At 3/23/12 12:53 AM, Austerity wrote:

I predict Obama has roughly a 1.8% chance of getting re-elected.

Who's going to beat him? The Republican Party is defeating itself with this brutal primary battle. None of the serious contenders have a CHANCE of coming hear Obama in November. There's no one strong enough that everyone can rally behind.

Mark my words: Obama is going to be in the White House as the sitting President come next February.

At 3/23/12 12:53 AM, Austerity wrote: I predict Obama has roughly a 1.8% chance of getting re-elected.

lmao, that's gotta be a joke.

At 4/5/12 11:33 AM, Korriken wrote: Remember back in 2009 when the big bad evil white cop arrested a black professor?

Crying over

OF course, there are other huge blunders he has made in the national and global spotlight, like sending Gordon Brown a set of DVDs... DVDS!

Spilled milk

Hell. If these are the worst you can come up with...

Obama's latest blunder? opening his mouth on the supreme court case on the very bill he tried to pass. tried to sound tough about it, then when it actually gained a little attention he went wimpering back into the corner like a puppy who got his nose rubbed in his own feces.

First off, read the entire quote. Second, he's a politician and what do politicians do? They whine about court decisions. If you want to see who is in the wrong here, don't look toward Washington, look South, right to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, since Bush, a non democrat was in office, it made the media's job easy, just blame Bush. Forget that the framework for this disaster was built before he even took office the first time, also, congress was warned of this well before it happened, but, well, see for yourself. Never let the truth get in the way of the vote farm.

The economy was harldy Bush's only blemish, or even his biggest blemish.

I also love how he took credit for Iraq when the groundwork for the ending of the conflict was well in the works ans Gitmo? still open. good job. At least Obama wasn't dumb enough to release the gitmo prisoners... yet.

What do you care about this? You want it to still be open. Why are you bitching?

Conservatives today look gift horses in the mouth like crazy. Obama has giftwraped so much to the conservative states, yet they have denied it (to their citizens' expense) on ground of principle, even though petty prinicples aren't what Congress is supposed to act upon.

But I know how this will end. You will find anything wrong you can and blame it on Obama regardless of the truth or plausibility of the claim.

At 4/5/12 02:54 PM, Korriken wrote: perhaps, but he did make a major fool of himself. for someone who is supposed to be sooooo smart, you figure he would know to get something a little more.. symbolic.

First he's a talking suit and then you cherry pick a few times where he's screwed up and showed a human side that fit with your view and make this claim.

point is, he talks big, but he's a weak leader. pathetically weak. and incompetent. He reminds me of a certain manager I once had to work under, just got out of college and landed a job as a manager. had no idea what he was doing.

A leader can lead as far as the people he leads are willing to follow. For a certain group of politicians, that has not been a very long distance.

just like people did with Bush, whats the difference? oh right, Bush isn't in the party you prefer.

I know people did it with Bush, and many people, namely the ones who rail on how Bush was the worst president ever, still do it. However, that doesn't make it right or legitimate for you to do the same.

An important reason for which you want to re-elect Obama, his views of the Russian-American relations. When the candidate of the Republican Party is trying to make Russia the enemy number one in American society.

Obama's reelection chances are tied to the economy and gas prices. No more, no less.

If there's any other promising candidate, than no.
I don't like Obama, but I don't dislike him either. As a President, he was given the wight of the previous' president's problems, but he hasn't alleviated them in ant significant way.
But this year's presidential candidates don't seem too promising either. To me, it all comes down to gay rights, because my parents are both gay and married (they're lesbians); if someone wants to repeal their rights as a married couple, then my family could lose the benefits we need to support six people in one house.
Not to push a "gay rights" argument, though, sorry; that's just what is boils down to for me. Anti, Don't care, or Pro.

At 12/19/11 08:32 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: The only thing I know for certain is that Obama can't be re-elected, he's only meant for one term and one term only, some democrats need to come to realize that re-electing Obama will only do the American people even more harm then good, even Steave Jobs (CEO of Apple) said so himself.

That said, some Presidents are only meant for one term while others are re-elected for another, as I said once and I'll say again, Obama is one of those Presidents only meant for one term.

I agree, he may have done a couple somewhat good things but it seems like he has done quite a bit bad, i give him good marks for the fact that were all still alive so he didn't do horrible.

No, he does not deserve to be re-elected; but, out of the viable options we have, he's probably our best bet. I would rather have an intelligent leader who I disagree with than a nut job or blank canvas. Ron Paul would be a great choice if it weren't for some of his economic beliefs (I still think he is the best choice). But, personally I think Paul works better as a voice or word to the wise. I do not feel that he would be appropriate as President. However, I would never in my life vote for the hypocritical paper-cut-out that is Romney - and Gingrich is pure evil.

So I guess Obama is the best choice (unfortunately)? That doesn't mean I'll be voting for him. If Paul goes independent, then I'll vote for him if for nothing else but to keep the numbers on Romney down.

At 4/6/12 10:49 AM, OPRI4NIK wrote: An important reason for which you want to re-elect Obama, his views of the Russian-American relations. When the candidate of the Republican Party is trying to make Russia the enemy number one in American society.

The problem is I don't really think Obama is a deft captain of the ship of state. Russia is not interested, especially with Putin at the helm, in hearing about win-win economic scenarios. They are concerned with re-establishing lost Imperial territory. After all we're talking about a country that will kill hostages to get terrorists and in 2007 shut down Georgia (the country...not the US state) with cyber attacks before staging a military invasion.

I don't really believe that Moscow comes in peace.

At 4/20/12 12:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.

"Republican obstructionism"...now that's a myth that qualifies as self-gratifying fellatio (along with a little prostate tweaking).

1) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress that made the Republican minority insignificant. During this time Obama spent all of his political capital with the moderate & conservative wings of the Democratic majority on stimulus and healthcare reform. From that point on until January 2011 he was incompetent in dealing with the various constituencies within his own party!

2) Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, following the 2010 election, congress has been unable to pass a budget...it's been held-up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Now I'm not going to say that Republicans are not gaming the system and holding some things up...but I'm not going to let you pretend that the Dems are innocent...or even significantly less responsible than the Republicans.

The myth of Republican obstructivism is just factually false.

At 4/20/12 01:52 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 4/20/12 01:22 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/20/12 12:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.

"Republican obstructionism"...now that's a myth that qualifies as self-gratifying fellatio (along with a little prostate tweaking).

Session with the most fillibuster in the history of the united states? This one. Who's been carrying them out? Republicans in the senate. What is a fillibuster? Obstruction. Therefor Republicans are obstructionists. QED

Fact Check: According to the Senate'sSenate's own official history the Congress with the most cloture votes was: (drum roll please)
The 2006-2008 Congress. During those two years there were 139 cloture votes filed. 112 votes on said motions. 61 motions passed. Oh...and by the way this was a Democratically controlled Senate with a Republican White House.

The second most votes (and the Senate with the most motions passed):
The 2008-2010 Congress. During these two years there were 137 cloture votes filed. 91 votes on said motions. 63 motions passed. This was a Democratically controlled Senate with a Democratic White House.

And no for the current Congress; which is the most slim Dem majority yet:
82 motions.
48 votes.
26 motions passed.

Just as a comparison, how did the Republicans do under the previous Democrat president when they held majorities in both houses?
1995-1996
82 motions.
50 votes.
9 clotures invoked.

1997-1998
69 motions.
53 votes.
18 clotures invoked.

1999-2000
71 motions.
58 votes.
28 clotures invoked.

Hmm...it seems like when Republicans have either a majority or strong minority in the Senate the number of motions filed drops dramatically...along with how many clotures are actually invoked.

Now you may argue that the increase in cloture votes means an increase in fillibuster attempts. And you'd be wrong. Cloture is now (since 1975) a way for the Majority party to steamroll the minority and bring debate to a swift end...so it has more uses than its original intent when it was adopted in 1919. So it is not necessarily a reflection of how many filibusters there've been in this Congress, but rather a tool used to increase the flow of business.

Finally, since 2007 there has only been one filibuster.

So I'm sorry...but this "fact" is a manipulation of the data, definition and history.

1) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress that made the Republican minority insignificant.

Which is a complete lie because the Democrats never had a solid 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster. When it appeared they did they still had to deal with conservative blue dogs and "independent" lieberman. Plus deaths and all that, they never had 60 votes when legislation came up for a vote. Without 60 votes you can't invoke cloture and the minority can filibuster any legislation they want to. Which they have.

Umm...a complete lie?...no, not really no.

They had 57 Democrats and two independents that caucused with them...giving them 59 votes. So yeah...one shy officially of 60. However, the Senate is known as the "Upper Chamber" for good reason. For the most part they are less beholden to ideology and rigorous party controll than their House counterparts. Part of the reason for this is the simple fact that a Senator represents an entire state rather than a much smaller (most of the time) congressional district. Therefore, their votes have to have much broader appeal than a Representative. Therefore, aside from the Senate leadership a Senator has to be much more flexible and compromising with the other side.

Thus votes are more fluid. So a Northern Republican in favor of healthcare reform can easily break ranks and vote with the majority to invoke cloture. Likewise a Southern Democrat is more likely to side with the Republicans in a cloture vote over a piece of legislation that would be less popular in their more conservative state.

So again...this allegation of a lie is exposed to be either a falsehood or a lack of understanding.

Know the fuck what you're talking about.

Gum, honestly I respect you and enjoy posting against you. But I suggest that instead of telling me to know what the fuck I'm talking about...you get up and go tell it to the man in the mirror.

2) Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, following the 2010 election, congress has been unable to pass a budget...it's been held-up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The republicans in the house haven't passed a single Obama budget since 2008. Instead they've opted to pass politically polar budgets that had no hope of passage at the expense of our nation and its economy. Most of their budgetary moves would have caused enconomic havoc (the kind that's been seen in Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, & Britain) due to austerity.

Ummm...you do realize that in a republic that is not how it works...right? The president submits a budget to the Congress indirectly saying this is what he believes he's going to need to run the government. But then the people's true representative the House and (since 1913) the Senate take a look at the proposal and add their own inputs.

From there both side get together and hammer out a deal to get a budget where both sides win. Usually this involves leadership from 1600 Penn. Ave.

Unfortunately that has been lacking from this administration. Obama doesn't want to get involved with the day-to-day deal making that is necessary to get majorities out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Instead he lets his party leadership in both Houses manage this on their own. So in this way as leader of the Democrats he is a total failure. If he was a Republican I wouldn't vote for him because he's pretty incompetent at the job of governing and being the titular party leader!

As for the Republican budget. Have you heard of quantitative easing? That's the shit between-the-wars-Germany and Zimbabwe did with disasterous results. We've built a house of cards built upon a Social Security surplus that is now rapidly disappearing. We've leveraged government spending not on internal/domestic revenue streams but borrowing from other countries. Our hearts are bigger than our heads and government involvement in healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid & Tricare) are increasing the cost of practicing medicine all the while sucking more money off the government tit.

The time has come for us to stop being big-hearted, naive and even selfish children and pull together as a society and act like responsible adults. This will involve some pain...but not as much as the European PIGS (and yes that's an actual acronymn for Portugal Italy Greece Spain) you mentioned.

The myth of Republican obstructivism is just factually false.

Except when its true. Like, right now.

Sorry Gum...it's not true and you myth: BUSTED.

At 4/20/12 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Finally, since 2007 there has only been one filibuster.

So I'm sorry...but this "fact" is a manipulation of the data, definition and history.

If you'll allow me to pick one nit here. Filibusters don't really happen anymore. They are threatened, and the other side folds. It's more of a symbolic thing, now. One of the problems with the Dems, is that they haven't made the Reps actually DO the filibusters, rather than just back down once one is threatened.

* He has proven himself unable to govern. He promised up a post-partisan Washington...but instead we enter into the last year of his first term more divided than ever. Many of his supporters cling to the narrative that Republicans in Congress have been stoppping his initiatives at every turn. However when he entered office he had atmospheric approval ratings that stretched across the aisle but more importantly he had super-majorities in BOTH Houses of Congress. For the first two years of his administration the Republicans in no way could do anything to stop Democratic policies. The resistance he got...came from the moderates in his own party. If he could not lead when his own party was firmly in control of Congress...how can he do it with a divided legislature?

Political parties have always been cock-blocking each other, so this is a moot point, when Obama said he wanted a post-partisan Washington he obviously was pandering to both parties, knowing full well this wasn't going to be possible, all presidents have done this to some extent. Everybody knows a Post-partisan Washington is bullshit, the reality is a partisan government is the only form of government that really manages to make any significant changes.

Furthermore he was leading when his congress was in "full power", he just didn't feel the need to discuss with the public some of the more ballsier things he did, because I feel he knew that the people that needed to know would find out, and that's the thing I like about Obama, he's a pragmatist.

For example when the seal team 6 mission to kill Osama was a success, I think it was an intelligent decision not to release the photo's of Osamas corpse to the public, because that would have made a martyr out of an asshole. It would have been a popular thing to do, but it also would have been a stupid action because it would has just instigated more violence amongst extremists.

If you prefer take a more obscure example of his leadership on foreign issues, the successful pogrom he had preformed by the Navy Seals on the Somalian pirates that held the American cargo ship hostage, many people have never heard of that... It's because killing and military missions are unpopular, and have repercussions on the global stage, Obama understands this, which is why he prefers to keep things quiet, that's leadership... I should mention this occurred during his first three months of tenure.

Furthermore who do you want to lead the free world? Are there any other candidates you honestly see fit on the republican bench? Is it worth putting a new guy in place, when Obama has done a satisfactory job at WORST?

* He also has a very undistinguished foreign policy record. The relationships with our allies is no stronger than it was in '08. In fact they are very strained with our top three strongest allies: England, Israel and S. Korea. With our adversaries we are a joke (Russia, Iran). The only things he has in terms of success are things any president would have done: using the Navy SeALs to take out Somali pirates and Usama bin Laden. Now I'm not all that convinced that he'll be up to the challenge of working with a post-Jong Il N. Korea.

Well now this is flat out bullshit, I've been a member of the Canadian C-Circle club since I was legally eligible to join, I can tell you with Canadian politicians, and the general public Obama is a very well respected individual, are you insinuating that Canada isn't one of America's strongest allies?

I'm personally offended by this statement given so many of our troops died in a war supporting your country, Canada was one of the last countries to pull out of the war primarily because we understood it's importance. Stephen Harper extended the mission several times not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq which was an extremely unpopular decision, he did this because Canada was in solidarity with the end goal of eradicating a pernicious ideology. I would say Canada is Americas #1 ally, isn't that why Obama chose to visit our Country first?

As for Koreans, I spoke with a personal friend who follows Korean politics, and I've heard nothing but good things about Obama's perception in that region, he's extremely popular with the people there. I can't speak as to whether he's popular with government officials, but any government worth a flying fuck is run by it's people, so the fact he's a well liked individual is very good for Americas "soft power".

Any presidents relationship with your countries enemies will always be shit, if it's not it's because the president did something to make them fear the government, which of course means that course of action would be criticized in another manner.

Frankly I think North Koreas opinion of America doesn't matter, they aren't going to do shit, they make a tiny ruckus to draw attention so they can negotiate for food for their terribly malnourished people. So they aren't a real threat to America in the slightest, although I do sympathize for the people there and I think military action should be taken on them. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you can see that pre-emptive measures would have massive repercussions on South Korea, which is why we aren't able to act now. The North Korean issue is something no president has wanted to touch with a ten foot pole for a long time.

* Obamacare, his signature legacy-legislation, is a Frankenstein bill that he advocated and politiked for...but did not guide its provisions. What he ended up signing into law was a bill that had been cobbled together hap-hazardly. Now the Supreme Court may invalidate it's key provision: the individual mandate. Whatever your veiw on healthcare reform...he didn't lead. He didn't guide. He didn't write or support Democratic lawmakers.

I concur the health care bill could have been handled better, it was a start, but he failed to sell it to the public :(

Anyway, just thought I'd open a new discussion on the 2012 election.

At 4/26/12 10:00 AM, Celx-Requin wrote: Political parties have always been cock-blocking each other, so this is a moot point, ...

Umm...no.
1) Yes political parties compete with one another and there is frequent gridlock. A good example of this is the 1995 show-down between Bill Clinton and the Republicans in Congress. This show-down resulted in two government shut-downs. However, from that pissing contest both the president and congressional Republicans learned that this wasn't good public policy and learned the art of the deal and how to compromise with the other side.

Example 2: But sometimes a divided government or strong minority opposition is good for the sitting president. In the 1960s LBJ could NOT have passed his Great Society's civil rights initiatives withOUT Republicans See at this time the Democrats had a terrorist wing of their party: the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). So LBJ had to rely on the Republicans in Congress to pass civil rights bills.

So my point is: a president cannot be ideologically rigid nor can he be rigidly partisan in order to be successful. Obama has failed this test. His first chief of staff was Rham Emanual one of the toughest and staunchest Democratic partisans in the House. Now one of the primary jobs of a chief of staff is to be the president's chief lobbyist on the Hill. He helps the House and Senate leadership keep the party's member voting in line with the president's priorities...and makes deals with the opposition to get things passed. Thus far (with David Axelrod of the Chicago School of Politics succeeding Emanuel) Obama's point men have been the opposite of who a president seeking to reach across party lines would select.

So my point stands.

Furthermore he was leading when his congress was in "full power", he just didn't feel the need to discuss with the public some of the more ballsier things he did, because I feel he knew that the people that needed to know would find out, and that's the thing I like about Obama, he's a pragmatist.

No...that's not being a pragmatist. That's being the opposite of transparent (which he promised) and what a free society should expect from their elected leaders. This is actually one more reason to fire the guy in November.

For example when the seal team 6 mission to kill Osama was a success, I think it was an intelligent decision not to release the photo's of Osamas corpse to the public, because that would have made a martyr out of an asshole. It would have been a popular thing to do, but it also would have been a stupid action because it would has just instigated more violence amongst extremists.

Again...wrong. Speaking as someone who has studied terrorism academically and works in the antiterrorism field...releasing the pictures would not have significantly increased violence. In some ways it may have suppressed it.
1) By not releasing the pictures it allows conspiracy theorists to sell the lie that Usama is still alive and this is some sick CIA/DoD propaganda play.
2) It allows cognative dissonance to develope in the minds of the average extremists. If they see their charismatic hero laying dead...this larger than life dude who killed Soviet generals and took their AK-74s...suddenly they become untouchable.

So no I think Obama made the wrong call here.

If you prefer take a more obscure example of his leadership on foreign issues, the successful pogrom he had preformed by the Navy Seals on the Somalian pirates that held the American cargo ship hostage, many people have never heard of that... It's because killing and military missions are unpopular, and have repercussions on the global stage, Obama understands this, which is why he prefers to keep things quiet, that's leadership... I should mention this occurred during his first three months of tenure.

Again...totally wrong.
1) This is not obscure, maybe forgotten by the average voter by now. But the Maersk Alabama hijacking was front page news here in the US. And when the SeALs took them out...it was front page news. They didn't exactly try to hide it.
2) There was no blowback from this very publicized action. The reason is this was one of those cases where the military action was actually very popular.
3) It was an easy call to make because of its popular support and obvious legality.

Furthermore who do you want to lead the free world? Are there any other candidates you honestly see fit on the republican bench? Is it worth putting a new guy in place, when Obama has done a satisfactory job at WORST?

He has done a horrible job, he is a failure as a president. He lacks significant governing skills because he's an idealist and ideologue who wants to govern from an Ivory Tower unimpeded by the real world. So yeah I think president Romney will be head and shoulders above Obama as a president. Hell...Obama's ineptitude makes Bush look like Lincoln or Jefferson by comparison!

... are you insinuating that Canada isn't one of America's strongest allies?

I think Canada is one of our most important allies, yes. We share a border and many common social traits. However, I wouldn't say you're one of our strongest allies because you don't have much power projection.

I'm personally offended ...

Sounds like a personal problem.

As for Koreans, I spoke with a personal friend who follows Korean politics, and I've heard nothing but good things about Obama's perception in that region, he's extremely popular with the people there. I can't speak as to whether he's popular with government officials, but any government worth a flying fuck is run by it's people, so the fact he's a well liked individual is very good for Americas "soft power".

I am also very familiar with and follow Korean politics. And yes Obama is popular and well liked...but that doesn't mean he's effective. In some of our treaty negotiations with Seoul when he got personally involved...the treaties fell through. I don't give a shit how popular our president is...if he can't do his job. This isn't high school.

Any presidents relationship with your countries enemies will always be shit, if it's not it's because the president did something to make them fear the government, which of course means that course of action would be criticized in another manner.

This is why if the US elects a president further Left than Clinton he will always fail in the foreign policy arena. They just don't understand that the opinions of allies and adversaries matter much. In the international arena it is all about competition...it is a state of anarchy and no such thing as "international law" actually exists.

Instead they are blinded to the fact that "cooperation" is perceived as weakness and even our allies will seek to exploit this weakness and our adversaries will only be encouraged to act out more boldly.

At 4/26/12 06:35 PM, TheMason wrote: Again...wrong. Speaking as someone who has studied terrorism academically and works in the antiterrorism field...releasing the pictures would not have significantly increased violence. In some ways it may have suppressed it.

For some reason, I keep getting the feeling that had he released the picture you'd be on this topic saying how it was a bad idea...

1) This is not obscure, maybe forgotten by the average voter by now. But the Maersk Alabama hijacking was front page news here in the US. And when the SeALs took them out...it was front page news. They didn't exactly try to hide it.

If you were actually right, this would be the only thing they did. You tell me that the SEALs' entire anti-piracy campaign occuer between the rails of the Maersk Alabama.

Hell...Obama's ineptitude makes Bush look like Lincoln or Jefferson by comparison!

Get out the worms and the poles, Mason's going fishing.

I think Canada is one of our most important allies, yes. We share a border and many common social traits. However, I wouldn't say you're one of our strongest allies because you don't have much power projection.

Actually Canada is one of our biggest allies. They may have little military power, or little global political power, but they have a great deal of regional political power being able to poke a several thousand mile hole in many of our policies (mostly the national security ones). This doesn't even take into account the fact that much of our natural resources come from the land of maple syrup, pea soup, and Rush.

I am also very familiar with and follow Korean politics. And yes Obama is popular and well liked...but that doesn't mean he's effective. In some of our treaty negotiations with Seoul when he got personally involved...the treaties fell through. I don't give a shit how popular our president is...if he can't do his job. This isn't high school.

What was the substance of these treaties and what were the failing points?

it is a state of anarchy and no such thing as "international law" actually exists.

International law doesn't exist because the country with the best ability to give it legitimacy over the past 50-60 years was too busy fucking around behind the scenes. You're pulling a Clarence Thomas here.

At 4/26/12 10:00 AM, Celx-Requin wrote:

(Continued)

Frankly I think North Koreas opinion of America doesn't matter, they aren't going to do shit, they make a tiny ruckus to draw attention so they can negotiate for food for their terribly malnourished people. So they aren't a real threat to America in the slightest, although I do sympathize for the people there and I think military action should be taken on them. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you can see that pre-emptive measures would have massive repercussions on South Korea, which is why we aren't able to act now. The North Korean issue is something no president has wanted to touch with a ten foot pole for a long time.

The North Korean situation is far more nuanced than that.

1) The DPRK regime doesn't give fuck 1 about their malnourished people. The first place food aid goes is to the military so they continue supporting the Kim dynasty. If the food reaches the people it is a gift from the Great Successor...not a sign of international benevolence.
2) The DPRK regime doesn't give fuck 2 about playing nice with others...nor what any country other than China thinks about them (and even China doesn't matter sometimes). The Kim family is motivated by one thing: staying in power. So if the military wants something...they've got to give it to them. Yes...they have to balance out the 36K American military presence in the South along with a modernized ROK military. But if they perceive a lack of spine/will/balls they will act up. With Obama in office we've seen an increase in their bad behavior...behavior which has seen people get killed. I don't think this is a coincidence.
3) You know have a 27ish Leader in Pyongyang who did not go through the extensive grooming his father did under his grandfather. Is he going to be strong? Is he going to be more "irrational" than his father was? This last point is key. Rationality changes from culture to culture. What we perceive as being "rational" or in one's "self-interest" can often vary in other cultures. Ergo...Kim Jong Un is going to act in ways that will be very foreign to our eyes. And Obama has not really shown himself to be the kind of guy who is capable of making the hard choices (ie: the ill-fated "Green Revolution" in Iran). Yes...he ordered the SeALs to kill some pirates and bin Laden. But those were easy choices to make politically with very little chance of being a) unpopular or b) being terribly destructive. Obama missteps on the Korean penninsula and the whole region could destabilize.

I concur the health care bill could have been handled better, it was a start, but he failed to sell it to the public :(

There is no greater evidence of his incompetence than healthcare.
1) It is the intervention (however well intentioned) of the government via Medicare and Medicaid that is the main driving force behind increased healthcare costs in this country.
2) It is not the reason he was elected; in fact he followed his own ideologically-driven agenda rather than taking care of the needs of the American people through pursuing sane fiscal policy that would right the financial crisis that has led to the deepest economic contraction since the Great Depression.

At this point practically anyone would be better than Obama.

At 4/26/12 07:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/26/12 06:35 PM, TheMason wrote: Again...wrong. Speaking as someone who has studied terrorism academically and works in the antiterrorism field...releasing the pictures would not have significantly increased violence. In some ways it may have suppressed it.

For some reason, I keep getting the feeling that had he released the picture you'd be on this topic saying how it was a bad idea...

No Camaro...I'd be giving him his credit.
1) The pictures would've been cathartic for the American public.
2) I have a buddy who is in the Canadian army...psyops...who deployed to Afghanistan and we've talked about the people and their attitudes. From him and other sources, I think releasing the pics would have actually tempered emotions.

1) This is not obscure, maybe forgotten by the average voter by now. But the Maersk Alabama hijacking was front page news here in the US. And when the SeALs took them out...it was front page news. They didn't exactly try to hide it.

If you were actually right, this would be the only thing they did. You tell me that the SEALs' entire anti-piracy campaign occuer between the rails of the Maersk Alabama.

Irrelevent. He brought up a single incident that was front page news and tried passing it off as something Obama did in secret...when it was very public.

Now...there is alot that we do do in secret, yes. But every president does that.

Oh...and here's some props for Obama:
1) He kept the promise to target al Qaida w/predator drones including targets in Pakistan...and he's looking to expand operations in Yemen. I think these are decisions which are risky and he deserves credit for making these hard decisions.
2) He's kept GitMo open. I think once he was in office and had access to what really goes on there...and then facing opposition from both sides of the aisle...I think he wisely backed off the issue.

Hell...Obama's ineptitude makes Bush look like Lincoln or Jefferson by comparison!

Get out the worms and the poles, Mason's going fishing.

Actually no. Bush was far more successfull as Obama at getting his policy agendas passed through Congress. I think his handling of the crisis of September '08 was a sign of a president actually being able to work through gridlock with a Congress just as hostile to the WH as this one.

I think Canada is one of our most important allies, yes. We share a border and many common social traits. However, I wouldn't say you're one of our strongest allies because you don't have much power projection.

Actually Canada is one of our biggest allies. They may have little military power, or little global political power, but they have a great deal of regional political power being able to poke a several thousand mile hole in many of our policies (mostly the national security ones). This doesn't even take into account the fact that much of our natural resources come from the land of maple syrup, pea soup, and Rush.

Again we have very close ties to Canada and they are an important ally. But let's not pretend that, other than an early warning system, they are on the same level as England or Korea in terms of strategic importance.

They are more important in terms of domestic policy than strategic foreign policy. For the most part we speak the same language. We have a fairly open border and trade. We have no military tension...in fact we're probably the two most military-cooperative countries in the world.

But when it comes time to project power or influence...we don't really turn to them like we do England in Europe or Korea in the Pacific. The reason: they don't really project their power or seek influence outside their borders. This is a very vital service they provide. An American can stick a Canadian flag on their backpack and move unmolested through much of Europe and the Middle East!

I am also very familiar with and follow Korean politics. And yes Obama is popular and well liked...but that doesn't mean he's effective. In some of our treaty negotiations with Seoul when he got personally involved...the treaties fell through. I don't give a shit how popular our president is...if he can't do his job. This isn't high school.

What was the substance of these treaties and what were the failing points?

Uh...just a small free trade treaty called the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement.

Most of the work had been done on this treaty in 2007. Diplomats were wrapping up some of the smaller issues that were sticking in the craw of both contries...but we had managed to come up with a deal that was acceptable to the Koreans. But then Obama, under UAW and Automakers, tried to renegotiate some of the finer points in a visit to Seoul. Then...after opening up old issues thought dealt with...went on TV and said we'd have a treaty only a few days later at the upcoming G20 summit.

This was just pure ineptitude on the part of the president. I mean the same class of stupidity and lack of deftness that one would expect from Sarah Palin or Herman Cain...not a suppossedly brilliant and accomplished community organizer who excells at bringing people together.

it is a state of anarchy and no such thing as "international law" actually exists.

International law doesn't exist because the country with the best ability to give it legitimacy over the past 50-60 years was too busy fucking around behind the scenes. You're pulling a Clarence Thomas here.

Not at all. In order for law to exist there has to be an agent that is responsible for enforcing the law...and its judgements. This requires someone to be the world police. I think Iraq was a test of that. Saddam was violating several UN resolutions that prescribed the use of force if violated. The lack of will to enforce these provisions on the part of the international community is proof that the old European Colonial powers and their now independent colonies have no interest in a New World Order that will promote a legitimate international law (and its attendant agencies) founded upon the rule of law.

I think you're putting on rose colored glasses here. :)

@ Celx-Requin and Camaro:

First of all let me burn down you strawman I expect you build: I do not think Obama supports the following policy initiatives in Egypt.

However, I think his ineptitude in dealing with foreign affairs is enableing disgusting legislation being pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Farewell Intercourse: Based upon a cleric saying marriage goes past death, the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo is now pushing legislation that would allow ppl to have sex with their spouse up to 6hrs after their death.

Other legislation includes allowing child brides as young as 14 to be given away in arranged marriages. And they have also warned the population to prepare for war with Israel.

Now how is this a reflection of Obama's deftless foreign policy?

In Iran US support of those seeking to rid themselves of a theocracy could've toppled a rogue regime. Instead his timidity only made matters worse. Now in Egypt, not wanting to reproduce his timid mistake he goes ahead and with full ignorance of who was being the Tahrir Square protests...gave them support to overthrow Mubarak.

In short, he went with his rose colored community organizer worldview and now Egpytians have a government just as bad with the added benefit of regional instability.

The guy is clueless.

At 4/27/12 11:48 AM, TheMason wrote: Farewell Intercourse: Based upon a cleric saying marriage goes past death, the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo is now pushing legislation that would allow ppl to have sex with their spouse up to 6hrs after their death.

Other legislation includes allowing child brides as young as 14 to be given away in arranged marriages. And they have also warned the population to prepare for war with Israel.

There are rumblings that this is probably a hoax, based on one blog post by a Mubarak loyalist, so pointing any fingers at Obama for such events is premature.

At 4/27/12 03:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: There are rumblings that this is probably a hoax, based on one blog post by a Mubarak loyalist, so pointing any fingers at Obama for such events is premature.

Premature...probably yes. Fun and a guilty pleasure...definately yes!

At 4/27/12 03:29 PM, TheMason wrote: Premature...probably yes. Fun and a guilty pleasure...definately yes!

Fair enough! :P

At 4/26/12 08:50 PM, TheMason wrote: I think you're putting on rose colored glasses here. :)

More like I am putting on blue colored glasses as opposed to your red colored glasses.

Quick fact: Put our glasses together and you get 3D.

At 4/27/12 03:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: There are rumblings that this is probably a hoax, based on one blog post by a Mubarak loyalist, so pointing any fingers at Obama for such events is premature.

The fatwa by the Moroccan and lowering the age of marriage seem to be real. The necrophilia law is nonsense, apparently.

At 4/27/12 05:29 PM, Feoric wrote: ... The necrophilia law is nonsense, apparently.

It's interesting and I'd like to know what the truth of it is. Was it a pro-Mubarak move to discredit the Islamists? Or was it something actually being kicked around and when it leaked the Islamists backed-off quickly to avoid embarassment? Sadly we may never know.

However, that Islamists are in such a powerful position in post-Mubarak Egypt is alarming and I don't think it is a good thing.

At 4/29/12 01:49 AM, TheMason wrote: It's interesting and I'd like to know what the truth of it is. Was it a pro-Mubarak move to discredit the Islamists? Or was it something actually being kicked around and when it leaked the Islamists backed-off quickly to avoid embarassment? Sadly we may never know.

I honestly don't know, it's kind of hard to get to the source of rumors, particularly in that region. I'll start doing some research tomorrow and get back to you on that.