|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 21, 2009 23:16:25 GMT -5
Honestly, HA, I don't know if it really matters whether a Neocon Republican, or a leftist Democrat tackle the problems the USA has right now. It's fallen on Obama and while he may have a plan, he's definitely going to need some luck. I don't wish him ill Dis, but I have heard all the rhetoric before and frankly, it doesn't impress me. ONLY careful, long term thinking and action impresses me. Worse still.... The US economy affects Canadians MORE then anything any politician can do up here. Our bread is butter by the US trade and sadly, it will be long after you and me are feeding the worms. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 22, 2009 0:54:33 GMT -5
On the tough decisions point, he's made at least one that I can think of: the decision to use the Wright controversy as an opportunity to talk about race in a way that no other mainstream politician would have dared. Regarding keeping Gates, I wonder if part of the motivation is so that, if Gates is seen as unsuccessful, he can be replaced and at least part of the blame will be seen to fall on Bush. If Obama had replaced Gates with someone and that person were to fail, Obama would be blamed. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 22, 2009 6:30:53 GMT -5
Honestly, HA, I don't know if it really matters whether a Neocon Republican, or a leftist Democrat tackle the problems the USA has right now. It's fallen on Obama and while he may have a plan, he's definitely going to need some luck. I don't wish him ill Dis, but I have heard all the rhetoric before and frankly, it doesn't impress me. ONLY careful, long term thinking and action impresses me. Worse still.... The US economy affects Canadians MORE then anything any politician can do up here. Our bread is butter by the US trade and sadly, it will be long after you and me are feeding the worms. No worries, HA, I knew where you were coming from. Americans voted for change in a big way. I compared this feeling to JFK, but the circumstances are a bit different this time around. JFK won by a very narrow margin. I don't know the final tally but I believe Obama won by a lot more. There's a lot to live up to now ... in addition to a few breaks and a little luck, I'm hoping that the powers that be actually give him a chance. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2009 7:01:16 GMT -5
Obama doesn't strike as the kind of man who will blame the Bush administration for all of their problems. Nor does he even need to, Dis. The anti-Bush coalition will press the point over and over again: it's all Bush's fault. War? Bush. Economy? Bush. Global warming Climate change? Bush. Obama is the messiah, and Bush is evil incarnate, therefore anything that might dim Obama's shine will be blamed on GW. That first term, anyway . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 22, 2009 7:39:55 GMT -5
Why I don't like Obama is very simple. The US needs some very painful economic conservative medicine. . Ahhh correct me if I am wrong, but isn't his main man on the economy a Republican. He was put in there to NOT be a yes man .... so if he has the medicine, time to start giving us all the Buckley's. If he is suggesting otherwise, then maybe that strong conservative medicine isnt going to work ..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 10:41:04 GMT -5
Why I don't like Obama is very simple. The US needs some very painful economic conservative medicine. . Ahhh correct me if I am wrong, but isn't his main man on the economy a Republican. He was put in there to NOT be a yes man .... so if he has the medicine, time to start giving us all the Buckley's. If he is suggesting otherwise, then maybe that strong conservative medicine isnt going to work ..... The current Republicans resemble economic conservatives the way I resemble Barack Obama. Economic conservatism is less government, less taxes, free capitalism, more self relliance, less entitlement (other then the incapavle). It requires and assumes that people are responsible enough to understand their world and their actions. Free capitalsm does NOT allow for price fixing or market manipulation like we have with the oil companies. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 11:06:22 GMT -5
Obama doesn't strike as the kind of man who will blame the Bush administration for all of their problems. Nor does he even need to, Dis. The anti-Bush coalition will press the point over and over again: it's all Bush's fault. War? Bush. Economy? Bush. Global warming Climate change? Bush. Obama is the messiah, and Bush is evil incarnate, therefore anything that might dim Obama's shine will be blamed on GW. That first term, anyway . . . Before Bush even stepped into the White house, 100% of the left, 99.9% of the mirror lickers in Hollywood, 99% of "educators" and 98% of the national print and television media made it their mission to make sure Bush failed or at the very least, scream that anything he did was a failure. They did a pretty good job of convincing those who fail to go past the headlines. Now the exact people will praise Obama even if he unleashes the black plague and finishes it off with flesh eating disease. Witness the enivironuts praising him on their hands and knees at the inauguration while the Messiahs follower fly in from all over the planet with over 500 private jets. What will happen that every thing he does will be spun by the same cadre of the willing. Sadly, economic reality cares little of what the believers of any side have to say. It will take it's course and the price WILL be paid. Give you an example, if governments around the world had raised interest rates THREE years ago and stopped the bubbles, do you think we would be in this mess now? Of course not but which politician speaks the truth and acts accordingly? Even if they wanted to, the masses will make him pay for his honesty and bravery. You know what they say, the masses deserve those they elect and have no one to blame but themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 11:17:32 GMT -5
I don't wish him ill Dis, but I have heard all the rhetoric before and frankly, it doesn't impress me. ONLY careful, long term thinking and action impresses me. Worse still.... The US economy affects Canadians MORE then anything any politician can do up here. Our bread is butter by the US trade and sadly, it will be long after you and me are feeding the worms. No worries, HA, I knew where you were coming from. Americans voted for change in a big way. I compared this feeling to JFK, but the circumstances are a bit different this time around. JFK won by a very narrow margin. I don't know the final tally but I believe Obama won by a lot more. There's a lot to live up to now ... in addition to a few breaks and a little luck, I'm hoping that the powers that be actually give him a chance. Cheers. JFK and Obama carefully nurtured the same glorified oratory and hysteria....and media bias. He could screw anyone in the Oval office, the media would take ring sides seats and say nothing. Let's not forget that JFK almost brought us within inches of nuclear armageddon like nobody before or since him. In fact, the fact that the Russian backed down only increased his myth rather then questioning how we got there to begin with. No, I am not impressed by JFK and Obama has mountains to climb...rather then spew about them....before he impresses. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 22, 2009 11:33:48 GMT -5
Ahhh correct me if I am wrong, but isn't his main man on the economy a Republican. He was put in there to NOT be a yes man .... so if he has the medicine, time to start giving us all the Buckley's. If he is suggesting otherwise, then maybe that strong conservative medicine isnt going to work ..... The current Republicans resemble economic conservatives the way I resemble Barack Obama. Economic conservatism is less government, less taxes, free capitalism, more self relliance, less entitlement (other then the incapavle). It requires and assumes that people are responsible enough to understand their world and their actions. Free capitalsm does NOT allow for price fixing or market manipulation like we have with the oil companies. The irony is that the deregulation of financial markets is largely what led to this economic issue in the first place. Free capitalism, like communism, is a great principle but does not work in reality because of greed and corruption. Anything that is allowed to exist without oversight is going to take advantage of those it's in control of. A world without market manipulation and less government are contradictory actions. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 22, 2009 11:38:08 GMT -5
No, I am not impressed by JFK and Obama has mountains to climb...rather then spew about them....before he impresses. It does seem contradictory to pass judgement before given a chance. It isn't rhetoric if he follows through, and it can't be lies if there's no chance to do so. Even though I don't believe a lot of the stuff that's been hailed as coming will pass, I'm willing to wait before proclaiming his failure. You mentioned long term action as one of your requisites to be impressed. Well this is day 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 12:11:57 GMT -5
The current Republicans resemble economic conservatives the way I resemble Barack Obama. Economic conservatism is less government, less taxes, free capitalism, more self relliance, less entitlement (other then the incapavle). It requires and assumes that people are responsible enough to understand their world and their actions. Free capitalsm does NOT allow for price fixing or market manipulation like we have with the oil companies. The irony is that the deregulation of financial markets is largely what led to this economic issue in the first place. Free capitalism, like communism, is a great principle but does not work in reality because of greed and corruption. Anything that is allowed to exist without oversight is going to take advantage of those it's in control of. A world without market manipulation and less government are contradictory actions. Well, partially true. The most regulated item was and is central bank rates. They were used to feul "growth" and even when it was apparent it was creating dangerous bubbles, politicians AROUND THE WORLD refused to rase rates because it slowed their economies. We have much better regulation and conservative bankers in Canada and yet house prices rised by leaps and bounds over the last ten years. Same reason, same results, softer consequences. Do you know what is happening now? The bank rates are approaching zero, pay checks are frozen while we still have inflation eating away. True blue inflation. More to come.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 12:20:51 GMT -5
No, I am not impressed by JFK and Obama has mountains to climb...rather then spew about them....before he impresses. It does seem contradictory to pass judgement before given a chance. It isn't rhetoric if he follows through, and it can't be lies if there's no chance to do so. Even though I don't believe a lot of the stuff that's been hailed as coming will pass, I'm willing to wait before proclaiming his failure. You mentioned long term action as one of your requisites to be impressed. Well this is day 2. Have I called for his head? I simply don't trust him and the higher the rhetoric, the more feul for cynicism. 98 days from now, I like to say that I was wrong..... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 22, 2009 12:29:41 GMT -5
No worries, HA, I knew where you were coming from. Americans voted for change in a big way. I compared this feeling to JFK, but the circumstances are a bit different this time around. JFK won by a very narrow margin. I don't know the final tally but I believe Obama won by a lot more. There's a lot to live up to now ... in addition to a few breaks and a little luck, I'm hoping that the powers that be actually give him a chance. Cheers. JFK and Obama carefully nurtured the same glorified oratory and hysteria....and media bias. He could screw anyone in the Oval office, the media would take ring sides seats and say nothing. Let's not forget that JFK almost brought us within inches of nuclear armageddon like nobody before or since him. In fact, the fact that the Russian backed down only increased his myth rather then questioning how we got there to begin with. No, I am not impressed by JFK and Obama has mountains to climb...rather then spew about them....before he impresses. Well, JFK had his faults and most of those came out after over the years after he was assassinated. However, he made most of his enemies before he took office. Obama might have enemies as well, but not too many of them have surfaced thus far. What killed JFK eventually (only my opinion mate) was that he finally pissed off too many people around him. He made what seemed to be a unilateral decision to kybosh the Vietnam War. That took a lot of backbone to make that decision. It also took a lot of backbone to squash the Pay of Pigs operation at the last minute. Kennedy backs out of the operation finally realizing that it couldn't possibly work. As far as Obama is concerned, I think he has to be very careful not to do two things: a. not introduce too many changes too quickly, and b. not to weaken America's image as a world Superpower. There are lobbies that simply won't stand for either. With many people, ANY change is stressful. That doesn't necessarily pertain to John Q. American; I mean they voted for change. But, too much change too quickly will not be received well by those who have been calling the shots for decades. I also think Obama has to be careful not to weaken the image of his country. Don't get me wrong, I think he's the right guy to implement the kind of damage control required to repair a tarnished international reputation. BUT, he has to be careful not to lose any face doing it. I feel this is one area where Obama could learn from Kennedy. It's possible pulling out of the Pay of Pigs as quickly as he did, and deciding that the Vietnam War was a no-win scenario, might have been preceived as weakness in the eyes of some. That's not anywhere, though, just me talking off the top of my head. I find the one, obvious situation where he'll have a good chance at implementing both, is the Cuban embargo. Have to wait and see I guess. He has the economy to worry about as well, granted. However, I think it will be easier for him to concentrate on that once he eliminates the distraction of his country's international affairs, or at least when the plans to eliminate those distractions are under way. Good thread guys. I know of a few lads here at work who are following it as guests. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 22, 2009 12:42:40 GMT -5
It does seem contradictory to pass judgement before given a chance. It isn't rhetoric if he follows through, and it can't be lies if there's no chance to do so. Even though I don't believe a lot of the stuff that's been hailed as coming will pass, I'm willing to wait before proclaiming his failure. You mentioned long term action as one of your requisites to be impressed. Well this is day 2. Have I called for his head? I simply don't trust him and the higher the rhetoric, the more feul for cynicism. 98 days from now, I like to say that I was wrong..... That's fair enough, I just get the impression that -- for you -- he's doomed for failure like Bush was to all the "mirror-lickers" (heh, I like that term). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2009 12:46:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 13:01:05 GMT -5
JFK and Obama carefully nurtured the same glorified oratory and hysteria....and media bias. He could screw anyone in the Oval office, the media would take ring sides seats and say nothing. Let's not forget that JFK almost brought us within inches of nuclear armageddon like nobody before or since him. In fact, the fact that the Russian backed down only increased his myth rather then questioning how we got there to begin with. No, I am not impressed by JFK and Obama has mountains to climb...rather then spew about them....before he impresses. Well, JFK had his faults and most of those came out after over the years after he was assassinated. However, he made most of his enemies before he took office. Obama might have enemies as well, but not too many of them have surfaced thus far. What killed JFK eventually (only my opinion mate) was that he finally pissed off too many people around him. He made what seemed to be a unilateral decision to kybosh the Vietnam War. That took a lot of backbone to make that decision. It also took a lot of backbone to squash the Pay of Pigs operation at the last minute. Kennedy backs out of the operation finally realizing that it couldn't possibly work. As far as Obama is concerned, I think he has to be very careful not to do two things: a. not introduce too many changes too quickly, and b. not to weaken America's image as a world Superpower. There are lobbies that simply won't stand for either. With many people, ANY change is stressful. That doesn't necessarily pertain to John Q. American; I mean they voted for change. But, too much change too quickly will not be received well by those who have been calling the shots for decades. I also think Obama has to be careful not to weaken the image of his country. Don't get me wrong, I think he's the right guy to implement the kind of damage control required to repair a tarnished international reputation. BUT, he has to be careful not to lose any face doing it. I find the one, obvious situation where he'll have a good chance at implementing both, is the Cuban embargo. Have to wait and see I guess. He has the economy to worry about as well, granted. However, I think it will be easier for him to concentrate on that once he eliminates the distraction of his country's international affairs, or at least when the plans to eliminate those distractions are under way. Good thread guys. I know of a few lads here at work who are following it as guests. Cheers. Good thingthe boss can't fire me because I was suppose to be at work an hour ago.... Dis, I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of JFK. His failures and almost Armageddon is sprinkled with fairy dust. Too many have this mythical image of him. If Obama brought us to the brink of nuclear war, I want his head on a quillotine, nothing less. There IS some glimmer of hope in me. Just a small one mind you. IF Obama uses his Messiah complex with the left to sell hard economic medicine that MUST be taken then I will wear his sweater (don't let anybody else know this secret!). He alone has a unique opportunity to effect and deliver things that no President has ever had. On the other hand, will he tell the man or woman who can't pay their mortgage that government can't afford to give them a handout? Will he tell them that they had no business buying a $300,000 home with McDonald wages? Will he tell the left that some people are really evil and they will kill on contact? Will he tell the masses that it's better to have a million more unemployed today then ten million unemployed tomorrow? Or tomorrow, their wages will buy a slice of bread rather then loafs? Will he tell them that their shopping sprees and trinket buying at WalMart are the cause of trade deficit with China? If he can tell them that and take non partisan, apoltical action then I'm buying two cases of Moosehead and we can get drunk over how wrong I was to be cynical, skeptical and downright cranky...... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 13:08:27 GMT -5
Have I called for his head? I simply don't trust him and the higher the rhetoric, the more feul for cynicism. 98 days from now, I like to say that I was wrong..... That's fair enough, I just get the impression that -- for you -- he's doomed for failure like Bush was to all the "mirror-lickers" (heh, I like that term). LOL! I have nothing but utter contempt for those mirror-lickers flying in with their private jets and then renting a Prius to show up in front of a camera and scold us on how we live. Only my middle finger knows how many times it graced them.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2009 13:13:58 GMT -5
On the other hand, will he tell the man or woman who can't pay their mortgage that government can't afford to give them a handout? Funny thing . . . he isn't going to give them a handout -- he's going to give massive handouts tot he people who created the problem in the first place, not hold them accountable for the billions given, and the problem will go on. People are up to their eyeballs in debt, the big three will get the money and make cars that no one wants or can afford, and the economy sinks deeper. Obama: buy every worker's mortgage down by $1,000 [who knows the number -- maybe 8¢], tell the banks to lower credit card rates [and limits to reasonable] and to end bonuses for simply being able to claw one's way up to CEO, and let the chips fall [admittedly, I have no idea] Funny thing -- they already know it, and knew it when they bought. The banks blew it -- they should have to carry the freight some how [admittedly, I have no idea] Funny thing . . . people say that they hate WalMart and that WalMart is killing the economy/small local businesses/etc, yet do their shopping there. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2009 13:16:46 GMT -5
GREAT picture. To the left.....that man has no health care, no job and it certainly NOT his fault. It's all because "Bush did it". To the right...he is a lazy no good bum who rather pan handle then find a job. To me....I'll pay for your tools with my taxes and it's up tp you to do what you want with your life. Nothing more, nothing less. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 23, 2009 12:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 23, 2009 13:30:18 GMT -5
The problem with Guantanomo isn't that it keeps bad people away from what they do best; its that it does it illegally. Remember, these people were sent to Cuba for the express purpose of denying them the rights provided by the US constitution. That these people are mad, bad and dangerous to know is beyond question. But that does not put them "above the law." (or more accurately, "beyond the law")
I have always said try them, convict them, and put them away for life. But to hold them in this illegal fashion has done more harm than good. You cannot argue for freedom from tyranny if you yourself ignore everything that goes into that freedom...
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 23, 2009 14:27:55 GMT -5
The problem with Guantanomo isn't that it keeps bad people away from what they do best; its that it does it illegally. Remember, these people were sent to Cuba for the express purpose of denying them the rights provided by the US constitution. That these people are mad, bad and dangerous to know is beyond question. But that does not put them "above the law." (or more accurately, "beyond the law") I have always said try them, convict them, and put them away for life. But to hold them in this illegal fashion has done more harm than good. You cannot argue for freedom from tyranny if you yourself ignore everything that goes into that freedom... Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 23, 2009 15:06:59 GMT -5
The problem with Guantanomo isn't that it keeps bad people away from what they do best; its that it does it illegally. Remember, these people were sent to Cuba for the express purpose of denying them the rights provided by the US constitution. That these people are mad, bad and dangerous to know is beyond question. But that does not put them "above the law." (or more accurately, "beyond the law") I have always said try them, convict them, and put them away for life. But to hold them in this illegal fashion has done more harm than good. You cannot argue for freedom from tyranny if you yourself ignore everything that goes into that freedom... I think the statement that Gitmo is illegal is a bit more rhetoric than fact. Unethical? Quite possibly. Unnecessary? I don't know. But illegal? Nope, not a chance. The facts are that Gitmo was created so that things would be legal, so that laws could be bypassed (that's where the unethical comes in). The more important question, to me at least, are what are the alternatives. The problem with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "War on Terror" in general is that we are no longer playing on the same battlefield as we were when many of the rules of war were written. We do not face an enemy for whom there exists a set of laws yet. Gitmo - Gitmo is a poorly run operation. It is a shame. But in the end, it does it's job - it keeps as many terrorists off the field of battle as humanly possible, it gets intellegence to prevent further losses, it enables us to fight back effectively, and without endangering the lives of both our people, our allies and those innocents who happen to be trapped in a combat zone. At the end of the day I am not sad to see Gitmo closed, but neither do I share many people's cheers. Gitmo is the solution to a problem which is rampant in this day and age. It is not pretty. It is not nice. But is there a better solution to the problem? I don't have one. I honestly can't think of one (well, I can think of several, none of which would be well recieved by the left-wingers amongst us). The real question is "how do we protect our people from our enemies"? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 23, 2009 15:38:26 GMT -5
What killed JFK eventually (only my opinion mate) was that he finally pissed off too many people around him. He made what seemed to be a unilateral decision to kybosh the Vietnam War. That took a lot of backbone to make that decision. Is this correct? JFK was assassinated in November of 1963 .... the Vietnam war started in 1959, but US combat troops were not sent there until 1965. I believe, but someone with a stronger military history background can correct me if I am wrong, that JFK set up military strongholds in South Vietnam while in office, in anticipation of American involvement. Unless you mean that JFK planned not to send any troops to Vietnam at all, and was assassinated for that ... giving way for LBJ to sent troops 2 years later in 1965... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 23, 2009 21:03:25 GMT -5
I have always said try them, convict them, and put them away for life. But to hold them in this illegal fashion has done more harm than good. You cannot argue for freedom from tyranny if you yourself ignore everything that goes into that freedom... The biggest issue is that you can not try them in American courts because the prosecution will not meet the standards set by criminal court. Evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" is simply not possible on a battlefield. So now what? If they touch American soil, MANY of those terrorist WILL be released and they know that and counting on it. Will they kill again? To believe anything less is to be simply naive. That is the reason I linked the article. Should the people who released them be held responsible? ONLY if they can prove that a hyena is not a hyena just because it looks like a human. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 23, 2009 21:07:54 GMT -5
I honestly can't think of one (well, I can think of several, none of which would be well recieved by the left-wingers amongst us). The real question is "how do we protect our people from our enemies"? You know and I know EXACTLY what will happen on the battlefield....and so do the people who advocate Gitmo's closure. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 23, 2009 21:28:11 GMT -5
ANOTHER article along the same vein but this one has one additional and very disturbing paragraph. According to the Pentagon at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have "returned to the fight" and another 43 are suspected of resuming terrorist activities. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell declined to provide the identity of the former detainees or what their terrorist activities were.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_al_qaidaIs there any doubt what will happen when many of those held at Gitmo get out? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 23, 2009 23:05:24 GMT -5
What killed JFK eventually (only my opinion mate) was that he finally pissed off too many people around him. He made what seemed to be a unilateral decision to kybosh the Vietnam War. That took a lot of backbone to make that decision. Is this correct? JFK was assassinated in November of 1963 .... the Vietnam war started in 1959, but US combat troops were not sent there until 1965. I believe, but someone with a stronger military history background can correct me if I am wrong, that JFK set up military strongholds in South Vietnam while in office, in anticipation of American involvement. Unless you mean that JFK planned not to send any troops to Vietnam at all, and was assassinated for that ... giving way for LBJ to sent troops 2 years later in 1965... JFK initially increased the 800 soldiers in Vietnam to 16,000 during his tenure. However, he apparently wasn't going to commit to Vietnam if he were to be re-elected in 1964. Apparently, Robert McNamara stated that Kennedy was strongly leaning towards a pullout and according to Wikipedia, a tape existed with Lyndon Johnson stating that this was a fact. The circumstances are a bit different nowadays, though. Back in the early-60's, the American public pretty much bought into the Vietnam War. However, that support waned substantially as more and more young Americans were killed in the conflict. Eventually, the US had no option but to pull out, not to public pressure, but because they were going to outright lose the war. Fast forward to Iraq: I'm honestly not so sure if the American public was sold on the whole Iraqi War idea from the beginning, as they were with the Vietnam War. I can't remember the pole numbers, but I remember talking about it at work. One pole was against the war while the other one gave unwaivering support to the troops (80% I think). I don't know what the poles are now, but Obama has almost unanimous support in getting the troops home safely. Anyway, I think some of our American members could probably tell it better than I can. HFLA, how well do you remember those times? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Jan 24, 2009 19:43:52 GMT -5
Obama doesn't strike as the kind of man who will blame the Bush administration for all of their problems. Nor does he even need to, Dis. The anti-Bush coalition will press the point over and over again: it's all Bush's fault. War? Bush. Economy? Bush. Global warming Climate change? Bush. Obama is the messiah, and Bush is evil incarnate, therefore anything that might dim Obama's shine will be blamed on GW. That first term, anyway . . . As it should. Why exactly should Bush not be blamed for the destruction of the American empire over the last 8 years? It's not like he wasn't the most powerful politician in the the country who's government became the most interventionist in the history of the country. Most of America got exactly what it asked for by electing(?) an underachieving, lazy, unintelligent, rigid and intolerant individual, with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and running companies into the ground. Was there really any alternative to the current situation this nation finds itself in? Obama is not a messiah. No living human will be able to fix the disaster in one term. Take a trip to the US lately? Things are incredibly ugly. It will take a long, long time for things to repair themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 24, 2009 20:59:40 GMT -5
Obama is not a messiah. No living human will be able to fix the disaster in one term. Take a trip to the US lately? Things are incredibly ugly. It will take a long, long time for things to repair themselves. Actually, no. But things were pretty ugly when I used to go to Myrtle Beach during the Clinton years. I don't think things have changed over the years -- Democrat or Republican in office. Lip service to changing the economy, civil rights, fair wages, etc. I hope Mr. Obama can indeed change things. Bush gets a lot of blame -- some even deservedly! He misread the situation in Iraq totally. If we liken our position in life to a poker game, Bush went "all in" and lost big time . . . but was stuck at the table until a new player could come in. The new player will be circumspect and slow to act in some instances, and quick in others [taking those chips given by the American public and not taking big chances to begin with]. However, he ran on a platform of hope and change, and has to be careful how long he points the finger at Bush saying "I know what I promised but I can't because of him". Didn't he know what he was getting into? If not, why was he making all those promises?  |
|
