...(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.
If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;P
|
...(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;P
Screw Beck. I'm just saying that a) there's enough out there to not just dismiss the possibility out of hand, and b) considering a lot of the crap that flew around about Bush (like there wasn't enough TRUE stuff to cap on Bush over), Obama shouldn't be a protected species. Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.|
|
Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.
Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor.
|
Well, considering that anyone who may think the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. could possibly be a Muslim, you know, because his father and step father were both Muslims, his mother was non-religious (actually an outspoken Atheist), he didn't "convert" to Christianity (in a church run by a Jew hating Farrakhan sycophant) until he was in his 20s, was identified as "Muslim" on his Indonesian school records, and recently went to church (very publicly) for the first time since the whole Wright thing blew up in his face due to the rumors of his Muslim background is OBVIOUSLY a complete idiot (i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.
I could possibly be a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, my father was Catholic, my mother is Lutheran, and my dog tags say "Catholic". Except I'm atheist now. So, wait, by your logic, I'm still a Catholic? Who are you to judge what religion I or anyone else is? If he says he isn't a Muslim, then he isn't.
And they don't bow exclusively to the east, they bow to Mecca. Directions may shift depending on where you are in relation to the holy grounds. And Muslims CAN'T take over our country, it's already owned by the Jews.
The problem with this dude is that he's taking things that are best relegated to propaganda-level nonsense and making them true-to-life, which *could* cause the numbers of al-qaida type organizations to swell with people with a legitimate beef.Sorry -- I can't accept that burning a book can possibly be considered a "legitimate beef" to start killing people over. If that's how far the Overton Window has shifted, then worldwide Sharia law is right around the corner.
Whoa whoa WHOA- then again, wait, I wasn't too clear, was I?
I'm not saying that al-qaida itself is going to get tons of followers as a result of this, I'm saying that organizations that might be sympathetic to them might get new people. I'm sorry I wasn't so clear on that. Al-qaida is a menace, but the people and organizations that shelter and support them are what's keeping them going, and I think it's acts like this that keep those organizations flush with members.
...(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;PScrew Beck. I'm just saying that a) there's enough out there to not just dismiss the possibility out of hand, and b) considering a lot of the crap that flew around about Bush (like there wasn't enough TRUE stuff to cap on Bush over), Obama shouldn't be a protected species. Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
Since when is he a protected species? And how old is he now, anyways? Just because you don't like when he converted or the guy he converted under doesn't mean he isn't christian.
|
|
Well, considering that anyone who may think the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. could possibly be a Muslim, you know, because his father and step father were both Muslims, his mother was non-religious (actually an outspoken Atheist), he didn't "convert" to Christianity (in a church run by a Jew hating Farrakhan sycophant) until he was in his 20s, was identified as "Muslim" on his Indonesian school records, and recently went to church (very publicly) for the first time since the whole Wright thing blew up in his face due to the rumors of his Muslim background is OBVIOUSLY a complete idiot (i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.
I could possibly be a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, my father was Catholic, my mother is Lutheran, and my dog tags say "Catholic". Except I'm atheist now. So, wait, by your logic, I'm still a Catholic? Who are you to judge what religion I or anyone else is? If he says he isn't a Muslim, then he isn't.
And they don't bow exclusively to the east, they bow to Mecca. Directions may shift depending on where you are in relation to the holy grounds. And Muslims CAN'T take over our country, it's already owned by the Jews.
The best part of that post? You'll get away with the Jew crack.
Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor.Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.
I don't doubt that last part. As for the first part, well...we'll have to wait and see, won't we?
|
|
Since when is he a protected species? And how old is he now, anyways? Just because you don't like when he converted or the guy he converted under doesn't mean he isn't christian....(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;PScrew Beck. I'm just saying that a) there's enough out there to not just dismiss the possibility out of hand, and b) considering a lot of the crap that flew around about Bush (like there wasn't enough TRUE stuff to cap on Bush over), Obama shouldn't be a protected species. Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
Seriously, how many times has anyone who criticized him been called "racist"? Like, almost every time. If he makes a gaffe (57 states?) he was "tired", not an idiot. The network news doesn't go after him for bald faced lies even when there are blatantly contradictory statements made by him on record and on video.
Dude gets a major pass on a lot of stuff.
|
|
I don't doubt that last part. As for the first part, well...we'll have to wait and see, won't we?Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor.Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.
It's telling when even Dems don't want him campaigning for them, they are distancing themselves from the "stimulus package" and the health care plan in droves, and independents are well over 50% against the Dems this cycle. And even the man himself is distancing himself from the "let the tax cuts expire" rhetoric in a desperate attempt to finally get a read on the pulse of public opinion. He's been too tone deaf and arrogant for too long, and people aren't buying his line any more.
It isn't going to be pretty.
I don't doubt that last part. As for the first part, well...we'll have to wait and see, won't we?Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor.Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.It's telling when even Dems don't want him campaigning for them, they are distancing themselves from the "stimulus package" and the health care plan in droves, and independents are well over 50% against the Dems this cycle. And even the man himself is distancing himself from the "let the tax cuts expire" rhetoric in a desperate attempt to finally get a read on the pulse of public opinion. He's been too tone deaf and arrogant for too long, and people aren't buying his line any more.
It isn't going to be pretty.
This creates a no-win situation though, from a p.o.v outside of your own- he's either wrong wrong wrong, or he changes his mind on a topic and he's wrong anyway.
Since when is he a protected species? And how old is he now, anyways? Just because you don't like when he converted or the guy he converted under doesn't mean he isn't christian....(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;PScrew Beck. I'm just saying that a) there's enough out there to not just dismiss the possibility out of hand, and b) considering a lot of the crap that flew around about Bush (like there wasn't enough TRUE stuff to cap on Bush over), Obama shouldn't be a protected species. Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
Seriously, how many times has anyone who criticized him been called "racist"? Like, almost every time. If he makes a gaffe (57 states?) he was "tired", not an idiot. The network news doesn't go after him for bald faced lies even when there are blatantly contradictory statements made by him on record and on video.
Dude gets a major pass on a lot of stuff.
Can't say he doesn't get a pass on some things. However, when it comes to racism, unfortunately, someone who hates him just because he's black is going to be associated with someone who hates him for another reason unless the latter party takes pains to distance themselves from the other. It's unfortunate- even galling- that silence is taken for acceptance or endorsement on such issues.
Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor.
I wouldnt have too much confidence. The Reps are fighting the Bush Sunsets because Obama wants to let the high brackets revert to old law, but keep the low brackets. While indeed, the rich pay their way, its the middle class who vote them in. Considering the huge cost impacts of the health care plan, middle class America is about to revolt. Not just against Dems, but Reps too. The Tea Party isnt winning because they offer (pardon the pun) Hope and Change. Their headway is because people are sick of the incumbents of any party.
Any incumbent should be sweating bullets in November. People are fed up with the status quo of both parties. Remember, in each party, you have the line voters who will always vote by party, not by person. Obama won because the Moderates were sick of Bush. They are sick of Obama atm too. The question is, who else is out there
The best part of that post? You'll get away with the Jew crack.Well, considering that anyone who may think the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. could possibly be a Muslim, you know, because his father and step father were both Muslims, his mother was non-religious (actually an outspoken Atheist), he didn't "convert" to Christianity (in a church run by a Jew hating Farrakhan sycophant) until he was in his 20s, was identified as "Muslim" on his Indonesian school records, and recently went to church (very publicly) for the first time since the whole Wright thing blew up in his face due to the rumors of his Muslim background is OBVIOUSLY a complete idiot (i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.
I could possibly be a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, my father was Catholic, my mother is Lutheran, and my dog tags say "Catholic". Except I'm atheist now. So, wait, by your logic, I'm still a Catholic? Who are you to judge what religion I or anyone else is? If he says he isn't a Muslim, then he isn't.
And they don't bow exclusively to the east, they bow to Mecca. Directions may shift depending on where you are in relation to the holy grounds. And Muslims CAN'T take over our country, it's already owned by the Jews.
My first thought was "WTF? Where did that come from?"
Since when is he a protected species? And how old is he now, anyways? Just because you don't like when he converted or the guy he converted under doesn't mean he isn't christian....(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;PScrew Beck. I'm just saying that a) there's enough out there to not just dismiss the possibility out of hand, and b) considering a lot of the crap that flew around about Bush (like there wasn't enough TRUE stuff to cap on Bush over), Obama shouldn't be a protected species. Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
Seriously, how many times has anyone who criticized him been called "racist"? Like, almost every time. If he makes a gaffe (57 states?) he was "tired", not an idiot. The network news doesn't go after him for bald faced lies even when there are blatantly contradictory statements made by him on record and on video.
Dude gets a major pass on a lot of stuff.
I would say the difference between them is that Bush is an idiot.
Has Obama made mistakes? Yes. Has he been able to fullfill all his promises? No. Has that been entirely his fault because he has absolute authority? No.
Has he started a war under false and deceitful reasons? No.
Has he made gaffs in nearly everyone of his speeches? No.
If you elect another Bush (aka Palin) then don't expect the world to think highly of the USA ever again.
People worldwide respect Obama for the reason that a lot of Americans seem to detest him. He compromises.
He makes the deals he can and moves the situations forward instead of crossing his arms and growling.
I honestly cant understand most of the 'Obama hate' I have seen online. Is all of it racist? No. Is much of it well explained or well reasoned? No.
You can say he gets a major pass when he gets to anywhere near the amount of screw ups and bad decisions (for America) that Bush did without tons of criticism.
|
|
Since when is he a protected species? And how old is he now, anyways? Just because you don't like when he converted or the guy he converted under doesn't mean he isn't christian....(i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.If you start blubbering and crying like Glenn Beck, I'm killing off Cadogan as soon as the game re-starts. Just sayin'. ;PScrew Beck. I'm just saying that a) there's enough out there to not just dismiss the possibility out of hand, and b) considering a lot of the crap that flew around about Bush (like there wasn't enough TRUE stuff to cap on Bush over), Obama shouldn't be a protected species. Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.
Seriously, how many times has anyone who criticized him been called "racist"? Like, almost every time. If he makes a gaffe (57 states?) he was "tired", not an idiot. The network news doesn't go after him for bald faced lies even when there are blatantly contradictory statements made by him on record and on video.
Dude gets a major pass on a lot of stuff.
I would say the difference between them is that Bush is an idiot.
Has Obama made mistakes? Yes. Has he been able to fullfill all his promises? No. Has that been entirely his fault because he has absolute authority? No.
Has he started a war under false and deceitful reasons? No.
Has he made gaffs in nearly everyone of his speeches? No.If you elect another Bush (aka Palin) then don't expect the world to think highly of the USA ever again.
People worldwide respect Obama for the reason that a lot of Americans seem to detest him. He compromises.
He makes the deals he can and moves the situations forward instead of crossing his arms and...
I don't know who you think respects him overseas. Sure isn't Sarkozy. Or Merkel. Or anyone in Eastern Europe (particularly Poland and the Czech Republic) or the former Soviet Union states. Or Hintao. Or, really, any leader of any nation that matters. I guess since Castro, Morales, Silva and Chavez think he's peachy keen that constitutes "the world".
And Obama doesn't "compromise". He bends over backward and blames the U.S. for every ill in the world. Der Spiegel, The Guardian, several French papers, Italian papers, Chinese news sources etc haven't had much nice to say about him of late, because he hasn't nearly lived up to the hype.
Apparently they know what you refuse to see: he's an empty suit, not nearly up to the job he so badly wanted. You mention Palin (whom I wouldn't vote for in a heartbeat), but how was Obama in any way as or more qualified to hold the office?
The emperor has no clothes, get over it.
Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.
The kind of change we need (balanced budget) is political suicide.
As for Obama, I think he's been a mixed bag so far. I like that he can put together a sentence, and I think his intentions are good. Whether he accomplishing anything meaninful remains to be seen.
Palin would be a catastrophic mistake.
I think I'd actually like to see Arnie run. But alas, he is a 2nd-class citizen. :(
|
|
Oh, when the Dems get slaughtered in November he'll do his best to pull a Clinton and say "I didn't really mean all that stuff I did the first two years". Problem is, he isn't Clinton. He couldn't hold Clinton's humidor.I wouldnt have too much confidence. The Reps are fighting the Bush Sunsets because Obama wants to let the high brackets revert to old law, but keep the low brackets. While indeed, the rich pay their way, its the middle class who vote them in. Considering the huge cost impacts of the health care plan, middle class America is about to revolt. Not just against Dems, but Reps too. The Tea Party isnt winning because they offer (pardon the pun) Hope and Change. Their headway is because people are sick of the incumbents of any party.
Any incumbent should be sweating bullets in November. People are fed up with the status quo of both parties. Remember, in each party, you have the line voters who will always vote by party, not by person. Obama won because the Moderates were sick of Bush. They are sick of Obama atm too. The question is, who else is out there
If you'd been paying attention, they've been doing their level best to purge the Republican Party of RINOs. Did you notice how many Republican incumbents (and how few Democrat incumbents) were defeated in the primaries?
|
|
Especially considering he's screwed the pooch in spectacular fashion.By turning out to be indistinguishable from his predecessor, in terms of actions and policy?
"Hope and change" has morphed into "I hope there will be some change" -- I haven't seen much of it yet.The kind of change we need (balanced budget) is political suicide.
As for Obama, I think he's been a mixed bag so far. I like that he can put together a sentence, and I think his intentions are good. Whether he accomplishing anything meaninful remains to be seen.
Palin would be a catastrophic mistake.
I think I'd actually like to see Arnie run. But alas, he is a 2nd-class citizen. :(
From my point of view, Obama has been a catastrophic mistake. Palin would be as well, though, so I agree there.
Arnie? California is a whole mess right now.
A balanced budget is only political suicide in states next to the Pacific, the Atlantic north of D.C. and abutting Lake Michigan. Considering the way the primaries have fallen out, a balanced budget doesn't seem to be political suicide in the other 40 states...
From my point of view, Obama has been a catastrophic mistake. Palin would be as well, though, so I agree there.Arnie? California is a whole mess right now.
True, but the groundwork for that was laid before he took office, in the form of a hog-tied budget and unsustainable entitlements. I don't think it's fair to blame him.
A balanced budget is only political suicide in states next to the Pacific, the Atlantic north of D.C. and abutting Lake Michigan. Considering the way the primaries have fallen out, a balanced budget doesn't seem to be political suicide in the other 40 states...
I hope you're right.
I see a lot of talk of fiscal responsibility, but it seems to go hand in hand with talk of big tax cuts. I'm not sure the two are compatible, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn you disagree. :)
|
|
From my point of view, Obama has been a catastrophic mistake. Palin would be as well, though, so I agree there.Arnie? California is a whole mess right now.
True, but the groundwork for that was laid before he took office, in the form of a hog-tied budget and unsustainable entitlements. I don't think it's fair to blame him.
A balanced budget is only political suicide in states next to the Pacific, the Atlantic north of D.C. and abutting Lake Michigan. Considering the way the primaries have fallen out, a balanced budget doesn't seem to be political suicide in the other 40 states...I hope you're right.
I see a lot of talk of fiscal responsibility, but it seems to go hand in hand with talk of big tax cuts. I'm not sure the two are compatible, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn you disagree. :)
Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
|
|
From my point of view, Obama has been a catastrophic mistake. Palin would be as well, though, so I agree there.Arnie? California is a whole mess right now.
True, but the groundwork for that was laid before he took office, in the form of a hog-tied budget and unsustainable entitlements. I don't think it's fair to blame him.
A balanced budget is only political suicide in states next to the Pacific, the Atlantic north of D.C. and abutting Lake Michigan. Considering the way the primaries have fallen out, a balanced budget doesn't seem to be political suicide in the other 40 states...I hope you're right.
I see a lot of talk of fiscal responsibility, but it seems to go hand in hand with talk of big tax cuts. I'm not sure the two are compatible, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn you disagree. :)
Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
Surprise! I agree with every step you've suggested. But I don't see is a single mainstream candidate (that is, someone who has a real chance of winning), let alone someone actually in office, advocating such a wildly unpopular course of action. So yeah, it seems like political suicide to me (see: Libertarian party), but as I've said, I'd love to be proven wrong.
To me, the current situation looks like:
Democrats -> Raise spending, raise taxes.
Republicans -> Cut spending, cut taxes without regard for the debt.
"Tea party" -> Eliminate taxes altogether, 'cause fire departments are socialist.
Not a reasonable option among 'em, so I'm left supporting the group with the least objectionable social policy (which to me means the Democrats).
Its not that the world respects Obama any more than they respect any other world leader its:
1. He is not Bush
2. He is not Cheney
3. He is not Rumsfeld
4. He is not Palin
4. He is not starting any new and very expensive wars
5. He is trying to get out of 2 wars and save face
6. He uses polite language when coercing other nations to do stuff.
7. He as gone some way to stop the tail wagging the dog in respect to US - Israeli relations.
8. He is trying (not successfully) but at least he realises there is a problem unlike Bush (who spent, spent, spent) to fix the US economy
The rest of the world is very glad of the above.... Whack jobs like Palin (and that new nut Palin 2.0 with extra Christian far right extreme), make the US look like a joke. Not the great country that gave us Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and Neil Armstrong.
|
|
Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
Surprise! I agree with every step you've suggested. But I don't see is a single mainstream candidate (that is, someone who has a real chance of winning), let alone someone actually in office, advocating such a wildly unpopular course of action. So yeah, it seems like political suicide to me, but as I've said, I'd love to be proven wrong.
To me, the current situation looks like:
Republicans -> Cut spending, cut taxes without regard for the debt.
Democrats -> Raise spending, raise taxes.
"Tea party" -> Eliminate taxes altogether, 'cause fire departments are socialist.Not a reasonable option among 'em.
The "mainstream" Republicans (i.e. the ones the "Tea Party" scared the hell out of during the primaries) were more like "cut taxes, spend like drunk sorority girls at the mall with dad's gold card", but yeah, I see it like that also.
Which is why I'm so freaking cynical...
|
|
Its not that the world respects Obama any more than they respect any other world leader its:
1. He is not Bush
2. He is not Cheney
3. He is not Rumsfeld
4. He is not Palin
4. He is not starting any new and very expensive wars
5. He is trying to get out of 2 wars and save face
6. He uses polite language when coercing other nations to do stuff.
7. He as gone some way to stop the tail wagging the dog in respect to US - Israeli relations.
8. He is trying (not successfully) but at least he realises there is a problem unlike Bush (who spent, spent, spent) to fix the US economyThe rest of the world is very glad of the above.... Whack jobs like Palin (and that new nut Palin 2.0 with extra Christian far right extreme), make the US look like a joke. Not the great country that gave us Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and Neil Armstrong.
I was just saying the world (political leaders, international press) are no longer enamored with him. Beyond no longer enamored actually. Actively annoyed with and completely disenchanted. I'm sure the rank and file civilians still think he's the bee's knees.
Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
Surprise! I agree with every step you've suggested. But I don't see is a single mainstream candidate (that is, someone who has a real chance of winning), let alone someone actually in office, advocating such a wildly unpopular course of action. So yeah, it seems like political suicide to me, but as I've said, I'd love to be proven wrong.
To me, the current situation looks like:
Republicans -> Cut spending, cut taxes without regard for the debt.
Democrats -> Raise spending, raise taxes.
"Tea party" -> Eliminate taxes altogether, 'cause fire departments are socialist.Not a reasonable option among 'em.
The "mainstream" Republicans (i.e. the ones the "Tea Party" scared the hell out of during the primaries) were more like "cut taxes, spend like drunk sorority girls at the mall with dad's gold card", but yeah, I see it like that also.
Which is why I'm so freaking cynical...
I always thought of that as more of a Neocon thing, but I'm no authority on the Republican party.
While I clearly hold Obama in higher regard than you do, I don't see him doing what needs to be done. I'd like to believe that a charismatic, credible leader could sell the necessary sacrifice to the American public, and then have the political savvy to get it done. I'd hoped that would be Obama, but it certainly isn't turning out that way so far.
My prediction for Obama: A second unremarkable term in office, followed by ensconcement in the history of presidential mediocrity. I couldn't care less if the man is a muslim.
I was just saying the world (political leaders, international press) are no longer enamored with him. Beyond no longer enamored actually. Actively annoyed with and completely disenchanted. I'm sure the rank and file civilians still think he's the bee's knees.Its not that the world respects Obama any more than they respect any other world leader its:
1. He is not Bush
2. He is not Cheney
3. He is not Rumsfeld
4. He is not Palin
4. He is not starting any new and very expensive wars
5. He is trying to get out of 2 wars and save face
6. He uses polite language when coercing other nations to do stuff.
7. He as gone some way to stop the tail wagging the dog in respect to US - Israeli relations.
8. He is trying (not successfully) but at least he realises there is a problem unlike Bush (who spent, spent, spent) to fix the US economyThe rest of the world is very glad of the above.... Whack jobs like Palin (and that new nut Palin 2.0 with extra Christian far right extreme), make the US look like a joke. Not the great country that gave us Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and Neil Armstrong.
The civilians and the press not disenchanted just dont care - we have our own problems.
See with Bush he liked to start wars and Australia being one of your allies would end up having to commit more troops to the next war he started...which would have been Iran. We have an army of 50,000 with our commitments in East Timor, and the hot spots in the pacific and Iraq and Afghanistan we would not be able to pay for or sustain our military on continued operations.
We were more than happy to go into Afghanistan with you.
Our leadership were convinced (strangely the majority of the population wasn't and started to call shenanigans) that WOMDs existed in Iraq and under the terms of our friendship and alliance your enemies are ours so we went in with you there.
So we like Obama better than bush because he is not starting wars.
Did you notice how many Republican incumbents (and how few Democrat incumbents) were defeated in the primaries?
AYUP
So we like Obama better than bush because he is not starting wars.
All those drones doing the bombing aren't flying those missions on Bush's orders....
|
|
...Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
Surprise! I agree with every step you've suggested. But I don't see is a single mainstream candidate (that is, someone who has a real chance of winning), let alone someone actually in office, advocating such a wildly unpopular course of action. So yeah, it seems like political suicide to me, but as I've said, I'd love to be proven wrong.
To me, the current situation looks like:
Republicans -> Cut spending, cut taxes without regard for the debt.
Democrats -> Raise spending, raise taxes.
"Tea party" -> Eliminate taxes altogether, 'cause fire departments are socialist.Not a reasonable option among 'em.
The "mainstream" Republicans (i.e. the ones the "Tea Party" scared the hell out of during the primaries) were more like "cut taxes, spend like drunk sorority girls at the mall with dad's gold card", but yeah, I see it like that also.
Which is why I'm so freaking cynical...
My problem with Obama is he is ALL charisma and NO substance. And there was nothing about him leading up to November '08 to bespeak of any substance.
As to the religion thing, I really don't care one way or the other, I just hate when people are dismissed as wingnuts on the issue when there is enough reason to doubt the man's word. He's been pretty insincere about a host of issues, so why should that one be any different?
|
|
Balance the budget first (keep tax rates where they are, outlaw earmarks (i.e. every spending bill has to stand alone, no riders on bills unless we get a line item veto), cut the hell out of unnecessary spending, put a wage freeze on congressional pay (or scale it back even), put the serious hurt on public sector employment and get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy, get our military out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Middle East - we can keep Diego Garcia though, it's good to have something in the region to protect our shipping interests), well, actually, get a surplus going so we can pay down the debt (I do think owing a ton of money to China is a huge national security issue), and once the debt is paid down and people are weaned from government dependence, then we can discuss going to a flat tax or a national sales tax or something.
But the ultimate goal is to make government less intrusive in our lives, yeah. It's way too big right now; we need something, but not something that consumes as much of our GDP as it does now.
I agree unnecessary spending needs to be cut, but if you expect us to get out of debt with the current tax rates, you'd be sorely mistaken. I would raise taxes across the board (which would suck for alot of people, but such is life) and NOT use the extra money I make from the taxes for anything other than to lower the defecit, which includes paying off China.
The reasoning behind our military being stationed in foreign countries isn't just a bow to the UN or commitments to those countries-they also represent a tactical advantage. We had to pay Pakistan alot of money to have an airforce base on their land. Then we found out they were funneling the money to the insurgents so we could continue paying them for the base.
Think about it. Japan is right next to what volatile countries? I can name 6. We incorporated Hawaii into the United States for just that reason-it was also why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And while you can make the case that we shouldn't be helping other countries, being able to shape those wars to our advantage is essential in the Global Age.
So we like Obama better than bush because he is not starting wars.
All those drones doing the bombing aren't flying those missions on Bush's orders....
The missions into Pakistan wont start a war that isn't already started....
The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is porous, the Pakistani military have been supporting the Taliban since the Russian occupation. Elements of the Pakistani military are very loathe to give up the power that having your own group of guerrilla fighters separate from the legitimate military gives.Ask the Indians about who trains and supports the rebels and terrorist groups in Kashmir?
We incorporated Hawaii into the United States for just that reason-it was also why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And while you can make the case...
I think illegally annexed is the right word for what happened to Hawaii.
|
|
We incorporated Hawaii into the United States for just that reason-it was also why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And while you can make the case...
I think illegally annexed is the right word for what happened to Hawaii.
You mean kinda like every piece of land a European settled outside of, say, Europe?
|
|
You mean kinda like every piece of land a European settled outside of, say, Europe?
We incorporated Hawaii into the United States for just that reason-it was also why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And while you can make the case...
I think illegally annexed is the right word for what happened to Hawaii.
No, he means every piece of land, ever.
|
|
No, he means every piece of land, ever.You mean kinda like every piece of land a European settled outside of, say, Europe?
We incorporated Hawaii into the United States for just that reason-it was also why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And while you can make the case...
I think illegally annexed is the right word for what happened to Hawaii.
I know. I was just reminding him I doubt the Aborigines offered a lease to England for that little penal colony down under...
The missions into Pakistan wont start a war that isn't already started....
It continues a war
The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is porous, the Pakistani military have been supporting the Taliban since the Russian occupation. Elements of the Pakistani military are very loathe to give up the power that having your own group of guerrilla fighters separate from the legitimate military gives.
Ask the Indians about who trains and supports the rebels and terrorist groups in Kashmir?
No secret really. Doesnt change things either
I know. I was just reminding him I doubt the Aborigines offered a lease to England for that little penal colony down under...No, he means every piece of land, ever.You mean kinda like every piece of land a European settled outside of, say, Europe?
We incorporated Hawaii into the United States for just that reason-it was also why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And while you can make the case...
I think illegally annexed is the right word for what happened to Hawaii.
I am of Aboriginal descent and fully aware of Australia's history... Just pointing out the US is no better or morally superior to Europe.