Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[cegorach]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Get binLaden
dismantle his network
deny his assets of manpower, money, and materiel
come home

These 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]

Should I expect more of similar arguments coming from you ? This was a bit unexpected.

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]

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. 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 its revolutionary turf to Egypt.

[KukriKhan]

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]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

When you begin to fight your friends, it's probably time to stop fighting your eniemies.

:wisdom:

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sigh. If you've been watching the Washington 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 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 (independent of Connecticut), Olympia Snowe (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 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 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/commentisf...l-system-obama

[drone]

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]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

From the Guardian? Yes, probably the most unbiased and trusted news source for American politics.

[KukriKhan]

When I get wet on my way to work that is still the result of some devious plot, somewhere, by the GOP.

I remind the esteemed Gentleman from Paris that 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".

[drone]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[cegorach]

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...

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.*








* only Ukrainians are entitled to that.

[Vuk]

Nice to know that we have a **** thug 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]

Nice to know that we have a **** thug 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]

I don't see anything even remotely "thuggish" about Obama in that story.

[Vuk]

“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.

[woad&fangs]

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.

[Vuk]

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]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer.

Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.

[Vuk]

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.