No certain elements within the Republican Party have dragged the party even further to the right, funding the Tea Party to masquerade as a ‘will of the people’ motive to do this when in fact they are funded by and called to the tune of big business, who want more of the deregulation started by Clinton and continued by Bush that led to the economic crash of 2007/8. Of course certain elements in the party resisted them but the result is now a Republican Party where Sarah Palin as president is now a distinct, rather than indistinct, possibility. And if the Tea Party don’t follow the Republican line blindly in government apart from maybe a few, i’ll be surprised
[quote]Bambi wrote:
No certain elements within the Republican Party have dragged the party even further to the right, funding the Tea Party to masquerade as a ‘will of the people’ motive to do this when in fact they are funded by and called to the tune of big business, who want more of the deregulation started by Clinton and continued by Bush that led to the economic crash of 2007/8. Of course certain elements in the party resisted them but the result is now a Republican Party where Sarah Palin as president is now a distinct, rather than indistinct, possibility. And if the Tea Party don’t follow the Republican line blindly in government apart from maybe a few, i’ll be surprised[/quote]
There is so much wrong with what you’ve just said it’s almost not worth responding.
1-There are no elements within the republican party that dragged it to the right. The Tea Party may end up dragging it to the right, but the jury is still out. The Tea Party is NOT a a part of the republican party. In fact many of the state republican leaders feared the Tea Party movement and with good reason several of the Tea Party candidates defeated the main stream republicans.
2-“Big business” has not funded the Tea Party. That doesn’t mean that some business men do not give freely to them. However, if you look at the rank and file I’d say they lean more toward the common man. Every day people who are sick and tired of being raped by big government.
3-It was NOT deregulation that caused the financial crisis. And if I have to explain this one more time I think I’m going to bash my head into the computer screen. Have you been reading the liberal Scotland rags? Put them down for a while and check into the US government thinking that every Tom, Dick and Harry should own a house with almost nothing down. A housing boom and then bust promoted by the US government. This had NOTHING to do with deregulation. NOTHING!
4-Palin will not be the republican nominee. Hence, it is not a “distinct possibility” as you predict, but a very remote possibility. Palin was permanently tarnished by the main stream liberal media (See Dan Quayle 1988). She has no chance of becoming President. What she is good for is firing up the base just as she has done in the mid-term elections. But you don’t understand this because you don’t understand the American media or US politics for that matter.
Look I know you’re not from around here and probably don’t quite understand the subtle nuances of US politics so why don’t you give it a rest? Get through school study some US political history while you are there, and pay better attention to some of our media from both sides. Then and only then should you post again.
Zeb
-
Yes that’s your point but it doesn’t answer mine. In government they will have to do something. And I think, apart from a few, most will toe the republican line because otherwise they risk splitting the right-wing vote and not guaranteeing them the vote.
Here’s an article from the New Yorker about how the Koch brother billionaires trained people to be tea activists. I realise this is seen as overtly liberal in the united states so I will try and find a more right-wing source
- Nice of you to make assumptions. When I do buy a paper I read the Times or the Telegraph. The times is owned by Rupert Murdoch who runs Fox News, and The Telegraph is generally recognised as the most right-wing paper in Britain. On the (very rare) occasion I do buy a leftwing newspaper like the guardian or Independent, I find their pro-left wing bias almost impossible to digest. In the election I voted for the conservative party, an act that had many of my fellow students accuse me of being a Nazi. It says a lot that on here I’m considered a bleeding heart liberal.
I - really don’t understand your rebuttal - the US government allowing banks to give mortgages to people that they would never pay back, what is that if not deregulation? Over here the banks were deregulated and the regulatory systems that remained were not properly observed.
And typing ‘clinton, bush deregulation’ into google comes up with this gem
4.Sarah Palin advert: A moment of advertising genius - BBC News
Hey even the BBC are scared of her rather than making jibes any more. That should say something. If you’re that confident, then maybe I’m a bit more optimistic that someone saner like Romney would run as candidate. And as for main stream liberal media in the USA, hahahahahahhahahahhaha. hahahahahha. ha. ha. ha.
I’m not from around the USA but I am a news junkie, I get US news on my TV and a I read a variety of sources every day. And I studied US political history thank you very much. Why do you need to supplement your argument with personal jibes? You just look petty
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was going to respond to ZEB quote-by-quote, but instead just read siouxperman’s post, because that is exactly how I feel (on most issues mentioned).
But seriously, bowing to leaders? “Really?” indeed. Because this is such a huge issue and America is now everyone’s bitch because of it. Please. Let’s focus on the big issues, please, not every little fact you can look up on the internet or remember.[/quote]
If you do not see how demonstrating weakness and subservience is harmful then you have much to learn about life. [/quote]
You seriously think 10 years from now, when people are rating President Obama’s 4 (or 8) years, they will bring up him bowing?
Please dude, get real. And I brought up issues affecting US, the American people. How the fuck did him bowing have any effect on us? ZERO, and don’t give me that “well it did indirectly blah blah blah” BS.[/quote]
If you don’t understand simple things like this there is no point in discussing it with you.
[quote]Raided wrote:
Obama’s biggest mistake was not to tear the Republicans a new one when he came into power.
He should have pointed out that their policies were never any good, that they presided over the whole debacle and that the economy had been running of the fumes of credit and financial fucking around for too long. That Republicans had sold the country to China and India. With that he could have gathered some steam and put his policies in place.
He should have put a bigger stimulus package together and simultaneously slapped a tariff on China until they agreed to let their currency appreciate. He should also have put the bankers to rights by now.
The stimulus package should have been much bigger. I don’t think it was all about appeasing Republicans and uneasy voters either as austerity policies have been in vogue recently in many countries, but being fashionable doesn’t mean it was right. The current conditions with interest rates at near enough zero and banks just hoarding cash in central bank reserves prevents fiscal stimulus from driving up interest rates. So the argument about stimulus crowding out private investment doesn’t hold water. Stimulus would not do anything to damage USA’s credit worthiness either, that argument is just a joke.
The reason why stimulus is considered a bad policy by some has nothing to do with economics. It has everything to do with ideology, poor reasoning (extending logic you’d use in a business or a household to the level of the entire economy) and moral judgements.
Anyway it’s all academic now as he looks like a lame duck and Republican ideology isn’t going to fix the mess. So tell me if if the government is refusing to spend, businesses wont spend, households cant spend and foreign countries refuse to buy American who is going to be the one to get the economy going?[/quote]
lol
[quote]Bambi wrote:
- Yes that’s your point but it doesn’t answer mine. In government they will have to do something. And I think, apart from a few, most will toe the republican line because otherwise they risk splitting the right-wing vote and not guaranteeing them the vote.[/quote]
Just like they toed the republican line and allowed the state party leaders to put in a traditional republican as their nominee? You’re like Obama your inexperience is showing
And I could give you 10 articles that clearly show how George Soros funds many left wing groups. What’s your point? That millionaires and billionaires throw money toward causes they believe in? [cough] big deal.
“fellow students” (eye roll) I have to stop doing this it’s bad for my blood pressure.
It’s called certain factions of government that are liberal and trying to guarntee a home to every man and woman in the US, even though every man and woman in the US cannot afford it. But hen you wouldn’t know that because you are not a US citizen or even barely and adult.
Then start paying attention because you sound like a young jackass who doesn’t know his ass from first base.
Because I grow weary of young idiots who feel just because they’ve taken a few political science classes that they know how the world works. What are you 20 years old? How much do you respect a 10 year olds political views? Uh huh.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was going to respond to ZEB quote-by-quote, but instead just read siouxperman’s post, because that is exactly how I feel (on most issues mentioned).
But seriously, bowing to leaders? “Really?” indeed. Because this is such a huge issue and America is now everyone’s bitch because of it. Please. Let’s focus on the big issues, please, not every little fact you can look up on the internet or remember.[/quote]
If you do not see how demonstrating weakness and subservience is harmful then you have much to learn about life. [/quote]
You seriously think 10 years from now, when people are rating President Obama’s 4 (or 8) years, they will bring up him bowing?
Please dude, get real. And I brought up issues affecting US, the American people. How the fuck did him bowing have any effect on us? ZERO, and don’t give me that “well it did indirectly blah blah blah” BS.[/quote]
If you don’t understand simple things like this there is no point in discussing it with you.[/quote]
No they don’t understand simple things like this - There is not even a partial understanding or even a faint appreciation for the subtleties of world diplomacy. We may just as well talk to a wall.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was going to respond to ZEB quote-by-quote, but instead just read siouxperman’s post, because that is exactly how I feel (on most issues mentioned).
But seriously, bowing to leaders? “Really?” indeed. Because this is such a huge issue and America is now everyone’s bitch because of it. Please. Let’s focus on the big issues, please, not every little fact you can look up on the internet or remember.[/quote]
If you do not see how demonstrating weakness and subservience is harmful then you have much to learn about life. [/quote]
You seriously think 10 years from now, when people are rating President Obama’s 4 (or 8) years, they will bring up him bowing?
Please dude, get real. And I brought up issues affecting US, the American people. How the fuck did him bowing have any effect on us? ZERO, and don’t give me that “well it did indirectly blah blah blah” BS.[/quote]
If you don’t understand simple things like this there is no point in discussing it with you.[/quote]
No they don’t understand simple things like this - There is not even a partial understanding or even a faint appreciation for the subtleties of world diplomacy. We may just as well talk to a wall.
[/quote]
Neither one of you has commented on the fact that Nixon also bowed, so did Bush Sr. so I’m afraid YOU don’t get it, it is called hypocrisy
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Neither one of you has commented on the fact that Nixon also bowed, so did Bush Sr. so I’m afraid YOU don’t get it, it is called hypocrisy [/quote]
I’m sorry I was not aware of this. Could you please post some photos and the number of times each bowed. This really is news to me.
Thanks
Zeb,
We all know the Tea Party threw established Republicans off course. But a political election is different from in government. Can you honestly say that if an issue proposed by the Republicans but opposed by some of the Tea Party would come before Congress, that the Tea Party would not vote Republican no matter what issue it was, and miss out on the opportunity to give Obama a bloody nose? Because although some of them hate the Republicans, they disagree with Obama even more!
My point with the Koch Brothers is that they try to hide their involvement with the Tea Party. There is this whole spiel with the party that it’s the ‘average man on the street’ POV, when in fact it’s a party that is being heavily manipulated by demagogues and big business. It’s the opposite of what it purports to be.
Wait the housing crash was caused by liberals in the government? In the Bush era? Pardon me if I’m wrong but don’t you get your loans and mortgages from a bank there, not the government? How exactly is it the government’s fault? that’s a genuine, not rhetorical quesetion
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Maybe he could pimp slap Pelosi[/quote]
Reminds me of a joke:
The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in front of a huge crowd.
The Pope leans toward Mrs. Pelosi and says, â??Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of YOUR followers, but go deep into their hearts and they will forever speak of this day and rejoice!!!â??
Pelosi replied, â??I seriously doubt that. With one little wave of your hand? Show me.â??
So, The Pope slapped her!
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
So I was reading this week’s issue of The Economist and it brought up some pretty good points. Before discussing, we must realize that yes, Obama is a liberal, and he will set forth liberal agendas, so accept that. Please don’t argue over conservative/liberal principles, think in a liberal mindset.
- Stabilizing the Financial System
Obama’s team resisted calls to take public ownership of banks and opted instead for a regime of stress tests… controversial, but it seemed to work. American banks are now better capitalized than they have been for decades. Also, for the car industry, Obama gave GM $50 billion in return for 61% of its shares, but the firm had to declare bankruptcy and fire its managers. This seems to have worked: both firms (GM and Chrysler) are back in profit, and the gov’t intends to dispose of its stake.
- The Economy
When it was terrible two years ago, the banks had stopped lending and there was no consumer confidence. So on to the stimulus bill it was. According to the non-partisan CBO, far more people would have been out work work in an unstimulated America. However, post-stimulus recovery has faltered and unemployment stubbornly refuses to fall. That is why liberals in Congress wanted an even bigger stimulus. But, did anyone expect the economy to be in tip-top shape only two years from 2008? I certainly didn’t.
- Health Care
Compels every citizen to buy health insurance or you get a fine. In return, the poorest buyers get a subsidy. And in return for receiving 30m previously uninsured people, insurances companies are obliged to offer more generous coverage (not denying customers on previous conditions, or putting a cap on how much health care they will pay over a lifetime). However, it does little to tackle soaring health care costs. Republicans, rightfully so, argue that it is unconstutional, because they ask, does the constitution give feds the power to force citizens to buy insurance they do not want?
Lastly, you don’t see Dems boasting about health care because of the way it was passed. Obama came into office vowing to expunge the way Washington works in terms of how they passed bills, but when Obama realized that the health care effort was too big to fail, he resorted to all the tricks: appeasing special interests (hospital/pharmaceuticals industry), pork to wavering allies, and then resorting to the questionable budget procedure to defeat a filibuster. The Republicans felt it was ‘rammed through’ against the people’s wishes.
… As for Republicans being the party of ‘no’, Eric Cantor (Republic whip in the House), said their unanimous rejection showed that they were the “adults in the room at a reckless liberal blowout on the taxpayers’ dime.”
- What Didn’t Happen
Obama still has a bunch of stuff he vowed to fix, but hasn’t: immigration reform, action on global warming, a faster exist for Afghanistan, the advancement of gay rights (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell), and Guantanamo.
So that about sums it up. Obama has definitely made mistakes, some minor, some major (major being how he focused on health care for an entire year at a time when his focus should be put into the economy). But it is very possible, even if the Democrats are screwed tomorrow at the elections, that he can get his mojo back and get a better economy going.
I give Obama a C+. A for effort, though.[/quote]
Um…Obama get’s an F-, the man supports abortion.
ESQUIRE Magazing:
Painful to read, but very enlightening and humble of the writer even when calling the country racist. This article basically says he was a speech maker and nothing more.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was going to respond to ZEB quote-by-quote, but instead just read siouxperman’s post, because that is exactly how I feel (on most issues mentioned).
But seriously, bowing to leaders? “Really?” indeed. Because this is such a huge issue and America is now everyone’s bitch because of it. Please. Let’s focus on the big issues, please, not every little fact you can look up on the internet or remember.[/quote]
If you do not see how demonstrating weakness and subservience is harmful then you have much to learn about life. [/quote]
You seriously think 10 years from now, when people are rating President Obama’s 4 (or 8) years, they will bring up him bowing?
Please dude, get real. And I brought up issues affecting US, the American people. How the fuck did him bowing have any effect on us? ZERO, and don’t give me that “well it did indirectly blah blah blah” BS.[/quote]
If you don’t understand simple things like this there is no point in discussing it with you.[/quote]
No they don’t understand simple things like this - There is not even a partial understanding or even a faint appreciation for the subtleties of world diplomacy. We may just as well talk to a wall.
[/quote]
I understand well enough. I don’t approve of Obama bowing, I think that idea was stupid, and represented Americans like we deserve to take it in the ass after 8 years of bad presidency.
But like I stated in my OP, I mentioned things that actually affected Americans. Please, tell me, Zeb or Banana, how Obama bowing has affected Americans personally, in a negative way?
Because if it hasn’t, then really, it doesn’t fucking matter that much when rating his presidency.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
So I was reading this week’s issue of The Economist and it brought up some pretty good points. Before discussing, we must realize that yes, Obama is a liberal, and he will set forth liberal agendas, so accept that. Please don’t argue over conservative/liberal principles, think in a liberal mindset.
- Stabilizing the Financial System
Obama’s team resisted calls to take public ownership of banks and opted instead for a regime of stress tests… controversial, but it seemed to work. American banks are now better capitalized than they have been for decades. Also, for the car industry, Obama gave GM $50 billion in return for 61% of its shares, but the firm had to declare bankruptcy and fire its managers. This seems to have worked: both firms (GM and Chrysler) are back in profit, and the gov’t intends to dispose of its stake.
- The Economy
When it was terrible two years ago, the banks had stopped lending and there was no consumer confidence. So on to the stimulus bill it was. According to the non-partisan CBO, far more people would have been out work work in an unstimulated America. However, post-stimulus recovery has faltered and unemployment stubbornly refuses to fall. That is why liberals in Congress wanted an even bigger stimulus. But, did anyone expect the economy to be in tip-top shape only two years from 2008? I certainly didn’t.
- Health Care
Compels every citizen to buy health insurance or you get a fine. In return, the poorest buyers get a subsidy. And in return for receiving 30m previously uninsured people, insurances companies are obliged to offer more generous coverage (not denying customers on previous conditions, or putting a cap on how much health care they will pay over a lifetime). However, it does little to tackle soaring health care costs. Republicans, rightfully so, argue that it is unconstutional, because they ask, does the constitution give feds the power to force citizens to buy insurance they do not want?
Lastly, you don’t see Dems boasting about health care because of the way it was passed. Obama came into office vowing to expunge the way Washington works in terms of how they passed bills, but when Obama realized that the health care effort was too big to fail, he resorted to all the tricks: appeasing special interests (hospital/pharmaceuticals industry), pork to wavering allies, and then resorting to the questionable budget procedure to defeat a filibuster. The Republicans felt it was ‘rammed through’ against the people’s wishes.
… As for Republicans being the party of ‘no’, Eric Cantor (Republic whip in the House), said their unanimous rejection showed that they were the “adults in the room at a reckless liberal blowout on the taxpayers’ dime.”
- What Didn’t Happen
Obama still has a bunch of stuff he vowed to fix, but hasn’t: immigration reform, action on global warming, a faster exist for Afghanistan, the advancement of gay rights (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell), and Guantanamo.
So that about sums it up. Obama has definitely made mistakes, some minor, some major (major being how he focused on health care for an entire year at a time when his focus should be put into the economy). But it is very possible, even if the Democrats are screwed tomorrow at the elections, that he can get his mojo back and get a better economy going.
I give Obama a C+. A for effort, though.[/quote]
Um…Obama get’s an F-, the man supports abortion. [/quote]
I was actually focusing more of the big-picture issues but… OK…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Neither one of you has commented on the fact that Nixon also bowed, so did Bush Sr. so I’m afraid YOU don’t get it, it is called hypocrisy [/quote]
I’m sorry I was not aware of this. Could you please post some photos and the number of times each bowed. This really is news to me.
Thanks
[/quote]
http://my2bucks.com/2009/11/18/how-dare-obama-bow-–-but-it’s-fine-for-bush-and-nixon/
I have some comments on this but before I say anything I would like to hear both storey/ZEB’s input.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Maybe he could pimp slap Pelosi[/quote]
Reminds me of a joke:
The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in front of a huge crowd.
The Pope leans toward Mrs. Pelosi and says, â??Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of YOUR followers, but go deep into their hearts and they will forever speak of this day and rejoice!!!â??
Pelosi replied, â??I seriously doubt that. With one little wave of your hand? Show me.â??
So, The Pope slapped her![/quote]
That is hillarious
I tell you what…
If the DEMS put Pelosi back in a leadership position…then it will tell me that they haven’t learned a thing from this last election.
Mufasa
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Neither one of you has commented on the fact that Nixon also bowed, so did Bush Sr. so I’m afraid YOU don’t get it, it is called hypocrisy [/quote]
I’m sorry I was not aware of this. Could you please post some photos and the number of times each bowed. This really is news to me.
Thanks
[/quote]
http://my2bucks.com/2009/11/18/how-dare-obama-bow-–-but-it’s-fine-for-bush-and-nixon/
I have some comments on this but before I say anything I would like to hear both storey/ZEB’s input.[/quote]
Thanks for posting the photo’s. Let’s take them one by one:
First GW is bowing to the Pope who (according to the Catholic Church) represents God on earth. He is bowing to the church at the very least, not a country.
The second Bush photo looks like that Saudi King is going to bestow some sort of medal around his neck - I could be wrong but that’s what it looks like. And if so Bush is tipping his head forward to receive it.
In the third photo Dwight Eisenhower is actually returning a bow by French President De Gaulle. Of course the photo doesn’t show De Gaulle bowing first, but he did.
Finally, if you notice in the final photo Nixon is “eye to eye” with the Japanese Emperor. As they both tip their heads forward. Not a big deal as they are both doing it and remaining in eye contact. Those who have studied the martial arts know what I mean here.
One final thought take a close look at each photo. There is quite a bit of difference in tipping your head and bowing at the neck more or less than what Obama does. It’s like he’s lost his keys and tries to get as close to the sidewalk as he can to find them.
I also think Obama has over done the bow unlike the other former Presidents in question. And he’s bowed to the wrong people. So too many and to the wrong people and far more subservient. One last thing - When Obama did his bowing tour he was also apologizing to the world for America calling us “arrogant and dismissive”. I think if you ad it up in its entirety Obama is certainly sending the wrong message.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I tell you what…
If the DEMS put Pelosi back in a leadership position…then it will tell me that they haven’t learned a thing from this last election.
Mufasa[/quote]
I have a feeling the democrats are a lot smarter than to put Pelosi in a leadership position once again. But of course we don’t know how many favors she can call in either.