Obamanomics: Bad for the economy...

[luluc 6]

I will be happy to put on my admin hat and start issuing infractions and temporary bans if necessary to further enforce my point.

Thank you. You may now return to debating politics and attacking IDEAS.

i'll take my infractions in the form of a wet noodle slap.....

i guess i can behave :sad:

i will agree w/plain on this - yes obama was well rec'd over the pond, but till he gets the other countries to buy into his economic plan (which i'm not sure will happen) can that visit be considered a success.

[BJean 16]

plain: "I think you'll find I don't dodge."

Um, hmmm. And I said:

"Were you proud of the way he represented our country on the night he used the term "shock and awe" when he dropped bombs on a country that we were not at war with?"

And you responded:

"Except....Bush didn't coin the term "shock and awe". A dude named Harlan Ullman coined that military philosophy way back in 1996. Who was president in '96?" (And that is relevant because.....?)

I feel like your response could be considered at least a misdirection. My comment was about his use of the term "shock and awe" as if what he was doing was an admirable thing - but I didn't say that he made the phrase up - he just used it to make bombing a country something that he thought we should be proud of. And that is why I found it so stinkingly innappropriate; the context, not the words themselves.

And you also said:

"Wait!! Congress authorized Bush to use military force "at any time and in any way he sees fit" on October 11 2002. The bombing didn't start until March 19 2003. So to recap....congress approved, Bush followed through. It wasn't like he invaded within 10 minutes of congressional approval."

Another misdirection. I said we weren't at war with Iraq and you said that he was given the authority to drop those bombs. Congress allowing him to use his own judgment about when, where and upon whom he could send in the bombs wasn't the point. And the timing when he invaded wasn't my issue either. My issue was with bombing a country that we weren't at war with. They had not attacked us and some very good intelligence advised him not to do it. He did it anyway and we had never actually declared war.

I believe you used words that may be correct, but they are off the point that I was making. It's a clever tactic and one that many people use. Just like your compatriot, Beth, who goes all offensive instead of attemting to defend her stance. You know what they say: The best defense is a good offense. You all have learned that lesson well.

[BJean 16]

"Foreign countries seem to loves them some Obama."

I am surprised at you plain. I really didn't figure you as that kind of person. I read that and felt depressed and disappointed.

Not that it's a HUGE deal, but in some ways it may reflect a lot of the backlash that we're hearing right now from Obama critics. They're being very contradictory in their criticism of Obama vs what they put up with in Bush. Maybe it has to do with plain ole' discrimination and bias.

If it is, those people who are biased against him because of his skin color just need to get over it and realize that this is a new era - an Enlightened era - a more intelligent and less fearful era. Some of us are marching forward with a hopefully, less rigidly partisan Washington, and toward a brighter future. Brighter from light bulbs coming on inside people's heads instead of brightness from bombs going off.

[luluc 6]

"Foreign countries seem to loves them some Obama."

I am surprised at you plain. I really didn't figure you as that kind of person. I read that and felt depressed and disappointed.

Not that it's a HUGE deal, but in some ways it may reflect a lot of the backlash that we're hearing right now from Obama critics. They're being very contradictory in their criticism of Obama vs what they put up with in Bush. Maybe it has to do with plain ole' discrimination and bias.

If it is, those people who are biased against him because of his skin color just need to get over it and realize that this is a new era - an Enlightened era - a more intelligent and less fearful era. Some of us are marching forward with a hopefully, less rigidly partisan Washington, and toward a brighter future. Brighter from light bulbs coming on inside people's heads instead of brightness from bombs going off.

i didn't pick up on that; but i think the US hasn't caught on like the rest of the world that race & gender no longer matters - so long as the candidate is qualified.

.....and i get it, many feel obama isn't qualified, but there is merit to say that because of the color of his skin "some" many not give him a chance. that is MY opinion - not fact.

[BethFromVA 5]

well how convienient.

every damn thread her hot ass participates in results in what GOD says....well - he's done. he called wants his calling card minutes transferred to paul rudd.

so you give lieniency to PG - cause why???? she's been a strain on the system - not this lib ... trust me , uncle sam gets more than his due from dh and myself and i'm retired before 40.

i have been friends w/BJean since i joined - share the same politics & fought in many threads before many here joined.

have at it - ya'll.........

Not leniency, just gave up. There's no point in adding yet another issue to this topic.

As for BJean, I appreciate that you are friends, and for that I am sorry that I upset you. However, my experience with her from past political threads is that, where I attack the politician, she attacks the person attacking the politician. It becomes personal when it never should.

Also, as for BJean, she too is not worth expending the energy. Like PG, she has her agenda, and nothing else can get through. That's my view, anyway.

[BethFromVA 5]

Unnecessary post.

Edited April 9, 2009 by BethFromVA

[BethFromVA 5]

I think you'll find I don't dodge.

Unfortunately, I don't have much of a life, so I'm able to obsessively scour LBT. Yay me!

Don't forget my favorite.....Bush Sr. puking on the prime minister of Japan. Totally Animal House!!

*record scratch* Wait!! Congress authorized Bush to use military force "at any time and in any way he sees fit" on October 11 2002. The bombing didn't start until March 19 2003. So to recap....congress approved, Bush followed through. It wasn't like he invaded within 10 minutes of congressional approval.

Except....Bush didn't coin the term "shock and awe". A dude named Harlan Ullman coined that military philosophy way back in 1996. Who was president in '96?

I agree with you here. Foreign countries seem to loves them some Obama. Too bad they don't love him enough to commit to his economic plan, or to his plan to fight terrorism. But hey! At least now we're at the diplomatic table with Iran! Yesssssssss.......

Plain, have I told you lately that I love you? :sad: You are the bestest.

[BethFromVA 5]

I'm not saying that Bush was 'The man'. Why is it that everytime someone comments on what Obama is doing right now, they go back to what Bush did back then. We can't change the past mistakes on any presidents part whether dem or rep. So, As pres. Obama takes our government into the automoblie business, the mortgage and banking business, the healthcare business, the energy business and the environmental planning business, he is working on a basic premis that we'll be better off if we turn more of our lives and resources over to gov. bureaucrats to manage. Not only has this been tried many times (social security) but it has failed every time. There was a learning oportunity with social security that was missed by our government. The social engineering made sence when Roosevelt was in office because the country had 40 people working per 1 retired person back then. Now it's 3-1.The problem is the world constantly changes, but gov.programs don't. Other gov. conceived and managed dinosaurs, medicare and medicaid, are in even worse shape. Reinventing America by bringing government management to our auto, banking, energy and health care industries? You might like this idea if you ignore all the past experiences!

Absolutely agreed, PG. On every political thread I've ever been on, when they say how great it is that Obama is doing what he's doing, I have asked -- to the sound of crickets -- for people to name ONE THING the government has ever taken over that was bettered by its involvement. That question gets conveniently skipped (nee ignored) every single time.

It's as if these pols are saying, "No, no, no, you're not ruining it fast enough! Here, let us show you how to do it."

[BethFromVA 5]

I read the letters to the editors every day in the newspaper. I read 2-3 letters that are written by people who are just flabergasted by Obama's decision making and spending every day. There is NEVER any letters talking about all the good he is doing since his election. I believe it is hard for those who voted for him to see that he is making some dumb moves, and they themselves probably can't believe that this is what he meant by 'Change'.

So many I've met are such hard-line polarized partisans that no matter what he does, it's great. However, had a republican been in office and done the same thing, there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I know this like I know the sun will come up tomorrow.

You'd see how many of these people REALLY feel if a conservative did it. But he could do anything and it would be fine for a lot of people, simply because they adhere to a certain political stance rather than looking at WHAT that person is doing!

Though I consider myself a conservative (though today's "conservative" is looking to be far from what I believe in), once Bush started doing things that I considered un-conservative, I became very vocal against him. I didn't just nod and smile and say how great he was because he wore the label "conservative."

That is what separates some of us from others, from EITHER side. I know there are conservatives that get entranced by their guy too and quit really paying attention to what it all means. So long as he is of the same political persuasion that they are, that's all it takes. I really don't get that about some people. To me, it shows a TOTAL lack of thinking for oneself but instead shows a complete sheeple mentality. Of course, that is just my opinion -- and I'm not saying this about any one side. It happens on both.

[luluc 6]

Lulu, I think we kinda smoothed things out between us, but I can't help but wonder why only one side is being held to a standard here. I am sure if you had read the entire thread, you'd have seen how things all went down. I certainly was no loner in the demise of this thread -- not by a long shot.

when i say there is no debating going on it's because there isn't.....BOTH sides play into typing up a whole pages worth of text (BTW - some, including myself don't read through 8 paragraph responses all the time) on their position. if questions aren't answered properly or at all - pissing match starts....again BOTH sided. that's not debate, reason i said such.

i have read through most of this thread, minus the ignored....i just shake my head, really cause i can have this discussion w/my BEST friends, husband & his family who all are not fans of obama and it is quite egaging, entertaining, thought provoking & most importantly CIVIL.

yes - we're smoothed over.

[BethFromVA 5]

i didn't pick up on that; but i think the US hasn't caught on like the rest of the world that race & gender no longer matters - so long as the candidate is qualified.

.....and i get it, many feel obama isn't qualified, but there is merit to say that because of the color of his skin "some" many not give him a chance. that is MY opinion - not fact.

You very well could be right, but I would LOVE if somebody like Colin Powell or Condi Rice ran. I'd have to look further into their beliefs, etc., but I have NO issue with the color of Obama's skin -- only the lack of his experience, couth, and the fact that he adheres to a socialist ideology.

[BethFromVA 5]

when i say there is no debating going on it's because there isn't.....BOTH sides play into typing up a whole pages worth of text (BTW - some, including myself don't read through 8 paragraph responses all the time) on their position. if questions aren't answered properly or at all - pissing match starts....again BOTH sided. that's not debate, reason i said such.

i have read through most of this thread, minus the ignored....i just shake my head, really cause i can have this discussion w/my BEST friends, husband & his family who all are not fans of obama and it is quite egaging, entertaining, thought provoking & most importantly CIVIL.

yes - we're smoothed over.

Yes, many of my responses were long. However, I was also accused of not answering the questions. I guess I can't win. :sad:

And yes, when I get attacked personally for not drinking the Kool-Aid (regardless of whose Kool-Aid it is), I tend to be drug down to that person's level. I know it is a weakness of mine, and I will try to do better.

[BJean 16]

luluc, I have a similar experience with my friends and co-workers when we discuss politics and religion. It is always interesting and I always learn something. No one gets mad or calls each other names.

Here at LBT, we feel we are anonymous and we say things that are not respectful and that are downright tacky.

Beth is correct when she said that I have gotten personal but she is wrong when she has accused me of not having a point or "drinking the kool-aide" (which is NOT one of the things that I have ever suggested of anyone).

We disagree on very fundamental issues. She has decided that I have blinders on and I wouldn't exactly characterize her in those terms, but I do believe that she is consumed with things that are not worth discussing or irrelevant.

The right wing has become quite adept at raising issues that promote fear and distrust, while at the same time they are pushing an agenda that is very lopsided and single-minded.

That is my opinion and just that. I do not set myself up to be a font of knowledge and I do not have dozens of links to back up my opinions. I am an American. I have every right to voice my opinion, just as Beth and Patty and Plain and you and everyone else does. I can disagree but I sure don't think it is my job to accuse anyone of "drinking the kool-aide" - which I believe is a very distasteful (pardon the pun) reference to an extremely tragic event.

[BethFromVA 5]

Okay, BJean, I'll ask you a question and try not to make a novel out of it.

Exactly why do you think what Obama is doing -- snatching up businesses, firing people, and dictating how they are run -- is a good thing? You accused Bush of being a fascist, but that is what is going on here in spades.

I am sure your disagreement with Bush had to do with the Patriot Act, among others, but that does not even come close to the definition of fascism:

(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Now, what makes what Bush did fascism (and I'm not supporting or trashing what he did, I'm just looking for clarification), but what Obama is doing, which IMO is FAR deeper, wider, and scary, is okay or even great?

And for what it's worth, the name most affiliated with fascism is Mussolini, and American's thought HE was great in the early stages of what he did, too.

[luluc 6]

Okay, BJean, I'll ask you a question and try not to make a novel out of it.

Exactly why do you think what Obama is doing -- snatching up businesses, firing people, and dictating how they are run -- is a good thing? .

while directed @bjean, can i answer?..LOL

personally, i'm not a fan of the business handlings - that's is what a companies board is for, to handle mis-managment/reckless business practices/loss of profits - etc. i DO think that if your going to accept funds to prevent the business from folding - there should be a set of conditions known up front of what's expected. meaning, crap didn't work - i expect a shake up, "board" i'm holding you accountable for a turnaround ... the firings took it too far.

my old CEO, started collecting $1.00 in annual salary to keep employees working (he had millions upon millions) - that was 3 yrs ago & he still keeps that dollar salary. i think many of the companies seeking bailout funds could take a lesson.

i see both sides of this coin. i worked in high tech sales, and i had a contract that said every qtr, my bonus was XXXX in addition to my commissions. i expected that to be fulfilled, like others in that same spot now.....