Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Good joke about Skiing.
I disagree about the economy. I think the president would rather have an economic crisis. You will remember the amount of money he and his toadies in congress are spending. National Debt hovering over 13.1Trillion Dollars thats a 13 with 12 zero's behind it. Unsustainable IMHO. Wonder who/how this will be paid for.

I have two words for you, sir:

Social and Security.

If the government can screw up that simple of an economic concept, their hand cannot be dismissed in even the most egregious or simplest of financial fiascoes meant to be passed on to their heirs.

Paid for? Why do you think we hedge against the Euro Dollar? It sure as hell ain't because the American dollar standard is worth a hill of beans!

I agree with HokieMSG on this: There is a line, and McCrystal went over it. There were channels he could have expressed his dissatisfaction to, and if that didn't work that he could have resigned. But he did the one thing no active duty General should ever do; badmouth the POTUS to the press. What he did was exactly what Douglas MacArthur did to Truman and so was the Consequences. Obama had no choice but to fire him, no president can afford a subordinate to run their own private show, Obama would have been seriously wrong not to fire him.

As for Obama: Ill agree with Chief Bones. Hes neither the worst nor the best. He's made some bad decisions that were his fault. A little to close to Wall Street, and he also abandoned his base, the people who got him elected by reneging on practically everything he said he was going to do. The fact that the right HATES him is not a big loss, they were never going to be on his side anyway. But by pissing off the people that got him into office was incredibly stupid and the polls show it. The reason his polls are at 45% approval is because his own supporters on the left don't trust him anymore. His unpopularity is so acute amongst the left he is actually in Jeopardy of a primary challenge either by a liberal like Russ Feingold, or a moderate Democrat like Hillary C.

On the other hand, but he inherited a terrible economic situation and 2 wars all of which was not his fault. He also faces a minority political party in congress run by extreme radicals (the party of "No") totally opposed to any attempt to negotiate on practically any subject, resulting in one of the worst political gridlocks in our history.

Well put mmarsh. Though the "war" in Iraq is drawing to a close, he still has to contend with the "other" one in A'stan.
I am sponsoring a linguist I worked with in Iraq and he tells me that the GOI (Governement of Iraq) is allowing ALL former members of the military to rejoin. Really a shame since we were making progress on the corruption issue.
Obama has alienated his constituents enough that I think he will face serious challenges for reelection. Time will tell but I don;t think he will get a second term. A lot will depend on who the dems put forward in the primaries. I wonder who the right is going to put forward?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

On the other hand, but he inherited a terrible economic situation and 2 wars all of which was not his fault. He also faces a minority political party in congress run by extreme radicals (the party of "No") totally opposed to any attempt to negotiate on practically any subject, resulting in one of the worst political gridlocks in our history.

You're kidding aren't you? You guys had total control of the Govt with a filibuster proof majority that meant Dems could pass any thing they wanted with out the Reps being able to do anything to stop them, all they had to do was keep there own Party members in line. The Radicals (Dems)ARE in control but couldn't get all thier radical agenda items through a Congress they controlled. Sure the Republicans are opposed to this, but they can't be blamed for the Dems not keeping thier members in line.
Republicans as radicals? HUH??? Most of the Leadership is the same Moderate/Left Bush Big Government types (Dem lite) that got the Republicans thrashed @ the last 2 elections. People have short memories. They forgot how Democrats spend & bought the lies about Dems being "fiscally responcible" & other nonsence retoric that spewed out of Dem mouths during the last election. If the regime wasn't bailing out the economy they'd still be spending big, just it would have been on govt dependancy & vote buying programs.

Originally Posted by George

You're kidding aren't you? You guys had total control of the Govt with a filibuster proof majority that meant Dems could pass any thing they wanted with out the Reps being able to do anything to stop them, all they had to do was keep there own Party members in line. The Radicals (Dems)ARE in control but couldn't get all thier radical agenda items through a Congress they controlled. Sure the Republicans are opposed to this, but they can't be blamed for the Dems not keeping thier members in line.
Republicans as radicals? HUH??? Most of the Leadership is the same Moderate/Left Bush Big Government types (Dem lite) that got the Republicans thrashed @ the last 2 elections. People have short memories. They forgot how Democrats spend & bought the lies about Dems being "fiscally responcible" & other nonsence retoric that spewed out of Dem mouths during the last election. If the regime wasn't bailing out the economy they'd still be spending big, just it would have been on govt dependancy & vote buying programs.

No I am not kidding you, check your facts again. If the Dems are more Radical, What do you call the Tea-Party? Or the Birthers? Those loonies are on your side not the left. If the Dems could pass anything they wanted how come they got almost NOTHING passed? And what they did get passed was the extremely watered down version? How come the public option died? The filibuster-proof Congress didn't even last a single year...remember?

Before you criticize the Dems for spending, why don't you check to see when the Republicans last managed to balance a budget. For all their talk about fiscal responsible, history has proven the GOP to be even worse spenders than the Democrats. A fact FOX NEWS and RUSH likes to conveniently forget. The Dems used to be Tax and Spend, the GOP is even worse they are Borrow and spend. The fact is the GOP giving lessons on fiscal responsibility is like Pol Pot giving lectures on human rights.

Look at the Heath-care debate it dragged on for months because of stalling tactics done by your party. Look at Financial Reform, look at energy bill. Every single time the Dems tried to pass something meaningful you guys obstructed it.

Why do you think the GOP is called the party of "NO". Anything Obama proposes the radicals are automatically against like a knee-jerk reaction. Obama could propose curing cancer and world hunger and they would still be against it.

I find the whole situation tragic, but then it has always been the same in my mother country - the politicians do not rule for the benefit of the people, but with an eye on another term, becasue that will help them to feather their nest, expand their networks and secure sinecures.

I do not know why we tolerate lobbyists as part of the process. They represent businesses, not people, but both in the UK & here in the US, everyone seems to be happy that big business has the ear of "their" elected representatives, whilst the voters get to suck the hindmost..

I have no real solution until we, the people, can get people we trust onto the inside to reform the system - but then they become part of the system. AS always big business will never lose, but you & I will be decimated, financially and socially, but worse we become pavlovs dogs for voting causes espoused by the mainstream media and forget to ask questions and demand answers - the biggest shame of all.

Many Europeans cheered when Barack Obama was elected president. Disdain for his predecessor ran so high that, even in Britain, pollsters found that George W. Bush was considered a greater threat to peace than Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Only Osama bin Laden outpolled him.

But President Obama hasn't lived up to European expectations. The disillusionment is showing. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has characterized him as weak. And at a U.N. Security Council meeting on nonproliferation, Mr. Sarkozy chided Mr. Obama with the reminder that "We live in a real world, not a virtual world."

Many Europeans, of course, still cling to the notion that Mr. Obama is "one of us." And certainly no American president has been friendlier to the political values of Europe.

But to Europe's dismay, Mr. Obama can't find the time to attend this year's annual U.S.-European Union Summit - something Mr. Bush always managed to do. Mr. Obama's decision to skip the summit offended Europeans, who saw it as a deliberate snub of the European Union - their favorite project to centralize government and internationalize the governance of human affairs great and small. Given Mr. Obama's embrace of such ideas domestically, Europeans were understandably puzzled that he would not rush to link arms with them in the summit.

Further souring relations was Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates' blast at much of Europe for dithering on defense. At a meeting of NATO officials, Mr. Gates said the "pacification of Europe" (meaning Europe's turning away from war and defense spending as necessary policies to keep the peace) was making it difficult for the allies to "operate and fight together."

"The demilitarization of Europe," he argued, "where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st."

Mr. Gates is absolutely right, but put that aside for a moment. The in-your-face nature of his words is striking. No Bush administration official - not even Donald Rumsfeld - ever publicly criticized Europe's lack of military spending and support for NATO so bluntly. Europeans hammered Mr. Rumsfeld merely for suggesting there was a "new" and "old" Europe. Now you have a secretary of defense arguing that European fecklessness threatens world peace.

It is one thing to start a quarrel with France or even the EU, but Mr. Obama has managed even to offend the British. Many commentators in the UK now accuse Mr. Obama of harboring anti-British sentiments. The State Department's recent announcement that we would remain neutral in the Falklands Islands dispute between the UK and Argentina has only fueled that perception.

Daniel Hannan, a British member of the European Parliament and former fan of Mr. Obama's, put it this way in the London Telegraph: "Look, Mr. President, I was one of the few conservatives who truly wanted you to succeed. I didn't mind the way you snubbed our PM: I mean, most of us feel the same way about him. I didn't mind about the mildly anti-British passages in your book, or the boxed set of DVDs or the returning of the bust of [Winston] Churchill. But this is different. This is serious. How would you feel if, the next time you found yourself at war with some tyrant, we were simply to issue a terse statement saying 'our position remains one of neutrality'?"

Mr. Hannan's growing concern over Mr. Obama's policies is shared by many on the opposite side of the European political spectrum. With regard to the Obama presidency, illusions are shattering across Europe. There, as here, the left's exaggerated hatred of Mr. Bush was matched only by their naive embrace of Mr. Obama. They now increasingly realize that although Mr. Obama may admire Europe's domestic polices on health care and energy, he has little practical use for the European Union's pretensions to world influence and leadership.
But he does seem willing to give them precisely what they've requested for years: A diminished U.S. role in the world. Mr. Obama is pulling back on the projection of American power. Leaving the Europeans to their own devices (and ignoring their summits) is merely part of that program.

European confusion is understandable. They expected that waning American power would mean less criticism from Washington and more European influence over U.S. policy. It didn't work out that way. Instead, administration officials are blasting European security policies in language that would make even Mr. Rumsfeld blush. On top of that, Mr. Obama was not even able to save Europe's favorite international agenda item - the climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

Europe may never get over its disdain for Mr. Bush. But they may someday come to realize that things were not as bad under Mr. Bush as they thought. At least he showed up to their meetings.

In all fairness, then-President Clinton, a Democrat, proved to anyone with even a modicum of financial sense that his fiscal packets worked like a charm. By disproving the theory of trickle-down "Reaganomics," he solidified my belief that his party clearly sets the standard for sound spending and GDP/GDI/GDS outflow and inflow without drastically skyrocketing interest rates.

I have yet to see a Republican even come close to his sense of debt leverage. Sounds strange from a right winger like me, but I give credit where credit is due. But then again, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Anarchist with a lot of guns and a lot of training. I don't really need the government to help me live my life.

Anywho...

Before you lefties go jumping out of your mini-skirts screaming about "Birthers" or "Tea Party Loonies," I suggest you clean your own house:

Mr. Bush had what y'all refered to as "his war on oil-" an obvious attempt at outright slander and libel, as we have never liberated even a single drop of Iraqi oil.

You made fun of him because he talked "funny" being from Texas.

And rather than actually discuss a matter, you childishly, incessantly, predictably revert to "Rush," "Fox" and other "crazy right loons."

The disrespect from your side of the fence during Mr. Bush's two terms was unprecedented in its vileness and blatant untruths. It was "his" fault we went to war, and la tee da that it was the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS who signed the official deceleration to invade Iraq.



There are rude extremists on both sides of the fence. Don't go throwing rocks unless you want rocks thrown back at you. I'd like to think that everyone on this board can discuss the issues without reverting to the extremism nonsense of childish and immature political bickering.

The personal attacks on Mr. Obama are, as they were with Mr. Bush, unwarranted and only serve that no real argument exists where names are called.

My humble .02.

Again concur with AZ. I too feel that Clinton did some pretty smart things for the economy. My only real issue with Clinton is that he LIED under oath and the Dems in congress didn't have the integrity to impeach him.

It is telling that when Obama was running for office, he told the media that his kids were off limits. The media has largely respected his wishes, but did not hesitate to slander Palin's kids or Bush's kids.

mmarsh, you criticise the right for stalling tactis on healthcare, energy and financial reform. It seems to me that healthcare reform is something nobody wants, energy reform will cause increases in everyones energy bills and financial reform is likely to be too little too late.

BTW marsh, the dems had only a year (your words) with the supermajority. They could have gotten a lot of things done that they wanted to. Wonder why they didn't?

A final note: Obama is the ONLY senator that had the stones to not vote for the war in the first place. The rest of the dems jumped on the bandwagon and despite of what they thought they voted for the war, then went on the record to say that they never approved of it (Hillary, Kerry, etc.) Damn Hypocrites.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

In all fairness, then-President Clinton, a Democrat, proved to anyone with even a modicum of financial sense that his fiscal packets worked like a charm. By disproving the theory of trickle-down "Reaganomics," he solidified my belief that his party clearly sets the standard for sound spending and GDP/GDI/GDS outflow and inflow without drastically skyrocketing interest rates.

I have yet to see a Republican even come close to his sense of debt leverage. Sounds strange from a right winger like me, but I give credit where credit is due. But then again, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Anarchist with a lot of guns and a lot of training. I don't really need the government to help me live my life.

Anywho...

Before you lefties go jumping out of your mini-skirts screaming about "Birthers" or "Tea Party Loonies," I suggest you clean your own house:

Mr. Bush had what y'all refered to as "his war on oil-" an obvious attempt at outright slander and libel, as we have never liberated even a single drop of Iraqi oil.

You made fun of him because he talked "funny" being from Texas.

And rather than actually discuss a matter, you childishly, incessantly, predictably revert to "Rush," "Fox" and other "crazy right loons."

The disrespect from your side of the fence during Mr. Bush's two terms was unprecedented in its vileness and blatant untruths. It was "his" fault we went to war, and la tee da that it was the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS who signed the official deceleration to invade Iraq.



There are rude extremists on both sides of the fence. Don't go throwing rocks unless you want rocks thrown back at you. I'd like to think that everyone on this board can discuss the issues without reverting to the extremism nonsense of childish and immature political bickering.

The personal attacks on Mr. Obama are, as they were with Mr. Bush, unwarranted and only serve that no real argument exists where names are called.

My humble .02.

You're forgetting Clinton's 1st 2 years in Office. His Agenda was too radical for the Dem controlled Congress to pass. Remember ClintonCare? rememberr Clinton saying _____ Billion dollar deficits as far as we can see & I've worked as hard as I can & can't solve it! Clinton got the benefit of the Reagan economic boom & he resisted the balanced budged plan of the Republicans who took over the Congress as a result of Clinton's Agenda. Only after polling showed overwhelming support of the people for balanced budgets did he embrace the Rep. plans for a balanced budget. With a booming economy he was still able to bloat the buearocracy @ the same time. If the dems had retained controll of Congress the balanced budget wouldn't have happened