What are your thoughts on Obama's Speech?

[Guest021010-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

I was once on the CP bandwagon but his recent politics have me shying away. I don't think we will ever have that "warrior statesman" in the oval office again. Not a competant one anyway.

I agree that we all shoulder the blame. It's a shame that we don't remember our mistakes any better than we do. This is the 70's repeating itself in so many ways.

The biggest problem now is that government has injected itself into so many facets of our lives that government must solve the problems. . .

How do we do that when the average wage in China is a fraction of our average wage and the Chinese Government is artificially controlling the value of it's currency in order to keep our debt level as high as possible?

It is going to take a policy of some kind that causes China to redirect it's resources to something other than industrial/economic growth. Something like SDI did to bring Russia to it's knees.

+1

I do not think we have the economic might to overwhelm China as we did Russia. With the SDI arms race, Russia spent themselves into bankruptcy and could not pay their government's bills, salaries for govt workers, the army etc. That is the peril bho would bring to the USA with Obama-care.

I was dismayed that CP supported bho. I think it was a black thing, a leap at a hope that this charismatic man might indeed bring change to America. But it has not turned out that way, and sadly so.

rr

[Htowner]

RR I guess you miss the cowboy politics which rendered us arrogant and obnoxious to the world , don't you.
'Warrior statement'? You didn't get enough of those for 8 years?
Why don't we do some more of that and piss more governments and nations altogether off , right?
I think the what Bush started in Iraq has got us a lot closer to banckruptcy than Obama care which will probably never pass. You really don't think you are paying for all these uninsured people at emergency rooms?
Chinese don't kick up a lot of dust like we did. They just quietly tell North Korea to shut the fuck up for now and they did. Diplomacy is much cheaper and more effective.

[Guest021010-2]

We need a 'warrior statesman', one who has stood and led amid the chaos of live fire. Such experiences impart a resolute reluctance to go to war, and a courage to step up by steps rather than making knee jerk responses. A man like CP (if not him), who would have had "W" slow down on the road to war to oust SH. CP had been to war while "W" had not. CP had led men and lost me in battle. "W" had not. Thus it is better to have a 'warrior statesman' to lead us than a cowboy who has others fight the battle he picks. So I agree with you about "W"'s failed foreign policy.

I recall reading that in Nov 1963 JFK was looking for a way to exit Viet Nam. He had realized that USA ought not to repeat France's folly which led to their defeat and expulsion. He had been to war and had the warrior instincts that LBJ (the non-warrior) did not possess. Thus it was that LBJ in his communist paranoia escalated the 'police action' into the war that USA could not win.

A generation later, GHWB (a warrior) led us to defend Kuwait against Iraqi incursion, and got out. But his son "W" (a reservist but not a warrior), driven by 9/11 passions and hatred for the man who had tried to "kill my dad", invaded Iraq to oust SH, which set in motion the present conflict there. I predict that within 5 years the Islamic fundamentalists will have taken over Iraq, perhaps aligning with Iran (the hated Persians), the Taliban in Afghanistan, et al, united by mutual hatred of USA and Israel.

This war against the Taliban cannot be won. They kicked the brutal USSR out. Do you think that the USA will prevail? I admire our troops, their commitment, skill and technology. But just as England lost to the American insurgent 'swamp fox' Francis Marion in the swamps of 1777, so America will lose to the Islamic insurgents in the mountains of AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN in this century.

"W" took us to war on trumped up charges. The ends never justify the means when the means are a lie. America is going to take a fall, and I say that as a WASP male native born Texan. I love America, but America is bankrupt and over-extended. The question is, Who will be our friend when we hit rock bottom again (as in 1933)?

With regrets,

rr

[boardman]

I have my doubts that we can win against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas or any other organization of radical religious ideology. I remember the Iranian revolution and wondering then how we could defeat people who thought dying for their religion automatically earned them a spot in heaven. The only way to defeat the ideology is to show them the error of their ways. How do you do that?
Iraq has come a long way in their development and things are much better than they were in 2002 but do you think they love America? Does anyone really think that we can declare victory? Victory in war is achieved either by annihilation or capitulation. Islam has been fighting this war for 1500 years. Israel has been fighting it for over 5000 years. I don't know how it will all end but I'm pretty sure that capitulation is not an option

My father served on an aircraft carrier in the pacific in WWII. He was a kind and gentle man with malice toward none and a friend to many but he had an extraordinary disdain for the Japanese and nothing was going to change those feelings.

There is no one, other than Israel of course, in the middle east that likes us. They never will. Some have learned to get along and use us like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar etc...... Some have learned to tolerate us like Jordan. Some have even learned to fear us like Syria. None of them will ever like us. Our ideology of freedom and democracy is as much a threat to them as theirs is to us.

The question then becomes, Why are we fighting? The reason seems to be that our best defense is a good offense. If we were to pull out and isolate what happens to the rest of the world and how long before we are fighting this war on our soil? How long before we are fighting it with sticks and stones?

[Houston65]

There is only one man that can lead us out of the mess...RP. He understands what a non interventionist foreign policy is, he understand what freedom and liberty are and most of all, he understands the Constitution.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Houston65

There is only one man that can lead us out of the mess...RP. He understands what a non interventionist foreign policy is, he understand what freedom and liberty are and most of all, he understands the Constitution.

I think RP is a good man. I just have a hard time getting past his delivery. Seriously, I know it may sound dumb on my part but he is just too whiney.

I personally think Newt would make a great President. He doesn't have the military experience but then again Ronald Reagan's Military experience was no better than what "W" had.

If you want a true "warrior statesman" I can think of non-better than Ollie North. Now there is a man who understands Loyalty, Duty, Honor, Country and the troops absolutely love him. In the past few years he has also become quite the communicator.

[boardman]

Oh, and I bet any of the three mentioned above could pronounce "corpsman" correctly.

What a fucking idiot!!!!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Htowner

Hmmm the blow job. Enlighten me .
He has been in the office barely a year and at least we didn't lose our banking and financial system and stock market is back over 10k. It is the first sign of things to come . Jobs are last. It has always been that way , it always will be.

Thanks Htowner. A few days and the market has dropped 100s of points to where its under 10K. Of course, I'm sure you have a little gem like "the market swings." Nope, the financial system isn't out of the woods yet. Lowering expectations that "Jobs are last" simply isn't going to buy anytime (or votes) for BHO.

[obiwansalami]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Thanks Htowner. A few days and the market has dropped 100s of points to where its under 10K. Of course, I'm sure you have a little gem like "the market swings." Nope, the financial system isn't out of the woods yet. Lowering expectations that "Jobs are last" simply isn't going to buy anytime (or votes) for BHO.

Ask and ye shall receive: today's report says the unemployment is back under 10%. We are currently sitting at 9.7%.

[gnadfly]

Always wait for the adjusted numbers on those govt reports. Also look at the underlying calculations and who is publishing the number.

"A separate survey of employers showed payrolls declined by 20,000 as construction companies and state and local governments cut back. " from Bloomberg today (not fox)

[boardman]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Always wait for the adjusted numbers on those govt reports. Also look at the underlying calculations and who is publishing the number.

"A separate survey of employers showed payrolls declined by 20,000 as construction companies and state and local governments cut back. " from Bloomberg today (not fox)

And the total number of jobs lost since this began has been adjusted up by roughly 1 million to 8.4 million but the unemployment rate dropped?

It's been about a year since the highest number of new claims were filed wouldn't that mean that claims are running out and those people are no longer being counted.

I wonder if the administration knows how to pronounce "fuzzy math"

[topcat19542001]

I suppose if you're going to blame Obama for the high unemployment rate after being in office for a year, then one would also have to blame Reagan for the high unemployment rate in 1982 which peaked at 10.8%, which was also his first year in office.
TopCat

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by topcat19542001

I suppose if you're going to blame Obama for the high unemployment rate after being in office for a year, then one would also have to blame Reagan for the high unemployment rate in 1982 which peaked at 10.8%, which was also his first year in office.
TopCat

Yes I do. Ronaldo's policies exacerbated enemployment necessarily through Volker's monetary policy of squeezing out Carterian inflation. Prosperity ensued.

Obama's policies of hyper-regulation, promises of hyper-taxation, debauchment of the currency, and - most of all - uncertainty as to what crazy shit he's gonna do next has frozen all small business and most other private sector employers completely out of the hiring business. Anybody who ever met a payroll understands you would have to be out of your mind to hire when the rules of the game are subject to whimsical change. And tyranny is always whimsical.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Htowner

LL fell off the face of the earth when election started to go Obama's way.

Is there supposed to be some logical connection between not posting on a constantly crashing and disrupted board and the election of Obaminable?

Fortunately, it did not take long for "I told you so" to seem trite... otherwise "we" might have to endure ..... four more years!

Oh, wait, ... I forgot. Did you agree with Obaminable that the "Kennedy seat" was lost because of the voters being angry at Bush?

[topcat19542001]

Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

Yes I do. Ronaldo's policies exacerbated enemployment necessarily through Volker's monetary policy of squeezing out Carterian inflation. Prosperity ensued.

Obama's policies of hyper-regulation, promises of hyper-taxation, debauchment of the currency, and - most of all - uncertainty as to what crazy shit he's gonna do next has frozen all small business and most other private sector employers completely out of the hiring business. Anybody who ever met a payroll understands you would have to be out of your mind to hire when the rules of the game are subject to whimsical change. And tyranny is always whimsical.

What? Volcker's a Democrat. Carter appointed Volcker to Fed chairmanship in 1979. Volcker is a big time Obama supporter. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/0...s/tab/article/
TopCat