Who here *doesn't* believe that Obama is doomed?
- Thread starter LodeRunner
- Start date
And I do not agree with such attitudes. However, a few hundred million here and there just isn't nearly as important as the billions we squander every week in Iraq.
Put it this way, if the money WILL be "wasted" one way or the other, would you rather give that money to Iraqis or Americans? I can't see how giving our capital (in the form of services, construction, etc.) to Iraq is better is in any way, shape, or form than giving it to American citizens.
Old-school republicans, maybe. I am a fan of that kind of old-school, nonreligious conservatism (though I'm not quite libertarian); unfortunately, it just isn't a significant factor in today's Republican party.
(I know I know, McCain isn't a typical Republican, but for the past 7 years when it came down to the wire he nearly always sided with the mainstream faction.)
I "dare say" you're wrong. If Kerry had won (again, I hated the guy) we could have been out of Iraq by, say, the summer of 2005. Rough estimate, that's over 250 billion dollars in the bank (or rather, 250 billion the government didn't have to borrow.)
I daresay that money could have affected my life dramatically if it wasn't squandered so pointlessly. At the very least, the dollar wouldn't have kept up its freefall (not because of the war debt alone, but because of the ongoing war as well.)
I'm not going to sit around all day long constructing "what-if" projects about the possible uses of a quarter trillion dollars (and a quick check reveals this is a *conservative* estimate.) You can use your imagination.
I will, however, say two things:
1. I'd rather that money was put in American hands--even if they are lazy, undeserving American hands--than have it wasted rebuilding a country we helped destroy filled with people who either hate us (e.g. most Sunnis) or are exploiting us to their own selfish advantage (e.g. most Shi'ites.)
The former can only help our economy. The latter (with the minor, vastly outweighed exception of war contractors) can only hurt it.
2. If Rove and the rest of Bush's machine hadn't succeeded in 2004, my friend would have her husband back. He'd be able to attend his own kid's third birthday party. And I wouldn't have to buy her lunch and try to cheer her up all the damn time.
I suppose the typical neocon response to that would be "See! You bought her lunch! The war is *stimulating* the economy!"
Bah.
Quote from canyonman00:
The republications are coming from a position of "empower the self." The democrats operate from the position of "government is your strength." Republicans would tell you that, "YOU can do." Democrats would tell you that, "With the government leading, we can all." The stances appear to be diametrically opposed on the surface. The rudder is the point of contention. Democrats want one rudder, under their control. The republicans tell you that your ship has its own rudder. And no, the truth does not lie somewhere in the middle. The true overlap is very small and always brief. Excuse my digression, I always am amazed how clear it is to me.
I've helped far too many folks become solvent mentally, fiscally and physically without government intervention. And none have looked back to find the flaws in their successes. They don't feel guilty about personal achievements any more either. They truly understand the small footprint that government needs to leave in their personal lives. And they're truly, truly, hatin' taxes now (giggle)!!
Amen, Canyon, once again! I've worked so hard to get to where I am in life. Obama and the Dems wants to keep the handouts coming. As far as the war goes, I personally question how adept he is with foreign relations to be able to pull out carefully. Of course I want the war to end - most everyone does - but I don't think he has the experience in diplomacy that's needed at this time. He'll just go chat with them and all will be well.
Since you're too lazy/apathetic to read my previous post, let me ask you: why is it ok to give Iraqis billions of dollars a week yet it's unacceptable to give poor Americans, say, a hundred million per week?
Let it be known I am against both. That said, faced with a one-or-the-other choice, I can't fathom how anyone could prefer the former.
Squander, my friend is squander. And that's the piece that I need us all to deal with. You wouldn't mind it because it's local versus overseas. I mind it because it's, squandered!
It also requires you to look at it as wasted, that understanding to which I do not subscribe. I don't want to just GIVE money to Americans, or Iraqis. You must provide for me more information on this GIVE concept. I'll agree that the short-term ROI for any war sucks. But this picture deserves a long-term monocle.
The impatient expectation model does not work for wars. No matter who's or where! Liberation is a generational equation. I would have explained it (the war) much differently than the administration did also. Hindsight makes all determinations clearer. So any pin-point acuracy in positions now must be discounted to a certain extent. Not dismissed, but taken with the wisdom of "time passage" as an active filter. To sum, in hindsight there is always an accurate answer.
That does not make the holder, an expert! It just means they had the better answer for that situation. I would move to say, had the other answer been taken, it MIGHT have slowed the enevitable outcome that we were heading for. That being a major disagreement that was due to escalate tensions. To what end? I am, uncertain.
In it's misguided effort to expand itself, the republican party pimped itself by taking in all the liberal persons, parties and positions from the disgruntled democratic ranks without holding to its principles. For it to expand to these arenas it had to become, hip! You see they (republicans) don't like being hated. And that's all they were interested in eliminating, being hated. And they were, and are, willing to do many things that go against their grain to prove that they're nice people.
Let's be honest here, McCain is republican in name only. That's the pain of this election for republicans. They have a democratic party mindset candidate. And he's happy about it!
Another sobering truth, no matter who wins! The bottom line difference in the two candidates commitment of troops in Iraq will be less than 20,000 to 25,000 for the next four years at least. What we (the public) are all fighting over is a distain for political parties, and the right to claim victory of principle! The few billions that Obama will "claim" to save will be replaced with the several extra billions in government "DEFICIT" spending plans and oversight. All covered with political blame postures and glee. Statements like, "We could have done this earlier if it weren't for the failed war postures" will be commonplace. Knowing all this, I guarantee that pork spending will increase.
Kerry would have had his own overspending plans so I would say that there would still be issues. The real answer is not in who's in the White House. You're sadly mistaken if you think POLITICIANS can LEAVE MONEY IN THE BANK! If we're going to have an honest debate, let's be honest. Neither party has a more deft ability at squander spending. The only distinction I can find is where it's SQUANDERED (Pay attention to the word squandered)!
I too would not want to waste time constructing scenarios including one on the free-fall of the dollar as that is tied to so much more than war. I would say these two things:
1.) I don't want any money put in any Americans hands. Rather, I'd like the money left in the individual's hands who earned it. Surplus by the very nature means that too much was taken. Depower some of the government waste that currently exists first. Here's a litmus test I'd ask for programs that the government sets up. First, most help programs need a finite term date. Second, every few years the government program should be reviewed for how many folks still need it. If the number is larger, the program needs to be redressed. Third, government assistance programs should be self-extinguishing. In the improvement of the users conditons, less fiscal resources would be needed. Therefore more fiscal resources are available for the remaining needy.
2.) Had 9/11 not occurred, the whole war issue would probably be mute. But 9/11 happened! I also would still be able to visit my cousin, and the friends and associates who worked at the World Trade Center. I guess I'm not a neocon by your standards, whatever that means. I do still spend some time rejoicing in the memories of the good times I had with my cousin. His life was too important and full for me to compile and enshrine. And even though he's been gone a while now, he can still cause a smile to come to my face. It's just the kind of guy he was. But I do understand and sympathize with those who do walk a bit slower now. I still miss my cousin dearly, but my life must go on. And the cold hard truth, so too must your friends!
It's good to see someone would buy her a cup of coffee and take a moment to just sincerely listen. Maybe that's a testament to the character in you? If so, I pray your patience and strength! And because it's not said enough, thanks!
It also requires you to look at it as wasted, that understanding to which I do not subscribe. I don't want to just GIVE money to Americans, or Iraqis. You must provide for me more information on this GIVE concept. I'll agree that the short-term ROI for any war sucks. But this picture deserves a long-term monocle.
The impatient expectation model does not work for wars. No matter who's or where! Liberation is a generational equation. I would have explained it (the war) much differently than the administration did also. Hindsight makes all determinations clearer. So any pin-point acuracy in positions now must be discounted to a certain extent. Not dismissed, but taken with the wisdom of "time passage" as an active filter. To sum, in hindsight there is always an accurate answer.
That does not make the holder, an expert! It just means they had the better answer for that situation. I would move to say, had the other answer been taken, it MIGHT have slowed the enevitable outcome that we were heading for. That being a major disagreement that was due to escalate tensions. To what end? I am, uncertain.
In it's misguided effort to expand itself, the republican party pimped itself by taking in all the liberal persons, parties and positions from the disgruntled democratic ranks without holding to its principles. For it to expand to these arenas it had to become, hip! You see they (republicans) don't like being hated. And that's all they were interested in eliminating, being hated. And they were, and are, willing to do many things that go against their grain to prove that they're nice people.
Let's be honest here, McCain is republican in name only. That's the pain of this election for republicans. They have a democratic party mindset candidate. And he's happy about it!
Another sobering truth, no matter who wins! The bottom line difference in the two candidates commitment of troops in Iraq will be less than 20,000 to 25,000 for the next four years at least. What we (the public) are all fighting over is a distain for political parties, and the right to claim victory of principle! The few billions that Obama will "claim" to save will be replaced with the several extra billions in government "DEFICIT" spending plans and oversight. All covered with political blame postures and glee. Statements like, "We could have done this earlier if it weren't for the failed war postures" will be commonplace. Knowing all this, I guarantee that pork spending will increase.
Kerry would have had his own overspending plans so I would say that there would still be issues. The real answer is not in who's in the White House. You're sadly mistaken if you think POLITICIANS can LEAVE MONEY IN THE BANK! If we're going to have an honest debate, let's be honest. Neither party has a more deft ability at squander spending. The only distinction I can find is where it's SQUANDERED (Pay attention to the word squandered)!
I too would not want to waste time constructing scenarios including one on the free-fall of the dollar as that is tied to so much more than war. I would say these two things:
1.) I don't want any money put in any Americans hands. Rather, I'd like the money left in the individual's hands who earned it. Surplus by the very nature means that too much was taken. Depower some of the government waste that currently exists first. Here's a litmus test I'd ask for programs that the government sets up. First, most help programs need a finite term date. Second, every few years the government program should be reviewed for how many folks still need it. If the number is larger, the program needs to be redressed. Third, government assistance programs should be self-extinguishing. In the improvement of the users conditons, less fiscal resources would be needed. Therefore more fiscal resources are available for the remaining needy.
2.) Had 9/11 not occurred, the whole war issue would probably be mute. But 9/11 happened! I also would still be able to visit my cousin, and the friends and associates who worked at the World Trade Center. I guess I'm not a neocon by your standards, whatever that means. I do still spend some time rejoicing in the memories of the good times I had with my cousin. His life was too important and full for me to compile and enshrine. And even though he's been gone a while now, he can still cause a smile to come to my face. It's just the kind of guy he was. But I do understand and sympathize with those who do walk a bit slower now. I still miss my cousin dearly, but my life must go on. And the cold hard truth, so too must your friends!
It's good to see someone would buy her a cup of coffee and take a moment to just sincerely listen. Maybe that's a testament to the character in you? If so, I pray your patience and strength! And because it's not said enough, thanks!
MCCAIN SCORES WITH OFFSHORE DRILLING PROPOSAL
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
"John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama's victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling â and Bush's decision to press the issue in Congress - puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.
With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain's argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.
For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.
Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.
McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.
The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil. We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket. The sudden shock which has sent America reeling is just the stimulus we need for a massive movement away from imported oil and toward new types of cars.
The political will for major change in our energy policy is now here and those, like Obama, who don't get it need to rethink their positions. To quote FDR, âthis great nation calls for action and action nowâ on the energy issue. What has been a back-burner problem now has moved onto center stage and McCain has put himself in the forefront.
The Democratic ambivalence stems from liberal concerns about climate change. The Party basically doesn't believe in carbon based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration. That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies - a step that tells them âyou drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.â But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling AND alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug in vehicles and nuclear power.
With his willingness to respond to the gas price crisis with bold measures, McCain shows himself to be a pragmatist while Obama comes off as an ideologue to puts climate change ahead of making it possible for the average American to get to work.
Of course, the high price of gas makes it inevitable that the US will lead the world in fighting climate change. With $5 gas, Americans will switch en masse to cars that burn less gasoline. Already we have cut our oil consumption by 500,000 barrels a day in the past year (about a 3% cut). The move away from oil will be exponential from here on out, dooming radical Islam and reversing climate change at the same time. But while we are getting new cars, we need more oil and McCain has flanked Obama on this issue. Big time."
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
"John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama's victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling â and Bush's decision to press the issue in Congress - puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.
With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain's argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.
For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.
Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.
McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.
The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil. We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket. The sudden shock which has sent America reeling is just the stimulus we need for a massive movement away from imported oil and toward new types of cars.
The political will for major change in our energy policy is now here and those, like Obama, who don't get it need to rethink their positions. To quote FDR, âthis great nation calls for action and action nowâ on the energy issue. What has been a back-burner problem now has moved onto center stage and McCain has put himself in the forefront.
The Democratic ambivalence stems from liberal concerns about climate change. The Party basically doesn't believe in carbon based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration. That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies - a step that tells them âyou drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.â But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling AND alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug in vehicles and nuclear power.
With his willingness to respond to the gas price crisis with bold measures, McCain shows himself to be a pragmatist while Obama comes off as an ideologue to puts climate change ahead of making it possible for the average American to get to work.
Of course, the high price of gas makes it inevitable that the US will lead the world in fighting climate change. With $5 gas, Americans will switch en masse to cars that burn less gasoline. Already we have cut our oil consumption by 500,000 barrels a day in the past year (about a 3% cut). The move away from oil will be exponential from here on out, dooming radical Islam and reversing climate change at the same time. But while we are getting new cars, we need more oil and McCain has flanked Obama on this issue. Big time."
The wrong african-american from chicago is running for president. Canyonman for president!!!
Thanks! I'm just as concerned about his domestic policies and agendas! As much as I don't like war, I'm understanding that we're there in these war possible environments for the rest of my lifetime now in a might-fight capacity. Same for Bosnia, Afganastan, Saudi Arabia, Korea, etc.... and should Obama become president, we might add in certain parts of Africa.
Canyonman could never win because he is a pseudo-conservative.
Just ask Alan Keyes.
Edit: Whom I think Obama simply destroyed.
They shoot presidents don't they? :eek:
I wouldn't be a good candidate. I'd be canceling programs, reading documents, and saying things like, "That doesn't work!" Actually calculating budget numbers and pointing out and eliminating pork. I can use a computer for more than e-mail so that's probably not a good quality in the minds of the career folks in Washington. I'd actually be holding folks accountable for their statements and actions. I wouldn't be politically correct in my calling folks things like scam articsts, liars, idiots and short-sighted. There would be an informed populas and a lot of tender political toes.
Yeah, as president I'd screw things up too much. I'd sit down and really talk to the military about making the services efficient with ALL the future plans and resources on the table for review and implementation if they fit. I'd be talking to the national school system about the coming changes as "I" see them. That whole environment needs a morphing. NOW!!! That alone would piss off the teachers unions.
I'd welcome the ability to explain to the American public the erosion of their freedoms and personal liberties within the frame that they can understand. Day-To-Day living! When I got through, politicians would be affraid (very affraid) to go back to their districts.
Tax system? One action would make all the citizen motivation necessary for their support. Across the board. The snowball couldn't be stopped either. Tuesaday night, month two in office. I'd get on TV and say:
"Starting this year there is a tax reform, and I need you to start calling congress in the morning to let them know that this IS going to happen. Go pull out your last years tax book and turn to page XX and find the chart that you use to calculate what you owe based on your income. Now count up five rows. Starting next year, this is what you will owe as I have instructed the parties that be that this is what the new numbers need to reflect. For a complete explaination, go to www.irs.com starting next week and you can see the projected changes directly. As citizens you need to call, and let Washington know that this IS going to happen. Thanmk you, and God bless America!"
I'd happily grace your screen on another Tuesday night and let you know that I, and government/government types am not, do not, have your personal answer for how to make it in life. I'd tell you that I have inner cities to try to help with their budgets for major infrustructure rebuilding. I'd say that I have to start challenging mayors to provide me with plans and ideas on how they are going to be growing and relevant. They need to tell me about how they and the states are combining into a planed future. And somehow, I think the public would understand.
The states can then address with me the international competiton and what they see as their areas of needed aid. And after listening to all this, I (not some aid) would draft a plan to take to my own knowledgable types that I'd search the country for for the implementation and foundations for future that a president should be causing.
Now for the record and before some noses get bent too far out of shape, I and the Canyon administration probably won't be doing to many dog-n-pony shows for heads of countries. I have a country to whip into shape and I only have four years to do it. I'd be too busy making public appearances around the country in front of the average American to host too much.
Here's one thing I'd do within a month of taking office. I'd demand that the Supreme Court come to dinner. Maybe even make it annual. I'm the president damit! You will give me a whole Saturday. I'd like to hear directly from them and they need to hear directly from us, the public. Issues, ideals, concepts, it's all on the talk table. Now, look out for the following Thursday night, "Here's The President" broadcast.
A president (IMHO) is supposed to pull us together, then lead us. I want my president macro not micro when it comes to the country. His/her vision and plans should motive us to want to be a part of them. They should make sense and be detailed and documentable. Not just envoke druggery to make it day-to-day, but to help create reality from a glimmer in an eye! The worst among us, should be able to survive and excel when matched against any other world citizen. And when analyzed, the result should always evidence that they are a citizen from "America!"
So, as you can see, I'm probably not a good choice. Too much of a slant towards planning for the citizenry and not the machinery!
I wouldn't be a good candidate. I'd be canceling programs, reading documents, and saying things like, "That doesn't work!" Actually calculating budget numbers and pointing out and eliminating pork. I can use a computer for more than e-mail so that's probably not a good quality in the minds of the career folks in Washington. I'd actually be holding folks accountable for their statements and actions. I wouldn't be politically correct in my calling folks things like scam articsts, liars, idiots and short-sighted. There would be an informed populas and a lot of tender political toes.
Yeah, as president I'd screw things up too much. I'd sit down and really talk to the military about making the services efficient with ALL the future plans and resources on the table for review and implementation if they fit. I'd be talking to the national school system about the coming changes as "I" see them. That whole environment needs a morphing. NOW!!! That alone would piss off the teachers unions.
I'd welcome the ability to explain to the American public the erosion of their freedoms and personal liberties within the frame that they can understand. Day-To-Day living! When I got through, politicians would be affraid (very affraid) to go back to their districts.
Tax system? One action would make all the citizen motivation necessary for their support. Across the board. The snowball couldn't be stopped either. Tuesaday night, month two in office. I'd get on TV and say:
"Starting this year there is a tax reform, and I need you to start calling congress in the morning to let them know that this IS going to happen. Go pull out your last years tax book and turn to page XX and find the chart that you use to calculate what you owe based on your income. Now count up five rows. Starting next year, this is what you will owe as I have instructed the parties that be that this is what the new numbers need to reflect. For a complete explaination, go to www.irs.com starting next week and you can see the projected changes directly. As citizens you need to call, and let Washington know that this IS going to happen. Thanmk you, and God bless America!"
I'd happily grace your screen on another Tuesday night and let you know that I, and government/government types am not, do not, have your personal answer for how to make it in life. I'd tell you that I have inner cities to try to help with their budgets for major infrustructure rebuilding. I'd say that I have to start challenging mayors to provide me with plans and ideas on how they are going to be growing and relevant. They need to tell me about how they and the states are combining into a planed future. And somehow, I think the public would understand.
The states can then address with me the international competiton and what they see as their areas of needed aid. And after listening to all this, I (not some aid) would draft a plan to take to my own knowledgable types that I'd search the country for for the implementation and foundations for future that a president should be causing.
Now for the record and before some noses get bent too far out of shape, I and the Canyon administration probably won't be doing to many dog-n-pony shows for heads of countries. I have a country to whip into shape and I only have four years to do it. I'd be too busy making public appearances around the country in front of the average American to host too much.
Here's one thing I'd do within a month of taking office. I'd demand that the Supreme Court come to dinner. Maybe even make it annual. I'm the president damit! You will give me a whole Saturday. I'd like to hear directly from them and they need to hear directly from us, the public. Issues, ideals, concepts, it's all on the talk table. Now, look out for the following Thursday night, "Here's The President" broadcast.
A president (IMHO) is supposed to pull us together, then lead us. I want my president macro not micro when it comes to the country. His/her vision and plans should motive us to want to be a part of them. They should make sense and be detailed and documentable. Not just envoke druggery to make it day-to-day, but to help create reality from a glimmer in an eye! The worst among us, should be able to survive and excel when matched against any other world citizen. And when analyzed, the result should always evidence that they are a citizen from "America!"
So, as you can see, I'm probably not a good choice. Too much of a slant towards planning for the citizenry and not the machinery!