Fairweather

That's an insult to fairies!! ...right on cue, like a female version of TTK--without the brains. Congrats! You'll soon have a smoking buddy in the White House!

Actually, what I was thinking about when I typed that was Clinton's constant whining that over 80% of US military officers at the time professed Republican. Your point about Bush is well taken, but I think he and Rumsfeld limited their "purges" to Generals--who tend to be political appointments anyway (Think Lincoln). I was just proposing things to look for as danger signs from my perspective. Where Clinton only carped, would Obama take it a step further? If he plans to reduce military spending, will he be focusing on systems or personnel? And if it is the later what would the rehire criteria be for, say, WO's, Lt's, Captians, Majors, and Colonels? Political perhaps? Again; just speculation.

Sorry Matt, but I'm more interested in exchanging ideas with folks like Ivan who are actually interested in exchange. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Meanwhile, here is an article you may find interesting: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/09/healthscience/09agin.php

Obama has, in the past, discussed the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as goal he would like to "put us on the path toward". He hasn't said "everything but the subs". I'll see if I can find a You tube on it, but it's not in dispute. Our nuclear weapons program can't just be turned off and existing weapons left as silent sentinels against a future threat, they need to be upgraded constantly as they do have a shelf life. (I think the H3/Tritium gas used in the fusion stage of modern 'boosted' weapons decays pretty rapidly.) I sleep better knowing we have them. Why on earth would we ever give up our ace-in-the-hole?

There you go with the name calling, Matt. I give a sincere response and you reply as expected.

I say bail 'em out on the condition that UAW makes major concessions --or is outright busted. Then fire the entire design team, management douche bags, assist with the retool, and start fresh. Maybe hire some Japanese or WWU automotive engineers. That new "Volt" they've been working on is gonna be the greatest thing to happen to the coal industry in a long time.

The Dems hold virtually all of the cards by virtue of a free and fair vote. They are free to do what they want vis a vis Iraq/Afghanistan, Guantanomo, the WOT, health care, education, the economy, etc within the confines of the constitution. And, of course, senate Republicans are still free to stay up 24/7/365 and filibuster if they feel strongly enough about an issue. I can only speak for myself, but here are a few of the issues that almost all Republicans I am acquainted with would get riled up about: Guns - Go ahead and close the gun-show loophole...and leave it at that. The rest is settled law in the opinions of most. Freedom of Speech - If you try to revive the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" there will be hell to pay. And satellite radio will finally become economically viable. 401k - I would rather see mine evaporate than turn it over to the feds. Raising the Capital Gains tax - I don't really think Obama is dumb enough to do it, but Nancy and Harry certainly are, and this action alone will decimate hopes for any quick economic recovery. I hope Obama is reconsidering. Military - Obama is free to do what he thinks is right...even if he's wrong. But any attempts to purge the officer corps ala Chavez will be interpreted correctly as the action of a despot. Nuclear Weapons - Only a complete moron would be naive enough to declare us on a path toward abolition of nukes, and I don't think Obama is a moron. There ya go. Have fun with it.

I'll bet your algorithm has a mirror.

...was that right before The Red Hot Chili Peppers kicked your ass?

I think surfers are the only enthusiasts on the planet who enjoy photographing themselves more than climbers. Good picture, though. does anyone have that "big wave" video that was posted a few months back? That was incredible.

The BBC has spoken too. Like I've said before, GW's biggest fuck up was dissin' da Rooskies by cozyin up to their former nasty-assed girlfriends. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm

It wasn't so much the comment itself as the fact he had just finished talking about the "new tone" his administration was going to set. As for his ability to articulate, you obviously didn't hear the press conference. His endless stammering and inability to produce words without annoying pause is striking. No big deal really, but please don't use it to describe a virtue that clearly does not exist.

I've read that Harry Reid might be on his way out (of his leadership position) soon too. He's got ethics issues-a-plenty...and Hillary needs to be thrown a bone. BTW; I thought it was pretty un-classy of Obama to take a shot at Nancy Reagan today. And was it just my imagination, or was Obama talking about his tax plan in the past-tense?

Let's go! But you'll have to wear this:

You should analyze this a little more. Take a look at California, a state that went heavily for Obama...but who's citizens also voted for proposition 8 which (re)banned gay marriage. If such a measure were put on the ballot here I wouldn't even vote for it. Are you really sure that this country is as far left as you would like it to be? I think it still hovers slightly right of the middle. JMO. Matt is correct in this case, but I don't think the Dems in congress are willing to go as slow as the more pragmatic Obama would like and they'll likely drag him off the cliff in 2010 and 2012. We'll see. At this point I don't really care too much. The people have spoken.

Fairweather will now be making a statement: Best wishes to Obama. His past socialist leanings notwithstanding, he seems like a good man. I hope he can keep his democratic congress on the task of financial and security issues and away from the social issues that cost Clinton his congress in 1994. We'll see. While it's a relief that TTK and Prole didn't take my wagers, I will offer this as a consolation prize: Obama is now the president of The United States, and he is my president too. Hasta pronto.

So did Pal Pot, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Consuelo Princep, King Henry VIII, The Catholic Church, etc, etc, etc. This belief in ideals and self doesn't make the pursuit of power or the always-horrific outcomes admirable. I truly do appreciate the conversation you've offered, but being the object of a dogpile and dealing with threats from GGK is getting old. Maybe I'll see you down at Hood soon. November is calling and after 44 times up that cone it's the only month of the year I haven't visited the top. I'm outta here for now.

Facko? WTF is that? Since the mods here seem to give you free reign to physically threaten people, here's back at you: I hope you're talking about kicking my ass metaphorically, because, like GW, I believe in preemption and will hunt your scrawny ass down. Comprendes? One good thing about an Obama presidency? He'll scrap the idiotic idea that we should offer military support/missiles to Poland and other ass-backward Soviet republics. Fuck em. And fuck you.

Careful there buddy. Why? You've said way worse to me. Unlike you, I haven't posted my family business here for comment.

I think they are both overrated--and I wish more Americans knew about their constitutional problems. But I don't consider either of them "bad presidents". Ditto, Thomas Jefferson. IMO, Washington and Teddy are the only two presidents who belong up there. Along with Alexander Hamilton.

Careful there buddy.

The 'vast majority' of Americans who consider FDR a great president probably could not tell you much about him aside from his stand against Hitler and Tojo--and social security. They could probably tell you about his fireside chats, but none of the content. I don't consider FDR a bad president, but his court-stacking scheme was as close to a dictatorial grab as any president has ever come. Were it not for this, he would likely be up on Mount Rushmore--along with my beloved TR. Do you disagree? I don't consider my opinion any more valid than anyone elses, but I'm willing to bet that, like yours, it is more informed than most. As far as checks and balances; I think the supreme court was 7/9 conservative--or anti FDR at least. The court we have now can be considered 5/4 in either direction, IMO.

[video:youtube]

Probably not. This country was settled on capitalist principles (Jamestown, Mass Bay Co) and I don't consider wild deviations from these ideals to be congruent with good leadership at all, but, rather, caving to the demands of the vocal. Teddy Roosevelt was a major exception in that he understood the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Some consider his trust-busting socialism--I don't. FDR was the antithesis of Teddy. This pendulum we are talking about has been swinging back and forth since Hamilton versus Jefferson, and its generally been a healthy thing, but I worry that Obama's past associations indicate he will swing it too wildly left.

FDR absolutely was socialist, and his alphabet soup programs only deepened and prolonged The Great Depression. Fortunately, we had a supreme court that still believed in the constitution. Do you recall how FDR tried to circumvent that little obstacle? Will Obama try the same? okay - we're strait on the "what is a socialist" bit then, but you haven't really answered the important question: was he a good president or not? the question gets at the fact that there's much more to a leader than his economic policies (though i think you're pretty fringe in your judgment of those (wikipedia's entry agrees certainly that you're fringe amongst historians, and only a bit less so amongst economists) - are you actually hating on the CCC? FDIC? WPA? TVA? the repeal of prohibition? sure, the court-packing scheme was retarded, but that's exactly why we like our checks'n'balaces system, right?) was he a bad president in his approach to foreign policy? his conduct of ww2? immigration? law and order? i'll grant you he was far from enlightened on racial issues Obviously, I don't think he was a bad leader re the war. (But his order to load incendiaries onto B29s and go after civilian population centers in Japan was pretty barbarian even by my standards.) But if you take a look at how short-lived the previous economic depressions under Van Buren (late 1830's) and Cleveland/McKinley (panic of 1893) were, it's easy to see how resisting populist demands for federal relief exemplified true leadership--even if it did cost them politically. Now Bush and the Dems in congress have started us down the same path with this "bailout" and, like FDR, Obama will only deepen what has already begun. (Although I would equate Obama more with a Eugene Debs than an FDR.)