View Full Version : World Politics - Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration
The public got wise on the Whitehouse's act?
At the core of McCrystals idea for attempting a successful counter insurgency was the requirement for a relatively stable local authority with sizable support. The recent elections in Afghanistan have shown that it doesn't exist.
Obama wants to increase the amount of school that kids recieve throughout the year; including weekends and summers. Now I don't necessarily disagree with him, but anyone want to take a guess at how much more money the schools will need? Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?
Wow, that made me laugh hard. I mean, people would go that low to bash Obama? If you're being serious, am I allowed to facepalm?
Regardless of that, this is a decision that should not be made by the federal government.
I'm not familiar with the arcanums of the US federal system, and while your Constitution might (or might not) state that this decision should only be taken by federal states, in what way are they better-suited or more competent when it comes to school? Wouldn't it seem better to you that all american children have access to the same level of education? I'm not talking about university and what not, but about primary school.
Apart from that, yes I agree that more school hours doesn't mean better education, in some cases. Once again, I'm not familiar with the US education system, can't really comment on this.
When calling someone Hitler loses its shine, where do you go? How about enemy of humanity (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/gop-rep-president-obama-is-an-enemy-of-humanity.html)? (Kinda like Ming the Merciless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_the_Merciless), I guess.)
When calling someone Hitler loses its shine, where do you go?
Well where could you go with a home skooling conspiracy theory cretinist wingnut?
Look on the bright side, with all his campaigns for family values how long will it be before Trent Frank gets caught in a gay sex scandal,
I thought it was common courtesy to wait at least a year into an administration before calling for an armed coup (http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html).
Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do? Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com.
-edit-
Wow, that was fast, Newsmax has pulled the story. How off-the-wall do you need to be to be too crazy for Newsmax?
-edit of the edit-
Found an archived copy of the entire article here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php?ref=fpblg).
Louis VI the Fat
30/09/09, 16:15
I am not sure whether I am absolutely shocked, or not surprised at all.
I refer back to several pages ago, where several non-American posters called some of the opposition close to sedition and treason.
Are they out of their mind?
What's up with the populist rightwing of the American right? Are they dreaming of Argentina, 1980? Chile, Brazil? They too all believed they were fighting a marxist take-over.
There is a certain streak to the US right that is dangerously close to fascism. Ultra-right, ultra-religious, too pro-military, and in the end not very democratic at all. :shame:
Go blow up some Feds, guys. Just a truck is all it takes for your resistance to bring down a huge federal office. :2thumbsup:
Lemur[/B]'s Newsmax article]blah, blah, blah...Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars...blah, blah blah
<puts on white suit and does best Richardo Montalban impression>
"Welcome to Fantasy Island!"
Crazed Rabbit
30/09/09, 21:49
Where does Obama find these people? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/head-of-office-of-safe-and-drug-free-schools-expresses-regret-for-controversial-incident.html)
That Jennings knew of a sexually active 15-year-old, of any gender, involved with “an older man” and didn’t take steps to report that relationship to the student’s parents or to authorities has made him a target for criticism -- long before he was put in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
:dizzy2:
CR
What's up with the populist rightwing of the American right? Are they dreaming of Argentina, 1980? Chile, Brazil? They too all believed they were fighting a marxist take-over.
There is a certain streak to the US right that is dangerously close to fascism. Ultra-right, ultra-religious, too pro-military, and in the end not very democratic at all.
Not true at all. Yes, the fringe (both left and right) has the biggest mouth, but in reality has very little overall support. Also, would you care to define the "ultras" that you've mentioned?
Louis VI the Fat
30/09/09, 22:37
Not true at all. Yes, the fringe (both left and right) has the biggest mouth, but in reality has very little overall support. Also, would you care to define the "ultras" that you've mentioned?Timothy McVeigh is very real. And I'd like to prevent another one.
There is an overlap between him and the right of the right. He was not a coincidence, not a single fruitcake. He simply acted on what is spouted, on what is believed, by many.
The brew consists of the following ingredients:
- Anti federal government
- Pro-gun. Rather, extremist fear of Feds disarming the populace
- An excessive fondness of the military
- Anti UN
- Republican
- Dissapointment with the GOP
- Libertarianism
- Racism
- Anti taxes
And a certain fondness of consipracy theories. Of the idea that America is in the process of turning into a dictatorship.
Of course, simply being a Republican against tax increase doesn't an extremist make. It is the brew, the extremism, a degree of anger, and a fanatical and unquestioned belief in it all that makes up the extreme right.
It is not isolated. It feeds, and it is fed, constantly. By talk radio, by Fox, by the internet. And it trickles down into the more sober right, and up to the extremist hotheads.
None of this started with Obama. He does seem to have awoken these sentiments. Again, some ideas are now considered mainstream by their adherents that are tantamount to treason and sedition.
Timothy McVeigh is very real. And I'd like to prevent another one.
There is an overlap between him and the right of the right. He was not a coincidence, not a single fruitcake. He simply acted on what is spouted, on what is believed, by many.
The brew consists of the following ingredients:
- Anti federal government
- Pro-gun. Rather, extremist fear of Feds disarming the populace
- An excessive fondness of the military
- Anti UN
- Republican
- Dissapointment with the GOP
- Libertarianism
- Racism
- Anti taxes
And a certain fondness of consipracy theories. Of the idea that America is in the process of turning into a dictatorship.
Of course, simply being a Republican against tax increase doesn't an extremist make. It is the brew, the extremism, a degree of anger, and a fanatical and unquestioned belief in it all that makes up the extreme right.
It is not isolated. It feeds, and it is fed, constantly. By talk radio, by Fox, by the internet. And it trickles down into the more sober right, and up to the extremist hotheads.
None of this started with Obama. He does seem to have awoken these sentiments. Again, some ideas are now considered mainstream by their adherents that are tantamount to treason and sedition.
Was that president McVeigh or Senator McVeigh? Oh, you mean the fool who had a date with the needle. Shows how his far ilk can get.
Now, with Timmy aside let's examine the rest
-Anti-fed. There are degrees of that. On one hand you have various crazies mostly holed up on our northern border, but those are few and far between. I'd say that far more are guys like me who think that less is more. Less Uncle Sam means more money in my pocket. A good thing.
-Pro-gun. Once again, it varies. Plenty of folks are packing, there are also a few collectors and a few doomsday fanatics who have enough firepower to supply a regiment. I'd take my gun everywhere I go if I had a gun. Yep, I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment but do not own a gun. I do cherish my right to get if from the nearest Walmart if I feel so inclined.
-Fondness for the military. Military is the force if the Federal gov't. You can't be anti-Fed and pro-military.
-anti UN. Screw UN.
-disappointment with the GOP. Is this good or bad?
-Libertarianism. What's wrong with that?
-racism. Racist America elects a black prez.
-anti-taxes. Yes, and?
-conspiracy theories. Not in general public.
racism. Racist America elects a black prez.
If there wasn't a strong element of racism in America the pigmentation of the Presidents skin wouldn't even be an issue.
If there wasn't a strong element of racism in America the pigmentation of the Presidents skin wouldn't even be an issue.
When in a European country a black guy becomes PM/Prez without anyone noticing/discussing his race please feel free to rub it in my face. The guy/gal *has* to look the part though.
When in a European country a black guy becomes PM/Prez without anyone noticing/discussing his race please feel free to rub it in my face.
When a european country has had a similar proportion of the population for a similar amount of time then perhaps you can say something.
Big news America elects an American:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
When a european country has had a similar proportion of the population for a similar amount of time then perhaps you can say something.
Big news America elects an American:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Let's make it easier then. Let's take a European country and see if it can elect a leader with 50% non-european ethnicity and then look and see whether or not his ancestry become a hot topic.
LittleGrizzly
01/10/09, 08:29
Fondness for the military. Military is the force if the Federal gov't. You can't be anti-Fed and pro-military.
There are plenty of people who treat the word fed like a swear word and think the military is the greatest thing ever... it seems illogical but when has that ever stopped people believing anything ?
Let's make it easier then. Let's take a European country and see if it can elect a leader with 50% non-european ethnicity and then look and see whether or not his ancestry become a hot topic.
When a european country has had a similar proportion of the population for a similar amount of time then perhaps you can say something.
When a european country has had a similar proportion of the population for a similar amount of time then perhaps you can say something.
France should have enough non-Euros to get to the 13%
Louis VI the Fat
01/10/09, 14:08
I am not sure why I got your back up so much, rvg. I'm not slagging off the US, I am referring to a well-documented phenomenon.
By now, you’ve probably seen Pundit’s post about his run-in with Tom Baurle (http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/buffalopundit/2009/07/tom-bauerle-goes-full-wingnut/) on Wednesday. Many people seem to be taking it as a pissing match between a radio host and a guy he hung up on, but I think there’s something far more important than Bauerle calling people names:
At around 9:52, Bauerle suggested that a new civil war was in order, advocated for secession, and suggested that liberals want to put people like him and Jim Ostrowski in concentration camps.
Around 11:14, Bauerle advocated for an armed, military coup of the United States government, and wondered whether the military would “side with the people” to, I suppose, wipe out the anti-American liberals.
I’m not kidding about any of this.
This is pretty incredible, really — one of the most prominent public voices in WNY openly advocating for a military coup against our elected government. This isn’t some nutjob on a street corner, or some misanthrope in his basement. It’s the most popular local voice on the most popular radio station in town. So what does it mean?
It could be that Bauerle is just putting on an act in an attempt to generate an audience. But whether he really believes what he says doesn’t matter — either way, there is a substantial audience of conservatives who agree with what he’s saying, whether it’s an act or not.
http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/colineager/2009/07/bauerle-and-the-right-violent-and-undemocratic/
I would link to an extensive study about the undemocratic right, but I don't know of any. I wouldn't mind reading one, so if anybody has a good recomendation or link, I'd be much obliged.
This is quite similar to the late 19th, early 20th french ultra-right. Religious nutjobs and nationalists pretending their country is ruled by the antichrist, jews (or in this case, black muslims) communists and socialists. While they don't have a huge electoral basis, they certainly are well-known, and sometimes respected and well-educated people.
They have a certain idea of America, and whoever disagrees with them is obviously wrong and ought to be eliminated. This is indeed very close to fascism (it is fascism in my opinion, but I guess people might disagree).
At least, Charles Maurras and his friends from L'Action Française used to be a decent writters. Most of those folks could hardly write a coherent and thought-out book. The amount of conspirationist mumbo-jumbo they have to put together probably doesn't help.
I am not sure why I got your back up so much, rvg. I'm not slagging off the US, I am referring to a well-documented phenomenon.
http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/colineager/2009/07/bauerle-and-the-right-violent-and-undemocratic/
I would link to an extensive study about the undemocratic right, but I don't know of any. I wouldn't mind reading one, so if anybody has a good recomendation or link, I'd be much obliged.
You're generalizing about a 300 million stong country based on one radio talking head? That does not seem reasonable.
Strike For The South
01/10/09, 15:59
America isn't revolting anytime soon.
Tell me what there is to revolt against? Obama is Bush except he does a little more talking and has a watered down bill that cuts medicare.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
France should have enough non-Euros to get to the 13%
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Most foriegners in france are from europe, many of the french non europeans are from france.
What we really need to shut up your nonsense is European leaders in history from different continents. well there is no shortage of those,and there certainly is no shortage of those who are 50% from another continent .
But of course you mean ethnicity which means they must not only originate from another continent they must be from another race or culture.
Ah but thats easy Europe beat you on that score by a long way:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
01/10/09, 16:16
Ahahaha, a radio talking head? Louis, their job is to say crazy **** so people will listen.
Louis VI the Fat
01/10/09, 17:03
RVG - no I am not. :wall:
Sasaki - the point is that millions of people do listen, to very many talking heads. They do not listen to Islamic internet sites that say that America is Satan. They do not listen to commie talk radio that says America is a fascist-industrial complex.
They do listen to alarmist 'America is a liberal dictatorship and Obama is gonna put you into a concentration camp'. Because this, unlike the others, is what they (somewhat) believe.
And even if they do not believe it all, even if they listen just because they like to get worked up a bit, there is a perfidious mechanism at work: if five is the reasonable middle between four and six, but people will shout without pause 'twenty!, twenty!, twenty!', then a lot of people will think the reasonable middle must be four plus twenty, so twelve instead of five. (Sheesh, learn proper terminology, Louis)
In effect, they might not believe they'll be send to a concentration camp anytime soon, but they will get out of it that reforming healthcare is tantamount to turning America into a socialist utopia. That a start-of-school-season speech is Hitlerite personality cult building. That they must protect America from the Jews and Bolshevists because Goebbels says so..erm, I mean: from the liberal-marxist dictatorship.
They do listen to alarmist 'America is a liberal dictatorship and Obama is gonna put you into a concentration camp'. Because this, unlike the others, is what they (somewhat) believe.
Says who? What makes you believe that the average Joe hears this and takes it to heart? Average Joe hears that under Obama's new plan 14% of Joe's paycheck will be pissed away on mandatory obamacare and thusly Joe gets upset. That however does not mean that Joe thinks of Obama as a liberal dictator who will eat Joe's children. I don't understand why is anything other than unconditional worship of Obama being interpreted as right wing fascism? People complain about Obama's plan because it is a bad plan. People are disagreeing with a would-be policy, that doesn't mean that they are ready to grab their torches and pitchforks.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Most foriegners in france are from europe, many of the french non europeans are from france.
What we really need to shut up your nonsense is European leaders in history from different continents. well there is no shortage of those,and there certainly is no shortage of those who are 50% from another continent .
But of course you mean ethnicity which means they must not only originate from another continent they must be from another race or culture.
Ah but thats easy Europe beat you on that score by a long way:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
a french born and bred non-european will suffice. Elect *that* then tell me how less racist europe is compared to the US. Until that happens, we have you beaten by a mile.
And even if they do not believe it all, even if they listen just because they like to get worked up a bit, there is a perfidious mechanism at work: if five is the reasonable middle between four and six, but people will shout without pause 'twenty!, twenty!, twenty!', then a lot of people will think the reasonable middle must be four plus twenty, so twelve instead of five. (Sheesh, learn proper terminology, Louis)
So you mean that by vocal really crazy wingnuts spouting lots of nonsense people shift further to the crazy wingnut direction, but hold up the really crazy wingnuts to say that they themselves are perfectly normal compared to the real loonies even though they are actually insane.
Until that happens, we have you beaten by a mile
Not very good at history are you, do you have trouble thinking of an elected leader of a western european country .
Say a person of foriegn parents of a middle eastern culture .
Its amazing, he was named after a country that didn't exist until last century:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
01/10/09, 17:47
What makes you believe that the average Joe hears this and takes it to heart? I do not. :wall:
*sigh*
I do not. :wall:
*sigh*
Then what is your point? Fringe crazies have always been there and always will be. Hardly anyone listens to them, and thus they are irrelevant.
Fringe crazies have always been there and always will be. Hardly anyone listens to them, and thus they are irrelevant.
And nowadays fringe crazies are mainstream corporate media and are getting some of the best ratings and are actually still increasing their ratings.
Its very hard to get good ratings when hardly anyone listens:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
And nowadays fringe crazies are mainstream corporate media and are getting some of the best ratings and are actually still increasing their ratings.
Its very hard to get good ratings when hardly anyone listens:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Good entertainment is supposed to get good ratings.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01/10/09, 20:11
You know something is probably wrong when the French and British both think you're a wuss. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html)
Louis VI the Fat
01/10/09, 22:56
Found myself a good bibliography about the hard right:
http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/General-02.html#P185_7483
Many of the books and articles referenced are old. Pity, but it does show the pervasiveness of the movements. I am still searching for a study that investigates whether Obama has been a giant stimulus for these movements. I have the distinct impression he has. Both for him being Black, and for being a Democrat - which would show the race and party dimension of the hard right movements.
A Force Upon the Plains: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate, by Kenneth S. Stern.
The good news is that the militia movement in America will not overthrow the government of the United States anytime soon. This collection of paranoids, racists, and wackos might even be considered silly. Fears about black helicopters and the eye on the U.S. dollar bill indicate people whose grasp of reality is not particularly keen.
The grieving families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, however, give notice that the militia movement is of serious concern. The death toll from that disaster is evidence of truly dangerous people. Not only are many militia members convinced that the U.S. government is in the hands of the enemy, but they also have access to advanced weaponry and bomb manufacturing techniques and materials. They have web sites on the Internet -- they have funds, radio stations, and organized cells. Kenneth S. Stern has good credentials to write about the militia movement. He is the American Jewish Committee's expert on hate groups, and he has followed the activities of militias for years. Stem, in fact, warned of a possible action on the anniversary of the burning of the Branch Davidian headquarters in Waco just nine days before the Oklahoma bombing.
Stern's research has received much more attention since Oklahoma City. He discusses the movement's fixation on Ruby Ridge and Waco and its belief that the American government is already an enemy force. The connections among various paramilitary groups, the Christian Identity movement, and racist organizations are delineated.
This reader put down the book thinking "this is overstated." A few days later, a letter appeared in the local newspaper comparing the U.S. government to Nazi Germany, calling Stern a "pseudo expert," and concluding, "The killing of a woman and her child at Ruby Ridge and innocent people at Waco at the hands of big government agents was no accident. Historically, it is the inevitable outcome of big government." The reader, now recognizing the mind set, thinks, "They're here -- right in my neighborhood."
That, of course, is why Stern's book is useful. You can't fight what you don't understand. Stern is especially valuable in his discussion of the "insurrectionist theory," which stems from the belief that individuals can engage in armed conflict against their government when the government becomes "tyrannical," as defined by each individual. Americans, of course, have a long tradition of putting individual conscience above government laws, but the tradition from Thoreau to King emphasizes civil disobedience and acceptance of punishment to change the views of the majority. Civil disobedience has great faith in the humanity and reasonableness of one's fellow citizens. Insurrectionist theory as described by Stern is more of a "let's get guns and shoot an ATF agent." G. Gordon Liddy actually urged his followers to do this, with the added stipulation: "Don't shoot at them because they got a vest on underneath that. Head shots. Head shots .... kill the sons of bitches."
The Liddy quotation brings up another of Stern's points. The vicious antigovernment and racist rhetoric heard daily in the U.S. has an effect. Not only have government employees been threatened, but also their spouses and their children. When political figures refuse to confront and condemn such behavior (either because of fear or a desire for votes), the movement gains respectability and credence. And that's ten years old. It is still brewing. And, such is my impression, gaining in strenght, renewing and re-inventing itself.
Did it slip under the radar under Bush? Was Bush, the excesses of his administration, the result of this? I need to find some articles on how the GOP and the hardright 'communicate' with one another.
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
###
We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.The article concludes with this paragraph.
The anti-French onslaught of the period 2003-2007 did manage to re-write history. To change the pre-conceptions of France.
To think it's not a decade ago that the world - often rightfully so - loathed France for her many military adventures, neo-colonialism, aggressive posturing.
Ah well. It's the 21st century. That one fake Google page carries more currency than a library of books. Even to the quality press.
Louis VI the Fat
01/10/09, 23:09
The mother of all articles about the peculiarities of US politics. How could I forget!? :wall:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.
In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.To think I read this article ages ago and promised myself to always keep it in mind when thinking about America. I hang my head in shame and shall leave this thread. :cry:
Already in 1964 Hofstadter gave the definite account of the US hardright. Tracing it back to its historical roots. And showing its remarkable historical consistency, valid to the present day and the contemporary right wing.
Why They Feel Dispossessed
### If, after our historically discontinuous examples of the paranoid style, we now take the long jump to the contemporary right wing, we find some rather important differences from the nineteenth-century movements. The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country—that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high.
### Important changes may also be traced to the effects of the mass media. The villains of the modern right are much more vivid than those of their paranoid predecessors, much better known to the public; the literature of the paranoid style is by the same token richer and more circumstantial in personal description and personal invective. For the vaguely delineated villains of the anti-Masons, for the obscure and disguised Jesuit agents, the little-known papal delegates of the anti-Catholics, for the shadowy international bankers of the monetary conspiracies, we may now substitute eminent public figures like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower., secretaries of State like Marshall, Acheson, and Dulles, Justices of the Supreme Court like Frankfurter and Warren, and the whole battery of lesser but still famous and vivid alleged conspirators headed by Alger Hiss.
### Events since 1939 have given the contemporary right-wing paranoid a vast theatre for his imagination, full of rich and proliferating detail, replete with realistic cues and undeniable proofs of the validity of his suspicions. The theatre of action is now the entire world, and he can draw not only on the events of World War II, but also on those of the Korean War and the Cold War. Any historian of warfare knows it is in good part a comedy of errors and a museum of incompetence; but if for every error and every act of incompetence one can substitute an act of treason, many points of fascinating interpretation are open to the paranoid imagination. In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship, is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it has managed to survive at all.
### The basic elements of contemporary right-wing thought can be reduced to three: First, there has been the now-familiar sustained conspiracy, running over more than a generation, and reaching its climax in Roosevelt’s New Deal, to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism. A great many right-wingers would agree with Frank Chodorov, the author of The Income Tax: The Root of All Evil, that this campaign began with the passage of the income-tax amendment to the Constitution in 1913.
### The second contention is that top government officialdom has been so infiltrated by Communists that American policy, at least since the days leading up to Pearl Harbor, has been dominated by men who were shrewdly and consistently selling out American national interests.
### Finally, the country is infused with a network of Communist agents, just as in the old days it was infiltrated by Jesuit agents, so that the whole apparatus of education, religion, the press, and the mass media is engaged in a common effort to paralyze the resistance of loyal Americans.
For November of 1964 this is a very valid article. Today however is October of 2009. Things have changed, and in this particular regard they have changed for the better.
For November of 1964 this is a very valid article. Today however is October of 2009. Things have changed, and in this particular regard they have changed for the better.
Oh, I dunno, read this passage from Louis' link:
The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse.
And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.
And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.
You are wrong , that was written in the 60's and we know that those wingnuts must have been crazy because it is now 40 years later and those conspiracy things didn't come to pass.
Nowadays we have the conspiracies for a new century, which is why they are nothing at all like the conspiracies of the 60s, because if they was like those conspiracies that would mean that todays wingnuts are crazy too.
And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.
Tea partiers do not bother me. They elect their congressmen, that means they own their congressmen. If they want their congressmen to crow like roosters, that's their prerogative. I personally find tea parties to be a waste of time and IQ, but they do not bother me on any deep level. As for Glenn Beck, with this guy around I no longer need to watch Comedy Central. He is absolutely hilarious, in many ways like Jon Stewart, except that Jon knows it's just a comedy gig, while Glenn really believes his own nonsense. That makes Glenn far more entertaining.
Louis VI the Fat
02/10/09, 00:39
There's Glenn Beck and the Teaparties.
And the homeschooling.
And the 'liberal bias' of the press.
And anti-intellectualism.
And racism.
And fear of being 'undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers'.
And 'the foreign agent' trying to bring down America. (whether they be, in rough historical order, Jews, communists, UN, terrorists).
And their helpers, 'not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power'.
And the aggresive posturising against all of this.
And the paranoia.
Hofstadter doesn't trace it back to 1964. He traces it back to the 19th century, to the beginning of America. That's the beauty of it.
To paraphrase Hofstadter - it has been thought since the beginning. So if it were true, then America has been undermined since the beginning. So why did it come to be such a large, succesful, autonomous, capitalist country?
The language of the rightwing resistance to Obama has deep roots. And these roots cross over between the paranoid hardright and the mainstream right.
The fruitcakes are a fringe. A rather large fringe, but fringe nonetheless. The crossover with the mainstream right is what is troublesome.
Then again, I suppose here too Hofstadter applies - if it has been crossing over all this time, then apparantly the mainstream right is resilient to being taken over completely by complete paranoia.
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000908
Here's an essay about Hofstadter's essay. Not by a leftwinger, by an author who detests big government himself. And who rightfully points out that Hofstadter describes not merely a rightwing peculiarity:
Hofstadter is very clear that the “paranoid style” is something with deep roots in American culture. Something almost universal, in fact. In Hofstadter’s view this “paranoid style” was not necessarily right-wing, or the province of the G.O.P. Moreover the G.O.P. had arisen and been nurtured as a counter-movement to one of the earliest manifestations of the paranoid style, a political movement derided by Abraham Lincoln
Here's the chilling part:
And finally we come to what was certainly the most stunning, indeed, shocking aspect of Hofstadter’s study, namely, the process of psychological projection. The paranoid political advocate crafts a villainous enemy and imbues the enemy with horrendous traits. And to counter this, he crafts an organization which mimics the enemy and copies its traits.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.If only everybody involved in the War on Terror had read Hofstadter...
And what is Fox - 'fair and balanced' - but a perverse mirror image of the rightist perception of the 'biased mainstream media'? To counter what was perceived as unremitting liberal bias, a mirror image to it was build, with an unremmiting rightwing bias.
So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.
The fruitcakes are a fringe. A rather large fringe, but fringe nonetheless. The crossover with the mainstream right is what is troublesome.
Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html) and 58% (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html) of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.
If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.
Aemilius Paulus
02/10/09, 00:54
So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.
Because they are so inept :beam:. Just as they are so inept that they are in such a deep electoral hole right now. White, Southern, older/middle-aged, Christian males are not exactly a gargantuan demographic...
Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% and 58% of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.
If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.
Sadly true. If at the start of the Obama elections I still identified more with Republicans despite my centrism, then now I do not wish to even associate myself with anything Republican. Conservatism is a splendid philosophy when applied to fiscal and purely political matters, although I most certainly do not support social conservatism.
So, they are powerful and dangerous yet inept and helpless all at once.
Aemilius Paulus
02/10/09, 01:12
So, they are powerful and dangerous yet inept and helpless all at once.
They are not "powerful", well, depending on the definition. There are only two major political parties in US, thus every party is powerful - because they are only two. Democrats, at this point, are much stronger. Quite importantly, most celebrities and most of the media is liberal.
In general, in most educated group of people, it seems that Republicans are unpopular. And considering I live in Northwest Florida - Alabama-like countryside and typical Floridian beach resort cities, that is saying much. Or so my impression is. But I cannot associate Democrats with being unpopular as Republicans are. Hell, just saying that that almsot all the intelectuals support Democrats already indicates grim thoughts... If America was not made primarily of well, you know..., then Democrats would win every election.
Republicans are a party of religious zeal and anti-intellectualism. Their candidates reflect that. Obama vs McCain. Bush vs Kerry. Bush vs. Gore. Always a man not noted for his sharpness of thought, or a war hero, against the ever-unchanging intellectual. If you do not believe me, why do you think on February 18th, 2004, sixty two scientists, including forty-two Nobel laureates released that report (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a021804protestpoliticization)? Bush is making a joke of science, twisting and manipulating it when not entirely ignoring science?
Louis VI the Fat
02/10/09, 01:26
I am not quite sure what to answer to your questions, rvg.
Let's say that the rightwing has not turned America into a police state because if Hofstadter is correct and it has been crossing over all this time, then apparantly the mainstream right is resilient to being taken over completely by complete paranoia.
Why is it resilient? Because Hofstadter describes but a single aspect. US (rightist) political discourse has many aspects. Which ones make it resilient (is it? will it be?), I have some ideas but after trying to pinpoint earlier what I meant about the paranoia of the right, I am spend for the day.
I'm not on a witch hunt [size=1](me, I'm not paranoid :tongue:) against America, or the US right, or even the hardright. I am trying to understand what I see. And then suddenly I remembered that what I see has a name, and that it is not my own thoughts, but lingering memories of a famous essay. That is, I did not find a name to what I see, I saw what I did because I knew it had a name.
Hofstadter is the origin of this earlier quote of mine from last page:
That they must protect America from the Jews and Bolshevists because Goebbels says so...erm, I mean: from the liberal-marxist dictatorship.
And I'm not alone in this interpretation, in seeing this connection. The connection is the paranoid style. Others have derived this connection from Hofstadter too, from my earlier link:
And then we have the one really commanding example – the country in which the “paranoid style” perhaps went the furthest and had the greatest impact. That would be Germany in the period from roughly 1880 to the end of World War II. Hofstadter’s Columbia colleague, and my friend, Fritz Stern, wrote what may be a definitive application of the Hofstadter thesis in The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology
I'm still amazed that the only people consistently making fun of Obama are The Onion. Sure, John Stewart has taken some whacks, and SNL tries (lord how they try), but the only people squeezing comedy gold out of the current admin is America's Most Trusted News Source.
Healthy, Happy Obamas Out of Touch With Miserable Americans (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_happy_healthy_obamas_out_of)
And my all-time favorite: Obama Disappointed Cabinet Failed To Understand His Reference To 'Savage Sword Of Conan' #24 (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_disappointed_cabinet_failed)
Lord Winter
02/10/09, 03:26
The comparison to late 19th century France is a good one. Look at the Dreyfus affair for example. There are those today who will point to a great conspiracy against the american way of life. It doesn't matter if they call it the syndicate or the evil secular liberal progressives(how those terms have been perverted by the right). We as a nation believe that there is a religion set up for the sole purpose of destroying our society. Both Americans and these past French men glorify the military as the embodiment of every value we hold dear and both see any insult to it as treason. We both have the same sensationalist media ready to find any conspiracy in any action. Facts? Why do you need those when our safety could be at stake? Besides even if there was a mistake how dare we insult the brave men who serve our country? While we may not be showing the same level of hatred displayed in the Dreyfus affair the same symptoms are there.
Aemilius Paulus
02/10/09, 03:54
I'm still amazed that the only people consistently making fun of Obama are The Onion. Sure, John Stewart has taken some whacks, and SNL tries (lord how they try), but the only people squeezing comedy gold out of the current admin is America's Most Trusted News Source.
Healthy, Happy Obamas Out of Touch With Miserable Americans (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_happy_healthy_obamas_out_of)
And my all-time favorite: Obama Disappointed Cabinet Failed To Understand His Reference To 'Savage Sword Of Conan' #24 (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_disappointed_cabinet_failed)
Heh, interesting that you note. The Economist ran an article on that this spring.
Banquo's Ghost
02/10/09, 11:26
So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.
I don't they have failed at all. They have perverted American society into just what you say.
Tell me, which party likely to have real influence does someone of Jeffersonian aspiration nowadays vote for?
One that stands for (and would actually deliver) fiscal responsibility, freedom of choice for the individual, freedom from federal control, tolerance and equality of opportunity, pro-States' rights, effective checks and balances between the arms of government, avoidance of foreign entanglements and the upholding of the inalienable rights of Man?
They have perverted American society into just what you say.
Yep , where they burn books and dispute science in favour of myth, get so hung up over anything to do with sex...and of course think some brainless idiot from alaska is a good candidate because she is just like them.
anti intellectualism, the pride in being as thick as pig excrement
Yep , where they burn books and dispute science in favour of myth, get so hung up over anything to do with sex...and of course think some brainless idiot from alaska is a good candidate because she is just like them.
anti intellectualism, the pride in being as thick as pig excrement
There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.
As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.
Strike For The South
02/10/09, 15:00
There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.
As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.
Even if you purchase it you must see the affront to enlightenment ideals thats is. Simply becuase you disagree with an idea does not mean you can burn it.
In the day of the printing press we have become callous to this but burning books used to be a very big deal.
IMO anyone who burns books is not protesting but killing America.
It's not even a good from of civil discourse. Instead of debate you simply burn, how is that ok?
Even if you purchase it you must see the affront to enlightenment ideals thats is. Simply becuase you disagree with an idea does not mean you can burn it.
Well, that's the thing: ideas do not burn. Which is why burning books is nothing more than a form of speech. Now, if we were talking about a government sanctioned extermination of an idea, then yes, it would be horrible. As it is, the writers of those books are laughing all the way to the bank, since they get paid regardless of whether their books end in a library or in a landfill. Heck, if I had an idea for a book so bad that I knew that people would burn it en masse, I would be a millionaire. You buy the book, you own it. read it, burn it, wipe your ass with it, it is not my place to tell you what to do with your property.
Strike For The South
02/10/09, 15:35
Well, that's the thing: ideas do not burn. Which is why burning books is nothing more than a form of speech. Now, if we were talking about a government sanctioned extermination of an idea, then yes, it would be horrible. As it is, the writers of those books are laughing all the way to the bank, since they get paid regardless of whether their books end in a library or in a landfill. Heck, if I had an idea for a book so bad that I knew that people would burn it en masse, I would be a millionaire. You buy the book, you own it. read it, burn it, wipe your ass with it, it is not my place to tell you what to do with your property.
I agree that it should be legal. I just think it's small minded and not a good way to espouse your displeasure. When you need to resort to burning books you've lost the arguement
Sure, it is small minded. This is America though, and people here can be as small minded as they wish to be. They are free to be wordly as well, if they choose to. Just because it is *better* to be wordly doesn't mean that we should strip the people of their right to be small minded.
As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.
No one said it was , it was said about the paranoid freaks who often call themselves the Republican Base.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02/10/09, 21:04
Tell me, which party likely to have real influence does someone of Jeffersonian aspiration nowadays vote for?
One that stands for (and would actually deliver) fiscal responsibility, freedom of choice for the individual, freedom from federal control, tolerance and equality of opportunity, pro-States' rights, effective checks and balances between the arms of government, avoidance of foreign entanglements and the upholding of the inalienable rights of Man?
I'm going to say none of them.
Lord Winter
04/10/09, 00:51
Sure, it is small minded. This is America though, and people here can be as small minded as they wish to be. They are free to be wordly as well, if they choose to. Just because it is *better* to be wordly doesn't mean that we should strip the people of their right to be small minded.
Yes, they have the right to be small minded but it doesn't mean they should be. Just as they have a right to be racist it is not something our society should encourage or idealize.
Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html) and 58% (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html) of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.
If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.Maybe you better go look at your polls again and see what they actually say, because what you're claiming isn't in them. As a matter of fact, it looks like both your links reference the same poll. :dizzy:
Republicans are only kicking off because Obama is black.
I mean, Mc Cain wasn't even born in the United States* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone)
Crazed Rabbit
05/10/09, 06:45
SNL makes fun of Obama's lack of accomplishments. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address#x-4,cClips,1)
CR
The Stranger
05/10/09, 11:57
Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html) and 58% (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html) of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.
If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.
polls are never to be trusted anyway, untill you know how many people theyve polled and in which variety. and then still they shouldnt be trusted...
The Stranger
05/10/09, 12:11
There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.
As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.
books are way too powerful, most people tend to believe that anything that is written down is true, specially when it has been written down a few hundred years ago and no one knows for sure who wrote it. however the big sin of burning books is in the knowledge that is lost, to burn a harry potter book is an entirely different thing than burning the last harry potter book or any other last copy of a book. its beside the matter wether whats in it is considered true or not.
This is depressing:
Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3330066)
As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al Qaida , U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy .
One phrase that always comes up in the administration's strategy sessions is "public opinion," one participant told McClatchy .:no:
For more, listen (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5371892n&tag=api) to CBS News' Afghanistan correspondent describe how Obama's "strategy" on Afghanistan risks disaster.
Once again, The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_to_enter_diplomatic_talks) shows why it is the only entity capable of mocking Obama effectively.
seireikhaan
14/10/09, 20:24
Obama authorizes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html?hpid=topnews#) extra 13,000 military personnel to be deployed in Afghanistan.
Obama authorizes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html?hpid=topnews#) extra 13,000 military personnel to be deployed in Afghanistan.
For what it's worth, those "extra" GI's are mostly ones who've already been to either Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, repeatedly. Like my son. Some of his co-workers are preparing for their 6th year-long deployment in 8 years.
It seems like even Gates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gates_afghanistan) may be getting fed up with Obama's dithering on Afghanistan.
The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
Gates' comments put him at odds with top White House and NATO officials who are balking at ordering more troops and other resources to Afghanistan until the disputed election crisis there is resolved.
The Pentagon chief called the Afghan elections — and the larger issues of curbing corruption in its government — "an evolving process."
"We're not just going to sit on our hands, waiting for the outcome of this election and for the emergence of a government in Kabul," he told reporters en route to Tokyo.Meanwhile, Obama can continue to weigh "public opinion".....
Sasaki Kojiro
20/10/09, 05:30
It really bugs me when they do that "So and so said this today" thing in news articles instead of just directly quoting him.
"We're not just going to sit on our hands, waiting for the outcome of this election and for the emergence of a government in Kabul," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
vs
The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
I know they're trying to start with a catchy line/summary, but they shouldn't. Start with the full quote and then talk about whatever you think the context and significance is. :yes:
At least they quoted some entire sentences. The worst are when they mix direct quotations along with their own paraphrasing in the same sentence.
For example, the first headline (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan) I clicked just now has several examples....
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it will be a "huge challenge" to pull off new balloting without repeating the widespread fraud that caused U.N.-backed investigators to strip Karzai of nearly a third of his votes from the Aug. 20 first-round election.
Karzai, standing alongside Sen. John Kerry and U.N. mission chief Kai Eide, said he welcomed the runoff. He called the decision to hold a second round "legitimate, legal and according to the constitution of Afghanistan."They use just a sentence fragment and complete the statement with their own paraphrased version of the quote. What's the point of that? :dizzy2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
21/10/09, 03:32
It really bugs me when they do that "So and so said this today" thing in news articles instead of just directly quoting him.
Or when they discuss a video that is widely available online and won't even link it. Admittedly I could just find it myself, but it would be good to save readers some time.
Here's (http://http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-fox-news26-2009oct26,0,3686223.story) a good write-up from the LA Times on the Obama administration's ill-advised offensive against FoxNews. An excerpt follows:
The idea of Fox News setting the news agenda alarmed White House officials, who decided to vocalize their criticism of its coverage to try to dissuade other reporters from following the network's lead.
"I think the mainstream media has to ask themselves at a time when there are wars, when there is a bad economy, when there are huge challenges facing this country, whether they want to chase a narrow political agenda," Dunn said.
It's unclear whether the tactic will be effective. Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, said that "if someone else breaks a good story, and if -- important if -- our own reporting backs it up, we'll run it. Even if it's Fox."
Los Angeles Times Editor Russ Stanton took a similar stance, saying, "We would follow any news story -- after confirming the facts and figuring out a way to advance it -- if we believed it was important to the readers of the Los Angeles Times, regardless of the organization or individual that broke it."
News executives at the other broadcast and cable television networks declined to comment on the dust-up. But there are signs that some in their ranks are uncomfortable with the White House's tack. Last week, ABC senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper quizzed Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the appropriateness of the White House determining what constituted a news organization.
On Thursday, the Washington bureau chiefs of the networks balked when the Treasury Department sought to exclude Fox from a series of interviews with executive pay czar Kenneth Feinberg that was being filmed with a pool camera. The bureau chiefs insisted that Fox be included because it was part of the five-network pool, said CBS bureau chief Christopher Isham. "There was no debate," he said.
A senior administration official said the White House had not told Treasury to exclude Fox, and Gibbs told correspondent Major Garrett it had been a mistake.
On NBC last week, Obama tried to play down the dispute.
"What our advisors have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," he said. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another thing. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."
Basically, the Obama administration has said publicly that it will do no interviews with FoxNews, and theirspokespeople have gone on other news shows and told them that they shouldn't follow news stories broken by Fox.
Of course, this strategy is designed to appeal to the liberal base and is no doubt wildly popular with them, but hardly exemplary of the most open administration ever.... Also, by almost any other metric it's been a miserable failure. Fox's ratings are higher than ever as a result, and other news organizations have said that they will continue to follow news stories broken by FNC and their attempt to freeze Fox out of the White House press pool- to which they've belong since '97- also failed.
Now, think what you want of FoxNews, but can someone explain how this strategy is anything other than stupid, petty, or both?
Louis VI the Fat
26/10/09, 20:46
Now, think what you want of FoxNews, but can someone explain how this strategy is anything other than stupid, petty, or both?Sure. FoxNews isn't a news station at all. It is a conservative propaganda machine. The Democrats have no need to dignify it by pretending it is anything otherwise. Just fight back, or ignore it altogether.
Sure. FoxNews isn't a news station at all. It is a conservative propaganda machine. The Democrats have no need to dignify it by pretending it is anything otherwise. Just fight back, or ignore it altogether.So, you're just saying it's a stupid tactic and not petty? By fighting back they've only managed to increase Fox's ratings, making them more popular than ever. Ignorance might have been a questionable tactic, but it would've been far smarter than squabbling with them.
Fox News Ratings Soar After Snub From Obama (http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-ratings-soars-after-snub-from-obama-2009-10)
Samurai Waki
27/10/09, 05:44
Fox News Ratings Soar After Snub From Obama (http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-ratings-soars-after-snub-from-obama-2009-10)
I doubt any of their ratings are by new members of the pool, they became disillusioned with Bush, they found something they can all hate together, and Fox News likes to tell it how their viewers would like to think it is. That's US Media for ya, whether it means anything at all is yet to actually be seen.
Louis VI the Fat
27/10/09, 17:32
So, you're just saying it's a stupid tactic and not petty? By fighting back they've only managed to increase Fox's ratings, making them more popular than ever. Ignorance might have been a questionable tactic, but it would've been far smarter than squabbling with them.
Fox News Ratings Soar After Snub From Obama (http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-ratings-soars-after-snub-from-obama-2009-10)The number one and number two ratings are for O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Says it all, I think.
Obama needs to concern himself with rightist activism no more than Bush needed to waste his time with 9-11 truthers.
All that should concern the White House, occupied by whichever party, is to evenly divide its time amongst news sources from different persuasions, and to hold itself accountable to an as diverse range of political press as possible. This means the President does not need to be available for commentary to Fox.
Is it smart? Yes, in the long run it is. The Democrats should not play along with Murdoch's game. If one dignifies Fox by pretending along that it is a serious news station, people might actually believe it is.
In fairness, Rupert Murdoch did not invent this type of journalism, and it's far from a new phenomenon. He's just partying like it's 1899 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism).
That said, President 44's public calling-out of Fox makes no obvious sense, and is pure win from Fox's perspective. But this president tends to play a deep game, so I wouldn't bet against there being some underlying motive that will be made clear in the months/years ahead. And I wouldn't be surprised if Fox wasn't the intended target anyway.
I would not want to play chess against Obama. Time and again he's been shown to be thinking six or seven steps down the road.
-edit-
A helpful reality check for fiscal conservatives: (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts)
According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.
Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.
Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.
To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending. [...]
I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.
I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.
Actually, I believe that the stimulus was smaller under Obama than it would have been under McCain. If a Republican president requested stimulus funds, not only would the Dems have gone along for the ride, the criticism from the right would have been predictably muted, thus allowing a far bigger package to make its way through.
In fairness, Rupert Murdoch did not invent this type of journalism, and it's far from a new phenomenon. He's just partying like it's 1899 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism).Nor is FoxNews the only current perpetrator. The wildly less popular MSNBC features shows that lean every bit as far left as Fox shows do right. Naturally, Obama isn't calling MSNBC out for not being a real news organization.... since he agrees with them. :yes:
That said, President 44's public calling-out of Fox makes no obvious sense, and is pure win from Fox's perspective.I agree here.
But this president tends to play a deep game, so I wouldn't bet against there being some underlying motive that will be made clear in the months/years ahead.I haven't really seen too many examples of this yet.... am I missing them? :inquisitive:
Nor is FoxNews the only current perpetrator. The wildly less popular MSNBC features shows that lean every bit as far left as Fox shows do right.
False equivalence strawman. The moment Fox News decides to hand over three hours of daily programming to a Democratic congressman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Joe), let me know. In fact, FN has been shedding (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/confirmed-marc-lamont-hill-fired-from-fox-news/) opposition (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/one-half-of-hannity-colmes-is-leaving/) voices rather rapidly. FN is deep into echo-chamber territory.
Won't deny that MSNBC is trying to cater to the left, but they're doing it in what appears to be a much more traditional way. I have yet to see evidence of any sort that MSNBC is letting the politics bleed into the straight news in the way Fox News has (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU).
As for Obama's rope-a-dope tricks, if you haven't spotted them already (http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2009/10/obamas-healthcare-ropeadope.html) you never will.
Here's an author whom I respect deeply putting his analysis (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/27/what-obamas-doing-with-fox-news/) on the latest game (not that I think you will accept any explanation of Obama's behavior that does not include the words craven, incompetent, socialist and/or stupid):
[A]t the end of the day, Fox News’ nightly audience in the third quarter of this year was 2.25 million viewers in primetime (source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html)). For perspective this means that it has roughly the same audience as your average Dollhouse episode, which was just yanked by Fox (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Overnights_50/Friday_fizzle_Fox_yanks_Dollhouse.asp) (the broadcast network, not the cable news network), so that its ratings wouldn’t stink up November Sweeps. Even with Fox News’ ratings going through the roof because of its little war with Obama, the actual number of viewers is minuscule. Or to put it otherwise, 2.5 million Americans watch Fox News, which means that 297.5 million Americans don’t.
Which makes it a low-risk ideological foil for the White House. Follow: The White House says Fox News is not a real news organization and is the propaganda arm of the GOP, Fox News throws a very public **** fit about it, which gives it higher ratings and an impetus to skew even more to the right in its presentation, and go out of its way to criticize Obama even further. Meanwhile the noise is all covered by multiple other news outlets, which in aggregate reach a much larger audience, which show Fox News anchors and personalities in the middle of ideological conniptions, confirming to the general population the proposition that, indeed, Fox News is more interested in politics than news, and reinforcing the impression that Fox News and the GOP are reading off the same page. Which makes the GOP look unreasonable in an era in which its popularity isn’t, shall we say, spectacular to begin with (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php). To what end? Well, you might have heard there’s a health care debate going on.
Mind you, using politics to marginalize the press is not exactly a new thing (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28739.html); note, if you will, the aforementioned four decades of railing against the “liberal media.” What ought to make conservatives pissed off at Obama is not that he’s taking a page out of their playbook, but that he’s improved upon it. Conservatives moaned about liberal bias in the press to carve out an alternative ideological media under the guise of “balance,” but never managed to marginalize the “liberal media” in any significant way; it was just too damn big. Obama, on the other hand, is picking a fight with a small conservative entity and is essentially forcing it to do what he wants — make conservatism (and by extension the GOP) look like an extreme political position — by adding to what it needs to survive: an audience. But it’s a small-scale audience comprised of people already opposed to the president and his policies (ie., no great political loss). The conservative war on the media was Clausewitz; the Obama war on the media is Sun Tzu.
Hmmm... so the White House tweaks the nose of Fox News, anticipating that Fox and its talking heads will froth at the mouth in public - a week or two ahead of voting on Health Care Insurance Reform. De-legitimizing Fox's stance on the issue.
If that was the intended tactic, I gotta tip my hat. I wonder if it'll work a third time (the 1st being R. Limbaugh), on like Cap'n Trade, or Universal University Education?
LittleGrizzly
30/10/09, 02:44
Well if that's the idea then it sounds pretty smart... I would wonder about it working but fox news seems extremly biased on a good day so frothing at the mouth even someone idealogically minded towards some of thier ideas would be put off by the blatant partisanship...
The latest polling (http://people-press.org/report/559/) backs up the rope-a-dope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope) theory. And let's be honest, that's how President 44 operates anyway.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/559-1.gif
Obama must be playing chess again....
The White House picks a fight with Edmunds.com (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-white-house-stupidly-goes-to-war-with-car-website-edmundscom-2009-10)
But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.
They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).
The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"I'm tempted to say this is the administration just being thin-skinned and petty again, but I trust their constant whining about anyone who is critical of them is all part of a grand strategy and not just being crybabies. :beam:
Sasaki Kojiro
31/10/09, 01:33
14% of people think fox news is mostly liberal? :laugh4:
While I think the obama people know what their doing, I would fall all over myself praising their genius. Knowing what you can say and what kind of criticism you can handle is PR 101, yeah? It is a worthwhile move though, the republicans gained a lot by casting most of the news as "liberal media", and the democrats will gain by having fox news percieved as crazy conservative.
Nor is FoxNews the only current perpetrator. The wildly less popular MSNBC features shows that lean every bit as far left as Fox shows do right. Naturally, Obama isn't calling MSNBC out for not being a real news organization.... since he agrees with them. :yes:
The day MSNBC will be recognized worldwide as a complete and utter biased channel that only aims at leftist hippies and doesn't produce any real news, maybe your argument will hold some value.
Now, I don't want to burst your bubble, but the European media (both from the left and from the right) often point the finger at FoxNews, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and their other friends. 2 days ago I read a newspaper from Geneve that had an article about Glenn Beck. One week ago it was Slate.fr (who admitedly just translated the article from Slate.com). Before that, it was Le Monde.
This channel is a joke that makes America look stupid and dangerous.
On the other hand, nobody cares about MSNBC. They might very well be biased (and it's quite obvious they are), but there's a difference between being biased and spouting lies 24/7, making threats, exposing silly conspiracy theories, calling people traitors because they have a non-american sounding name and what not.
FoxNews would make Goebbel and the propagandastaffl look like mere amateurs (and yeah, that's a godwin).
I'm surprised to read that French and Swiss media take note of Fox or MSNBC. I sort of understand that the Rupert Empire (Fox) extends globally, but MSNBC? Can you view Glenn Beck directly on TV, Meneldil? Or indirectly, via news stories & internet?
Well, I don't watch any cable news (that way madness lies, quoth Lear), so all of my exposure to MSNBC, Fox News and CNN comes from YouTube or embedded clips. If I can (sort of ) keep up with the cable heads that way, so can anyone anywhere.
Sasaki Kojiro
31/10/09, 18:40
The day MSNBC will be recognized worldwide as a complete and utter biased channel that only aims at leftist hippies and doesn't produce any real news, maybe your argument will hold some value.
Now, I don't want to burst your bubble, but the European media (both from the left and from the right) often point the finger at FoxNews, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and their other friends. 2 days ago I read a newspaper from Geneve that had an article about Glenn Beck. One week ago it was Slate.fr (who admitedly just translated the article from Slate.com). Before that, it was Le Monde.
This channel is a joke that makes America look stupid and dangerous.
On the other hand, nobody cares about MSNBC. They might very well be biased (and it's quite obvious they are), but there's a difference between being biased and spouting lies 24/7, making threats, exposing silly conspiracy theories, calling people traitors because they have a non-american sounding name and what not.
FoxNews would make Goebbel and the propagandastaffl look like mere amateurs (and yeah, that's a godwin).
Well, wouldn't you expect european media to care more about fox lying than about nbc lying?
Also, weren't we discussing last page about how fox broke the story on some advisor of obama's being a 9/11 truther, and now the obama administration is saying "don't pick up the stories they break"?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
31/10/09, 19:04
The day MSNBC will be recognized worldwide as a complete and utter biased channel that only aims at leftist hippies and doesn't produce any real news, maybe your argument will hold some value.
What it is recognized as does not mean that it can't be something else.
Louis VI the Fat
31/10/09, 21:42
Also, weren't we discussing last page about how fox broke the story on some advisor of obama's being a 9/11 trutherLeaving aside the nature of Fox for a minute, I have two conflicting emotions about that.
I actually think Fox (Beck I think it was?) did a great job in exposing that. And in calling out several other less succesful personell pickings of the Obama administration. (Where does he find these people?)
Secondly, I think Fox missed the mark with that one and similar stories. It carefully avoids the essence, the critical issues, and instead concentrates on the trivial, the ephemeral, blowing stories up way out of proportion.
News ought to be about healthcare reform (not 'socialized healthcare' as Fox has dubbed it), or Afghanistan, or even policy failures of Obama. It is not important that somebody on the fringes of government happened to put his autograph somewhere. That is not a sign of Obama turning America into a socialist dictatorship. And it still isn't even if you howl about it all week long.
Furunculus
01/11/09, 23:09
The day MSNBC will be recognized worldwide as a complete and utter biased channel that only aims at leftist hippies and doesn't produce any real news, maybe your argument will hold some value.
Now, I don't want to burst your bubble, but the European media (both from the left and from the right) often point the finger at FoxNews, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and their other friends. 2 days ago I read a newspaper from Geneve that had an article about Glenn Beck. One week ago it was Slate.fr (who admitedly just translated the article from Slate.com). Before that, it was Le Monde.
This channel is a joke that makes America look stupid and dangerous.
On the other hand, nobody cares about MSNBC. They might very well be biased (and it's quite obvious they are), but there's a difference between being biased and spouting lies 24/7, making threats, exposing silly conspiracy theories, calling people traitors because they have a non-american sounding name and what not.
FoxNews would make Goebbel and the propagandastaffl look like mere amateurs (and yeah, that's a godwin).
breaking news everyone: we are all stunned and amazed that a decidedly left wing group of nations (comparitively) picks out a right wing news corporation from right wing america in order to shower it with contempt.
an element of group-think, no? an inability to recognise the failings and shortcomings from within ones own circle.........
perhaps a dash of zenophobia thrown in as well? highlighting that which is different for contempt and isolation because it does not conform to your world view.........
fox may have its faults, but the idea that europe considers fox to be contemptible holds exactly zero weight with me, for the reason outlined in the first sentence.
Louis VI the Fat
03/11/09, 00:54
I actually think Fox (Beck I think it was?) did a great job in exposing that. And in calling out several other less succesful personell pickings of the Obama administration. (Where does he find these people?)It is now monday and I had to work all day.
So I now disagree with Fox rummaging through the dumpster of every person distantly involved in the Obama administaration. This is a witchhunt. Everybody here in the Backroom has posted something that he wouldn't want to be reminded of when applying for a new job. What public service is served by Fox' relentless hunt searching for possible unfortunate remarks somebody may have made fifteen years ago? Who is served by Fox staking out in somebody's seage, hoping to find some turd to float along, and start a week long cabal about it on their talk-television shows?
This is not useful investigative journalism. It is turd-fishing, hoping to find some trivial matter, perhaps a youthful mistake, that can be blown way out of proportion and used as 'evidence' of Obama's Marxist attack on America.
Strike For The South
03/11/09, 02:47
It is now monday and I had to work all day.
So I now disagree with Fox rummaging through the dumpster of every person distantly involved in the Obama administaration. This is a witchhunt. Everybody here in the Backroom has posted something that he wouldn't want to be reminded of when applying for a new job. What public service is served by Fox' relentless hunt searching for possible unfortunate remarks somebody may have made fifteen years ago? Who is served by Fox staking out in somebody's seage, hoping to find some turd to float along, and start a week long cabal about it on their talk-television shows?
This is not useful investigative journalism. It is turd-fishing, hoping to find some trivial matter, perhaps a youthful mistake, that can be blown way out of proportion and used as 'evidence' of Obama's Marxist attack on America.
I'll agree to an extent.
Some of the things Fox talks about are important and none of the other networks cover them (ACORN). However the fact that to get to 1 good point you need to go through 100 miles of crazy doesn't help them.
Here's a shocker- Stimulus jobs wildly exaggerated (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/)
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually - subsidies for affordable housing, for example - was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.You're already dealing with such a nebulous metric as jobs 'created or saved' and even still the numbers are fraudulent...
From a Socialist to America.
You are no where near Socialist, stop using our name in vain.
Louis VI the Fat
12/11/09, 23:23
Here's a shocker- Stimulus jobs wildly exaggerated (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/)
You're already dealing with such a nebulous metric as jobs 'created or saved' and even still the numbers are fraudulent...The employment numbers are disappointing. I don't see the fraud.
If jobs 'created or saved' from existing subsidies are added into the numbers, with these existing subsidies re-classified as part of the stimulus package, then the expenses paid on the stimulus packages is accordingly lower too.
I wish I knew if the administration mixes these two numbers up. That is, if they speak of 'jobs created' counting all the jobs created from federal subsidies, but when discussing the total amount of money spend, using only the newer stimulus packages. This would be fraudulent.
Crazed Rabbit
17/11/09, 19:54
The Onion shoots, and scores!
Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obamas_home_teleprompter)
CR
You can always count on The Onion, God bless 'em. Here's some news that should be from them, but isn't: A majority of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the election. (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html)
PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. [...] Overall 62% of Americans think Obama legitimately won the election to only 26% who think ACORN stole it for him, as few Democrats or independents buy into that line of thinking.
You can always count on The Onion, God bless 'em. Here's some news that should be from them, but isn't: A majority of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the election. (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html)
:inquisitive:
Barack had almost 10 million more votes, and had 192 more electoral votes than McCain (a mauling).
Compare that to 2004 ("stolen by Diebold"): 3 million votes more to Bush, 35 more electoral votes (swung by Ohio with 20).
Compare to 2000 ("stolen by the Supreme Court"): 550,000 votes more to Gore, 5 more electoral votes to Bush (swung by Florida).
I'm all for conspiracy theories, but come on. To claim something like this the results needs to be just a little bit closer. Occam's razor applies, the economy tanked, two unpopular/mismanaged wars, and a complete disaster of a campaign by McCain. Assuming this poll was run correctly, there are a lot of people with their heads in the sand. :no:
Sasaki Kojiro
20/11/09, 20:05
:inquisitive:
Barack had almost 10 million more votes, and had 192 more electoral votes than McCain (a mauling).
Compare that to 2004 ("stolen by Diebold"): 3 million votes more to Bush, 35 more electoral votes (swung by Ohio with 20).
Compare to 2000 ("stolen by the Supreme Court"): 550,000 votes more to Gore, 5 more electoral votes to Bush (swung by Florida).
I'm all for conspiracy theories, but come on. To claim something like this the results needs to be just a little bit closer. Occam's razor applies, the economy tanked, two unpopular/mismanaged wars, and a complete disaster of a campaign by McCain. Assuming this poll was run correctly, there are a lot of people with their heads in the sand. :no:
There's really no difference...people just enjoy saying the election was stolen, it's like a trend now. If you hadn't quoted the numbers here I wouldn't know what they were...forgot the specifics a while ago, and I at least follow politics a little.
ICantSpellDawg
25/11/09, 15:12
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124484/Obama-Approval-Slide-Finds-Whites-Down-39.aspx
Look at the trend. This is a nightmare. Talk about instantaneous buyers remorse.
The GOP had better field a candidate with some knowledge of the economy next time. Last time the better man won. How on earth he was the better man is almost as confounding as why on earth we ran an inept candidate with even less economic sense.
Throw these bums out of office and just leave it empty for the remaining 3 years. Couldn't hurt.
Obama Teleprompter was genius.
Obama's Afghanistan strategy... a recipe for disaster (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091202/wl_mcclatchy/3368837)?
President Barack Obama's effort Tuesday night to reassure Democrats who oppose the deployment of another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to emphasize a U.S. exit strategy to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reform his corruption-riddled government could backfire.
The Taliban , al Qaida , their allies and their patrons in Pakistan and the Middle East , as well as America's partners, may think that Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 signals a lack of U.S. staying power and dilutes any incentives for insurgents to switch sides or negotiate a political accord.
Instead, the extremists may persevere in their fight, thinking they can run out the clock and further erode support for the war in the United States as congressional elections loom in 2010, while pumping up their own ranks. Some members of the U.S.-led international force already have announced their intention to leave.
"It's a big mistake," a U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said of Obama's announcement that a U.S. withdrawal would begin in 19 months. "It just tells the Taliban and everyone else how long they need to last."
Also, from Slate: Obama's Afghanistan speech was confusing. (http://www.slate.com/id/2237100/)
According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn't suggest how.
To me, it sounds like Obama was once again trying to have it both ways and, as a result, may get neither. If he's going to commit to sending in more troops, commit to victory- not artificial timetables. If he's unwilling to do that, get out now.
FactionHeir
02/12/09, 14:10
Seems unrealistic to send in 30k troops now (i.e. takes a while to deploy) and then take em all out in 18 months again.
Seems like a logistical nightmare at an exorbitant cost.
The quoted figure also seems to be $30bn for this surge, so around a million per soldier sent over 18 months. I imagine that includes pay, expenses, logistics, equipment etc, but seems a bit inflated nonetheless?
DoD and CBO have wrangled over the exact figure, but the accepted cost of maintaining a U.S. soldier in a distant country such as Afghanistan is somewhere between $500,000 and $1M per year (the latter being more likely than the former). That's a big part of why the DoD doesn't blink when a company such as Blackwater demands $250,000/year for a private military contractor. It's a bargain.
Xiahou, if you ever think that anything Obama says or does isn't a disaster/idiocy/betrayal of 'Merica, let us know. That would be newsworthy. In the meantime, you found an editorial that declares that Obama's latest speech is a disaster. Good for you! If you collect twenty, I will send you a box of cookies. (Hint: They'll be thick on the ground at NRO and WND.) And no, re-prints of Krauthammer columns do not count toward your total.
If I didn't know better, I'd think someone at the White House has an account here at the org. My "speech", delivered Monday (LINK (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2389133&postcount=6)), hits all the same points Obama's did on Tuesday, except I sent more troops (80,000), didn't announce an end-date, and gave them a specific mission (get ObL).
Naturally, I think mine was better. :laugh4:
Major Robert Dump
03/12/09, 03:20
Yes, Kukri, someone leaked your speech, and when Obama gets re-elected it will be partially your fault!!! Only Mike Huckabee can stop him now. Oh wait....
Personally, I think Obama should have started off the speech with "Sorry to take up your time cadets, but there weren't any aircraft carriers available tonight."
West Pointers...blah....I could tell you some stories :help:
Sasaki Kojiro
03/12/09, 03:36
Xiahou, if you ever think that anything Obama says or does isn't a disaster/idiocy/betrayal of 'Merica, let us know. That would be newsworthy. In the meantime, you found an editorial that declares that Obama's latest speech is a disaster. Good for you! If you collect twenty, I will send you a box of cookies. (Hint: They'll be thick on the ground at NRO and WND.) And no, re-prints of Krauthammer columns do not count toward your total.
The dastardly deeds of Xiahou exposed once more :laugh4:
If I didn't know better, I'd think someone at the White House has an account here at the org. My "speech", delivered Monday (LINK), hits all the same points Obama's did on Tuesday, except I sent more troops (80,000), didn't announce an end-date, and gave them a specific mission (get ObL).
Naturally, I think mine was better. I like yours better. I think 80k troops is a little unrealistic, but at least you aren't announcing an arbitrary end date. What better way to sabotage their mission before it even starts? It gives our allies reason to question our commitment and waver their support, while encouraging our enemies to tough it out until we leave.
30,000 more troops is about 10,000 less than was asked for, but I imagine that McChyrstal asked for extra, knowing the number would be cut down. Where I take issue with Obama is his pronouncement of a time line. Some administration mouth pieces have since tried to parse Obama's statements, saying the conditions on the ground will dictate the withdrawal. But, if that's really the case, why announce an artificial deadline on national TV?
Yes, Kukri, someone leaked your speech, and when Obama gets re-elected it will be partially your fault!!! Only Mike Huckabee can stop him now. Oh wait....
Personally, I think Obama should have started off the speech with "Sorry to take up your time cadets, but there weren't any aircraft carriers available tonight."
West Pointers...blah....I could tell you some stories :help:
Heh. I guess things have changed since my days. I did OK with pointers and Ohsee-essers. It was the rahtsees I had more work to train. Pointers in my day had the vision thing, and just begged for "real-life" advice. OCSers had already been there. ROTC fellas (the vast majority of officers I served with), with few exceptions, thought they knew all there was to be known about warfare.
My task (as I understood it) was to either educate them, or, failing that, keep them as far away from my troops as possible. I mostly succeeded in that.
------------------------------
Didja see the nodding heads there? Those kids start the day at 0400, and they assembled them there 4 hours before POTUS spoke. Sit in your chair, in wool, for 4 hours, after a 12 hour day of classes, PT, and extracurriculars... I'd sleep too - even if it was christ coming to announce the end of the world.
Those kids; the age of our StrikeForTheSouth, will be our new leaders. We owe it to them, IMO, to fully educate them. The horror of war. The necessity of war. The limits of war. The consequences of war. The absolute ridiculousness of war. The absurdity.
Doing less under-serves our people.
I put the entire burden, as it always has been, on our NCO corps.
Major Robert Dump
03/12/09, 19:55
I don't much care for the timeline either....but didn't GWB do something similar in Iraq that kinda helped whip the governing bodies into shape a little quicker? Different war, I know,
I don't much care for the timeline either....but didn't GWB do something similar in Iraq that kinda helped whip the governing bodies into shape a little quicker? Different war, I know,
Yeah: WaPo 11-2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703097.html).
The dastardly deeds of Xiahou exposed once more :laugh4:
It warms my heart to see people recycling.
As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1945232-2,00.html), now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):
And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."
Crazed Rabbit
04/12/09, 00:49
It warms my heart to see people recycling.
As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1945232-2,00.html), now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):
And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."
I've seen that "cockeyed notion" repeated by a variety of people, including those in the Afghan government. That Taliban won't have to stand down completely, just remind people that in less than two years the US will be gone.
CR
It warms my heart to see people recycling.
As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1945232-2,00.html), now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):
And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."
20 of those editorials will get you a box of cookies. :yes:
20 of those editorials will get you a box of cookies. :yes:
Now now, when recycling it's best to make sure you get your plastics with your plastics, and your reflexive condemnations with your reflexive condemnations. No cookies for you, sir.
Meanwhile, although I fear this is close to becoming The Afghanistan Thread, looks like our allies are in a sanguine mood (in both senses of the word): Nato allies to send 7k more troops to 'Stan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8394985.stm). This is a good thing, and would have been unlikely under the previous admin, which had done so much to make itself unpopular in Yurup.
Now now, when recycling it's best to make sure you get your plastics with your plastics, and your reflexive condemnations with your reflexive condemnations. No cookies for you, sir.
Meanwhile, although I fear this is close to becoming The Afghanistan Thread, looks like our allies are in a sanguine mood (in both senses of the word): Nato allies to send 7k more troops to 'Stan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8394985.stm). This is a good thing, and would have been unlikely under the previous admin, which had done so much to make itself unpopular in Yurup.
It is not like I am defending Bush, but notice from what countries those soldiers are coming:
c. 1000 Italians,
900 Georgians (who are not even in the NATO),
600 Poles,
500 Koreans,
500 British
- that is 3500 already i.e. 50 %.
Add to those other EE countries ( c. 1000), Turkey etc and you are left with less than 2000. I doubt that any of those countries belongs to the group which despised W.Bush so much.
Let's face it some Europeans aren't too much interested in anything what involves fighting - or perhaps as I sometimes wonder - in anything involving activity. :wall:
Sweden sent more soldiers than Nato member Greece (or worse - less than their disliked neighbour Macedonia), Poland will have only 500 soldiers less than France and 200 % more than Spain and the list goes on...
Shameful. :thumbsdown:
Louis VI the Fat
05/12/09, 03:11
Lemur, I am afraid the new NATO troops are mostly coming from the same countries who joined Bush. France and Germany have yet to decide their position. Alas, the time to decide will come soon.
Obama has put France and Germany in a difficult position. We can't let him down. We also don't want to jump on a lost mission.
Please let there be another disaster area requiring urgent military NATO intervention, before the decision has to be made between wasting soldiers and resources on an impossible and unpopular campaign, or painfully letting Obama down. :embarassed:
Let's face it some Europeans aren't too much interested in anything what involves fighting - or perhaps as I sometimes wonder - in anything involving activity. :wall:
Shameful. :thumbsdown:The Germans are still struglling with militarism and their national identity and are hence very reluctant at sending troops abroad period.
There are 4.500 Polish troops engaged in multinational missions abroad. And 35.000 French troops. Of a total armed forces of 100k and 250k. Which puts the odds of being engaged in anything possibly involving fighting at 4,5% and 14% respectively.
Let's face it some Europeans aren't too much interested in anything what involves fighting - or perhaps as I sometimes wonder - in anything involving activity.
Lemur, I am afraid the new NATO troops are mostly coming from the same countries who joined Bush. France and Germany have yet to decide their position. Alas, the time to decide will come soon.
Point taken, gentlemen. Point taken.
There are 4.500 Polish troops engaged in multinational missions abroad. And 35.000 French troops. Of a total armed forces of 100k and 250k. Which puts the odds of being engaged in anything possibly involving fighting at 4,5% and 14% respectively.
Yes, I know, this was too emotional, but it really makes me angry.
I understand that the French are more interested in missions where they can decide something. That is understandable, but looking from this side of Europe it is not a pretty sight.
Let's not even think what the Estonians and such could think about that...
Some people will question reliability of French military forces, same with German ones using the Afghanistan war as an example, especially the Baltic States and taking their point of view just after the latest Russian military exercises I am not suprised.
Power-projection capabilities have something to do with the percentage of forces possible to send abroad as well.
For Poland involvement in Iraq was critical, extremely useful milestone in modernising the ground forces. Sending these soldiers to Iraq (there were only UN peace missions before) was stretching resources of the military to maximum.
Much has changed, but the budget of the army isn't growing quickly enough - especially considering the closest demands (Navy, air defence, anti-missile systems) which have little to do with Afghanistan.
ICantSpellDawg
10/12/09, 15:35
This is the first speech since his campaign that I've agreed with.
"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms,"
"To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."
"The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,"
The Horetores in the audience probably evacuated their bowels in anger.
Maybe he did deserve the Nobel if it gets those sissy whale bangers to stuff it.
rory_20_uk
10/12/09, 17:09
I don't think he's earnt the prize yet - I thought that you have to do something, although for the Peace Prize often stopping being a Terrorist is enough...
The troops will help project force. Of this there is no doubt.
Unless the mission take a lot longer than the timeline given the enemy will bide its strength, use as many roadside bombs as possible and await the withdrawl as all get sick at the loss of money with few gains.
Germany was defeated as it was a Good Old Fashioned Industrial Power, and WW2 was a heavyweight boxing match with the protagonists smashing lumps out of each other. The looser is the one who is wrecked. This modern threat isn't so easy and as much as America might like to have a proper old fashioned fight in Afghanistan, the enemy isn't going to oblige. Unless the West is viewing Afghanistan in the way Japan viewed Manchuko it is not a fight that iven if it can be won will make a strategic difference.
I think that there is a significant issue regarding what Europe as a whole is doing regarding its military. They all appear piecemeal and often so thinly spread in terms of aims that when push comes to shove they're unlikely to be able to achieve any of them (and the budgets as a rule are too small). If Germany has such problems with arming, then it should effectively pay France's Foreign Legion and the British Army to do its dirty work peacekeeping for example.
~:smoking:
Furunculus
10/12/09, 17:35
Obama has put France and Germany in a difficult position. We can't let him down. We also don't want to jump on a lost mission.
Please let there be another disaster area requiring urgent military NATO intervention, before the decision has to be made between wasting soldiers and resources on an impossible and unpopular campaign, or painfully letting Obama down. :embarassed:
i think that is called being a fair-weather friend................. no?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10/12/09, 17:48
i think that is called being a fair-weather friend................. no?
What do you think the European nations always have been to America? I find it insulting to my personal dignity for my government to treat the United States in that manner.
Louis VI the Fat
10/12/09, 19:18
i think that is called being a fair-weather friend................. no?I am very unhappy about the impossible position we're now in. Both options are :daisy: :
A -Increase troops. But what for? They'll arrive in 210, and will have to be withdrawn in 2012. What's the point in wasting a billion euros and getting a few dozen deaths to make a political point?
As Blackadder would put it: it would be easier to just take a few dozen French recruits and shoot them at the Champs-Élysées.
B -Keep them at current level. Then you let Obama down. If not personally, then at least it will be a blow to multilateralism and transatlantic co-operation. Of which so many complained that there was so little of under Bush.
One argument that argues for choosing B, is that policy should not be decided by whomever might happen to occupy the White House. It is not up to Europeans to interfere with American politics in this manner. We ought to decide on our course of action based on rational policy, not on which party may happen to be in power in Washington.
(On the upside, I myself have never espoused the opinion that under Obama everything would change. Neither has Sarkozy, who covertly prefered Bush)
I find it insulting to my personal dignity for my government to treat the United States in that manner. Maybe Bush should've focused on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a lost cause owing to no small degree to the overwhelming amount of resources being diverted to Iraq, instead of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.
I do not consider it against my dignity to pass up on the opportunity to clean up after Bush.
And why did the American staff repeatedly fail to target OBL when there was a chance of getting him?
A French documentary claims French soldiers had two opportunities to shoot and kill Osama bin Laden, but they were not given the go-ahead by their American superiors.
According to media reports, the documentary says French special forces had the leader of al-Qaeda in their sights twice in Afghanistan, in 2003 and 2004.
The soldiers would have fired on him, the film says, but the order to kill simply never came from the U.S. commanders in charge.
The newspaper Le Figaro said Thursday that the documentary is based on interviews of four soldiers by filmmakers Éric de Lavarène and Emmanuel Razavi, who call their documentary Ben Laden, les ratés d'une traque (Bin Laden, the Failures of a Manhunt ).
The documentary has created a stir among government officials. The French cable network LCI says the Defence Ministry is calling the film's claims "pure fabrication."
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/22/osama-france.html
Completely crazy? I am not sure anymore. Rumours have abounded for years. Certainly, the American military staff did not go out of its way to smoke OBL out at the beginning of the war.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) on Monday accused former President George W. Bush of “intentionally” letting Osama bin Laden escape during the American invasion of Afghanistan.
“Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC.
“That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.”
When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30020.html
“What better way to sabotage their mission before it even starts?”
I’ve got one:
The former administration started this to catch a criminal, no idea how to do it then missed him. Then we bombed with B 52 rocks and mountains and started few things we really didn’t know where it would lead.
As the Army will tell you, we don’t know where we are, we don’t know where we go, but we go, lost but grouped (from the French Mechanised Units Motto, Paumés mais groupés).
We’ve got a mess to clean up. When I say “We” I think “You”.
So, boys I sent you in a far far away country to fight for, er, I don’t really know now, for an certain amount of time and to achieve something for er, I don’t know for whom and what.
And be good boys…
I hope you understand the Mission because I don’t.
But don’t worry Mission will be Accomplished. And it is not because we have nothing to say that we have to shut-up…
God bless G. W. Bush and America etc etc.
I do not consider it against my dignity to pass up on the opportunity to clean up after Bush.
The mess to be cleaned up was made by alQueda. Bush was assigned the cleanup, and got bored halfway through and went elsewhere. The new guy now has to finish the original job, and clean up the smeared floors left by Bush's lackluster cleanup effort. Sux, but he did volunteer for the job.
NATO allies invoked Article 5 (an attack on one, is an attack on all) to provide assistance. I'm sure everyone hoped, back when it was crafted, that that article would be used when Iceland (for example) was attacked by the USSR, and everyone else, especially the US, would rush to aid. But it worked out the other way around: the US got attacked, so the others are obliged.
Any and all assistance provided so far is appreciated, and the US is grateful for any further help, however substantial or symbolic.
Get binLaden
dismantle his network
deny his assets of manpower, money, and materiel
come home
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12/12/09, 19:06
I am very unhappy about the impossible position we're now in. Both options are :daisy: :
A -Increase troops. But what for? They'll arrive in 210, and will have to be withdrawn in 2012. What's the point in wasting a billion euros and getting a few dozen deaths to make a political point?
As Blackadder would put it: it would be easier to just take a few dozen French recruits and shoot them at the Champs-Élysées.
B -Keep them at current level. Then you let Obama down. If not personally, then at least it will be a blow to multilateralism and transatlantic co-operation. Of which so many complained that there was so little of under Bush.
I'm inclined to simply say "lack of backbone", but the issue here is that NATO has insufficient forces on the ground, French and German troops engaged in the fighting directly alongside, British, American, and Canadian ones would remedy the problem and increase the chances of success. In the end Obama is less likely to withdraw if he recieves meaningful French and German support, because this will bolster his position at home considerably.
If the Frenmcha and Germans matched the British contribution, that would be an extra 13,000 troops aproximately, or a whole Division's worth of men.
Louis VI the Fat
12/12/09, 20:17
:coffeenews:
Maybe the jingoist Poles and Brits ought to obsess less about the backbone of France, and instead raise their amount of foreign troops to the level of France.
The UK has less troops deployed in the world's hellholes than France. Poland even has less troops (yes, per capita) in Afghanistan itself than France.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12/12/09, 22:37
:coffeenews:
Maybe the jingoist Poles and Brits ought to obsess less about the backbone of France, and instead raise their amount of foreign troops to the level of France.
The UK has less troops deployed in the world's hellholes than France. Poland even has less troops (yes, per capita) in Afghanistan itself than France.
I had a nice breakdown all typed out, then Tosa blipped the forum, so I'll be brief. Your country has a larger military, is more populous, has a larger defence budget and is more wealthy. Despite this, my country contribute's a larger proportion of it's population to NATO engagements.
Take a look at the numbers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
Also, I'd like to point out that I said I was "tempted" to accuse you of a lack of backbone, but that I recognised that the situation was more complex. Given that I have friends who have died in battles resulting from a strategic lack of manpower, I think that's generous.
:coffeenews:
Maybe the jingoist Poles and Brits ought to obsess less about the backbone of France, and instead raise their amount of foreign troops to the level of France.
The UK has less troops deployed in the world's hellholes than France. Poland even has less troops (yes, per capita) in Afghanistan itself than France.
Per capita you say. What about defence budget ?
France $61,571,330,000
Poland $11,800,000,000
Involvement in Afghanistan - France 3,095 as of November 22, 2009
Poland - 1910 as of October 22, 2009
That is a bit different I am afraid.
I must conclude you are doing it intentionally knowing well that the deployement is much more difficult to handle for Poland.
Should I expect more of similar arguments coming from you ? This was a bit unexpected.:book:
Louis VI the Fat
13/12/09, 18:02
Get binLaden
dismantle his network
deny his assets of manpower, money, and materiel
come homeThese four I agree with. And that is exactly the nature of the mess I spoke about: neither one of those four have been the focus of attention of Bush. Rather, it seems likely that Bush' decisions have undermined the chance of succes for all four.
You want to get OBL? The French special forces were there, ready for the American command to give the get go. It never came. Instead, the Americans left for Iraq.
Eight years later, Afghanistan is a mess. For eight frustrating years French troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains, while Washington couldn't even be bothered to commit itself. Even when it became clear two years ago that both Iraq and Afghanistan were turning into a mission impossible, the surge was decided upon for Iraq, not for Afghanistan.
Only this year - OBL must be an old, grey man by now, and half a generation of Afghanis have grown up under a half-baked occupation - does Washington have the decency to commit itself to Afghanistan. The troops will arrive in 2010, nearly a decade after 9-11.
Militarily, financially, morally Iraq has greatly undermined the effort in Afghanistan. So yes, it is the world cleaning up after Bush.
Louis VI the Fat
13/12/09, 18:04
Should I expect more of similar arguments coming from you ? This was a bit unexpected.:book:I haven't even begun.
Spin the numbers as much as you like, but for all its tough talk, Poland's contribution in Afghanistan has not even been as large as that of the modest contribution of France. Poland is a large country, two thirds the size of France. Yet you don't even manage half the cost in money, death toll or troops deployed of even France (or Germany). The only thing Poland exceeds these two in, is in shouting how fantastically large its contribution is.
Of course, most military operations have at any rate been US/UK/Canadian efforts, neither French nor Polish. It is not really the show of either one of us. A few hundred Poles being shifted back and forth between safe zones in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make the difference. But when you spin their numbers a bit, it can look mighty impressive.
And spin it is - for example, while French and German troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains for a decade, Poland up to two years ago had only 160 men deployed.
Why were there no Poles to support the effort in Afghanistan? Because Poland wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, in creating the peace in Afghanistan. All efforts were diverted into Iraq. As the Foreign Minister of Poland, Cimoszewicz, stated in July 2003, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities". That's what Poland was doing, while France was naively thinking that this was all about getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and creating a stable democracy there.
Ten years on, Poland and America at last return attention to Afghanistan. Too little, too late for anything, except to scold those who have urged from the beginning to keep Afghanistan the focus of effort. There's your 'shameful lack of backbone'. Throughout all the insults, immaturity, disastrous loss of focus by the coalition, the French have been in Afghanistan all this time. It wasn't us who decided to move the fight to Iraq - on the contrary.
Louis VI the Fat
13/12/09, 18:07
Also, I'd like to point out that I said I was "tempted" to accuse you of a lack of backbone, but that I recognised that the situation was more complex. Given that I have friends who have died in battles resulting from a strategic lack of manpower, I think that's generous.I shall be generous too and call your position 'mistaken'.
Mistaken, because the UK apparantly could spare 40k soldiers and hundreds of billions of pounds for Iraq, but not for Afghanistan. Instead, you seek to blame your death friends on lack of backbone of others. Maybe if a fraction of those 200k soldiers from Iraq had been deployed in Afghanistan this would've made a bigger difference than 10k French and German troops?
And not just Afghanistan has been left to bungle because of Iraq:
the UK contributes a larger proportion of it's population to NATO engagements.NATO? Sure. But that is spinning it. France is second only to the US in troops abroad for multinational engagements.There is more than NATO.
There are more French troops in this world's hellholes than British. The British have pulled out their troops everywhere to concentrate them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As with the Poles, I would not mind the insults, were it not that the UK, like Poland, actually contributes less than France.
If one reads the Anglo press, one would think the world consists only of Iraq and Afghanistan. If one reads the French press, you'll pull your hair out at the waste of UN/NATO resources in Iraq, which has left the burden of maintaining the peace throughout the world mainly on France. Since the start of the Iraq war, we've witnessed, amongst others, war in:
Ivory Coast. UN mission under French command. 4000 French troops. Not a Briton or Pole in sight. Too busy in Iraq.
Chad. Bloody civil war. EU mission under French command. 2000 Frenchmen were send. The UK managed to send...four men. Or maybe they were stranded tourists.
The Balkans. UN mission. Half of the foreign casualties are French. No Brits or Poles to be seen anymore. Too busy creating more wars instead of maintaining the peace.
Somali Piracy. The French fleet is chasing them all over the Indian ocean. The Royal Navy managed to spare one single frigate, Poland nil.
In every instance, European troops were too busy in Iraq. France had to solve it mostly on her own. The enormous diversion of troops and resources for the adventure in Iraq has been very detrimental for the more mature countries and their quest to a) maintain peace and stability and b) support the interests of the free world.
Darfur - sorry, the west had no more troops to spare to stop this genocide.
As for The War on Terror:
Hezbollah has been having a ball in Lebanon, after all those European countries left UNFIL for Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, all the Brits and Poles packed their bags to head for Afghanistan. (They've got to come from someplace, eh?) Then the Poles and Brits scoff the French for not having a backbone, for not staying the course. It's the -what? fourth? fifth? - mission the Brits and Poles simply abandoned to concentrate on the 'War on Terror'. Meanwhile, France has been in the Lebanon for thirty years.
So, UNIFIL is all that you have. And, ineffective as it was, it is disintegrating. Pressed by the Obama administration to send troops to Afghanistan--I support the presidents efforts in this regard--Poland and other trusted European countries have reacted by some announcing, some whispering that their military will not be long in Lebanon (http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239488111533&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Some European states have so few personnel stationed in the country that it hardly matters: Slovakia, 6; Slovenia. 14; Ukraine, 1.Yes, one. Many others are toy soldiers: Brunei and Nepal, as instances.Two countries represented are stalwarts of the Muslim International: Malaysia, Indonesia. Others are countries with rabid anti-Israel politics: Norway, Greece and Ireland, for example. You decide where Erdogan's Turkey belongs.
Encouraged by these neutral defections from UNIFIL, Hezbollah has now expanded (http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL8213444)its revolutionary turf to Egypt.
Say what you will about Louis and his views. Anybody who can knock out over two thousand words - thoughtful, coherent, on-point words - in less than 6 minutes... gets my admiration.
So... Louis: Afghanistan is a mess. More troops are on the way (many will arrive next month). The way forward?
Louis VI the Fat
13/12/09, 18:38
Say what you will about Louis and his views. Anybody who can knock out over two thousand words - thoughtful, coherent, on-point words - in less than 6 minutes... gets my admiration.
So... Louis: Afghanistan is a mess. More troops are on the way (many will arrive next month). The way forward?My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?
At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.
My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?
At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.
We agree then.
As much as I want to pull up stakes, declare victory (ignoring the worldwide laughter) and come home by Christmas... and I'm not 100% certain it can be done successfully, we should give it one more shot. Lemur disagrees about the pull-out date thing. I think that was dangerous to the mission, unnecessarily. Have a date in mind, sure. Tell that date to the principal players, but don't announce it to the world.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
13/12/09, 19:18
My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?
At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.
Eh? How can you move to rebut my every point, and then agree with my conclusion, right down to the numbers?
Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.
Louis VI the Fat
13/12/09, 21:07
Eh? How can you move to rebut my every point, and then agree with my conclusion, right down to the numbers?I don't know. I haven't changed my position. I can't really make my mind up about Afghanistan. Last page I said I thought there were reasons to support a surge, and reasons not to.
Then jingoism broke lose: 'disgraceful', 'beneath my dignity', 'no backbone', 'my friends die because of this'.
Which irritated me. So I pointed out that Poland and the UK have contributed less troops to international missions this past decade, and that much of the troops and resources that were committed were send to Iraq. Which is currently commonly regarded as unsuccesful, and also as detrimental to the cause in Afghanistan and other missions.
'Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.'
I was referring to the number of UK troops deployed for the invasion. Wiki below says 46.000. 200 Poles were involved in the invasion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
13/12/09, 23:29
I don't know. I haven't changed my position. I can't really make my mind up about Afghanistan. Last page I said I thought there were reasons to support a surge, and reasons not to.
Then jingoism broke lose: 'disgraceful', 'beneath my dignity', 'no backbone', 'my friends die because of this'.
Which irritated me. So I pointed out that Poland and the UK have contributed less troops to international missions this past decade, and that much of the troops and resources that were committed were send to Iraq. Which is currently commonly regarded as unsuccesful, and also as detrimental to the cause in Afghanistan and other missions.
'Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.'
I was referring to the number of UK troops deployed for the invasion. Wiki below says 46.000. 200 Poles were involved in the invasion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq
Funny how the mind plays tricks on you. Ok, so Britain sent 46,000 troops to invade Iraq, then left 8,300 troops there, and those numbers continued to fall. So that figure is a bit of a red herring when talking about troop commitments long term. If you were to wiki military forces and deployments you would see that Britain has deployed more men per-capita, and from a smaller armed forces.
As I said, your country is more populous (by 4 million), has more money and a larger army. You also have a larger defence budget and the only reason we get ahead of you in military rankings is because we have more planes and an extra aircraft carrier.
As far as "jingoism", you basically said, "I only think we should go if it can be won", which ignores the fact that the major problem is troop numbers, so that "winning" could well be dependant on whether France gets involved seriously or not; along with Germany.
So you look like you are setting up a self fullfilling prophecy, where you can turn around after we fail for lack of men and say, "look, we were right not to send more men". That position then become win-win for France, unless the Coalition wins in Afganistan.
It is also a fact that my friends died because their units were stretched too thin, because of lack of resources. That is not jingoism, it is a logistical and strategic reality.
Strike For The South
14/12/09, 16:29
When you begin to fight your friends, it's probably time to stop fighting your eniemies.
:wisdom:
Louis VI the Fat
15/12/09, 18:37
Republican partisanship is grinding the US political system to a complete stop. Founding Fathers turning in their grave:
The instinctive reflex is to blame Obama. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe he is doing a thing or two wrong. But the main thing is that America's political system is broken.
How did this happen? Two main factors made it so. The first is the super-majority requirement to end debate in the Senate. The second is the near-unanimous obstinacy of the Republican opposition. They have made important legislative work all but impossible.
The super-majority requirement – 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate, to end debate and move to a vote on final passage – has been around since the 19th century. But it's only in the last 10 to 15 years that it has been invoked routinely. Back in Lyndon Johnson's day – a meaningful comparison since American liberals are always wondering why Obama can't be "tough" like Johnson – the requirement was reserved for only the most hot-button issues (usually having to do with race). Everything else needed only 51 votes to pass, a regular majority.
Both parties have contributed to this problem. But guess which has contributed more? In 2007, when they became the minority party for the first time in five years, the Republicans invoked the super-majority measure 60 times, an all-time record for a single year.
Sigh. If you've been watching the Washington healthcare (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/healthcare) debate, you know what that sigh was about. We Americans have always been proud of our constitution and the principle of separation of powers. The system has always ensured that the minority party has certain rights and that the executive branch cannot just muscle through Congress any old thing that it wants. Our founders wanted a system that moved slowly.
Do they ever have it. In fact, we now have a system that barely moves at all. Watching American politics through British eyes, you must be utterly mystified as to why Barack Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration) hasn't gotten this healthcare bill passed yet. Many Americans are too. The instinctive reflex is to blame Obama. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe he is doing a thing or two wrong. But the main thing is that America's political system is broken.
How did this happen? Two main factors made it so. The first is the super-majority requirement to end debate in the Senate. The second is the near-unanimous obstinacy of the Republican opposition. They have made important legislative work all but impossible.
The super-majority requirement – 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate, to end debate and move to a vote on final passage – has been around since the 19th century. But it's only in the last 10 to 15 years that it has been invoked routinely. Back in Lyndon Johnson's day – a meaningful comparison since American liberals are always wondering why Obama can't be "tough" like Johnson – the requirement was reserved for only the most hot-button issues (usually having to do with race). Everything else needed only 51 votes to pass, a regular majority.
Both parties have contributed to this problem. But guess which has contributed more? In 2007, when they became the minority party for the first time in five years, the Republicans invoked the super-majority measure 60 times, an all-time record for a single year.
And Obama's problems are not limited to Republicans, of course. Think of it this way: in a 100-seat body, getting 51 votes is hard but not impossible. But getting those 57th, 58th, 59th and 60th votes to end debate … Well, the situation gives those senators incredible bargaining power. They can basically dictate terms in exchange for their votes. Which is exactly what senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska), Joe Lieberman (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1209/Lieberman_Healthcare_reform_legislation_is_possible_this_week.html?showall) (independent of Connecticut), Olympia Snowe (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/09/all-roads-lead-to-olympia-snowe-as-reid-looks-for-health-care-cl/) (Republican of Maine) and others have been doing publicly for weeks. A sharp friend has mordantly taken to referring to them as "President Nelson", "President Lieberman" and "President Snowe" in emails. My friend is not exaggerating. With regard to the final content of the Senate bill, each has more power than Obama.
Then we have the nature of the GOP (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/politics/main531460.shtml) opposition. Once upon a time, there were a number of Republican moderates in Congress. Today, out of 217 legislators, the number of genuine moderates is under 10. Maybe even under five.
I do not embellish. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a set of financial industry reforms and regulations. It's scarcely a radical package of measures. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to make several compromises to get enough votes out of moderate Democrats for the thing to pass. So how many Republicans backed it? Yep. Again: zero.
To see David Cameron offer support for the bonus tax (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/6762863/Pre-Budget-report-David-Cameron-signals-support-for-tax-on-bank-bonuses.html) is mind-boggling to an American. There is no way a Republican in Congress would ever endorse such a thought. He or she would be destroyed by the conservative agitprop network.
So this is where we are. We now have a distended nightmarish version of what the founders wanted. We've got a Congress that can not only stand up to the executive branch but can (at least on domestic matters) dictate terms to it. And we have a minority that has the power to stop the majority from doing much of anything.
These are the two basic reasons the great progressive dawn of the Obama era has ground to a near halt. And yet even most Americans are dimly aware of all this. It requires a lot of dot connecting. What's needed is a broad public education campaign – and here, Obama should start playing a role – about how broken this system is, bringing a new level of pressure to bear on the legislators who are the problem. But for now, people on the left would rather engage in juvenile carping about how let down they are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/13/america-broken-political-system-obama
Hey, don't blame the Republicans! They tried to get rid of the cloture rule in 2005, but those pesky Democrats wouldn't let them. ~;)
Louis VI the Fat
15/12/09, 19:40
Hey, don't blame the Republicans! ~;)When I get wet on my way to work that is still the result of some devious plot, somewhere, by the GOP. :whip:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
15/12/09, 21:57
From the Guardian? Yes, probably the most unbiased and trusted news source for American politics.
When I get wet on my way to work that is still the result of some devious plot, somewhere, by the GOP. :whip:
I remind the esteemed Gentleman from Paris that Cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) is a French invention that we stole, via the UK, to temper the power of the Executive.
It's not a Constitutional requirement, just a legislative rule. One that could be un-done tomorrow, enough Senators agreeing.
And I would remind Mr. Tomaski that "President" does not equal "Dictator".
I find it quite telling that the Democrats, even with their large majority in both houses plus the White House, can't really get anything done. And this is after all the whinging from them during the Bush years when they were the minority. If they had really wanted to stop the GOP then, they could have, but complaining and woe-is-me talk was apparently easier. They either didn't have the balls, or secretly wanted to go in the same direction with plausible deniability.
I'm guessing this is all on the Dem leadership, both Pelosi and Reid have got to go. Both are hopelessly out of their league.
I'm guessing this is all on the Dem leadership, both Pelosi and Reid have got to go. Both are hopelessly out of their league.
I wouldn't mind seeing a decapitation and a decimation of both parties' congressional representatives. The Dems, as you rightly point out, are ineffective verging on comical, while the Repubs have decided on a new and unprecedented level of obstructionism. Both should be punished.
I haven't even begun.
Very well.
Spin the numbers as much as you like, but for all its tough talk, Poland's contribution in Afghanistan has not even been as large as that of the modest contribution of France.
Do you mean overall or currently or in the next year ? Overall (since 2003) I agree. Right now - I must disagree and in the future - it is up to your government, isn't it ?
I would like to see it enlarged otherwise it would be comparatively smaller than of Poland.
Poland is a large country, two thirds the size of France.
That is silly and you know that.
Are you saying that Sweden should send more soldiers (it is pretty large) same with Finland, not to mention Canada or Australia, and what about Denmark ? How large this cowardly Greenland is!
Yet you don't even manage half the cost in money, death toll or troops deployed of even France (or Germany).
With at least 6 times less money.
Let's not talk about death toll - it proves nothing, besides I won't engage in this kind of conversation.
The only thing Poland exceeds these two in, is in shouting how fantastically large its contribution is.
And PR, life is not fair I guess... :juggle2:
Of course, most military operations have at any rate been US/UK/Canadian efforts, neither French nor Polish. It is not really the show of either one of us. A few hundred Poles being shifted back and forth between safe zones in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make the difference. But when you spin their numbers a bit, it can look mighty impressive.
I'm not sure if Ghazni is a safe province. While in Iraq - 2006 Sadr's uprising wasn't a picnic, though it certainly was safer than the British zone or one of American areas.
And spin it is - for example, while French and German troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains for a decade, Poland up to two years ago had only 160 men deployed.
That is true - who is denying that ?
Why were there no Poles to support the effort in Afghanistan? Because Poland wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, in creating the peace in Afghanistan. All efforts were diverted into Iraq. As the Foreign Minister of Poland, Cimoszewicz, stated in July 2003, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities". That's what Poland was doing, while France was naively thinking that this was all about getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and creating a stable democracy there.
Now you are making a fool of yourself. So Poles sent those soldiers to fight for OIL ? That is so demagogic...
I guess that is why the most of our leading intellectuals supported the invasion and removing Saddam ? I am certain too that Polish oil companies are now in possession of numerous oil fields in Iraq.
If anything I'd like the irony that while French idealists are fighting for democracy in the worst world's hellhole cynical Poles are basking in adoration having a picnic in Iraq and protecting oil fields owned by polish capitalists.
That would be something to enjoy for every francophobe here (I admit I am one).
Unfortunatelly (?) that is not true.
Poland joined the coalition to remove Saddam first, to prove ourselves as a loyal ally second, to enter the scene of more ambitious international politics and possibly gain something in the process.
Let's not forget that Iraq owed us sizable amounts of money, that Poland had pretty good trade relations with that country before - if anything we couldn't gain much more than we could lose.
Preserving stronger ties with America was always important to Poland, especially with Mr. Chirac lecturing us about numerous virtues of staying silent and learning from his infinite wisdom while he and Mr. Schoder were having a good time in Sochi with Mr. Putin.
When it comes to helping in Afghanistan our NGOs were doing great work with humanitarian aid sent to that country - militarily at that time it was seen as a secondary front, almost a finished conflict.
Finally what was sent to Iraq stretched our resources to the maximum. At the beginning of the occupation of Iraq US troops laughed observing what equipment our troops were forced to use - old helmets, poor uniforms, open topped vehicles.
That is the sad truth - Poland was not capable to send more troops than we've sent to Iraq and it would be much less if sent to Afghanistan.
Ten years on, Poland and America at last return attention to Afghanistan. Too little, too late for anything, except to scold those who have urged from the beginning to keep Afghanistan the focus of effort. There's your 'shameful lack of backbone'. Throughout all the insults, immaturity, disastrous loss of focus by the coalition, the French have been in Afghanistan all this time. It wasn't us who decided to move the fight to Iraq - on the contrary.
And you are free to congratulate yourself if that proves decisive, but I cannot and won't agree with several of your arguments when it comes to my country involvement.
Because I expect that you've conscious choice selecting arguments you've used in this post I cannot dismiss it as emotional.
I am sorry Louis there are too many demagogic arguments here - the oil, the death toll, the money, the size of a country.
You must realise (and let's be honest - you do) that our resources are and were considerably smaller, our power projection capabilities are meaningful only in Europe and that Poland's plans to become a world power are a fact only in computer games.
I dare even say that without the Iraq affair there wouldn't be any sizable Polish forces in Afghanistan - the modernisation of the army which is a fact from 2003 (i.e. from the moment we've found ourselves in charge in one of Iraq's occupation zones) wouldn't happen, at least not so quickly.
I dare say that Iraq was essential experience for our military and as safe (or 'safe') as it was it brought numerous improvements which helps transforming our army from ex-Warsaw pact outdated structures and helps sending troops to places like Chad or Afghanistan.
For that reason for Poland it was not a mistake to fight in Iraq - it couldn't divert resources, because there were none.
If you are going to question commitment of Poland and our reliability as an ally I suggest to think it over once more.
If anything I don't recall anybody ever questioning Poland's commitment or reliability, Soviet generals and Central Commitee excluded.* :book:
* only Ukrainians are entitled to that.
Nice to know that we have a **** thug (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio?page=1#comments) for a President. Obama: more of the same, but to the 10000th degree!
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.
How brain dead are Americans for voting this guy in?
Louis VI the Fat
19/12/09, 01:57
Nice to know that we have a **** thug (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio?page=1#comments) for a President. Obama: more of the same, but to the 10000th degree!
How brain dead are Americans for voting this guy in?Here you go, have a sticker and tell the world about it:
http://www.antiobamasticker.com/
woad&fangs
19/12/09, 03:39
I don't see anything even remotely "thuggish" about Obama in that story.
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother”
Is it Presidential or thuggish to make threats to Senators to try to persuade them to not represent their constituents in the way that they think they would want to be represented?
I mean for Pete's sake, the guy goes to Europe and cannot take his eye's off of every woman's butt he sees. He bribes pharmaceutical companies, threatens senators, etc, etc, etc. Is anything beneath him?
People really deserve what they get electing a Chicago thug like him. It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer. :no:
woad&fangs
19/12/09, 20:26
Threat? Nixon and LBJ are laughing in their graves right now. If you don't vote with your party you risk losing party support for your legislation and party help with getting re-elected. Again, I fail to see how reminding reminding a stubborn party member of that constitutes a threat.
Threat? Nixon and LBJ are laughing in their graves right now. If you don't vote with your party you risk losing party support for your legislation and party help with getting re-elected. Again, I fail to see how reminding reminding a stubborn party member of that constitutes a threat.
Johnson should have been impeached. That hardly makes what Obama did any better. A party is only important as it is a group of individuals who agree on certain important things. When you disagree, then partisanism should not factor. The guy did right by doing what he thought his constituents would want. He was not reminding him of it, he was reminding him that if he crossed him he would make sure he was paid back. Thus, "keeping score". E.I. don't **** with me, because I will add you to the list. That is a threat.
woad&fangs
19/12/09, 22:33
If political parties don't matter, then what precisely was Obama "threatening" him with? Either you think Obama is going to shank him in his sleep, or you admit that the senator is a member of the democratic party because he gets advantages out of it. Advantages which can be taken away if he does not follow the party line closely enough. The senator can always go independent "to serve the interests of his constituents".
Out of curiosity, why do you feel LBJ should have been impeached? I'm not aware of anything he did which was impeachment worthy, but it also wouldn't surprise me if there was.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
19/12/09, 22:50
Johnson should have been impeached. That hardly makes what Obama did any better. A party is only important as it is a group of individuals who agree on certain important things. When you disagree, then partisanism should not factor. The guy did right by doing what he thought his constituents would want. He was not reminding him of it, he was reminding him that if he crossed him he would make sure he was paid back. Thus, "keeping score". E.I. don't **** with me, because I will add you to the list. That is a threat.
If that were remotely true you would still have a constitution where the runner-up became VP, and you would not have Primaries.
It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer. :no:
Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.
Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.
How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.
How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.
Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.
Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.
Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.
Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.
You cannot count on everyone picking the best choice, because the best choice is a matter of opinion and people are always divided (not to mention special interests). Let me ask you a question, if you had to pick one of the other, would you rather be lightly hit on the shoulder, or punched full force in the face by Kimbo? Obviously you would pick the lesser of two evils. It is basic damage control. :P You are not helping cut down on the damage though when you vote for someone who has no chance.
An interesting article (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2010%20-%20JanFeb/full-Kagan-JF-2010.html) by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.
An interesting article (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2010%20-%20JanFeb/full-Kagan-JF-2010.html) by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.
Oh for Pete's sake, if there's a three-part series of editorials about the first year of Obama foreign policy, why not link to all three, instead on singling out the negative one? The full set:
Obama's Year One: Contra (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2010%20-%20JanFeb/full-Kagan-JF-2010.html)
Obama's Year One: Medius (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2010%20-%20JanFeb/full-Lane-JF-2010.html)
Obama's Year One: Pro (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2010%20-%20JanFeb/full-Pilkington-JF-2010.html)
Marshal Murat
10/01/10, 05:39
I liked Kagan's article, always insightful but somewhat out-of-place. He seemed more intent on writing an article on the "foreign affairs" side than an overall view of Obama. Not to say that he is out of place because Obama's legacy is based on his results on the international stage. At the same time, however, he seems to be more focused on his views and thoughts than an analysis of Obama's total legacy (then again it's an article in Foreign Policy or whatever)
The "median" article is also somewhat denegrating of Obama, which accurately reflects the current situation. Despite overall hopeful attitudes, his actions have failed to produce concrete tangible results, which is true in the overall sense. Even the pro article seemed to be sad with Obama's overall results, but that's just me. Just this man's opinion.
An interesting take (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6982260.ece) on Obama and the environment in which he operates, from a Limey perspective:
In Britain, an opposition party in total revolt can do only so much. In the US system, where the constitution makes big change very, very hard, an opposition can gum up the works much more successfully. Because the Republicans lost so many seats last time around, their current ranks are dominated by those in the safest seats, and their main worry is being picked off by primary challenges from the Sarah Palin-Dick Cheney wing. Because of the still-waxing power of religious fundamentalism in the American South, the Republicans increasingly frame their arguments in doctrinal terms, rather than pragmatic ones. And so the party has become more purist and more radical in the wake of its defeat. To give a simple example, last week the Republican candidate for the governorship of Alabama was forced to offer the following campaign pledge: “I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it.” He had previously gaffed that some parts of the Bible might not be taken literally, but as metaphor or parable. No, this is not Iran. It’s America. In 2010.
Obama’s promise was that he would try to end this culture war. My view is that — to great dismay among his own partisan base — he has largely fulfilled that promise. He went to dinner with conservative journalists before he schmoozed the liberal ones; he spent more time on Capitol Hill with Republicans in his first few months than Bush ever had; he asked the evangelical Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration; he avoided abortion and gay rights issues; he refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, the war crimes of his predecessor; and he has ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He has cut taxes and refused to nationalise the banks.
But for all this, he is the target of almost relentless and extreme opposition, painting him as the most radical and extremist anti-American ever in the Oval Office. And with a Senate that requires a 60-40 majority to get anything done, that makes his promises very hard to keep. When Europeans wonder if America is ungovernable, this polarisation is the critical thing to keep in mind. Obama’s gamble is therefore to outlast this reaction, to refuse to take the bait for total political warfare at home, and to enact as much as he can as quickly as he can in case the natural upswing of an opposition in a depressed economy renders his congressional majority moot by next November.
The Republican gamble, in turn, is that the extremism of their populist oppositionism doesn’t rally the fringe of their base at the cost of alienating the critical middle that still holds sway in American politics. My own sense is that in a low-turnout mid-term election, they could do very well with this tactic. But at a strategic level, I suspect that this is a trap for 2012. If they cannot attract younger or minority voters, if they continue to fail to offer actual policy alternatives instead of recitation of right-wing dogma, they could manage to stymie Obama later this year at the cost of immolation in 2012. Winning in 2010 could even persuade them that becoming even more radical is the way to win in 2012. A Palin nomination is perfectly possible.
It’s a war of nerves. If the Republicans win it, the culture war lives on. If Obama survives, he will remake the centre of American politics as a Democratic bastion again. Those are the stakes. And they keep getting higher.
Crazed Rabbit
11/01/10, 19:47
Andrew Sullivan is hardly a Limey perspective, considering he lives in America and the topic of most of what he writes is America related.
And most of his arguments are poor - he makes mountains out of molehills, or campaign statements.
Dick Cheney's quote is reflected in the articles you and Xiahou posted from the FP mag.
He acts surprised that no Republicans voted for health care, since it was more conservative than Romney's in MA - and doesn't mention that didn't turn out well.
Basically, it's a long essay on how noble ole Obama is trying to end partisanship while those nasty Republicans keep trying to muck it up.
CR
I wonder if any criticism of Obama will fall under the Irish blasphemy laws.
I think it's completely inappropriate for the Vice President to appear in Hennessey ads (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/biden_criticized_for_appearing_in).
I think it's completely inappropriate for the Vice President to appear in Hennessey ads (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/biden_criticized_for_appearing_in).
More funny Onion stuff. Too bad his Mom died.
I caught an episode of "Stossel", where he covered what he referred to as 'crony capitalism'. One of the examples highlighted was a window company called Serious Materials. I couldn't find the actual clip from the show, but I did find this on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDb7FVu-m5Y). Anyone have any thoughts?
I caught an episode of "Stossel", where he covered what he referred to as 'crony capitalism'. One of the examples highlighted was a window company called Serious Materials. I couldn't find the actual clip from the show, but I did find this on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDb7FVu-m5Y). Anyone have any thoughts?
I love her idea of "Peace Corps meets the Military... Green SWAT teams go into a neighborhood and retrofit the entire area with energy-efficient (Serious Materials) windows..."
Comedy Gold, that.
[/sarcasm]
Crazed Rabbit
15/01/10, 18:41
Well, the Unions and government employees with collective bargaining agreements won't get the 40% tax on their expensive health care plans everyone else (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM) with such plans will get.
:wall:
CR
Crazed Rabbit
18/01/10, 07:03
Well Obama's got the wonderful idea to get back the money paid out stupidly by TARP by taxing large banks - most of which have either paid back the loans or didn't get money in the first place.
And what does he say to protests? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/18bank.html?hp)
“Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.”
Apparently being taxed to pay for other's debts is your responsibility in his America. :wall: :furious3:
And why are they being taxed now? Because they're profitably, and the democrats hate a profitable business in a bad economy, and what better way to get more credit flowing than taxing banks?
God, what extreme stupidity.
CR
So the government bails out banks, but you can't tax the banks as taxing the banks = Taxing the American people and apparently the people shouldn't be responsible for paying the debts of others (ie: the banks) in your post.
I love this, keep it up.
"Because they're profitably" Yeap, like the Mafia and the Drugs Cartels...
Crazed Rabbit
18/01/10, 08:18
So the government bails out banks, but you can't tax the banks as taxing the banks = Taxing the American people and apparently the people shouldn't be responsible for paying the debts of others (ie: the banks) in your post.
I love this, keep it up.
Good grief, did you not even read what I wrote? The government is taxing banks that paid back their loans. If they we're going after the banks that still owe money, that'd be different.
:wall:
Also, it hurts the whole freaking economy. Taxes can't be used for petty, spiteful things because they effect everyone.
CR
“The government is taxing banks that paid back their loans.” So, that is it. The crooks reimbursed all the money they took so they are clean again and are out of responsibilities…
Crazed Rabbit
18/01/10, 09:01
Crooks, huh? Kindly list all those convicted of criminal actions in relation to the banking industry recently.
Populist actions may get some votes, but this will hurt the economy. Oh wait! Who cares? Fulfilling spiteful feelings should always be a president's top priority. :laugh4:
CR
Banks who had a role in the current crisis should be taxed to death. Good riddance.
Crazed Rabbit
18/01/10, 09:07
And speaking of crooks (http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/16/ed-schultz-id-cheat-keep-brown-winning/); a liberal radio host says he'd break the law and vote multiple times to prevent republicans from being elected.
CR
And speaking of crooks (http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/16/ed-schultz-id-cheat-keep-brown-winning/); a liberal radio host says he'd break the law and vote multiple times to prevent republicans from being elected.
CR
I think the majority of the country would do the same here.
oh wait... different Brown, silly me.
Though on another note, Republican is a very poor choice. I rather have our conservatives than anyone from the republican party, at least they aren't as bat:daisy: insane.
Samurai Waki
18/01/10, 12:13
Ah, American liberal is an oxymoron. I'll take the democrats simply because they're slightly left of the fundamentalism the republicans have made themselves to be.
Indeed. Voting Republican is probably closer to voting for the BNP than Conservative, over here.
"Crooks, huh? Kindly list all those convicted of criminal actions in relation to the banking industry recently"
And your point is?
Yes crooks. They sold products they knew were not safe. They made money on "toxic assets".
They lied in saying they were making money because they were just encreasing the debt, they were multiplcating the debts in order to make their bonuses.
they didn't workon their clients interests, they were just making their money.
Crooks, burglars and thieves...
And of course no legal action, because their friends, relatives and accointances made them untouchable by the laws.
If I sell you a car, and if you bring back the car, will my manager allow me to keep the bonus. No.
But bankers, yes they can.
Not only they can, but after the biggest financial mistake ever, they want to pocket even more money!
And they are right to do so.
Because with poeple having your opinion (poor riches), they should be stupid not to do...:laugh4:
The Wizard
18/01/10, 21:47
Indeed. Voting Republican is probably closer to voting for the BNP than Conservative, over here.
Not entirely, because it depends on what Republican you're voting for. U.S. parties don't operate with party lists and the party program doesn't matter that much either (though I challenge you to take a good gander at the G.O.P.'s program, compare it with the BNP's and the Tories's, and then tell me the Republicans are more similar to the former).
A balanced, well-thought-through examination of President 44's first year (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15268930).
Reality bites
Jan 14th 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC
Governing is harder than campaigning. But America’s 44th president has made an adequate start
FOR some, the magic is undimmed. Carl Baloney is extravagantly happy that Barack Obama is his president. He is old enough to remember segregation: back in the 1960s, his local university turned him away because he was black, he says. He is also old enough to have high blood pressure, which pushes his monthly health-insurance premiums skywards.
Mr Obama plans to bar insurers from turning away the sick. That will take some of the fear out of life for people like Mr Baloney, who is self-employed and pays his own bills. Others in his neighbourhood near New Orleans are much worse off, he says: “Health care is the emergency room. Next stop is the funeral home.” This will change, predicts Mr Baloney, and he is proud that it will change under a black president. “I never thought I’d see it,” he says, “and such a sharp president, too.”
Others feel differently. “I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, neither a jackass nor an elephant. But I wouldn’t vote for a socialist. Hell, I’d vote for Adolf Hitler before I’d vote for Barack Obama. At least you know what he’d do to you,” says Ron King, a retired policeman in Stuart, Virginia. He adds that Mr Obama “lies all the time” and is “dangerous; he’s trying to change the entire country.” Mr King has perhaps not rigorously thought through his Hitler analogy, but his anger is real.
Mr Obama came to power proclaiming an end “to the petty grievances...that for far too long have strangled our politics” and to “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long”. By electing him, he said, Americans chose “unity of purpose over conflict and discord”. Alas, this was balderdash.
Abroad, Mr Obama is still loved. But at home his star is tarnished. His approval rating has fallen from almost 70% at the time of his inauguration a year ago to 50% now. The proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job he is doing has quadrupled, from 12% to 44%. More than half of voters think the country is on the wrong track, and they are roughly evenly divided as to which of the two parties would do a better job of correcting that. A poll of polls by RealClearPolitics, a political website, finds that a generic Republican candidate for Congress beats a generic Democrat by 44% to 41%.
Mr Obama’s reputation as a miracle-worker was easier to maintain on the stump than in office. He said he would end the war in Iraq, bring health insurance to all Americans, erect a cap-and-trade system to curb global warming and clean America’s soiled reputation by closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay. He has not yet done any of these things, though he has made progress in Iraq and is close to signing a health-care bill.
None of this should be surprising. Governing is hard, especially during an economic crisis. The American political system is fraught with checks and balances: a president cannot simply tell Congress what to do. Everything takes time and requires ugly compromises. Nonetheless, many of Mr Obama’s fans feel let down.
The same technology that Mr Obama used so effectively to promote his candidacy can also be used to highlight his broken promises. When Democrats opted to hold the final negotiations on the health-care bill in secret, critics immediately posted footage of Mr Obama vowing that such talks would be televised. Ditto his promise never to hire lobbyists, and to post bills online for five days before he signed them. Some voters have concluded that he cannot be trusted. Others are outraged at what they see as his march towards European-style socialism. Anti-tax “tea party” protests have swept the country. Re-energised Republicans crow that they can recapture the House of Representatives this year, and cut the Democrats’ Senate supermajority down to size.
Mr Obama came to power at a time when American-style free-market capitalism was seemingly in disgrace. Many of his supporters thought he had a mandate to push the country significantly to the left. But since he took office, public opinion has shifted sharply to the right.
At the beginning of 2008 Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans to deal with the deficit by a whopping 30 percentage-point margin, according to Ipsos-McClatchy. Now they prefer Republicans by seven points. On taxes, Democrats led by 17 points, but now trail by two. On protecting America against terrorists, their nine-point advantage has mutated to a seven-point deficit. And in areas where Democrats still have the advantage, the gap has narrowed: from 39 points to four on health care, from 21 to five on Iraq and from 44 to 25 on the environment.
Americans have not suddenly fallen in love with Republicans, who seem keener to obstruct Mr Obama than to offer a coherent alternative. Rather, they are fed up with the recession and government in general. Since Mr Obama is the public face of power, he gets the blame.
Four cheers for 44
A YouGov Polimetrix poll for The Economist found that Americans disapprove of Mr Obama’s handling of the economy by 54% to 40%. They also frown on his handling of health care (by 53% to 40%), terrorism (48% to 42%), immigration (49% to 28%), Afghanistan (51% to 39%), Iraq (50% to 41%), Social Security (49% to 33%) and gay rights (39% to 33%). Of the ten topics mentioned in the poll, he scored a pass mark on only two: education, where he has taken tentative steps to promote autonomous “charter” schools and the environment. In short, Americans still like Mr Obama more than they like his policies, but they are increasingly souring on both.
Yet, by some measures, his first year has been quite successful. He has made no disastrous mistakes, and can brag of four substantial achievements. First, he has done wonders for America’s image abroad. Foreigners warm to his African and Muslim roots, his childhood in Indonesia, his Harvard cosmopolitanism. He seems less brash, more diplomatic and more respectful of Muslims than his predecessor. He calls for a world free of nuclear weapons. He takes a stand against torture. He talks in complete sentences. “[E]ngagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation,” he told the Nobel committee. “But...[n]o repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”
How much does this matter? Simon Anholt, an analyst, heroically estimates the value of the “Obama effect” on America’s global brand at $2.1 trillion. Each year, Mr Anholt commissions a poll of 20,000-40,000 people to find out how much they admire various countries’ people, culture, exports, governance, human-rights record and so on. He finds that admiration in one area often translates (illogically) into admiration in others. When George Bush was president, foreigners expressed less positive views of American goods, services and even the landscape. Under Mr Obama, he finds, America is once again the most admired country in the world (having slipped to seventh place in 2008). Using the same tools that consultants use to value brands such as Coca-Cola or Sony, he guesses that the value of “Brand America” has risen from $9.7 trillion to $11.8 trillion. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Mr Anholt calls this “a pretty good first year”.
Second, and more concretely, the American economy appears to have stabilised. The crisis that was raging when Mr Obama was elected has eased. Carrying on where the previous administration left off, Mr Obama has used gobs of taxpayers’ cash to prop up tottering banks and insurers. He deserves at least some of the credit for the American financial system not collapsing. He intervened to rescue two of America’s largest carmakers, General Motors and Chrysler. He stimulated demand with vast injections of borrowed money. All this, his supporters say, helped to restore confidence, thereby preventing a painful downturn from turning catastrophic.
Third, Mr Obama has shown he is serious about winning in Afghanistan. As Iraq grows calmer, Mr Obama is pulling out American troops, as he said he would. If all goes to plan, only a handful will remain by the end of 2011. Meanwhile he is escalating the war in Afghanistan, as he also promised. By putting tens of thousands more American boots on the ground, he hopes to make the country stable enough to start pulling out by next summer.
Fourth, Mr Obama is close to signing the biggest shake-up of America’s dysfunctional health-care system since the 1960s. The House and Senate have each passed a bill, and now the two mammoth documents are being haggled into one. Before long—perhaps before Mr Obama’s state-of-the-union message—health reform will probably become law.
Many details have yet to be finalised, but the outline looks roughly like this. Every American will be obliged to have health insurance. Those who cannot afford it will receive subsidies. States will set up carefully regulated exchanges to make it easier for individuals to shop around for the right policy. Insurers will be barred from excluding those with pre-existing health problems.
Most of the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack health cover will soon have it, predicts Mr Obama. And ways will be found to curb costs. The House bill calls for scores of pilot schemes to find cheaper ways of keeping people healthy. The Senate version would set up a commission to explore ways of doing it. The greatest single threat to America’s fiscal solvency—galloping health-care inflation—will thus be tamed.
Mr Obama’s detractors scoff. So what, they ask, if foreigners applaud him? Being liked is no guarantee of being effective. His Nobel peace prize will hardly make North Korea surrender its nuclear weapons. His admirers insist that Mr Obama’s patient and tactful style will eventually pay dividends: for example, by persuading Russia to lean on Iran to stop pursuing its own nuclear arsenal. His critics retort that it has shown few dividends yet. They think the world’s thugocrats see weakness in Mr Obama, and intend to exploit it.
This is harsh. Mr Obama has been quicker on the trigger than George Bush when it comes to assassinating terrorist suspects in Pakistan with missiles fired from drones. He has ordered roughly one such strike a week since taking office, killing some 400-500 militants and an unknown number of civilians. He may have ruffled hawks’ feathers by pushing for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to be tried in civilian courts, but he has shocked doves, too, by refusing to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay until he figures out what to do with those inside.
Mr Obama’s decision to ramp up the fight in Afghanistan could hurt him politically. Doves fret that it will be his Vietnam—that a costly, bloody, unwinnable war will derail his presidency. Hawks gripe that although he made the right decision to send more troops, he dithered for months before making it and then exuded irresolution as he did so. He said that America “has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan” and will only do “what can be achieved at a reasonable cost”. The Taliban may take that to mean that all they need to prevail is a little patience.
Brickbats and tea-parties
On the economy, Mr Obama’s critics make several points. Much of his stimulus spending will be wasted, they say, because government spending is always inefficient. The money he has borrowed will have to be paid back. Last year’s budget deficit, at an estimated 11.2% of GDP, was the highest since the second world war. That is not sustainable. Mr Obama will presumably address the deficit in his budget next month, but he has not said publicly how he will do so.
Tea-party-goers assume he will raise taxes. They worry that he plans to shift America to a permanently higher level of public spending and intrusive regulation. Mr Obama has hired legions of government employees, whose pay and benefits have outpaced those in the private sector. Although he says he believes in free markets, he does not always act that way. When Washington bailed out Detroit, politically favoured labour unions fared better than bondholders. Lobbyists took note. Conservatives fret that, having spent his life in law, academia and government, Mr Obama knows little about wealth creation. “He doesn’t know anybody who’s ever had a real job,” grumbles Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist.
Mr Obama calls himself a free trader, but he slapped tariffs on Chinese tyres last year, provoking swift retaliation. No full-blown trade war broke out, but America’s reputation has suffered. Foreigners complained more about America to the World Trade Organisation last year than about any other country bar China, according to Global Trade Alert, a watchdog.
Mr Obama’s proposed health-care reform has attracted brickbats from both left and right. The left frets that the final bill will probably not include a government-run health insurer (the “public option”). Critics on the right fear that the final goal is socialised medicine, with rationed care and scant rewards for innovators.
Others worry that reform will cost too much. Both bills call for wasteful spending to be cut, but largely in unspecified ways at some time in the future. And pitfalls abound. For example, if the government compels everyone to get health insurance, insurers can fairly easily cope with the requirement that they turn no one away. But if the fine for not buying insurance is too low, young healthy people may simply opt to pay it. Many will wait until they are ill to start buying insurance. So the pool of insured Americans will grow sicker. Premiums will rise, prompting more healthy people to stop buying insurance. This is called a “death spiral”. If it happens, either the system will collapse, or the government will have to save it with public money. Most likely, Congress will be tinkering with health care for years to come.
Still keeping his cool
Mr Obama’s second year could be even tougher. If and when health reform passes, the Senate will start haggling about climate change. America’s failure to enact a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide earned Mr Obama frowns at the Copenhagen climate summit last month, but carbon pricing is hugely controversial in America, and has become more so since Mr Obama became president. The House narrowly passed a cap-and-trade bill only by making it much weaker than planned. Greens hope that, so long as the Senate passes a bill of some kind, it can be tightened later. But there is no guarantee that it will pass.
Some pundits chide Mr Obama for letting Congress call the shots. He left it largely up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the top Democrats in the House and Senate, to design a health-care plan and decide how stimulus money should be spent. The results, critics reckon, were more wasteful and less coherent than if Mr Obama had taken charge. Nobody wanted a health plan written wholly by White House wonks; but there was a middle ground available, where the president could simply have asserted his will more forcefully over the process.
Mr Obama is trying a more hands-on approach to regulating Wall Street, proposing a stronger role for the Federal Reserve in preventing financial firms from taking risks that imperil the system. House Democrats agree, but those in the Senate would rather set up a new regulator. Other looming battles include immigration reform (see article) and a bill to allow unions to organise without secret-ballot elections. Even if rogue states and terrorists are quiet, which is hardly likely, Mr Obama will have a turbulent 2010.
A Spock or a Clinton?
Pundits never tire of dissecting the president’s personality. Is he growing less popular because he is too aloof? Maureen Dowd, a liberal columnist, likens him to Mr Spock, the emotionless alien from Star Trek. Or is it his vanity? Conservatives mock his frequent use of the word “I”, as in: “I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.”
Such perceptions matter far less, however, than the state of the economy. The main reason Mr Obama’s polls have slipped is that Americans have spent the past year in fear of losing their jobs. When the economy recovers, Mr Obama will get the credit. If no recovery happens, the Republicans may regain the House. But even that need not be a disaster. After 1994, when Bill Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress, he governed from the centre, balancing the budget and signing welfare reform. And in 1996 he won a second term in the White House.
Furunculus
20/01/10, 09:58
pledges kept and pledges not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7030526/Barack-Obama-review-of-pledges-kept-and-promises-broken-in-first-year.html
Barack Obama: review of pledges kept and promises broken in first year
President Barack Obama was elected on a campaign pledge of sweeping change in US policies at home and abroad. A year after taking office, some promises have been kept, others broken and still others subjected to compromise or delay.
By Alex Spillius
Published: 8:00AM GMT 20 Jan 2010
ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Obama's biggest promise was to make rescuing the economy his top priority. The results have been mixed or inconclusive so far.
A $787 billion stimulus he said was needed to jolt the country out of recession but which Republicans said was larded with too much spending was passed.
The economy is growing again but job losses persist, with unemployment at 10 per cent. He is now vowing to spur job creation. Whether he succeeds or fails could determine his political future.
A Wall Street bail-out is credited with helping avert a collapse, but the return of massive bonuses has outraged Main Street. A promised financial regulatory overhaul faces obstacles in Congress. While Obama has been lauded for acting to defuse the crisis, critics fault him for tackling health care and climate change instead of keeping the focus on the economy.
HEALTH CARE
Obama's goal of getting a health care bill to his desk by the end of 2009 proved overly ambitious, and now with just weeks of negotiations to go, it could be wrecked if Republican Scott Brown wins Sen Edward Kennedy's old seat.
Dithering Democrats were probably more to blame than the president. Liberals wanted a government insurance option and moderates were wary of the cost of reform. Even a newly compromised bill would see Obama would make history.
AFGHANISTAN
As promised, Obama switched attention from Iraq to Afghanistan, deciding in December to boost troop levels there by 30,000 after lengthy deliberations that critics called too deliberative.
Now it is Obama's war. The problem is polls show public support has waned as US casualties have increased, and some of Obama's fellow Democrats are balking at the build-up.
Candidate Obama pledged to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. He will come close if he sticks to the August 2010 deadline he set as president.
ENGAGEMENT
Obama pledged to talk to his enemies, breaking with the isolation policy of his predecessor, George W Bush, at least in his first term.
Obama made overtures to Iran but it remains defiant over its nuclear programme. He also has little to show for outreach to North Korea. He lifted key restrictions on Americans with families in Cuba, but Havana has given little in return.
Critics say such gestures signal weakness, but aides insist it has been important to improve the tone of foreign policy. The White House says it will give Obama greater international leverage if he seeks further sanctions on Tehran this year.
CLOSING GUANTÁNAMO PRISON, FIX IMAGE ABROAD
Obama will miss his one-year deadline to close the internationally condemned military prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, a promise stalled by political and legal complications.
But that effort plus his ban on harsh interrogation of foreign terrorism suspects have helped repair some of the damage done to America's international image under Bush.
He kept his pledge to reach out in a major speech to the Muslim world. But many Muslims are disappointed he has not done more to push Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.
Obama's popularity abroad remains high, as the award of the Nobel Peace Prize before any major foreign policy success showed. But critics at home say he has been too apologetic.
MORE TRANSPARENCY, BIPARTISAN COOPERATION
Obama, after accusing the Bush administration of being overly secretive, pledged greater transparency. He did order more openness and tighter limits on lobbyists and held a few televised issue-specific "summits" at the White House.
But much has been made of Obama's failure to keep his campaign pledge to have health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN. The White House press corps has complained that Obama has not held a full-scale press conference since July.
Obama has also faced criticism for allowing exceptions to his promised ban on lobbyists serving in his administration.
He recently acknowledged regret at failing to bridge the bitter divide between Republicans and his fellow Democrats.
KEEP AMERICANS SAFE
Although no major attack has been carried out successfully on US territory since Obama took office, an attempted Christmas Day bombing of a US airliner came very close.
The failed bombing drew criticism from Republicans that Obama's counterterrorism policy was inadequate to keep Americans safe, as he had cited repeatedly as his highest priority.
That has resulted in Obama taking responsibility for the intelligence and security lapses that led to the Christmas incident and promising new reforms to prevent a repeat.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IN FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE
Obama had promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming, in contrast to Bush's more reluctant approach.
He helped broker a non-binding international pact in Copenhagen in December and now faces an uphill fight to get the Senate to pass a law to cut carbon pollution at home while opponents argue that caps would hurt the economy. His stewardship will help determine whether a binding UN climate pact can be reached in 2010 after Copenhagen fell short.
OTHER PROMISES
No tax rise for anyone earning under $250,000: Obama has kept this pledge, but political analysts say it could be tested as he faces greater pressure over record budget deficits.
Lift Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research: Obama moved to ease such limits within months of taking office.
Repeal "Don't ask, Don't Tell" rule for gays in the military: Although the White House has said it remains Obama's goal, he has yet to make a move.
Work for immigration reform: the issue is stalled as Obama grapples with bigger items. He has said, however, he wants to tackle it in early 2010.
Louis VI the Fat
20/01/10, 14:31
Ah, good. The Department of Homeland Security and the US banks are giving me my money back. :2thumbsup:
At last, I should add, and I am most pleased they finally admit, and put to an end, their perfidious practises of swindling people around the world of their cash.
OUR REF: WB/NF/IMF/WA-XX027/N08
ATM carte de paiement (822)
DATE: 17/01/2010.
Attn: Bénéficiaire
Le Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Etats-Unis, Nations Unies et les banques concernées a été d'avoir une réunion pour les 7 passé des mois sur la façon de compersate toutes les personnes qui ont été escroqués dans n'importe quelle partie du monde, cela vaut pour tous les entrepreneurs étrangers qui mai n'ont pas reçu leur montant du contrat, et les gens qui ont eu une transaction inachevés ou les entreprises internationales qui ont échoué en raison d'gouvernementales probelms etc, la fin de réunion jusqu'à la semaine dernière.
Le Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Etats-Unis, Nations Unies et les banques concernées, a accepté de vous compersate avec la somme de ($ 850,000.00 US Dollars) dans l'ATM MASTER CARD.
Maintenant, votre carte de guichet automatique de dollars ($ 850,000.00 US Dollars) est sous la garde de notre représentant, maintenant contacter notre directeur représentant, par nom de M. David Green avec ses informations ci-dessous et demandez votre carte de guichet automatique.
Personne à contacter: Dr. David Green
Téléphone: Tel: +44-704-571-1123
Email: (dgreen.atmcard0@ymail.com)
(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:
Notez que nous avons mis nos titres de surveiller tous ces escrocs, assurez-vous d'arrêter la communication avec ces derniers et communiquer avec le bureau ci-dessus et de recevoir vos fonds immediately.Notify nous une fois que vous recevez votre Carte bancaire.
Observe,
Mme Euice Moore
Directeur régional, Gestion de la dette Office [DMO]
Fond Monétaire International.
Envoyez votre réponse à M. David Green On Email: (dgreen.atmcard0@ymail.com)
Link: my inbox.
And no, surely you don't expect me to translate all of that crock, do you?
I do wonder: somewhere, somebody wrote all of the above, in the expectation that it would sound somewhat convincing to some people.
Maybe I should forward it to Joyandet, he might fall for it. :sweatdrop:
(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:
They forgot the colon, after "(4.) Sexe".
Louis VI the Fat
20/01/10, 15:46
They forgot the colon, after "(4.) Sexe".Ugh, crud, you're right. So the mail is not offical, then? Does that mean I won't actually get my $850.000 back, which America swindled me out of and which the new administration was returning to me? :bigcry:
"back"? Louis? :inquisitive:
(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:
(7.) ???
(8.) Profit!
Louis VI the Fat
22/01/10, 12:16
Obama's approval rating is at an astonishing low. As for myself, Obama has completely grown on me. He is moderate, classy, and does what he said he would do. Although this very moderation and class means he too easily loses fights when the opponent is ready to turn it into a mud-wrestling match.
I hope Obama's second year will see Obama slam his fist on the table a bit more often.
Barack Obama declared war on Wall Street last night as he unveiled a sweeping series of measures aimed at checking the behaviour of banks and clamping down on risky deals.
The proposals, regarded as the biggest regulatory crackdown on banks since the 1930s, would limit the size of institutions and bar them from the most cavalier trading practices. Mr Obama hopes that the move will reset his flagging presidency.
“We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers,” he said. “My resolve to reform the system is only strengthened when I see record profits at some of the very firms claiming that they cannot lend more to small business, cannot keep credit card rates low and cannot refund taxpayers for the bailout. If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6997741.ece
:2thumbsup:
Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.
gaelic cowboy
23/01/10, 00:43
Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.
I would gives odds on for that my man
Crazed Rabbit
23/01/10, 00:54
Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.
Or you'll see people who know what they're talking about, like the Mayor of NYC, saying it's a bad idea.
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-wait-obamas-new-bank-plan-wouldnt-have-prevented-the-financial-crisis-from-happening-2010-1
We agree with President Obama that it is ludicrous that, a year after a financial crisis almost destroyed the US economy, regulators haven't changed a thing.
Tim Geithner's "Too Big To Fail" policy is firmly in place, and our financial institutions can do whatever they want again.
So we were relieved to hear that Obama is finally deciding to do something about this.
But here's the problem: His new proposal won't fix a thing.
Under Obama's proposal, "banks" will no longer be able to trade for their own accounts or own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds. So if you want to trade for your own account or own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds, then... just don't be a bank!
In the fall of 2008, Lehman Brothers wasn't a bank. Neither was Bear Stearns. Or Goldman, Morgan, or Merrill Lynch. Or Fannie or Freddie. Or AIG--remember AIG?
None of these firms were banks.
Under Obama's new proposal, all of these firms would have been able to trade for their own accounts and own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds.
And excuse us if our memory's faulty, but weren't these non-bank firms, along with with other non-bank firms like the idiot mortgage lenders, the ones that got us into trouble in the first place?
In other words, Obama's wildly popular new plan still hasn't addressed the real problem, which is not "banks." It's Tim Geithner's "Too Big To Fail." Until we address that one--preferably by making it possible for ALL firms to fail without taking the system down with them--we won't have done a thing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013141453031712.html
Hark back a few months to the shadow play of the Obama bank stress tests. Crediting themselves with mending the crisis, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ruled that banks were on a solid footing because private investors would provide fresh capital and banks would be free to book profits and earn their way out of trouble.
That was then. Today it's politically convenient to bash banks for the very same profits, and to punish the very same investors with a new Obama bank tax. First, the government coaxes banks into buying back the government's TARP stake (and therefore government's share of future earnings). Then it turns around and helps itself to a chunk of those earnings anyway.
...
Aside from slightly raising the banks' cost of uninsured borrowing, the new Obama tax would do nothing to reduce the well-founded expectation of their uninsured creditors that they will be bailed out next time the banks get in trouble. Meanwhile, the only lesson the shareholders who just recapitalized the banks at Washington's behest can possibly learn is the moral hazard of trusting Washington.
Let's hope the crisis is over. Let's hope the banks don't soon need fresh infusions of equity to deal with more bad loans. If investors didn't get the message before, they've got it now: There will be no upside allowed. Anytime the sector starts to show signs of recovery, Washington can swoop in and grab the profits as a "responsibility fee."
This may be politically expedient given populist blowback over bank bonuses, but it's not a step toward a competitive, responsible banking sector that takes appropriate risks without looking for government handouts or bailouts. On the contrary, it's a formula for turning the banks into what Fannie and Freddie have become: profitless channelers of taxpayer-guaranteed money into whatever loss-making loans politicians happen to want made. Compared to that, give us Goldman every time.
Or we can go on saying Hurrah! for populism. :rolleyes:
CR
Louis VI the Fat
23/01/10, 01:07
I was about to post in UK election thread, but here seems more acutely appropriate.
Gordon Brown to follow Obama's lead. Considering London's key role in European financial market, this paves the way for Europe to follow too.
(Incidentally highlighting what I've been desperately trying to convince the British of: the UK's position is a pot of gold. Britain's double-bill as 51st and 27nd state greatly enhances its influence and power, instead of reducing its 'sovereignity', or being a black hole from which no money can return)
Gordon Brown (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown) plans to exploit Barack Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barack-obama)'s surprise crackdown on Wall Street banks to step up Britain's campaign for a new global transaction tax on financial products.
The prime minister believes the dramatic US move to curb risky activities by major US banks indicates a new-found willingness on the part of Washington to contemplate radical reform of markets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/22/gordon-brown-tobin-tax-banking
Go Limeys and Yanks! Rid the world of the excesses of neo-liberalism! :cheerleader:
In a not very surprising, but nonetheless disturbing manner, the City copy-pasted the response of Wall Street, fearing fo the loss of million pound jobs and excessive bonuses. Yes, lads, the party might be over soon, keep mewling:
Lord Myners, the City minister, today played down the idea that Britain might follow Barack Obama's lead in introducing radical banking reforms. Myners told Reuters the UK had already taken measures to address the problems in its banking industry.
"President Obama came out with a solution to the idiosyncratic problems that he sees in the American banking system, which is around investment banking in particular," Myners said.
"It's worth remembering that proprietary trading, hedge funds, private equity, these were not at the heart of the difficulties that Northern Rock, or Royal Bank of Scotland or HBOS experienced." He added: "He's developing a solution to what he sees as the American issues; we've already taken the necessary action in the UK."
gaelic cowboy
23/01/10, 01:19
The guys in Brussels seem to be downplaying this though Louis just seen it on news there
Louis VI the Fat
23/01/10, 01:26
The guys in Brussels seem to be downplaying this though Louis just seen it on news there'An optimist is the human personification of spring'. :smug:
Furunculus
23/01/10, 02:04
As for myself, Obama has completely grown on me. He is moderate, classy, and does what he said he would do.
Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone.
shame you're not americian....................
................and again.
I think you would like Obama to be our Prime Minister though, Furunculus. In the whole context of situation.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
23/01/10, 03:47
I think you would like Obama to be our Prime Minister though, Furunculus. In the whole context of situation.
I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.
My President (OK, I didn't vote for him, but he has the job, and I am a Citizen) is no fool. I believe he is an astute politician, based on his years as a community organizer, and can accurately read the tea leaves left in the teacup of Massachusetts.
By Spring, Mr Geithner, and his "too big to fail" philosophy and policies, will be gone as Sec-Treasury. Mr. Emmanuel (ChStaff) will either leave to run for Chicago Mayor, or leave "to devote more time to family". Mr. Holder (Atty Gen) will accept a post at a prestigious University. Homeland Security will be helmed by someone else. Gates and Clinton will remain as SecDef and SecState.
In other words, I think he'll shake up his advisors, including folks who need Senate approval for their jobs. To the end that he re-works his focus, having been ill-advised in the recent past about what America wants and needs.
If he plays to the "needs", he'll be great. If he plays to the "wants", he'll get adulation for awhile - until he gets superceded by the "American Idol" contest.
I'm betting he goes for the needs. After a year in office, with the enormity of his decisions now settled on his shoulders, he knows he has about one thousand days remaining to either make his mark, or leave a skid-mark.
Good Luck to him, sez I. Trust your own instincts and conscience. Follow the Constitution, and plainly explain what you think we need to know.
1. Find binLaden.
2. Make him and his network no threat.
3. Separate banks (where ordinary citizens put their meager savings, and take out loans) from Investment Houses (market gamblers).
4. Get our money back (this year) from those we helped last year.
That ought to take up the agenda for the next 5 months. Do those, and America will follow you to hell and back, whether you're a one-shot wonder or 8-year Legacy.
Presuming:
1. Bin Laden isn't dead already, which he most likely is.
2. He isn't dead and his network is actually a major threat. Activity has been "very low" either because security services are good at their jobs or the threat is over-estimated.
3. That lobbyists and Fillibuster Republicans actually allow him to.
4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.
Unfortunately, KukriKhan, I doubt you will see the miracles you want, if the Republicans have their ways.
I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.
You must be sick, you are agreeing with me. :laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
23/01/10, 07:16
Follow the Constitution
I don't think thats possible for him.
I don't think thats possible for him.
Yeah, Bush Jr. broke it all, and it will most likely take a while for Obama to fix it all.
Crazed Rabbit
23/01/10, 19:30
4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.
No, I attacked Obama for proposing a tax that will get back TARP money from people who already paid and ignoring those who haven't.
:rolleyes:
CR
The WaPo editorial board confirms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204349.html) what I already knew. Specifically that the decision to indict the underwear bomber "was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous." :thumbsdown:
UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call. We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model.
In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether.
The fight against an unconventional enemy such as al-Qaeda cannot be waged exclusively or effectively through any single approach. Just as it would be a mistake to view all terrorist acts as law enforcement challenges, so would it be unwise to deal with all such incidents as acts of war. All paths must be seriously considered before a determination is made.
The administration claims Mr. Abdulmutallab provided valuable information -- and probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations -- before he clammed up. This was immediately after he was read his Miranda rights and provided with a court-appointed lawyer. The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity.
Finally, real change I can believe in. We are the haggis we've been waiting for. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/america-haggis-ban-lifted-burns)
Smuggled and bootlegged, it has been the cause of transatlantic tensions for more than two decades. But after 21 years in exile, the haggis is to be allowed back into the United States.
The "great chieftan o' the puddin-race" was one of earliest casualties of the BSE crisis of the 1980s-90s, banned on health grounds by the US authorities in 1989 because they feared its main ingredient ‑ minced sheep offal ‑ could prove lethal. [...]
For the past two decades, Americans of Scottish descent ‑ of whom there are at least 6 million ‑ have been forced to celebrate Burns' night without a true haggis, much to their distress.
There are stories of Scots smuggling in a haggis for their starving cousins, risking deportation in the process. Others are said to have secretly tried to create homemade, bootleg haggis, desperate to sample that particularly peppery concoction.
Was BSE ever actually a threat?
Nah, it was merely a conspiracy to destroy the British beef industry :book:
Uh-oh, I guess Obama is a false prophet after all. FDA sez no haggis for you!
Recently, several news articles have incorrectly stated that the U.S. will be relaxing or lifting its ban on Scottish haggis. At this time, haggis is still banned in the U.S. The APHIS rule covers all ruminant imports, which includes haggis. It is currently being reviewed to incorporate the current risk and latest science related to these regulations. There is no specific time frame for the completion of this review. Please check back with APHIS periodically for updates.
This is a good thing. Painting oneself blue is a sign of mad[cow]ness. That's why I was rooting for the evil stripmining marines.
I saw Enter the Haggis (http://www.enterthehaggis.com/) here in Philadelphia this past Saturday night. They haven't been banned...but they are Canadian, so I guess that is okay.
ICantSpellDawg
28/01/10, 04:28
Lame speech. He looks weak and seems worried, but I missed the first half.
Lame speech. He looks weak and seems worried, but I missed the first half.
Interesting, I thought it was a superb speech; the best I'd heard in the last decade, if not longer.
ICantSpellDawg
28/01/10, 04:37
Interesting, I thought it was a superb speech; the best I'd heard in the last decade, if not longer.
I usually like his speeches, this one rang hollow to me and was disappointing. I'll watch the beginning later. Also, did McDonnell call facebook "fistbook"?
Haven't seen it yet, but this comment (http://stateoftheunion2010.theatlantic.com/) on it made me guffaw:
Tax incentives, small-business veneration, glorification of the entrepreneur, chest-thumping on competition, and even a bit of nationalism. Obama articulates Republican policies better than Republicans do. Doesn't look sour and mean, or like he wants to bite somebody.
AlexanderSextus
28/01/10, 09:14
Obama knocked it out of the park with this one.
For you europeans, that means he hit a 6. :beam: :smash:
Kadagar_AV
28/01/10, 11:11
Obama knocked it out of the park with this one.
For you europeans, that means he hit a 6. :beam: :smash:
I assume knocked it out of the park is an american phrase referring to when you in baseball make a home run...
But the explanation for europeans confused me, hit a 6?
CountArach
28/01/10, 11:15
I assume knocked it out of the park is an american phrase referring to when you in baseball make a home run...
But the explanation for europeans confused me, hit a 6?
Hitting it over the fence in cricket is worth 6 runs.
Kadagar_AV
28/01/10, 11:33
Hitting it over the fence in cricket is worth 6 runs.
Ah, thanks :)
I once really, really did my best to appreciate a good ol' game of cricket to please a girlfriend... But only some 10 minutes into the game I found myself fiddling with my cell phone instead... And mind you, these were in the times before we had games on them!
Strike For The South
28/01/10, 18:20
On a personal level I like Obama more than I liked Bush. He seems more sincere.
Does this make me a bad person?
Does this make me a bad person?
Yes. Why do you love Hugo Chavez (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E00eQj9i_hc)?
Lemur, if you are going to link to Glenn Beck, a warning would be appreciated. :wall: Those subversive links are a cruel ambush to the common sense. :laugh4:
Has anyone seen one of his live shows? The ones where he thinks he's Brittney Spears and soaked in sweat? Looks nasty. :thumbsdown:
You wouldn't believe he was the most popular feature of the most trusted news channel in America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/27/fox-news-most-popular) though
CountArach
29/01/10, 00:39
He is also more admired than the Pope (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/04/dana-milbank/milbank-says-americans-admire-glenn-beck-more-they/):
Since 1948, the Gallup polling organization has been asking Americans what man and woman "that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most?" This year, the polling firm stirred up more interest -- and in some circles, horror -- than in years past.
The reason: More people mentioned Glenn Beck, the conservative radio and television host, than the pope.
Granted, it was close: In the final tally, Beck and Pope Benedict XVI both were named by 2 percent of respondents. But Beck earned a few more mentions than the pope -- enough, by Gallup's reckoning, to edge His Holiness by a nose. The runaway winner was President Barack Obama, with 30 percent, followed by former President George W. Bush with 4 percent and former South African President Nelson Mandela with 3 percent.
:laugh4:
"It is so disturbing," he said. "It's so wrong. ... When somebody phoned me up [with the news], I said, 'Shut the hell up!' ... None of it's good news for the world."
Well said Mr. Beck. ~:pat:
ICantSpellDawg
29/01/10, 14:16
Glenn Beck is dangerously insane. I've never met anyone who watches him without turning the TV off with that eirie feeling.
I remember the first times encountering Glenn Beck while channel surfing and wondering who this hack was and marveled at his ability to grate on my nerves after 30 seconds of watching him. I thought only Al Franken could do that. Beck's got skillz. :laugh4:
BTW, one positive thing about Franken getting elected is that I haven't heard a peep from him since. Is that really the case or have I just been lucky?
Looks like the USA is going to be the top dog for a while, impressive
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416882220100129
you can probably read it when we are done.
POTUS provides ply-by-play commentary, crowd goes wild. One of the strangest, and yet somehow coolest moments in Presidential history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaBn3cVmQo0
Obama is a way more regular guy than McCain or Bush ever were.
Obama is a way more regular guy than McCain or Bush ever were.
You'd think otherwise with all their strong moral fiber. :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
31/01/10, 09:29
Want a sure-fire way to make the BCS worse? Get the government involved. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/29/obama.bcs.ap/index.html?xid=si_ncaaf) :wall:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.
In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.
"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.
I dislike the BCS, but this is simply government overreaching.
CR
lol
Obama
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/obamagreg.jpg
Wouter Bos of the Dutch social democrats
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/cd43e1ab-2c43-485b-9874-be642edf757.jpg
Want a sure-fire way to make the BCS worse? Get the government involved. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/29/obama.bcs.ap/index.html?xid=si_ncaaf) :wall:
Government involvement would really improve things.[/sarcasm] Maybe with their legislating the BCS, they'll introduce the fillibuster to the polling process. The government needs to get a life.
CountArach
03/02/10, 01:16
lol
Obama
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/obamagreg.jpg
Wouter Bos of the Dutch social democrats
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/cd43e1ab-2c43-485b-9874-be642edf757.jpg
I think everyone who espouses 'hope' as a value they represent has had their picture taken with that head angle at some point or another. It is an incredibly common trope and always has been, as it is is something like "looking into the future", but also "day-dreaming of something better."
@ Lemur - "Can I be totally irrelevant?" "Errr, irreverant?" "Irreverant and irrelevant, thank you sir. Big moment, I couldn't handle it." :laugh4: . That was very cool though.
Obama is significantly superior to Bush Jr. so far though. That is a good thing.
PanzerJaeger
03/02/10, 03:48
Obama is significantly superior to Bush Jr. so far though. That is a good thing.
That is certainly a highly debatable opinion.
That is certainly a highly debatable opinion.
Indeed, for a certain segment of the population, Obama is Stalin cum Antichrist with a dash of Idi Amin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/large-portion-of-gop-thin_n_445951.html). A mere incompetent like GWB can never compare with that.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/is_barack_obama_a_racist_who_hates_.png
39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Further polling data here (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32384.html), level-headed analysis here (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/what_republicans_believe_about.html).
PanzerJaeger
03/02/10, 04:29
Indeed, for a certain segment of the population, Obama is Stalin cum Antichrist with a dash of Idi Amin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/large-portion-of-gop-thin_n_445951.html). A mere incompetent like GWB can never compare with that.
Yep, its just those nutty Glen Beck Republicans who are turning against this president and his agenda. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/poll-majority-would-vote-against-obama-re-election/)
CountArach
03/02/10, 04:33
I didn't see some of those results coming (31% want to outlaw contraceptive use and 73% think that gay people shouldn't teach in schools!). The full set of questions and answers are here (http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437) - and before people criticise it for being DailyKos, they didn't do the polling, Research 2000 did. Further, the DailyKos daily tracking poll has only a few points better for Obama than the other tracking polls do, so even if ytou cry bias that is quite a baseless idea.
Sasaki Kojiro
03/02/10, 04:40
That poll is so obviously bogus that I'm amazed people are even discussing it seriously.
I'm not a bit surprised that self-identified republicans will tell a pollster that ACORN stole the election and that they believe the should secede from the union, what's disturbing is that it gets reported as "21% of Republicans believe".
PanzerJaeger
03/02/10, 04:44
I didn't see some of those results coming (31% want to outlaw contraceptive use and 73% think that gay people shouldn't teach in schools!). The full set of questions and answers are here (http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437) - and before people criticise it for being DailyKos, they didn't do the polling, Research 2000 did. Further, the DailyKos daily tracking poll has only a few points better for Obama than the other tracking polls do, so even if ytou cry bias that is quite a baseless idea.
Some further reading you may be interested in. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html)
CountArach
03/02/10, 04:47
Yep, its just those nutty Glen Beck Republicans who are turning against this president and his agenda. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/poll-majority-would-vote-against-obama-re-election/)
Voting intentions are:
1) Useless this far out from an election
2) Pointless when you don't name the "someone else" because people are able to put in place the name of their favourite dream candidate. I'd be interested to see how many Democrats said someone else, because they could well be causing those numbers. Also I'm not sure I like the fact that 21% of respondents to that poll are from the "Deep South". I think the partisan identification probably should have been 2 or 3 points fewer Republicans and 2 or 3 more Democrats. Plus the questions are really quite skewed if you ask me and that makes me think that I'm missing something. Financial Dynamics is not a particularly reknowned pollster either.
CountArach
03/02/10, 04:51
Some further reading you may be interested in. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html)
Yep I know that, and I'm not surprised, but seriously 63% call him a Socialist? 53% think Palin is more qualified to be President? 73% think gays shouldn't be allowed to teach? 77% believe creationism should be taught?
Oh and note that I also think parts of the poll are off - the heavily gender-skewed nature of respondents and the high proportion of elderly for example.
PanzerJaeger
03/02/10, 05:13
2) Pointless when you don't name the "someone else" because people are able to put in place the name of their favourite dream candidate. I'd be interested to see how many Democrats said someone else, because they could well be causing those numbers. Also I'm not sure I like the fact that 21% of respondents to that poll are from the "Deep South". I think the partisan identification probably should have been 2 or 3 points fewer Republicans and 2 or 3 more Democrats. Plus the questions are really quite skewed if you ask me and that makes me think that I'm missing something. Financial Dynamics is not a particularly reknowned pollster either.
Well, theres this (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42) from back in July when Obama was just beginning his implosion..
And more recently, this (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/sarah-palin-barack-obama-poll-gap-narrows.html). Apparently, even the likes of Sarah Palin is polling significantly better than earlier in Obama's term.
Finally, a few weeks ago, there was this (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/2012-presidential-poll.html). Take from it what you will.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.