Obama '08?

@parados,

parados wrote:

If the shoe fits okie then I guess you can wear it.

Typical copout, parados. By the way, by what constitutional authority did Obama have to attack Libya? Did he even consult Congress at all? When Bush went into Iraq, he had Congress behind him to do it.

To be honest, I have not monitored the news closely lately on all fronts, and when I have, I have paid special attention to the situation in Japan with the nuclear reactors, etc. I have not paid all that much attention to Libya, as it seemed to be just another dustup over there after Egypt, etc., but when I look at the potential fallout from this action, it leaves me fairly uneasy about it. I do not have much confidence that Obama knows what he is doing. For one thing, it appears to be totally inconsistent with Obama's other policies and mindset up to this point. I am interested in your honest opinion about it, as well as the opinions of other liberals on this forum. I am also posting the following article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_attacks_libya_and_wheres.html

"Acting alone while Congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on Libya -- a dictatorial maneuver to force a regime change in a foreign land."

1 Reply

Among other news regarding Obama, he is observing an Iranian holiday while Ralph Nader is calling for his impeachment for war crimes.

http://nation.foxnews.com/

1 Reply

Gotta be impressed at conservatives' ability to speak out of both sides of their mouths. John Boehner says Obama's got to stop the violence against the people of Libya,

Quote:

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.

so Obama acts to do just that, and the extreme right American Thinker attacks him for doing what Boehner just said he should do.

You guys have complained about Libya for decades now. Get your act together, would you please?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I have not paid all that much attention to Libya, as it seemed to be just another dustup over there after Egypt, etc., but when I look at the potential fallout from this action, it leaves me fairly uneasy about it

What's the potential fallout okie?

By the way... Libya has supported terrorists. The President was given power to go after those that support terrorists. Are you on the side of the terrorists these days okie?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Among other news regarding Obama, he is observing an Iranian holiday while Ralph Nader is calling for his impeachment for war crimes.

http://nation.foxnews.com/

Quote:

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed "war crimes" on the same level as President Bush.

Ah.. so you agree with Nader that Bush committed war crimes?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

While US Savings Bonds are reliable investments, private Triple A Bond and private Annuity investments are also reliable investments and should also be permitted because they often provide a better return on investment.

What happens when those companies go bankrupt? When they face emergencies? What happens when they commit fraud and your money isn't there later on?

Who guarantees that your investment will be returned?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

This may not be on topic as others are discussing, but it has to do with Obama. Have others noticed as I have that Obama apparently has not learned that making war in places like Libya only creates more terrorists. Isn't that what Democrats have been telling us for years? And now they are doing it too. After all, Libya was no threat to us. Also, is this another case of more blood for oil?

I should point out that I am against this invasion of Libya. I know that the UN has given their blessing to it, and that it is difficult to sit by when a dictator promises to murder his own populace.

But I can't help but think that once again, we are getting involved in a foreign war, and for what gain? Our actions there WILL create more terrorists against us. I think that Obama is trying to do the right thing by keeping our ground forces out of it, but I doubt it will be that quick and easy in the long run.

I can't help but think that this will drag on for years and could end badly. Not only that, but - as has been pointed out above - the right-wing will criticize Obama, first for doing what they asked him to do, then for not doing far, far more.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Obama has said we'll be involved for days and not weeks. He needs to keep that promise.

0 Replies

I think Cyclo's concerns about the uncertainties and likley side effects of the intervention in what indeed is a civil war in Libya are valid. It is worth noting that the clamor for "someone to do something about the tyrant in Libya" was widespread here and in the world - in many areas coming from folks who had opposed our intervention to overthrow an even more murderous dictator in Iraq. It appears that odd duality also influenced the UN resolution that in typical fashion rather ambiguously defined the "authorized" activities against Ghadaffi's forces.

My impression is that Obama is attempting to placate enthusiasts for the good offices and intent of the "International Community" but without evident clear goals in mind. In some respects this is analogous to his parallel ambiguity in ending what he had earlier described as "illegal and imoral" detention and rendition of apprehended terrorists and surveillance of their communications. Now more than two years later Gitmo is still open; the surveillance continues; and the intensity of covert search & destroy missions in Pakistan has increased.

The problem is this inconsistency isn't just the problem of our President - it is widespread. Now it is the French and the British who are advocating the removal of Ghadaffi. This after the UK allowed Ghadaffi to bribe them into releasing the Lockerbee assassin under demonstrably false pretexts and is investigating the actions of the Blair government in getting into Itaq; and the French in the late 1980s refused our requests for overflight in a strike launched in part from the UK against a then overtly hostile Ghadaffi who was then directly conducting terrorist operations against us.

I believe the evident trust in the reliability of the UN and the committment and staying power of the "international community" is very seriously misplaced. The chattering commentators will soon turn to other issues, and the public enthusiasm for the supposed Arab awakening will quickly fade as the competing forces there identify themselves. The UN and the Arab League which acted to encourage this intervention will soon enough find fault with the basic (and entirely predictable) components of the actions they requested. And sadly, we will also see our faithful allies, one by one, withdrawing from the action as the inevitable difficulties arise.

1 Reply

Quote:

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/
Date.......... National Unemployed Persons
February 2011..........13,673,000
January 2011..........13,863,000
December 2010..........14,485,000
November 2010..........15,041,000
October 2010..........14,876,000
September 2010..........14,746,000
August 2010..........14,849,000
July 2010..........14,637,000
June 2010..........14,593,000
May 2010..........14,884,000
April 2010..........15,138,000
March 2010..........14,943,000
February 2010..........14,860,000

Total US Civil Employment during the period 1980 - 2007 increased from 99.3 to 146 million, and during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased from 146 to 139 million.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

What gets me about this whole enterprise is that those who support it are forgetting a basic fact of life:

Nothing goes according to plan.

And when military matters are involved, changes to the plan usually involve a greater commitment, more money, and more deaths.

On one hand, it's nice to see that my fellow Liberal brethren are, online at least, pretty much against this action. The criticism is muted, because 1) we support the prez, and 2) Qaddafi really is an asshole and civilians are getting slaughtered. Which is a hard thing to sit back and watch happen, when you can stop it. But, overall I see a lot of trepidation in the left-wing discussion of this battle. On the right-wing, lots of criticism for 'not doing more, earlier,' - amongst all the slavering for details and further interest in war pornography. Very little concern for the long-term implications of this.

I would note, that though the 'arab league' may have called for this, they apparently don't intend to actually HELP - at all. This does not generate strong feelings within me that we should give a **** what they want.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

can, You know how to cut and paste numbers, but are completely ignorant of what they mean. When there was an increase in employment up until 2007, and had a precipitous drop from 2008, you ignore what caused it. Just to remind you that GW Bush was president from 2000 to 2008 when the Great Recession hit the world.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The federal government manages their budgets and revenues no where near as well as do private companies. In fact the feds do far worse than do almost all private companies.

All the government has to do is require the investments of FICA deductions be made in private not government Triple A Rated Bond and Triple A Rated Annuity investments. The government won't get that money. Only the private economy will receive those investments and grow more as a result.

The current feds are greedy for power regardless of the consequences for Americans. The current private corporations and their employees are greedy for profits regardless of the consequences for the feds.

Quote:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES(+) OR DEFICITS (−): ... 1980 - 2010
(in millions of dollars)
Year.......... Total Receipts.......... Outlays.......... Surplus(+) or Deficit(−)
1980............... 517,112............... 590,941............... -73,830
1981............... 599,272............... 678,241............... -78,968
1982............... 617,766............... 745,743............... -127,977
1983............... 600,562............... 808,364............... -207,802
1984............... 666,438............... 851,805............... -185,367
1985............... 734,037............... 946,344............... -212,308
1986............... 769,155............... 990,382............... -221,227
1987............... 854,288............... 1,004,017............... -149,730
1988............... 909,238............... 1,064,416............... -155,178
1989............... 991,105............... 1,143,744............... -152,639
1990............... 1,031,972............... 1,253,007............... -221,036
1991............... 1,054,996............... 1,324,234............... -269,238
1992............... 1,091,223............... 1,381,543............... -290,321
1993............... 1,154,341............... 1,409,392............... -255,051
1994............... 1,258,579............... 1,461,766............... -203,186
1995............... 1,351,801............... 1,515,753............... -163,952
1996............... 1,453,055............... 1,560,486............... -107,431
1997............... 1,579,240............... 1,601,124............... -21,884
1998............... 1,721,733............... 1,652,463............... 69,270
1999............... 1,827,459............... 1,701,849............... 125,610
2000............... 2,025,198............... 1,788,957............... 236,241
2001............... 1,991,142............... 1,862,906............... 128,236
2002............... 1,853,149............... 2,010,907............... -157,758
2003............... 1,782,321............... 2,159,906............... -377,585
2004............... 1,880,126............... 2,292,853............... -412,727
2005............... 2,153,625............... 2,471,971............... -318,346
2006............... 2,406,876............... 2,655,057............... -248,181
2007............... 2,568,001............... 2,728,702............... -160,701
2008............... 2,523,999............... 2,982,554............... -458,555
2009............... 2,104,995............... 3,517,681............... -1,412,686
2010............... 2,165,119............... 3,720,701............... -1,555,582 (estimate)

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I have not paid all that much attention to Libya, as it seemed to be just another dustup over there after Egypt, etc., but when I look at the potential fallout from this action, it leaves me fairly uneasy about it
What's the potential fallout okie?
By the way... Libya has supported terrorists. The President was given power to go after those that support terrorists. Are you on the side of the terrorists these days okie?

See my response to cyclops, parados.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I should point out that I am against this invasion of Libya. I know that the UN has given their blessing to it, and that it is difficult to sit by when a dictator promises to murder his own populace.

But I can't help but think that once again, we are getting involved in a foreign war, and for what gain? Our actions there WILL create more terrorists against us. I think that Obama is trying to do the right thing by keeping our ground forces out of it, but I doubt it will be that quick and easy in the long run.

I can't help but think that this will drag on for years and could end badly. Not only that, but - as has been pointed out above - the right-wing will criticize Obama, first for doing what they asked him to do, then for not doing far, far more.
Cycloptichorn

One of the reasons why you are one of my favorite liberals on this forum perhaps my most favorite, cyclops, is because you seem to be more consistent than some, such as parados. Parados seems to support Obama, no matter what he does, while you have certain beliefs that you seem to adhere to instead of blindly following somebody like Obama. You have in fact stated in the above that you think our actions in Libya will create more terrorists, which is the same argument you and other liberals used with Iraq, etc, so you deserve compliments for consistency on that point.

I have not yet sorted out everything regarding Libya, but compared to Iraq, I am not at all sure we had as much reason to go after regime change in Libya as we did in Iraq.

One point I am not sure has been mentioned, didn't Libya drop its nuclear program because of Bush's actions in Iraq, etc., so that any need to interfere in Libya has already been taken care of by Bush, hasn't it?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

All the government has to do is require the investments of FICA deductions be made in private not government Triple A Rated Bond and Triple A Rated Annuity investments. The government won't get that money. Only the private economy will receive those investments and grow more as a result.

Several of those 'triple A' investments failed in 2008, and those who invested in them were either wiped out or so close as to be wiped out. Do you acknowledge the truth of this, or not?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

When the Democrats became the majority in both the Senate and House in 2007, they too refused to recognize the overwhelming evidence that Fannie and Freddie continued to constitute a serious threat to the US economy. That same majority approved the destructive TARP plan that Bush signed. Obama continued and expanded TARP and added to it with his Stimulus.

But who to blame for the decline of our economy is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Democrats including Obama have been doing and also refusing to do have aggrevated the problem. What is more relevant is whether what the Republicans are attempting to do to solve the problem will in fact solve the problem.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Correct conclusion! The Arab League is all talk and no action, and they want to control it. rofl

0 Replies

@okie,

You haven't answered my question okie.

Are you on the side of the terrorists?

The invasion of Iraq had the potential to create more terrorists. Were you against that for that reason? No, you clearly weren't. But suddenly you have that concern? I doubt you believe it. It is a political expediency on your part because you want to blame Obama for something.

Obama was given the power to use military forces against anyone involved in terrorism by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

So... answer the question okie. Are you on the side of the terrorists?

2 Replies

@parados,

And where are you on all of this?

Our esteemed President appears to imagine he can occupy the "good" part of all sides on these issues. Gitmo is still open and the covert surveillance of potential terrorist communications continues even after all his pious campaign rhetoric to the contrary - same goes for political assasinations (using drones) in Pakistan and other areas. Now he is making rather fine and meaningless distinctions in his rather transparent rationalizations for what we are (almost) doing in Libya.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know