It's definitely an attack, and an interesting chapter in WW2 history :) The parts of the thread I saw just mentioned "attacks", so I figured I'd mention that they did indeed happen. But obviously invading the US was never on the radar - the goal was to keep the US from getting involved at all.Some how sneaking a sub up to the coastline of the US and firing its deck gun at some buildings does not strike me as really qualifying as an invasion and its an attack only in a pretty loose sense of the term.There actually were attacks on North American soil in WW2, several by the Japanese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II
I would add that you also shouldn't ignore the espionage element. The German Bundt was very active in the US. The FBI was very involved in containing/investigating them.
Not an invasion, but important nonetheless.
Wow ... take a day off and the political posts go nutz ...
Well, Democrats, you have your mandate. Go forth and do something with it. Personally I loathe the inevitable increase in government and taxes, but the masses have spoken. That's what makes representative democracy a workable governmental system, freedom to make the descisions on who we are ruled by (and the responsibility to suffer under those choices).
I guess I will wait for a viable third party that will hopefully represent those of us who are tired of the politics of personality and the bribery of constituents with pork money. I had hopes of the Libertarians, but their amazingly inept choice of Barr as a nominee has really soured me on them, possibly forever.
Time to hunker down and hope I have a job come next year. Perhaps I should just stop paying my mortgage now to get on the list for a bailout. Should have gotten a sub prime one while I still could.
feh .... The bedraggled monkey shambles off to the PbPs
*claps*
*claps again*
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Time to hunker down and hope I have a job come next year. Perhaps I should just stop paying my mortgage now to get on the list for a bailout. Should have gotten a sub prime one while I still could.
Well, the advantage of choosing Barack Obama, is that he is not actually going to be able to do the things he promised. He would bankrupt the country if he did. I bet you will find him a lot more fiscally conservative once he is in the oval office.
McCain, however, would have kept his promises and then you would be really messed up.
Hey, just calling it as I see it as an outside observer.
|
I had a English teacher who kept referring to ancient Celtic literature as "Seltic" literature. When I told her that the "Seltics" were a basketball team, and the "Keltics" were an ethnic group she responded "Oh, it doesn't matter, they're all dead now." You here that Ireland and Scotland? You're all dead!
But I never got sent to the principal for correcting a teacher. I went to nice private schools where they don't discourage students to think.
Lookout, that point guard is a zombie!!!
|
|
Did some people vote for Barack because they think of him as 'black'? Yes. Did some people vote against Barack because they think of him as 'black'? Yep. However, he won because he was dynamic, invigorating, offered hope, and represented change.
Sorry, I know some people who voted for Barack Obama bacause he is black.
That however did not give him the election. The # who voted for him because he is black were equally offset by the # of A$*hats that voted against him because he was black. Those votes pretty much negated each other. What gave him the election was Bush's 8 years of crap politics and spending, and McCain's inability to excite his party in the way that Obama excited his. Even when McCain managed to get his party, his hard turn to the right to get them led to independants and undecideds to dislike him enough to give Obama victory.
Obama won because of better grassroots campaigning, a country sick of being betrayed by the republican brand (I'm sorry but the huge increases in government power and spending by the bush administration represent to me a betrayal of republican ideas), and the power of Oprah, let no one ever doubt her power lest they be crushed beneath her wallet.
|
|
Sorry, I know some people who voted for Barack Obama bacause he is black.
That however did not give him the election. The # who voted for him because he is black were equally offset by the # of A$*hats that voted against him because he was black. Those votes pretty much negated each other. What gave him the election was Bush's 8 years of crap politics and spending, and McCain's inability to excite his party in the way that Obama excited his. Even when McCain managed to get his party, his hard turn to the right to get them led to independants and undecideds to dislike him enough to give Obama victory.
Obama won because of better grassroots campaigning, a country sick of being betrayed by the republican brand (I'm sorry but the huge increases in government power and spending by the bush administration represent to me a betrayal of republican ideas), and the power of Oprah, let no one ever doubt her power lest they be crushed beneath her wallet.
Well said.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Did some people vote for Barack because they think of him as 'black'? Yes. Did some people vote against Barack because they think of him as 'black'? Yep. However, he won because he was dynamic, invigorating, offered hope, and represented change.Sorry, I know some people who voted for Barack Obama bacause he is black.
That however did not give him the election. The # who voted for him because he is black were equally offset by the # of A$*hats that voted against him because he was black. Those votes pretty much negated each other. What gave him the election was Bush's 8 years of crap politics and spending, and McCain's inability to excite his party in the way that Obama excited his. Even when McCain managed to get his party, his hard turn to the right to get them led to independants and undecideds to dislike him enough to give Obama victory.
Obama won because of better grassroots campaigning, a country sick of being betrayed by the republican brand (I'm sorry but the huge increases in government power and spending by the bush administration represent to me a betrayal of republican ideas), and the power of Oprah, let no one ever doubt her power lest they be crushed beneath her wallet.
I agree ... with everything except the Oprah thing. Is she still on the air? I watch far too little television.
I agree ... with everything except the Oprah thing. Is she still on the air? I watch far too little television.
She is the air. She is TV. She is all-powerful. *oohm, ooohm, oh oh Oprah* :P
Yeah, Oprah is marginal; i.e. she's on our side.
We should be worried about Rush Limbaugh.
Fairness Doctrine Now!!!
|
That ignores the steady increase in GDP and employment that occurred during the years between 1934 and 1939. Look, I don't want to argue with some lame right winger in denial about the effectiveness of the New deal in pulling America out the tailspin it was in and getting it back on track. I know you guys like living in fantasyland, but hey you lost, I officially don't have to listen to you guys anymore.Wow, the Depression lasted until Lend Lease right before we entered WWII. Um, FDR did not "pull us out of the Depression". World War Two did...
Just wow...
Learned that in high school, did you?
It's far more complicated than that, and the New Deal policies had mostly restored the economy to pre-crash levels by 1939. The war merely provided a boom.
17% unemployment in '39 was "pre-crash" levels?
According to most sources, we emerged from the depression in 39 when we borrowed a billion dollars to start our military buildup. This would indicate that, yes, the depression ended because of WW2, not the New Deal.
Lets see, the GDP increased by leaps and bounds from nothing. That isn't shcoking at all. However, we were still in a depression for eight years, mostly because there was little PRIVATE SECTOR investing happening (side effect of the 79% top rate on income tax). The GDP was almost exclusively government spending, which does not create permanent jobs and does not create wealth. Again, it wasn't until private industry cranked up for the war effeort, and industrialists could see a profit, that the depression truly ended.
But, you know, hold on to that liberal dream that big daddy government is the answer to everything.
And, as a side note, I could do without the condescention, thank you :)Wow, if you find it annoying, perhaps you shouldn't end your replies with snide asides. Just wow...
Nah, it did actually amaze me that someone actually didn't recognize that the depression didn't end for the most part (excepting Sweeden and Germany - and Germany was gearing up for a war they meant to start) until WWII broke out, and the governments HAD to turn to the industrialists to crank out war materials...
|
|
Well there is one group of People that may be upset about Obama becoming President...
Sport Stars... As an example the minium wage for MLB next year is $400,000 *That is just Crazy!!!!* And with Obama's plan to raise Taxes for those with an income higher then $250,000 from 36% to 39.6%, that is 10s of thousands for the lowered payed players.. and 100's of thousands for the higher payed workers..
/sarcasam on
Jeez... I guess they will have to find other ways to pay for thier Steroids!
/sarcasam off
Story here... The agents are already looking into ways to get around the possible tax increase.
|
|
So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me, Obama calling it the greatest economic crisis of this century. Now I know that since the current century is 2000-2008, that what he is saying is accurate, but it's kind of lame to say that something that has only happened in 8 years is the greatest of this century.
|
|
Fairness Doctrine Now!!!Are you being serious or silly? because the fairness doctrine is about the worst piece of legislation I have ever heard of.
EDIT: Nevermind, you're an alias of Heathansson, question answered, move along.
He tried to take over and vote Obama, but I allready voted for McCain.
He works for Acorn too.|
|
Lets see, the GDP increased by leaps and bounds from nothing. That isn't shcoking at all. However, we were still in a depression for eight years, mostly because there was little PRIVATE SECTOR investing happening (side effect of the 79% top rate on income tax). The GDP was almost exclusively government spending, which does not create permanent jobs and does not create wealth. Again, it wasn't until private industry cranked up for the war effeort, and industrialists could see a profit, that the depression truly ended.
Your understanding of history is positively delusional, and your grasp of reason is questionable at best.
Do you know what the difference between government borrowing heavily to fund massive public works programs -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- and government borrowing heavily to fund massive war efforts -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- is? Because I don't. I really don't see what the difference, is economic terms, is between the state hiring a man to build roads in national forests using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, and the hiring a man to build bunkers in foreign countries using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, or even hiring a man to kill enemy soldiers with rifles, tanks and bombers paid for by the government.
But hey, you keep living in that fantasy where all the government spending of the New Deal had nothing to do with pulling America out of the death spiral of the great depression (even though all indicators rose steadily from 1934 to 1939), but all the government spending of the war effort (under the same president!) had everything to do with pulling America out of the death spiral that had reversed course seven years prior...
Meanwhile I'm going to listen to the vast majority of respectable historians and economists who recognize that the New Deal ended the depression, set America on the road to recovery, and that the New Deal boom was sustained by the war effort, and then the post-war rebuilding of Europe.
But, you know, hold on to that liberal dream that big daddy government is the answer to everything.
And you just keep on believing that the disastrous consequences of the fluctuations of an unregulated market, caused by irrational behavior of investors, is a non-issue.
Thank GOD though that the High Priest of the Church of Free Markets, Alan Greenspan himself has repudiated this absolute rubbish philosophy, having seen for himself the complete and uetter mess it has created.
Sorry dude, but Ayn Rand is wrong, get over it! Find a new idea!
Again, I just want to say that no matter who is in office most of a person's successes and difficulties are based on their own decisions and not the fat cats in D.C. The government can make it a bit harder or easier but in the end it is up to the individual. People are still going to work harder for more money even if they only get $.61 of every dollar additional versus $.64. People are still going to be lazy and not be able to have a home or get an education even if the government is almost giving it away.
Work hard, make good personal decisions (if you can't pay for your medicine, stop buying gaming products!). If the government decides to throw you a bone to aid you, that is a bonus. Not getting it is not a penalty. Don't begrudge the other people that are more successful than you, most likely they made sacrifices you were not willing to (give up my game each weekend, you must be crazy!).
Good luck everyone, we are in for good times and bad. Amazing joys and despairing hardships, yet when has it been any different in all of history? Stay true, work hard, the means do effect the ends, it is not the destination it is the journey.
|
|
So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me, Obama calling it the greatest economic crisis of this century. Now I know that since the current century is 2000-2008, that what he is saying is accurate, but it's kind of lame to say that something that has only happened in 8 years is the greatest of this century.
Obama's the greatest American president of this century!
;)
So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me, Obama calling it the greatest economic crisis of this century. Now I know that since the current century is 2000-2008, that what he is saying is accurate, but it's kind of lame to say that something that has only happened in 8 years is the greatest of this century.Obama's the greatest American president of this century!
;)
President elect, he isn't actually president until he takes the oath of office.
|
Again, I just want to say that no matter who is in office most of a person's successes and difficulties are based on their own decisions and not the fat cats in D.C.
Agreed. Neither President Obama or President McCain would be coming to your house and issuing you a pink slip.
If historical precedent is any indication, we shouldn't have to worry about the economic situation getting worse because of the next President.
Your understanding of history is positively delusional, and your grasp of reason is questionable at best.
Dude...I probably agree with you more then HoustonDerek but your being consistently insulting in the manner in which you post.
|
|
Do you know what the difference between government borrowing heavily to fund massive public works programs -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- and government borrowing heavily to fund massive war efforts -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- is? Because I don't. I really don't see what the difference, is economic terms, is between the state hiring a man to build roads in national forests using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, and the hiring a man to build bunkers in foreign countries using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, or even hiring a man to kill enemy soldiers with rifles, tanks and bombers paid for by the government.
*raises a hand*
I know the difference.
First, you make an error in what the two expenditures achieve.
Public works programs do in fact have expenditures for labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment for building roads in national forests and the like.
Massive war efforts however have expenditures for labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment for building factories, rail lines, power plants, employee housing, and other infrastructure developments.
Second is the long term differences between those two.
Roads in national forests and the like are useful for camping. They develop parks which are pretty. They contribute greatly to low economic recreation. They require continued government maintenance, which places a continued burden on the economy to support them.
Factories and other infrastructure on the other hand remain and can be converted to long term civilian purposes. A tank factory can become a tractor factory, and a bomber factory can become an airliner factory. Even when the government contracts end the infrastructure remains to provide purely public sector economic activity, which can fund both the required infrastructure maintenance as well as additional government services.
The difference in economic terms should thus be very obvious.
Public works programs are manorial level economics. The local ruler collects excessive taxes, and having nothing to spend or invest them on, returns the majority of them to the people in the form of food handouts.
War effort growth is transition to post-manorial capitalist economics, with the accumulated tax capital invested in capital improvement by now-private property owners, who ae allowed to use free market capitalism to continue the cycle of capital improvement for increasingly lowered tax assessments. It is functionally a cession of economic sovereignty.
The post-"military-industrial complex" recession/depression is the inevitable result of the former sovereign running out of money and sovereignty to continue to cede, much as a large number of European nobles descending into poverty as their estate rights were transferred to independent proprietors.
|
|
stuffC'mon Brent. Delete that before you do get banned.
EDIT: And I'm sorry to hear about your brother. We have something in common there.
There I deleted it. I'm just so sick and tired of these generalizations that say if you aren't just wildly successful it is because you aren't working as hard or sacrficing as much as those that are. I do think it is long past time for me to stop participating in this messageboard community though. The passive aggressive attacks here thinly veiled behind "I was just telling it like it is and being honest" excuse making is borish and tastes like vomit.
This used to be a great place. Now it's like a village infested with an E-bola epidemic.
|
I disagree, no attack on the pacific coast happened because the Japanese navy failed to hit their primary targets at Pearl Harbor, the aircraft carriers. If we had lost the carrier fleet to the Japanese it would have taken about two years longer to rebuild the pacific fleet allowing the Japanese to implement an attack on the pacific coast. The Japanese just failed to call off the Aleutian invasions or hoped to distract the US fleet from the south Pacific.Except no attack on the Pacific coast would have been coming. The attack on Pearl Harbor was supposed to be the knock-out blow to make sure we'd be too wary of going to defend the Philippines. The base in the Aleutians and prospective one on Midway were mainly just pickets on the defensive perimeter.
If the Japanese were able to take Midway then the Aleutian bases would have taken on a greater importance, as it would allow the Japanese to make a two pronged attack on the pacific coast.Even if the Pacific fleet had gone to the bottom it would not have resulted in an attack on the Pacific Coast.
#1 their plans just did not call for it. They were planning on setting up 'fortress islands' which were supposed to resist any American Counter Attack and bleed the Americans to the point where America just gave up on the war... this of course is a ludicrous fantasy but its the best teh Japanese could come up with.
#2 Even if they had chosen to modify their plans they still would have had to deal with America's Atlantic Fleet - which could have been switched to the Pacific in a crisis.
#3 Even if the Japanese then managed to engage and decisively defeat the Atlantic fleet they'd still have to deal with fact that any Japanese fleet approaching the Pacific Coast would be destroyed by America's land based air force.
#4 If they had some how come up with a means to defeat America's land based air force they'd still have to come up with an army capable of invading....
I wrote, "it would allow the Japanese to make a two pronged attack on the pacific coast." I didn't propose the Japanese had any plans for an invasion of the pacific coasts just intent to attack. If the Japanese navy had the ability they would have continued to attack military targets along the West Coast.
Quote for the day:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
From Courage to Liberty
From Liberty to Abundance
From Abundance to Selfishness
From Selfishness to Complacency
From Complacency to Apathy
From Apathy to Dependency
From Dependency back into Bondage"
Most commonly attributed to
"The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
by Alexander Fraser Tytler Lord Woodhouselee (1748-1813)
(Scottish judge and historian at Edinburgh University)
I will note that I feel both major American parties are now caught up in the "loose fiscal policy" trap. This is an across the board illness, and it is a long term decline issue that neither major party is willing to face.
Monkey goes to mope off in the corner.
So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me...
I thought they were both great speeches too, however the one thing that really bugged me was the reaction from the conservative crowd every time McCain said something nice about Obama (booing and the, by now, typical "USA, USA"-chant that I've heard used as a "weapon" to drown out dissenting voices at a lot of McCain/Palin rallies - as if to say Democrats aren't pro-american). That, to me, was rather tasteless.
Odd, at times you seem to resemble that remark.The passive aggressive attacks here thinly veiled behind "I was just telling it like it is and being honest" excuse making is borish and tastes like vomit.
Did someone call my name?
Splooorrrrtch
|
|
So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me...I thought they were both great speeches too, however the one thing that really bugged me was the reaction from the conservative crowd every time McCain said something nice about Obama (booing and the, by now, typical "USA, USA"-chant that I've heard used as a "weapon" to drown out dissenting voices at a lot of McCain/Palin rallies - as if to say Democrats aren't pro-american). That, to me, was rather tasteless.
hold on, I gotta go get my violin.
|
|
According to a recently released study by UCLA, admitedly on of the most cnservative schools in the country, the New Deal most likely extended the Great Depression by seven years. Heres the story. Of particulr intrest was a statement about the unfettered free markert.Meanwhile I'm going to listen to the vast majority of respectable historians and economists who recognize that the New Deal ended the depression, set America on the road to recovery, and that the New Deal boom was sustained by the war effort, and then the post-war rebuilding of Europe.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Monkey goes to mope off in the corner.
You really seem to have a problem with democracy (and the results of democratic elections), social welfare of any kind and any kind of government that is big enough to be effective.
I know this can sound harsh, but would you rather prefer living alone on a remote island with no one to govern you or maybe under a harsh totalitarian regime with no social handouts given to anyone? ;-)Why is the government so frightening to you? Maybe you could benefit from visiting countries where this "big evil, scary government" actually works better than your perceived view of the U.S. government.
I'm not saying that any other system out there is perfect, but I'd wager that a lot of "big (socialist inspired)" governments run a lot of things more effectively than the U.S. one.
Which is also why I don't quite understand this resentment towards e.g. universal healthcare. People provide, often very anecdotal, examples of how some universal healthcare systems might work less effective than others (they're not all the same you know). Isn't that then where the U.S. can go in and benefit from this? They have the advantage of basically free "trial-data" from e.g. all of Western Europe on what works and what is less successful and can then take all the great things and put them together to form an even better universal healthcare system.
That's what the U.S. has done before with so many other things and it's something it's truly great at!
Sorry for making this into a rant, just thought I'd lay it out there. :-)
hold on, I gotta go get my violin.So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me...I thought they were both great speeches too, however the one thing that really bugged me was the reaction from the conservative crowd every time McCain said something nice about Obama (booing and the, by now, typical "USA, USA"-chant that I've heard used as a "weapon" to drown out dissenting voices at a lot of McCain/Palin rallies - as if to say Democrats aren't pro-american). That, to me, was rather tasteless.
No need, I heard plenty of those playing in the audience in Arizona last night. ;-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A twelve foot tall piano player? Where do you find those?I've got a 12" pianist who can accompany you.hold on, I gotta go get my violin.Want to borrow mine? It's well used and broken in.
You get really greedy when making a wish...
(Also, I know you Canadians believe in that hippy metric system crap, what with its logic and orderliness, but here, in America, we still use the arbitrary and counter-intuitive English system, and in that system, the abbreviation for inches is ")
Sheesh. Canucks.
Monkey goes to mope off in the corner.
You really seem to have a problem with democracy (and the results of democratic elections), social welfare of any kind and any kind of government that is big enough to be effective.Actually I don't have a problem with Democracy. I love Democracy. I spent five years defending it. I have no problem with the outcome of this election, Obama won fair and square. I am not pleased by this outcome, therefore I am a bit mopey right now. I think government can be very effective at some things, less effective at others.
I know this can sound harsh, but would you rather prefer living alone on a remote island with no one to govern you or maybe under a harsh totalitarian regime with no social handouts given to anyone? ;-).Actually I would love to live in a Democracy that doesn't rely on bribery to win votes. Both American parties promise more 'bread and circuses' to the masses, rather than taking a long investment in the future (Space Travel, infrastructure, new technologies). Social handouts are fine, just not as constituent bribes. The current American fiscal mess was in part brought about by a well-intentioned relaxation of lending standards. The problem is that math trumps all. Getting a $2,000/month mortgage on a $30K salary is a stupendously bad idea. Getting one that can fluxuate is even worse. The fact that banks were allowed to cobble these together and sell them to the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is so criminal it boggles the mind. Both major parties had a hand in this boondoggle, and now the taxpayers are forced to pony up the cash. Also, the precedent is set. The American car industry is already starting to ask for their bailout. Lot of mortgages rotting out there too. Can we 'socially handout' to everyone/every company who made a bad descision in the past decade? We'll see.
Why is the government so frightening to you? Maybe you could benefit from visiting countries where this "big evil, scary government" actually works better than your perceived view of the U.S. government.I am not frightened by government. I am frightened by historical trends. As a student of history I feel that America is stumbling right now, and I wish I had the solution, but I don't. Thus I am depressed. I guess it will be China and India's turn at the wheel next.
I'm not saying that any other system out there is perfect, but I'd wager that a lot of "big (socialist inspired)" governments run a lot of things more effectively than the U.S. one.
Which is also why I don't quite understand this resentment towards e.g. universal healthcare. People provide, often very anecdotal, examples of how some universal healthcare systems might work less effective than others (they're not all the same you know). Isn't that then where the U.S. can go in and benefit from this? They have the advantage of basically free "trial-data" from e.g. all of Western Europe on what works and what is less successful and can then take all the great things and put them together to form an even better universal healthcare system.That's what the U.S. has done before with so many other things and it's something it's truly great at!It would be nice if America could do something like that, but America will most likely ignore all lessons learned and bull forward with a bloated, bureaucracy-riddled universal healthcare system. Once again, only time will tell.
Sorry for making this into a rant, just thought I'd lay it out there. :-)You have your opinions, I have mine. It's all good. I just think the government does a lousy job of providing services for people. I think the system becomes abused by the caretakers. Obviously you feel differently. That's what makes political discussions interesting.
|
|
No need, I heard plenty of those playing in the audience in Arizona last night. ;-)hold on, I gotta go get my violin.So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me...I thought they were both great speeches too, however the one thing that really bugged me was the reaction from the conservative crowd every time McCain said something nice about Obama (booing and the, by now, typical "USA, USA"-chant that I've heard used as a "weapon" to drown out dissenting voices at a lot of McCain/Palin rallies - as if to say Democrats aren't pro-american). That, to me, was rather tasteless.
I know. See, they lost the election.
|
|
It's all good. Now that it's over,....I can see your point.
Obama's popularity rating is going to be so bad in 4 years, that you could run Bimbo the Candy Bear against him. So, like, even if the fairness doctrine goes through the senate, it won't matter.
You really just hate Obama huh? Did he sleep with your wife or something? I look at Obama's ideas and see a lot of promise for making this country a better place. He is a smart man and a strong leader. Even if he isn't as great as I think he will be, I don't see how anyone could screw this country up worse than Dub-ya has.
Listening to some of this is like watching McCain's face in the last debate, a whole lot eye-rolling, sighing, and general disdain for Obama. If he wins this presidency, I would stake my life on the bet that he will be quite popular as a president and that this country will be a better place in 4 years than it is today.
Bush did do a number on the contry and the Republicans have payed a price for it. However, in four years Obama and the Democrats will not be able to run the "blame Bush" playbook that they have been using since 2004. I maintain that one of the things that helped Obama win was the fact that he was able to successfully make the John McBush argument to the American people. Now he has to step up because he has a clear majority in both houses of Congress and in 2012 he will have to stand or fall on his own performance rather than playing of the performance of someone else. If things get better, he will get credit. However if things stay the same or get worse, George Bush is gone in two months and Obama will have to face the music on his own. Meanwhile the Republicans get the luxury of being the opposition party and not having to take the blame for anything. We will just have to wait and see how it goes.
Maybe he'll do an intern.
Maybe he'll do an intern.
Or get in a fight with a rabbit
|
|
Maybe he'll do an intern.Or get in a fight with a rabbit
I didn't even have to link to that to know what you're talking about.
I actually feel bad for him; what could he do, hit it in the head? He's the president.