Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

The world needs more Calvinists!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

IMHO Obama laid out a good argument in his speech tonight -- a middle road between doing nothing and doing the crazy regime change dance.

Obviously:

It would have been better had it been delivered before he committed us. And maybe all of congress, not just the leaders might have been clued in, too. Possibly even voting on our involvement. You know, the way Bush did.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

It would have been better had it been delivered before he committed us. And maybe all of congress, not just the leaders might have been clued in, too. Possibly even voting on our involvement. You know, the way Bush did.

Yes, I'll agree it would have been better had it been delivered before he committed us -- I do not approve of a President committing us to acts of war without express Congressional approval no matter who he is.

As for what Bush did... he ginned up an argument to excuse one-size fits all actions which his people had on the drawing board for a decade, waiting for any pretext. Even then he got it all wrong and had to fabricate the evidence. And he wound up with egg all over his (and our) faces when he listened to his brain trust who told him we'd be welcomed as heros, it would be easy-peasey, and it would be pay for itself.

Bush isn't going down in the annals of diplomacy unless he's the Goofus in a Goofus and Gallant cartoon. With Obama we'll see -- if we're stuck in a quagmire years from now, well, there's plenty of room for more Goofuses.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

And since you just promoted it, which xtian denomination are you supposed to go for? Restorationism, anabaptism, protestantism, anglicanism, roman catholic, eastern orthodox,....

I have no idea...it doesn't matter. In my book demoninations are just about what type of experience you want. Do you want a formal or casual service...set activities or free flowing stream of interesting ideas.

If you're already the things that a specific religion is "supposed" to be, what need is there for that religion? Another time/money sink? And why pick a religion that has shown itself to be ultimately divisive for nearly 2000 years. Or would you also support another religious group that "supports" the same values you attribute to xtians? Just so that more people are religious.,....

Not saying you do....but if you allow other Christians interpreting the Bible for you today and throughout history...and it costs you the possiblity of being involved in something that may be awesome for you (following Christ himself) ...unfortunately, that's your own fault.

This is not about the religion or what its done in the past or the people who go to the same church as you. Its about what your personal involvement does for you.

I am not a Christian because I definitely believe in a big guy sitting in a chair in the clouds.

I think love is the deal. And Christ did it better than anybody...anybody. If you don't get this feeling from a church, change churches. You don't go because you know/think it will get you to heaven...you go because you feel good to be immersed in what you believe in. In the case of Jesus, that's love.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Clearly taxes are stealing.

Not since the Roaring Twenties have the richest in America had it so good.

Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have calculated the share of U.S. income going to the top 1 percent of American households.

The share was a lofty 18.9 percent in 2007, more than double the 8.3 percent from 1970. The 2007 number was last surpassed in 1928, when the share reached 19.6 percent.

And the other rich countries? The most recent numbers for Germany and Japan, for example, are 8.9 percent and 9.2 percent. We win again, going away.

Inequality of income is high, but inequality of wealth is much higher still. Those on Forbes magazine's 2010 list of the 400 richest Americans, headed by Bill Gates with a net worth of $54 billion, together own wealth totaling $1.27 trillion.

Compare that with the total net worth of the bottom 50 percent of households: $1.61 trillion as of 2007, the most recent number.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/118806644.html

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I like what the Daily Show did last night where they showed all of the clips from Fox deriding the high corporate taxes, then showed how GE not only paid ZERO in corporate tax but actually got like $3.2 billion back in rebates. And with this windfall did they, ya know, create more American jobs like Minnfan always says the Fortune 500 companies would do if they had lower taxes? Nope...they still cut American jobs and make overseas jobs.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-28-2011/i-give-up---pay-anything---'>I Give Up - Pay Anything...</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:379045' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

IMHO Obama laid out a good argument in his speech tonight -- a middle road between doing nothing and doing the crazy regime change dance.

Obviously:

Fred Kaplan agrees with you quite convincingly, and without the portrait of Foxton.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Fred Kaplan agrees with you quite convincingly

Money quote:

Obama's main point was this: When, as he put it, "our interests and values are at stake," and when taking military action a) carries few risks, b) costs little, and c) may reap huge benefits, both political and humanitarian, then such action is worth taking even if the interests involved aren't quite vital.

This formulation is unsatisfying, both to the Realists (who shy from using force except in pursuit of vital interests and, even then, only when the outcome is fairly certain and preponderant force is mustered) and to the neoconservatives (who leap to use force anywhere and everywhere in the cause of universal moral values). But it reflects a sense of realism with a small r.

The brutal fact that the neocons (and their brethren among liberal humanitarians) must face is that the United States is not as powerful as it once was. (In fact, it never was, but that's another story …) Even if Obama were inclined to promote democracy everywhere, he couldn't do it. President George W. Bush got into trouble at the start of his second term by proclaiming democracy promotion as the centerpiece of his foreign policy—only to see his shining North Stars of Iraq, Lebanon, and Ukraine smolder in ashes. His proclamations also rang hollow, and provoked cries of hypocrisy, when more traditional interests compelled him to embrace the very undemocratic rulers of Saudi Arabia, China, Uzbekistan, Egypt, etc.

And the fact that the Realists must face is that sometimes force is worth using even if the material interests at stake are meager. Some Realists like to say, "Superpowers don't do windows." Well, sometimes, they do. But when they do—that is, when they intervene in the affairs of "lesser" countries—they have to be careful about setting limits in the involvement and making sure that others, especially those with closer interests, are heavily involved. In short, making sure the intervention isn't remotely perceived as neocolonial adventurism.

But even so, it could still all go wrong. Putting the mission under NATO command is a good start, but eventually withdrawing all but material support and letting European and hopefully Arab countries enforce the NFZ would go a long way towards demonstrating we're no longer in the smash and grab business.

One other thing. A "win," in Qaddafi quitting and at least somewhat democratic orders starting to grow in North Africa, would help give the entire US political spectrum from right to left the cover to finally wind down last decade's cluster**** and limit the waste to "only" about 2 trillion dollars, 5k troops dead, and 50k troops wounded.

The US without troops in combat anywhere in the world may be unimaginable at this moment but hey, war's gotta end someday.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Here is a fact check on Obamas speech by the right wing organization AP

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...T_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Kind of interesting

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Here is a fact check on Obamas speech by the right wing organization AP

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...T_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Kind of interesting

I think Obama is finding out that it's a lot easier to comment from a Senate seat than it is to govern. Certainly, the world is a more complicated place.

It's a good reminder to disregard foreign policy statements made by presidential candidates with no foreign policy experience. Not that any campaign statements should ever be taken completely at face value, but there's something different about foreign policy, I think.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Yes, I'll agree it would have been better had it been delivered before he committed us -- I do not approve of a President committing us to acts of war without express Congressional approval no matter who he is.

As for what Bush did... he ginned up an argument to excuse one-size fits all actions which his people had on the drawing board for a decade, waiting for any pretext. Even then he got it all wrong and had to fabricate the evidence. And he wound up with egg all over his (and our) faces when he listened to his brain trust who told him we'd be welcomed as heros, it would be easy-peasey, and it would be pay for itself.

Bush isn't going down in the annals of diplomacy unless he's the Goofus in a Goofus and Gallant cartoon. With Obama we'll see -- if we're stuck in a quagmire years from now, well, there's plenty of room for more Goofuses.

Too bad, the vaccine can't help the terminal cases. Don't you guys EVER get tired of saying: "yes, but. . ."

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I think Obama is finding out that it's a lot easier to comment from a Senate seat than it is to govern. Certainly, the world is a more complicated place.

It's a good reminder to disregard foreign policy statements made by presidential candidates with no foreign policy experience. Not that any campaign statements should ever be taken completely at face value, but there's something different about foreign policy, I think.

Tell that to Chris Matthews and his tingling legs.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Remember how George Bush campaigned against Clinton's interventionism, calling for the U.S. to take a more modest role in world politics? That didn't last long.

The reality of being President / Commander in Chief has a way of changing peoples' minds.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Remember how George Bush campaigned against Clinton's interventionism, calling for the U.S. to take a more modest role in world politics? That didn't last long.

The reality of being President / Commander in Chief has a way of changing peoples' minds.

Clinton, like Obama, turned the United States military into errand boys for the UN. And in Obama's case, for the Arab Leauge, too. Didn't bother to get congressional approval for his interventionism (which I supported). I think the Congress of the United States takes precedence over UN bureaucrats in these matters.

And something happened that may have justified a change in Bush's thinking, let me see if I can recall, oh yes, 9/11.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Too bad, the vaccine can't help the terminal cases. Don't you guys EVER get tired of saying: "yes, but. . ."

Note the first line -- I have problems with the way Obama did it. That's called conditional agreement. You may not be familiar with it coming from a land where (affected western tough guy pose on) "you're either with us or against us."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Clinton, like Obama, turned the United States military into errand boys for the UN.

Did Truman make us errand boys for the UN in Korea? Did FDR make us errand boys for the Brits with Lend Lease?

Unilateral action is great when you're under attack. When you're working with a coalition with common interests intervening in a third party conflict... not so good.

You guys are "thinking" with the wrong head. As usual.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

The Obama Doctrine????

Really?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

What more annoying? The _____ Doctrine or ______gate scandal?

Friggin' unoriginal media.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Clinton, like Obama, turned the United States military into errand boys for the UN. And in Obama's case, for the Arab Leauge, too. Didn't bother to get congressional approval for his interventionism (which I supported). I think the Congress of the United States takes precedence over UN bureaucrats in these matters.

And something happened that may have justified a change in Bush's thinking, let me see if I can recall, oh yes, 9/11.

Good. The world needs to start taking responsibility for decisions that are international.

The cost of munitions and oil is tiny. If you want to cut military costs all of the sudden (which would be different than last week), dismantle tanks and shut down our bases in scattered around the world:

Here is a fact check on Obamas speech by the right wing organization AP

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...T_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Kind of interesting

I stopped reading this after the first point...

It claims that US control and Nato control is the same thing. Funny thing is that they then spend much of the piece refuting their own argument...as in Nato is a joint process bringing Europe into joint ownership, the mission is now being run by a Canadian and the US only makes up 22% of the Nato budget (and when Nato is pretty much the US and Europe, 22% is a relatatively small contribution).

Not sure when AP got into the opinion business and started painting it as fact. Although it does show how the AP is not a lefty organization.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Clinton, like Obama, turned the United States military into errand boys for the UN. And in Obama's case, for the Arab Leauge, too. Didn't bother to get congressional approval for his interventionism (which I supported). I think the Congress of the United States takes precedence over UN bureaucrats in these matters.

And something happened that may have justified a change in Bush's thinking, let me see if I can recall, oh yes, 9/11.

My point entirely. You can't tell the future, so you can't make guarantees. Bush didn't simply strike back after 9/11. He articulated an entirely new doctrine of engagement (the 2002 speech on the national security strategy of the United States). It was a lot bigger than just striking back at OBL. He learned to be a proper neocon. Unfortunately.

As for Clinton, your memory is a bit selective. Ask the Rwandans about Clinton's interventionism. His campaign was almost entirely focused on domestic politics, and he took office in the shadow of Operation Restore Hope's failure (I like GHWB as much as the next guy, but that one was on him). It took a genocide to get Clinton to authorize NATO in the Balkans, and even then he dragged his feet.