Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Yeah, Jen is most definitely female. And a hot one at that!

[transjen]

I said it awhile back that this thread is kinda pointless mainly due to the fact that since 01 there are only two types of people those who love W and those who hate W, As for Obama those who love W will hate Obama no matter what he says or does Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

I said it awhile back that this thread is kinda pointless mainly due to the fact that since 01 there are only two types of people those who love W and those who hate W, As for Obama those who love W will hate Obama no matter what he says or does

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 654 replies on this thread and 7269 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it.

Woah... Deja Vu. Is this like Groundhog day or something?

[JohnTB]

Originally Posted by ila

Regardless of your opinion of transjen's posts there is no reason to call her a man. Her profile clearly states female. Your first sentence is just plain insulting.

Oversight on my part - sorry!

[JohnTB]

Originally Posted by JohnTB

Oversight on my part - sorry!

Oversight and 'insulting' are NOT synonomous!

[TracyCoxx]

Oversight not withstanding, all your other points are correct.

[TracyCoxx]

There are a couple of foreign policy developments happening this week. The Iranian post-election uprising, and North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.

Obama supporters: How would you think that Obama will, or should handle these events?

What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

There are a couple of foreign policy developments happening this week. The Iranian post-election uprising, and North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.

obama supporters: How would you think that obama will, or should handle these events?

What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials?

obama will do what just he's done so far; he'll go appologize for America's arrogance and interventionist policies then extend an "olive branch" to those nations threatening to wipe us and our allies off the map. As far as obama's supporters, they'll do what they always do. Instead of trying to defend and rationalize their guy's (obama's) policies and statements, they'll just blame Bush.

[randolph]

Thia is from Joe Kline at Time
I've been receiving a steady stream of favorable emails from Iranian-Americans regarding my appearance on Larry King last night. They're delighted that I made it clear that Iran is different from the other countries in the region--better educated, more sophisticated, with far greater rights for women (although not nearly enough). And they also appreciated the fact that when King asked me what John McCain should do right now, I said, "Be quiet."

The Washington Post has a piece today about the efforts of some Republicans to make hay out of the situation in Iran. McCain, who spent the entire 2008 election making misleading statements about the nature of the Iranian government (I wonder if he still thinks Ahmadinejad is more powerful than the Supreme Leader), has been at the forefront of this. It is very unseemly. I have yet to hear what possible good it would do for the President of the United States to encourage the protesters, except to give the Iranian regime a better excuse for killing more of them. McCain's bleatings are either for domestic political consumption or self-satisfaction, a form of hip-shooting onanism that demonstrates why he would have been a foreign policy disaster had he been elected.

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self.

Repubs are just passing the same old shit.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

Thia is from Joe Kline at Time...

I've been receiving a steady stream of favorable emails from Iranian-Americans regarding my appearance on Larry King last night. They're delighted that I made it clear that Iran is different from the other countries in the region--better educated, more sophisticated, with far greater rights for women (although not nearly enough). And they also appreciated the fact that when King asked me what John McCain should do right now, I said, "Be quiet."

Well, let's remember two things. First of all, we're talking about freakin' Joe Klein here, who is about as Left of Left as you can possibly get. For crying out loud, this moron actually thinks Ahmadinejad and Bush are equivalent to each other, for delusional reasons I won't even go into because it would take too long to type out.

Second, I always love when news commentators give out their personal opinions (which is fine since that's what they get paid for), BUT THEN they try to back their assertions up with a vague toss-away comment like "You can't believe the number of emails I've been getting from people who agree with me." Well, actually, I DON'T believe it, so how about giving out some actual numbers? What, do you normally get 10 positive emails from readers and this time you got 13, so you see that as a 30% spike -- when in reality you just got 3 extra emails?

To be fair, I'm sure he has received some email, but I'm willing to bet good hard cash that he hasn't gotten as much as he makes out since he just wants a quick excuse to say "See? I got mail, so I was right!" Or I'm willing to bet that an even GREATER number of Iranian-Americans are paying NO attention to a boob like Klein, and they are posting away elsewhere online or out marching in protest in complete opposition to his viewpoints.

Hell, we just had a big protest rally this weekend in Los Angeles -- and there were others around the country, too -- in support of the Iranians seeking true democratic change. So, here's what I'd love to see. I'd love to see Joe Klein standing up in the middle of one of THOSE crowds and stating his view (and these are his words): "The protesters (in Iran) admire our freedom, but they are appalled -- and insulted -- by our neocolonialist condescension over the past 50 years... They do not believe they live in an Evil Empire. They still support their revolution. They shout "Allahu Akbar" in the streets, which was the rallying cry of 1979. They are proud of their nuclear program, even if many have doubts about the efficacy of weaponizing the enriched uraniam that is being produced."

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. They love things the way they are, and they still support the revolution of 30 years ago. Yes, Joe, and I guess that would explain why half the fucking country is out in the streets setting fire to things and standing up to the military demanding change. Hell, even an AP press story noted the other day: "On the streets, witnesses said protesters shouted "Death to Khamenei!" - another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the authority of the successor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. "

But nice to know Joe Klein thinks they're all just having a tiny tiff and we should completely keep our mouths closed and not take any sides.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self. Repubs are just passing the same old shit.

Well, wait a minute...let me get this straight. FIRST you say you won't question McCain's patriotism, which by pure definition means you feel he's doing or saying things because he genuinely loves his country, which in turn means that the ideas he's expressing are what he REALLY believes deep in his heart ARE in the best interests of the country...

...BUT THEN you want to turn right around and say "His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self." No offense, Randolph, but you can't have it both ways. You can't try to sound like the nice guy and say "I respect McCain for his service to his country and I won't question his patriotism", but then instantly stab him in the back and say "He's only doing this for himself." The two statements just don't jive.

And for the record, what McCain and many of the Republicans are simply doing is staking the SAME ground that Reagan took against military regimes himself. As others have noted, the best parallel for Iran right now would be Poland during the Reagan years, where the people likewise staged a political revolt because of constantly shitty and corrupt elections. And frankly, I do think Obama is taking the wrong path here, all because he's trying to weasel his way and have it both ways. He's trying to say muddled things, send mixed messages, so that no matter who comes out on top he can then say "See! I was on your side all along."

To that end, I respect what Reagan did a helluva lot more, when he basically went on national TV and in a televised speech essentially told the Polish government in no uncertain terms: "Get your shit together and have fair elections and respect the will of the people and let democracy be respected or else the United States will cut you off in a heartbeat. And even after we cut you off, then we'll do whatever we can to repeatedly fuck you over again and again just to ram the point home."

Now THAT was a President showing some balls and taking a stand FOR an emerging democratic movement when it needed emotional support the most. For being a former college professor, Obama could certainly learn a few things from the history books.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

And frankly, I do think Obama is taking the wrong path here, all because he's trying to weasel his way and have it both ways. He's trying to say muddled things, send mixed messages, so that no matter who comes out on top he can then say "See! I was on your side all along."

I couldn't agree more.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self.

Repubs are just passing the same old shit.

Obama hasn't really done anything yet, and I doubt anything you or I say will compromise BO's foreign policy. For the last 8 years I've been hearing democrats criticize Bush's policies, but I've never heard them say what should be done when a crisis comes up before action is taken. Dems are great at criticizing and monday morning quarterbacking, but rarely state what should be done before there's something to criticize or rally behind.

So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea?

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama hasn't really done anything yet, and I doubt anything you or I say will compromise BO's foreign policy. For the last 8 years I've been hearing democrats criticize Bush's policies, but I've never heard them say what should be done when a crisis comes up before action is taken. Dems are great at criticizing and monday morning quarterbacking, but rarely state what should be done before there's something to criticize or rally behind.

So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea?

You never get the point, do you, Tracy? Well, sucker on in your republican and worldly limited bliss of complete lack of understanding of what's really going on here. The fact is that America is not alone in this world. But I doubt you'll ever understand the geo-political truths to that statement. And what's worse, I doubt you give a shit...

This is about a change in paradigms, NOT about what would your republican candidate have done differently...

Luckily and to your irritation, I'm sure, I've had my chance to explain the concepts first hands with quite a few Americans, and fact is that once they are truly educated about the mechanisms of socialism contra capitalism, they begin to understand that Barack Obama is far from socialism. But he does share a world's care for the reasonability in having a society, where all citizens are equal and none "more equal than others" in their opportunities.

I'm speaking to unlistening ears, I'm certain.

America has been on the verge of becoming a police-state - as Jesse Ventura said it: Fascism by definition is when corporate money, religious right and government team up to rule as they please. Add to that the former administration's doctrines that allowed them to enter other contries without an explained reason. Iraq is a formiddable example.

Barack Obama brings humanism back into the American way again (an old virtue of your own country's history, Tracy) and I feel sad about the backlashing republican rightwingers. But I guess you'll be around for a while.

H

[TracyCoxx]

Wow, this seems to be a really hard question for dems to answer. And Hank, you don't seem to have any clue what I'm asking. Just read the question and answer it. There's no hidden agenda to it. I've explained everything I hope to understand from this question.

There's the Iranian post-election uprising and the Iranian government crackdown. And North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.

Obama supporters: How would you think that Obama will, or should handle these events?

What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? (actually, now they are) What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials?

If you think BO should do nothing then say he should do nothing. If you think he should respond in some way, then how? I know you feel the need to bring in a favorite GOP punching bag like McCain or Bush, but this has nothing to do with them. Hank, if this is a new paradigm then no need to bring up a republican candidate. I didn't, so why did you? You're still stuck with the old paradigm. It's as simple as this: How should Obama respond?

[JohnTB]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

You never get the point, do you, Tracy? Well, sucker on in your republican and worldly limited bliss of complete lack of understanding of what's really going on here. The fact is that America is not alone in this world. But I doubt you'll ever understand the geo-political truths to that statement. And what's worse, I doubt you give a shit...

This is about a change in paradigms, NOT about what would your republican candidate have done differently...

Luckily and to your irritation, I'm sure, I've had my chance to explain the concepts first hands with quite a few Americans, and fact is that once they are truly educated about the mechanisms of socialism contra capitalism, they begin to understand that Barack Obama is far from socialism. But he does share a world's care for the reasonability in having a society, where all citizens are equal and none "more equal than others" in their opportunities.

Tracey, et al,

First, I am an American and well educated...I am not an Obama fan; was not a McCain or Bush fan, either... I am an Independant who leans Right...

1.
Never argue with anyone who cites Jesse Ventura for his political support. It demonstrates a lack of credibility and lack of intellectual sourcing...

2.
Never argue with someone who ignores the question, writes a long winded and unrelated diatribe in response and NEVER addresses the discussion at hand...see point number one...





I'm speaking to unlistening ears, I'm certain.

America has been on the verge of becoming a police-state - as Jesse Ventura said it: Fascism by definition is when corporate money, religious right and government team up to rule as they please. Add to that the former administration's doctrines that allowed them to enter other contries without an explained reason. Iraq is a formiddable example.

Barack Obama brings humanism back into the American way again (an old virtue of your own country's history, Tracy) and I feel sad about the backlashing republican rightwingers. But I guess you'll be around for a while.

H

First, I am an American and well educated...I am not an Obama fan; was not a McCain or Bush fan, either... I am an Independant who leans Right...

1.
Never argue with anyone who cites Jesse Ventura for his political support. It demonstrates a lack of credibility and lack of intellectual sourcing...

2.
Never argue with someone who ignores the question, writes a long winded and unrelated diatribe in response and NEVER addresses the discussion at hand...see point number one...

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama hasn't really done anything yet, and I doubt anything you or I say will compromise BO's foreign policy. For the last 8 years I've been hearing democrats criticize Bush's policies, but I've never heard them say what should be done when a crisis comes up before action is taken. Dems are great at criticizing and monday morning quarterbacking, but rarely state what should be done before there's something to criticize or rally behind.

So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea?

Welll, bomb the shit out of them, what else?

[TracyCoxx]

LMAO! I assume you're being facetious. This is very interesting. I've really stumped you guys. There's no Bush or McCain policy you can trash. There's no Obama policy you can blindly support. When your Messiah hasn't spoken yet and you can't blame it on Bush you have no clue what to think about something. Or perhaps you do know what should be done but want to hold back because you're pretty sure BO will botch it and then you would look pretty silly trying to rally behind him. Good stuff...

[transjen]

I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Thanks Jen, although by now that one is a safe bet since Obama has done little so far. Now for the tougher one since we're still waiting to see what happens. North Korea. What should be done about their ship full of nuclear materials they're carting around in the Pacific? And what should Obama's response be if North Korea fires more missiles despite Obama's warnings?

And what should his response be if one of those missiles N. Korea launches is aimed towards Hawaii or Alaska?

[transjen]

The nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and once freed it can never be rebottled, N KOREA is beating it's chest talking tough when they should remain silient, He's talking big so you have to keep your cool and hang tough and call his bluff he'll fold as he knows full well we can blow him off the face of the earth which will happen if a nuke hit's the US and any attemp will end in his country being invaded. He can't win so call his bluff Jennifer

[JohnTB]

Originally Posted by transjen

I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there Jennifer

Well said!

And, waht of the the Iranian President's [attempted] flattery toward OB [or, was it intended as an insult] when he said OB was acting like his presecessor {George W. Bush}

[tslust]

Originally Posted by transjen

I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there Jennifer

That's a great idea.

Originally Posted by transjen

The nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and once freed it can never be rebottled, N KOREA is beating it's chest talking tough when they should remain silient, He's talking big so you have to keep your cool and hang tough and call his bluff he'll fold as he knows full well we can blow him off the face of the earth which will happen if a nuke hit's the US and any attemp will end in his country being invaded. He can't win so call his bluff Jennifer

One dangerous thing about N. Korea is that they have the world's best artillery. Also they have the third largest army in the world. They have enough artillery and rockets to completely wipe Seoul off the map in (at best) a several hours. Or if you believe the N. Korean propaganda, in a matter of minutes. Their guns and rockets are dug into those hills and mountains. For the last 56 years, they've been fortifying their entire country. If it comes to war against N. Korea, it would probably have to be a ground war. Most of their positions can't be taken out from the air.
Military casualties could possibly range from 661092 - 1,152,772 U.S. and Allies 4,407,275 - 5,812,075 N. Korea and possibly China. Those are the, "top end" estimates.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by tslust

That's a great idea.


One dangerous thing about N. Korea is that they have the world's best artillery. Also they have the third largest army in the world. They have enough artillery and rockets to completely wipe Seoul off the map in (at best) a several hours. Or if you believe the N. Korean propaganda, in a matter of minutes. Their guns and rockets are dug into those hills and mountains. For the last 56 years, they've been fortifying their entire country. If it comes to war against N. Korea, it would probably have to be a ground war. Most of their positions can't be taken out from the air.
Military casualties could possibly range from 661092 - 1,152,772 U.S. and Allies 4,407,275 - 5,812,075 N. Korea and possibly China. Those are the, "top end" estimates.

Here's what I think will happen. North Korea will keep launching doodads and will keep doing it to annoy people. However, in the event that they launch towards the US, they will have signed their death warrant. If they launch towards SK or Japan, Obama will:
A) Try to rally up the UN and convince them to help out with the attack against NK because he is one of those team player types and will want to make it look like a joint effort, rather than a US spearheaded effort like in Iraq.

Or

B) If a US base in SK or Japan is hit, Zero will have no choice but to invade lest he lose face with alot of Americans. NK will be invaded by a force of US troops, ROK soldiers and Japanese SDF. NK will be able to fuck up Seoul pretty good with their artillery but military bases will be mostly untouched due to the C-RAM systems. Once that first shot is fired though, NK arty will be lit up by SK and American artillery de to the fact that the C-RAMs track rounds once they are in the air and will have a precise fix on their location.

NKA mechanized forces will probably come down the Kaesong-Munsan approach and will be met with Javelins, AT-4s, attack choppers and Spectre gunships not to mention whatever mechanized we have. The initial push into South Korea will be massive but short lived.

Meanwhile, the coast will be blocked by naval ships and any artillery needed will be provided by 6 inch guns. The noisy NK diesel subs will be dispatched by our nuclear powered ones. Any air to air combat will be an epic fail for KJI's pilots.

The subterrainian tunnels that are there and the people inhabitating them will learn firsthand what the words"Daisy Cutter", "BLU-82" and "Thermobaric" have in common.

Of the people left standing, we will try to win hearts and minds with MREs. Since KJI felt it was necessary to starve his people so that he can have his ass handed to him, his subjects will be a bit more open to having us there. There might be a resettlement akin to when the Berlin wall came down.

Or

C) Zero convinces Russia and China to get involved as the Chinese will want to look like the sane older brother compared to North Koreas batshit insane policy. They will also want to keep it hushhush that they were the ones who supplied NK with nuclear materials and the ability to weapoonize them. NK will be split up between China, Russia an South Korea. And in the end, Kim Jong Il won't be so ronery.

Sorry if this sounds like gibberish; I'm typing via Ipod touch and Im really sleepy. That and my arguements are mostly based on hearsay, conjecture and groping at straws.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

I think [Obama] should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there Jennifer

Is this just your opinion or has the democratic party abolished the Truman Doctrin?

Originally Posted by Truman

it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

Originally Posted by JohnTB

And, waht of the the Iranian President's [attempted] flattery toward OB [or, was it intended as an insult] when he said OB was acting like his presecessor {George W. Bush}

I couldn't really give a crap about what Ahmadinejad says. Anyone can realize he's full of shit.

The obvious first line of defense in Hawaii and/or Alaska are our anti-missile defense systems. BO wants to slash $1.2B from missile defense programs for FY 2010! Who's side is he on?

Originally Posted by tslust

One dangerous thing about N. Korea is that they have the world's best artillery. Also they have the third largest army in the world.

It may be large, but I would imagine it's poorly maintained. How could it not be if it's so large? They do not have a large economy to support it. Iraq had the 4th largest army. As of 2006 it was the 9th largest. What happened?

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Obama will:
A) Try to rally up the UN and convince them to help out with the attack against NK because he is one of those team player types and will want to make it look like a joint effort, rather than a US spearheaded effort like in Iraq.

What are you talking about? In 2002, Bush went to the UN to ask for help with Iraq. He got a unanimous vote from them. As many as 40 countries were in the fight against Iraq.

[transjen]

Yes that was and still is my opion, Also my opion the middle east has been at war with one enother for thousands of years i say fine you fight it out amongst yourselves and when it's over who ever is left standing give us a call Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Ok. Fair enough. So if that was democratic foreign policy, who's running the country then? Since that's not the policy now.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It may be large, but I would imagine it's poorly maintained. How could it not be if it's so large? They do not have a large economy to support it. Iraq had the 4th largest army. As of 2006 it was the 9th largest. What happened?

Firstly, when it comes to war, you must never underestimate the enemy. True, the Iraqi Army was very formidable (mainly in '91) force on paper. However almost all of their tanks and planes were obsolete Soviet epuiptment. The bulk of their ground forces were made up from conscripts, who had little or no training and experience. Our forces were just as green, but were better equipted, led, and trained.
Secondly, the enemy rarely ever follows your plan for him. The Iraqis were almost obsessed with fixed defences. Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity." The problem for the Iraqis was they seem to have forgotten that they were fighting in the desert. Desert Warfare is always a war of mobility. However, N. Korea is much different. War in N. Korea would be a war of attrition. The N. Korean Army may not have the "nice toys" that we have. They are fairly well equipted, the Chinese have seen to that, because in N. Korea, the Army comes first; all other matters (including starving children) are secondary.
Remember you must never underestimate your enemy. Understimation leads to overconfidence, which leads to complacency, which turns into unnecessary casualties.

[TracyCoxx]

What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.

Gibbs: "... But, again, let's--How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale-"

Chip Reid: "I'm perfectly happy to-"

Helen Thomas: "That's not his point. The point is the control--"

Reid: "Exactly."

Thomas: "We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not-- This White House."

Gibbs: "Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question."

Thomas: "I'm amazed. I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and-"

Gibbs: "Helen, you haven't even heard the questions."

Reid: "It doesn't matter. It's the process."

Thomas: "You have left open-"

Reid: "Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened."

Thomas: "It's shocking. It's really shocking."

Gibbs: "Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?"

Reid: "Okay."

Gibbs: "I think-"

Thomas: "No, no, no, we're having it now--"

Gibbs: "Well, I'd be happy to have it now."

Thomas: "It's a pattern."

Gibbs: "Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?"

Thomas: "It's a pattern. It isn't the question-"

Gibbs: "What's a pattern?"

Thomas: "It's a pattern of controlling the press."

Gibbs: "How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press--poorly, I might add."

Thomas: "Your formal engagements are pre-packaged."

Gibbs: "How so?"

Reid: "Well, and controlling the public-"

Thomas: "How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking."

Gibbs: "We had this discussion ad nauseam and-"

Thomas: "Of course you would, because you don't have any answers."

Gibbs: "Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead."

Thomas: "Well, you should have."

Gibbs: "That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?"

Thomas: "I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask."

Gibbs: "I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all."

To watch the whole exchange, and it's quite entertaining, go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q37kt0ga0OA

Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."

LOL you go girl!!!

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What are you talking about? In 2002, Bush went to the UN to ask for help with Iraq. He got a unanimous vote from them. As many as 40 countries were in the fight against Iraq.

I know that. What I was trying to say was that ever since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, military action will be looked at with alot of scrutiny. Hypotheticaly, if we were to invade, the general view of the public would be that there is some secret motive to invade and a missile from KJI would be reason enough to do so. A force of mostly US troops would be seen as a cover for clandestine operations, just like people believe that the invasion of Iraq was only for oil. If it was a multinational force mostly comprised of UN peacekeepers with the US in the rear rather than spearheading the operations, military action would be a bit more palateable, people would be alot less suspicious of why we went there and it would make Zero look like Jesus Christ:Teamplayer.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

A force of mostly US troops would be seen as a cover for clandestine operations, just like people believe that the invasion of Iraq was only for oil. If it was a multinational force mostly comprised of UN peacekeepers with the US in the rear rather than spearheading the operations, military action would be a bit more palateable, people would be alot less suspicious of why we went there and it would make Zero look like Jesus Christ:Teamplayer.

The UN couldn't scratch its ass without the US showing the way. When have they taken the lead against any country? The US has always had to do what is necessary with or without the international community because we're usually the ones who can get the job done. The UK has the right stuff too.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.

Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."

LOL you go girl!!!

Well, it would seem that the public is likewise starting to finally wake up to all the media manipulation and controlled imagery and information flow, which was inevitable because no matter how much spinning the talking heads do on TV...trying to convince you that things are great...people ultimately look at their own lives and their friends and say "What the hell are you talking about? Life SUCKS right now!"

Here's a bottom line truth about politics: a shitty economy and sky high unemployment and people scrambling to simply make their bills is always going to create A LOT of really pissed off people, no matter who you are. Which is a lesson that the anointed one is about to learn.

From today's Real Clear Politics...

Ohio: Obama Under 50% Approval

President Obama's job approval in Ohio has dropped significantly in the last two months, dipping under the 50% mark for the first time, according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University.

In the last Quinnipiac poll in Ohio taken in early May, Obama enjoyed a healthy 62% job approval rating, with only 31% disapproving.

Today, Obama's job approval stands at 49%, with 44% disapproving - a twenty-five point drop in just eight weeks.

Not surprsingly, Obama has seen a corresponding drop among voters' approval of his handling of the economy: two months ago he had a net +21 approval (57/36), today it is -2 (46/48).

[TracyCoxx]

Obama met with Putin today. Putin felt the need to educate Obama about the cold war. He lectured Obama for an hour while BO sat there and listened. What a chump. Oh well... it's not the first time BO has been tutored by a communist.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama met with Putin today. Putin felt the need to educate Obama about the cold war. He lectured Obama for an hour while BO sat there and listened. What a chump. Oh well... it's not the first time BO has been tutored by a communist.

So i guess you would have prefered he put on a cowboy hat stood up give em the finger and said war starts as soon as i'm safely hidin away bring em on, Hell let's go to war with everyone but England and Mexico as all we need cheap labor Jennifer

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.



To watch the whole exchange, and it's quite entertaining, go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q37kt0ga0OA

Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

LOL you go girl!!!

After all W was always upfront and never had hand picked questions, Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So i guess you would have prefered he put on a cowboy hat stood up give em the finger and said war starts as soon as i'm safely hidin away bring em on, Hell let's go to war with everyone but England and Mexico as all we need cheap labor Jennifer

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by transjen

After all W was always upfront and never had hand picked questions, Jennifer

Did he? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What are you talking about?



Did he? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon?

Every thing that sawed off little runt W did was staged the genrel public was never allowed near him only hand picked loyal Bushies were allowed to ask safe questions with the answer always being 9/11, , Nixon is not the wosrt president the title goes to GEORGE W BUSH the biggest disaster to ever before the USA and his suprme court picks will screw us all for the next 40 years, I didn't vote for Obama but he's a hell of a lot better that the lieing weasel thief GEORGE W BUSH ever was Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Every thing that sawed off little runt W did was staged the genrel public was never allowed near him only hand picked loyal Bushies were allowed to ask safe questions with the answer always being 9/11, , Nixon is not the wosrt president the title goes to GEORGE W BUSH the biggest disaster to ever before the USA and his suprme court picks will screw us all for the next 40 years

George Bush hand picked reporters to ask questions and screened their questions before his town hall meetings? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

George Bush hand picked reporters to ask questions and screened their questions before his town hall meetings? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon?

She must be having a senior moment and forgot all the crap W pulled because it will be hard for anyone to be worse then W ,Well ok Jeb and Palin may give him a good run after all she has the same outlook and mind set and Jeb also has the same mindset but no one will ever be worse then W, If W ever had a town meeting it must have been in 2000 and i don't consider a miltary base a town hall meeting, Funny when he was supposed to be in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD he wouldn't go anywhere's near a miltary base but after 9/11 you couldn't keep him away Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

BO is in the process of making our economy worse and is threatening another stimulus package because spending the first $trillion and creating the conditions for hyper-inflation somehow didn't cure our money problems. Well hey, if that didn't work, maybe if he does it again it will work this time.

Now, while threats to the US are growing stronger, he cuts spending on anti-missile weapons while N. Korea openly endeavors to put Hawaii, Alaska and our West Coast within striking distance. After the US wins the Cold War and becomes the lone superpower, he goes to Russia to restore their status as a superpower, and signs an agreement to weaken our defenses to the point that this could actually be a reality.

Originally Posted by Nile Gardiner

Is Obama the most naïve president in U.S. history?

It is hard to fathom what the United States will gain from Barack Obama's much-hyped agreement with Dmitry Medvedev to further cut America's nuclear arsenal. Washington and Moscow have agreed in principle a framework to reduce their nukes by about a third, to 1,500 to 1,675 warheads over the next seven years. Even more significantly, the two leaders have pledged to cut their nuclear delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers for example) to just 500-1,100 units, a move that works greatly to Russia's advantage as its force projection is far weaker than the U.S. in this area.

The new deal, which Obama hopes to wrap up with the Kremlin by December, creates a far more level playing field for the Russians, whose strategic conventional weapons capability is greatly outclassed by that of the Americans, and whose deteriorating nuclear weapons stockpile is aging and in decline. The whole agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a nuclear-free world. Surely a better strategy would be to further build up America's defences, including a global missile defence shield, rather than cut defence spending and further gut the superpower's nuclear capability.

At this rate, even Jimmy Carter looks like General Patton compared to the dove-like current U.S. president. Why cut nuclear weapons at a time when rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are busy building their own programmes? Does the President seriously believe this move will encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il to renounce their nuclear designs? What evidence is there in history that a unilateral policy of disarmament will prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour?

It is also unclear what kind of odious quid pro quo deal Washington will have to sign up to in order move the agreement forward. President Medvedev, who serves as little more than Vladimir Putin's right hand, has made it abundantly clear that the United States will have to sacrifice any plans for a 'third site' missile defence system in eastern and central Europe for Moscow to sign up to a news arms treaty. This would be a huge betrayal of key U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic. No doubt Moscow will also demand the Obama administration give the Russians a bigger say over NATO expansion eastwards, including blocking the entry of Georgia and Ukraine.

By agreeing to a grand bargain with the Medvedev/Putin regime, President Obama has unwisely opened a Pandora's box of concessions that will only enhance Russia's hand in its "Near Abroad". At the same time, the Obama administration's naïve approach will strengthen the resolve of America's enemies such as Iran to aggressively pursue their nuclear ambitions and exploit the weakness of a president who is gravely undercutting American global power in an increasingly dangerous world.

This is not what someone who is working to protect his country does. He is actively working to tear it down.

BO can suck it

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

If W ever had a town meeting it must have been in 2000 and i don't consider a miltary base a town hall meeting

So you can't say when or cite even circumstantial evidence that he screened questions? You're just yapping again?

[transjen]

Like i said W never did a town hall and since everything he did or said was staged oh yeah the White house also paid reporters to write favorably about no child left behind which was covered on CNN around the time CROSSFIRE was canced and Wolfe got his current show Jennifer

[sissygirl]

So it's very evident to me that transjen is too biased to accept anything other than her own opinion. to me the bottom line is that Obama is trying to be a dictator and the demo congress and senate is rubber stamping anything he says to do. if this lack of independent thinking continues this wonderful country of ours will be bankrupt, stuck with a socialised med system like the British and the Candians have that is too expensive to maintain and does not meet the individuals needs. do some reasearch on the effectiveness of these systems and make you own opinion.

not enough time is being spent to even read the bills that these idiots are signining as evidenced by the joke speed reader they have that reads these before the congress what a joke our gov't is becomiing. SS is almost broke, the railroads are broke, the US mail system is broke and yet Obama lovers think the Govt can manage helth care. Are they on drugs or something or our their collective heads so far up thier butts that they have turned stupid. Oh yea and put all the cost on the shoulders of anyone that is successful and has made a decent living or has savings and income. Force them to give it away to the lazy folks who are looking for an handout. look it up its the majority of the Obama supporters. notice the congress nor the senate will be under any of these heath care systems being forced on the American people. Reason Obama at the town hall meeting refused to answer the questions concerning if one of his daughters was sick which system would he want to use. that was very telling to those not wearing "rose colored glasses"

Obama is going to have to claim ownerships for this mess he has and is creating since GW will have had nothing to do with this crap going forward.

I may be a sissygirl but can still think independently

[transjen]

Originally Posted by sissygirl

So it's very evident to me that transjen is too biased to accept anything other than her own opinion. to me the bottom line is that Obama is trying to be a dictator and the demo congress and senate is rubber stamping anything he says to do. if this lack of independent thinking continues this wonderful country of ours will be bankrupt, stuck with a socialised med system like the British and the Candians have that is too expensive to maintain and does not meet the individuals needs. do some reasearch on the effectiveness of these systems and make you own opinion.

not enough time is being spent to even read the bills that these idiots are signining as evidenced by the joke speed reader they have that reads these before the congress what a joke our gov't is becomiing. SS is almost broke, the railroads are broke, the US mail system is broke and yet Obama lovers think the Govt can manage helth care. Are they on drugs or something or our their collective heads so far up thier butts that they have turned stupid. Oh yea and put all the cost on the shoulders of anyone that is successful and has made a decent living or has savings and income. Force them to give it away to the lazy folks who are looking for an handout. look it up its the majority of the Obama supporters. notice the congress nor the senate will be under any of these heath care systems being forced on the American people. Reason Obama at the town hall meeting refused to answer the questions concerning if one of his daughters was sick which system would he want to use. that was very telling to those not wearing "rose colored glasses"

Obama is going to have to claim ownerships for this mess he has and is creating since GW will have had nothing to do with this crap going forward.

I may be a sissygirl but can still think independently

Well look who's like the pot is calling the kettle back, The fact is everything you are accussing Obama with is everything W did the congress rubber stamp that was W ,rose colored glasses agian W making a big mess and claiming not my fault W, You say i won't accept reality well look in the mirror sweetie W was not picked by GOD , W and his bozos created this mess with an unjustified war and trickle down Reganomics and of couse you think only Sarah or Jeb can save us by picking up where W left off, In truth no matter what a Dem does you scream oh shit there goes the country and when are the GOP going to accept credit for the mess they made from 01 thru 08? Jenniefer

[Ramboner]

I'm not a fan of Obama in the least. I think he's half-baked and immature. Then again, I wasn't a fan of Bush either. It saddens me that America can't find better people to lead our country. I'm almost apathetic at this point when it comes to politics. I mean...I care but I feel like I don't have the power to change things for the better in the political realm.

I don't understand how the TS/TV community can support Obama when he always comes down on the side of the Christian fundie crowd when it comes to LGBT rights. Sure...his rhetoric isn't nearly as dismissive and harsh as his GOP opponents but the end result is always the same.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well look who's like the pot is calling the kettle back, The fact is everything you are accussing Obama with is everything W did the congress rubber stamp that was W ,rose colored glasses agian W making a big mess and claiming not my fault W, You say i won't accept reality

Well... I think it's pretty common knowledge around here that you don't. For example, congress has not rubber stamped everything Bush wanted passed. This is something that is pretty easy to verify and yes, you've just illustrated again how little of what you say has anything to do with reality. I think we'll call your reality Jen's World. It extends all the way out to your gyri.

[transjen]

HAIL BUSH, BUSH IS MY GOD HAIL BUSH

[TracyCoxx]

Ugh, now she's a Bush fanatic. I guess no matter which way she goes, it's always to the max.

[transjen]

Why silly me W was the greatest president ever and no one will ever top him because he was hand picked by GOD to lead us into greatness but those rotten no good DEMS messed everything up and tried to blame poor George for everything and after all W never made a mistake in his life and a lot of people never gave him a fair shot because of 2000, This is RUSH'S reality and it appears to be Tracey's as well so just for you two here's a HAIL BUSHto make you feel better and rember 2012 is just around the corner and prehap just prehaps Jeb Bush can rig another election and we can have another wonderful 8 more Bush years Jennifer

[Jenae LaTorque]

I finally noticed all the action on this thread and the question I have is what is wrong with this country's electoral process that we can't get a good leader into the White House? I think one of the big problems we have is that we really don't know the men we elect as President any more. We have to pick between two images that are produced by massive (read money here) propaganda campaigns that are altered and twisted along the way to fit the polls and surveys. I am not even sure that any rational man would want to be President seeing as the political reality is that to run for the office means to bend over and let the public count the pimples on your ass. Every so often we do elect a moral man who hasen't been totally corrupted by politics in Washington; Pres. Obama and before him, Pres. Carter. And what good does that do us? Very little I'm afraid.

On a sideline here; what about Nostradamus? Did he not predict that we would have an ineffectual leader at this time?