Strong vs weak American presidents Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Ronald Reagan stood strong in favor of liberating the socialist slaves behind the Iron Curtain. He backed up his rhetoric with real power. Ask Lech Walesa or Natan Sharansky. Reagan, by staying strong, won the cold war.
Barack Obama is feckless. Most people, around the world, could care less what he has to say in a crisis. He is like Jimmy Carter. He cannot seem to take a stance, and defend it. Slicing and dicng is not leadership. We deserve better, and so does the world.
I don't think Barack Obama knows what he really believes in. He is a thin personality, always looking to get elected, then re-elected. He lacks grit. He was nearly silent, when the Iranian people went out to the streets, then got crushed. Now he seems to want something, but it is not clear what he wants, other than for everybody to get along.
Does anybody have clue what he is willing to stand up for?
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I can't help but compare the reaction of this Admin to Egypt, to the reaction of this Admin to the Iranians trying to start their revolution toward freedom. Then, I saw young and old, male and female in the streets, peacefully marching. Not a word against Israel, not a word against America. I thought I was seeing the true Berlin wall of the Middle East.
And our POTUS damned it with silence and then, after many days, words of caution against choosing now.
And now I see nothing but young men screaming in the streets, screaming down with America, down with Israel, joined by the Muslim Brotherhood which enjoys such alum as Kaleek Sheik Mohammed and Osama Bin Ladin, rioting, burning, looting..No women, no older people...and now our POTUS says this is a cry for "democracy"???
Something is very, very wrong. What does this guy really believe in?
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2011 at 6:49 pm
"Yeah, Reagan showed them Irans who was boss all right."
The day Reagan took office, the Iranian mullahs released the hostages. Reagan let it be known that the the holy sites in Iran would be bombed, if this was not the case. The mullahs caved.
With a position of strength, Reagan tried to approach the mullahs in Iran...with the provision that they could help to release hostages in Lebanon. Oliver North, along with Isreali operatives, cooked up a very good deal...the mullahs agree to buy some outdated American missles, which were in the arsenal of the Isarealis, and that money would be sent to help in proxy anti-communist wars in Central America, then upgraded missles would replenish the Israeli arsenal. It succeeded to a large degree, but then it fell apart when the Iranians found out that the old missles were outdated.
Barack Obama could not even begin to appraoch such strategic and tactical concepts. He just seems to be confused.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2011 at 1:49 am
Sorry to see the GOP Reagan fairy tale is still trying to be resuscitated.
I have yet to see so many posts in Palo Alto Online that are so detached from the truth and reality. Reagan never threatened to bomb Iran, and in fact he got hundreds of Marines killed in Lebanon for no reason and then retreated. At least he had the good sense to get out of there.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm
ol' Ollie North, the convicted FELON? here's his mugshot, take a look at it before you start rewriting history: Web Link Lots of Vets were pretty unhappy when Ollie dug out his uni and appeared before congress and took the 5th, IN UNIFORM.
ol' Ronnie ran like a baby when several hundred Marines were murdered in Beirut. From the Arlington Cemetery website: Web Link
Sainted Ronnie lied about arms and drugs and hostages in Iran Contra, but ever the polished actor, he delivered a bravura performance that went something like: "my heart tells me I didn't, but those darn pesky facts keep popping up..." Web Link
Reagan had the most convicted administration since Nixon. Quite the hero. Web Link
Egypt? Most Americans understand they haven't a clue about what's going on in Egypt, because the news just caught on barely a week ago. Judge the President after, not during the event, with only mainstream (and in your case, with only rightwing conservative "hate Obama" sites) as sources.
I notice the Obama haters don't offer any suggested paths for the President. Like maybe a Reaganesque Marine barracks deployment, or a Bush invasion disaster?
Maybe quit paying for instant access to the Suez, at $2 billion plus a year in foreign aid?
re: "And now I see nothing but young men screaming in the streets, screaming down with America..."
WHAT CHANNEL are you watching?!?! Or are you just making it up?
Yeah, they're a little unhappy all the tear gas is made in the US, all the guns and tanks, too. That's part of the foreign aid deal, two billion that has to buy US arms (corporate welfare?)
Posted by Roger Overnaut, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2011 at 1:37 pm
"a very good deal...the mullahs agree to buy some outdated American missles"
"Outdated" missiles still go whoosh and boom like they always did. This was a flat-out arms for hostages deal negotiated with terrorists. Savvy nations like Israel do not negotiate with terrorists; Reagan's America did.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Joe Biden does not consider Hosni Mubarak a dictator. Apparently, Barack Obama does consider him one, pressuring Mubarak to vacate immediately. Biden promoted his vast experience, when he ran as VP, assuring everyone that there would be a major phone call in the middle of the night. The phone just rang.
A serious dictator, like Saddam, or the mullahs in Iran (or Stalin or Hitler, Mao, etc.), would never allow major protests to succeed...that is what machine guns and secret police were made for, in their view. To put Mubarak in their camp is absurd.
Is Biden the only adult in the White House? Barack Obama looks like a deer in the headlights. He loves to be loved, but he can't stand to be hated, especially by our enemies.
This entire affair reeks of Jimmy Carter and Iran. Things could get much worse than a repressive Mid-East ruler. The simple fact that Obama was nearly silent when the Iranian people went to the street speaks volumes about Obama...it was a green light for the mullahs to start the blood-letting. Oh, btw, the mullahs are not about to negotiate away their atomic bomb program, no matter how many times Obama bows to them.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2011 at 2:34 pm
"Michael does not care about events"
Not true! I very much wanted to see the Iranian young people overthrow the mullahs. However, Barack Obama was more interested in making nice to the mullahs, thus dooming a generation of Iranians.
Now, he is staring at events happening in Egypt, without having a clue how to lead. He should be backing Mubarak, and at the same time quietly telling him to leave at the end of his term. If Mubarak resists, then Obama should be publicly saying that he supports the army in Egypt, to provide order, and that the U.S. will no longer provide funds for Egypt if Mubarak refuses to hold a more open election...and that if Islamists win the election, the money will immediately be cut off. However, Obama whould never consider being a real leader, because he just doesn't have it in him.
Those who are now making excuses for Obama are just like those who made excuses for Jimmy Carter. The parallels are undeniable.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm
"You preferred invasion and occupation?"
Now that's a fantasy in words! Why would we want to invade a country that has not been shooting rockets at our planes, has no WMD program, does not use WMD on its own people, does not threaten its neighbors and which has been a good ally over the decades? When has Mubark threatend the USA?
When the revolution-loving Westerners (both left and right), suggest that Mubarak is a "dictator", then they need to come up with another word for the likes of the Iranian mullahs, Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.). Mubarak is an authoritorian, paternal nationalist. He wants the best for Egypt, even though he is too old to continue on a for a long time. If Mubarak is shoved under the bus, things will become much worse, then revolution will not seem so sexy.
Of course if you want to talk about creating conditions that will require an invasion, in about ten years, then you only need to listen to the nonsense coming from Obama. Obama should be listening to Biden, but he refused to allow him to pick up the phone (as previously promised).
Serious business needs a serious leader, and we don't have one.
The bottom line is that Obama does not have a clue. Joe Biden does, but he is now being muffled...not a bad thing, in general, for Biden, but he is the only semi-serious voice that exists in the White House at this moment.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Please re-read, I asked about one of your many fantasy hatred's of Obama, do you believe he should have done different about *Iran*, and if so, what, invade?
""Michael's right about Obama, he sat on his hands while *Iran* erupted - You preferred invasion and occupation?" of Iran?
re: Egypt - the administration has clearly been focusing on this for quite awhile, though clearly there is no easy solution with a dictator/friend of thirty years, so, after re-reading your hate filled postings, I fail to see what you want done. What IS your solution?
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 1:06 pm
"do you believe he should have done different about *Iran*, and if so, what, invade?"
Always keep the military option on the table, and publicly so. However, the least Obaama could have done was to denounce the mullahs and fully support the youth in the streets. Then he should have given a speech about the threat of Islamists, like the mullahs, AND the underlying support for these crazies in the traditions of Islam. Obama could have lit the torches of freedom, but he was too busy kissing the feet of the mullahs...musn't offend those who are our enemies, who knows, they might decide to throw him a few crumbs.
I have already explained what should be done in Egypt. Unfortunately, only Biden has a serious clue...and he is being muffled.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Your solution to the TERRIBLE Obama response in Iran was for him to give a SPEECH?!?
Wow. you're right, he is an awful President.
* * * * * *
your Egyptian solution: "He should be backing Mubarak, and at the same time quietly telling him to leave at the end of his term. ... then Obama should be publicly saying that he supports the army in Egypt, ... and that the U.S. will no longer provide funds for Egypt if Mubarak refuses to hold a more open election...and that if Islamists win the election, the money will immediately be cut off."
All of that either has been done publicly, or probably has been done privately, albeit, cutting off the money may not be in Israel's best interest. And I doubt our treaty and the money are dependent on who wins. Sounds like you don't support democracy much, though.
Their army is inclined to "our" side; most of the brass for them has trained over here, including a number at our academies.
Acolyte was correct - you are just blowing smoke, out of pure hatred for our President.
He should "give a speech", ferchrissakes... gimmee a break, you just hate the guy, and it doesn't take much to figure why.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm
"The youth in Iran were waiting for him to come on to their side, with a major SPEECH."
Wow. If it is your opinion that OUR PRESIDENT should have given a speech that would have removed magically removed the mullahs, then I have a couple suggestions. You should:
a.) re-read that statement of yours
b.) really think about what you wrote, followed with a nap or some medication
Because if that's your "evidence" that our President Obama is not strong, then you have lost it.
Our President pulls us back from Iraq, regains the respect of the world, passes many pieces of legislation that supports the American middle class and poorer working families, pulls us out of slipping into the Second Republican Great Depression, and more....
... and it just *kills* you that he won in 2008, doesn't it?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 3:57 pm
>> Because if that's your "evidence" that our President Obama is not strong, then you have lost it.
Not "my" evidence, not my statement, but I think it is self-evident that President Obama is not strong, at least when it comes to representing the interests of the "people" who put him in office as compared with the "dollars" that put him in office.
As far as his election, I voted for him and I regret it, though I believe that there was no other choice. That means the government of the United States is not a democracy or a representative republic and is illegitimate in the words of the framers of the Constitution and several of our highest and most respected historic authorities.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Anon, from CP:
A thousand pardons, sahib...
I was addressing Michael's reasoning for blasting the President at every turn.
I *think* I understand your statement re "people" vs "dollars" and generally agree. A lot of folks painted him as a progressive, and he's not. He's maddeningly centrist, imo. My reasoning: no single payer, did not fight the deficit busting $600 million in tax cuts for the top 2%, Afghanistan, and so much more on the progressive agenda.
That said, I always find it amusing as the right paints him as a socialist, etc..
Much like when they said during the election: "studies show he is the most liberal senator." The same thing they said about Kerry in '04.
"the most liberal"?!? Have these folks never meet Barbara Boxer? Or a real liberal, independent Bernie Sanders, self proclaimed social (small "d") democrat?
The tea-baggers, beckians and rush acolytes such as Michael do amaze me. I hope he continues to try and find evidence for some of those conspiracies.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Here is an example of the kind of speech that Barack Obama might have made to the Iranian youth, who were crushed, while he waxed poetic about peace and negotiations with the mullahs in Iran.
From Natan Sharansky:
"I have to laugh. People who take freedom for granted, Ronald Reagan for granted, always ask such questions. Of course! It was the great brilliant moment when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire right next to the front-page story about this dangerous, terrible man who wanted to take the world back to the dark days of the Cold War. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.
It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it. For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin's "Great October Bolshevik Revolution" and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution--Reagan's Revolution."
We simply don't have that kind of leadership from Barack Obama, today. In fact, there is no leadership from Obama.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm
your: "We simply don't have that kind of leadership from Barack Obama..."
And how do you know? Just because he hasn't (in dubya's words,) "speechified" doesn't mean there isn't lots going on behind the scenes. We already know there has been lots going on before Egypt's protests hit the headlines.
You hate the guy, he can do nothing right in your mind, and it just tears you up that he won and is President of our great United States. Deal with it. And with the fractured GOP, you probably have to deal with it for 6 more years.
To bring out Sharansky's straw man, ("...a long list of all the Western leaders...") is absurd.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 7:14 pm
It was, is and always will be more important for America to see the nature of ourselves than it is to focus on what names we call(ed) the Soviet Union. The smallest of Reagan criticisms are always pushed front and center and made into straw man scarecrows for purposes of wasting time and then demonizing the other side as supporting the Soviet Union. Maybe a larger criticism is about Reagan oversimplifying the world as a way to avoid talking about the goals of the people who backed him.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2011 at 2:56 pm
For the everlasting propaganda glory of the conservative movement it was decided in the late 80's that they need a hero, so they started this Reagan myth. Singlehandedly ended the cold war and cut taxes ... yada ...
Seems the Republicans did not like their traditional heros ... Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, who are pretty much flaming liberal pinko communists when measured by their yardsticks of today.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Obama is not a bad man. He is just not a leader. Reagan was a leader. Maybe this is why Obama is reading Reagan biographies, and praising him, in his own way. The problem is that one can read about great men, but that does make one a great man.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm
The truth comes out, michael hates obama.all this reagen/iran/egypt stuff is just a smokescreen so that he can vent about obama. He will not let obama finish his tenure in office before he passes final judgement-comparing him too resident who served 8 years (admittedly the last few years reagan was suffering from AIDS induced dementia )!
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Feb 5, 2011 at 6:13 am
Michael, you are fighting the good fight, but there is a reason for the expression "Don't throw pearls before swine", and you are seeing it.
At some point, we have to accept that some are willfully blind and choose not to see..and there is nothing to be done for them.
In the meantime, I agree with you. When I saw men AND women, young AND old peacefully taking to the streets in Iran, I knew THAT was going to be a democratic call...and Clinton and Obama were silent, for days. When they finally spoke, it was NOT on the side of the street. So they faded away, we have no idea what happened to them, do we? No world attention on them, because of our nation's silence.
Now, we have nothing but young men ( hmmmm) on the streets, with rioting, looting, and shouting out anti-American and Destroy Israel hate ( hmmm..so far, quite obviously a democratic call to action)..and out POTUS leaps in this "democratic" support...right...
Why? We have in our govt people who simply will only see through their prism, which distorts all reality, and ends up in results that are the opposite of their stated intention. It is like a compass that points south.
This is not starting well, and though I hope I am wrong, it will not end well.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 5, 2011 at 9:49 am
In your defense of Michael's hate of the President, you offered the same lack of detail or fact, only your opinion.
1. Iran - what should the President have done? Michael said he should "give a speech", what was your preference, more Bush "diplomacy by sword"? And if you are unaware of the differences between Iran and Egypt, then perhaps you should pay more attention. Among other differences, one buys some of our debt, the other we give a couple billion a year in aid. Significantly different leverage opportunities.
2. your statement: ..."with rioting, looting, and shouting out anti-American and Destroy Israel hate..."
What channel are you watching? The main theme of these protests is to get rid of the dictator. It's an econmic protest with a lot of focus on jobs. Please show evidence of the "anti-American and anti-Israel" hatred.
I asked the same of Michael, but he deftly ignored it and went on a Biden and Carter rant.
Your comment about prisms is apt, in that your prism is one in which you can't stand our American President, and hate anything he does.
Go back to watching Beck's caliphate conspiracy from this week, or Hannity's whack job statement on Iraq democracy a couple days ago. Or his guest Gaffney's statement that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over the administration, listing the DNI and Napolitano and others as being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Run away with your unsubstantiated opinion and fringe right wing fear tactics.
When pressed to defend with fact, the best you have is: "...isn't wasting his time doing your research for you for the same reason I won't..it is easy to find if you wish to look."
Pathetic. Show me the facts, paste a link! It's gotta be easier than tying yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible.
Where is the evidence for your statement: .."we have nothing but young men ( hmmmm) on the streets, with rioting, looting, and shouting out anti-American and Destroy Israel hate.."
More pathetic right wing rants from this week?
Try this frequent fox and hannity guest, Frank Gaffney stoking fear without fact:
Leading Neoconservative Frank Gaffney Argues Muslim Brotherhood Has ‘Infiltrated’ The Federal Government
" TP: Do you think [Sharia law] has already infiltrated the federal government?
GAFFNEY: There are questionable people who are sympathetic to the program of the stealth jihadists who have influence with the United States government. Some I think are actually working for it, but for sure people who are persuaded that the folks that they need to work with to reach out to the Muslim-American community, for example, who incessantly turn to Muslim Brotherhood organizations for that purpose, are a very real problem.
TP: Can you name a few names, for instance in the federal government?
GAFFNEY: John Brennan. John Brennan is the Homeland Security Advisor for the President of the United States
TP: He’s complicit in this creep of Sharia law?
GAFFNEY: He’s absolutely daft on what the nature of the threat and is insistent upon using Brotherhood-front organizations as sources of information and as vehicles for reaching out to the Muslim-American community. Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, has said that these sorts of groups are “sources of wisdom,” as he puts it, to the United States government. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is incessantly meeting with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and I think has in the past, if not today, employed people who are associated with them."
""I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in a 1993 interview. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education.""
BTW, the who is Ibraham Hooper.
Wonder if Michael and Why will ever provide any real links (aka facts) for their claims. Not expected, though since the MO of the Beck/Limbaugh/Bachmann/Palin/Coulter crowd is never facts--usually lies, innuendo and misstatements.
Facts have no place in their world of Obama hating. Makes me wonder which group is really supporting Al Qeida with their words and actions,.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 6, 2011 at 11:20 am
Ha! thanks, svatoid. "why" and michael are third rate Obama haters, and are getting owned on this thread . Every time they get called for facts, they switch to something else (almost time to go back to railing on Carter again!)
hey "why", how about answering? Where is the evidence for your statement: .."we have nothing but young men ( hmmmm) on the streets, with rioting, looting, and shouting out anti-American and Destroy Israel hate.."
You're there with michael, without fact or history on your side, with your hatred blinding you. As I said before, gimme a break, you just hate the guy, and it doesn't take much to figure why.
And it's gotta be killing you that, even with mediocre poll numbers, the President will get re-elected because the GOP has such a weak bench. Looks even weaker than the guy Barack Obama beat in 2008. And that guy was pretty sad.
So haters: who's your white knight that's going to save the GOP in 2012? Willard Mittens? Huck? Pawlenty? Jeb? Michele? the half termer? thrice divorced family values guy Newt? Mr noun verb and 9/11? the racist from Mississippi? I got a guy for ya, saw him on the Daily Show this week:
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2011 at 11:36 am
"Sharia is no different than Jewish law or Christian law,” said CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper. ”When he prays, Jasser is following Sharia; when he doesn't drink alcohol, he's following Sharia.”
And Christians and Jews also breathe oxygen. But they don't stone their women to death for being raped.
CAIR is an Islamist cover group that attempts to put a "moderate" face on the jihad. A wolf in sheeps clothing, but sometimes its fangs show. Doug Hooper is a white American who converted to Islam and helped to found CAIR. He is useful tool, except that he has now been found out. We don't see too much of him anymore in the mainstream media.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 6, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Fear Fear Fear!!! Sharia law is coming to the good ol' U S of A!! Quick, everyone, pack and move back to Oklahoma where it's outlawed!
Oh yeah, that's right, it really can't happen, can it? We are a nation of laws, so when when a christian fundamentalist murders a doctor while the doctor ushers in a church, the fundamentalist goes to jail.
But ignore the man behind the curtain, there's SHARIA LAW in AH-MUR-I-CA!!!!!
Ah, the tea baggers and their fear fear fear message, as put best by one of the true crazies, Sharon Angle:
"We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe it isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it."
"My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas, are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States." Web Link
Except it hasn't, and the Texas town she mentioned doesn't even exist.
Sharon Angle: the only person who could lose to Harry Reid in the 2010 cycle. Thanks, tea-baggers! Working families needed that senate seat to represent them and not the corporate owned GOP!
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I fear sharia law. It is already creeping into Europe. The Archbishop of Canterbury supports the creep. The same thing will happen here, if it is not stopped.
Fear is not something to be feared, if it is based on reality. One should not ignore physical pain, if it is a warning of an underlying physiological problem. We should understand the fear, and react to it, if it is a warning of dire circumstances.
Those who soft-pedal the threat, and pretend that it is not real, should simply read Hooper's own words, and much more, instead of criticizing those who have their eyes open.
Back to the original focus of this thread: Barack Obama should stand up, forcefully, against the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, a SPEECH is the way to start. But that would take real leadership.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Michael, what does sharia law, CAIR or mr hooper have to do with this discussion. Answer-nothing. Just a smoke screen and red herring to avoid providing facts for your claims. Michael is very amusing to read.his hysteria about sharia law sounds like out comes from a third rate sitcom
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I simply said that Obama lacks leadership, especially compared to Reagan. Reagan took on socialism, and Obama has a chance to take on Islamism, but he doesn't have it in him, because he is not a leader. He is a throw back to Jimmy Carter. Some of you disagreed with me and tried to take the conversation in a tangential direction, and I responded.
Back to basics: Obama is not a strong leader. We need one. Joe Biden is the best approximation of a leader that we currently have in the White House. He is being silenced.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 6, 2011 at 4:00 pm
"I simply said that Obama lacks leadership,"
Opinion only, with no facts to support it. Yet again.
Leadership? How about some facts? In a tough primary battle, Obama beats the biggest name in Democratic politics, then rally's the troops to beat an icon of American politics, a certified war hero who made a lifetime out of creating a maverick brand, yet staking out the center of his party, ideally setting gramps up for the general election. And gramps got smoked by, among other things, Obama's leadership.
And oh yeah, the dude's black. That didn't make it harder or anything in America, did it? Paving that first time path, might be called, um, uh, oh yeah: leadership.
You want him to make speeches? Seems to me he has. Denver. Cairo. Berlin. His acceptance. His INAUGURAL.
Look them up. Listen to them (I bet for the first time for you, start to finish.) Specifically Cairo. I know you are a little troubled by having to do the hard work (ha) of actual search, so here ya go: Web Link
Those are facts in support of his leadership skills.
And yours? Your facts, not your hate-inspired opinion.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Obama, as a candidate, did not need to lead our country. He is now our president, and he is feckless. He needs to take a strong stand against the Islamists. He is not doing that, in fact he just wants to be loved by everybody, it seems.
Obama should make a strong speech denouncing the "sword verses" in Koran. That would be a good start. He should not worry about how that would go down in the Muslim world, in fact many Muslims would welcome it, because they are frightened by political Islam.
Obama is not Reagan, by a long shot, but he could at least try to grow a pair.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Reagan took on the socialist philosophy/religion, directly. He was hounded, not only by his opponensts, but also by his own inner circle. Didn't stop him. He told the truth against evil, and he won the cold war.
Obama needs to take on the Koran, directly, because it provides cover for evil. Churchill took on Hitler (and Mein Kampf), directly, even though there were many who supported Hitler as a reaction to American policies, for example Fosdick, a liberal theologian of the time (arguing moral equivalency).
FDR was a leader (he didn't buy the Fosdick propaganda).
Churchill was a leader. He understood the evil of Hitler, even when his people refused to understand it.
Reagan was a leader. He also understood evil, and refused to compromise in the face of it.
Obama is not a leader. Neither was Jimmy Carter. They see no evil, even when it is punching them in nose.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 6, 2011 at 6:19 pm
"Obama is not a leader."
Again, opinion. No substantiation. You give examples of others, but nothing on Obama but your warped opinion.
* * * * * *
re: Reagan and your "...and refused to compromise in the face of it. "
The Beiruit barracks? Trading arms for hostages?
* * * * * *
And your insistence that President Obama takes on another's holy book? What about the Old Testament? There's a few things in there. How about the Willard Mitten's Book of Mormon and it's planet Kolob. Look that one up.
As a Christian, I prefer our President take on the teachings of his holy book and help the folks at home and around the world, perhaps in the manner that Jesus would prefer.
Not tear apart someone else's holy book because you live in FEAR of it.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm
hey michael - you are right
the MUSLIMS ARE coming!! Fear the Muslims!!! I read today's paper and thought of you when I read that in the next 20 years, the Muslim population in the US is going to DOUBLE.
THE MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA!!!!
Run! Hide! Buy Guns! Vote for tea baggers!! Listen to Beck and his Caliphate theory!! Persecute all brown folk! Heck, even vote for Sarah Palin® !!!! (okay, she ran before trademarking her name) Web Link
They are DOUBLING in size!!
The Muslim population is going to double "from 0.8 percent in 2010 to 1.7 percent in 2030, meaning that Muslims will share the same population figures as Jews and Episcopalians." Web Link
Omigawd, how will America ever survive?
We'll all have to move with michael to Oklahoma where they have wisely though ahead and banned sharia law.
Next thing you know, we'll have a Muslim President.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Muslims are taking over Europe through the demogrpahics. It is a simple arithmetic issue: If a given group has twice-thrice the reprodcution rate of the other, it is only a matter of time until the youth of the country has the edge. The youth drive the agenda.
You might want to read, "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within" by Bawer. He is an American liberal, who went to Europe, then got his eyes opened up.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 7, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Please get help. Listening to Beck and living in fear is a lousy way to live. Even Bill Kristol came out this weekend and says Beck has lost it. When the conservatives flee Beck's fantasies, you know he's lost it.
Re: your Europe and it being taken over by DREADED MUSLIMS, you obviously didn't read the link I put up for you, so I'll paste a tidbit:
"While Pew finds that the world's Muslim population is expected to increase from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, what of an "Islamic wave" across Europe?
Muslims will remain a relatively small minority, but they will make up a growing share of the total population. According to the study, Europe's Muslim population is projected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030. The greatest rise is expected to be seen in Western and Northern Europe, where Muslims are expected to approach double-digit percentages. For example, in France, the population is expected to rise from 7.5 percent currently to 10.3 percent." Web Link
Wow. From 7.5% to 10 percent in a couple decades, in France, of all places.
Where will we ever get our french fries?
Seriously, this isn't fun anymore. You need to come out of the Beck bubble and take a look around.
It's a beautiful world. It won't hurt you in the ways you fear. You're a smart guy.
I've got an idea: want to do something constructive to take power away from a large part of the Muslim elite? Go green and quit buying foreign oil. Screw Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.. in one easy step.
This may or may not end well, I pray it ends well for Egyptians and us...Perhaps there is still hope that it won't end up like Iran. But on the other hand, we have a fool in charge of Intelligence, Clapper, who actually states that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular...how much good coming out of the current USA can we hope for?
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Anon: been here, done that. I hope for the best in Egypt, but it looks a lot like what happened in Iran. Glad Mubarek is gone, yes...don't know what changed his mind between last night and today, but whatever it is, at least for the moment there won't be violence over this. That is good. However, like I said..it smells like Iran, I remember the "calls for democracy" and cheers there, also, when that situation was handled in much the same way..Hopefully there is something differen in this one.
Who is in place to set up the new Constitution? Who will determine election cycles and real, repetitive votes? What is the plan and who is doing it? Having the military in total charge..is good?
At least it is reassuring to the Egyptians in the square (not sure who else in Egypt is happy about this yet) that Mubarek is not in power any more at all. I wonder, did his own military force him out? Don't know ..probably will never know what happened.
VERY fearful times...we have no clue how this is going to turn out. Miracles can happen, and maybe this will be one. I see no seeds of one yet. I just hope it doesn't turn into another Iran.
And, of course, in the long term..if you are an ally of the USA, did this increase your trust in us or decrease it? If you saw our President throwing an ally under the bus.... Perhaps best to not think for now.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm
"I wonder, did his own military force him out?" Of course it did.
re your comment about looking like, and smelling like, Iran
Huh? In what way? I don't see that at all. Other than they also rid themselves of an American backed dictator (the Shah, installed by the CIA in '53.)
Why are you so negative on our President? He supported a popular, secular uprising of a people yearning to be free. Lord knows how it will turn out, and I'm sure Michael, you and the other haters will blame our President for ANYTHING that goes poorly.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 7:16 am
Anonymous: A military junta is SO much better than a USA and Israel friendly dictator, isn't it?
I see the same videos on TV, I hear the same pattern of what passes for news, I see the same transition from dictator to a military takeover..next will come the "elections" where the vast majority of people think they want an Islamic Caliphate, then will come the Ayotolla or Ayotolla behind the military-selected "president", then will come the executions and the shut-down of journalism and opposition... then will come the call for war with the Great Satans of Israel and America, then will come Russia and France and China lining up with whoever that dictator is to make sure they get their oil, then will come the useless UN resolutions. Through it all will be our constant concern about our security.
I hope I am wrong, but this looks like, smells like, acts like Iran in the late 70s. Folks were screaming "freedom" then, too.
Difference? Well, that was Shia, this is Sunni..that is the only difference I can see right now. Otherwise, it looks like history repeating itself.
The young and naive always seem to be fooled into watching the right hand and not seeing where the left hand is until it is too late.
Hating the policies and words which lead to even worse outcomes is not the same as hating the person. I have no hate for Obama, I really, really hate that everything the Dem party touches at his leadership turns to lead.
Again, I really hope I am wrong. It COULD be the first time in history a military dictatorship gave rise to a constitutional democracy which protected individual rights of each citizen, man or woman,..miracles DO happen. I haven't lost all hope for good in this world yet.
But, as Lily Tomlin said, no matter how cynical I become, it never is enough.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm
awwww, did the widdle dictator cwy to his widdle fwiend about being wemoved?
I still don't get your multiple levels of cynicism - do you want people in all countries to have democratic opportunities or not? Sounds to me like you want it both ways: democratic values AND a bought-and-paid-for dictator.
Otherwise known as the typical American foreign policy conundrum in the middle east and central Asia.
"I have no hate for Obama, I really, really hate that everything the Dem party touches at his leadership turns to lead."
Okay, no hate, right, sure, uh-huh. Mega-doses of hyperbole, but no hate?
His leadership? "Most Americans say Obama is handling Egypt about right, Pew poll says" Web Link Four days old, but we know those numbers will go up, won't they?
But then, you have more wisdom than everyone else, just like michael, because you listen to beck and fox drone on about the new caliphate, don't you?
"Looking for a coherent aggregation of conservative opinion on the Egyptian uprisings?" Web Link
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Egypt was much better off under Mubarak than it will be under the Islamists. Iran is the model. Remember, Iran was led into revolution by many secular types. They thought they could control the religious crazies, too. They were wrong, and they got killed.
The question is, what will Egypt look like in five years? Egypt did not need a revolution, it needed an evolution. Joe Biden and George Bush understoood this, but Barack Obama did not. Obama engineered a military coup, and he will need to pay the consequences.
In an ironic way, George W Bush is also responsible for this deal in Egypt. He invaded, and toppled Saddam. Saddam was impossible to topple with crowds in the streets; same for the mullahs in Iran. Those guys just open up with machine guns or secret police. Mubarak was not in their league. However the Iraq liberation set the stage for the Iranians to protest (didn't work), then other people got the idea. Iraq sent planes to Cairo to rescue their citizens from the danger in Egypt.
Unintended consequences are to be expected in world affairs.
Posted by Tired of Obama bashing, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Obama engineered the coup in Egypt? Is that another limbaugh factoid? Since you do not seem to know the military has been in charge of Egypt since 1952---sadat and Mubarak-- both military men.
Do you suggest that Obama should sent the military in to prop up mubarak? Your hatred of Obama is coloring your opinions. I also assume that if in5 years Egypt is a a shining democracy, you will be praising Obama since you claim he will need to "pay the consequences" ( and reap the benefits!)
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Yes, if in five years, Egypt is a shining example of democracy, I will give Obama credit. After all, he engineered it...and no, the Egyptian military does not make bold moves without the concurrence of their American counterparts. This was a military coup, directed by Obama. He owns it, just like Carter owns Iran.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm
"Egypt was much better off under Mubarak than it will be...."
Well, there ya go again.
You do prefer a nice orderly dictatorship, don't you?
Dang, things ain't been right around the colonies since we got rid of ol' King George! First: women git ta vote, then them colored folk git uppity, and it just sucks to be you, doesn't it?
That, and you are absolutely *overjoyed* to parrot the beck line of "FEAR FEAR FEAR the ISLAMISTS are TAKING OVER THE WORLD!" that michael spewed forth in previous threads.
Since debunked, and we haven't heard from him since he got called on it. Maybe he was so afraid of the impending Sharia Law in America that he DID move to Oklahoma.
Fear, fear, fear.
And your: "Unintended consequences are to be expected in world affairs." Yup, it's called blowback. Like you keep mentioning: Iran in the 70's, 20 years after the CIA put the Shah on the throne. Blowback, baby.
So let's you and I compromise: FEAR FEAR FEAR the blowback of supporting dictators. And stop doing it!
Support democratic ideals. Even if it doesn't end up as you hoped in your rose tinted glasses.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm
President Obama owns it, you say? Except, every time the next day's events look positive, we hear (even from you,) that it "was rully George Dubya Bush's responsibility, doncha know?"
That's why I think Sparky had it right: Web Link You guys can't come up with a "coherent aggregation of conservative opinion" on this one, can you?
I do love your declarations, without any supporting evidence, for what it's worth: "Obama engineered a military coup..." Evidence please. We will only know when the wikileaks come out.
And Iran is partially Carter's, partially Eisenhower and the CIA, and the one's in between that supported the dictator. Even convicted felon Ollie ("I trade with the enemy") North if you want to look at it. Your simplistic, "black and white only" narrative so reeks of today's fringe right.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm
The nuance was apparent when Iran went to revolution. Carter was about nuance, instead of protecting the world from his desire to liberate the Iranians into a void. Iran paid the price. Unfortunately, I think Egypt will pay a similar price. Then all the leftists will hide under a rock, until the next revolution promises the next celebrations. I think it was Solzhenitsyn who talked about the love affair among Western intellectuals (especially of the left) with revolution. Put Obama in that camp.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 6:33 pm
The "FEAR FEAR FEAR" mantra comes from those who fear reality. Churchill was accused of the same thing, when he opposed the Nazis, in the 30s. When Churchill finally prevailed, he was asked how he could have seen it coming. His answer was that he read Hitler's book.
When the obvious is punching one in the nose, it is best to punch back.
Egypt is a disaster waiting to happen. Obama allowed/caused it, and now he owns it. He is a combination of Chamberlain and Carter, both of whom caused immense suffering on this planet.
I would allow that GW Bush also plays a role in it, because he set the ball in motion, but I don't put him in the same camp with Obama and Carter, because he was promoting freedom against the totalitarians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reagan also caused a big turmoil, because he supported revolution in the socialist slave states. The difference is that Reagan and Bush supported Western- style freedoms. Obama, like Carter, is now setting an Islamist tsunami in motion.
We are about to see an immense ugliness in front of us. This is not something to celebrate.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Michael, one had to wonder if you expect people to read your diatribes and not break out in hysterical laughter. You are basically going that what has happened in egypt turns into a disaster so that you can bash obama. You think so little of the egyptian people that you wish then ill to satisfy your need to hate obama. Earlier you were bashing obama for not doing enough about egypt, now you ate blaming him for the events. You provide no facts to back up your claims. It is obvious to everyone that you have issues-clearly your hatred of obama had clouded your judgement and common sense. You cannot be taken seriously with your constant and non factual rantings about obama. You ate a sad individual
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm
"You think so little of the egyptian people"
I think enough of the Egyptian people that I bother to honor them by capitalizing their national name. I fear for their future, even if 10% of them are now danciing in the street. This Iran all over again.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 13, 2011 at 9:37 am
Glad you were entertained. FEAR FEAR FEAR really works for you, doesn't it?
Probably as entertained as the rest of us are at the response by the GOP, the GOP's 2012 candidates and the fringe right.
* GOP: supports Obama, politics stops at the water's edge, almost civil, almost patriotic, actually, etc... (mostly)
* GOP 2012 candidates: crickets (mostly) tho Sarah Palin® had some incoherent babbling, the rest were at CPAC with the most entertainment being provided by Mittens trying to avoid stringing two words together: "health" and "care". Pure gold, with The Donald playing along for some free pub.
* The Fringe Right and the whacko right radio/fox tv commentators: FEAR FEAR FEAR! Islamists across Europe, we love dictators! FEAR FEAR FEAR Democratic values are only for western (read: white) folk, others don't know how to do it! FEAR FEAR FEAR Dictatorships are the only stability!! FEAR FEAR FEAR
Which leads to the obvious clever choice I heard last night, I only wish I thought of it.
Tea Party secession from the GOP with their 2012 slate:
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 12:01 pm
GW Bush got the ball rolling, in Iraq and Afghanistan (more so Iraq). Reagan won the cold war. However, there is always blowback.
The issue at hand is that Mubarak was NOT Saddam, nor was he al-qaeda, nor was he the mullahs. Mubarak was a stablizing force, and he should have been nudged out, quietly, not kicked out, publicly.
As to the perpetual whiners about Reagan, and Iran/Contra (does that cottage industry never run out of cash?), please consider that FDR won WWII, partially due to supporting Britain, by violating the Neutrality Act (a clear violation of the Constituional separation of powers...an impeachable act). Time to get over it, lefties.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 13, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Michael: you ARE beautiful!
There really are so few folks out there that are STILL pro-Iraq war, after all the evidence of what a disaster it was. Yet there you are defending a most costly war in terms of American and Iraqi lives, that destabilized the region towards Iran, cost us trillions, etc.., yet man that you are, you refuse to see that evidence and still support the Iraqi disaster, because rush tells you to. Bravo!
At least you are coming around on Mubarak, now saying he should have been removed. That's HUGE progress for you! No "Mubarak/Palin® 2012" bumberstickers for you, boyo!
Now about Ronnie trading WEAPONS with the Iran, enemy of the United States of America, how is that not treason? Oh yeah, ol' mikey just belittles treason by calling it a "cottage industry" of the left!
Well played, laddy, now be sure to get back to your hatred of President Obama and President Carter soon!
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm
The Iraq war was the kickoff event, as was predicted by GWB. He was right, in that respect. However, he also needs to accept that the brushfire of democracy can get out of control, as it is doing in Egypt. Electing the Islamists is a vote for oppression, not freedom. However, electing various parties in Iraq, or Eastern Europe (Reagan), which support western-style freedom is a good thing. Iran was a disaster (Carter).
Obama ran a military coup against Mubarak. He owns it.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm
"Obama ran a military coup against Mubarak. He owns it."
Love how Michael keeps repeating and repeating this claim? Does Michael provide any proof? No, but I guess if you say enough times (or in the case of the Beck/Limbaugh/Palin/Bachmann gang only once) it becomes a fact.
Should we consider taking anything that Michael says seriously? I think not
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Obama sent an envoy over to Mubarak, and that envoy came back and publicly stated that Mubarak should stay until September elections. The U.S. State Dept. agreed with that view. Obama was furious. Obama also sent military envoys to talk with the Egyptian military. Mubarak said that he would not be pressurred from office. The next day, the Egyptian (actuall American) military told him to get out.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm
"Obama designed it, and he owns it."
Love how Michael keeps repeating and repeating this claim? Does Michael provide any proof? No, but I guess if you say enough times (or in the case of the Beck/Limbaugh/Palin/Bachmann gang only once) it becomes a fact.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 13, 2011 at 3:11 pm
"Love how Michael keeps repeating and repeating this claim? Does Michael provide any proof? No, but I guess if you say enough times (or in the case of the Beck/Limbaugh/Palin/Bachmann gang only once) it becomes a fact."
Michael: go ahead and shut him up! Show your homework - post the links!!
You da man! Do it!
I mean, golly geez, Svatoid didn't even put the appropriate marks after Sarah's almost trademarked name: Sarah Palin®
He's obviously a pinko commie socialist leftest facist muslim!!!
Show him, Michael! Show him what part of fringe right radio/fox tv came up with this fantasy of design and ownership!!
This is just a start. It is revealing that hot-headed leftists insist that I do their homework for them. Trust me, I have the goods, but it would a useful exercise for the lefties to show what they really know, or don't know.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Nice try, michael. You do not provide facts about your claims about obama, just old news about the envoy. Funny how people like michael make outrageous claims and them tell you to provide the "facts" about it!! Then of course is the generic insults about "lefties". You made the claim michael, now man up and provide facts.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules....Conservatives like facts linked to evidence. This is "our rule". You are trying to get Michael to follow our own rule. This is apparent in not doing your own homework, and instead trying to get Michael to do it for you by citing. Try doing your own homework. Some of us are done doing it for you.
Alinsky Rule #5
#5 Ridicule is man's most potent weapon...self evident use of this weapon in reading the derisive posts above. Good job!
#6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. I assume you are having a good time anon and svat
Keep up the good work, Anon and Svat. Might I recommend, though, you branch out a bit since rule #7 is 7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Why seems to think we should take him seriously also. He seconds michaels argument that proof for out rageous claims donot have to be provided who makes the claims, rather it is those that question said claims that ate not doing their "homework". Ever hear such a ridiculous argument? Of course a new boogeyman needs to be introduced in order to muddy the waterswhat ate you done doing for us, why? You have not provided any facts for your claims. What a joke.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2011 at 9:38 am
So, how's that "democracy" movement working out for you in Egypt? Proud yet? This isn't going the way idealists would hope. I keep hoping and praying I and other skeptics with the wisdom of age and experience on their side are WRONG..but I fear not.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2011 at 9:47 am
BTW Anon: Is this enough substantiation yet, or are you still thinking that jews, christians, converts away from islam, women and gays are going to end up with their human rights protected in Egypt and elsewhere the "revolutions" are happening right now?
Here is another one for you...In spite of the proclamation by our Intelligence fool-in-chief that the Muslim Brotherhood is "secular" and nothing to be concerned about in Egypt or elsewhere....
Or you can keep following the Rules for Radicals..whatever. I recommend you quickly switch to "Every weakness of every proposed tactic is probed by questions.... Is this manipulation? Certainly...." p.88 of Rules for Radicals to cover this thread with lots of irrelevant questions, and of course, "The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments." Time to look for some moral arguments to support the brutality of Sharia law against ..well, anyone and everyone.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2011 at 5:05 am
Follow the bouncing ball at the bottom of the screen....It is about "weak president"...Egypt and the Middle East is a mess precisely because America has an extremely weak POTUS..or perhaps there is some truth to those who claim he isn't stupid and weak, but destroying our country and her allies on purpose...who knows?
The result is the same.
Well, yawn...time to get to work. Busy trying to build up protection against the coming world war. This is looking more and more like the couple years pre-WW2....Hope I am wrong, but it is getting pretty scary. And now, of course, no great shock, our President is showing his colors yet again and going to have the USA "censure" Israel in the UN. I am seeing more and more why he couldn't stand to keep Churchill's statue in the White House. I wonder where the Chamberlain statue is hidden?
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 17, 2011 at 6:46 am
"Follow the bouncing ball at the bottom of the screen....It is about "weak president"...Egypt and the Middle East is a mess precisely because America has an extremely weak POTUS..or perhaps there is some truth to those who claim he isn't stupid and weak, but destroying our country and her allies on purpose...who knows?"
After a rant like that can anyone take Why? seriously as well.
The Middle East is a mess because of Obama? Obama is "destroying" our country and our allies on purpose?
Sounds like a page from the book of the usual suspects.
Naturally, since why? is consumed with a hatred of Obama, the events in Egypt are irrelevant--if Egypt had become a shining democracy in 3 days then Why? would still blame Obama for something.
BTW, these comments about Obama are undermining our government and therefore aiding Al Qeida and the terrorists. Do you enjoy working for the enemy of our country, Why?
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2011 at 5:34 am
Mubarek refuses calls from Obama because he is offended by being undercut by Obama ( the USA).
This is sending a GREAT message to all our allies, isn't it?
Good job Obama, I love it when our allies lose trust in the USA, are mocked and insulted by the USA ( Great Britain, France,Germany and Israel all have great stories about how well they have been treated)... and our enemies laugh gleefully.
I wonder why Obama and his acolytes think all these results are so great? Hmmmm....
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 18, 2011 at 6:22 am
My, my, WHy?, you are quite bitter that things are going well in Egypt and that Obama's actions in this situation are viewed favorably by the public.
"Mubarek refuses calls from Obama because he is offended by being undercut by Obama ( the USA)."
So Mubarek is offended. He was not "undercut" by Obama. The people told him his time was up or did you expect Obama to send in the US military to bolster Mubarek's regime.
"Good job Obama, I love it when our allies lose trust in the USA, are mocked and insulted by the USA ( Great Britain, France,Germany and Israel all have great stories about how well they have been treated)... and our enemies laugh gleefully."
So you finally admit that you are against the US. Nice, Why?You are no better than an Al Qeida operative.
"I wonder why Obama and his acolytes think all these results are so great? Hmmmm...."
ooooh, Mubarek is upset. Let's all lose sleep over that.
" guess our chief intelligence officer, Clapper, made a little mistake when he said the Muslim Brotherhood was secular and we had nothing to worry about."
More bitterness, Why?. At this point we do not have to worry about the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Here is the "secular" spiritual head of the Muslim Bros returning to Egypt to lead ..um.."secular" prayers in Egypt."
You forget that Egypt is a muslim nation. Have you actually figured out that his return to lead religious prayers is a victory for democracy.
Oh wait, this has nothing to do with democracy in Egypt or anywhere else--it is all about hate-fueled Obama bashing.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2011 at 8:50 am
Things are going well in Egypt??? hahahahahaha. A victory for democracy?
I want some of whatever you're having.
I am not for "democracy", I am for a constitutional republic that protects the rights of individuals, male, female, gay, any religion, any color AGAINST the government...I doubt this is the way Egypt is heading, though we can always hope.
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 18, 2011 at 8:57 am
"Things are going well in Egypt??? hahahahahaha. A victory for democracy?"
You do not think that the ousting of a dictator that has ripped off his countrymen for billions of dollars and has trampled on democracy in Egypt is not a victory for democracy?
You expect things to change completely overnight? Oh, wait, these are the same expectations you had for Obama for the first few days after he took office--he was supposed to solve all of our problems.
Tood bad you are so consumed with hatred for Obama that you do not recognize the events in Egypt as a step forward.
"I am not for "democracy","
Wel,, that has been obvious from day one of your postings
" I am for a constitutional republic that protects the rights of individuals, male, female, gay, any religion, any color AGAINST the government...I doubt this is the way Egypt is heading, though we can always hope."
So why have you been quite for so long about Egypt and other countries in the world? The rights of gays, other religions, females etc, have been trampled in Egypt and other countries for decades--why are suddenly so vocal now.
Oh, wait, it has nothing to do with Egypt--it is all about Obama bashing.
Why do you doubt the direction that Egypt is heading? Too bad you are so full of hatred for Obama that you oppose democracy and support Al Qeida and other enemies of the USA.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2011 at 9:48 am
I have been opposed to any of our money going to countries like Egypt for years. I have been opposed to buying any oil and supporting any of these horrid countries by developing our own oil and nuclear power.
ie; Drill, baby,drill and build nuclear power plants.
See the connection yet? Energy independence, no support for thugs from Venezuela to Egypt. No support for executing, beating, flogging, raping, and other lovely forms of punishment for women and gays.
See the connection between the left's blocking oil drilling and nuclear power and the left's support of a vicious attack on human rights throughout the oil-selling countries?
BTW: Did you see that Syrian warships are heading for Israel through the Suez canal with the new "democratically overthrown" Egypt's permission?
This story line is not playing out the way the naive wished it would.
My partner advises to stay calm, it is just posturing etc...Still smells like pre-WW 2 buildup to me.
Too bad the adults are going to be the ones to fight the mess the kids made.
"THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
CAIRO (AP)—Egypt's Defense Ministry is reviewing a request of two Iranian naval vessels to transit the Suez Canal, Egypt's state TV said Friday, after Israel's foreign minister labeled the attempted passage a provocation."
But never let the facts get in the way of a good lie, especially if you can bash Obama with it.
"This story line is not playing out the way the naive wished it would."
You mean the story line after one week in Egypt?. If that is the case why wasn;t democracy put in place in a few days by Bush in Iraq. Too bad you are against democracy in Egypt.
BTW, Why?, i have also been communicating with your other alter ego, At least it kept him busy for a while, on another thread. Funny how similar your postings are
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2011 at 6:48 am
Another great example of strong vs. weak presidents is this week's response by our POTUS to ( as usual) a State issue. Whipping the unions into a frenzy and sending out his non-Wisconsin minions through Organizing for America to fight the elected Governor and legislature of Wisconsin in their efforts to balance the budget.
Contrast with Reagan who shut down the Fed union of Air Traffic Controllers, not letting them hold America hostage.
Of course, completely predictable on this POTUS part. He can't stand a State straying off his community organizer/workers unite plantation.
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 19, 2011 at 9:26 am
"Another great example of strong vs. weak presidents is this week's response by our POTUS to ( as usual) a State issue. Whipping the unions into a frenzy and sending out his non-Wisconsin minions through Organizing for America to fight the elected Governor and legislature of Wisconsin in their efforts to balance the budget."
Once again we have Why? showing his ignorance of the events that are occurring in order to use it as a forum to bash Obama. I think you will find that these protests are organized by unions in Wisconsin. If you have any proof that "sending out his non-Wisconsin minions" than please provide it.
You also seem to be ignorant on how a democracy works--the legislature of Wisconsin is made up of two parties and the governor is not dictator.
"Contrast with Reagan who shut down the Fed union of Air Traffic Controllers, not letting them hold America hostage."
More ignorance of history. That strike was a national strike that imperiled our nation's air space. What is going on in Wisconsin is not a strike by employees. Let's try to stick with th efacts and not get all emotional with your anti-Obama vitriol.
"Of course, completely predictable on this POTUS part. He can't stand a State straying off his community organizer/workers unite plantation."
Proof of above statement , please Why.
"There go the war ships through the Suez. Big shock."
Are these th Syrian warships that are heading through the canal as you previously reported?
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2011 at 11:52 am
"Union busting, pure and simple"
Not quite. Just PUBLIC union busting, long overdue. Public employees, who have a monopolistic control of public services, should never have been allowed to organize in unions in the first place. Kennedy opened that sad door.
My cousin is in the prison guard union in California. Trust me, it is a complete racket. The grievance process is constantly used as a club to drive up wages (and to get days/weeks off for the most trivial of reasons)...management doesn't even bother fighting back, anymore...this is one of the big reasons why so much or our state budget goes to prisons. My cousin is always crowing about how he "has it made".
My niece is in the teachers' union in California. She is still young and idealistic, but she is slowly starting to get jaded. Her aim is to get tenure, because she can see that tenure is where the action is. She happens to agree that the union is corrupt, but she cannot afford to raise her voice.
The Wisconsin thing is small potatoes, because the unions there just don't get the notion that public unions are already dead. No more money left to keep the ruse alive.
Reagan busted the ATC union, as he should have. Now we have a very weak president, who is backing the dinosaur public unions. Some presidents get ahead of history, and some stay behind it.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm
"Michael": so good to see you back, it's been a week since you used that name. Thanks for the anecdotes. Next time share some facts.
re your: "The Wisconsin thing is small potatoes, because the unions there just don't get the notion that public unions are already dead."
Wisconsin has a deficit of about $135 million. Their governor just gave a tax giveaway package to businesses valued at about $140 million. Odd combination of numbers, eh? They do not have budget difficulties beyond his making.
The unions in Wisconsin have said they will GIVE IN on the wage and benefit parts of the deal.
This is union busting, pure and simple.
Why? Not because of budget in Wisconsin, the governor proves that with his actions - giving away tax breaks to business and not taking the wage/benefits compromise on the table.
Why? It's politics. Unions are the only counterbalance left against corporate takeover of the political landscape, in terms of large throw-weight, big time donors.
Karl Rove knows it.
"In the 2010 elections, 7 out of 10 largest political contributors came from corporate right wing groups. The 3 Democratic groups were all unions. ...Karl Rove admitted that unions ”were his party's only obstacle.” "
Michael: it's big "potatoes" for working Americans. Why do you hate American working families so much? Do you think corporations care about you? Once they break the few remaining unions in our great country, who will be left protect working Americans, the middle class and the backbone of our country? There will not be any opposition to corporations left. Tea baggers? Ha!
It's big "potatoes" in Wisconsin. Lots of cheese, too!
And home of the "socialist" (non-profit, community owned, can't be sold and moved,)
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Thanks for welcoming me back to the thread that I started. My name is Michael, btw, and I don't go by another name. It probably surprises you that there are others out in the real world, who don't share your views.
Public unions have met their Waterloo, and their Napoleon (Obama) is no longer the general he once was, if he ever was. "Yes we can!" is no longer the effective narrative. End of the line.
Weak U.S. presidents invite feckless responses. The irony is that such responses redound against those who invited them, initially.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm
"Fighting for American working families." no..fighting to keep destroying American working families through unsustainably taking from the producers to launder through government pockets and give to the non-producers.
American working families will not continue to pay the taxes to provide a BETTER life to government employees than they themselves can have.
Government unions are not the same as private sector unions. Teachers unions are not the same as private contractor plumber's unions. Government unions hold the public, their employer, hostage.
The public, their employer, is saying we can't afford all that our predecessors promised to the government unions any more. Time to cut.
The public is angry at the tantrums, angry at the lack of civility, angry at the greedy and narcissistic behavior of this public union in Wisconsin. We are done.
There is no more money.
The time to negotiate from a position of power is BEFORE you lose the game. The Wisconsin unions have lost the game, and they know it. It is too little, too late to come back to "offer concessions" after the tantrum they with the Dem backing threw. We can not reward such behavior, any more than a 2 year old tantruming on the floor can get " a little" bit of what he wanted as a reward to stop tantruming.
As Wisconsin goes, so goes the rest of us as this train wreck finishes.
Walker has gained a lot of admiration for sticking to the issue. Good for him. The Dems are the laughing stock, along with BHO for backing them and the unions.
American working families will not forget who was on whose side here.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 19, 2011 at 4:14 pm
"The public is angry ..."
Yes, about a lot of things.
You, and a loud group that don't care about saving the middle class, working American families, yup, you guys ARE really angry.
In Wisconsin, the public just said they think the governor overstepped. Web Link
"”As you may know, Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a plan to limit the pay of government workers and teachers, increase their share of the cost of benefits, and strip some public-employ unions of much of their power. We’d like to know if APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of Gov. Walker’s plan.”
Approve: 43% Disapprove: 52%"
I haven't heard any GOP 2012 presidential candidates come out on this, for what it's worth.
Heard anything from them? Which one wants to lose the independents?
Where are Michael's STRONG republican candidates that will beat the President?
This is why we need to be energy, including oil, independent...The problem is less a weak president, but the population who was fooled into 1) electing him and 2) not realizing who the Democrats have become.
Eyes are open for most Americans now. We see the reflexive hatred of all that is American daily, of all that we can do to strengthen ourselves and be exceptional again. Hard to get there when we have a President who flat out says that our best days are behind us and this is our 'new normal'
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 21, 2011 at 9:49 am
Still hating on the President, although now you claim that your problem is the American people, and the Democratic party.
You can't stand President Obama and keep referring to vague conspiracy of fear fear fear coming down the pike.
So I'll ask again:
"who's your white knight that's going to save the GOP in 2012? Willard Mittens? Huck? Pawlenty? Jeb? Michele Bachman? the half termer? thrice divorced family values guy Newt? Mr noun verb and 9/11? the racist from Mississippi?"
I still love the one I saw a couple weeks ago, two folks that love the Egyptian status quo:
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2011 at 1:36 pm
yes, yes, anonymous..any disagreement with an ideology or policy is "hate"...
Not every pattern is a "conspiracy"...however, some patterns are very dangerous, and we are in the middle of a familiar pattern right now. Try talking to anyone over 90..they will tell you what the news was like before WW2 AND WW1...
BTW, there is no white knight...never has been, never will be. There are only humans who are willing to put up with the crap of elected office for various reasons, some noble, some ignoble..some of them understand history,economics,and our Constitution, some of them don't..some of them love America, some of them don't.
Let's hope our recent wave of electing America loving, economic, historical and Constitutional literates continues.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I was pretty sure you couldn't find one that can beat the President in 2012.
Frankly, with Boehner ignoring jobs, still fighting the abortion fight, threatening to shut down the government, etc.., coupled with any reasonable gain in the economy and jobs, President Obama sails. I think any strong GOP candidate (if any,) will sit this one out and wait until 2016. They read tea leaves. Tea bags, too.
The GOP bench is thin. Americans are happier with President Obama than any of the weaklings off that bench.
Pretty funny that they're looking at Trump and Christie as they grasp straws.
You can't come up with even suggestion that can beat the President?!?
- - - - -
"Constitutional literates" that decided to waste time reading the Constitution instead of getting to work on their first day. And then they skipped parts of it.
Boehner, who claimed he would have constitutional cites in every bill. That lasted about a week.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
Ouch. The statement "they're playing you" really hit home, eh? You all but admit by your continued silence the repubs have no one who can beat President Obama, without significant economic change. Even Rup and the Fox machine came out strong yesterday against Mittens Romney for his past as the job killer. You totally ignored it and back to:
You, Michael and your ilk hate working Americans and collective bargaining to save the middle class. You say you don't hate the President, evidence from above to the contrary (Reagan strong for Beirut & arms to Iran, President Obama weak for not giving speech on Egypt!) You keep bringing up world wars.
Mostly, you seem to prefer dictators over a people having choice.
What, pray tell, would you like a Strong President to do, other than go give a "strong" speech?
Don't rail about WWI WWII, stock prices, hoard food and gold, etc...
Don't rail about energy independence. Carter set the wheels in motion for independence after the embargo and Reagan dismantled it immediately under orders of Big Oil. Bush had the house, senate and the executive for years, and did nothing consequential other than $15 billion in tax giveaways to Big Oil. So don't rail on about that either. Assume for the sake of making your point that we'll magically be independent in ten years (ha!)
From today forward: name it - what would "why?'s" Strong President do?
* Isolationist like Rand and his daddy, CPAC winner Ron?
* Prop up dictators like Bolton?
* Support a free people, like our ideals tell us we do?
And what actions for your choice?
Here forward, no babbling, Mr Strong President, no hiding behind paragraphs of energy independence. Stick to the thread, Mr Strong President.
You haven't identified any of the alleged weaknesses you and Michael claim. Since you can't find anyone that can beat our President in 2012, you get to make one up.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2011 at 5:11 am
I think the proof is in the pudding for determining how weak a country and its president are. When was the last time pirates killed Americans? This is the "new normal", since there is nobody, not even pirates, who fear us any more.
BTW, the silence by Obama on the murders of the Americans is deafening, isn't it?
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 23, 2011 at 9:55 am
You were handed the opportunity to declare what actions a Strong President would do, and you ran like a little schoolgirl* from it and babbled incoherently about PIRATES FEAR PIRATES FEAR NEARBY ISLAMISTS FEAR PIRATES!!
(*no offense to little schoolgirls, as most of them are not as fearful)
Are Strong Presidents like art, you know them when you see them? But you cannot put it into words, can you? Too bad, your hatred of President Obama makes you speechless about even suggesting what actions a STRONG PRESIDENT should take. (yes, I'm going back to that word, because you make it obvious in your postings, sheesh, bringing up PIRATES?!?!)
Other than your and Micheal's calls for a Speech of Great Importance.
And your false claims just get shot down time after time by Acolyte, don't they? Yet you keep making false claims:
"the silence by Obama .... is deafening,"
While false, it still isn't as deafening as your silence ignoring the simple request to tell us who will beat him. (sorry, arguably your best chance dropped out yesterday; too fearful of being beat by the President.)
While tragic, a small group of missionaries making an ill-fated decision to sail into what is widely known as the most dangerous waters, is not a major presidential concern.
In fact, if it was a group of registered Democrats, then you, Beck and Fox would probably be screaming that they should be billed for the costs of the four warships that tried to rescue them.
Missionaries sailing into pirate waters. Let's compare that to your version of a Strong President: the Beirut barracks and trading weapons with Iran.
What's you next dodge?
Seriously though, the entertainment factor here has devolved to just guessing what the next inane point will be in trying to smear our American President.
As both Gary and Acolyte have said in previous posts: what a joke.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Carefully read your link, and scoured the internet..still can't find anything BHO has said about the pirates killing 4 Americans.
Ask yourself, if America were strong and had a strong President...if you were Ghaddafi, and you feared Americans, would you be gunning down your citizens? If you were the Muslim Brotherhood, would you be taking over the "democracy" movement(s) in the Middle East? If you were Syria, would you be sending warships through Suez on the way to Israel? If you were a pirate, and you feared Americans, would you take an American hostage..then kill her/him?
You KNOW what a strong President would say and do, from the beginning, from his/her candidacy. And you KNOW that a population who elected such a person would be resolute, and send a message of peace through strength to the world. But, in our case, the whole world, as well as our own domestic tyrants, know who BHO and the Dems are, know that we hamstrung ourselves, and they are making as much hay as they can while their sun is shining.
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 23, 2011 at 12:56 pm
"Carefully read your link, and scoured the internet..still can't find anything BHO has said about the pirates killing 4 Americans."
Boy we are desperate now why. The Secretary of State and other representatives of the government have made statements--they are acting on Obama's behalf.
But still waiting for you to shower Obama with praise for how he handled the Alabama affair withe pirates. Oh wait, that would mean you would haveto say something positive about Obama. Never mind
"Ask yourself, if America were strong and had a strong President...if you were Ghaddafi, and you feared Americans, would you be gunning down your citizens?"
Ask yourself, what do you expect Obama to do? Send in the armed forces. You rant and rave about "strong" presidents, but provided nothing but insults, invective and vile comments about Obama. Get a life, Why.
" If you were Syria, would you be sending warships through Suez on the way to Israel? "
This has never happened and is a blatant lie. But that is what Why's posts are all about the typical Limbaugh/Beck/Bachmann/Palin series of lies-I guess you feel that if you say it often enough it wil come true.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm
President Obama just gave another feckless, actually pathetic, statment about Libya. Even Chris Matthews and his liberal guests agreed that this was weak.
If Obama was a strong leader, instead of a weak one, he would have made a version of the following:
"The United States of America will not stand by while Gaddafi unleashes jet planes on his own people. We will not wait until the international community debates the issue. We will immediately deploy one of our aircraft carriers to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. This will help the Libyan people to have a more level playing field. We will then debate the issue among the various nations, and those who support us will be expected to pay for it."
Of course, Obama has no deep beliefs, other than getting elected, thus he has no spine. He stayed quiet while the Iranian people revolted (hoping to curry favor with the mullahs), then he threw Mubarak under the bus in a military coup of his own design. Mubarak was a relative liberal in that neighborhood. Now he is worried about being perceived as too strong and using unilateral superpower.
Then is those four people on the yaught, who were killed. The U.S. military ahs the ability to send a jet over any vessel and release gas that immobilizes hostiles, and it has been used in the past. Obama would not dare to consider such an option, becasue he is afraid of being seen as a war monger, and that might hurt his image among those who support him.
This guy is just WEAK WEAK WEAK...just like Jimmy Carter.
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 23, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Michael (aka Why/Gary from Downtown North, Sharon from Midtown etc)--get back to us when you have some real facts to present. All we see from you and your ilk is the same Obama bashing, copied from the words of Limbaugh/Beck/Bachmann/Palin and the other right-wing syncophants.
All we hear from you is non-stop complaints and obama-bashing without any real facts to back them up.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2011 at 5:33 am
Odd, the Egyptians are STILL protesting, though Mubarek is gone. Though the military in charge has offered a constitution and a 2 term limit to their presidency, and the acceptance of multiple parties.
Odd...what are the rioters asking for?
And, in Iraq, where there is already a constitutional democracy, term limits and multi-party elections...a few protests also.
What are the protests really about?
Oh, let's see,...Al Qaeda is coming out for revolt in the Middle East and stating that their goal is to have Islamic Law governments.
Anyone but the clueless surprised by this? What do you suppose the result will be?
At least Obama FINALLY called for Quaddafi, by name, to step down. He goes more carefully and slowly with our enemies than our friends..and much more slowly than against our own countrymen. It took him only 2-3 days to side against ( as usual) the State ..this time Wisconsin, that was trying to follow through with its election promises.
This guy is reflexively always on the wrong side. But, he is just a symptom, not a leader, of all that is wrong with our Left Democrats. Good news is that even the slowest American has figured this out.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 27, 2011 at 9:11 am
You would have preferred a more immediate response from the President?
And that FOOLISH move would have endangered Americans trying to evacuate, which would have required military response..
Or as our republican defense secretary said this week: “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.” Web Link
Sure must be nice recommending policy from the peanut gallery.
Errrr, from the tea bagging gallery.
As Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinks: you should have your head examined.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 27, 2011 at 9:18 am
Still calling for INCREDIBLY STRONG ACTIONS, are ya?
And then recommending a speech?
Like "why?" you can't stand the President, which makes statements like "This guy is reflexively always on the wrong side" absolutely HILARIOUS.
Because you don't have a candidate that can beat him on 2012. Even Thune ran away this week, with his tail between his legs, because PRESIDENT Obama is unbeatable by this weak spined gop bench of candidates.
But in honor of the news this week, I'll change my bumpersticker from:
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2011 at 11:49 am
So why did Obama call for our ally, Mubarek, to step down without getting Americans out first?
Keep towing that ever shrinking line, anonymous.
BTW, here is a link to the full quote of Gates. Good reading to see the whole picture, and I agree with it. He is basically saying no LAND troops again...hmmm..wonder what kind of war he is saying we should do next time? Maybe one that isn't so careful to prevent loss of innocent land lives?
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm
"So why did Obama call for our ally, Mubarek, to step down without getting Americans out first?"
Wow. I know you're not that ignorant of the differences, so is it you just see things only in black and white? Maybe in Beck or white?
With Egypt, we have huge military connections, with Libya, we don't.
With Egypt, we bribe them with a couple billion a year, Libya, we send them money in the oil market, but most of it is shipped to Europe.
With Egypt, our ties are as strong as any European nation. With Libya, several European nations have stronger ties and can exert pressure more effectively.
And those are just a few of the differences the public is aware of.
I'm guessing you don't see the intelligence briefs, yet that doesn't stop you from making grandiose pronouncements from the tea bagging gallery.
So we agree, no land war. And you want to support democracy through what, airstrikes? And when they shoot a plane down, kill a couple delta members rescuing the pilot, capture a couple others, then what, without a land option?
Still no word against pirates shooting 4 Americans. Still letting UN come down hard (oooohhh..sanctions!!These always work SO well!!) on Quaddafi...Still acting like a strong President on the behalf of freedom and the USA! Still soft on enemies, hard on allies, especially citizens at home.
"Still letting UN come down hard (oooohhh..sanctions!!These always work SO well!!) on Quaddafi...Still acting like a strong President on the behalf of freedom and the USA! Still soft on enemies, hard on allies, especially citizens at home."
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 28, 2011 at 10:09 am
I always thought the fringe righties were biggest on personal responsibility. Apparently, not when you can use a really dumb decision by a sailor to assign some weird sense of blame to the President of our great country.
A small group of missionaries make an ill-fated decision to sail a yacht into what is *widely known* as the most dangerous waters in the world.
You want to turn that tragedy from a horrendous decision on their part to some perverted evidence that President isn't doing his job.
Or does your statement: "Still no word against pirates..." mean that you're back to the ridiculous notion of the need for a Really Strong Speech™(trademarked by michael and why because they've got NOTHING else!) I'm thinking pirates probably don't listen to speeches from world leaders.
With all your perverted "evidence" that you painfully manufacture/steal from Beck, you can't spare a moment to tell us who your great savior is that has a snowball's chance to beat President Obama?
You're that frustrated that you've already had to concede a great victory in 2012 to the President?
Wow. That must just kill you to acknowledge publicly (by your continuing to ignore the request) that you and I will be watching President Obama's second inaugural.
Because the President is STRONG. The gop bench is weak, and getting weaker every time a spineless republican drops out in the face of President Obama's strength.
"However, Denmark has in the past favored negotiation over taking an aggressive posture toward pirates."
Are you okay with that? I am sure you feel that a "strong" leader does not negotiate with terrorists/pirates.
"“Naturally, I am deeply concerned over the situation,” the Danish foreign minister, Lene Espersen, said in a statement, adding that “especially as there are children involved and I can only express my utter disdain for the pirates’ actions.”"
Looks like the head of the Danish government has not made a statement. Are you upset about that? After all, you seemed to be upset that Obama did not personally make any statements, although his cabinet members did.
How does it feel to be towed by an ever shortening line? Did you read the bad news about Palin? Your beloved Alaskan is well on her way to being a clerk at the cosmetics counter at the Wasila Wal Mart.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Never thought I would see the day when the USA POTUS sits back and lets another country take the lead against brutality...Cameron, of the UK, just announced that the military option is not off the table, and took the lead on a no-fly zone at the UN.Web Link
The EU froze monetary assets ( wow..really tough measures, but more than we have done).
Obama declared France a "better friend" than England to the USA ( wow)
And, of course, our POTUS stands firm against the US taxpayers and their States, as usual, opposing "denigrating or vilifying" public union workers, as if any governor HAS done such a thing. Web Link. Great Alinsky tactic...sort of along the lines of telling a man to "stop beating your wife" ..the assumption becomes that the guy beats his wife...
Never ends, this POTUS battle against Americans and their elected officials. Counting the days..I would prefer anyone from any phone book over this guy. He is utterly destroying the Democrat brand, much like Nixon did to Repubs for a generation. I don't want a "one party" country again...yikes.Wjhy
Wow. Sad, sad day for all of us. Our "shining city on the hill" is quite dim right now.
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why/Michael/Gary from Downtown North:
I really wish your mom and dad would give you back your X-box so you would not spend this time pouting on the interent and complaining about Obama!!!
"Never thought I would see the day when the USA POTUS sits back and lets another country take the lead against brutality.."
Is that anything like having a barracks full of marines blown up on your watch and not doing anything about it or do you really expect the US to police the entire world? Should we invade China, given their record of brutality?
"And, of course, our POTUS stands firm against the US taxpayers and their States, as usual, opposing "denigrating or vilifying" public union workers, as if any governor HAS done such a thing. "
Or do you support Republican governors denigrating public sector employees? what is wrong with a call for civility? Your complaint above is ridiculous.
"Great Alinsky tactic...sort of along the lines of telling a man to "stop beating your wife" ..the assumption becomes that the guy beats his wife..."
Ha ha ha. Please come back with some facts
"Never ends, this POTUS battle against Americans and their elected officials. Counting the days..I would prefer anyone from any phone book over this guy. He is utterly destroying the Democrat brand, much like Nixon did to Repubs for a generation. I don't want a "one party" country again...yikes.Wjhy"
Boy, you are really getting desperate now. POTUS battle against americans???? Counting the days to what? You are so clueless and filled with hatred for Obama that your posts cannot be taken seriously at all. You are the Town Square Forum's Glenn Beck!!
Maybe you should get a job with Beck--you two sound much alike.
Posted by Michael, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2011 at 1:40 pm
It sounds like I started a good ol' democratic fight. That is a good thing to do! Sam Adams did the same thing, but I hardly put myself in his class (his life was on the line, and mine is not, and I don't have his rhetoric, and he was talking about more important things, given the circumstances). However, it is refreshing to have such a fight. We should feel good about this fight!
I would like to thank the PA Weekly for allowing such an exercise in democracy.
So, having been challenged to come up with a GOP ticket, at this poiint:
Sec. Interior: Palin
I have no confidence that any of them would accept, but that is my choice, at this point.
I would ask, what is the strongest ticket for the Democrats? Are you going to try to stick with your current (very weak) team? If so, there will be immense suffereing by the innocents, around the world.
Posted by Rush Limbaugh's acolyte, a resident of Stanford, on Feb 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm
"I would ask, what is the strongest ticket for the Democrats? Are you going to try to stick with your current (very weak) team? If so, there will be immense suffereing by the innocents, around the world."
Thanks Michael/Why/Gary from Downtown north for another good laugh. Of course the democrats will stick with their current team. Why change from a popular president to a new candidate?
As for immense suffering--sounds like that is something you are looking forward to--anything so that you can put forth your "obama is wrong no matter he does" thesis.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Menlo Park, on Feb 28, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Christie reads the writing on the wall - President Obama is too strong for him, he ruled it out a couple weeks ago, like Thune.
Walker? Prior to taking office last month, he was a county administrator, wasn't he? Has maybe as much experiences as the half termer. But he was a big spender: "overall county spending ... increased 35 percent over his tenure"
Weren't all you fringe righties moaning a few years ago about the President's perceived lack of experience?
Yet Palin and Walker have less. Can't have it both ways.
Such WEAK candidates for a STRONG President Obama.
But thanks for sharing, I was curious, even more so after you were obviously so frustrated with the weak gop bench.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2011 at 6:53 am
It is far too early to know who the Repub candidate(s) will be for 2012 election for POTUS. It is also too early to know if we are past racism and able to vote on ideas, proven track record, experience and breadth of experience and knowledge... Time will tell.
I DO know that I want a strong President who loves and defends America and our Constitution. I DO know that Congress is critically important. When Clinton was falling like a stone, a takeover of Congress, House and Senate, put us back on track. I DO know that a "big government" mentality, whether Repub or Demo, puts us rolling backwards on the track. I DO know that a one party rule for both Congress and White House leads to that famous "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"
I am looking at this point for a strong takeover of the Congress. More seats in the House and Senate for a strong push back.
If we end up with also a strong conservative candidate, and right now I see none on the horizon, but if we do, then though I believe he or she would sweep into the White House, I am going to keep my eyes wide open for more "big government" and fight it, regardless who is in "power". Whether it is a slow growth bigger government or a massive lurch in growing government, it is still a big problem for our liberty
On the other hand, if the next President is Conservativce and takes cues from this one, perhaps s/he can just start unilaterally declaring some Fed law "unconstitutional" like this one has, and stop defending it. I look for Roe V. Wade to be the first. And, if a Fed court declares an action by the next POTUS unconstitutional, s/he can ignore that also, as this one has done with oil drilling ban and the health care bill. This POTUS has started precedents that liberals will not want used by a Conservative, so that will be fun to watch.
The biggest points are...the bigger the government, the less individual liberty we have to succeed or to fail.The more lawless the President, the less rule of law live under, the more capricious our government, the less stable our economy.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2011 at 6:32 am
This strong President, which he was in muscling through the Obamacare against the will of the US people, has now granted over 1,000 "exceptions" to following Obamacare law...hmmm, on top of none of the Fed employees, elected, selected or hired, need follow Obamacare..what is going on? Why are "exceptions" being granted, especially to Unions who PUSHED for Obamacare??
Do not confuse "strong" with "overuling the will of the people". This Admin is reflexively against the will of the people, from border control to health insurance reform, from States' rights to anti-terrorism control, from War management to..well, enough said....
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2011 at 7:37 am
“Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’”
“Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East,” The New York Times, March 11, 2011.
Well....of course it would be..no messy "doing the will of the people" when one is a dictator, is there?
Matches his many comments that imply he would rather be a dictator than a POTUS. The first and most chilling for me was "I would rather be a great one term president than a mediocre 2 term one". That sent chills down my spine.
This reflex is what makes him a weak AMERICAN POTUS.
Posted by robert, a resident of the Greendell/Walnut Grove neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2011 at 8:18 am
Obama has proven to be a weak president as Guantanamo remains open after he vowed to close it, after reform movements in the middle east and north Africa start to fail after he provoke them on immediately following his inauguration speech in Cairo, after failing to speak up about the loss of bargaining rights in Wisconsin. Okay, he did lift DADT, but in the long run I doubt that will do much to keep our military force strong and effective, but rather weak and politicized among the ranks. And then he can't even offer up some real budget cuts. All talk.
Posted by He isn't weak, it is us, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2011 at 6:12 am
Unfortunately, "he did it in DADT" reveals a huge weakness of his...he tends toward extra-constitutional behavior to get what he wants. This was the first time in history that a POTUS has declared something unconstitutional that was already passed, signed sealed and delivered. This is the function of the Supremes, not the Executive Branch, and just fans the flames of people like me who fear we have nothing but another Chavez on our hands, and a people too asleep to see it.
He isn't the one who is "weak" so much as us, the American people, for sitting passively by and letting him destroy our country, let alone the office of POTUS.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2012 at 9:10 am
"Does anybody have a clue what he is willing to stand up for?": Michael re: Obama
Yes; he called and congratulated Muslim Brotherhood President-elect in Egypt. There are not just 2 of us, Michael and Why? who have noted the similarities between Iran and Egypt. It is quite true, and proven repeatedly, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I surely can't help but remember the ousting of an ally ( as yukky as he was)in Egypt with most of us yelling "vacuum will be filled by much worse, look at Iran""!!
As for other foreign policy and leaders he is willing to "stand up" for...I can't help but remember all the bowing. I have lost count. The latest is to Calderon, the Mexican president. The first time was "historic" and nauseating, since then it is just nauseating.
Can't help but remember his response to the Constitutional Crisis in Honduras, when Obama, naturally, sided AGAINST their Constitution and FOR the then president's power grab to stay in office longer than their Constitution allowed, supported by his dear friend Chavez, of course. Need we say his political leanings?
Can't help but remember his response to a REAL uprising, not one of twitter, manipulated by Muslim Brotherhood, in Iran, Obama's first year.Not a peep to help them. Could have toppled an ENEMY dictator there, but I am thinking he only hurts the ones "we love".
Or his response to Russia entering Georgia, in 2009..zero.
The iPod to the Queen of England, the boxed set of movies to Cameron (wrong type for England to use)..ok, embarrassing gifts aside, let's add snubbing Sarkozy, Netanyahu, and Merkel...
Staying in the UN while Ahmadinijad speechifies about the horrors of the USA. Another historic first.
Obama and Calderon having fun together bashing our USA laws, and the AZ laws on illegal immigration. Wonder why we never hear about MEXICOs illegal immigration policies ( look 'em up)
There is more but...
I am pretty sure that the pattern tells me where Obama stands.
Posted by Supremes, a resident of Los Altos, on Jun 26, 2012 at 10:07 am
The tea bag crowd sure has a problem with giving the Queen a gift; they keep bringing it up as evidence of the complete breakdown in relations with England.
Oh, right.... there is no problem with England. Just Fox and Rush stretching to create something out of nothing.
"AZ laws on illegal immigration"
Seems the Supreme Court thoroughly trashed the AZ SB 1070 law, as would any right thinking person who believes in the Constitution. Knocked down 3 of the 4 components, with the 4th set up to be trashed as soon as it's eligible to be implemented.
The 4th is set up to be slapped once it raises it's head: "It was improper, however, to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives."
Seems the Supremes agreed with "where Obama stands." And that utter fool Brewer didn't understand. The Supremes decided to give her a clue, in an almost poetic fashion:
"Opinion of the Court
Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation. On May 24, 2012, at one of this Nation’s most distinguished
museums of history, a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem. There they took the oath to become American citizens. The Smithsonian, News Release, Smithsonian Citizenship Ceremony Welcomes a Dozen New Americans (May 24, 2012), online atWeb Link. These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear acommon oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf of the country when required by law. 8 CFR §337.1(a) (2012).
The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.
The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2012 at 6:14 am
To Supremes: I literally laughed coffee out my nose when I read your belief that the SCOTUS "thoroughly trashed" the AZ law.
If Roberts had voted the other way, it would have been a tie and reverted to the lower court ruling. So Roberts voting the way he did was a huge blow to our Administration. The AZ bill is still alive and kicking, in a fun way.
It will be fun to watch what happens over the next year.
The SCOTUS told AZ that the Feds had THEIR job, and AZ was to call the Feds so they can do THEIR job. In other words, the struck down aspects were to tell AZ that these parts weren't THEIR job, but the FEDS' jobs. But the Feds told AZ forget it, we aren't going to do it.
Next, AZ suing the Feds for not doing their job when called (Napolitano told AZ to not call the Feds re: and illegal immigrant, they won't do anything.)
I fail to see how this is a "thorough trashing" or "agreeing with Obama".
But, hey, whatever, if it makes you happy to believe that, I don't care.
The proof will be in the pudding.
Now, back to the topic of "what will this POTUS stand for?"
Apparently another in the list of what he stands for are
1) Open borders. Has ONE thing been done to advance the last Admin's policies on securing our borders? No.
2) Defying our laws. " I will go around Congress" POTUS decides to simply stop defending DOMA and stop deportation of those under 30 brought here when they were less than 16, contrary to our laws. Whether or not we agree with the intent ( which I do), it is foolish to allow the power of the president to expand to decide which laws s/he will or will not uphold.
Imagine DOMA said "Marriage is between any 2 adults", and a POTUS decided s/he did not want to defend it against those who want to discriminate against gay marrieds, opening the door to State, County and individual discrimination. What would you say then? Now that POTUS has the precedent. Why didn't Obama/Congress simply change the law, and do it "right", instead of simply grabbing power that isn't the POTUS?
Imagine our citizenship path already had built into it a way for those brought to this country before the age of 10...but then the next POTUS says "nope, not going to defend that law" allowing deportations of those here without papers brought here before age 10. Again, setting the precedent for a POTUS to simply bypass our laws won't bode well for our future. If one takes the power, the rest follow.Do you really want that much power in the hands of a President?
That leads me back to what this POTUS stands for...and I add "Using our Constitution for toilet paper".
Posted by Sung, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2012 at 8:52 am
What a crock. Perspective sounds like Jan Brewer, a moron, the AZ gov, before she had someone explain the decision to her. First she declared it a victory, then when told about it, she cried and blamed Obama, not the Constitution' that she violated with the law.
AZ lost every aspect of the decision.
Must be judicial activism, right?
Another crock - open borders?
Mexican immagration has reversed, essentially.
There are also more border patrol and guards in place than everbefore. How is that an open border?