Obama who refused to admit the surge was successful. Why? It would upset his base. To this date, he never has.

    Ego maniacs tend to act in this way. We should know.
    Hah! I have to give you that one, haha.

    Failure is judged in degrees. Lincoln has massive failure in his administration yet is viewed as the greatest. The American public are forgetful but its more an issue of the ends justifying the means.
    I agree and, as I said, the failures are judged in the specific initiatives; success is judged - unfairly as it may be - in intentionality and in the aggregate fashion. Every administration has specific failures - that is what happens when you view specifics. What history judges is the philosophy of an administration.

    As I said earlier, I happen to like many things about Obama. Its his party in Congress that's the problem...as he found out.
    Unfortunately, as bi-partisan as he claims to be, he will not veto ridiculous bills from Congress.

    Actually no, I was referring to the events in Vienna that precluded and were a major reason the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred.
    So was I. I was assuming you were referring particularly to Kennedy's advisors telling him specifically to avoid high-level meetings that quickly.

    You're talking pre Soviet collapse.
    I addressed both Pre-and-Post Reagan relations; it was you who needs to clarify.



    No Mullet, it was not in error. It was one of fact especially France and the US during the Clinton-Chirac years. In fact, ever since the EU was formed relations have deteriorated and with good reason. The formation was mainly to counter US economic dominance. The EU has become bolder and bolder with them becoming a rising economic power. To put blame on one President for the changing attitude of another body is simply inaccurate.
    See above.

    On the surface and to the public, maybe....but it hardly did with Kennedy. In fact, it hurt him. Only when he acted more like a "cowboy" was he praised.

    You know, giving ultimatums.
    Kennedy was only forced to act like a cowboy due to the false dichotomy he constructed himself in Vienna. Poor example. Direct reciprocal diplomacy ha worked in the past [see: Clinton's efforts - as short-lasting as they may have been - in the Middle East].

    Yeah, but its Canada. Who cares about them?

    Your country does, severely. Essentially, we control your fresh-water fate [Canada contains 1/4 of the entire world's fresh water]. This is why your politicians are desperately attempting to draft fresh-water into NAFTA.



    Exactly. And the same applies, maybe even moreso with Obama.... apply the same criteria to both.
    Of course it does, and I will, once we are more than a month into his Administration. If you are displaying this much undeserved patience 8 years into an administration, excuse me for my month!

    And the specifics include the changing status of the EU, Russian and China in the last 15 years. You will the see ones that got much bolder and practiced "cowboy" diplomacy include those who once were insignificant, but now are considered economic superpowers.
    And certain attempted relations by the EU were to specifically combat a defiant Russia and an emerging China, as I say above. The opportunities were there to create a strong EU-US bond based on an emergent Russia-China, and the Bush Administration failed.

    It seems with you, as in many others, the blame is one sided while ignoring the complete 180 degree turn in attitude those mentioned above have taken.
    You know such is not true, however, I am sure it is easier to argue from that perspective.
  29. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    Have you guys noticed that the United States is the only country where an INCREASE can be considered a DECREASE? What I mean is let's say we're under Republican rule, our GDP rose 7% one year, and the next year, again under a Republican, it only rose 3%, Dems would be screaming economic murder.

    Our GDP rose about 2% last year, and Obama tells us we're in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (GDP fell 9% in 1930, and 2% in '82 ).
    It is considered that in every country. Recessions and Depressions are measured in relative proportion to the previous year. An economy can expand 2% where it had been on a 5% expansion the past five years. Therefore, adjusted for inflation, an economy stalled. GDP contractions are not necessarily the only marker of a fledgling economy.
  30. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    Although I appreciate the attempt to lump me into the "NeoCon" group, it is highly innaccurate.

    It seems you are letting those who suffer form BDS influence your critical thought

    Examining the massive differences and changes in attitude of one vs the slight changes of another will give you a better understanding of what I am saying. I will let you figure out the former and latter of the above statement
    I feel NeoCon is a fairly accurate label for your position, but feel free to correct me. Your key focus on moral precedents and the social obligation of the state preclude you from a strictly NeoLiberal or Classic Liberal position; and, your admittance of the necessity of the state precludes you from a Libertarian, possibly you are a Socialist.

    Bobo, I understand you feel the shifts in EU, China and Russia played a bigger part in this discussion than Bush's Administration, but my point, which you have not acknowledged, is that it is precisely these shifts in which he failed. The emergence of Russia and China in particular presented both necessity and opportunity for diplomacy and his administration failed.
  31. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    In fact, Bobo, I am not. I also found it interesting you make the subtle suggestion that I am in the lack-of-economic-hindsight group; previously in our discussion, I make specific mention as to how Bush had nothing to do with this current economic collapse. At any rate, I digress: while it is true US-European relations were particularly strong during the Reagan-years due to an imposing U.S.S.R., they remained fruitful [see: not secular progress, but not detrimental] through the Clinton years. They deteriorated considerably under G.W.B., and this is not a so-called "Left Media portrait".
    Its deteriated for some time even during the Clinton years. Chirac was extremely resistant to Clinton in almost every avenue. Relations after the Tech Boom and Bust became even more chilling. You can take it all the way back to France denying US planes to use French airspace during the first Gulf War.


    This idea it was chummy during the Clinton years is simply not true. Has Bush taken a harder line? Of course but mainly in response to 180 degree in attitude and almost significance of the EU, Russian and China. It was a slow decline for some time.

    Also, you seem to be avoiding what has been the center of EU policy issues for quite some time now: a defiant China and Russia, and a rapidly industrializing Indo-Asia.
    I have not ignored that at all. The policies were one of bark and not bite and only recently have you seen the EU actually providing action (Sarkozy on Russian invasion of Georgia). Its a characteristic that has plagued Europe for a while. All bark, no bite.




    The fact is European-U.S., relations have strengthened in the last year particularly because common strategic interests have manifested themselves [see also: Iran].

    New leadership in Europe has helped. Sarkozy and Merkel have helped. The common goal was always there. The weak leadership of the EU prevented much of this form happening.



    You are conveniently looking past these interests - interests which bore stalwart and unproductive negotiations under this past administration - because it is not conducive to your point here. Simply, despite the sometimes "willy-nilly" relationship the US and Europe has had, that relationship was even more unfruitful under this administration.
    And as I have stated, much of that was due to the new attitude the EU established to the point they even strained relations within their own union (England, Ireland, Scotland). Even today you have Ireland threatening to pull out. Chirac was extremely resistant to US influence in Europe and the relationship Blair and Bush created was in direct conflict to his own union. He believed Blair was undermining the sole purpose of creating the Union in the first place..to counter US influence.




    Again, though, you are setting my argument up as a Straw-Man as your perception of my argument is much easier defeated than my argument itself. Stone-cold and not compassionate were never adjectives I used. I merely said he is arrogant, as he has displayed that trait time and time again. His work in Africa alone characterizes him as an effective humanitarian, but that is neither here nor there.
    Presidents are arrogant. That's not really an argument but it seems you sometimes forget that trait when it comes to Obama.


    This is exactly my point though, Bobo: the power is in the symbolism. Every word spoken from a President is to gain public support, and that support is based on symbolic action that allow him and/or her [potentially] to perpetuate their real platform unabated. The symbolism of the Bush Administration's arrogance was its hallmark, and a hallmark that was both a domestic and international inhibitor. You should know this by now.
    Actually my point was that symbolism was just as dangerous as patriotism if gone unchecked.

    I don't think I ever disagreed with you on the power of symbolism. I agree that his symbolism could be used to his advantage but the problem is that if you have a media that won't even question such symbolism you are going to see a backlash as you are starting to see already. This isn't just about a month of policies, this is the treatment he has received for the past 2 years.




    .



    I agree and, as I said, the failures are judged in the specific initiatives; success is judged - unfairly as it may be - in intentionality and in the aggregate fashion. Every administration has specific failures - that is what happens when you view specifics. What history judges is the philosophy of an administration.
    .....which is the problem as the left wing like to tie Bush into some ultra right wing individual when in fact his policies and viewpoints are that of a moderate. Immigration, education, spending, etc...The only NeoCon trait he exemplifies is one of preemption.

    Its quite funny when people try to polarize these two individuals when you look at their policies they much closer than people want to beleive.

    Unfortunately, as bi-partisan as he claims to be, he will not veto ridiculous bills from Congress.
    I think in his heart he is but he hasn't shown the courage to go against his own party.....as was predicted by many pre election.

    o was I. I was assuming you were referring particularly to Kennedy's advisors telling him specifically to avoid high-level meetings that quickly.
    It was more pertaining to the symbolism the public had which Kennedy started to believe....and in time regretted the meeting.


    I addressed both Pre-and-Post Reagan relations; it was you who needs to clarify.

    In this post, yes. Its tough to clarify on a post that wasn't posted yet


    I made the distinction between pre cold war and post cold war (common enemy).






    Kennedy was only forced to act like a cowboy due to the false dichotomy he constructed himself in Vienna.

    As a result of him beleiving his own press or being extremely naive. Either way, its a good exmaple.

    Direct reciprocal diplomacy ha worked in the past [see: Clinton's efforts - as short-lasting as they may have been - in the Middle East].
    Of course it works. Who has completely dismissed reciprocal diplomacy?


    Nixon went to China after 2 years of negotiating of which nobody really knew about.

    Bush has been negotiating with Iran for close to 2 years, something I'M sure Israel isn't to fond of. Obama is already receiving resistance from Israel because of his comments.



    Your country does, severely. Essentially, we control your fresh-water fate [Canada contains 1/4 of the entire world's fresh water]. This is why your politicians are desperately attempting to draft fresh-water into NAFTA.

    Have you seen the money allocated for this in the new stimulus?


    As much as you think this country needs Canada, I think the opposite is overwhelmingly true. Its not a statement of arrogance or comparison, but once of fact simply by volume.






    And certain attempted relations by the EU were to specifically combat a defiant Russia and an emerging China, as I say above. The opportunities were there to create a strong EU-US bond based on an emergent Russia-China, and the Bush Administration failed.
    You can't have a strong EU-US bond when you have Chirac publically denouncing Britain about its relationship with the US. You can't have a strong EU bond when the members of the EU are at each others throats over economic issues. You can't have a strong EU-US union when an EU member threatens to veto your resolution in the UN..multiple times..on multiply issues.

    You can't have a strong EU bond when France would go groveling to Russia whenever Russia threatened a veto on numerous UN resolutions.

    Yes they has a common interest in Russia and China but its basically impossible when you the EU leadership caving in on every issue. Recently that has changed and its good to see.


    You know such is not true, however, I am sure it is easier to argue from that perspective.
    As it is by trying to label me a NeoCon.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  32. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I feel NeoCon is a fairly accurate label for your position, but feel free to correct me. Your key focus on moral precedents and the social obligation of the state preclude you from a strictly NeoLiberal or Classic Liberal position; and, your admittance of the necessity of the state precludes you from a Libertarian, possibly you are a Socialist.
    I'm all over the map with many issues.

    NeoCon? No. A Cheney believer I am not.



    Bobo, I understand you feel the shifts in EU, China and Russia played a bigger part in this discussion than Bush's Administration, but my point, which you have not acknowledged, is that it is precisely these shifts in which he failed. The emergence of Russia and China in particular presented both necessity and opportunity for diplomacy and his administration failed.

    See above.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  33. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    IHave you seen the money allocated for this in the new stimulus?

    As much as you think this country needs Canada, I think the opposite is overwhelmingly true. Its not a statement of arrogance or comparison, but once of fact simply by volume.
    Of course the converse is true: your country is larger than mine [population wise] by tenfold. The fact is, however, you are on the precipice of a fresh-water crisis that has the potential to be exposed greatly in a natural disaster of large proportions. Canada is your largest trading partner by volume, and your largest sovereign and stable provider of energy. Simply put, these plans to emancipate the U.S., from 'foreign oil' is not Canada-inclusive; the tar-sands are a massive part of this supposed plan, and the Alberta-government is not entirely privatized in regards to extraction.

    This is not a penis-measuring-contest, but as you said, a comparison of fact. Your resources are non-existent, and in the coming decades, you will depend on us ecologically as we depend on you financially. Lumber, fresh-water, oil, you name it B.

    I refrained from responding to the rest as we are at a theoretical impasse, as always. We argue, then make small concessions, and, in the end, the divergence of our positions is defined by a few small points!
  34. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    I'm all over the map with many issues.

    NeoCon? No. A Cheney believer I am not.
    I empathize greatly there. I range anywhere from a Libertarian to an Anarchist to a Socialist, depending on the issue. However, you are a bit of Critical Realist, which I appreciate.
  35. Enologist/Brewmaster/Damn good guy
    dg806's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,346
    Rep Power
    1319

    Reputation

    "$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax"

    Let me get this straight. We are paying people who already sit on their asses, more, and continue to give them no incentive to get off their ass and let people like me who do work and pay outrageous taxes, keep their sorry butts up? What incentive do working people like myself have to work and try to have nice things if we are only taxed to death to keep up lazy individuals who refuse to work? Hell, at some point, we will be no better off than those who do not work, and we all should just quit and let the gubment take care of us!
    Oh, wait.....where will the money come from then?? Bingo.
  36. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74317

    Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    It is considered that in every country. Recessions and Depressions are measured in relative proportion to the previous year. An economy can expand 2% where it had been on a 5% expansion the past five years. Therefore, adjusted for inflation, an economy stalled. GDP contractions are not necessarily the only marker of a fledgling economy.
    The point I was making is Obama is clearly twisting reality, playing off of the public's ignorance and stupidity, and completely lying to our face that this is "...the worst economic crisis our country has seen since the Great Depression." - No, it's not, it's much more closely related to the '80s.

    Welcome back, Carter.
  37. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    The point I was making is Obama is clearly twisting reality, playing off of the public's ignorance and stupidity, and completely lying to our face that this is "...the worst economic crisis our country has seen since the Great Depression." - No, it's not, it's much more closely related to the '80s.

    Welcome back, Carter.
    Well, to be specific, it is more closely related to the myriad profitability crises which arose from 71' and onward due the remittance of the Bretton-Woods Accord [and, really, the Nixon Shock as a whole], the 73'-74' stock market crash, and the emergence of OPEC; all of these, of course, sharing an intrinsic relationship with each other in regards to exacerbating the profitability of mechanized industry, and causing the earnest push towards deinudstrialization and the financialization of the global market.

    The twist is not political, and, as I said, must be viewed from a relative position. You are assuming that the economy is thriving because it has increased 2%. In fact, IC, the Great Depression caused a GDP Contraction of a mere 2% - a single percentage point decrease represents a massive recession in the sphere of production. You must understand that these GDP percentages are pegged relative to each other and adjusted for inflation; therefore, an increase of 2% when the previous years saw, say, a 5% increase is actually a near contraction in absolute product terms.

    One can reassure themselves all they want, but, the proof is in the pudding. Understanding how these statistics are created reveals that the situation - while being blown a bit out of proportion - is not a political twist.
  38. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    I would also add that the statistical variances of analysis cause a great issue when interpreting the severity of the situation; how one defines profit in relation with total value added has a significant impact on any empirically-based economic analysis. Certain theoretical acrobatics in the Marxian trend suppose the long economic malaise enacted since 1971 is a condition of the so-called "Law of the Falling Rate of Profit", which itself depends on certain willy-nilly theoretical concepts such as surplus value and socially necessary unproductive labor. In sum, these two concepts amount to the way NeoMarxian economists theoretically allocate certain forms of quote-unquote unproductive labor to the constant capital flow in the sphere of exchange; more NeoLiberal economists, on the other hand, would chalk the current crises up to the classic 'realization issue' which is the resultant of fierce inter-capitalist production. No matter the lens of analysis, though, the end is that the global economy is in a recession. Countries nearly becoming bankrupt [see: Iceland] is hard to politically fabricate.
  39. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74317

    Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Well, to be specific, it is more closely related to the myriad profitability crises which arose from 71' and onward due the remittance of the Bretton-Woods Accord [and, really, the Nixon Shock as a whole], the 73'-74' stock market crash, and the emergence of OPEC; all of these, of course, sharing an intrinsic relationship with each other in regards to exacerbating the profitability of mechanized industry, and causing the earnest push towards deinudstrialization and the financialization of the global market.

    The twist is not political, and, as I said, must be viewed from a relative position. You are assuming that the economy is thriving because it has increased 2%. In fact, IC, the Great Depression caused a GDP Contraction of a mere 2% - a single percentage point decrease represents a massive recession in the sphere of production. You must understand that these GDP percentages are pegged relative to each other and adjusted for inflation; therefore, an increase of 2% when the previous years saw, say, a 5% increase is actually a near contraction in absolute product terms.

    One can reassure themselves all they want, but, the proof is in the pudding. Understanding how these statistics are created reveals that the situation - while being blown a bit out of proportion - is not a political twist.
    Regardless of what it's more similar to, what the public is being told by our current administration is a complete lie. Unemployment in 1930 was about 25%...This is nothing close to the Great Depression.

    If you want more jobs, drop the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

    I'm not saying our economy isn't in bad shape, but the comparison being made is just ridiculous. It's crazy to me that so many people can't see what's happening to this country right under their nose.
  40. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768794

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    it is funny, I recall higher unemployment rates than this, and worse overall economic situations than this during my WORKING life, much less during my life in general.

    Still, my hope is that obama raises the national debt even higher faster, then directs the treasury to print more money faster to raise inflation. 5 years of 8% inflation year over year, and 12 trillion in national debt will feel like nothing again, and the housing market will right itself as well
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Obama Win!!!
    By Vtaper in forum Politics
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 10:28 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-11-2010, 12:51 PM
  3. Something obama is doing I can get behind
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 08:34 PM
  4. Who Is Obama? Where Is the Press?
    By bpmartyr in forum Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-18-2008, 12:30 PM
  5. Obama won...
    By RenegadeRows in forum General Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in