AMAZING Barack Obama inauguration photo

[The Gardener]

Oh, I totally agree Old Baldy. Some people think that Obama is going to make Air Force One fly without gasoline, his farts sound like Mozart and he can make flames come out of his *** by waving a wand.
Ridiculous.

He's just a man. It's not necessarily any preconceptions about any specific policies that I appreciate about him. Rather, I find him inspiring because hes such a perfect antidote for an ex president who, in my opinion, pretty much sh*t on the American working class.

 

[tembo]

Hey gardener you are even more passionate than Cassin about this stuff and a bit edgy.

I didn't say bombing Pakistan is wrong or right (in fact, a number of my recent posts have been deemed as anti-Islamic, so its nice to see you thinking of me as a supporter of not attacking Islamic extremists now). I just said its an extension of Bush's policy. And so is bigger government (an extension of the Bush administration's work). And so is Rahm (a dual Israeli citizen) -- an extension of Cheney/Rumsfeld.

I don't get the optimism in Obama AT ALL besides the fact that its nice to see a person of color up there. I agree with Baldy that I will get inspired once he does something to inspire me.

Fact of the matter is that you don't know sh*t. Why don't you just wait and lets all just SEE what actually happens.

Very well mannered and decent post from you the moderator! So if you are optimistic, you know sh*t. If you are pessimistic, you don't know sh*t?

 

[The Gardener]

I don't get the optimism in Obama

So, you are saying that after 8 years of having an idiot for president, having a man who is highly intellectual, very intelligent, with a broad personal history of living in different parts of the country and the world, and flatly rejects the Bush "you are either with us or against us" mentality does not give you any cause for optimism?

besides the fact that its nice to see a person of color up there

I couldn't care less. If Obama had pearly white skin, but yet had the same temperament and intellect, I'd be just as optimistic.

I agree with Baldy that I will get inspired once he does something to inspire me.

I don't necessarily disagree.... but methinks you're the type whose going to end up being overly cynical because Obama can't make schools of wild pigeons sing Pearl Jam tunes. Tembo, I think you just need to admit that you're just a cynical kind of guy. That's how you're always been.

I CERTAINLY am not implying that you should run out and buy some Obama gear and drink the Kool Aid. All I'm saying is that I think some of your cynicism is a bit premature. I think you're setting the bar too high, in an attempt to paint a competent person as a potential failure.

 

[tembo]

Tembo, I think you just need to admit that you're just a cynical kind of guy. That's how you're always been.

Haha and you have always known me huh? I am cynical of politics, and considering that half the people don't even vote, I would say I am in the majority.

Also, if you check out the second link in my signature, it will give you an idea about how optimistic I am about a fledgling concept. Maybe that will make you happy? I have more faith in BHT than in Obama/Rahm!

I edited my prior post while you were responding.

 

[Old Baldy]

Cassin you are too much of an optimist.

Gardener's right. Obama isn't going to let people put us in danger. It's his job to protect the USA. I'm not happy he did it but he felt he had to. So be it.

Who do you want - Jimmy Carter?! :hump:

Edit: Nevermind Tembo, I just read your edited post.

 

[The Gardener]

First off, I'm not a moderator.

Look... yes, I think your assertion that the US is going to bomb iran is a ridiculous one, and worthy of the comment I made.

Unless you have an informant at the Pentagon, I don't see why we shouldn't actually WAIT and see what happens before you start smearing people for things they haven't even done yet.

 

[tembo]

In the past ten years, the US has probably bombed around ten countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc...).

So, if I make a prediction about Iran being next, why does it bother you so much? You don't like such prognostications? I mean people have written books about nuclear wars in future, so why do you get so passionate about such a forecast?

I also didn't say it would be wrong or right for the US to do such thing in either Pakistan or Iran. Just an extension of Bush with a bigger government.

 

[The Gardener]

Well, frankly, I don't think it would be a good idea to bomb Iran. They haven't bombed us.

I'm just saying that I think we should wait and see what kind of policies he has before dismissing him as an Iran-bloodlusting AIPAC plant when he hasn't even been in office for a full week.

An extension of Bush? There you go again... then why has he reversed Bush's policy on funding for abortion, reversed Bush's policy on stem cell research, reversed Bush's policy on labor union voting, reversed Bush's recent expansion of oil drilling in National parklands, and on top of that he's ordered Guantanamo closed within a year.

 

[tembo]

And I am just saying why all the optimism when he has just been in office for one week and given all indications that the government will only become bigger.

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes but Tembo, if Obama feels Pakistan is harboring dangerous people (i.e., relative to the USA) what is he supposed to do?

Sure, Obama said he was going for diplomacy whenever he could but, here, he felt diplomacy would be a waste of time. So he ok'd bombing.

If people thought Obama was going to roll over and play dead like Jimmy Carter, they are in for a rude awakening IMHO.

Edit: I've got to brag a little. I was arguing before the election with some wacko lefties who felt Obama would never use force, blah, blah.....blah. They were wrong in that argument. For once, I was right.

 

[tembo]

Hey I am all for the bombing of western Pakistan (assuming the US intelligence from there is better than it was in Iraq).

I am also for the bombing of Iran if it can prevent a second Muslim nation from having atomic weapons.

Now I will get accused of being anti-Islamic again!

 

[The Gardener]

Okay... NOW you have presented an honest position that I think warrants some good debate.

I agree. He is in favor of bigger government. Most Democrats usually are... and frankly that does not settle well with me, because I'm more of a fiscal conservative who thinks most of this money that they are going to spend is all a big waste of effort. The country is bankrupt already. Adding more debt to a country that is already struggling from having too much debt is a BIG mistake, just putting more fuel on the fire. But, at the very least, it'll keep some people employed and might lessen the pain of the oncoming collapse.... but my fear is that it is cushioning SOME of the pain in exchange for extending the pain probably a decade or so longer. Well, I don't agree with it.

 

[ali777]

I'm not inspired by closing Gitmo and increasing abortions. Not mad about either one, but those things don't inspire me. Well the abortion executive order wasn't too pleasing for me but not the end of the world because abortions are here to stay no matter what I think.

It always strikes me as hypocritical when the US bombs another country in the name of democracy and freedom and then goes and opens a prison camp without the slightest regard for human rights and respect for the international law.

If you want to keep someone in prison, sue them in civil courts. If you capture a foreign "dictator", "killer" (whatever you want to call it) take that person to the Hague and don't kill him in front of the cameras to please a few nut cases.

As for abortions.... Not my ball game either way... Personally, I'd rather keep the child, but don't you think people can decide for themselves?

 

[The Gardener]

As for abortions.... Not my ball game either way... Personally, I'd rather keep the child, but don't you think people can decide for themselves?

Totally agree. I am anti-abortion, but I don't think its government's role to make that call.

 

[Old Baldy]

You know guys, I simply don't know enough about Gitmo to give any type of worthwhile opinion. I just don't know enough about it.

The Supreme Court said "enough" of Gitmo for all intents and purposes. So, I live with that.

 

[Old Baldy]

As for abortions.... Not my ball game either way... Personally, I'd rather keep the child, but don't you think people can decide for themselves?

Totally agree. I am anti-abortion, but I don't think its government's role to make that call.

Is it government's role to help pay for an abortion?

 

[Bryan]

Who do you want - Jimmy Carter?! :hump:

Sure, I wouldn't mind having Jimmy Carter. He's a good man (although he's obviously too old to be President again).

If people thought Obama was going to roll over and play dead like Jimmy Carter, they are in for a rude awakening IMHO.

???

What does THAT mean, Old Baldy? Please explain that reference to Jimmy Carter ("roll over and play dead")...

 

[Old Baldy]

Oh my goodness Bryan, where in the world do I start?

I suggest you read this book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UEGPFX ... lt#PPP1,M1

In a nutshell, that guy couldn't effectively manage a Burger King, let alone a country IMHO. He was always concerned with process but provided little in the way of direction IMHO. You could say he came in at a bad time and that affected his performance, and I somewhat agree with that, but it goes WAY beyond that for me. Read that book I cited.

Margaret Thatcher said it best IMHO: "He had no vision of what direction America should follow......" (And because of that, his administration was an incoherent, ineffectual mess philosophically wise and lacked fundamental philosophical direction IMHO.)

Now we may like or dislike Reagan, Clinton or Bush Jr., but you knew where they stood and they had a philosophy. They were not process presidents to a fault like Carter IMHO.

Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. gave direction and held to it. They provided a framework to their subordinates as to what they wanted. I feel Carter was the exact opposite and that is not a good thing for a president IMHO.

Obama does not appear to fall into this category either (i.e., the "Carter process" category). He appears to have a strong philosophy and will provide a philosophical framework for his subordinates to work under IMHO. Time will tell but it appears Obama is the exact opposite of Carter in this area IMHO.

Obama will worry about the process AFTER he is confident that his philosophies are being followed. To me, that is very important in a president. Carter simply didn't have that ability IMHO. I don't recall any president concerned about process first then philosophy second other than Carter.

I know this isn't giving specific details and that is unfair to you Bryan but that's where my dislike of Carter lies. It is more of a "global" philosophical opinion of Carter. So, yes, maybe it is unfair that I use Carter as a whipping post and take cheap shots at him.

Edit: I do have one question for you Bryan: Why did the hostages get released immediately after the Iranians realized Reagan was going to be the next president?

 

[blueshard]

Adding more debt to a country that is already struggling from having too much debt is a BIG mistake, just putting more fuel on the fire. But, at the very least, it'll keep some people employed and might lessen the pain of the oncoming collapse.... but my fear is that it is cushioning SOME of the pain in exchange for extending the pain probably a decade or so longer.

This is what I do not understand.....how in the hell is this trillion dollar stimulus package going to cushion ANY of the pain? It may temporarily prevent discomfort followed by even harder times than would of been had if they didn't do this stimulus package. Isn't it simply going to simply completely bankrupt the country and collapse the dollar leading to a longer and more intense period of pain and suffering for the public? It seems to me that it is simply staving off the inevitable temporarily and then BOOM everything falls harder and for a longer period of time than if we had let the system collapse, which is what you are saying, but what I am saying is that there is NO good to come out of it except for staving off the inevitable. No pain is reduced, pain and the hardships of the country are increased.

It doesn't make any sense to me. How much longer can the dollar survive? Are they doing this so the dollar can collapse and then they can introduce the Amero?

 

[The Gardener]

Blueshard, the nature of their actions is an indicator of how desperate and utterly out of control the situation is.

This figure isn't publicised much, but we've actually already dumped $5 trillion into the black hole... this in the form of TARP, the bank bailouts (Citibank, AIG, B of A, etc), and Fed injections into the money markets. Poof!

We are indeed watching history unfold, the fall of an empire.

I am heartened that we have a president that will allow us to hopefully do so gracefully, in cooperation with our interests around the world. This would avoid a lot of needless carnage... if a neocon were in office, we'd probably go down guns blazing... which, now that I think about it in retrospect, was probably what Bush and Blair were trying to do vis-a-vis Iraq. Your countries are bankrupt, so grab the oil.

EDIT, Blueshard, check this piece out. It answers your question and describes how the markets are reacting to the desperation:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/arch ... -Over.html

If the government is absolutely INTENT on attempting a stimulus, they should AT LEAST spend it on projects that will bear some return and economic utility in a post-collapse environment:
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/ ... ringe.html