Peter_Puget Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 (edited) Ah the savior of the left center turns out to be a lame non-truth teller..where is the outrage....The Tubes! The Tubes! WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that disappointment over the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit was justified, hardening a widespread verdict that the conference had been a failure. "I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen," he said in an interview with PBS Newshour. linky [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKOANjv6htw Edited December 24, 2009 by Peter_Puget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 During the Clinton era is the only time the climb came close to flattening out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Oh, and Cliton and the New Democrats went right along with the whole neoliberal package and played the changed political landscape that Reagan created. Much of Cliton's appeal to party leadership (and still is) his ability to mobilize swing hicks in Southern states. Sorry, the Democrats are just as much on the hook for the grab bag of cat shit we're left by free-market fundamentalism, the Walmart Morlocks, and toxic legacy we're leaving for the rest of Earth's species. Merry X-mas. Huh? The Clinton admins response to Bin Laden was a poorly timed strike by Tomahawk missiles. That was it. I would wager you would notice the price difference of a full scale invasion if you were forced to pay for it out of YOUR pocket. I suspect that our children will notice this price differential. Clinton balanced the budget, and generally followed the state departments line of foreign policy which was designed to strengthen our country via the most bang for the buck. Bush 2 went crazy on some kind of insane spending spree and expensive militarism as jh notes above, not supported by many inside state, to say nothing of the rest of the world, spending policies which the current pres has seemingly tried to surpass. I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Bill, You seem like a reasonable guy. What do you think Obama should do with Afgahnistan? SHould he just pack up and leave? Maintain what he inherited (by all accounts failing)? Escalate/Spend more? Other? Same with Iraq. Same with the economy and global financial stabalization. My opinions are clear. Afghanistan; Slam the Taliban in Af and Pakistan hard enough to provide a buffer zone to give the Afghans time to do what they will. Ask them for a time line for them to become self sustaining. Pricey but leaving would open the flood gates to the Taliban, rivers of blood and oppression, and leave very little chance of ever gaining trust in the region again. Iraq; stick to the time line provided. Give strategic support where appropriate and asked for. Global financial stability. Very complicated. There are more potholes ahead and no one is REALLY confident right now. Spend less and watch more banks and companies and jobs go down? Or try to prop up the economy long enough to let people recover their confidence and resume spending. This is step one in my opinion. Without a middle class spending freely, the entire financial house of cards will collapse. Obama did not create this mess and it will take time to allow things to turn around no matter what course is taken. To simply pull the rug out from under the Bush spending would have been a huge blow to the already dying economy. Radical change from that path would have been certain collapse. Does this mean I am for war? No. I think we should have bombed the Taliban after 911 and hunted down Osama as Bush said he would "regardless of where he was or who was assisting him". It would have been a clear symbolic stopping point. The entire world outside of the radical Muslim fundamentalist community would have supported it. That didn't happen. So now we are stuck with pussy-footing through Pakistan trying to catch the mouse without spilling the milk. Meanwhile, they play the Afghan card to keep us unfocused and ineffectual. Iraq. Never should have happened. Totally illegal and cost us global support for what we really needed to do in Afgahnistan. Huge spending on bailouts? Neccessary evil. Bush-Cheney oil inc milked this country dry with a oil company free for all. Meanwhile, they allowed wall street to do whatever they wanted. It should be criminal. In the end, their free for all collapesed on itself and there was nothing left in the middle class to cushion the blow. We had already been milked dry. Yes Clinton was guilty too. That was eight years ago though and Bush had all that time, public support and majority rule in ALL branches of government to straighten things out and he did not. Now conservatives are asking why Obama has not straightened everything out in a little over one year. That is what makes no sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 Ah the savior of the left center turns out to be a lame non-truth teller..where is the outrage....The Tubes! The Tubes! WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that disappointment over the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit was justified, hardening a widespread verdict that the conference had been a failure. "I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen," he said in an interview with PBS Newshour. linky Ha, if he had actually accomplished anything in Copenhagen, you people would be screaming bloody murder! Hopefully, if the Obama Administration has learned anything at all from their predictably ill-fated attempts at "bi-partisanship" during the health-care reform process, it's that since people like you can never be pleased, you're better off being ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 That, and the Prez was refreshingly up front in his statements. Nice supporting post, PP. I smile everytime an Rfuck rails on the Prez for being ineffective. It's not hard to notice that the Rfucks now almost unanimously: support reducing carbon emissions support same sex unions and or marriage want us to cut our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan and stop waisting money there. Support health care coverage for ALL Americans yet continue to claim Obama's too far Left. Well, they've never been the go to guys for logical consistency...or logic of any kind, for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Oh, and Cliton and the New Democrats went right along with the whole neoliberal package and played the changed political landscape that Reagan created. Much of Cliton's appeal to party leadership (and still is) his ability to mobilize swing hicks in Southern states. Sorry, the Democrats are just as much on the hook for the grab bag of cat shit we're left by free-market fundamentalism, the Walmart Morlocks, and toxic legacy we're leaving for the rest of Earth's species. Merry X-mas. Huh? The Clinton admins response to Bin Laden was a poorly timed strike by Tomahawk missiles. That was it. I would wager you would notice the price difference of a full scale invasion if you were forced to pay for it out of YOUR pocket. I suspect that our children will notice this price differential. Clinton balanced the budget, and generally followed the state departments line of foreign policy which was designed to strengthen our country via the most bang for the buck. Bush 2 went crazy on some kind of insane spending spree and expensive militarism as jh notes above, not supported by many inside state, to say nothing of the rest of the world, spending policies which the current pres has seemingly tried to surpass. I don't get it. Get hip. The bedrock assumption to which all of official Washington adheres, liberal Democrats no less than conservative Republicans, is that the United States itself constitutes the axis around which history turns. We define the future. Our actions determine its course. The world needs, expects, and yearns for America to lead, thereby ensuring the ultimate triumph of liberty. For the United States to shrink from its responsibility to lead is, at the very least, to put at risk the precarious stability to which humanity clings and in all likelihood would open the door to unspeakable catastrophe. Alternatives to American leadership simply do not exist. Reject these propositions and your chances of working in the White House, securing a cushy billet at some Washington think tank, or landing an invitation to pontificate on one of the Sunday-morning talk shows are reduced to just about zero. This self-image, combining grandeur with insufferable smugness, both energizes and perverts U.S. foreign policy. It inspires American policymakers to undertake breathtakingly bold initiatives such as the Marshall Plan—Harry Truman setting out to rebuild a Europe laid prostrate by war. Yet it also inspires the likes of George W. Bush to pursue his Freedom Agenda—an expressed intent to transform the entire Islamic world, providing a rationale for open-ended “global war.” The conviction that the United States is history’s prime mover also blinds Washington to forces that may well exercise a far greater impact on the course of events than do the actions of the United States itself. --from Andrew Bacevich, Boston Review Jan. 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.