Ahhh bush handled the financial crisis with TARP, the job loss rate bottom out the month Obama took office and the recession ended before he hit the half way point of his first year in office. He then proceed to steer us into the worst recovery and jobs situation since the great depression even after getting EXACTLY what he wanted the first two years in office. And no where can you quote the Republicans saying what you claim.
Dan Rather and CBS and what was skimpy about it 2 years active duty then reserves flying an all weather supersonic interceptor, one of the more dangerous planes the military every flew. Yes when they couldn't beat on the substance. You have proof he did?
TARP was initiated by Bush, afterall he had to do something to try and fix the clustermuck his adminstration presided over. But that wasn't the magic bullet, that just prevented a complete collapse of the irresponsible financial sector. Unemployment didn't bottom out until Dec 2009. The recession technically ended in June 2009, but that didn't mean the economic devastation and fragility disappeared, now did it? As for the recovery being slow, when obstructionism is the order of the day for the opposition, what does one expect? Might want to take a look at the jobs lost/created chart before complaining about the first two years of Obama's presidency. Seems he was able to climb out of the hole the republicans dug. And there are COUNTLESS republicans who have commented on the obstructionist, no cooperation strategy. Where have you been? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructionism Obstructionism can also take the form of widespread agreement to oppose policies from the other side, regardless of any efforts at compromise. An example is the agreement by a group of Republican politicians at a meeting on January 20, 2009 when Republican strategist Frank Luntz met with seven Republican representatives, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, and Dan Lungren and five Republican senators, Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker. Newt Gingrich was also in attendance. The agreement included among other things that they were to "Show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies." Eight days later the Minority Whip, Eric Cantor, held the House Republicans to a unanimous "No" vote against Obama's economic stimulus plan. At the end of the meeting Newt Gingrich said "You'll remember this day. You'll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."[3] I guess the senate republican nullification strategy or as (R) Senator Kaine called it the "decapitation strategy isn't irresponsible partisan obstruction. McConnell famously claiming the main goal of the republican party was to ENSURE that Obama was a one termer. And then proceeded to demonstrate it with routine obstruction of many economic bills. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says the Republican Party must stop being the "party of no" and focus on becoming a party with "real solutions." “It’s important we show the American people we’re not just the opposition party, we’re actually the alternative party,” John Boehner said. the tea party and the republicans have a left a mountain range of evidence as to their obstructionism. Its there if for all to see, you just have to look.
Rather and CBS were taken in by the killian papers. He was on active duty while he learned how to fly fighters. The question of meeting his continued commitment to the 6 year contract he signed was the issue IIRC. It wasn't a question of his bravery or skill. It was a question of his meeting his obligations. It turned out to be yet another a partisan poltical tempest in a teacup. substance. thats a good one. Results speak for themselves and proof is not necessary to evince the obvious. You on the otherhand have NO evidence to even suggest anything but that he did. Exercising his absolute right to not release his academic record is evidence solely that he chose not to release his academic record, but of course the right then invokes the logical fallacy that if there wasn't damning evidence of something in them, he would release it. Yet another partisan political tempest in a teacup.
I knew Obama was a progressive America hating leftist on Aug. 8th of 2007. I have no idea what is taking people so long to realize that truth.
I know it sounds funny to liberals, but they really AREN"T getting both sides if they don't listen to Fox or Con talk radio. I mean, there are things the left just is not telling them. It's simply undeniable. And the liberals won't believe they're not getting both sides. Now Conservatives should watch a little CNN perhaps (MSNBC is almost too unhealthy, ha ha), but Cons do want to make sure they're hearing both sides. But honestly, I think Fox has enough liberals on their shows to give us everything we need to know. You know why I know that? Because I don't hear anything here on these boards from the libs that I didn't hear from the libs on Fox.
The fascist Rodents not only DON'T want "both sides", they'er completely incapable of admitting that valid alternate points of view exist, or even that facts exist if they contradict their cult. There's no point in an American watching National Bungee Condom, Clinton News Network, SeeBS, or MSNBC. All those propaganda outlets have a long long history of lying their asses off. It's would be more informative to watch the laundry go around in the machine, you might find out where the missing socks go on vacation.
I knew Obama was an America hating lefist in 2006. I heard he was the Democrat running against Alan Keyes. That (D) says all that needs to be said.
ready fire aim? ready aim fire maybe? Anyway. In the utopian dream world that the liberals dream about, all problems are solved by bowing at each other, shaking hands, and hugging it out. Unfortunately, in the real world, militaries still prevail as war is mandated by evil around the globe. Dismissing the importance of this fundamental and basic responsibility of the commander in chief explains the reception he received. These men and women of West Point have been highly trained on the correct and appropriate use of force. To be told "that isn't right" by their commander is a pretty big blow. - - - Updated - - - LOL @ empire. Do tell sir, which areas we control beyond the same borders we had 200 years ago. If we are empire building... we are doing a terrible job. - - - Updated - - - Reading books and getting degress does not improve ones common sense. The guy is a moron. For a constitutional law graduate and professor, he sure seems to struggle with the concept of balance of power.
No, I meant "ready, fire, aim". It is a popular business concept that can be applied effectively in a variety of different business scenerios, most effective in enterprenurial start ups. OTOH, it can also be absolute poison to large scale enterprises and the "ultimate" human madness called war. talking is always preferable to bleeding, in my book, but every once in a while when talking no longers is effective, slugging it out is the only path to resolution. I don't know of many who would argue that. War is not mandated by evil, it is excused or justified by this notion of "evil". It is actually mandated by men in opposition to each other's goals and desires. The North Vietnamese thought the americans were just as "evil" as the americans thought the Viet Cong were. Likewise, the Taliban think of America as the Great Satan - a manifiestation of religious EVIL, just as America thinks of the Taliban as evil incarnate in the name of a false god. But, other than being unrealistic and not reflective of basic human nature, what exactly is wrong with a dream a world without war where conflict can be resolved peacefully and the phrase "peace on earth, goodwill to man" is universal? Naive perhaps but that hardly merits such partisan dismissal. That is a complete mischaracterization of the Presiden'ts speech. NOT ONCE did he claim the correct and appropriate use of force wasn't right. In fact he specifically stated that America will use its might as it is necessary to ensure the security of the nation. IN fact, he repeated this fundamental building block of foreign policy a couple of times. But I am not surprised that a speech of such import discussing the path of American foreign policy should be distilled into some bumpersticker meme's for easy partisan distribution that if one was feeling generous could be called misinterpretations and if not outright lies. Apparently you rather simplistically equate empire to physical territory. I am surprised you are unaware of the "project for a new american century". It was the originating source of neo-con foreign policy. "how quickly they forget" I guess. Now that is hilarious. I guess you didn't bother listening to his speech or read the transcript. He most definitely understands the concept, the dynamics and the tools available (hard and soft) to ensure the "balance of power" remains tipped in America's favor. He has stripped out the arrogant bullcrap from the Pax American strategy of the neo-cons, while preserving the appropriate common sense approaches to military infrastructure, weapons systems development, and deployment strategies, while at the same time developing methods for international co-ordination and co-operation in both developing and implementing a whole suite of soft power "weapons". But I readily understand how you would think that an "icy" reception by some rah rah youngsters to a well thought out and provocative speech would render the contents of no import. After all, it's so much easier to jump to a partisan conclusion than to actually have to wade through all those really really hard questions about military strategy, diplomacy and the dynamic nature of international issues. So much easier to bomb baby bomb and kick ass.
Yes, clearly they were an unfriendly audience. Obama may be their boss, but not every boss is popular with his subordinates.
The same can be said of doctors. Or lawyers. Show me his college transcripts. Otherwise, any suggestion that Obama is any smarter than the dumbest West Point graduate is pure fluff.
