Lion's Daily Blurb - Wed., Thurs., Friday, Nov. 5-6-7

[Lion]

America has elected it's first black President, and Barack Obama, in his acceptance speech, stated he will be a President for all the people of America. Despite the fact I didn't vote for Obama, I'm not really upset about his victory. He has his work cut out for him, and quite a lot to prove to the American people. He's promised them much change, and to unite our country. My hope is that he doesn't disappoint the millions of Americans who helped to elect him. As for the African-American community, I'm sure they're quite proud of the new President elect, and justifiably so. History has been made in this election. As for John McCain, he fought a tough race to the White House, and it was an uphill battle for him all the way. It just wasn't to be. The majority in America has spoken, and it's a done deal. Only in America, where anything is truly possible.


This Blurb extended until Friday. New Blurb coming this weekend.

[Ace]

saw the speech on web, was really heart touching. Hope he can drag america out of the low flow and into the high flow again :)

[Mpdabunny]

I'm not upset. Just pretty concerned about how this guy's positions changed every single time it was politically advantageous, who the hell even knows what we're really getting. Heh.. not to mention the guy is clueless on foreign affairs. He was all for the U.N. security counsel punishing Russia after all.. what a joke. :rolleyes: I came to accept this was definite weeks ago as well. :\

Other than that, I sorta feel bad for McCain. The guy had a lifetime of public service under his belt, and all the experience a voter could possibly expect. Then an upstart guy that wouldn't even get the security clearance to be the White House chef beat him, because he said Bush's name long enough that people believed it. Anyway, it was probably McCain's last chance as people were already bitching about his age.. which was probably just an excuse to knock him down to begin with. :rolleyes:

Anyway... not mad, but concerned. I work for a semi-large small business that will fall under his huge tax increases. I can only hope my job isn't one that's cut to make up for his moronic plan. I love saying I told you so, so other than the job concerns... I'm just gonna sit back and watch the mess unfold and hope the effect on my own life is minimal. After all, people voted on their emotions this time, so why should I care wth happens to them as a consequence?

[Korona]

Awesome!
Congratulations America!

[berlin88]

I must admit I am feeling rather down right now, given that McCain lost, and is likely not going to run for President ever again. However, its not Obama that worries me as much anymore, but Pelosi and other big name Dems in the senate. I'm sure the far left will be very active in the coming months trying to pass legislation. The GOP is now on the outside looking in, and many voters will now be hesistant to try the free market- small government thing anytime soon.


The one comment I will add, is that current economic and financial trouble will make it difficult for Obama to pass his spending plans without increasing the debt or taxes.

If the Coleman- Franken race is ever decided, the dems will not get the 60 seat fillibuster in the senate, saving the GOP from deep trouble. Had the Dems gotten 60 seats, they could have passed whatever they want and the GOP would be hard pressed to stop it unless some dems defected on certain issues.

Republicans now have to retool their message and make a comeback in 2010. Gaining seats in congress will be key.

[truefeel]

YES !!!

Thank you, USA !

[Ariss(DJ)]

Congratulations, USA!

:wave:

[ein1017]

I think it says a lot that America has finally elected their first African American president to office when 40 years ago they didn't even have the right to eat in the same place with the white folks. Maybe that is one reason why some people choose to elect him, just to prove that they are not racist. That is not the reason why I voted for him.


McCain did his best and I respect that. But it is time for us to be united once again for a common purpose, whatever that may be.

[HawkEye1102002]

All I say is well done to Obama.

Now out with the Bush jokes and in with the Obama jokes :color1:

But sereously though, his security gaurds is going to have a hard job ahead of them, because sadly, in the USA, there are still white supremicists around, I need not say what those men of evil will try and do.

Next year is the UK general election, will the American media do a "BBC" and obsess with our election by sending over 100 of their staff to cover it?

[Derek]

I must say that I am worried. The party that caused this whole economic mess has now been elected to fix it. And with the current shape of congress there will be little need for Obama to cross the ailse. We'll just have to try to win some seats back in 2010. I'm afraid its going to be a long 2 years.

Next year is the UK general election, will the American media do a "BBC" and obsess with our election by sending over 100 of their staff to cover it?
No :p

[Aikichi]

All I gotta say is this

He better deliver the package of change/hope he promised

[Pr0SEAL]

Stock up, buy a gun, buy gold, and hold out for the next 4 years. This guy is going to make the last 8 years of Bush look like nothing with his upcoming 4. Clinton had the benefit of the inflation with the boom, until the very end of his term it turned into a recession. Now its time to prepare for the tax and spend spree, we may go into a depression some time down the road. Ron Paul 2012!

[nilloC]

Jesus Christ guys. The dude hasn't even been president-elect for 12 hours and some of you are already dooming the guy. The whining and freaking out is worse than most liberals were when Bush was reelected.

I understand the casual reluctance to believe he will help this country, this is fine. But between perusing through posts here and "status updates" on Facebook, it is incredibly sickening. I understand the reluctance; I don't believe he was the best choice for President, however my man (Mike Gravel) dropped out and supported & advocated voting for Obama, so I did so.

[HawkEye1102002]

No :p

Lucky ********, I had to sit through 24/7 coverage of the US election that doesn't even affect me (prehaps the resulting government will), you won't be swamped with Gordon Brown this and David Cameron that

[Pr0SEAL]

Jesus Christ guys. The dude hasn't even been president-elect for 12 hours and some of you are already dooming the guy. The whining and freaking out is worse than most liberals were when Bush was reelected.

I understand the casual reluctance to believe he will help this country, this is fine. But between perusing through posts here and "status updates" on Facebook, it is incredibly sickening. I understand the reluctance; I don't believe he was the best choice for President, however my man (Mike Gravel) dropped out and supported & advocated voting for Obama, so I did so.

He isn't going to stop the Federal Reserve buddy. Common Sense economics and this guy is falling it, especially with his Global Empire, Policing the World.

[Thumper]

im just saying its nice to have a president that isnt called a ****ing moron by his own people.

[Derek]

You know what? Call me what you will, but I think Bush was a pretty decent president.

[truefeel]

I can't forgive him for his share in 9/11, else I might also had said he was ok.

But give Obama a chance. It might turn out well.

[nilloC]

You know what? Call me what you will, but I think Bush was a pretty decent president.

Okay, I can feel that. But his administration was utter ****. :p

[NuclearDreams]

I can't forgive him for his share in 9/11, else I might also had said he was ok.

I hope that was some demented attempt at sarcasm.

[truefeel]

Well, relative speaking. All his other mistakes are nothing compared to that one.

[nilloC]

Do you mean his reaction and how he handled 9/11 (as far as wars go), truefeel? Otherwise I can't even help you defend your argument. :p

[truefeel]

Do you mean his reaction and how he handled 9/11 (as far as wars go), truefeel? Otherwise I can't even help you defend your argument. :p

Well, he took a vacation right after his election. The file, warning that a terrorist act might be imminent (and which resulted in 9/11), got on HIS desk. He only needed to look at it, but no ! He had to take vacation in Texas. It's partly his fault that thousands of people died, just b/c he had to go on vacation.

I can complain and find things over all things he did wrong all day, but it's simply nothing compared to that.

[nilloC]

Okay, I understand the vacation argument.

But from my understanding the CIA and his advisors are just as much to blame as he is for not "stopping it" when "knowing about it". The CIA (at least from what I've read) led the President to believe that such an attack was a farce. They stated that it was likely a group of Saudi, Pakistani, and Egyptian terrorists may attack the US at any time. However due to the lack of the CIA to gather any real intelligence (they are not a well-qualified intelligence agency at all) they had no real clue how or when it would happen. A few Directors of Intelligence before the incident believed that the terrorists would attack using passenger planes, however they did not make the threat seem as real and imminent when discussing it with the Security Council, or to the President.

In all I would blame the lack of attention to the threat on the entire administration and largely on the CIA, not solely on Bush's shoulders.

As far as the decisions made after the attack, particularly pertaining to Iraq, the administration (in my opinion) floundered. However that is an entirely different can of worms. :p

[Mighty BOB!]

You know what? Call me what you will, but I think Bush was a pretty decent president.

I might have agreed if 9/11 was the only fubar the Bush administration made, but they've messed up so many times that I can't possibly defend the guy.

[truefeel]

But from my understanding the CIA and his advisors are just as much to blame as he is for not "stopping it" when "knowing about it". The CIA (at least from what I've read) led the President to believe that such an attack was a farce. They stated that it was likely a group of Saudi, Pakistani, and Egyptian terrorists may attack the US at any time. However due to the lack of the CIA to gather any real intelligence (they are not a well-qualified intelligence agency at all) they had no real clue how or when it would happen. A few Directors of Intelligence before the incident believed that the terrorists would attack using passenger planes, however they did not make the threat seem as real and imminent when discussing it with the Security Council, or to the President.
It's partly their fault too, although days before 9/11, they begun to take it more seriously. My biggest concern is that bush did not even took the time to look at it. He did knew of it, and it could had easily prevented it. Not that I am blaming bush completely for it, but he did played a large role in the ignorance of the prologue of 9/11.

[nilloC]

It's partly their fault too, although days before 9/11, they begun to take it more seriously. My biggest concern is that he did not even took the time to look at it. He did knew of it, and it could had easily prevented. Not that I am blaming bush completely for it, but he did played a large role in the ignorance of the prologue of 9/11.

The CIA (due to staff being under-performing and Presidents shrugging it off, including Bush) were inadequate. They were ignorant to most things happening in the Middle East. They'd get their news often just as major news outlets got theirs. They had no connections outside of some Saudi royalty and a corrupt Iranian information-shuffler who lived in Italy. Several Directors of Intelligence knew that something big was going to occur, and knew that it would occur due to the inability of the CIA to collect sufficient data and information. They knew this as early as 1997, when the CIA was being gutted in an attempt to be rebuilt. They had potshot guesses of what might happen, but no surefire answer to what was going to occur.

I don't like the Bush Administration at all. But tell me that a President is supposed to know something when the CIA, the institution created as an foreign intelligence agency, has no factual information on an event and I'd probably laugh at you. 9/11 is a failure of the US government to protect its citizens on several levels. Foreign policy in the Middle East, a lack of intelligence, political maneuvering that didn't mend the deficiencies of the CIA, and an all around failure of our government to react to a crisis effectively.

The CIA was created to stop another "Pearl Harbor sneak attack" from happening, yet nearly 60 years after it's conception the CIA failed to do this. I don't like the Bush Administration, as stated, but I can't blame solely Bush for the 9/11 tragedy. Rather, I would be willing to blame the ineptitude of our entire government.

[truefeel]

Well, maybe it's me then. But just the idea he was at vacation during the prologue of 9/11 when the rumors really were circulating... . I can't help it pointing it then to the one who ultimately has the responsibility over the USA; and that was Bush.

[berlin88]

You all want my opinions of what will happen the next four years?


1. Deep economic troubles and a recession/ depression

2. Government radically regulating the ecnonomy, leading to further economic troubles.

3. Passage of the fairness Doctrine, whic is designed to silence Conservative media and give unfair advantages to Liberal media. It says all radio programs have to give equal time to Liberals, but not conservatives.

4. High taxes on the middle class. Obama may say the middle class is 250,000 or lower, but many members of his party disagree and say 120,000.

5. We will jack up the debt/ taxes by spending all this money on fighting world poverty/ hunger when we can't even get our own country in order.

6. Obama and his party will be all for supporting the UN

7. We will get judges on the Supreme Court who legislate from the bench by making laws rather than intepreting them and judges who will have no problem rewriting or reinterpriting the law to fit the liberal agenda. We spent most of the 20th century watching our constitution get rewritten left and right by the courts, and now it may happen again.

8. I think Obama could do a decent job, but only if he picks the right advisors and rejects the far left radicals in his party.

9. America's failing schools are run by liberal Democrats, have been for decades, I doubt things are going to get better. Democrats tried to narrow the achievement gaps in education and improve graduation rates a worthy cause, but how they went about it destroyed the schools.

During the election time the Democrats always accuse the Republicans of cutting funding for education to try and cover up the fact they ruined the schools.

10. When Democrats talk about taxes, how many times have the raised taxes? How many tiems have they lowered taxes?

[Mpdabunny]

Not even 24 hours after the man who wants to cut back our military, and sit down and have a nice cup of tea with terrorists is chosen, Russia starts a new round of threats. Lol.. I could have CALLED that.. why didn't I.. :redface:

Putin in a stare down with Obama (Yes I know Putin isn't in charge "publicly" *cough BS cough* but everyone knows he's pulling his little puppet's strings)... not something I'm looking forward to the outcome. Obama couldn't even stare down Hilary. :\ Our leader is an appeaser, this is gonna be interesting.. and frightening.

Looking to rent a cave in the middle of the woods for four (possibly eight) years if anyone is offering. :D Heck, if people elected this guy on his weak positions and background in the first place, I see it as entirely possible they might do it again despite how rocky these first four years might be. :sadwave:

[Ace]

lol like any american press would be talked down by the russians?
But seriously there are other ways than talking rough and flashing your weapons to get your way forward... ;)

also I don't think the main concern of the us president will be the foregin peacekeeping stuff, other than afghanistan, the main issue everybody talks about here and there is the economy and will there be any jobs out when you graduate :P

[berlin88]

Yes, but thats why Biden was picked as VP, he has some experience and can tell Obama what to do, making Obama's ideas sound credible. Whe paracticed apeasement and settlements during the Coldwar and almost lost, had Reagan not been in office.

To the people suggesting Ron Paul 2012, that won't happen. While I would love to see the Republicans readopt Goldwater Conservatism, it won't happen unless they get desperate or Ron Paul can convince them otherwise. Ron Paul was born in 1935, so he is older than McCain, and would be 76 or 77 on election day in 2012, that would make it hard for him to be the nomineed. People said 72 for McCain was to old, so 76-77 will be even less popular.


However, here is how the Republicans win seats back in 2010 and win the 2012 election.


1. They Return to Goldwater Conservatism, which saved the party from collapse in the 1960's, and from which they have strayed.

2. They retake the schools. They highlight education and emphasie how Liberal Democrats destroyed the schools.

3. They take Ron Paul's lead and appeal to a broader base of people and young voters.

4. They keep Obama honest. They make sure he lives up to all his campaign promises of helping the middle class and not raising their taxes.

5. They use Conservatism to solve America's problems. They failed to do this under Bush, and it cost them.

6. They need a Republican version of Obama, someone who can energize the electorate and get them votes.

7. They emphasize the rule of law. They stress the legitimate functions of government and fight to defend the constitution.

8. They have to prove the Free Market economy still works and is still a good idea.

[Gaucho8788]

My big thing right now is not that Obama is president, hell I think he can do an alright job given the chance, but that the government is majority Democrat right now. When one party has majority in the government that opens doors for many more bad things to happen. Only thing we can do right now though is just wait and see how things turn out because no amount of bitching, whining, or complaining of any kind can change what has transpired.

[Mpdabunny]

But seriously there are other ways than talking rough and flashing your weapons to get your way forward... ;)

We're talking about the same Russia right? Did some other country adopt the name? I'm confused. Russia is so respondent when you talk nice and kiss their ass... are you freaking serious? You don't talk "rough" with Russia, and they walk all over you. :wtf: That relationship could never be "civil" unless the U.S. were to completely back down and grant Russia everything they want.

[Rouge]

'scouse me I've always read the almost daily blurb and i finally decided to post a reply

Well Obama has done it and now with a congress that'll vote with,him let's see what the next 4 years'll be like...:shifty:

although his handling of Russia is a little bit scary...:sadwave:

one thing you can expect to see is hillary either close to Obama or on the 2012 balot...

[truefeel]

We're talking about the same Russia right? Did some other country adopt the name? I'm confused. Russia is so respondent when you talk nice and kiss their ass... are you freaking serious? You don't talk "rough" with Russia, and they walk all over you. :wtf: That relationship could never be "civil" unless the U.S. were to completely back down and grant Russia everything they want.


Reminds me of what Russia said when Obama got elected...:|
Russia is wanting Coldwar II

[DomerPyle]

I don't see why you guys all hate Russia. Seems to me the U.S. is quick to jump on them and twist their actions around to make them look like the bad guy, like with that incident in Georgia. everyone and their mother knows Georgia provoked them, yet the U.S. condemn's Russia's reaction.

also, I like Obama's foreign policy plan. if we refuse to talk with nations until they satisfy us, nothing will change. I voted for Obama, and I can't wait to see how he turns this country around. should be fun times :D

[nf1n1ty]

You all want my opinions of what will happen the next four years?

1. Deep economic troubles and a recession/ depression
That's almost inevitable. No need to blame it on Obama already ;)

2. Government radically regulating the ecnonomy, leading to further economic troubles.
Works pretty well in Germany, actually. And as you should have noticed over the last few years: The free market doesn't always work either.

3. Passage of the fairness Doctrine, whic is designed to silence Conservative media and give unfair advantages to Liberal media. It says all radio programs have to give equal time to Liberals, but not conservatives.
Fox News paranoia. Somebody probably watched a little too much O'Reilly, I guess.

4. High taxes on the middle class. Obama may say the middle class is 250,000 or lower, but many members of his party disagree and say 120,000.
As far as I remember the Republicans are not the party of the working class. At least they haven't been for the last 8 years...with tax cuts for rich people and everything

5. We will jack up the debt/ taxes by spending all this money on fighting world poverty/ hunger when we can't even get our own country in order.
You honestly think the liberals will focus their efforts on giving money away to other countries before fixing the US economy?

6. Obama and his party will be all for supporting the UN
Well...do you want another Iraq? Listening to the UN for a change might prevent rushing into another invasion that will cost another Trillion.
But that would make the liberals pussies, right? Yay for invading and killing!

7. We will get judges on the Supreme Court who legislate from the bench by making laws rather than intepreting them and judges who will have no problem rewriting or reinterpriting the law to fit the liberal agenda. We spent most of the 20th century watching our constitution get rewritten left and right by the courts, and now it may happen again.
-> PATRIOT act...

10. When Democrats talk about taxes, how many times have the raised taxes? How many tiems have they lowered taxes?
Sadly raising taxes is required for a government to fix problems. It's only one of the possible solutions for fixing the mess the economy is in, but apparently the other solution (cutting taxes) hasn't quite worked out over the last years, or has it?

And you probably also think Obama is a secret muslim and wants to give the US over to terrorists, right?
What I'm trying to say here:
Stop repeating what Fox News is telling you and stop believing that "Fair and balanced" crap.
This is not an attack on you, but simply what I'm observing among the conservative crowd. They keep repeating those paranoid lies that are fed to them by idiots like O'Reilly (and recently, during the election: Sarah Palin).
I was most impressed by the Republican campaign - how they managed to portray themselves as the party of the working class while the Bush government has passed huge amounts of legislation favoring very rich people. That whole Joe the plumber thing was nothing short of ridiculous.
Yet people believe them and try to make up a rationale for portraying the liberals as pussies who will work with terrorists and introduce socialism to the US - even if you tell them otherwise. You can even show them facts that prove the opposite - it won't change their opinion, because it's not rational, but based on fear and paranoia.

Oh...writing too much again...
Well, I'm not blaming all conservatives...only the irrational ones, I guess.
There are idiots on both sides - there's no question about that.
All I'm saying is:
When Bush was re-elected the liberal crowd went nuts predicting the end of the world as we know it...same paranoid crap.
Obama won't eat your children or give them to commies or spread your wealth to other secret muslims.

[Mighty BOB!]

4. They keep Obama honest. They make sure he lives up to all his campaign promises of helping the middle class and not raising their taxes.

You do realize that if Obama keeps his promises there will be no reason to elect someone else right? Why oppose the guy doing all the good things he said he would do?

[starscream007]

Got to give the devil his due, in classic nerd fashion that is:



http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e50/chevydriver1123/Political%20Pics/Obamaxbox.jpg

[Mpdabunny]

I don't see why you guys all hate Russia. Seems to me the U.S. is quick to jump on them and twist their actions around to make them look like the bad guy, like with that incident in Georgia. everyone and their mother knows Georgia provoked them, yet the U.S. condemn's Russia's reaction.

:\ Did I say I hate Russia? The relationship between the two countries is bitter, there's no denying that. Putin is a maniac.. there's little denying that. I never said anything about "hating" Russia. In general from what I can tell people in the U.S. are just very.... weary of Russian leaders' intent, that goes triple for Putin.

As for the Georgia thing, sure maybe Russia wasn't "entirely" at fault, but when Russia started massing an army on the border weeks before the incident.. well that calls a lot into question.

Also, if you're referring to the "Missile Shield" Which Russia has threatened to NUKE for **** sake! The shield is relatively small and in no way could "threaten" Russia's ability to nuke anyone, it would only be effective against a small number of warheads such as a small radical nation might possess.. not the massive arsenal Russia currently holds. This is just an excuse for saber rattling. Which is very ironic because the nations we need this shield to protect against are the same nations Russia is purposely trying to stop us from forcing to cease their nuclear programs.



My problem is Putin doesn't "Speak Obama's language" in a figurative sense. Bush already tried to play nice with Putin, and that got us nowhere. He continued to do nothing but purposely be a thorn in the U.S.'s side causing anything that was attempted with matters like Iran and N.Korea to be impossible to resolve through the U.N. (Yes, I understand we have the Chinese government to thank for that as well.)

Putin is not a man for words, it's as apparent as the nose on his face. Putin goes back to the "old" style of Soviet leader that didn't care for smart intellectual negotiations, but only responded to tough rhetoric and the unwillingness of the U.S. to back down. Ever hear of mutually assured destruction? That's what saved both countries from a nuclear war... not "words" we're both very bull-headed nations.

Truefeel, I don't think Putin wants the second Cold War. I just think he sees an opportunity to take advantage of a president who really isn't well versed in the "tough world" we actually live in. Obama seems to think he can talk himself out of almost anything. That's what worries me. As much as everyone including myself just wishes you could settle everything with nice intelligent well thought out negotiation, some people just don't respond to that. Some people you need to show you're tough, you need to show them you wont back down so they don't take advantage of you. I really don't think Obama has the spine to make this apparent to Putin, and I think Putin has shown he agrees. :\ It would seem not everyone buys into Obama's silken tongue that includes me, and in a much less fortunate sense Putin. Europe may be in love with Obama, but so is Putin.. but for all the wrong reasons. He obviously sees an opportunity to push, and thinks Obama is unwilling or unable to push back.

The fact of the matter is the only nation willing to stand up to Russia is the U.S., if we are willing to back down, no one would. Putin would be like a bull in a china shop with no one to kick him out. Obama would have to run to the U.N. crying foul and insisting they punish Russia, but maybe now he understands Russia holds veto powers within the U.N., and they can't do a damned thing.

[truefeel]

Truefeel, I don't think Putin wants the second Cold War. I just think he sees an opportunity to take advantage of a president who really isn't well versed in the "tough world" we actually live in. Obama seems to think he can talk himself out of almost anything. That's what worries me. As much as everyone including myself just wishes you could settle everything with nice intelligent well thought out negotiation, some people just don't respond to that. Some people you need to show you're tough, you need to show them you wont back down so they don't take advantage of you. I really don't think Obama has the spine to make this apparent to Putin, and I think Putin has shown he agrees. :\ It would seem not everyone buys into Obama's silken tongue that includes me, and in a much less fortunate sense Putin. Europe may be in love with Obama, but so is Putin.. but for all the wrong reasons. He obviously sees an opportunity to push, and thinks Obama is unwilling or unable to push back.Well, maybe I putted it wrong. I tried to say that if they continue this attitude, it can turn into cold war II (or even worse). There was no reason to include the missile-shield objectives into his congratz-message to Barack Obama, especially b/c Obama hasn't/couldn't do anything wrong yet. I agree though USA has to put up a tuff face against russia, b/c they are already trying to intimidate Obama. I hope Obama is smart enough to see through and to react right on it, meaning not too weak, but also not too fierce. Also know that Putin is not really loved in Western Europe. He tried a few years ago to block the gas going to Europe and blaiming Ukraine for it, which failed miserable, ending in that the people of europe see him more a bit like a communist.

People like putin and medvedev should never had been able to run Russia. I fear for for the future with such labile leaders.

[Derek]

And as you should have noticed over the last few years: The free market doesn't always work either.
The free market didn't cause this. Bad regulation did.

As far as I remember the Republicans are not the party of the working class. At least they haven't been for the last 8 years...with tax cuts for rich people and everything
Tax cuts across the board (well, at least to people who actually pay taxes), so I don't see how that makes him any less for the working class. The Democrats however could do a lot of damage to the working class unintentionally if they pass some of the policies they suggest. Protectionism would raise the price of consumer goods (without creating hardly any jobs) and higher business taxes would cause more jobs to go overseas. Not a good combo.

Well...do you want another Iraq? Listening to the UN for a change might prevent rushing into another invasion that will cost another Trillion.
But that would make the liberals pussies, right? Yay for invading and killing!
Iraq was and always has been a good thing. The world needs more countries willing to stand up to oppression. The UN has completely failed at this.

[Mpdabunny]

I hope Obama is smart enough to see through and to react right on it, meaning not too weak, but also not too fierce.

I'm hoping the same. It's just what we've seen of Obama, I'm not sure he has what it's going to take, but I guess we shall see.

[truefeel]

Iraq was and always has been a good thing. The world needs more countries willing to stand up to oppression. The UN has completely failed at this.

I find it though kinda suspicious that it was Iraq that was invaded. Opression is everywhere in the world: myanmar, almost complete Africa, Russia, ... . Why didn't they stand up against such countries like they did against Iraq ?

Don't get me wrong, I believe there were good intentions, but it I do also think there was more behind it.

[HawkEye1102002]

Iraq was and always has been a good thing. The world needs more countries willing to stand up to oppression. The UN has completely failed at this.

While I am willing to agree that getting rid of Saddam, down to bare and true morality, is the right thing, I also acknowlage that it took long, too long infact, and too many Allied and civilian lives lost to get the right people (general Petrayus) there to sort things out, Iraq may not be stable, but it is a lot better since Petrayus is now there.

My worry is that Obama (McCain had this concept as well) thinks the central flashpoint for "The War on Terror" is Alfghanistan, it is the flashpoint for the Taliban, but not for terror in the whole. I would applaud Obama if he said there is no war on terror but a war on the people who are willing to cause terror. Modern poloticians saying that they are waging war on terror is like Churchil saying that he is waging war on Blitzkrieg, terror is a tactic, not a collective, organisation or nation of people.

What bothers me now is people saying the word "Black President", what I see is a "President", why does color have to go into account, people think that having a leader because of his skin color is a "good thing" and "showing that we have moved on from racism" - if the world wants to show that they have moved on from racism, then they should applaud the person, not the skin color. I feel sorry for Obama because I do feel that the world is applauding his skin color and not the man himself, color should NOT be a factor to put anyone in an advantage or dissadvantage - hell even Daniel Craig (from James Bond fame) thinks there should be a "colored James Bond" because of Obana's victory (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3387865/Daniel-Craig-says-next-Bond-could-be-black.html)
The world has moved from one form of stupidity to another

Before anyone askes, no I do not think, and have never thought that Obama is a secret Muslim and yes I do hope he does the right thing and not appeasing the left winggers in and outside his party

[truefeel]

What bothers me now is people saying the word "Black President", what I see is a "President", why does color have to go into account, people think that having a leader because of his skin color is a "good thing" and "showing that we have moved on from racism" - if the world wants to show that they have moved on from racism, then they should applaud the person, not the skin color. I feel sorry for Obama because I do feel that the world is applauding his skin color and not the man himself, color should NOT be a factor to put anyone in an advantage or dissadvantage - hell even Daniel Craig (from James Bond fame) thinks there should be a "colored james Bond" because of Obana's victory (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3387865/Daniel-Craig-says-next-Bond-could-be-black.html)
The world has moved from one form of stupidity to another


Do realise when people say "black president" it is most of the time not ment racistic. I think most of them who say it carry him almost in his heart. It stands outside racism and I think it's more a thing of habit. I also don't think he has been choosen on the color of his skin, but just b/c he has the talent to move large crowds of people, to give spiritfull speeches and etc.

But the reinforce your argument a bit, he is not complete black. He's carnation of black father and white mother (I believe; tell me if I'm wrong). So black is anywayz misplaced :p.

[Mpdabunny]

What bothers me now is people saying the word "Black President", what I see is a "President", why does color have to go into account, people think that having a leader because of his skin color is a "good thing" and "showing that we have moved on from racism" - if the world wants to show that they have moved on from racism, then they should applaud the person, not the skin color. I feel sorry for Obama because I do feel that the world is applauding his skin color and not the man himself, color should NOT be a factor to put anyone in an advantage or dissadvantage - hell even Daniel Craig (from James Bond fame) thinks there should be a "colored James Bond" because of Obana's victory (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3387865/Daniel-Craig-says-next-Bond-could-be-black.html)
The world has moved from one form of stupidity to another

Before anyone askes, no I do not think, and have never thought that Obama is a secret Muslim and yes I do hope he does the right thing and not appeasing the left winggers in and outside his party

The election was far more about race than anyone would like to admit. There were people voting for him for this reason, and those voting against him for this reason as well. What bothers me is Obama constantly went out on stage and did this little act where he kept bringing up that "they" were going to say he's different and "they" were going to say he's black, when McCain NEVER brought race into the equation, that was solely Obama's doing. I also believe Obama bringing this up over and over definitely helped him, unfortunately.

As for appeasing the left-winggers in his party, I think it's too late for that. Obama has proven all of his talk about "bringing us together" is just that, talk. His first choice for his staff was a heavily partisan man he felt was fit to be his "Chief of Staff" a man who happens to be very close to Nancy Pelosi's mind set as far as I can tell. It's a very troubling sign of what's to come very early on. :\

[truefeel]

Well, coming from your point of view (I understand you take this much on your heart), I would just wait and see. You can't do more then hoping your feelings about this were wrong;).

[Derek]

While I am willing to agree that getting rid of Saddam, down to bare and true morality, is the right thing, I also acknowlage that it took long, too long infact, and too many Allied and civilian lives lost to get the right people (general Petrayus) there to sort things out, Iraq may not be stable, but it is a lot better since Petrayus is now there.
Yeah, the war was conducted very poorly at first. That doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do though, it just took us awhile to get someone in there who could get results.

[truefeel]

Yeah, the war was conducted very poorly at first. That doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do though, it just took us awhile to get someone in there who could get results.If they really want that the operation to be a succes, they also need to invate Iran; that's were all the terrorists come from to plague Iraq with terrorist acts.

[HawkEye1102002]

Do realise when people say "black president" it is most of the time not ment racistic. I think most of them who say it carry him almost in his heart. It stands outside racism and I think it's more a thing of habit. I also don't think he has been choosen on the color of his skin, but just b/c he has the talent to move large crowds of people, to give spiritfull speeches and etc.

But the reinforce your argument a bit, he is not complete black. He's carnation of black father and white mother (I believe; tell me if I'm wrong). So black is anywayz misplaced :p.

Here we call it "positive discrimination", and I think it is a very bad thing.

Yes, I know Obama is half-Kenyan, and Kenya is a member of the British Commonwealth, so does this mean we British rule America by proxy? :D

[truefeel]

Here we call it "positive discrimination", and I think it is a very bad thing.

I rather think if he was white, he would had won with numbers like Roosevelt back in time did.

[Derek]

I rather think if he was white, he would had won with numbers like Roosevelt back in time did.
No, he wouldn't have gotten the turnout among the black community and probably would have had less turnout among young voters too. Without those he would have lost.

[truefeel]

Look it this way: if he was white, there was no black skinned person to vote for. There would had been less votes indeed, but I don't think with such an impact. Also count up the persons who did not vote simply b/c he is black.

[Derek]

Look it this way: if he was white, there was no black skinned person to vote for. There would had been less votes indeed, but I don't think with such an impact. Also count up the persons who did not vote simply b/c he is black.
Thats hardly anyone, and the few people who are so racist as to not vote for someone because he is black would never have voted for a Democrat anyways.

Despite popular belief, the US is substantially less racist than Europe. It took about a hundred years, but there really is very little racism left.

[truefeel]

Well, I can agree on that. Racism is a plague here in Belgium.

[HawkEye1102002]

Well, I can agree on that. Racism is a plague here in Belgium.

I feel that racism is a plague on mankind itself, whether you are Caucasian, African, Asian, Hispanic or any race - and sadly, it will not be stamped out because prejudices are a part of human (and animal) life, poloticians will say that they can stamp out prejudices, but I feel that is futile, I am not saying it is futile bringing it to everyones attention, you will still have white and black supremicists (not forgetting other types).

I recall someone once said to me (and have read it in many other papers and websites) that caucasians are the only race to dispise itself, looking here in the UK, it is not far off the truth.

[berlin88]

Thats hardly anyone, and the few people who are so racist as to not vote for someone because he is black would never have voted for a Democrat anyways.

Despite popular belief, the US is substantially less racist than Europe. It took about a hundred years, but there really is very little racism left.

Derek, until the mid 1960's, all the big name racists were in the Democratic party. All the big name American politicians associated with racism were Democrats. So in a way its ironic Obama was elected as a Democrat.

The first African American in congress was a Republican. The Republicans had an African American elected to congress already in the 1870's, the Dems didn't do it until like almost 90-100 years later.

Democrats supported slavery

Democrats segregated the government under Woodrow Wilson

Democrats tried to fillibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. The Democrats had a majority in 1964 in Congress, but more Republicans voted yes than Democrats on the bill. 1/3 of the Democrats voted against it.

Democrats supported the Jim Crow Laws and segregation

Democrats passed the Indian removal Act

Democrats tried to blame Hispanics for the early 20th century economic troubles and supported the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WW2.

I could go on an on, but I won't.


The Republicans have a strong history of supporting Civil Rights.

[Derek]

I'm well aware of all that. But it still doesn't change the fact that 90% of blacks vote Democrat, and the few remaining racists vote Republican now (the Democrats "betrayed" them in the 60's by passing Civil Rights legislation).

[berlin88]

I'm well aware of all that. But it still doesn't change the fact that 90% of blacks vote Democrat, and the few remaining racists vote Republican now (the Democrats "betrayed" them in the 60's by passing Civil Rights legislation).

Yes, they vote Dem, and have voted 85-90% Dem ever since the depression, when they switched parties and started voting in mass for Roosevelt. However, they vote 90% Dem because the Republicans have done a very poor job of winning their vote, trying only at election time, and the Dems have used scare tactics, to try and maintain their vote by portraying the Republican as evil or racist.

It also doesn't help that Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act on economic grounds. He is the figurehead for the modern conservative movement (along with Reagan) and so he often gets portrayed negatively.

[Pr0SEAL]

Yes, they vote Dem, and have voted 85-90% Dem ever since the depression, when they switched parties and started voting in mass for Roosevelt. However, they vote 90% Dem because the Republicans have done a very poor job of winning their vote, trying only at election time, and the Dems have used scare tactics, to try and maintain their vote by portraying the Republican as evil or racist.

It also doesn't help that Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act on economic grounds. He is the figurehead for the modern conservative movement (along with Reagan) and so he often gets portrayed negatively.

I disagree about your statement with Ron Paul, he still has a good chance of running again. He made 3rd place in both write in states that had his name. He had over 9000 votes in Louisiana. (No DBZ pun intended :))
Anybody trying to pick on an insignificant stand of age with him will regret it. The Constitution is older and is that unpopular? Freedom and Liberty is still new, is that unpopular. Just avoiding the issues when you resort to who has been around longer. Obama no advantage over Ron Paul, even the African Americans would favor Ron more than Obama with the War on Drugs. Anyway, he said the Campaign for Liberty continues. I just don't see why he won't run again, he has more attention than ever. And people are organizing from his message, this is the most attention he has ever had. Logically he would take advantage of it and run again, because the Republican party has lost their way and people begin to realize it needs to go back its grass roots again.

As for the Civil Rights Act, whats the problem? The title sounds appealing just like the Patriot Act. Does this mean it must be Patriotic and promote Free Liberty? No, obviously its the context that matters.

[Derek]

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is too extreme for the Republican Party in any form. I consider myself a libertarian Republican, but I could never vote for Ron Paul. A return to the gold standard would be disastrous to the economy (it was gotten rid of for a reason), and isolationism is unjustifiable. I like the small-government approach he stands for, but I could never vote for him.

[Pr0SEAL]

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is too extreme for the Republican Party in any form. I consider myself a libertarian Republican, but I could never vote for Ron Paul. A return to the gold standard would be disastrous to the economy (it was gotten rid of for a reason), and isolationism is unjustifiable. I like the small-government approach he stands for, but I could never vote for him.


Wow. wtf?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard

"In January 2008, Paul released an economic revitalization plan (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-65) and named Peter Schiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff) and Donald L. Luskin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_L._Luskin) economic advisors to the campaign.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-66)[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-67) National Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal) labeled Paul's overall economic policies in 2006 as more conservative than 48% of the House and more liberal than 51% of the House"

"Paul strongly supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_gold_currencies).[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-101) He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_money_%28policy%29)) and digital gold currencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_gold_currencies)[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-102) to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note), allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_money) or to continue using fiat money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money).[104] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-103)[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-104)[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-105) Paul believes this would restrain inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding), which he sees as "the most insidious of all taxes."[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-106)
He suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_hegemony), especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system) following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroeuro) instead of Petrodollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar), it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East," this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-107)[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-108)
He has committed himself for over 30 years to educating Americans in libertarian economic principles, such as eliminating the Federal Reserve Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board),[110] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-109) a private-public banking entity that Paul says has a centralized monopoly control over our money and threatens to impoverish the population through devaluation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaluation) of the dollar.[111] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-110) Paul has many times confronted Congress with a bill to audit the Federal Reserve Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board),[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-111) which Congress has repeatedly turned down."


Actually it was only disastrous when we left it, for a fiat currency. The Gold Standard had minor fault in deflation, but just check out the digital gold currency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_gold_currency)
"He has long advocated ending the federal income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_%28U.S.%29), scaling back government spending, abolishing most federal agencies, and removing military bases and troops from foreign soil; he favors hard money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_money_%28policy%29) and opposes the Federal Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve)."

He is not an Isolationist! There is a HUGE difference between Isolation and Non-Intervention.

"Isolationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism)). Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism. George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington) and Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade and cultural exchange."

"Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism) philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian) world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade) and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all people."

"Isolationism is a foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) which combines a non-interventionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism) military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_nationalism) (protectionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism)). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Non-interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism) – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entangling_alliances) with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense).
Protectionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism) – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states."You are gravely mistaken on Paul's stances.

[Derek]

Deflation is bad, worse than inflation, and the gold standard severely restricts liquidity. It was abandoned a long time ago because it simply wasn't needed anymore, with modern stable economies there is simply no reason to back it up with an arbitrarily chosen metal.

And it doesn't matter what you call it, "non-interventionism" is still unacceptable. There is too much evil in the world to sit back and watch.

[Slapper]

I don't see why you guys all hate Russia. Seems to me the U.S. is quick to jump on them and twist their actions around to make them look like the bad guy, like with that incident in Georgia. everyone and their mother knows Georgia provoked them, yet the U.S. condemn's Russia's reaction.

How many of you were around during the the 1960's? The height of the Cold War? I said a few days ago, the Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick and dont back down worked. Straight up. The Russians only know 1 thing. Brute force and straight Diplomacy at the point of a gun. Putin is more bellicose than usual lately and so is his Lapdog. Nothing different in that Country, Russians are pretty cool people, i worked with them at least 150 times over the years. Just as anywhere else, the Government is not a reflection of a people.

But. I ask this. As i was around for those years.

1. Russia was putting missiles in America's back yard. They freaked and threatened full scale Thermonuclear war, did they not?

Yes they did and the Russians backed down...Kruschev was a windbag and a smart man, but no fool.---> {Big Stick}<---- We will hit you with it now if you dont cease and desist from those actions. Noone died. Its called a telephone call and they still exist today. Not sure about the Red Phone, the Direct Line deal, but it was there back in the day. If Pres Obama knows how to talk to other World Leaders with the same dignity and respect as what i saw from him the other night, America, you'll be alright. Thats been missing from the Diplomatic scene in Washington for a long time, carrying the Big Stick and walking softly. It isnt about kissing ass, its about respecting Sovereign Nations and not axcting like a Cowboy....the basic principle of MAD is still enough for sane people and Goverments to think twice about opening that can of worms as far as Russia goes, they are tough talking, but by no means stupid. Stop the worrying, give him a chance.

2. As of today at this hour, i ask you to research how many American Bases now ring Russia, and if they are strategically positioned around its former Republics and even on its borders. Better yet, look at a map of the same question on Iran while your at it, and people wonder why these Countrys are more than a bit concerned about it? . They have already armed most of these Baltic Countries with newer weapons and trained their Forces and are pushing for them to be in NATO. This in itself is enough to swallow for the Russian Government. Now they want to put Misslies on their Border?? that surely the Russians are working to develop anyways? Regardless about what the talking heads say about the state of the Russian economy, or what the reasons behind this much aligned deployment of Anti-ABM Batterys are all about,they still got enough cashflow and knowhow to make Iskander Missiles and New Big Toys if they feel threatened. And they do. Why should America be the only Country in the World to be able to surround people with Miltary might? They are playing the game as well as ever with their support of Chavez and other Latin American Countries. Tit for Tat.

Anyone above the age of 45 ish will remember what happened quite well, we all thought we were going to die. Dont kid yourselves young people. It was a tense time for the World. The kind of War they were talking was City Busting, that was the Military term for it. You cant even imagine what thats all about, i dont think most people can other than the Japanese.

If The U.S tried what they have done now to Russia, surrounding them with Military bases, back then, it WOULD have been WW3, guaranteed. To assume that Russia would be ok with it today, in these times, is being naive..being surrounded by American Military power without a response is unthinkable to me and as we are now seeing, to the Russian Government as well. Its nothing hard to concieve them being a little pissed.

Your new Pres. has got a lot on his plate. There is fence mending to do, the Doomsday scenarios i see people imagining are pretty far out there, id say, grab a pint, keep working hard, keep going to school, it'll all work out.

When i watch him speak, i see a pretty decent man, with big ideas. You can microscope all the things he says to death and you can dissect the Liberal agenda as well.. Just give him a chance, he cant do any worse than whats been done to you for the last 8 years. I dont think he plans on doing the same or worse. If he seems half the Man he is that is.

Under Bush, your Constituiton got shat on, Bush's rich friends got richer and some even managed to get rich, break the law and still stay rich, Enron should ring a bell...not to mention 9/11. I wont go there, but some pretty smart people quite disagree with that whole day and the official version of it. I personally, as we well know, side with the supposed Conspiracy theorists, who really are not the nut jobs, its the other way around, but that aint a topic i bother much with anymore, noones listening to truth anymore. Its past tense now.

Hopefully it works out. Barack Obama is your President, at least give him a shot at it before you tear him apart like a starving Wolf Pack. The Man aint even done 1 thing yet, already the pack is foaming at the mouth....

[Slapper]

well, Proseal, i like your style.

the Fed Reserve is evil and it has made us all a slave, with the World Bank, Fed Reserve, Central Bank system, IMF and on and on and on...

The Fed prints your money, or makes it up electronically, with nothing to back it up. The Fed is who America owes Trillions to. I cannot see the good of this Private Bank, a consortium of the planets richest people of which thier names you cannot get by a simple search. but do your homework, you will find out who they are. And you trust them to be honest? that is plain and simple, stupidity....

Oh and yes, this unfortunate circumstance called " Raising Taxes" is what is supposed to pay for debt and social programs of every color and shape and size. Raising taxes is an unpopular thing to do, it does not get people re-elected for sure.

Seems noone thinks it important to remind Fred the Farmer or Joe the Plumber that money to pay for those things has to come from somewhere. i guess most people cant add 2 plus 2 to figure it out.

Then , along come the Fed and says, oh, dont worry, we will just print you up a few billion here, a few billion there, you dont need to raise taxes Mr/Mrs Congressman, we will just make it out of thin air and youll get relected because noone actually payed for these things but the people themselves.

You see, this is how the wealth is transferred from the people to the Rich and the Fed and its handlers. They create debt, out of Debt. Its a simple concept make money out of thin air, the Government owes it to the Fed, with interest, eventually the people pay the bill, or, the debt just keeps climbing, and climbing and climbing. Its simple math really. You see it in action right now, this minute, the U.S debt to the Fed is piling up because Congress has no balls or dont want to be unpopular. Ron Paul doesnt give a ****e about popularity, thats what make him attractive as a Politician to me, he speaks against this BS, not for it. All Americans and all Countrys with this sytem should care.

Oh and to add to my last post, the Neo Con Agenda is what all this War in the Middle East was/is about and pipelines and oil companies and control of the Middle East and its oil and resources, and to surround Iran and much to an extent, Syria and Russia. The Think Tank was full of people who are who are good friends with GW Bush and Dick Cheney{ if there was ever a first given a name the fit the description of someone, it was Dick for sure, he wins} Again, for some of you that have never read this gem of a Document, it is a document written by a think tank, who employed many of what is now The Bush Administrations advisors and holders of places of great infuence.

A Project for a New American Century.

Google it and read it. Theres pages and pages of drivel, but then theres the important part about what to do in the Middle East and who wrote it. Well, they did it, after they were elected. The plan was implemented with pretty much no thought of the possible hundreds of outcomes. Be damn thankful that bunch is now out of the White House come January. They are the people that wrote it who governed you for 8 years. And to even suggest that Bush was a Good President, well, he did what the Neo Cons wanted and noone pays attention. There is no debating that paper and who it was written by. It was and still is all lies and BS. Their agenda is there in plain english. Read it. 9/11 was the match to the fire, me, i dont think it was guys in a damn cave, all of that was way too smooth. Norad standing down, no Air Force Units responding to Hijack alerts, the time delays, the Insider Trading, the foreknowledge, the way the Bulldings fell, especially Number 7, man. anyhow, im getting all worked up again on this topic. Read the paper, you decide what a NEW PEARL HARBOR means yourself and if they got exactly what they asked for in 2001. If your that shallow, then god help you. I dont trust them at their word that the paper is not the substance of the Foreign Policy of the Bush gang for the last 8 years. It is, pretty much there, word for word.

Obama hopefully is not even remotely as nuts and greedy and power stricken as the current Cowboy Regime.

[berlin88]

Ok Slapper, some points I would make:

Democrats created the Federal Reserve and adopted the practice of printing endless supplies of money. We created the Federal Reserve supposedly to fight inflation or control it/ slow it down. Removing the gold standard was done to help fight the depression. The folks running the Federal Reserve are not elected officials, they are party appointments.

Readopting the Gold Standard may seem like a good idea, but look at all the money we just printed for the federal bailout? That money doesn't disappear if you bring gold standards back, so you can't say 1 gold bar for 1 greenback, it would be more like x number of dollars per gold bar.

President Roosevelt surrounded himself with left wing economic advisors. During the depression. They recruited economist from far and wide to help fight it, but only if you swore you were a Democrat. You didn't have to swear you were a citizen or anything else, just that you were a Democrat.

Its not about taxes in my opinion, but the legitimate functions of government.


“The legitimate functions are actually conductive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justices, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods- the exercise of these powers make it possible for men to pursue their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom.”

The Federal Government gets its money from the states (via the people), takes out a portion of the funding for itself and sends the rest back. So if the Feds claim they can afford it, then why not just have the states pay for it and do it themselves?

The objective of government is promote freedom and liberty, not restrict it. Government should be striving to make people less dependent on government, not more dependent.

Tax increases are bad, because it encourages the government to increase spending, not decrease it. Whenever they raise taxes, they always find something new to waste money on.

Federal Government programs are often underfunded and prone to inefficiency, because of poor budget management. They refuse to prioritize, believing a million underfunded programs is better then a few well funded programs. We have things like social security that have been around since the 30's and still don't work properly!

Social Security is bankrupt, there is no money.

If the government gives it to you, they can take it away or dictate what you have to do to earn it. If we have government run healthcare, do you think the Feds will want competition from the private sector? No, they will want a government run monopoly on the health care system.

Left wing Liberalism is different from left wing socialism and here is why:

Liberalism is spending money on things like Roads, schools, police, etc.

Socialism is when you increase the size and power of the government into areas they should stay out of, or when you increase people's dependence on the government by restricting freedom/ liberty or by encouraging laziness. The preamble clearly states the role of the government, so should they be allowed to violate the constitution by expanding the government's power and authority?

In schools, the education was originally dictated by the school boards and local communities, who funded it and held local officials accountable. Now its funded by the federal government and run by labor unions, politicians and left wing special interest groups. Teachers/ local school boards are no longer held accountable for poor education and lack of quality, we just blame the feds for spending enough and we look to Washington for answers.

Any decisions made by Washington should be made by elected officials, not party appointments. We need a return to Goldwater Conservatism and to appoint judges/ elected officials who seek to defend the constitution, not rewrite it. We are slowly moving towards a socialist Democracy (No mention of the word "Democracy" in the original Constitution) and away from the Democratic Republic upon which we were founded.

[Pr0SEAL]

Deflation is bad, worse than inflation, and the gold standard severely restricts liquidity. It was abandoned a long time ago because it simply wasn't needed anymore, with modern stable economies there is simply no reason to back it up with an arbitrarily chosen metal.

And it doesn't matter what you call it, "non-interventionism" is still unacceptable. There is too much evil in the world to sit back and watch.

So we are responsible for everyone? You are a globalist if you believe that.

[Slapper]

The folks running the Federal Reserve are not elected officials, they are party appointments.

WTF? As far as i read and watched and understood, 1 person is picked by the President, noone else. This is the Chairman of the Fed. Not 1 other person is even public, period. Bush's exact words when he picked the current Fed Chairman were" Uhhh, i uhhhh, im going to pick a guy, who is uhhh, seen as uhhhh, independant from Politics"..with a straight face no less. I watched the clip. i can find it if need be.

Where are you getting this from? The Fed, again, as far as i watched, read, researched and listened to, is a Private Bank, run and administered to by Nameless people, who remain anonymously anonymous and those same people are connected to the Central Banks, World Bank and IMF. Thats what Professional Economists and Reserchers and Historians have wrriten about it, and past Presidents who fought the system died in assasinations. A few of them wrote memoirs that did not get assasinated, as far as i read, their names are escaping me, but i can find them pretty quick if need be. A few of them said that they regretted it and they were afraid that they had sold out the Country to the Bankers and was sorry they did it. There was more than one.

They are given free reign on printing money, out of thin air. And, your Government owes them over a Trillion dollars. Thats what i know. I think? Where am i wrong?

watch this

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/america_freedom_to_fascism.php

Aaron Russo was no dummy and certainly a respected person. He was not a nutjob conspiracy theorist in my opinion, your entitled to yours as always,my eyes open and never trust a suit with a suitcase full of money to be made. Sorry, im cynical i guess. I dont trust Bankers, i dont trust Government or Politicians. I work for them, i figure i have good reasons, which i dont have to list, i have a long list ive posted here in past years..:)

[berlin88]

Slapper, I understand your response. I will admit my comment on the Federal Reserve people was poorly worded.

The point I was trying to make is that non elected officials and party officials are making decision that should be made by elected officials. Congress and the President should be making these economic and financial decisions, not the federal reserve or non elected officials. I say this because the government is supposed to make decisions themselves or stay out, not declare it has the authority to do this and that, then delegate it.

If the Government wants non elected officials making big financial and economic decisions, then turn it over to the private sector and leave it alone. If they want to stick their nose where it doesn't belong, then make sure elected officials make the calls, and that they are held accountable.

Sure the Federal Reserve and all these Presidential advisors can have their say and be used as consultants, but the President and Congress should be making the final decision, not just doing whatever these other people want them to do.

Using non elected officials or looking t oothers for answers is a way to deflect blame and avoid personal responsibility and accountability. The American people can vote the President out of office, but we can't vote Ben Bernanke out of office directly. All we could do is hope whoever we elect replaces him.

When an elected official gets int office, all their lobbyists and supporters want payback. They assume they will be rewarded for helping a politician get elected by being appointed to the head of some agency or whatever else they desire. This is msot commonly done when special interest groups like Moveon.org start advertising how much money they generated for a certain candidate or how they helped turn out voters to get candidate x elected.

Rewarding them causes trouble, but not rewarding them can hinder or even kill chances of re-election, if they refuse to help your re-election bid or in fact try to stop it.

[Derek]

So we are responsible for everyone? You are a globalist if you believe that.
We have a moral obligation to help oppressed people, yes.

[berlin88]

We have a moral obligation to help oppressed people, yes.

Moral obligation? WW1 was upposed to be "make the world safe for Democracy" and instead it led to WW2. We threw out the Kaiser and using Democracy the German's elected a dictator.

Read Goldwater's Why Not Victory and his views on Foreign aid. He believed in interventionist policies, but not to the extent where we play world police for every litte country. If they have hostile intentions towards America, you take them out, but you always do what's in America's best interest and you make foreign countries self sufficient, not dependent on free handouts from Uncle Sam. Though I can see how his views might lead people to think he was for some world police setup.

[Pr0SEAL]

We have a moral obligation to help oppressed people, yes.

Sorry, no we don't. We aren't a police force. We had no business in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq war 1, Helping Afghanistan against Russia, Iraq War 2.

We got to stop looking for Dragons to slay, and we are over extended on the military.